Replayability in KOAD and Westwall

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

I had an interesting discussion on the subject of replayability in KOAD on our facebook site:
https://www.facebook.com/PantherGames
Check it out.

 

[MarkShot]

The second generation of the CM engine allows for specification of plans with triggering actions selected at random (non-even distribution). I have found it to make the CM a more competent attacker, and for the first time the scenarios do exhibit re-playability. Where they use to be like mystery/spy novels (once you read the book; that's it). I would wait three years before replaying a CM first generation scenario and almost always as the attacker; because at my age it takes me three years to forget where ATGs are located and such.

But PG has always had a far more capable AI than the CM series. CM units individually have behaviors, but the strat AI has been weak and the TAC AI did not exhibit emergent properties which would threaten the survival of mankind any time soon.

Now, GTOS (Graviteam's Operation Star) is a real pleasure. Is the Strat AI or Tac AI that strong? No, I don't think so, but it is adequate. But where it shines is that it is a two level game where the operational level is generally unpredictable and thus yield totally random and unpredictable battles. I love it.

So for PG:

* Variable force/reinforcement matchups.

* Variable objectives.

OR

* Variable super size map objectives.

* Creates linked scenarios with exit condition sliced from the larger map.

* Forces carry across battles.

---

Something I love about GTOS. It is very possible to win battles and lose the operation. Since force preservation and balance is critical. The principle of economy of force is essential to reaching the finish line. Too many war games end up being these last man standing contests. They may be tactical or strategic, but they lack a strategic feel when they are played like that.

 

[MarkShot]

BTW, Mod question is it okay to compare and contrast various products on this forum as long as the purpose is neither to promote nor degrade anyone's particular work?

 

[Ripppe]

Dave, out of curiosity (if this goes too far off topic, please just ignore) as I also work in the software industry: how large is the code base of CO2? Have you ever considered for a full conversion to a different language?

 

[MarkShot]

Dave, out of curiosity (if this goes too far off topic, please just ignore) as I also work in the software industry: how large is the code base of CO2? Have you ever considered for a full conversion to a different language?

I believe it is huge and 25 years old (not all of it). I met Dave and Paul in 2000, and I thought they had been at work on it for 10 years already.

It actually has stood up very well. RDOA (2000) would still be a fun and playable game with unique engine if they had never gone any further.

PS: But what you should really ask Dave about is the game he produced which received TV news reports in Australia for corrupting the youth of the nation. Dave has at times worked for the Dark Side.

 

[Ripppe]

I believe it is huge and 25 years old (not all of it). I met Dave and Paul in 2000, and I thought they had been at work on it for 10 years already.

I believe it is not a question of whether CO has a big code base but rather how big it is?

PS: But what you should really ask Dave about is the game he produced which received TV news reports in Australia for corrupting the youth of the nation. Dave has at times worked for the Dark Side.

Well this sounds intriguing! Care to comment Dave?

 

[MarkShot]

I believe it is not a question of whether CO has a big code base but rather how big it is?


Well this sounds intriguing! Care to comment Dave?

It is sufficiently large that if you ever want to see CO3, unless written by Dave's grandchildren, you shouldn't get him started on that!

 

[kipanderson]

Mark, hi,


“Now, GTOS (Graviteam's Operation Star) is a real pleasure.”


On this I don’t agree..


We are clearly into “each to their own..” territory . But the operational game at Operation Star and the series is far to dumbed down for my taste. Tactical game also too dumbed down when compared to CM. But each to their own.


Steve at Battlefront is correct when he says that most CM players demand an operational layer of the same quality as the tactical game which is why Battlefront has always avoided going there. Would be huge undertaking to produce an operational layer of a quality expectable to most CM players.


I would love to see a quality operational layer for CM. There are a few trying though so may happen.


Hugely looking forward to Eastern Front version of COps.. we are lucky to have game such as COps and CM at all.


All the best,

Kip.

 

[EzraNehemiah]

I sort of, just, ventured in from the cold after reading this thread.

I will admit the one vice I have always had is "wargames." But they have to be good. I believe I purchased HTTR three times in the past and I have been thinking about purchasing it again for CO2. Much has been said, rightly so, about CO2. However, I will say that it is the most immersive operational wargame (in any format) I have ever played; and I am not a youngster.

Regarding GTOS and CM. I have played them both extensively. They both have their bonuses and caveats. But I must say that the most immersive battles I have ever experienced have been in GTOS. I know the latter lacks the tactical control that CM boasts, but the immersion factor in GTOS (at times) is hard to beat.

Anyway, It is sure nice to be able to simulate our interest at a level that I could only dream of as a kid when I robbed my penny bank to buy my first copy of Panzer Blitz, Squad Leader, etc. Yes, It will be nice to see CO2 visit the Eastern Front operations soon.

All the best gentlemen.