SITREP

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor, Jan 15, 2015.

  1. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    Let me clarify that a bit. It tends to slow down to real time when it's generating routes - ie developing a plan. When it's not doing this it goes at a faster clip. The average would be faster than real time.
     
  2. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    SITREP 1140 Thu 27 Aug 2015

    I am putting out a new build 5.1.20. Note the use of the middle number '1'. This indicates that this is a 'final' release version. We'll still fix the odd bug when they arise but otherwise this is finished product. We'll be moving now to upgrade my dev environment, upgrade my system to Win 10 and ensure the CO2 code base works with these. Then Dan and I will be working on new features for next Core Engine update.
     
  3. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    119
    Hooray!! Which new features? What's top of the list?
     
  4. Ripppe

    Ripppe Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    3
    The question about new features is an interesting one. Dave, would you kindly give us some insight on which grounds you decide/select the features and their priority. Is there a way for us to influence this decision making process somehow? :)
     
  5. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    Well of course there is a way. Bank transfer is the usual means, but I've been known to accept gold bullion or even gem stones if I have to. ;)

    As with most things there are quite a range of options here. In terms of guiding principles I usually ask the question what will each feature allow us to do in terms of the scenario we can cover of the user experience we can provide. The last upgrade was definitely about the user experience, hence the focus on the user interface. This time I would like to focus on enhancing the range of scenarios we can provide. On this I'm torn slightly. Paul vanDoren has developed the KOAD scenario and I would really like to get these out to you. But also we have east front material in the works too.

    I can release KOAD without any new features but because of the sheer scale of these scenarios they will run slow. On a reasonable machine they run OK but on lower end machines you will feel it. I mentioned this in another thread and the response from the majority of those that bothered to post on this was that they could deal with it as is - ie they wouldn't need to have us support multiple AI threads to speed up game speed. This feature would require a fair bit of work - maybe quite a lot.

    To do the east front stuff we definitely need mounted ops and this in turn really should be proceeded by sequential tasking. Together these amount to a lot of work too. Hence my dilemma. So this is where the influence comes in. ;)
     
  6. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    119
    I hate to think of you being torn, Dave. I imagine you sitting there muttering to yourself, 'What am I going to do, what do I choose...I just don't know what's best....????' whilst pulling compulsively at your hair and clothing.....(then I see you flicking through your Word files and thinking 'How about another quick episode from Warner's World? Now THAT'S what I really want to do!!!) Spare yourself!

    Mounted ops and sequential tasking please. I'm sure KOAD is great and I would love more processing speed, but I'm one of those for whom huge hypothetical scenarios don't do much. I crave historical scenarios, and top of my desires would be EF and the platoon level adaptation (not sure which engine changes were required for that, but I recall MO and ST were in there also). I feel - and I have no evidence to back this up - that historical operations will get more sales. I also keep saying this - I feel some kind of PBEM facility would be good for sales.
     
    #386 john connor, Aug 28, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2015
    algenda likes this.
  7. Daz

    Daz Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    119
    I would go with mounted ops and sequential tasking as well, as these features will have a profound effect on all the existing scenarios we have, as well as future ones, and thus have the biggest impact on the game.
    In fact it would revamp all the old scenarios, making them a very different experience and well worth another play through.
     
  8. pekische

    pekische Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    4
    Mounted ops and sequential tasking! It will be one of the biggest advance of the engine and game experience...
     
  9. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yup, I agree........mounted ops and ESPECIALLY sequential tasking would be the way to go!! :wideyed:
    It would elevate the game to a whole new level.
    Why not set up a poll to get a feel for your customers preferences?

    Rob.
     
  10. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    Well let me say this that mounted ops and sequential tasking are both big undertakings and each will take a significant amount of time. So I would propose doing sequential tasking first and mounted ops would be for a subsequent update.
     
    #390 Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor, Aug 28, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2015
  11. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    That works for me!

    BTW/ Have you reached a decision regarding command distances/radius yet? Just curious......

    Rob.
     
  12. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    No Rob I have not. It's Saturday morning here right now and I'm enjoying the first morning of sunshine after a bleak week of rain. Thoughts of command ranges just don't seem to arise at the moment. ;)
     
  13. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't blame you a bit!
    Get out and enjoy the sun whilst you may! :joyful:

    Rob.
     
  14. canuck64

    canuck64 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sequential tasking alone would breathe new life into the old scenarios, Dave.
    Mounted ops-I'm assuming this would offer this the opportunity (as well as create a situation) to "dismount" mobile troops to find on foot-yes?
     
  15. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    Yes mounted ops would model the dismount of infantry.
     
  16. kipanderson

    kipanderson Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hi,

    great to see things coming to a conclusion for this version.

    I think I jumped a little too quickly to Windows 10 but will be back once that is hit on the head.

    Then.. the Eastern Front not that far off I hope.. ; ).


    All the best,
    Kip.
     
  17. kipanderson

    kipanderson Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    3
    Dave,


    Seeing that you have to some extent provoked the feature request rush on this thread.. ; ).


    A big one for all settings, in many a way biggest present short coming.. it artillery modelling.. in my deeply unbalanced view.. : ).


    There is the need for the standard ability to assign supporting divisional and corps artillery to support battalion task forces. Plus.. Artillery is far too easily and quickly thrown around for WWII. Targeted and fired.


    I certainly do believe you when say it is a more complicated business than It may seem just to code for assigning artillery to support battalions in the traditional way. Also.. potentially a bit of a nightmare I guess to code networking up artillery and assigning spotters and FOs.


    Problem is the obvious one.. artillery accounted for such a high level of casualties, although traditionally the most boring part of wargames, it does need to be “sort of..” modelled to the same standard as infantry and armour.


    Great engine.. an example of the way in the last few years we have all been spoilt with high quality new wargames..

    All the best,

    Kip.
     
  18. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    Yeh well that was probably a mistake. It sort of crept up on me. I do think it best to carry on discussion of what should be in the next update either in a separate thread on the main forum or in the Feature Request sub forum.
     
  19. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    335
    SITREP Mon 21 Sep 2015

    Hi all,

    Despite the seeming quiet it's been very busy behind the scenes.

    There is a new Build 5.1.21 coming out real soon. It's with LNL but they have a fair bit to do as it involves new installers for several of the modules. this fixes an issue with the commander signature images in the AAR screen. It affects only certain scenarios. It was an oversight on my part when we went to CO2. I had forgot to update the file paths for the sig files that referred to the Graphics\Scenarios\Default directory. In CO1 each game had a different sig files in the default dir. Under CO2 we can only have two, one for the axis and one for the allies. SO these sig paths had to be changed.

    I signed off on our version of the Westwall module. It's now with LNL for them to work up the their version of the installer. We are still pondering whether to stick with the "Westwall" name as this implies battles along Germany's entire western border. The current 12 scenarios cover the battles along the Westwall between Aachen and the coast. They do not cover the battles south of Aachen. We would like to get to these eventually but for now the current module focusses on the northern part of the wall. Needless to say until we can settle on a name we can't finish the cover either. Hopefully these will all be done this week and we can release the new module next week.

    As I mentioned in another thread we have also been making progress on the Trial of Strength board game. See here:
    http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/where-is-trial-of-strength.2018/

    On a more mundane level Dan Dennison and I are in the process of migrating our development framework to Visual Studio 2013 and implementing our back end source repositories. Once we have that settled I'll be doing a get on all the code changes Dan has made to address the use of "strings" in the game engine so that they comply with the new methods mandated by Microsoft. We need to do this so we can get our existing code working in the new environment. Once that I under our belt we'll begin the new core engine development work for the next upgrade.

    Given the upheaval of migrating to VS 2013 I am going to start with a very limited focus on Sequential Tasking. There is a fair bit to do in terms of both the UI and AI to implement this. In terms of UI, we need to provide an interface for the user to issue and edit sequential orders. This will involve implementing triggers and named areas of interest (NAIs) so that we can support conditional sequencing - eg if enemy enter NAI then start next task. This will involve adding a new NAI tool to define the area on the map. We then need to provide a means for the user to select identify that NAI when setting the task options. We also need to provide a means to navigate to the next task in the TaskEdit dialog. The actual "trigger" will be embedded into the Task Edit dialog. Where we currently have Start and End times, we will now have Start and End triggers. These can be of different types - eg a set time, a condition relating to an NAI, a condition relating to the force status (eg if strength < XX%), or some other condition that I'm sure will raise its ugly head as we start coding. So there is a lot to do just for the UI.

    But there is also a bit to do for the AI. We need to create a new class for triggers. Within the ScheduleNextEvent() we need to handle triggers. We need to revise the Plan Doctrine used for all order types to accommodate not only triggers but the fact that the user can now set a sequential task and that this should override any of the default behaviours. Eg if you issue a Move task then the default behaviour on arriving at the objective is to defend there. Now we will have to modify that so it checks to see if there is a subsequent order and if so make a decision on what to do next. This gets complicated. If the trigger is a set time we need to see how long a wait is it and whether we should deploy into a defensive perimeter in the meantime. The nature of the subsequent order will also have a bearing. Eg if the next order is another move then we might decide to hold in our current formation. If it's an attack then may be it's best to deploy into an attack formation now to speed up the process. It gets complicated very quickly and so we'll need to a fair bit of thinking up front and then a lot of "code a little, test a little" to tease out the best approach.

    Amongst all this I also hope to release Knock on All Doors (KOAD) module in November. So it's going to be a busy few months ahead.
     
  20. Txema

    Txema Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    Daz likes this.

Share This Page