Build 160

[Dr Zaius]

The latest version of POA-2 has been posted. This is from the list:

Added/Adjusted:

- Added info for original reporting unit in S-2 and also Loc Info form (for
mouse-over).
- Adjusted sighting for passenger units (now degraded based on carrier
characteristics).
- Updated “Show Prohibited Locs” tool on Unit Movement form - it wasn’t
analyzing in all directions. Also added slight shading for locations “not
checked” (beyond 2000 meter range) and fixed off map display issues.
- Adjusted Reporting form for re-sizeability (can fir over Force Tree display).
- If reporting form is up, that progress bar is used instead of separate form.


Things that didn't work right:

- Fixed problems where units would increase strength - caused by Firing Grp
anomaly.
- Fixed AI adjust ROF’s - was randomly giving a c++ error.
- Fixed c++ error introduced in build 155 for smoke/dust blowing.
- Fixed AI movement issue in routines to determining best HQ unit movement
objective.

 

[tws71669]

Ready for Prime Time!

Ya'know... I've been playing this since it came out. Now I have to say that with these latest fixes and the additonal intel data bringing the sim up to these standards makes me say it's really nice.
I like it better than my other wargame choices right now. the graphics are very good, everything has a millitary feel and reasoning to it.
I have run several scenarios without a C++ error and what features I have tested seem to do what they should. My guys change MOPP status, my UAV's work and my CAS and ARTY do as they should.
This is a game ready for prime time. I can't think of any major problems right now, but I'm sure little bugs will pop up as they always do. I have Matrixgames War in the Pacific and it's a monster of little bugs that crash it. So this is really looking nice. I hope folks take a look at it again and not as a "work in progress" but as a very playable war-sim.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I still have serious reservations about POA-2 as a whole.

1. I don't like the way the interface is set up. I have to search for information that I need while information I will probably only reference once during the entire battle is hogging up valuable screen space. I don't need to see the OOB tree nor do I need to see the weather all the time. The terrain info is redundant as this info is already displayed in the moveable popup window. The changes Scott made to the combat phase window are helpful, but I don't like this thing. I would much prefer it be "docked" somehow or integrated into the interface.

2. The composite units seem to help, but I still get confused on what unit is what. The whole way units are implemented is still quite confusing and strange compared to other wargames.

3. It's too hard to see what's going on with artillery. When artillery impacts the map, you hear a sound and the map displays a red marker. It's difficult to follow exactly what is happening and why. It would be helpful if there were some decent animation to display what's happening with fire support.

4. The sim does seem to perform better than before, but the way combat results are displayed is both bland and difficult to follow at times. The player is either inundated with a blizzard of information or has no idea what the hell is happening. Take your pick.

I have serious doubts that POA-2 is ever going to gather any momentum within the community. For starters, the map making process almost physically painful and this virtually strangles further scenario development. While it is possible to make new maps, they require a massive amount of effort, effort, and you have to pay additional money for the editor.

I played two scenario this morning with build 160 and I got two C++ errors. Still, I was able to complete most of the battles. But I have to admit that POA-2 still is not enjoyable for me to play. It may be neat from a technical standpoint, but it's just no fun (yet) to use. Perhaps that will change at some point.

 

[tws71669]

I still have serious reservations about POA-2 as a whole.

1. I don't like the way the interface is set up. I have to search for information that I need while information I will probably only reference once during the entire battle is hogging up valuable screen space. I don't need to see the OOB tree nor do I need to see the weather all the time. The terrain info is redundant as this info is already displayed in the moveable popup window. The changes Scott made to the combat phase window are helpful, but I don't like this thing. I would much prefer it be "docked" somehow or integrated into the interface.

2. The composite units seem to help, but I still get confused on what unit is what. The whole way units are implemented is still quite confusing and strange compared to other wargames.

3. It's too hard to see what's going on with artillery. When artillery impacts the map, you hear a sound and the map displays a red marker. It's difficult to follow exactly what is happening and why. It would be helpful if there were some decent animation to display what's happening with fire support.

4. The sim does seem to perform better than before, but the way combat results are displayed is both bland and difficult to follow at times. The player is either inundated with a blizzard of information or has no idea what the hell is happening. Take your pick.

I have serious doubts that POA-2 is ever going to gather any momentum within the community. For starters, the map making process almost physically painful and this virtually strangles further scenario development. While it is possible to make new maps, they require a massive amount of effort, effort, and you have to pay additional money for the editor.

I played two scenario this morning with build 160 and I got two C++ errors. Still, I was able to complete most of the battles. But I have to admit that POA-2 still is not enjoyable for me to play. It may be neat from a technical standpoint, but it's just no fun (yet) to use. Perhaps that will change at some point.

those are good criticisms. The interface can be made cleaner just by x-clicking away the force tree so I don't see that as a real big deal. Artillary shows what unit fired what kind of round for what kind of effects in the combat resolution box, so I don't know what other info you would need.
The unit stuff is still a little odd to me, I'm trying to figure out how the units are organized for orders but I think that's because I haven't read up on compoisite units like I should. Overall though if I give an order to a unit it generally starts to do what I expect. Loaded units sometimes muck things up for me but I just limit the order to the carrying unit and then it makes more sense.
Players can make the map area as clean as you like by just relying on popup data or a overlay information window that can be minimized, everything can be x-away or minimized so I don't have much issue with that. Most windows can be clicked to remain on top too. I remeber Harpoon2 where you had either On/Off with no other choice and that was a cluttered and redundant screen.
Combat results show what I would think makes sense- Who fired what at what enemy unit with what kind of effect. I don't know what else could be added.
Map making....
Oh Dear God, when does the nightmare end? :nuts:
I have given my honest best at trying to follow the tutorial and have had limited success. I understand that the results will be painfully realistic, but I stress the word "painfully".
It appears in my opinion to be the most overcomplicted, tempermental and unstable task to create a decent topographic map. I know the deep amount of detail is what is making it so heavy a workload- but some of it is really more like voodoo mapmaking. I mean, follow the directions, then slay a small farm animal and sacrafice it to the digital lords of mapland, dance three times in a circle around your monitor and say the Lord's Prayer backwards all while wearing a Darth Vader costume and MAYBE you will have a map!

So I am astounded that there are these handful of nice maps that came with the game and I pity the poor human slave whom HPS has locked in a dungeon somewhere doing this work.

But it is growing into the fun catagory for me because I see some really interesting things happening when I play and it seems to harken back to my experiences when I first played Harpoon2 and Steel Panthers a bit.

And hey- Things can only get better right?

 

[Dr Zaius]

I may eventually try my hand at creating some really first class maps so that people can see just what POA-2 is capable of.

 

[cbelva]

Don,

I have not purchased ADC2 just because I am cautious in putting out additional $$$ if the game is not going to go somewhere. I personally like the program. It is not the definitive wargame, but it has its good points and it has been getting better.

Don, I would like to encourage you to produce some additional maps. I am currently working on another scenario I hope to release soon. It is an air assault scenario. All infantry with a few mortars thrown in. It uses the East Timor map that Andrew posted in the map download section.

The program has stabalized quite a bit from what it was. I can now play without worrying if the dreaded C++ error will shut me down. I have also found the the program is quite adaptable. Several times I have found different ways of doing things. I have played around with the composite units, and while I find it odd at times, I do find that I can normally get them to do what I want them too. I have found two ways to handle carriers. You can make the carrier part of the composite unit. In that configuration, you can give a movement order to the carrier, an unload order, and then another movement order for the whole mess to move dismounted. The drawback with that is that the carrier moves along with the dismounts. If you don't want the carrier to move with the dismounts, you can go into the composite unit configuation window and remove the carrier from the composite unit. That way, you can move the composite unit when it is dismounted without the carrier moving with them. The drawback with this configuration is that you cannot give a dismount order and a movement order in the same turn. You have to wait until dismounts are unloaded before you can issue movement orders.

In playing around with my air assault scenario, I have found that infantry combat is "messy". You have to pay attention to you squads. They tend to break apart into detacments when under fire. At first I found it frustrating, but then I realized that this is a small part of the frustration that a plt leader or company Co must feel in trying to manuever their men when the bullets start flying. You also have to keep an eye on the supression and moral level of your squads. You can't just run them thru fire. I found that fire and manuever works very well when moving against the enemy.

 

[tws71669]

Morale..... yuck.
When I played CIS against Gary I was constantly watching my morale fluctuate. I lost an entire platoon of men to a tank attack as they were unloading, and the squads which were adjacent to them had their morale drop to wavering until I could hooch them up in a village hex to sit it out for 10 minutes. Makes sense, if I saw 20 some of my friends obliterated 100m away from me, I would be pretty messed up for a while too.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I had a very long and pleasant conversation with Scott today. While I certainly can't speak for him, here is part of what I took away from it.

POA-2 isn't going away. Scott is working on it full time and plans to continue to do so. He is aware of our criticisms and plans to implement most of our ideas in due time. Having said that, he is not planning to dumb down the sim in any way in an attempt to give it mass appeal. He does want to make it better than it currently is though, and that means refining some things.

We talked for a while about the whole map editing process. He is well aware that it is very difficult, but there is no easy way around this without diminishing the game's flexibility. It is possible to create rather open maps fairly easily once you understand how ADC works. I will create one or two maps so that people can get an idea of what is possible, and this may help to generate wider interest in the sim. The Iraq map I created a while back was mainly intended to make a good screanshot. I never really intended for people to play on that as it may be a poor design.

 

[Joao Lima]

I will create one or two maps so that people can get an idea of what is possible, and this may help to generate wider interest in the sim.

It would be rather good if you could also make a 'rookie map makers guide'... If it's not asking too much that is, since sometimes manuals just make things more difficult than they really are...

 

[tws71669]

Don THANKS.

I have been able to import a single BMP map and scale it to the correct size for POA2 but placing objects either Pri/Sec gets very messy. It would be nice to have a few tutorials in a step onoe, step two, step three kinda fashion for getting a topo map scanned and completed.
One of the problems I had with the Nick Bell tutorial was that it has a lot of material written for people who are using scanned map images.
I have some very good single file BMP's that I scaled and would like for simplicity sake of using a single BMP rather than scanning and stitching.
Besides, as cumbersome as POA2 sometimes is, it makes gameplay smoother I think for a smaller map than a huge scanned one. Calcs and reesolution are quicker obviously.
Maybe you could approach it from the side of taking a single BMP and scaling it into ADC2?
Thanks.
-T

 

[Gary]

Hi T,

how do you feel about trying another PBEM.

Gary

 

[tws71669]

I've been thinking the exact same thing.
Let me mull over the scenarios tonight. I'd like to try something a little bigger. Maybe you would like to create one yourself real quick and send it too me. Let me play CIS again.

 

[RedMike]

Hey, I'd be happy to try out a PBEM game. Haven't tried it since way back when, and it was a bust at that stage. Anyone interested give me a shout. Onwards and upwards!

 

[tws71669]

hmmmm.
Sounds like I am going to be a busy busy little wargamer here...heh heh.
Okay RM... tell me which scenario you want to play and what side or create a custom one and email it to me.
I prefer playing CIS.
Of course, this means I will need to write another AAR in said section.

 

[Choowee]

I would also like to give pbem a go. A greater scenario selection would be nice, but if we can kick start some good fights here and now, there may be loads of interest followed by new maps and scenarios (although what I have been following concerning the editor leaves me discouraged). TWS, your last AAR was outstanding. Look forward to the next.

 

[tws71669]

I would also like to give pbem a go. A greater scenario selection would be nice, but if we can kick start some good fights here and now, there may be loads of interest followed by new maps and scenarios (although what I have been following concerning the editor leaves me discouraged). TWS, your last AAR was outstanding. Look forward to the next.

Choowee THANKS!
It turned out I had the second or third most read AAR on the board!
How's about I throw together a little matchup on my Tikrit Highway map for us to fight over?

email me and tell me what you think or if you want to try a stock scenario, I'm open to either.
-T

 

[cbelva]

The scenario editor is adequate, it is the map making editor is the problem. We need some noble soul who would be willing to design some maps which we could then build upon.

 

[Dr Zaius]

The scenario editor is adequate, it is the map making editor is the problem. We need some noble soul who would be willing to design some maps which we could then build upon.

I'm working on one.

 

[Joao Lima]

I'm working on one.

A map editor?

 

[tws71669]

A map editor?

I think he means a map making tutorial.
A map editor is already inculded in ADC2 which is needed to make maps for POA2