Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Command Ops: Legend of the Blitzkrieg...

  1. #11
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    101
    How will it handle the armour? Will it be able to reflect stuff like Germans moving on full speed and outflanking French tanks?
    "And as the light embraces the wanderer,
    as knees bend as thought is obliterated,
    with the very moment that resistance has ceased,
    now, I am become death, the enemy of man."

  2. #12
    Neophyte Sorcerer
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    West Midlands,England
    Posts
    34
    I'm interested in how it handles armour as well.How will it model superior German command and control, and tactical training against French heavy armour.At Flavion German 38t's used speed and maneuver to fire into the side ventilation grilles of French Char b's.

  3. #13
    Administrator Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    310
    I remember Arjuna saying that the engine would need a fair bit of changing to deal with a platoon scale game. I understand how BFTB plays out however when your dealing with a smaller scale I thought there maybe some changes going on as certain things become more important the lower the scale like buildings etc. TU has no real micromanagement to do with buildings, you just set it's SOP to clear rooms and that will cause a delay during movement (works out 3mins a man per room so three men equals 1 min a room etc) you don't actually give orders as such, it's all on the SOP settings.

    Looking at the screenshots I was expecting a smaller scale map actually. My concern is it ends up playing just like BFTB and may aswell be BFTB set in France and the units may aswell be coys etc. So will the game feel different? Will it feel more tactical? Will we have new types of orders\formations? If we give orders to a Coy commander does the game use small scale tactics at all or plays the same as BFTB? Do we have to micro manage each unit to be able to play it out in a small scale tactical way? The way BFTB plays out at the moment is great for coy level but I'm not sure that the way BFTB shakes off into an attack and attacks would look right for a more tactical level. I'd want to see the Coy AI send it's platoons to attack from different directions or send one up then send the other two after etc.

    I believe someone tried to do small scale Operation Veritable in BFTB and found the game didn't work to well at the platoon level and wasn't doing what he would have liked it to do.

    You mention tailor the orders if going into a built up area. How would you do that? In BFTB due to the scale you didn't really tailor orders for town etc. You just sent your troops in and tanks back on the whole.

    Again here is the thing. Many who desperately want a more tactical game using the PG engine want the game to feel and play like a tactical version, rather than as I said BFTB with platoons which may aswell be coys as the gameplay is exactly the same.

    It does mention in Chelcos blog I think (can't be sure) that lost of changes have been made to the engine, so I'm hoping it will play in a more tactical way than Grand Tactical\Operational.

  4. #14
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3
    Jason, I don't remember Dave saying that... but to be honest I don't think anybody had really done any real tests of this scale, and I can guarantee that nobody has approached this scale the way I am.

    I made a comment on the BLOG post regarding engine changes:
    J, regarding your comment:

    "Almost every aspect of the inner workings of the game engine is being revised, modified and tweaked to simulate combat between smaller forces."

    This is not exactly the case... the engine itself will remain unchanged, any change to account for the smaller scale is being handled with creative manipulation of the data. Everything is effected by the data, movement rates, fuel consumption and fuel loads, rates of fire, different order delays based on communications differences, etc. the data is what is being overhauled, not the engine itself.

    So yes it will be BFTB basically with smaller units, but I don't see that as a bad thing, as the engine, except for a few things that would be nice to have for this scale, handles the smaller scale very well.

    Bil
    Sorry for the confusion and I hope that doesn't turn you off the game. It does feel different than the operational games. better, more controlled.

    Regarding the armor combat, yes I am designing the data to especially reflect the peculiarities of tactical combat in France 1940, including armor combat. The German panzer platoons will be more flexible and react faster due to their lower order delays, which are based on their inherent communications capability.

    Regarding map scale, I am working on Dave and Paul at Panther games to change the map zoom levels for LOTB, I would like at least one additional lower map zoom level (1m per pixel would be great) and I'd like to do away with the two highest levels. I don't know if this is going to be possible though, but I still have plenty of time to convince them.

    Bil

  5. #15
    Administrator Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    310
    Bil, it was a long time ago I asked Dave bout a platoon level game (before BFTB came out anyway) and he said it would be difficult. I then remember Dave saying he was doing or going to do contract work for a platoon level game\sim for the military (though this appears not to ahve ahppened) so I presumed this was the outcome.

    Anyway I will be lying if I was to say I wasn't disappointed. I will still buy it however but my enthusiasm has dimmed to seeing the game as if it was another CO game rather than the tactical version I want. Then again thinking about it maybe we all should say we wont buy unless Dave really makes some changes rather than just a manipulation of data which is bordering on a mod rather than a new full price game. This way you've got some leverage to get Dave to really put some time into the engine for this title, rather than it being a sideline product which it appears to be at the moment.

    Still good luck with it. If I was you I'd point out to Dave the forum reaction (as I'm sure many who want a tactical version will be a touch disappointed) and nag him to make some engine changes to make it a true tactical game (I did read you have asked him but got nowhere). This is the first time I'm disappointed in Panther games as I always felt that Dave would do whatever it took for any future game to make it the best in it's scale. If Dave reads this please,please give us tactical wargamers a game thats as polished as the other games for the more grand tactical\operational minded. The market is crying out for a new tactical game yet all that have been made recently are either to abstract or more like an afterthought to other projects.

  6. #16
    Abecedarian Mage
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    He said no
    Posts
    187
    There comes a time though, when you no longer have anything too substantially different from a Close Combat title. Granted, Close Combat doesn't feature the benefits of decent command and control the way it is simulated with Panther Games. But the hobby doesn't really need multiple companies trying to prove they are the better guy at the same darned thing.
    Please don't go on about how cool it is I like wargames. It gets old.
    Some of my comments are just me parroting his bitching.

  7. #17
    Administrator Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    310
    I think the hobby needs more tactical games, where swamped with operational and Grand Strat games, yet new more hard core tactical games are few and far between. yes you have you RTS games but they aren't true wargames. I loved CC in it's day but I went back and it did nothing for me. The new Matrix versions and the later games they dropped Inf survivability way to low compared to CC2. CC2 is still the best version. Achtung Panzer Op Star has knocked CC of my top RTS wargame list something I never imagined would happen.

    I'm having difficulty in seeing who is making decent tactical wargames, though I can count the countless operational and Grad Strat games over recent years. There is always room for improvement in my end, northing needs stagnate. If people stopped making games because others had made a game in the same genre then computer games would have ended in the late eighties. SO the more choice the merrier for me, I don't agree that they should stop making new games because someone else made one at the same scale or in the same genre.Some developers are better than others for starters, some do certain things in the game better than others, some have different options or features etc etc. Not sure that developers are trying to prove they are better as such they just have their take on it and want to make a game they think we'd enjoy or want to play themselves. I think there is loads of room for improvement over CC to be honest. For starters no wargame yet has managed to do city fighting well and cover all it's nuances at the tactical level which is something I want to see. Nor has it even covered many facets of open warfare from inf digging in to engineer actions etc. Tigers Unleashed again has it in game, however at the moment the game is well ahead of CPU power so until we get a massive increase in turn performance so we can have 3 hour games on huge maps these features aren't used to their fullest.

    Tigers Unleashed is getting there and it improves with every Beta patch. Infact it is true hardcore. However I think Panther Games engine would make a superb tactical game maybe even platoon's as HQ's with squad subordinates. However the scale of LOTB will do. I think I may have upset Bil over at the Matrix forums as I may come across as being negative. However I'm actually trying to support him by showing Dave that he needs all support he can give to make this a top quality game.

    Anyway I will try the demo now before I purchase. I'm hoping it plays out differently and feels different to CO.

  8. #18
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    101
    CC has very poor AI. That's the main reason why I quit playing it 4 years ago. Not to mention how bad it is when it comes to giving information (lack of basic stuff like a heigh map, ability to spot enemy locations by watching tracers, by seeing corpses appear after bombardment, etc.). I like the whole visceral presentation and little soldiers running around and screaming when dying, but it's not enough for a good game.

    And we definitely need more tactical wargames with different features. I love Armored Brigade and I already find it a great progress over CC, but also I'd love to play a tactical wargame with a subordinate AI.
    "And as the light embraces the wanderer,
    as knees bend as thought is obliterated,
    with the very moment that resistance has ceased,
    now, I am become death, the enemy of man."

  9. #19
    Awesome. I always felt RTS was better for tactical level battles than operational. I loved the CC series despite the crappy AI and pathfinding.

    This should be awesome.

    Hope they do a sequenced campaign like CC III where you can upgrade equipment with each victory and replace lost units.

  10. #20
    Administrator Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    310
    Gordian no Chance soon of a campaign game with CO the workload would be huge and it would be a huge system hog apparently.

    CO at coy level works a treat at as it isn't realtime as such just continuous time but at it's slowest is about 10 times slower than any other RTS game. It's alot more manageable with the HQ sub system than any other non turn based game I've played.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
footer