Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

User avatar
freakybadger
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 18:21
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby freakybadger » Thu 28 Mar 2013 01:12

I just wish helicopters like the chinook and mi17 could bring in 2 squads instead of one. i hate purchasing 2 separate mi17s to do a job 1 mi 17 could do. They both can carry at least 30 troops and the largest squads in game are made up of 15 troops. I wouldnt even mind if the space was filled up by 1 rifle squad and 1 AA squad, or even 2 AA squads. I might be sounding ignorant here but if there was anyway to implement it in game then that would be amazing and im sure the community would appreciate it.

artao
Master Sergeant
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 23 Dec 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby artao » Thu 28 Mar 2013 01:55

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
artao wrote:One cargo = One squad is one of the gamiest aspects in W:EE, and I'm shocked that Eugen has chosen not to fix it for W:ALB.

We fix bugs, not game rules.

So are you saying ALB is merely a 'bugfix' of EE then? I was under the impression that y'all were writing a new game, and as such game rules should be completely open to change. To do otherwise is -facepalm-

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
artao wrote:The game knows how many men are in a squad. Squads obviously should not be broken up. Transports should have a capacity relevant to squad size. Equipment is included in squad size. Simple.

Then when your 5-men SAS squad comes knocking at the back door of your 4-men Spartan to get a ride home, the "game knows how many men are in the squad" ... and in the transport. And tell the SAS to go for a walk because there is one too many and the "squads should obviously not be broken". Simple.
And then player start screaming that there is a bug ...

For one thing, the scenario you describe is better than same 4-man Spartan carrying a 10-man squad, or a Chinook only being able to carry one 5-man squad.
Also, you conveniently blew off the last bit of my post which addresses this. To wit:
artao wrote:The simplest way to address this is prolly to give each unit a "size" and then each transport slots to carry 'x' amount of units per size. Thus a Chinook for example could carry, say, 5 'small' units, or 3 'small' units and one 'medium' unit, or one 'large' unit. ... Something like that. It's NOT hard to implement, and tho simplified is infinite worlds better than the current ridiculous method.

This method makes sense, is FAR less gamey than the current method, and really shouldn't be difficult to implement.

TheFluff wrote:One of the easiest ways to piss a software developer off is to tell him that something he says is hard or time-consuming to change "isn't hard" or "shouldn't take a long time". If you haven't worked on the code base yourself, you really aren't in any position to speak, and how easy it is to imagine a change has pretty much nothing to do with how hard it is to implement.

Also, your proposal has severe usability issues, as MadMat points out. It's a game, not a simulation.

A) Interesting how sometimes it's a game, not a simulation .. yet other times vice versa. :P What it IS seems to be a game simulating the Cold War turned Hot, thus both to a degree. You can't completely please BOTH casual gamers and sim-gamers simultaneously. I accept that. But a better balance could surely be struck.
B) I suppose you're right. Saying, "It's not that hard." sure could be a good way to piss of a dev. However, that makes it no less true. It's pretty irritating to a player familiar with programming (limited as my knowledge may be) and games from past years to keep hearing "It's too hard." No, I don't know their code base. But if the code base is such that this is not doable then, well .. frankly it must not be very good code. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but there it is.
Giving each unit a simplified 'size' stat, and each transport a set number of transport slots based on the defined sizes, is a time-tested method that is a good balance between realism and usability.
If programmers over a decade ago could do it, then why can't it be done currently?
That way, a 5-man unit such as SAS could be considered 'very small' and take up 1 cargo slot. The aforementioned Spartan would be defined as having only 1 cargo slot. A larger transport could be perhaps 2 cargo slots, with a 'small' unit defined as taking up 2 cargo slots. Therefore the larger transport could carry 1 small or 2 very small units. And so on. As I said, it's been done before and works quite well.
And really, it shouldn't be difficult to implement. Particularly as the code isn't in its finalized state-- as I assume. If the code IS near its finalized state, then there's some pretty big problems looming on the horizon.

I do appreciate Eugen's efforts on Wargame, but what I'm seeing of ALB so far seems to be simply bells and whistles grafted onto EE; I hope I'm wrong, but the emphasis on improved graphics seems to indicate that more time has been spent on that aspect than actual gameplay aspects, altho graphics are just eye-candy and have no real affect on gameplay. Gameplay really should be the primary focus of ANY game project. Nice graphics are nice, but should be secondary to gameplay.
As I've said elsewhere, I for one would rather wait until 2014 for a solid, well thought out, and well tested game to be released than to have something rushed out to release in 2013.

No offense intended in my posts MadMatt. You must realise tho that it gets pretty tiring to keep hearing, "we're not going to do it because we're not going to do it and that's that" regarding all too many user-requested features. My parents used "because we said so" on me as a kid, but that sort of reasoning just doesn't work anymore.

User avatar
Gronank
Colonel
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue 8 Nov 2011 23:40
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby Gronank » Thu 28 Mar 2013 02:43

artao wrote:B) I suppose you're right. Saying, "It's not that hard." sure could be a good way to piss of a dev. However, that makes it no less true. It's pretty irritating to a player familiar with programming (limited as my knowledge may be) and games from past years to keep hearing "It's too hard." No, I don't know their code base. But if the code base is such that this is not doable then, well .. frankly it must not be very good code. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but there it is.

Do the game assume that your infantry group divide itself evenly among transports in a group, what happens if you split a group of transports?; what if a transport is destroyed, might all transported units be destroyed?. Can a transport group pick up more than one infantry group, if not,are you going to limit transport groups with larger capacity than maximum infantry group size? If you can pick up several groups of different type, how do you keep track of which infantry sits in which transport?

It is not about code base, it is about a change such as this requires a plethora of new rules and it will either be confusing because it is not possible to show all the information, or it will be frustrating because it is not possible to control it properly or the interface will be weighted down in an attempt to amend the previous two but most likely all three.

If you're going to say something easy, please try and at least grasp the scope of what you're asking for.
Image

artao
Master Sergeant
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 23 Dec 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby artao » Thu 28 Mar 2013 03:59

I do rather understand the scope of what I ask for, and even propose.
Simplest form:
1) Units cannot be split between transports. That is taking logistics to a micro level and introduces WAY too much complexity as has rightly been pointed out.
2) Three unit sizes AS cargo - small, medium, large. Say 5 man squad is small, normal squad or jeep is medium, tank or arty is large. Etc ...
3) Three sizes of cargo capacity - small, medium, large. Small cargo can carry 1 small unit. Med. cargo can carry 1 medium unit or 2 small units. Large cargo can carry 1 large unit, 2 medium units, 3 small units, or 1 medium and 2 small units.
4) Some cargo units can only carry men, not vehicles. Thus an M113 (probably a medium cargo size I'd think) could carry 1 medium troops or 2 small troops, but not transport a jeep. Etc ...

That's it. Pretty simple scheme, but worlds better than 1 transport can carry 1 unit period.
What am I missing here? How would that be difficult to implement? The effort required would be defining all the sizes and adding the rule(s) about vehicles not being transportable in certain transports.

As to what units are in what transport. That is already a noted problem in W:EE.
Seeing as there is unit info displayed at the bottom of the screen when units are selected, small icons could be added to that info to indicate what units are in what transports. Displaying such info onscreen on the battlefield itself could be a player-option, and also could be shown with mouse-over when 'Show Unit Info' is turned on. Beyond that, a commander would generally know which units are where; tho I recognize and admit that given the number of troops simultaneously on the battlefield can be a bit overwhelming. Perhaps add an OOB pop-up screen with such info. There are many methods to show these stats, and at any rate from what I've seen of beta videos, the UI needs work in regards to unit display anyhow.
Perhaps a user-selectable UI option like 'Show Transported on Mouse-Over' which pops up a small list of what units are in a transport.
A pop-up OOB sheet would show all units on the battlefield, and have a 'Cargo' column showing what transport a unit is in, or what units are in a transport. Plus a mouse-over for specific units that highlights onscreen which transport a unit is in.
There's plenty of perfectly good ways to do these things.
:D 8-) :D

User avatar
Graphic
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10588
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 10:18
Location: Battle Born
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby Graphic » Thu 28 Mar 2013 09:29

A Chinook only carrying one small squad is kind of a bummer but it doesn't bother me that much because with the big transports you get other bonuses, specifically magic bullet-proof armor and 10 HP. That may not be worth the money most of the time, but it's not like they're completely pointless because they cant carry dozens of men.
k

PeterS
Corporal
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 11:31
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby PeterS » Thu 28 Mar 2013 11:33

[EUG]MadMat wrote:So, for gameplay's sake, we've simplified to one transport = one squad.
And it is how it will be in ALB as in EE.


FWIW I agree. Wargame is designed around a certain level of abstraction (see also the generic fuel/ammo supplies, etc) and it would be a nightmare to keep track of squads to fit in an M113, squads that fit in an AMX10, squads that fit in a Spartan, squads that fit in a Marder 1, squads that fit in a Blackhawk (to use my current EE deck as an example)...

User avatar
Aikmofobi
Lieutenant
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2012 23:04
Location: Northern Sweden
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby Aikmofobi » Thu 28 Mar 2013 13:53

The one section = one slot system is great for a game on Wargame's scale and 10 men per section is a perfectly good approximation.
Vehicles having the ability to carry more than one section would add to that without over-complicating things.

I'm imagining landing 2 Chinooks and 2 Hueys worth of infantry in a forest behind enemy lines, 100 men from 4 choppers...

User avatar
ericdude88
Captain
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat 10 Mar 2012 00:56

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby ericdude88 » Thu 28 Mar 2013 19:56

Bad Idea.

Not a simulator guys. This would cause severe balance issues. IE I can foresee that the Chinook with 44 Deltas is never gonna get used because guess what, Deltas are only efficient as a single squad doing recon. 44 worth 132 points is just asking to get an artillery barrage to hand the enemy free points (and we know how deadly arty is in this game).

All these specific numbers, like Spartans only getting 4 men squads and some squads only being 7 men or 8 men or 8.5 men or whatever is just going to ruin balance, make the game a pain in the ass to develope, and effectively render certain infantry to be OP while others utterly useless. The only way I can see a 4 man squad be used is if either 1. They are a team consisting of Rambos/Chuck Norris (unrealistic) or 2. if they're super cheap (balance issue..cheap spam time).

Artao, give up.

artao
Master Sergeant
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 23 Dec 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby artao » Thu 28 Mar 2013 20:44

I'm stunned by what I'm reading. I thought people that are into this game preferred realism over gaminess. Guess I was wrong.
ericdude88 -- clearly you didn't actually read my proposal above. It does not break down units in a fiddly way like you describe. Simply three unit sizes: small, med., large.
Give up, eh? LOL whatever dude :roll:
The current system is so unrealistic it belongs in a fantasy game, not one based on real-world units and tactics.
44 Deltas in a Chinook? Where are you coming up with this? By the system I propose a Chinook could carry 3 Delta units max - 15 men plus equipment.
Ruin this elusive and largely imaginary "balance" people speak of? LOL sure. Sure it would. How? Seriously, elucidate how having transports actually being able to transport a more realistic number of troops would ruin balance? Within the system I proposed, not the way you're describing these too complex 4 man/7 man/8 man/8.5 man(? :roll: ) whatever system that I never mentioned nor proposed.
Three unit sizes, three cargo capacities.
Simple. Effective. More realistic.
NOT hard to keep track of. Not hard to implement.
It's been done in games past to great success.

User avatar
DiabloTigerSix
Colonel
Posts: 2581
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 21:06
Contact:

Re: Realistic transport capacity and per soldier prices

Postby DiabloTigerSix » Thu 28 Mar 2013 21:42

Yeah, pretty arrogant way of rolling into a thread.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests