boundaries and zones

[pamak]

first i have to say that i have already ordered the game and wait for its delivery.
I am sure it will be a hit.
While i am waiting , i am thinking about features that may apply in the next generation of wargames.
I admit i am greedy :D

Anyway, here is what i am thinking.
We have seen a lot of improvements in recent wargames.
One of the key issues in my opinion is the ability to give rather complicated orders to various groups of units and let them carry the orders.
This gives a feeling of real command.
ATF ,RT and HHTR are fine examples of this.
What i still miss , is the ability to assign boundaries and zones of operations for various formations.
Until now, and although we have a graphical presentation of boudaries, the fact is that they do not have any effect in the game enviroment
What i am thinking is this.

In a scenario when you control a brigade , you assign boundaries between your battalions.
Then whenever you give an objective to that unit, either for attack or movement or any other kind of operation, the AI of the unit will execute calculations for the determination of the route and other details of the mission,focussing only on the available space between the left and right boundaries.

Now, if as an overall commander you feel that in some situations it will be more advantageous to have a unit maneuver outside of its current boundaries,
you might order a change of the current boudaries ,paying an appropiate cost.
This can be in the form of a significant delay before the start of execution of the mission, since coordination between the two adjastent battalions will need some time,
or you might even risk a rapid execution , taking your chances for fraticide incidents that will disrupt and delay seriously the execution.

I could expand the issue of boudaries more in order to deal with some sort of pass through operations or the rapid execution of preplanned counterattacks.

Anyway, as a starting point, iwould like to ask some questions.
First, is it possible for computer programmers to deal with the idea i descibed before?

Second, is current computer technology able to handle these types of calculations?

Last, do you also think it is worth of trying to introduce the concept of boudaries?
Thank you

[CPangracs]

first i have to say that i have already ordered the game and wait for its delivery.
I am sure it will be a hit.
While i am waiting , i am thinking about features that may apply in the next generation of wargames.
I admit i am greedy :D

Anyway, here is what i am thinking.
We have seen a lot of improvements in recent wargames.
One of the key issues in my opinion is the ability to give rather complicated orders to various groups of units and let them carry the orders.
This gives a feeling of real command.
ATF ,RT and HHTR are fine examples of this.
What i still miss , is the ability to assign boundaries and zones of operations for various formations.
Until now, and although we have a graphical presentation of boudaries, the fact is that they do not have any effect in the game enviroment
What i am thinking is this.

In a scenario when you control a brigade , you assign boundaries between your battalions.
Then whenever you give an objective to that unit, either for attack or movement or any other kind of operation, the AI of the unit will execute calculations for the determination of the route and other details of the mission,focussing only on the available space between the left and right boundaries.

Now, if as an overall commander you feel that in some situations it will be more advantageous to have a unit maneuver outside of its current boundaries,
you might order a change of the current boudaries ,paying an appropiate cost.
This can be in the form of a significant delay before the start of execution of the mission, since coordination between the two adjastent battalions will need some time,
or you might even risk a rapid execution , taking your chances for fraticide incidents that will disrupt and delay seriously the execution.

I could expand the issue of boudaries more in order to deal with some sort of pass through operations or the rapid execution of preplanned counterattacks.

Anyway, as a starting point, iwould like to ask some questions.
First, is it possible for computer programmers to deal with the idea i descibed before?

Second, is current computer technology able to handle these types of calculations?

Last, do you also think it is worth of trying to introduce the concept of boudaries?
Thank you
This is a concept we are currently working on getting creators of simulations to put into their games for our use at the Command and General Staff College. Essentially, it's called "Active Graphics", and allows the player (or student) to essentially issue orders through the use of operational graphics. This isn't a new concept, and is actually a MUST for the higher-end military simulations.

More to your point, though, "boundaries" in an operational overlay are essentially guides, and are NOT set in stone for an operation. They ARE a control measure, however they are more to alert the commander to who is on their flanks. I have NEVER seen a commander get reamed for "violating" a boundary if, operationally or tactically, the violation of that boundary was necessary. Your proposal to extract a "cost" from the unit that violates the boundary just doesn't wash in a true tactical environment. In fact, to do so would inhibit the commander's use of supporting fires or guiding units out of a sector without contact or conditionally secured over to another area requiring that unit's firepower.

That being said, I'm told that creating active operational graphics is a b*tch, and really only worth it if the developer has secured a lucrative government contract! Besides, I wouldn't want to tie the hands of my commanders with boundaries that act like "walls" or something.

As for the conceptual AI of a game that performs specific missions with little or no interaction from the player, ATF, RT, and HTTR all can do that, however they do it in fairly different fashions (ATF/RT v. HTTR). In BOTH game types, you control their "boundaries" by giving the unit a route. This is much more realistic than an invisible yet impenetrable boundary. In the case of HTTR, which does NOT use overlay graphics of ANY kind (yet! hehehehttp://www.warfarehq.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif), you can select the type of route you want the unit to take (i.e., fastest, safest, etc.) and the AI chooses the routes for each subordinate units which you can either accept or manually adjust if you desire.

I hope I've answered more questions than you have developed reading this. Basically, there aren't any plans to give the AI of any of these games active graphics or boundaries to do what you propose. I guess it would be fine as an option, and would surely add something to your style or desired type of gameplay. Developers, however, have to weigh the cost of code changes against the bottom line.

Good discussion starter too! Thanks for ordering RT, pamak, and don't hesitate to ask questions or continue to throw ideas around. Who knows, perhaps, if there is enough desire for what you propose, Pat Proctor may implement your idea or others you might have into the code for the next game or even in a patch for RT!

Curt Pangracs

[Pat Proctor]

There was a game, a long time ago (maybe ten years or more) called "Patriot" (I think it was from 360). I still have it on 3.5 inch floppy, and I think it still runs. But I must say (and I'm sorry if you are out there, Mike Robel) that it was excruciatingly boring.

But what I remember about the game was that it was a lot like the "Warfighter" simulation we use in the active army, in that the "icons" represent battalions and brigades full of vehicles, rather than full of companies and platoons.

What's my point? Well, the other memorable thing was that, rather than assigning paths or targets or something to units, you gave them boundaries and objectives and told them "attack or defend". The game then fought out the rest.

So, (and I'm not knocking it, but) it is not a new idea. But the implementation has yet to be perfected.

I am not sure that, at the scale of Raging Tiger or Armored Task Force (or any of the upcoming ATF Engine games) it makes a lot of sense. I COULD see an optional rule that restricts the player ONLY to HIS boundary, as depicted on the map. But I DO NOT see a lot of utility to letting him set boundaries for his subordinate units, because this is not how (at least the US Army) fights. In modern, heavy, mechanized forces, company boundaries are rarely, if ever established. Rather, companies are given axes of advance, directions of advance, objectives, and support by fire or attack by fire positions. This is, essentially, what you do when you use "Missions" in the ATF Engine.

(Company boundaries ARE more common in light infantry operations, especially low-intensity search-and-attack type missions where everyone has their own sector to crawl over.)

I have had an operational wargame on the drawing board FOREVER. If I ever get around to doing it, I WILL implement what you are describing, because BATTALION boundaries are very common in modern operations.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

DA is better suited for that fine tuning imo.

Pat: don't you DARE start an operational game until I've got my hot little mits on AATF :D

[Pat Proctor]

Like I said, its been on the drawing board FOREVER :)

[kbluck]

Like I said, its been on the drawing board FOREVER :)

Maybe you need to farm out some of your coding. If only you could find a modern wargaming enthusiast fluent in C++ who doesn't mind working on spec...

:whist:

--- Kevin