Okay I have tried the ATF demos...

[Bil H]

...and I love what I have seen! So much so that the day after first downloading it, I ordered TSATC.. still waiting for it to arrive though.

Although I see so much to like in this game, I do see some room for improvement... I love the orders process, the contour map display, the operational graphics (although that could have been carried further IMO, more in a bit), the realistic feel of the sim, etc... it works very well as is, and I am happy to see that with AATF a lot of my list (like damage for units, instead of either dead or alive states) are being addressed.

Bio: I am a former US Army Intelligence Analyst and now I do 3D and 2D graphics for the litigation world... from time to time for games (most recently I did the map graphics for COTA). I have BETA tested all of the CM games, and all the Airborne Assault games.

Caveat: I make these comments from my limited exposure to primarily TSATC demo.. (I have only glanced at the others.. although the infantry only scenarios in TFW got me very excited)... if I make a comment that is incorrect or off base please don't hesitate to put me in my place.


First off, I wonder why with a sim of this depth that communications aren't modelled in depth... this will be even more important for the WW2 game, where quality and amount of comm gear varied from unit to unit, but is important for modern periods as well. This should effect the length of time it takes for orders to be implemented. This could even effect friendly FOW for player owned units.


I would love to see some in-game drawing tools. Something to mark important terrain, events, etc...


I would love to see as a toggle, the mission graphics for a selected unit (or even have this as a toggle for all units).

Currently once I give a mission, like Attack By Fire I place the locations, etc. then when I hit execute I never see these graphics again. Perhaps I'm missing something?



In Scenario Brief... I think this is a scenario designer issue, but I would love to have more information on the briefing map and in the briefing itself about what the friendly units on my shoulders are doing... also, shouldn't the in-game knowledge of these friendly units be more apparant than just what my units can see?


Operational graphics. I think for the most part these are well done... I really do not like the picture icons in any of the games I have seen so far... but I think applying individual equipment operational graphics would go a long way towards improving the usefulness and clarity of the graphics.

I really think, and I hope I don't hurt anybody's feelings, that the picture icons really cheapen the realistic feeling of the games.

Perhaps this is a mod I can work on when I get into the game more.



In Options, when selecting Display Icons, I find it odd to be forced to choose Veh/Teams, Platoons, and Companies... instead I would like to see this done hierarchically (SP?) for example by echelon:
-Top echelon (Company and independant units)
-Middle echelon (Platoons and independant vehicles/teams)
-Bottom echelon (all vehicles/teams).

Often I use Company as my visible icons, and miss any independant Platoons that would normally be attached to the BN HQ.



Battalion HQ... as long as I am mentioning them ;) ... why is the Battalion HQ group not represented on the map? They are an important part of the Battalion which we are commanding and should be able to influence actions at their location... especially if Communications nets are modelled.

Again, perhaps this is a scenario designer issue, or is there more to it?


I really hope this list isn't too bold for a first post in here... I do love the game system, and am looking forward to spending more time with the game and learning the ins and outs.. perhaps even contributing to the community with graphics mods or scenarios in the future.

Regards,
Bil Hardenberger

[Pat Proctor]

Thanks for your purchase. I am glad to here you like the game.

I would love to see as a toggle, the mission graphics for a selected unit (or even have this as a toggle for all units).

Currently once I give a mission, like Attack By Fire I place the locations, etc. then when I hit execute I never see these graphics again. Perhaps I'm missing something?

This is implemented in AATF. When you select a hierarchy, you see its missions. If you select multiple hierarchies, you see all of their missions.

A couple of comments boil down, if I can paraphrase, to "why isn't command friction implemented". The simple answer is that it FEELS like a bug, when you are playing it. In pre-BETA playtesting, with communications LOS and mission delay implemented, playtesters HATED it. They felt they were fighting the interface and constantly re-gave missions until they were finally received and obeyed.

I can see their point. Think of your time in a TOC, at any level. Did you ever feel like (or in fact end up) throwing a hand mike because you couldn't get through to the guy on the other end, or even communicate with him. Now imagine having to deal with it in a game.

I agree that it would be more realistic, but, ultimately, I had to ask, does it make the game less FUN. Ditto for a lot of other things: fuel, medivac, maintenance... the list goes on. There are thousands of directions I could go with the current model in order to expand the dimensions of game play and add to the realism (after all, warfare is the most complex activity in which humans participate). I guide decisions on which direction to take by what is going to make the game more FUN. Because, at the end of the day, that is why we play games.

All of that having been said, I DO appreciate the input. I am especial intrigued by your unit-drawing idea. I will consider all of these in detail.

[Bil H]

This is implemented in AATF. When you select a hierarchy, you see its missions. If you select multiple hierarchies, you see all of their missions..

Excellent, I thought this might be the case.

A couple of comments boil down, if I can paraphrase, to "why isn't command friction implemented". The simple answer is that it FEELS like a bug, when you are playing it. In pre-BETA playtesting, with communications LOS and mission delay implemented, playtesters HATED it. They felt they were fighting the interface and constantly re-gave missions until they were finally received and obeyed.

I can see their point. Think of your time in a TOC, at any level. Did you ever feel like (or in fact end up) throwing a hand mike because you couldn't get through to the guy on the other end, or even communicate with him. Now imagine having to deal with it in a game.


Unfortunately IMO when you dilute this effect in reality what you are doing is doing away with any chance of recreating an OODA loop effect... perhaps this is an example of where you can apply toggles to give the player the opportunity to select whatever amount of delay makes him happy... COTA does this with command delay selections made when loading the scenario, from no delay to painfully realistic.

If you had this in at one time (sounds like you did) then it shouldn't be too hard to re-apply it ;)

I know when Airborne Assault first added command dealys there was a lot of compalints, but now I know of few players who do not use it. It adds a lot to the gaming experience.

Perhaps the problem was that the player could not see that anything was in the works.. where if you are going to allow showing the unit mission symbols then the player will see that planning is going on, and they will at least have the satisfaction that the order ws received.. just not acted upon yet.


I agree that it would be more realistic, but, ultimately, I had to ask, does it make the game less FUN. Ditto for a lot of other things: fuel, medivac, maintenance... the list goes on. There are thousands of directions I could go with the current model in order to expand the dimensions of game play and add to the realism (after all, warfare is the most complex activity in which humans participate). I guide decisions on which direction to take by what is going to make the game more FUN. Because, at the end of the day, that is why we play games.

This is interesting to me.. because when I read the posts from this group I hear a highly experienced group of players, most with military experience, who love this game because it is realistic.. like most of these types, I find the FUN in the realism.

All of that having been said, I DO appreciate the input. I am especial intrigued by your unit-drawing idea. I will consider all of these in detail.

I appreciate your feedback. Thanks for creating these games, great stuff!

One question you might have missed though... why isn't the Battalion HQ element present on the map?

Thanks,
Bil

[Kegel]

"I would love to see some in-game drawing tools. Something to mark important terrain, events, etc..."

THAT is a great idea!

[Pat Proctor]

One question you might have missed though... why isn't the Battalion HQ element present on the map?

Mostly because commo and delay of orders is not modeled. There is no IMPACT to losing the headquarters, so it is just another unit you have to manage.

If a company or platoon headquarters is killed, the company or platoon can no longer receive no missions or formations. But, since there are no BN missions or formations, losing the BN headquarters would have no effect on gameplay.

[JamesBailey]

Hey Bil-

Don't know if you remember me, but I was also very involved with CM, especially with CMMC1. I bought ATF a few weeks ago after being out of wargames for two years or so (deployed to and from Afghanistan w/ my Guard Battalion). Scary that two guys from CM have picked up ATF at nearly the same time. In any event, I'm finding ATF very well done and challenging - a real nice return to wargaming. One thing the game stresses is combined arms and its absolutely essentially to have all your platforms - direct, indirect, air, ADA, etc - working together. Other games have touched on this, but few have mastered it as well as ATF.

I haven't played TSATC yet other than demo, but I'm comtemplating a Lebanon 2006 campaign. I have the revelant ~300 sq klicks of UTM grid at 1:50k that I need for ground to fight on; just need some more ATF experience, a few umps and half a dozen players to get a bang-up campaign going. I might hold off until AATF comes out as that game engine appears robuster and more user-friendly. More on this later.

Anyways, nice to meet you again and hope to hear from you frequently on these forums. Always remember - the hull-down M1A2 is a beautiful thing! :flag:

-James Bailey

[Bil H]

Hey Bil-

Don't know if you remember me, but I was also very involved with CM, especially with CMMC1. I bought ATF a few weeks ago after being out of wargames for two years or so (deployed to and from Afghanistan w/ my Guard Battalion). Scary that two guys from CM have picked up ATF at nearly the same time. In any event, I'm finding ATF very well done and challenging - a real nice return to wargaming.

James of course I remember, you lived in DC then didn't you? Scary times those early CMMC1 tests ;)

One thing the game stresses is combined arms and its absolutely essentially to have all your platforms - direct, indirect, air, ADA, etc - working together. Other games have touched on this, but few have mastered it as well as ATF.

James, I think this game handles that more than adequately.. with the attack time setting among other settings in the Mission settings dialogue it should be quite easy to coordinate formations (of course I say that without much in-game experience)... I am really looking forward to getting into the full game so I can pester Pat with more foolishness :halo:

Cheers,
Bil

[JamesBailey]

James of course I remember, you lived in DC then didn't you? Scary times those early CMMC1 tests ;)

Bil - I still live in DC area (house in Arlington, work in downtown DC). We completed CMMC1 in Nov 2002 (it sure was rocky at points!). Some AAR stuff available here: http://www.cmmc2.org/CMMC1.aspx (the Flash files in the multimedia section are pretty good overviews).


James, I think this game handles that more than adequately.. with the attack time setting among other settings in the Mission settings dialogue it should be quite easy to coordinate formations (of course I say that without much in-game experience)... I am really looking forward to getting into the full game so I can pester Pat with more foolishness :halo:

Cheers,
Bil

Bil- agreed on the game mechanics/interface. ProSim is good on that front. In theory, its easy to coordinate your combined arms. Problems start to snowball when you either have f*'ed up your battlefield prep, your intel on ECOA is bad, or you simply don't have a true combined arms team (due to scenario OoB) :nuts: Nothing worse than having a pair of Frogfoots doing laps over your company's BPs with nothing but .50cal and spitballs for AD!

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the complete TSATC once you get it (I only have ATF at this point).

[John Osborne]

Dam James and Bil using ATF :D Going to have to dust it off and play a scenario against one of you guys :yummy: James, I'm interested about the idea of using AATF on a modern campagin. I have the Cocat II source code and I have Cocat II for WW2 and for modern battles. Let me know if I can help in any way.

John

[Bil H]

John, you here too? Don't you have some work to do? ;)

Give me some time to get into the game once I receive it and I'll play you a scenario or two... do you have TSATC?

Bil

[John Osborne]

John, you here too? Don't you have some work to do? ;)

Give me some time to get into the game once I receive it and I'll play you a scenario or two... do you have TSATC?

Bil
I am working playing war games :laugh: here at work.

Yes I do have TSATC as well as the rest of them :p

John

[Bil H]

John, I'd be interested in your thoughts about comms and a better command friction (Pat's word) representation in this game series as laid out in my first post in this thread.

You have played these games more than I so you will have a better idea than I do what effect it would have. Personally I find it odd that at this scale something as crucial as communications can be ignored. :rolleyes:

Bil

[CPangracs]

As the designer of TSATC, I will address only those things that apply to design and artistic decisions/issues,...kind of:



In Scenario Brief... I think this is a scenario designer issue, but I would love to have more information on the briefing map and in the briefing itself about what the friendly units on my shoulders are doing... also, shouldn't the in-game knowledge of these friendly units be more apparant than just what my units can see?

This was a conscious decision I made to try and replicate the urgency of the battles and the almost complete lack of formal operations orders. I could have laid everything out using the 5 para process, but that wouldn't have been realistic at all. Most times, commanders had little idea who, exactly, was on their flanks, or exactly where they were until positively identified, which was no small feat in 1973! I also made a conscious decision to continue the same feel for the future scenarios for continuity's sake.

Operational graphics. I think for the most part these are well done... I really do not like the picture icons in any of the games I have seen so far... but I think applying individual equipment operational graphics would go a long way towards improving the usefulness and clarity of the graphics.

I really think, and I hope I don't hurt anybody's feelings, that the picture icons really cheapen the realistic feeling of the games.

Perhaps this is a mod I can work on when I get into the game more.

This was another conscious decision, and it was made in response to community suggestion. Many wargamers, believe it or not, are NOT familiar with equipment or even NATO symbols, so I decided to go with very clear and easily defined picture pieces. As usual, you can always use the view dropdown to change to the NATO symbols. It is also possible to create equipment symbols and associate them with individual vehicles as a mod (it was the very first thing I did with ATF over 3 years ago, which led to me designing games for ProSIM). Pat Proctor and I felt it would better serve the community to go this route with the picture pieces for TSATC, and, as usual, not everyone can be pleased! ;)

Battalion HQ... as long as I am mentioning them ;) ... why is the Battalion HQ group not represented on the map? They are an important part of the Battalion which we are commanding and should be able to influence actions at their location... especially if Communications nets are modelled.

Again, perhaps this is a scenario designer issue, or is there more to it?

Although it's not REALLY a designer issue, there IS a communications "range" you can set in a scenario for each level of the hierarchy, which is what Pat was talking about when a headquarters gets destroyed. I've always filled this part of the scenario development phase with realistic distances based on the type of radio in each vehicle or based on the visual distance of the longest-ranged weapon system for vehicles without radios. Never needed to test it! Maybe Pat can shed some light on it, but I think it means that units given an order at that hierarchy level that have subordinates outside of the designated commo range will not get the order.

I really hope this list isn't too bold for a first post in here... I do love the game system, and am looking forward to spending more time with the game and learning the ins and outs.. perhaps even contributing to the community with graphics mods or scenarios in the future.

Regards,
Bil Hardenberger

I'm extremely happy to find others as "into" the game as I am. The more I play it and build with it, the more I like it. It definitely isn't a game you buy one week and defeat the next!

As for graphics and scenarios, the best thing about the ATF series is its flexibility. It allows people to be creative, and it creates extended value for your gaming dollar.

So, welcome aboard!

Curt

[JamesBailey]

John-

would love to play Pact vs your blues anytime. At this time, I only have ATF - I am working Fulda over before attempting Golan!

RE AATF & Lebanon campaign. Just in thinking stages right now. Need AATF before rolling and more thought/planning. But it could be a interesting (8-12 IDF combat bdes vs. our best estimate of Hezbollah's OoB/TOE).

[CPangracs]

John-

would love to play Pact vs your blues anytime. At this time, I only have ATF - I am working Fulda over before attempting Golan!

RE AATF & Lebanon campaign. Just in thinking stages right now. Need AATF before rolling and more thought/planning. But it could be a interesting (8-12 IDF combat bdes vs. our best estimate of Hezbollah's OoB/TOE).

I would warn you against trying to fit more than a Brigade on any one ATF or AATF scenario - you'd need the latest Supercomputer to run it! ;)

[Pat Proctor]

Although it's not REALLY a designer issue, there IS a communications "range" you can set in a scenario for each level of the hierarchy, which is what Pat was talking about when a headquarters gets destroyed. I've always filled this part of the scenario development phase with realistic distances based on the type of radio in each vehicle or based on the visual distance of the longest-ranged weapon system for vehicles without radios. Never needed to test it! Maybe Pat can shed some light on it, but I think it means that units given an order at that hierarchy level that have subordinates outside of the designated commo range will not get the order.

There is a spot to put command ranges in for platoons and companies, but it is not implemented right now. I encourage designers, in their scenarios, to fill this value in, as it will probably, some day be implemented.

As I re-read my previous post, I realize I seemed to indicate it would never get implemented. What I intended to communicate was that I just felt there were a lot of OTHER things that were more pressing to implement. I do, someday, hope to address the commo/command issue (honestly, I have to wait for computers to get a little faster, because of all the additional LOS computations required).

[Bil H]

As I re-read my previous post, I realize I seemed to indicate it would never get implemented. What I intended to communicate was that I just felt there were a lot of OTHER things that were more pressing to implement. I do, someday, hope to address the commo/command issue (honestly, I have to wait for computers to get a little faster, because of all the additional LOS computations required).

Good enough for me. Thanks for the clarification Pat.

Any chance at getting a peek at that list? ;)

Bil

[Bil H]

I would warn you against trying to fit more than a Brigade on any one ATF or AATF scenario - you'd need the latest Supercomputer to run it! ;)

Curt, James is talking of creating a campaign game... where some other program would be used for the Operational layer, and ATF, or AATF would be used to resolve the tactical battles.

[John Osborne]

Thats correct we will be using the latest Cocat II, which I'm working on, for the operational aspect and use AATF to fight the battles on which will be base on battalions and below. Correct me if I'm wrong James.

John

[Pat Proctor]

If you guys embark on that, and would like to write an AAR/article with screen shots, for publication, contact me at my private e-mail:

pproctor@prosimco.com

I am certain there will be interest in such a project.

[John Osborne]

If it does happen it wont be until next year at least. Or if AATF gets release this year :D

JohnO

[JamesBailey]

Ozzie is essentially correct. On both counts.

We would resolve the campaign above the battalion level outside of AATF/ATF, with the battalion and below fight done in AATF/ATF. It appears to me, and its confirmed by '82 Lebanon (Op Peace for Galilee - if ever there was a mis-named operation), the decisive battles in Lebanon are IDF Battalion Task Forces vs Hezbollah coys (and PLO/Syrian coys back in '82).

It also appears Hezbollah is conventionally organized up to brigade level (of the light infantry variety) with related guerilla forces operating around and secondarily to the conventional force structure. Involvement by conventional, armored Syrian forces is also a plausible option (again supported by '82), which we could add to the scenario design.

The ground is well-mapped in 1:50k with lots of unusual stuff (coastal, urban, rivers, valley and big mountains). Its not an overwhelmingly large AO (perhaps 350 sq klicks). Its both timely given recent developments and as a 'look forward' into possible future.

AATF, as long as its got the heavy IDF armor models, looks like the perfect medium to resolve such a campaign. IDF air assault forces play an important role, given rugged terrain and river lines (I think the Para Bdes are air assault). Of course, IDF SF units are playing an important, air mobile role as well.

I am thinking about an essential task list to possibly get the project off the ground. We would have a website, forums and all sorts of sitrep and AAR material which would make for some nice marketing exposure for AATF :smoke:

[CPangracs]

You would need a modified database, as the AATF database will essentially be light and won't include current Israeli/Syrain/Lebanese equipment. Let me know if I can help.

Curt

[JamesBailey]

Roger that Curt. Thanks for offer of help w/ TO&E models! You think it would make sense to use TSATC as its already got many of these models and is focused on the area of interest or does it make sense to wait for all the new bells and whistles of AATF?

[Bil H]

James, seeing as AATF will be able to be applied to TSATC when it is released, why not start the pre-planning, database creation with TSATC?

By the time you are ready to kickoff the campaign AATF should be out.

BTW, cool of Curt to offer his services!

[John Osborne]

James, seeing as AATF will be able to be applied to TSATC when it is released, why not start the pre-planning, database creation with TSATC?

By the time you are ready to kickoff the campaign AATF should be out.

BTW, cool of Curt to offer his services!

I could help by offering my services to you guys by helping with the database, for a small fee :clown: I could also start on the Cocat II with the data and the map.

John

[JamesBailey]

Bil and Ozzie are essentially correct on using the time it takes to get AATF out as our "prep time in the assembly area". Cross the LD NET D+ a few weeks after AATF release.

[eds]

James if you do get a Lebanon campaign going could you post your finished maps of the area on this site please.

[JamesBailey]

James if you do get a Lebanon campaign going could you post your finished maps of the area on this site please.

Wilco eds.

[John Osborne]

Bil and Ozzie are essentially correct on using the time it takes to get AATF out as our "prep time in the assembly area". Cross the LD NET D+ a few weeks after AATF release.
James, let me know where you want me to start on Cocat II. If you can send the maps to me I will be able to scan them in for Cocat. So that we can get the map issue out of the way :D Bil, I'm assuming is going to help as well?

John

[Bil H]

John, never assume anything ;)

Seriously, I'd be happy to help out if I can.. I need to learn the game some first.

Bil