Grumblers musing

[Scud]

Any help for Ed's problem posted here? https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...?tid=68594

Dave

[Jason Petho]

Any help for Ed's problem posted here? https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...?tid=68594

Dave

It is being addressed on the Matrix Forum.

[Al]

"That said, in ME 1.01, for EFOW only, we will change the "unknown effects against unknown units" to, for example, something like "losses inflicted" or "no losses inflicted", without spelling out the precise details. So make EFOW a bit less extreme, and make the Damage Report box not quite so useless."

I think that is a good idea. In the meantime, my opponent and I just turned of EFOW.

[The Real Rake]

Understandable about your concerns with Friendly Fire. They take some getting used to, when they were first introduced, I also had my fair share of losses. Initially, I was annoyed, but the more I played, the more I enjoyed having the feature. Rarely now do I misclick in the dozens of games I have played now, but it happens. Unfortunately, Blue on Blue happens.

Noted, and I do know that blue on blue happens.  I prefer to play the game in 2D, but since I now play primarily with a 46" TV as my monitor, I'm sitting approximately 8' from the screen.  The extreme zoom-in has helped a lot, but it's still sometimes difficult with my aging eyes.  As a result, I've begun using 3D more than I used to.  I've found that I need to be very careful clicking in 3D to make sure I'm selecting the correct hex.  This isn't a problem when firing at a hex with multiple units since a selection box pops up. Far too often, I curse myself when a unit other than the one I thought I had selected goes traipsing down the road.  Since blue-on-blue, I've added new choice words to that vocabulary when I start shooting at my units.

Since I typically play against the AI, any chance that HAL mis-clicks?   .  With the new Adaptive AI (which I do like), surely this should be possible.

As Jason put it so well:

Hidden results in Extreme Fog of War is part of making the Extreme part of the Optional Rule more prevelant. It was really insignificant before, now it is very significant. The information is all still there, it just isn't there instantaneously like one was used to from playing the old games. It requires a few moments to dig that information out, with the intention or representing combat at the command level one is typically playing.

The blue highlight says it all. In the real-time FOW of actual combat, the higher level force commander (represented by you, the player) would not know casualties to any detail, instantaneously. (Each turn representing six minutes of "real time", right?) The force commander would have to take the time and effort to "dig" for such info.

Especially for EFOW, the intent is to move away from God-like, know-it-all, real-time omniscience.

My thinking is this...  I get that the overall commander (in this case, me) might not have all the "real time" intelligence.  But, the commander on the ground (at this scale, typically the battalion commander,  certainly the company CO) should have a pretty good idea of what's happening in his sector.  He should have an feel for whether the troops he's facing have been damaged (unknown), disrupted (available from the unit menu) or demoralized (hidden by FOW) enough to warrant an assault.  If unsure, I would presume the CO would be savvy enough to send some scouts to find out (beyond the scale of this game).  This is a decision that can and should be made without authority from the division CO.

The information is readily available from the Strength report... one click to open, one more to close.  All this really does is add a layer of bookkeeping to the game.  Now, I need to keep a list of all the damaged units to compare against those reported in the Strength reports.  I keep enough notes at work; it's frustrating to have to do this in a game.

Without the data available in the Strength report, one wouldn't know whether they're facing three platoons or three half-squads.  The game doesn't provide many other clues about the firepower emanating from a hex.  I guess I understand the thinking that went behind the decision to remove the information from the damage report; I just don't feel that it was extrapolated far enough.

That said, in ME 1.01, for EFOW only, we will change the "unknown effects against unknown units" to, for example, something like "losses inflicted" or "no losses inflicted", without spelling out the precise details. So make EFOW a bit less extreme, and make the Damage Report box not quite so useless. 

I think this is a good start...  it'll save some unnecessary clicking  

Again, as I said in my original post, I think there's a lot to like about the changes in the game.  And, I certainly appreciate the time and effort extended to revive one the few wargames that have survived the test of my time.  I may eventually get used to the changes to EFOW just as I'm slowly getting used to EA.  I detested EA when it first came out, but have started using it in ME as I assumed that the new scenarios were designed with this in effect...  I'm beginning to get a feel for EA, but I'm not sure how I'd get that feeling without knowledge of losses being sustained by enemy troops.

Yup. Bought it.................


.......... Thanks team!

Ed... my apologies for hijacking the thread

Rake

[berto]

About the ExtFOW Damage Report, see

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3949906

at the Matrix CSME Forum.

[Jim von Krieg]

To address some of your concerns expressed here at the Blitz,

Trust me, nobody on the development team is getting rich on this and all of us put in a tremendous amount of time into it that will never be adequately compensated by sales.  Nobody is quitting their day jobs.  We have to work with Slitherine which holds the rights to the games, so we aren't in total control of all aspects of our production.  Capitalism at its finest and worst.

Separation of the games for WW2 CS are more about our manpower and resources.  We are few and each on the team brings a unique skill set to the production.  None of CS was developed as individual games and essentially are still individual games with a menu overlaid on it.  As each game has its own unique code, we are developing it separately as that is the only way to manage it effectively.  We could keep it together, but then the next update would be in about 2035.  Somewhat exaggerated, but I think you get my point.

We are going to modernize the underlying code of each game to better unify the series.  In many ways that will be transparent to the gamer, but so essential for the development group to be able to efficiently work on the game and update it in the future.  Current CS code is a hodge podge of ancient and more recent code (recent being a relative term for post JT work done over the years).  Berto has made tremendous strides in modernizing the code for CSME.

Considering that nobody is going to force you to buy the game and/or games and that what is on your hard drive is still on your hard drive, I'm not seeing a reason to panic about the future. However, considering that the same sentiment was expressed in the transition from EF to EF2 and the world didn't end I think that view is exaggerated.  We are going to work on making the game more "realistic" in a simulation/historical aspect and if those that are uncomfortable decide you don't care to participate in the future of CS that is your choice.  You will still have your current games for quite some time. 

To be honest, if you don't make the journey it will be the community's loss because this is such a narrow slice of humanity that each one that walks away diminishes us overall.  Yet, things happen and interests change.  It's life.  I've gamed CS from Korea starting in 1996, to the US, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  Real life has pulled me away for extended periods of time.  It happens, but I have returned on many occasions.

IMHO, not getting the new CS will be like the EF guys that never made the transition to EF2 and slowly over time faded away.  However, if you decide to come with us on our future CS journey, I'd love to see you guys develop some scenarios and game with you.  We've expanded CS time frame to 1985.  That is a big chunk of time and technological change to explore on the electronic battlefield.  If you are getting frustrated with game play, you might want to review how you are going about things.  In many ways, this is the modern battlefield which means there are many things out there that will just ruin your day and if your reconnaissance was lax your opponent burned you.  Learn from what happened and adjust.  Its the same thing you did when you first started playing EF or WF or RS.  I was great against the AI, but was 0-7 my first PBEM games.  There is going to be an adjustment period as its not the same old World War Two game for the past 15 years.

Additionally, it has been my experience over the decades that we wargamers are our own worst enemy at times.  Everyone wants it their way and rarely see change as progress because it disturbs our routine.  God forbid it makes us learn a new way of doing things.  If we approached CS with that attitude, we would probably still be running it on Win XP (if we could run it at all) because there never would have been the fixes to make it work in Win 7/8/10 or any future updates of Windows. 

Its the same negative energy that almost led to the collapse of the Blitz on several occasions in the early days.  Then there is the constant and passionate debate over extreme assault and the role of half-tracks.  I love EA because I personally think its more realistic than the surround disrupt and overrun of the assault routine it replaced.  Nobody is "forced" to use it, but there are still folks that howl about it even being optional. 

Bridges that drop in minutes?  CS has always had a one turn ability to build a bridge on the map if the probabilities rolled in your favor.  With an AVLB, what took hours previously for heavier bridges occurs in mere minutes.  Technological revolution occurred and CSME reflects many of those new tools of warfare such as AVLBs, Dozer Tanks, Minelayers, helicopters, ATGMs, MANPADs, SAMs, and a whole arsenal of new weapons systems.  As to the time span of the game, six minutes is nowhere in ME.  For most newer scenarios in CS its been disregarded as a unit of time measurement for quite some time. 

Want a tough scenario to play in CSME, then Humbling the Tank is it.  It is an excellent scenario and has multiple ways to fight it, but if you think you as the Israeli player you are going to overcome the introduction of the Sagger, think again.  That is about as accurate a historical scenario reflecting technical revolution as there is in any CS game.  I was playing one of Jason's Tournament scenarios and literally wiped out a battalion column of T-72s in one turn during a test game because the Cobra Gunships with ATGMs rolled in from the flanks as the Israeli Merkava hit them from the front.  Man was that brutal and very realistic.  So, while not perfect, we are getting many aspects of modern combat right and will massage the game engine as issues arise.  We've already dealt with a lot of stuff over the last six months and if I'd have had my way we would have probably waited a bit more to release, but you know what I don't really have a problem with releasing when we did.  After all, we had to pull the trigger at some point.  This development has been going on a long time and we are still learning all the time.

For this game to survive into the future, changes and updates have to be made.  Is everyone going to love everything we do?  No.  Considering that a CS update is over two years away based on our current production chart not even we have looked at just what the updated "CS" will look like.  We are still working the kinks and bugs out of a game that has been released about a month.  In the real world, there was a time the M1 Abrams was considered a lemon because it used too much fuel, had an inadequate gun, and didn't work well in the sand.  Nobody thinks that now.  Its one of the premier tanks in the world and is continuously going through upgrades.

IMHO, if you aren't learning, you aren't really trying.  Sure you've always done it this way, but that does not necessarily mean that is the only method or process around that works.  We look at all comments and consider it as part of our development feedback process.  You will see us on most of the wargaming website message boards responding to questions, concerns, and issues.  We are very interested in what folks have to say.  Just like you, we are first and foremost wargamers that are passionate about our games and want to get it as right as we can.  However, if you can't accept an "optional" rule that is pretty ridiculous on the face of it.  Keep the big picture and the possibilities of the future open.  If you don't buy or like the game, we'll continue to do what we do because for us it ain't about the money.  We are passionate about CS and will honor it by keeping it alive.

Best Regards and love from the electronic trenches,

Jim von Krieg
Founder of the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club (and still paying the bills with all your great support)
and
Member of Campaign Series Legion (CSME Development Team)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ugh, I just spent twenty minutes typing out a response, only to hit a button and have it disappear.

I'll be briefer. I am the bell clapper for every change that I deem will hurt the game.

For those who want realism, I bring up the laying and clearing of mines, and wrecks, and building bridges in six minutes because they are not real. And, I always hear the excuse that they were that way in the past. LOL! We did not have extreme assault in the past? That is why I did not want to effect every scenario made prior to it's being put into the game, first as no option and later as an option.

I compare what the team is doing to what the Squad Leader team did. After having everyone buy hundreds of dollars worth of expansion packs and boards they brought "realism" to the front with ASL. Which ended fracturing the community of players and eventually led to the demise of both. "Realism" sucked the fun out of playing the game.

I know you guys aren't paid. I know the company wants to make money. I admire some of what you do and I don't fault a company from wanting to make money. If you are telling me that Slitherene is the one who wants a more realistic game then I will take up my issue with them.
I think it is the development team who is forcing "realism" onto the game and the players.

Remember Coca Cola and the debacle which led to the bringing back of Classic Coke? I bet they would have wanted a bell clapper like me to have helped prevent the loss of millions of dollars reinstating Classic Coke.

Just be aware of the consumer, is all I ask. All consumers are not on the development team. And, from what I see, you guys needed a "no" man and not all "yes" men on the team. Too much "rah rah team" and not enough "hey are you sure that is really going to be good for the players and the game" for my taste.

Then to tell a consumer you are going to like what we are doing or "take it or leave it" is both poor customer service and an indication that you guys might not know just who the consumers are?

HSL

Still grumbling after all these years.

[Jim von Krieg]

Ed,

Please, relevant facts that are connected to what we are doing, not injecting events unrelated to the development of CSME which we did not observe or participate in.  Advanced Squad Leader and Coke?  Neither of these has anything to do with what we are doing with our CS game development.  Any thing along this line of reasoning is just plain speculation on your part.

I'll say it bluntly and look you in the eye while doing it, we want more realism in the game and considering your response its clear you don't understand what we are talking about.  As a result, I'll discuss what we mean and not what you think we mean.  You may like some of it or you may like none of it.

Slitherine has little impact on the day to day work of the team.  They want a product they can sell.  They've given us some very broad guidelines and a few specific to liability issues, but for the most part we work this to our specifications.  Its hardly a group of yes men sitting around the table considering that all of us are experienced wargamers.  We are a team and we work towards goals and expect results.  Some times not the results we intended which is why we didn't release over the summer as originally planned. What we are attempting is not easy and takes time.

To support that effort, I've done professional wargaming for military OPLANs on Cray computers, intelligence plans to support combat operations, and personal wargaming for decades.  I think I have some expertise in this area and am well aware of team dynamics in an organization.  Will I get everything I want, not hardly.  Its a team effort and we work on consensus about what we want to address and how we will work it. 

There is going to be a more realistic element added because we are addressing actual military capabilities in our approach to the game. 

First by realism, I mean some of the following items: Offer realistic military capabilities to the maximum extent possible through new units, accurate orders of battle, maps that are geographically accurate, battles that capture the flow of the fight, day/night transitions, and several other game processes like helicopters, SAMs, and ATGMs.  We've also established a methodology to reflect the Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTO&Es) for units.  We've developed new methodologies for LOS, combat operations, and air operations.

We are bringing realism to the game by adding military capabilities not covered by a game series centered on World War Two.  Some nations will have this capability, some won't based on what their military was fielding at the time.  For example, a wargame at this level in the time period we cover should be able to lay mines and do it in a fairly rapid fashion.  If you want to talk military capabilities, a Russian minelaying system mounted on a truck can spread mine fields the size of football fields in a very short period of time (minutes, not hours).  An AVLB laying a 30 or 50 ton scissors bridge does it in minutes.  We are not even talking air and artillery delivered scatterable mines, but if we push past 1985 we will in all likelihood address it. That is part of what I mean by realism.

Another element to our realism is to gather up historical writings/books/documents to produce accurate portrayal of battles with some flexibility for the players to play the game historically or non-historically.  This is hard because there is contradictory information all over the place concerning various wars and battles.  So, we will attempt to add accurate order of battle and military equipment to our battles that reflect a historic nature.  However, we are also throwing in some what if scenarios that while not historically accurate will demonstrate historical battlefield possibilities.  Additionally, our scenarios while reflecting history will allow flexibility to deviate from history.  You will not be locked into to any one course of action in most of the fights.  There is to the maximum extent possible multiple paths to victory and defeat.  Its a game and we realize its a game, and we are not here to create a bland battle simulation in which you really have little impact on the course of the game.  

Another element to consider is the fact that Jason is a cartographer and has put a lot of effort into producing historically accurate base maps for scenario designers.  We've also introduced additional map levels to better capture mountainous terrain.  I'm currently working on updating our Golan base map to more accurately reflect the elevations of the area with an eventual eye to pushing it out to enable the portrayal of some of the late 1973 battles that occurred as Israel entered into Syria.  

If you want to create a scenario in 1956 Sinai, the map is already there.  You just have to trim it down to meet your needs as a scenario designer.  We are also adding base order of battles for the countries in the game.  It reduces the need for a scenario designer to start their OB from scratch.  As part of the order of battle, we will have MTO&Es which reflect organizational laydowns that are extensively researched though some are better than others just due to the availability of information from certain countries.

If the scenario designer doesn't care for that, they can build their own map and units from scratch.  Also, just because the capability is added, its up to a scenario designer to incorporate it into the game.  If few designers do, then some things in the game you may never realize are there because you will never actually see it.
 
This is a war game.  We want you have to think about your flanks, your reconnaissance forces, the speed of your advance, the fundamentals of war, combined arms, and whole array of factors that impact modern battles.  As CSME reflects some very modern capabilities, you are going to have to adjust some of your thinking because while the basic ideals are similar, the capabilities are so much more.  Your failure to recon properly could mean your tank battalion has impaled themselves on a line of ATGMs because you hit it on the march without suppressive fire and proper reconnaissance.  CS is unique in many respects because it is so flexible, but it needs added and improved processes to better reflect some modern military capabilities which it glosses over or doesn't have due to its World War Two roots.  Of course, most of what I'm saying addresses 1973 and beyond.  Prior to 1973, the game is very much something you would recognize.  

As to customer service, I'm pretty sure we're doing just fine.  I'm the one that will tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.

Regards,

Jim

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Two things.
Thanks for proving my point.

One. Sorry you don't like Classic Coke or Squad Leader.
Two. You going to fix the "realism" of laying mines, clearing mines,  clearing wrecks, building bridges, planes that do not fly but can bomb targets. Planes that fly and "capture" victory hexes, block movement, can be shot at with tank main guns?

I can like that. Even the day to night and night to day I can handle as long as it is within the game's scale and you figure out supply and "resting" into it (or growing weary from it).

I'll even adapt my tactics to fit any changes. I can do that.
But, be careful that the changes do not suck the fun from the game. It's all I will ever ask.
Do what you want with CS ME, CS Vietnam, CS Grenada, CS Panama, CS Cold War, CS Iraq one and two, CS Afghanistan. Just be careful with the classics.

Enough said? And, I'd look you, or anyone else, in the eye and say the same thing.
To me there is too much "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" or "protect the baby by all means" going on here.

The day you take away my opinion or my fun in playing is the day I will leave. I'll leave on my terms ... thank you.



HSL

[Crossroads]

[snip]

 planes that do not fly but can bomb targets. Planes that fly and "capture" victory hexes, block movement, can be shot at with tank main guns?

These items were attempts to push the game engine in JTCS 1.03 right? 1.03 came out in 10.7.2008 and even ever since I have not seen a single scenario using them, so they are not a very valid point IMO. 

The current game engine fork with CSME 1.00 and beyond comes with a totally new Air Model, with current on-map aircraft consisting of Helos and Spotter planes. 

I am fully expecting the new Air Model to be used to max in the coming WW II titles too, to be used realistically where they make sense. Thunderbolts hovering above Axis player at Normandy, observing every moment? Yes, I would like to see that.