SITREP

[john connor]

Wow! Richard and Pieter must really have pulled the stops out to get that many put together. Fantastic work, guys. Thanks!

Peter

 

[Greg]

Game speed is real important to me, at least a 9 on a 10 scale. But then, I am one who has enjoyed the smaller scenarios the best anyway. Not that I do not enjoy the larger one though as well...

 

[Daz]

Glad to see your on the mend Dave.

The game speed makes no difference to me.
As you say, in the larger scenarios there is so much to keep an eye on, that I am nearly always on the slowest speed and regularly pausing to give orders anyway.

I must say I am looking forward to playing another big scenario like, From the Meuse to the Rhine, and the West Wall is one of my favourite theatres.

 

[Kurt]

Game speed is not a big issue for me as I usually only play at lowest speed anyway .

 

[Rob]

Game speed is not a big issue for me as I usually only play at lowest speed anyway .

Ditto.

 

[Ripppe]

I've very very rarely used the two fastest speeds, so if it is playable with slowest and possibly the second lowest speed, I'm all in for it. Very interesting to see how a scenario of that size will play out.

 

[john connor]

I usually aim to play on 'normal' speed (2 arrows), but with a big scenario, like Maas Rijn, for example, 2 arrows just staggers along unevenly (and my machine is an i7 and decent enough) so I go for slowest speed there. I would hate for it to be compulsorily slower than the speeds I get like that. Is there nothing that can be done to optimise things? Silly question, perhaps, as if there was you would be already doing it. But I think speed IS really important and if the game appears to stagger along it will put many off (me included). People find it hard to understand how graphically minimal games like this can work slower than Arma, for example, and carefully explaining about the central processor load bottleneck etc won't stop their ruined first impressions. For me, in as far as my opinions count, I wouldn't be very keen on playing any scenario that was bigger than Maas Rijn. I do (very much) enjoy playing that though and the speed is fine (though compulsorily slow, as I explained), so if these new scenarios are more or less that size then fine.

Peter

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

There are a number of things we can do. The measure that would probably bear the most fruit would be to support multiple AI threads. We haven't done it already because it will be a fair bit of work and will mean postponing things like mounted ops.

The way it works is that we split the forces up and assign these to their own AI threads. These can then take advantage of the multiple cores we now get on modern computers. In effect it means we can process AI concurrently. But to make it work requires that we reengineer the way fire and bombard and strike events work. These need to be split into separate initiate and effect events. The initiate event being conducted on the firer's AI thread with a message sent to the target's AI thread. When the target AI thread processes the message it determines the effect and applies the casualties.

We also need to create multiple commands. At the moment we have one command per side. We would say four commands per side. Each of these would then need to have their own intel database and in effect duplicate a fair bit of the code that is currently done for a side. We will need to design and test an appropriate system for sharing intel between friendly commands.

On the plus side, once you bite off this it of work to support multiple commands, you could take it a step further to support multiple players - ie team play.

The question right now though is do we release KOAD without speeding up the game or do we delay it and spend months, probably six, to implement multiple AI threads.

 

[john connor]

I think you should do whatever gets you fastest to the Chir River, and I say that thinking of sales. I think an EF module is what will attract most sales. (Judging by how popular EF titles are.) After you get there, do everything else. I assume the Chir scenarios do not feature huge army level scenarios?

As for MP, I think there would be more interest in the game if you could do PBEM judging, for example, by how popular relatively simple games like the JTS/HPS series are (solely due to PBEM play). So I think PBEM would be a more fruitful line than MP. I think like this - in terms of sales and money - because I want the game to thrive and continue.

Peter

 

[Daz]

Well I'm not that interested in the East Front Pete.
Besides Dave has already said there are a lot of things that need to be put in place before that theatre is viable.
Demountable units for a start and that means its going to be a log time before them packs will be available.

I would say release the West Wall scenarios now, but make everyone aware of the processor problems by upping the min recommended specs for the scenario pack.

So long as people are aware of the problems they can make an informed choice on whether to risk it or not.
At the end of the day its a no brainer for me, because even if half the scenarios are too slow, one day I will be able to play them once the multi threading has been put in place, so its a kind of an investment for the future lol

 

[john connor]

Well I'm not that interested in the East Front Pete.
Besides Dave has already said there are a lot of things that need to be put in place before that theatre is viable.
Demountable units for a start and that means its going to be a log time before them packs will be available.

I would say release the West Wall scenarios now, but make everyone aware of the processor problems by upping the min recommended specs for the scenario pack.

So long as people are aware of the problems they can make an informed choice on whether to risk it or not.
At the end of the day its a no brainer for me, because even if half the scenarios are too slow, one day I will be able to play them once the multi threading has been put in place, so its a kind of an investment for the future lol

Westwall is fine, Daz, and will probably be out in September (my guess). It's KOAD he's asking about. Peter

 

[BigDuke66]

If I understood correctly KOAD fictional so I'm not really interested in it, go as soon as possible for multiple AI threads as that opens the door for doing multiplayer later.

I wonder if multiple AI threads will provide some way for a better simulation of the command structure, often enough in history things went the way they did because one subordinate decided to act differently maybe even contrary to orders.
If there would be an AI that handles the Corps and threads for each division it could form the base for this, maybe also the base for stronger FOW by leaving one division blind to what the other divisions can see and only act according to its own Intel, also by delaying Intel to the corps etc..

I see many opportunities here and I guess the game would benefit strongly from it, much more than a simply fictional module could provide especially when that module covers terrain we already have covered.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

As Peter says, Westwall is fine as is and it should be out next month (touch wood). The issue is with KOAD because of the sheer size of its scenarios. But that size also provided a different command experience. It's one where you are faced with the allocation of significant resources to achieving an operational level objective over another similar objective. There were many points in the Bulge where the Germans and later the allies had to make those decisions. In the Bulge modules they have generally been made by virtue of following the historical decisions - eg we end up with Piper at Trois Ponts. KOAD provides a bigger map canvass and is structured such that the player finds himself at one of those historical decision points but he has the option now to vary the historical commitment and go for some other objective. Yes the decisions are similar but up one in terms of scale and hence scope. The forces are historical. In most cases so too are their at start deployments.

 

[pekische]

I vote for multiple AI threads.

 

[Daz]

Well now I'm intrigued and looking forward to finding out what its all about.
As you know I like the Battle of the Bulge campaigns, so this should be interesting.

 

[john connor]

If you volunteer to beta test (as Dave offered) I assume you could find out right now, Daz. Some really nice scenarios. You would like and your input would be much appreciated, I'm certain.

Peter

 

[papymaj5]

I vote for multi thread also.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Perturabo]

Paul van Doren has also been hard at work revising his Knock on All Doors (KOAD) scenarios. These scenarios often pit an Army against a Corps and so involve many units across bigger map areas than we currently see with other modules. On the plus side there is significantly more scope for operational level decisions. On the down side we are definitely pushing the performance limits of the existing engine. As a result the game speed is less than what we get at the moment. In some of the scenarios, when there is a lot of action, it can slow down to almost real time on slower machines. So these scenarios can take some time to play. But there is a lot going on as you would expect managing an entire Army rather than a Corps. So there is a lot to keep you busy even though the game speed is slower.

I would like to get your feedback on how important the game speed is to you.

"Real time" as in "1 minute per 1 second"?

I find it acceptable in massive scenarios. But I may be biased since have I pioneered the whole massive scenarios thing XD .

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

real time as in 1m of real time = 1m of game time.

 

[Perturabo]

real time as in 1m of real time = 1m of game time.

D: The worst speed I got when playing army vs army battles was 5s real time per 1m of game time and it was already slow. I think 1m real time per 1m of game time would be pretty unplayable as waiting times for order delays could often extend beyond a single playing sessions, not to mention finishing whole operations could take months or years of playing to finish D: .