CM Red Thunder page is up

[Zonso]

  I think boardgames these days are much better able to address the issues that interest you:  the rhythms of warfare at the grand tactical level, a level where apparently the Soviets are generally supposed to have had lots of problems -- though under enough stress, even the Germans could fumble at that level.

  Anyway, these days, (or since 1985 or so in the case of the system that has evolved into the Grand Tactical System), board games are much more innovative, possibly because they don't cost so much to develop.

Panzer Command (boardgame) was way ahead of its time and for me revolutionary with what could be accomplished with a boardgame. Hard to believe it was that long ago now.

[MengJiao]

  I think boardgames these days are much better able to address the issues that interest you:  the rhythms of warfare at the grand tactical level, a level where apparently the Soviets are generally supposed to have had lots of problems -- though under enough stress, even the Germans could fumble at that level.

  Anyway, these days, (or since 1985 or so in the case of the system that has evolved into the Grand Tactical System), board games are much more innovative, possibly because they don't cost so much to develop.

Panzer Command (boardgame) was way ahead of its time and for me revolutionary with what could be accomplished with a boardgame. Hard to believe it was that long ago now.

   So I don't think it is board games that are making computer games less innovative when it comes to dealing with Russian Rigidity -- what it is -- is (I think) that there are two ways of working out some way to make the Russians conform to the standard image of their rigidity:
1) make up special rules for the Russians (this is the usual method), 2) make the game deep enough that there is some way to make rigidity a workable and worthwhile strategy or method of coping with problems of a kind that usually don't get simulated at all.

   The thing is, the average player tends to have an image of warfare that is limited to either cinematic images of tactical battles or vague narratives of strategic this and that -- whereas the whole grand tactical to operational and most of the strategic sphere isn't even remotely imaginable for most players.  so they are not going to be happy playing a game that turns out to be a nasty lesson in the niceities of war about which they know nothing -- and perhaps even less as a result of concluding the game doesn't work: troops are not even where they say they are, STAVKA is always on the phone about this and that, we never even found the enemy, why is everyone drunk?  Is everyone Drunk?  And why was I shot for treason anyway?

[Michael Dorosh]

The beta AAR shows exactly what I feared and why I'm not inclined to buy the CMx2 titles.

One of the challenges when simulating tactical combat for the Soviets is modelling their tactical inflexibility, but unfortunately that is often not handled very well which gives the virtual Soviets a big advantage over their historical counterparts (similar to how simplified logistics tend to give the virtual Germans an advantage in operational and strategic level games where lack of fuel would normally limit operations).

Bil Hardenberger's moving his units with Western-style flexibility. There's no (significant) delay in commands it seems, no pre-battle plan units need to stick to, all of his commanders are competently handling their troops and showing initiative in responding to situations. He already said his armour is advancing in an ahistorical manner.

The map is forested, and Soviet forces have a lot more submachine guns than the Germans. The Germans need defences and distance to make the superior weight of fire of their MG's and mortars work. Even though the Germans are "defending", they have no real defenses so it's basically sort of a meeting engagement around a village. Foxholes being very easy to spot seemingly (unless this was recently changed in a patch) would make defending positions difficult in any case.

Bil Hardenberger carefully checks possible kill zones and once something big fires, he'll use the turn replay feature to see where the shot came from and respond to it immediately. If the German armour fires first, they might at least have a use. If they don't, like in a number of other AAR's, this is going to be over fast.

So, the AAR just wrapped up - as we discussed here, Bil wiped the floor with an outclassed player. I see references to some mistakes in play, notably from the developer who has been active in the thread. Any other reactions here?

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

[MengJiao]

The beta AAR shows exactly what I feared and why I'm not inclined to buy the CMx2 titles.

One of the challenges when simulating tactical combat for the Soviets is modelling their tactical inflexibility, but unfortunately that is often not handled very well which gives the virtual Soviets a big advantage over their historical counterparts (similar to how simplified logistics tend to give the virtual Germans an advantage in operational and strategic level games where lack of fuel would normally limit operations).

Bil Hardenberger's moving his units with Western-style flexibility. There's no (significant) delay in commands it seems, no pre-battle plan units need to stick to, all of his commanders are competently handling their troops and showing initiative in responding to situations. He already said his armour is advancing in an ahistorical manner.

The map is forested, and Soviet forces have a lot more submachine guns than the Germans. The Germans need defences and distance to make the superior weight of fire of their MG's and mortars work. Even though the Germans are "defending", they have no real defenses so it's basically sort of a meeting engagement around a village. Foxholes being very easy to spot seemingly (unless this was recently changed in a patch) would make defending positions difficult in any case.

Bil Hardenberger carefully checks possible kill zones and once something big fires, he'll use the turn replay feature to see where the shot came from and respond to it immediately. If the German armour fires first, they might at least have a use. If they don't, like in a number of other AAR's, this is going to be over fast.

So, the AAR just wrapped up - as we discussed here, Bil wiped the floor with an outclassed player. I see references to some mistakes in play, notably from the developer who has been active in the thread. Any other reactions here?

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

Bil versus the Ai seems uninteresting.  Elvis and Bil were pushed in odd directions by the need to exhibit things.  Bil Complained about the SU122s, but they did okay and Elvis might have done better with a different mix.  Even the supposed handicap of the Su122s probably worked in Bil's favor.

Elvis versus the AI might be good.

[SgtRock]

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

The new triggers are not automatically included just like AI plans, they only work if someone creates QB Maps or scenarios to use them.

One wonders, how many of maps (QB and/or Scenario) will even have triggers?

[Michael Dorosh]

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

The new triggers are not automatically included just like AI plans, they only work if someone creates QB Maps or scenarios to use them.

One wonders, how many of maps (QB and/or Scenario) will even have triggers?

I have no idea how extensive the trigger options will even be. Perhaps not extensive at all, to start - and will take some getting used to for the scenario designers. Of course, the more options you have, the longer it will take to design the things.

[undercovergeek]

i think they are at a basic level at the moment, they will obviously become more 'elegant' as everyone gets used to designing with them

[Michael Dorosh]

i think they are at a basic level at the moment, they will obviously become more 'elegant' as everyone gets used to designing with them

We're all in wait and see mode. I'm not suggesting scenarios have to be "elegant" to be fun, incidentally. Actually, the opposite - the more you try and be clever, as a designer, the greater the chance you have of missing the boat. Which is kind of why the current model of a programmed AI doesn't work as well as it might. The designer is required to time everything to the clock - and this is predicated on the same designer anticipating which moves the player is going to make. Triggers, then, are a very welcome addition if they help address this issue. We'll see how broadly these work. The only example I've seen was a very specific type of event trigger rather than a 'conditional' trigger. The one that Steve gave appeared to be an example where an assault gun engages a target from one location and is then triggered to displace and move to another ambush location. This as opposed to, say, an entire platoon relocating due to unseen events on another part of the map. I used to like the option in the CMX1 Operations where reinforcements came in if force levels on the other side dipped below a certain percentage - it was not only a balancing mechanism, but seemed realistic to boot, since a brigade/regiment might naturally send additional troops to shore up a battered battalion. Having the AI redeploy platoons realistically in the course of a battle in such a manner would be a nice ability also.

[Boggit]

Fire and tank riders. A step in the right direction. I wonder if this will give rise to an upgrade for CMFI, and CMBN? :)

I assume it will.

Many goodies to like in there - and some stuff long on the want list of the fanbase. I do hope they get flame weapons in CMBN soon, as they are sorely needed (flame vehicles would be great, too, particularly for the Market Garden timeframe). I'm almost positive they have said this will happen.

As for stuff not in the announcement, I hope they will get around to improving the terrain editor sooner rather than later. The screenshots reveal the same stepping-stone roads, inability to do a 30-degree angle (just 90 and 45 degrees), and my biggest complaint, the fact that water can only exist at one contour level throughout an entire map. Makes no sense - water courses travel downhill - that's what a river or stream is. Water changing elevation.

Otherwise, I've preordered and will look forward to this.

Wasps, and Crocodiles! 8) Cool - well hot stuff really. I agree with all you say. At least it shows they're listening to the fanbase. I hope they get round to the other stuff you mention, but they are not a big studio, and Rome wasn't built in a day. Here's hoping though! :)

[undercovergeek]

i think they are at a basic level at the moment, they will obviously become more 'elegant' as everyone gets used to designing with them

We're all in wait and see mode. I'm not suggesting scenarios have to be "elegant" to be fun, incidentally. Actually, the opposite - the more you try and be clever, as a designer, the greater the chance you have of missing the boat. Which is kind of why the current model of a programmed AI doesn't work as well as it might. The designer is required to time everything to the clock - and this is predicated on the same designer anticipating which moves the player is going to make. Triggers, then, are a very welcome addition if they help address this issue. We'll see how broadly these work. The only example I've seen was a very specific type of event trigger rather than a 'conditional' trigger. The one that Steve gave appeared to be an example where an assault gun engages a target from one location and is then triggered to displace and move to another ambush location. This as opposed to, say, an entire platoon relocating due to unseen events on another part of the map. I used to like the option in the CMX1 Operations where reinforcements came in if force levels on the other side dipped below a certain percentage - it was not only a balancing mechanism, but seemed realistic to boot, since a brigade/regiment might naturally send additional troops to shore up a battered battalion. Having the AI redeploy platoons realistically in the course of a battle in such a manner would be a nice ability also.

Some of the triggers are still based around timing but bit so reliant on it

[Zonso]

So, the AAR just wrapped up - as we discussed here, Bil wiped the floor with an outclassed player. I see references to some mistakes in play, notably from the developer who has been active in the thread. Any other reactions here?

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

That's a pretty chickens**t thing to say about Elvis's play, especially in light of your personal history, though I guess it is to be expected as you are entirely predictable.

No question Bil is an elite player and definitely not taking anything away from him, but I thought Elvis played pretty good. Sure mistakes were made, as always by all players, but if a couple things had gone a little differently they would still be playing right now. It seemed the AAR served its purpose and got a whole lot of people participating, kind of hard to argue with that regardless of the outcome.

[Zonso]

We're all in wait and see mode. I'm not suggesting scenarios have to be "elegant" to be fun, incidentally. Actually, the opposite - the more you try and be clever, as a designer, the greater the chance you have of missing the boat. Which is kind of why the current model of a programmed AI doesn't work as well as it might. The designer is required to time everything to the clock - and this is predicated on the same designer anticipating which moves the player is going to make. Triggers, then, are a very welcome addition if they help address this issue.

And yet the quality of the scenarios and campaigns are an order of magnitude *better* now than when CMSF was released, so those designers who learned the editor and gained experience ensured the boat arrived on time. With the addition of Triggers, even in a basic form initially, the designers will have another tool to create even better scenarios. I don't see learning Triggers as much of a hurdle for these designers so much as allowing them to raise the bar higher yet.

[Michael Dorosh]

And yet the quality of the scenarios and campaigns are an order of magnitude *better* now than when CMSF was released, so those designers who learned the editor and gained experience ensured the boat arrived on time.

If you mean to say people get better by gaining experience I hardly find that an astonishing revelation.

With the addition of Triggers, even in a basic form initially, the designers will have another tool to create even better scenarios.

Yes, as several people have already indicated in this thread, that is no doubt the point.

I don't see learning Triggers as much of a hurdle for these designers so much as allowing them to raise the bar higher yet.

It is possible to add features in one area while still remaining deficient in others. That doesn't "raise bars" it simply moves the status quo forward.

[Michael Dorosh]

That's a pretty chickens**t thing to say about Elvis's play, especially in light of your personal history, though I guess it is to be expected as you are entirely predictable.

I see you are still getting your talking points from other people, though it is amusing to think that if you look at the Battlefront DRM thread currently running you will see a direct refutation about my "predictability."

No question Bil is an elite player and definitely not taking anything away from him, but I thought Elvis played pretty good. Sure mistakes were made, as always by all players, but if a couple things had gone a little differently they would still be playing right now. It seemed the AAR served its purpose and got a whole lot of people participating, kind of hard to argue with that regardless of the outcome.

It wasn't an AAR. It was a play session reported on in progress. An AAR generally consists of a concise analysis after the fact. A good AAR, in the best tradition of the genre, would have two skilled players analyze their game in detail, perhaps with a neutral commentator, maybe even one of the designers/developers. The AAR would highlight game mechanics, flow of play, the abilities of both players, and hopefully have a dramatic finish. Good ones would be carefully edited, polished and presented for mass consumption.

I won't argue that what was presented wasn't appreciated by the audience, but it was not a classic AAR.

It was not as bad as one of the official CM:SF videos, in which one of the developers decided a real time video of his forces being shot to pieces by the AI would make for good advertising.

In general, BFC has improved their marketing considerably in recent years. The teaser videos for example are well done. Their approach to controlling pre-release information may be frustrating to fans but I think it is the correct one. I think they do most things right as far as marketing and have said so for some time now. Mostly, CM sells itself and spending a lot of money would probably be pouring it down the drain. They used to advertise in World War II Magazine and the like, and I thought they said they weren't getting much dividend. (I note the mass market World of Tanks is still advertising on television, saw another ad just last night.) For the market they have, I think BFC does very well with their marketing.

But I'd still like to see them find another player of Bil Hardenberger's calibre to face off against in public. An interactive session play isn't a terrible idea, but a rout isn't fun to watch, and at worst, it gives the impression the game will rely on the same kind of asymmetrical scenarios that were necessary to make CM:SF playable.

[Bletchley_Geek]

It wasn't an AAR. It was a play session reported on in progress. An AAR generally consists of a concise analysis after the fact. A good AAR, in the best tradition of the genre, would have two skilled players analyze their game in detail, perhaps with a neutral commentator, maybe even one of the designers/developers. The AAR would highlight game mechanics, flow of play, the abilities of both players, and hopefully have a dramatic finish. Good ones would be carefully edited, polished and presented for mass consumption.

I won't argue that what was presented wasn't appreciated by the audience, but it was not a classic AAR.

I agree with you very much in that respect. As I discovered to my chagrin, that kind of endeavour easily becomes akin to a part-time job. It's a shame that the game we started with Leto died as I got dragged by real-life... spending several hours taking screenshots, editing them and annotating them was a too big ask on my time.

I still think that kind of 'real AAR' is doable, but would require significant organisation and team work.