And it looks bloody amazing!!
Top left-to-right: von Bock, Halder, von Leeb
Below: Stalin, Zhukov (behind map) and Krushev (right of Stalin).
You might have noticed the image above is not of a DVD-box but actually a book. :) Its the hardcover book manual that will come with the physical copies of the game.
Prior to release of our new game BARBAROSSA we are publishing a series of developer notes by designer Cameron Harris. Part 1 follows below, more parts will be posted in the coming days.
The Last Commander I Met Was Made By Mattel
– Defining Command
Before going any further it’s worth discussing what is meant by Command. How does it differ from Leadership and Management?
A Manager is a title given to you. It’s a position within a hierarchy. A Leader, on the other hand, is a title that other people bestow upon you.
Command could be defined as the exercise of authority over military forces. A Commander is a mix of both a Manager and, hopefully, a Leader.
Your rank, akin to that of a Manager, is something that is given to you. In a military context your rank alone provides a proportional measure of authority. People will do as you ask, because of your position, as to do otherwise would incur adverse consequences.
This is no different to being a Line Manager in an Company making widgets. People below you will do as you ask because you are their boss. Ignoring you risks them being fired.
Leadership is what makes the difference between an ordinary, run of the mill, Manager and an effective one. People are hard wired to go the extra mile for somebody they respect rather than a person merely going through the motions because they’re either not interested or they’ve been promoted above their level of competence. They aren’t a Leader.
A Military Commander has an advantage over a Line Manager in that the hierarchy he is operating within is a more strictly defined one and his subordinates have a greater likelihood of obeying his orders.
But without the skills of Leadership he will still run into the same resistance and push back that a ‘by the rules’ Line Manager would. His subordinates will find ways to subvert his orders just as much as the group of team leaders on the factory floor will be creative in ignoring the demands of their Line Manager boss.
Effective Command therefore infers Leadership.
A no nonsense definition of Leadership would be the art of getting people to do what you ask, willingly. A Leader brings people with him. Leaders have followers.
But enough of these Management Consultant cliches. There is a war on, you say. It’s different to the world of business or bureaucracy. Resources are limited. The raw material of decisions isn’t money, it’s people’s lives. You are playing for bigger stakes.
There isn’t the luxury of being able to sit down, form a committee and argue over a dot point list of future actionable items. Time is critical. Something needs to happen. NOW.
You would be correct. There are unique aspects to Military Command that aren’t found elsewhere. But Command, for all it’s differences, still involves people.
People require Leadership.
Cheers,
Cameron
Click to enlarge:
At -12 degrees celcius 17th Army is still managing to slowly advance on Kharkov
Beta testing is well under way and one on my big tasks is to get the artificial intelligence (AI) in to tip-top shape. I thought it could be nice if to take the readers along for the ride in some regular AI dev logs.
Current results from the beta group playing versus the Soviet AI were positive, but some more experienced players had a bit more mixed results. Some of them managed to crush the Soviet AI just a bit to easily.
Let me show you a video of an AI-to-AI game which mimicks an experienced human German player versus a regular AI:
The way I code and improve the artificial intelligence is by making analysis of its current behaviour and then designing a plan to improve its behaviour.
Analysis of current behaviour:
-The Soviet AI in the North is losing to much troops before the Germans reach the defensible swamps and forests around Leningrad. Because of this the AI does not manage to keep the line later on.
-The Soviet AI in the Center almost manages to stop the Germans, but it might have made its stance just 2 or 3 turns to early. Furthermore it seems to hold the southern part of the center front (Bryansk) quite well, while giving to much terrain on the key highway Smolensk-Moscow. Eventually this leads to an early fall of Moscow.
-The Soviet AI in the South gets a lot of armies in this playthrough but it doesn’t manage to hold the Dnjepr-line as well as it should.
Plan for improving the AI:
Considering everything the Soviet AI needs to:
1. On a few exceptions (Riga, Odessa, Pripjet) retreat as many troops intact to a defensible line. Which is roughly the Leningrad forests – Smolensk – Dnjepr line.
2. Better understand (like in the center) where the enemies main drive is and move the brunt of it forces there. Especially if it concerns a direct attack on Moscow.
3. Hold the Dnjepr line at all costs. This means holding it to the hex and making aggressive counter attacks against bridgeheads while they are still small.
Cannot make this log to long, since I have to get back to coding :)
But I hope you join me again in my next AI log to see if I got the Soviet AI to toughened up as intended.
Best wishes,
Vic
