Greetings from lead of Burden of Command Team

Hi folks, (@HA_KSOP, @Bottie, @Meat Grinder etc)
Didn't see notification of latest. Sorry not to reply earlier.
-- 'mass surrender' vs 'berserk' - the general philosophy of BoC is that everything happens on a bell shaped curve. Which is fancy way of saying most of the time what you expect happens (roughly). But if the dice are wrong then you can roll an extremely good or extremely bad outcome for a given class of event (e.g., morale check (surrender vs berserk), weapon check (jam vs sustained fire)) etc.
-- S.L.A. Marshall -boy talk about can of worms. My personal take on that, after a decent amount of study as well as discussion with some experts, is that his statistics are fairly meaningless as exact statistics but the gist of what he said probably had truth to it. Especially in WWII. Less so with modern training according to some books (book "On Combat" if I recall by Grossman (Killology), some points there also debatable). What I do favor as a more general view is that as suppression goes up the general effectiveness of the unit goes down. It may be less likely to fire when requested, possibly also the firepower may go down proportionally (I have to test this as a good idea or not), the attentional focus may get more restricted (more readily flanked etc) and initiative winning may get weaker. Put simply it's easy to fire a gun and hit a target when you're not being fired at but quite a difference experience when you are being fired at. So firepower becomes more about suppression and less about causing casualties. An article I particularly like on this front is "The Real Role of Small Arms." A very quick read (3 pages including pictures and graphs). It's not too easy to find anymore so here's a link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2N9SDKEO5bWWktUWF9teF9RNUU
I think it is safe to say it is possible to have a lot of different opinions on this front :) I'd welcome hearing YOURS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Luke, I have to agree that suppression fire basically creates all the situations you describe. I suspect the "plus" modifiers would be value of cover and experience of unit personnel, right? So having decent cover and being able to move under cover would lessen suppression. Experienced troops may be harder to suppress if under cover, but clearly if you are in open terrain your plus gets negated...

...and here I thought you were avoiding us...

HOA_KSOP
 
@HOA_KSOP good analysis. You cut to the chase, cover and experience reduce suppression. In fact they've shown vets heart rates don't go up as much for example under fire. On the other hand to the extent you taking cover you're likely reducing you own FP. And being out in the open upright (moving say) is when the casualties really occure.
Right now my plan is create a tension between Take Cover stance (high cover; low FP) and Firing stance (lower cover, higher FP). You have to pass Morale Checks to stay in Fire stance.
There you wormed more out of me :)
By "Taking Cover" stance I mean you are trycing to maximize cover (head down etc). Trying to avoid being hit as your first priority basically.
 
Luke Hughes said:
@HOA_KSOP good analysis. You cut to the chase, cover and experience reduce suppression. In fact they've shown vets heart rates don't go up as much for example under fire. On the other hand to the extent you taking cover you're likely reducing you own FP. And being out in the open upright (moving say) is when the casualties really occure.
Right now my plan is create a tension between Take Cover stance (high cover; low FP) and Firing stance (lower cover, higher FP). You have to pass Morale Checks to stay in Fire stance.
There you wormed more out of me :)
By "Taking Cover" stance I mean you are trycing to maximize cover (head down etc). Trying to avoid being hit as your first priority basically.
Click to expand...

Luke, yeah, I like the FP versus cover dynamic, that really makes sense. But you are clearly going to have to balance that with the good ol' "been there, done that" experience factor. Also, my other question would be if NPC's are there and allied to you, how does the inter-relationship between the unit you are commanding work with support NPC's, say a tank or a heavy weapons section supporting your unit? Or will the player control it all. I expect you could take the tack that since the NPC units have been "attached" to assist you, you can order them too. But then again you would have to have a whole dynamic for "will the NPC unit trust your judgement enough to do your bidding"...I sure don't envy you those variables to solve, but it will surely make for some command friction and a more dynamic situation.

Also, since there are RPG elements, would a player go from being a platoon leader to say a company commander? I mean it might be an idea for an expansive DLC at some point, like "BoC-Company Commander" expansion. Keep it tactical...

As for a pre-release copy, maybe you can give FGM guys first crack at alpha or beta testing?

Regards,

HOA_KSOP aka ksbearski aka Barry
 
Hey @HOA_KSOP
-- allied units -- You order them all. Because simplicity is king, especially when you are small :)
-- promotion -- I take the 5th ;-)
-- pre-release -- depends on how nice you are too me doesn't it ;-)
More seriously, first crack comes by being a playtester, generally speaking or being powerful press wise and selling millions of copies for us :) Of course I'd be happy to do something specifically for FGM as an organization for review etc.
 
Okay, so any NPC units are under your direct command, but will they suffer different modifiers because they are not organic to the base unit? Will they be more likely to balk?
 
Luke Hughes said:
Hey @HOA_KSOP
More seriously, first crack comes by being a playtester, generally speaking or being powerful press wise and selling millions of copies for us :) Of course I'd be happy to do something specifically for FGM as an organization for review etc.
Click to expand...
Where do we sign up to play test? I have no issue signing an NDA...
 
NPCs and modifiers. Excellent question. haven't gotten that far yet but it strikes me that they would naturally lack at least trust for your leadership making command of them more problematic. But then they might have their own leaders..
Ha now you fell into MY trap @HOA_KSOP. If you want to playtest it is a very non trivial commitment :) We are slightly saturated with playtesting offers just to warn you but no decisions for more are going to be made till late fall so get in the running if you wish. Please identify yourself as HOA_KSOP if you do the playtesting survey. You can find the request to playtest survey at www.burdenofcommand.com/contact Also signup for the newsletter while you're there.

(Sir my mission with HOA_KSOP is finished. Returning to base).
 
"Another victim master where shall we put them?" "
"throw them in the brig with the others. Soon we set sail Igor." (Mixed metaphors are my bag).

And here I thought TFGM was a place of sobriety and sound judgement.

Seriously thanks @Nathangun
Nasty vicious biting gollum gollum potential playtester surveys coming your way in due course.
 
Seems like you have some fodder there Luke. I've never playtested a thing in my life, so I probably would not be a great candidate for that role anyway.

Now NPc units have leaders, but you are indicating that potentially you might have us lead other units. Wouldn't that defeat the whole RPG/ personal experience element? I would think that you might want to model NOC unit leaders randomly. The AI would generate the leader type and experience level as you described in your interview. Then you just might have to worry about the trust factor.
 
Legitimate concern @HOA_KSOP. But it's simpler to have your run all the other leaders too. Just like in a classic RPG you have your own characters but you run the other characters in the "party" too (in this case the "party" is not a set of dungeon explorers but the command team for a company). So you run the captain and the Lts. Sure it's strange in some "real world" sense but we're all probably used to in an RPGs for a long time now and in some ways it increases immersion because you are stepping periodically into the NPCs shoes. That being said there will be times narratively and on the battlefield when the NPCs make their own decisions.
And honestly strictly being the Captain in terms of in tactical game decisions would get a bit boring potentially in terms of rate of in game decisions unless very abstracted.
 
I misread. You meant unit leaders outside the core company. Yeah good point. I'll have to think about that and see how it plays out in playtesting. Good thinking :)
 
Luke Hughes said:
I misread. You meant unit leaders outside the core company. Yeah good point. I'll have to think about that and see how it plays out in playtesting. Good thinking :)
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I meant. That is why I was suggesting a random npc leader type generator, as well as an npc unit random morale generator so the npc unit is "fleshed out" prior to battle...
 
HOA_KSOP said:
Yes, that is what I meant. That is why I was suggesting a random npc leader type generator, as well as an npc unit random morale generator so the npc unit is "fleshed out" prior to battle...
Click to expand...
Then the unit would have to pass the same kind of die rolls the player controlled unit would. The only complexity would be a "likely to trust human leader " modifier...
 
HOA_KSOP said:
Yes, that is what I meant. That is why I was suggesting a random npc leader type generator, as well as an npc unit random morale generator so the npc unit is "fleshed out" prior to battle...
Click to expand...
I thought I read you could pick a leader personality type for player controlled leader. So an NPC leader could be randomly generated using same type table. Then you could model NPC unit response off of that leader type modified by a likely to trust you modifer. Make sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom