Will upcoming patch require past scenarios to be upgraded?

hubee0

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
65
Points
8
Location
UK
My 5 cents. I am afraid, that the current sales model may not be convenient for the developer in a long run. Let's assume that more and more custom (community created) scenarios appear. They can be of similar quality to commercial scenarios. Users will be able to play a lot of interesting scenarios for free, not bothering about payable DLC. Free core engine certainly helps gathering wider community around the game. But it is a double edged sword.
 

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,267
Points
83
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
My 5 cents. I am afraid, that the current sales model may not be convenient for the developer in a long run. Let's assume that more and more custom (community created) scenarios appear. They can be of similar quality to commercial scenarios. Users will be able to play a lot of interesting scenarios for free, not bothering about payable DLC. Free core engine certainly helps gathering wider community around the game. But it is a double edged sword.
Maybe. But I don't see a flood of user generated scenarios.
 

TMO

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
177
Points
18
Age
59
Location
Bristol
Re accessing woods with mechanised infantry and light tanks (or any other unit), you can set their movement class in the estab editor to ‘foot’. You’d probably want to tweek their movement rate though. Massive compromise I know but it would allow you to infiltrate through woods and outflank.

Regards

Tim
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,383
Points
63
Age
57
Location
Brussels
Easier still you can change the woods movement properties on the map in mapmaker to permit motorised movement at a highly penalised rate.
 

TMO

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
177
Points
18
Age
59
Location
Bristol
In the map maker (which from another thread you might remember I don’t have the mm manual) can you differentiate between light and heavy tanks when setting movement penalties?

Regards

Tim
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,383
Points
63
Age
57
Location
Brussels
No. You're right, Tim. It's not quite as refined a work-around as messing with the estabs. It's just motorised or foot in mm. Motorised includes everything with tracks or wheels. We have suggested to Dave a few times that it would be nice to have motorised broken down, but apparently that's a lot of coding work.
 

TMO

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
177
Points
18
Age
59
Location
Bristol
But you're approach is interesting. Btw, the current estabs for Br motorised inf coys have 10 15cwt trucks as transport (I assume) for the infantry. A late '44 inf coy would have 3 15cwt trucks carrying stores, tools and greatcoats. When infantry were lorry-bound they would use dedicated 3t troop-carrying vehicles (TCVs) which iirc were slightly longer than a standard 3t lorry.

Regards

Tim
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
988
Points
28
Age
73
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
Easier still you can change the woods movement properties on the map in mapmaker to permit motorised movement at a highly penalised rate.
I was checking on the current defaults for MapMaker (both Matrix Version 5.1.28 and Steam Beta 5.1.31) and here is what I found for movement rates:

Orchard: Motorized -- 6, non-Motorized -- 37
Woods: Motorized -- 4, non-Motorized -- 30
Light Woods: Motorized -- 12, non-Motorized -- 40
Broken: Motorized -- 8, non-Motorized 37

and, for comparison's sake

Highway: Motorized -- 100, non-Motorized -- 100

Since these values can be adjusted by the scenario designer, if there are scenarios that don't permit limited motorized movement through woods or broken terrain, it was by the scenario designer's / mapper's decision rather than a default of the game.
 

Iconoclast

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
129
Points
18
Location
germany
If you'd like help contacting the ordnance office (Bundesamt für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr), let me know.

I think the BAINBw is not the best place to raise such an issue, the best candidate for the Game is the institution that would be using it, and that's the Command & General Staff College (FüAkBw).

I raised the issue of Computer-Assisted simulation last year there, not specifically with CO in mind. Truth is, there is absolutely no interest and in fact, they have been reversing that sort of development by replacing Computer-Assisted Simulations with umpires again. And I have to admit, they convinced me of that approach since then.

Cheers,

A
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
988
Points
28
Age
73
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
I think the BAINBw is not the best place to raise such an issue, the best candidate for the Game is the institution that would be using it, and that's the Command & General Staff College (FüAkBw).

I raised the issue of Computer-Assisted simulation last year there, not specifically with CO in mind. Truth is, there is absolutely no interest and in fact, they have been reversing that sort of development by replacing Computer-Assisted Simulations with umpires again. And I have to admit, they convinced me of that approach since then.

Cheers,

A
What they run into is the cost to run combat simulations to train commanders at the expense of reducing the readiness of "go to war" equipment vs. cost of training commanders without stressing their readiness position.

You balance the cost of fuel, dummy ammo, gadgets to "umpire" combat, and stress on the equipment against a simulation that may have a one time development cost that is less than the recurring fuel, ammo, equipment and "umpire" cost to meet the same ends.
 

Tzar007

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
11
Points
3
Age
50
Location
Montreal, Quebec
I think the BAINBw is not the best place to raise such an issue, the best candidate for the Game is the institution that would be using it, and that's the Command & General Staff College (FüAkBw).

I raised the issue of Computer-Assisted simulation last year there, not specifically with CO in mind. Truth is, there is absolutely no interest and in fact, they have been reversing that sort of development by replacing Computer-Assisted Simulations with umpires again. And I have to admit, they convinced me of that approach since then.

Cheers,

A

Generally speaking, AI is making such leaps recently that I think such trends can be reversed again quite soon. I'm also a regular chess club player and what Google did 2 weeks ago with their DeepMind AlphaZero engine in a 100 games chess match against the current strongest chess program in the world (Stockfish) was revolutionary and is quite the talk in the chess world. AI is going to be that "4th Industrial Revolution" and we're now starting to see it.
 

GoodGuy

Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
404
Points
28
Age
51
Location
Cologne
I think the BAINBw is not the best place to raise such an issue, the best candidate for the Game is the institution that would be using it, and that's the Command & General Staff College (FüAkBw).

Well, the LGAN course ("Lehrgang für den Generalstabsdienst/Admiralstabsdienst national", 2 years) is the most sophisticated course and the place where tactical and operational command is being taught.
Thing is, unlike with say tactical command training in a German Panzerdivision (where simulators can be used), the bulk of the teaching in the LGAN (and lower level courses) still involves didactic teaching, means teacher-centred instructions. That's like in the early 1900s.
So, you have to convince them to get to more modern methods of teaching.

I suggested the BAINBw, as it's a sub-department of the ordnance department (which is responsible for biddings and procurement) and as it is the IT procurement branch of ordnance , so they a) know if there's a budget and b) they are more open-minded regarding software solutions, especially if it's about software that has the potential to save a lot of money (for fuel, maintenance, repairs, targeting and F&F laser devices, personnel, etc.).
Also, the FüAk is part of the forces, but the ordnance department is part of the civilian/ministerial branch, including armaments. The FüAk may express their preferences (to go back to old-school methods, or the other way around), but the decisions are formed elsewhere, and other countries are ahead already.

I raised the issue of Computer-Assisted simulation last year there, not specifically with CO in mind. Truth is, there is absolutely no interest and in fact, they have been reversing that sort of development by replacing Computer-Assisted Simulations with umpires again. And I have to admit, they convinced me of that approach since then.

That is for tactical training, when they go out to the field, maybe even up to Bn level, to practice coordination and tactical approach. That level does not include operational training/teaching and is taught in lower courses.
Whatsoever, "outdoor" training costs a lot of money, there are large numbers of laser devices for infantry military exercises and also for AT and armored vehicle exercises, for instance, and they are using umpires, correct. Operational level teaching is provided on-site, though, in the academy.
http://www.fueakbw.de/index.php/de/lgan

Years ago, West Point was tinkering with Close Combat, the Marines got their own version. Not because CC is an extremely realistic simulation (3D simulators are way more effective/powerful nowadays), but because it gave a cadet or a Marines NCO an idea about what kind of management skills you need (tactical approach, flanking manoeuvres, effects of shock, panic and fear, use of the right gear at the right time, coordinating a platoon, etc.) to handle small units.

Their teachers/management may not be interested for 3 other reasons:
  • a) They may not like computer simulations
  • b) The software they were using was too abstract/complex, not customizable, or did not deliver an analysis of the progress/performance of the student
  • c) Using software (with the participants on their PCs) may reduce the instructors' total hours (of didactic teaching), as the students could use the programs with less teaching. So, in a way, it's like union workers doing everything to prevent the introduction of robots in the manufacturing line.
With quite some new solutions or methods, it takes a live presentation or a hands-on seminar, to show people the usefulness of such solutions, in many different sectors (civil and military).
In the medical sector, it took surgeons decades to use software in the anteroom of the operating theatre. With the software used there, surgeons are able to minimize medical malpractice and confusion: it prevents that wrong body parts are processed (uh !), it keeps track of artificial parts (say knee joint) applied, etc., so it became a main tool for quality management in the operating theatre, once they were conviced that software in the anteroom could increase safety and quality.

Depending on what kind of software they were using, they may be used to bland abstract NATO "simulators", that rather resemble AWACs screens. No immersion, just lines and primitive counters. Well, unless I missed something. But I doubt that common operational scale software has the visual and detail level of CO2, if there is any op-level piece, at all.
 
Last edited:

Iconoclast

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
129
Points
18
Location
germany
Hello,
I think this is an interesting discussion, but probably not the right thread to have this debate. I would like to have the right of reply once. Everyone is welcome to open a thread or send me a PM to chat about that.

As an opening statement: I understand that you all want to see CO, and wargaming as a whole, emancipated, funded, and finally suceed. I am on your side,Ialso want to see all that happening. I just expressed my pessimissm in regards to a German Government Contract.

Generally speaking, AI is making such leaps recently that I think such trends can be reversed again quite soon.

A good AI is not all that it takes to have a feasible simulation for military practitioners. Instructors need to be able to drive the simulation into a certain direction at any given moment, to guarantee that the student`s learning goals are achieved and you need to ensure proper debriefing so he understands what went wrong and what worked. You don't sit anyone in front of a programme, without an instructor, and expect him to learn anything.

Well, the LGAN course ("Lehrgang für den Generalstabsdienst/Admiralstabsdienst national", 2 years) is the most sophisticated course and the place where tactical and operational command is being taught.

Just to clarify for bystanders: The LGAN puts heavy emphasis on operational leadership, it is not made primarily for tactics.

Also, the FüAk is part of the forces, but the ordnance department is part of the civilian/ministerial branch, including armaments. The FüAk may express their preferences (to go back to old-school methods, or the other way around), but the decisions are formed elsewhere, and other countries are ahead already.

I disagree partly with this assessment. The FüAk would have a major say, and (since you, Gunnar, seem to know your way around) BMVg FüSK I 3. No Simulation would be introduced without the FüAk having at least a veto. The BAINBw would surely know if there is an existing budged though.
But that is really nothing to discuss here. If you can work your magic with the BAINBw in favour for one of our most favourite game, I surely won't stand in the way of that.

That is for tactical training, when they go out to the field, maybe even up to Bn level, to practice coordination and tactical approach. That level does not include operational training/teaching and is taught in lower courses.

I am not sure what you mean by "That is for tactical Training". I stated two facts, in short:

1.) I rose the issue in regards to computer-aided simulations with the College.
2.) they were not interested.

That is not really up for interpretation.

Years ago, West Point was tinkering with Close Combat, the Marines got their own version. Not because CC is an extremely realistic simulation (3D simulators are way more effective/powerful nowadays), but because it gave a cadet or a Marines NCO an idea about what kind of management skills you need (tactical approach, flanking manoeuvres, effects of shock, panic and fear, use of the right gear at the right time, coordinating a platoon, etc.) to handle small units.

I agree with this approach to wargaming, but also think that such a approach can hardly be unumpired, or not aided by instructors. When laptops and other IT-equipment was introduced by the Army Academy in late 2015, that the students could take home and do their course work, I also suggested to include a simulation. My idea was, a.) that the students could solve tactical problems as homework and bring their solutions and results back to class (so they could get teacher feedback on their work), and b.) to be able to have excercises in their freetime among their peers, making the connection to the prussian characteristic of making "war a hobby for officers" and the original Kriegsspiele by Reiswitz. I knew that wouldn't get through,but I wanted to have it noted, so someone in the future can pick the idea up if he likes.

On the Platoon-level, I would find the application of simulatiors even more doubtful.

Their teachers/management may not be interested for 3 other reasons:

Don't get me wrong, but I think it might be quite a leap to think to know why these people have been opposing this.

a) They may not like computer simulations

I agree.

b) The software they were using was too abstract/complex, not customizable, or did not deliver an analysis of the progress/performance of the student

They are professional enough to understand that a product they might procure tomorrow is not the same as the product they procured yesterday.

c) Using software (with the participants on their PCs) may reduce the instructors' total hours (of didactic teaching), as the students could use the programs with less teaching. So, in a way, it's like union workers doing everything to prevent the introduction of robots in the manufacturing line.

And here we slowely drill down to the core of our disagreement. Such a software we are talking about does not, and I would say "never", reduce the workload for staff.It increases it. A Computer doesn't tell you what you have been doing wrong and how you could have performed better. It needs to be maintained, the scenarios need to be written, staff and operators need to be trained in using it and so on.

That's the point. You surely know that in tactics/operations training you discuss for the majority of the time your decision-makig. Instructors want to know WHY you arrive at the decisions you arrive at. So basically, the most interesting things for your instructors happen in your head, and even before you hit the first button.

With quite some new solutions or methods, it takes a live presentation or a hands-on seminar, to show people the usefulness of such solutions, in many different sectors (civil and military).
In the medical sector, it took surgeons decades to use software in the anteroom of the operating theatre. With the software used there, surgeons are able to minimize medical malpractice and confusion: it prevents that wrong body parts are processed (uh !), it keeps track of artificial parts (say knee joint) applied, etc., so it became a main tool for quality management in the operating theatre, once they were conviced that software in the anteroom could increase safety and quality.

That doesn't mean that every new invention will make it at some point. I have not seen Tanks with double turrets again....;)

Depending on what kind of software they were using, they may be used to bland abstract NATO "simulators", that rather resemble AWACs screens. No immersion, just lines and primitive counters. Well, unless I missed something. But I doubt that common operational scale software has the visual and detail level of CO2, if there is any op-level piece, at all.

The cosmetics do not matter. As every CPX, you set up your CP and do not even see the computer that is running the simulation. You radio your decisions back to a.) the umpire who then uses the simulation, or b.) your umpire who then uses his experience to produce an outcome according to IMP (Intrinsic Military Probability). That's how you produce immersion, not by sitting in front of a screen.

Whatsoever, "outdoor" training costs a lot of money, there are large numbers of laser devices for infantry military exercises and also for AT and armored vehicle exercises, for instance, and they are using umpires, correct. Operational level teaching is provided on-site, though, in the academy.
http://www.fueakbw.de/index.php/de/lgan

What they run into is the cost to run combat simulations to train commanders at the expense of reducing the readiness of "go to war" equipment vs. cost of training commanders without stressing their readiness position.
You balance the cost of fuel, dummy ammo, gadgets to "umpire" combat, and stress on the equipment against a simulation that may have a one time development cost that is less than the recurring fuel, ammo, equipment and "umpire" cost to meet the same ends.

No, they don't. Especially not in this case.

The Exercises the LGAN-Participants do, have never seen a single tank moving. So there is not calculation, in the likes of "how much does it cost to have actual tanks driving around" VS. "how much does a software cost that simulates these things". That counts for more CPXs all over the place, that's what makes a CPX a CPX. You don't need Units driving around in the field to teach Operations and Tactics.

In the case of the FüAk, they have a Pool of retired Generals and Admirals who get invited to umpire the major CPXs. the smaller one are umpired by instructors. So for the participant, nothing changes. He still sits in his simulated TOC and issues his orders. The question is rather, do we want a computer programme ON TOP of the umpires/instructors we already have.


Okay, I will leave it at that. If anyone feels the need to, send me a PM or open another thread.

Cheers,

A
 
Last edited:

共工熙雲

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
70
Points
8
Age
32
Location
China Chongqing
Website
user.qzone.qq.com
This is not a minor patch. The changes we have made are significant. Every data file has to be converted. We've spent a lot of time on these changes. As I said they will involve new features. I'm not in the business of doing all this work for nothing. I need to make enough money to continue this development. So yes, there will be a small fee to upgrade all your data. It will be one fee for whatever data you own. It won't be onerous. I have yet to confirm the amount with LNL but I'm thinking in the order of $10. If you don't want it then fine. You won't be required to upgrade.
Excuse me, when will the update patch be released? Does it cause players' homemade scripts to be unused after the upgrade?
 

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,267
Points
83
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
Excuse me, when will the update patch be released? Does it cause players' homemade scripts to be unused after the upgrade?
The Upgrade (note this is more than a patch) is not ready yet. We're still working on conversion code. It's not going to get done before Xmas.
Not sure what you mean by homemade scripts. The term script normally means a set of instructions in code or interpreted language. If, however, you mean user created or customised scenarios, then our aim here is to allow these to be automatically converted. You won't be able to automatically convert stock scenarios. We're actually working on the code to handle this right now.
 

Kurt

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
896
Points
28
Age
55
Location
England
Very interesting thoughts. Actually what you discuss is pretty much along the line I had in mind, when the new movement classes were introduced in COTA. Thing is, Dave is a perfectionist (that's what I think, at least). If I am right, then he doesn't like makeshift solutions for something that could be perfectly fleshed out, otherwise. While his perfectionism makes the game so awesome, it may also be the reason for never seeing dismounted ops, and that's what I am scared of, here.
The introduction of 1 more class and a function that enables motorized INF units to switch to that new class ("motorized Inf on foot") when on the attack (and only when using the attack order), would probably do it already. The infantry would be able to enter woods or unfavorable terrain, while it is abstracted that the transport vehicles are parked somewhere. The time to reorg and start the attack could be seen as dismounting and getting their weapons ready.
A routine in the code could then block the trucks so that they can't get destroyed/deducted during engagements, as motorized INF didn't bring their trucks to the battle. If then a move order is given (to get out of the woods) a check routine could check the underlying terrain (oh heck, woods!) and another routine could then use the attack code (with the "right" to move as foot unit in woods) to pick the nearest road, attack that point (the time needed for completion would simulate that the inf unit gets its shyte together, picks up weapons and ammo), and switch back to the wheeled class/mode again, once the road network has been reached.

That would be sufficient. No fancy sequential tasking, no auto-something-luxury thing, "just" a class switch (I am not a programmer, so whatever routine or object class would be needed). Dave mentioned in 2011 (over at Matrix), during a discussion about the East Front game, the following, though:


So, I guess it's quite some work, not sure if such makeshift solution would be feasable (or satisfying for Dave). But I am convinced that the players would be happy.
Personally, I don't need a luxury version of dismounted ops, and I think many other players wouldn't need it either. I just wish for something that lets me enter woods with INF, light woods with tanks. No need for sequential tasking if you just implement the ability to enter woods, and aside from real dismounted ops.

I still play HTTR here and there, as I can tweak the maps, giving Wood terrain very low movement modifiers, so that it takes tanks hrs and hrs to cross woods. This way, I can still access woods in HTTR, but with halfway realistic speeds (tanks had to use tracks and small paths, they had to avoid very soft terrain in woods, and they could get stuck, etc.), and motorized Inf gets the same effect: Their movement is like movement of foot units (or even worse), in such modified woods.
In "my" HTTR woods, tanks move either with the same speed or even a tick slower than infantry (would have to check, can't remember atm) in dense woods, as well as all wheeled units.

For the Battle of the Bulge, the initial German operational plan orded tank units to move at night and on particular pre-defined roads (which was one reason for the various traffic jams), only. Despite the very flexible leadership during early stages of the war, Model/Rundstedt then indeed tried to detail each and everything, due to their fear that Allied tactical bombers could trash their tanks. Some units then actually waited followed these orders (when the weather cleared up, and when Allied Air Power kicked in again) in light and dense woods (frozen ground), near road networks, until nightfall and then redeployed or dashed forward. In the game, you have to park your tank groups in the open, basically.

The introduction of wheeled and foot (and horse-drawn? is that an independent class, or just a tweaked foot class?) classes made some aspects more realistic, but they reduce the realism when it comes to motorized INF units and to the players (in)ability to flank through or defend in woods, or to rush in with wheeled units in an attempt to confine groups of stragglers.
Such mot. units are then just destined to wait at the edges of the woods, praying that the enemy comes out and presents himself on a silver plate.

@ Dave: is such a stripped "dismount-simulator"-makeshift solution feasable, and how much work would that involve?

giphy.gif
liking the Gif , looks like linear algebra , complex number geometry and some quantum theory . Is that you in the picture Gunnar ?
 

Kurt

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
896
Points
28
Age
55
Location
England
The Indian and Chinese military are happy to spend lavishly , perhaps one of those could fund CO2 .
 

About LnLP

Welcome to the official Lock 'n Load Publishing Community page. Here you will find the latest information on our released and upcoming games.



We enjoy designing, developing, and publishing some of the best strategy games in the world. Lock 'n Load Publishing has published over eighty products, including our fan favorites Nations at War Series, World at War 85 Series, and Lock 'n Load Tactical series. We have expanded the publishing line now to include novels to go along with our game series in Paperback, EPUB, and Audiobook lines.

As Lock 'n Load Publishing moves forward, it intends to continue to broaden its product lines. We thank God for blessing us and allow us to follow our passions and thank you for support in our endeavors.


Like us on Facebook

Donate Cadence International

Cadence serves all branches of the U.S. military in American and overseas locations. Comprised of nearly 4 million people, the U.S. military community has proven to be one of the largest, most responsive sub-cultures today. Cadence ministers not only to military personnel but to their spouses and dependents as well.

Thank you for your interest in supporting our us. Please specify an amount below to begin the secure, tax-deductable donation process.

Donate to Cadence International
Top