Considering DA Purchase but have ???

[MikeSinn]

I have been reviewing this message board for a while now and DA sounds like a game I could really enjoy. However, I have seen references to a new version that will soon be available. Can anyone comment on whether this will be a full version upgrade or a patch? I don't want to buy the game this week only to find a new version is availble next week

Thanks,
Mike

 

[CPangracs]

I have been reviewing this message board for a while now and DA sounds like a game I could really enjoy. However, I have seen references to a new version that will soon be available. Can anyone comment on whether this will be a full version upgrade or a patch? I don't want to buy the game this week only to find a new version is availble next week

Thanks,
Mike

It will most likely be a patch, and a link will surely be posted here and at HPS's site.

 

[MikeSinn]

Curt,

Thanks for the quick reply. Guess I will step up and take the plunge...

Given the apparent complexity/depth of this game and my complete lack of operational competency, I will probably become a frequent visitor to this forum...

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Dr Zaius]

I talked to Jim about this several weeks ago and I'm not sure if the very newest version is going to be released to the general public or not. Jim and I are still talking about a number of DA-related items and I will pass on information when it is appropriate.

 

[James Sterrett]

The trouble is that many of the latest additions for CGSC really break the single-player game because the AI can't handle the new features, and programming AI for them would apparently be a royal pain.

 

[HercMighty]

How Does this compare to POA2? Also was there a demo? I thought at one time that there was but now I don't see one. MAybe my imagination at work.

Regards

 

[nilsderondeau]

The trouble is that many of the latest additions for CGSC really break the single-player game because the AI can't handle the new features, and programming AI for them would apparently be a royal pain.

Are you, as the expression goes, at liberty to say more about these additions for CGSC?

 

[James Sterrett]

There's no demo for Decisive Action, unfortunately. Bug Jim Lunsford about that.


Highlights of the changes to the CGSC version include:

ATO tool: You must plan all your air missions on the setup and 0000-0200 turns. Missions are either Interdiction (with a target point and a planned target type) or CAS with a specific supported unit. On other turns, you can change interdiction to CAS, and who CAS supports, but not the timing. If there's no appropriate target at the time slot, then you lose the sorties.

Logistics: Now it's either fully manual, or not modelled at all. Convoys are no longer automatically generated, but are special units in the game with a carrying capacity. Supply consumption rates can be set by unit, though we're really only worried about Class III and V (fuel and ammo). Convoys can be airlifted, and can have escorts assigned of up to battalion size (any ground combat or MP unit). We expect the loggies to be fully employed in our exercises; a division needs a minimum of about 20-25 convoys minimum running constantly.

Artillery is rather more complex, with more linkages for GS fires, more restrictive modeling of SEAD, and the option to require a counterfire radar to activate CFZs and CFFZs.

TAIs take 6 turns to become active if not placed at setup. [Though there's wrangling over this.]

UAVs only search at a single designated point in their flight path.

Trouble is, the AI hasn't got a clue how to use most of this (it cheats to get around this in our version, since we hardly ever use the AI except in testing); the coding for it would be quite complex, and Jim's kind of crunched for time.


None of the changes address some of the concerns you guys have about making shell units or breaking things down to companies at will etc.

 

[Secret Agent]

Dr. Sterrett, am I to understand that the changes you outlined are only for the CGSC version? (Please say 'yes' )

 

[James Sterrett]

Yes.

 

[pmaidhof]

ATO tool: You must plan all your air missions on the setup and 0000-0200 turns. Missions are either Interdiction (with a target point and a planned target type) or CAS with a specific supported unit. On other turns, you can change interdiction to CAS, and who CAS supports, but not the timing. If there's no appropriate target at the time slot, then you lose the sorties.

Excellent! (when desiring more detail)

Logistics: Now it's either fully manual, or not modelled at all. Convoys are no longer automatically generated, but are special units in the game with a carrying capacity. Supply consumption rates can be set by unit, though we're really only worried about Class III and V (fuel and ammo). Convoys can be airlifted, and can have escorts assigned of up to battalion size (any ground combat or MP unit). We expect the loggies to be fully employed in our exercises; a division needs a minimum of about 20-25 convoys minimum running constantly.

Fully Manual @ 25 Convoys per div to operate regualrly will overburden the casual player. "Play" without log modeling changes the game too much.

Artillery is rather more complex, with more linkages for GS fires, more restrictive modeling of SEAD, and the option to require a counterfire radar to activate CFZs and CFFZs.

Interested to find out more.

TAIs take 6 turns to become active if not placed at setup. [Though there's wrangling over this.]

Interesting, designer wants this to be an abstraction of various intelligence and collection assets while a 6 hour activation seems to be addressing one, perhaps two assets. I'd like to hear some of the wrangling over this. :devil:

UAVs only search at a single designated point in their flight path.

Would like to hear this discussed among the "gamers"

Trouble is, the AI hasn't got a clue how to use most of this (it cheats to get around this in our version, since we hardly ever use the AI except in testing); the coding for it would be quite complex,

Jim's kind of crunched for time.

:whist:

 

[James Sterrett]

Arty:

- Arty units attached to a combat unit will provide GS fires for the combat unit's subordinates.

- SEAD is more effective in pre-planned mode (place SEAD marker on a spotted ADA unit), significantly worst second is planned reactive (SEAD marker on a firing ADA unit), very distant third is unplanned reactive (no marker on firing ADA unit). SEAD Priority for helos works like planned reactive.

- Counterfire radars are as described below - in addition to needing a CFZ or CFFZ to trigger counterfire, you also need to have the CFZ and/or CFFZ in the arc (90 degree) of an active friendly counterfire radar unit.

Yes, manual log is a bit of a pain in some respects, but it's what the loggies want.


Recapping the internal arguments over the TAI.... well.... nah. Not going to go there. Nothing classified, just competing visions of what "ought to be". :halo:


The UAV model: UAVs get a sensor radius of Nkm (set by scenario designer); they "turn on" when they reach the designated orbit point, and hang out at that point until they reach bingo fuel. They detect out to the set radius when orbiting, but not en route to or from the point. It's a cheapo way of shutting down the abusive use of UAVs to cover most of the battlefield, and of representing the ability to cover an area, at the same time. Ideally, we'd have players draw in the operating zone with constraint to a given total area (no more than 25km^2 max, for example), but that's a lot more code.

 

[nilsderondeau]

The UAV model: UAVs get a sensor radius of Nkm (set by scenario designer); they "turn on" when they reach the designated orbit point, and hang out at that point until they reach bingo fuel. They detect out to the set radius when orbiting, but not en route to or from the point. It's a cheapo way of shutting down the abusive use of UAVs to cover most of the battlefield, and of representing the ability to cover an area, at the same time. Ideally, we'd have players draw in the operating zone with constraint to a given total area (no more than 25km^2 max, for example), but that's a lot more code.

Sounds good to me. Although I'm just learning. Sounds good to me as it cuts down on clicks and models decisionmaking in a cleaner fashion. I mean it forces you to think about what you are reconing and why and in support of what. Seems win-winish.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Jim and I had a long conversation about each of the major changes in the latest version several weeks ago. He is concerned that some of these changes, while perhaps making the game more useful in some respects as a training tool, will also tend to completely ruin it as a "wargame."

Jim's main point of concern is the rather radical changes that have been made to the logistics engine. I don't know any wargamer who doesn't want to see logistics modelled at all, but managing all the convoys manually could prove to be a backbreaking task in larger scenarios.

Almost none of these changes have been ported to the AI, and doing so would be very time intensive. As it stands now, DA has such a small civilian audience that it's probably not worth his time to make those changes. That being said, Jim was clear that he understands that once the game was marketed to civilian wargamers, this changed things a bit. He does care what the wargaming community thinks and he would like to see the DA fane base grow. The problem is that is will probably not grow without some additional features aimed squarely at the civilian wargamer crowd. Catch 22.

Jim informed me that it has always been his intent not to have to code diverge into two different directions. One direction being for the government and the other for wargamers. But it may be unavoidable at this point. Jim asked me to evaluate a copy of the latest build and provide him with feedback as to how these changes will affect the sim from our point of view. He is also open to suggestions and ideas specific to civilian wargamers. Will any of these proposals actually be implemented? I can't say. Jim has been working on DA non-stop for quite a while and at some point he would like to move on to more interesting wargames.

I have not evaluated the new build as of this time. My initial thoughts from talking to Jim is that some of these chages would be good for us, but some would not. I'm not sure if there is a possibility of getting a new public version with only a portion of the changes included. It could turn out that Jim will simply go with the idea of having two separate versions, and each version will contain enhancements aimed at pleasing the users of that version. There are two or three suggestions that I am planning to provide Jim within the next several days that ought to be fairly simplistic to implement. I don't know if any of this will see the light of day, but he did want me to pass on that he greatly appreciates our continued support and our interest in his game.

 

[Secret Agent]

Recapping the internal arguments over the TAI.... well.... nah. Not going to go there. Nothing classified, just competing visions of what "ought to be". :halo:

Let me guess...the people you were arguing with included John Osborne and Curt Pangracs. :devious:

PS: Do you think Mr. Lunsford would ever consider making a demo?

 

[nilsderondeau]

Jim's main point of concern is the rather radical changes that have been made to the logistics engine. I don't know any wargamer who doesn't want to see logistics modelled at all, but managing all the convoys manually could prove to be a backbreaking task in larger scenarios.

Having now run through NTC1 a couple of times I've a much better idea of how logistics functions in an operational environment (easy, considering I'm learning up from zero). Also very easy to see why this is such a difficult staff function. Kept finding myself wishing I had a G4 to handle all of that for me. Yeah, and it is an AI pain.

At first I didn't understand why you would manually plot resupply and then I started seeing convoys breaching minefields. All of this goes back to how the game is actually played: I'm convinced TacOps and DA are at their best when played team vs. team. I think, from a design standpoint, it is an interesting choice to forgo spending a bunch of time on the AI in favor of fostering more HTH play across the internet. (Jeez, how I hate those agony column threads wherein everybody bitches that the AI doesn't handle trucks or halftracks right....) Perhaps DA and TacOps could be candidates for an America's Army-type treatment: make it a recruiting tool for would-be staff officers and NCOs.

I'm joking, of course.

Cheers,
N.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Having now run through NTC1 a couple of times I've a much better idea of how logistics functions in an operational environment (easy, considering I'm learning up from zero). Also very easy to see why this is such a difficult staff function.

That's absolutely true. The vast majority of both wargamers and real life soldiers (even senior ones) don't really understand just how complicated a subject logistics is. Ask Curt and I'm sure he will concur with me that logistics is in many ways more complicated than the actual warfighting itself. Managing logistics for an operation the size of Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom is staggeringly complex and involves so many different players from so many different agencies that you could easily spend a career as an Army logistician and still have much to learn. It truly is truly beyond what most people can conceptualize.

During Iraqi Freedom I worked in a key staff position and a lot of what we were doing centered around logistics planning and getting information to the people who needed it. All I can say is that if they ever make a wargame that even comes close to modeling it...you couldn't pay me to play it.

I more or less like the way DA currently handles logistics. There's probably not enough detail there to satify a professional logistician (that's why Jim made the changes for the schoolhouse), but it's just about right for the wargamer.

 

[James Sterrett]

All I can say is that if they ever make a wargame that even comes close to modeling it...you couldn't pay me to play it.

JDLM: Joint Deployment Logistics Model. Loggies love it. It simulates combat simply as a source of demand.

 

[Secret Agent]

All I can say is that if they ever make a wargame that even comes close to modeling it...you couldn't pay me to play it.

$1,000/hour? :devious: Seriously, is it really that bad? :shock:

 

[Dr Zaius]

Seriously, is it really that bad?

I like the logistics model in DA. It's much better than what most wargames have, and it doesn't burden the player too much.

Managing logistics on a live battlefield is something you really have to experience to understand. Doing it properly is perhaps the most complicated task there is, and nothing but a non-stop headache. Armies that do it well will win wars.

During Desert Storm my viewpoint of logistics was simple: I needed stuff from my three aircraft, so we did whatever we had to do in order to get it. During Iraqi Freedom, I worked on a staff and learned a lot doing it. When you really boil it all down to its most basic level, working on a staff is about solving problems. And the problems seem to come from out of nowhere and as soon as you fix one, two more pop up in its place. After a while you begin to understand that an army on a battlefied is chaos in action. No matter what you do, you can never really make much of a dent in the chaos. But, you can teach leaders to accept the nature of war and work around it.

Senior officers and NCOs understand all too well that many things are going to go wrong on any operation, even with the most detailed planning. They also understand you can't plan for everything. And this is where First Sergeants, supply clerks, maintenance officers, and staff personnel (along with all kinds of support troops) really make a difference. It takes a really long time to train these people to be good at their jobs and have the experience to work through diverse situations. But they make all the difference in the world.

This aspect of war is one that is not glamorous and not one that is fun to read about. It's much more fun to read about Patton's ideas for invading Sicily than it is to read about staff planning and logistics for the operation. But it is hard to overstate just how important this stuff is. Many armies have tough soldiers who know how to shoot and fight. Fine. But very damn few have what I'm talking about here.