A couple of observations

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A couple of observations

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Requested Features and Ideas >> A couple of observations

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A couple of observations - 1/5/2015 12:19:45 AM

Panzer_Leader

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/10/2014
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

Playing FPC-RS over the break I've noticed a couple of things I thought I would comment on:

1. It would be very helpful to be able to right click on a hex and determine LOS from that hex. At present I'm not aware of any way to do that until you have a unit positioned in the hex. This is frustrating when you move a unit to a hex in anticipation of LOS to another hex (in defence for example) and then find out it doesn't. You then have to wait for another order cycle and issue another order and repeat. I guess the ability to right click on a hex to determine LOS could be explained as an abstraction of map and/or commander's ground reconnaissance.

2. I know blowing bridges has been discussed in other threads but I notice pure tank and headquarters units have the ability to blow bridges. While I can understand infantry potentially having the ability to blow bridges (without engineer support, which I know is abstracted) it's less believable that HQ and pure tank units can. The former because it distracts them from the more important job of commanding and the latter because they don't have the manpower and are unlikely to draw the explosives to do so. This will also make it harder / require more explicit trade-offs to blow more than 1-2 bridges on a map. At the moment I can order any unit to do so.

Anyway, I'm loving the game but these were a couple of things I noticed that I thought could be improved.

Cheers

Post #: 1

RE: A couple of observations - 1/5/2015 12:50:03 AM

HeinzBaby

Posts: 174
Joined: 12/1/2014
From: WEST AUSTRALIA
Status: offline

Shift-Left Click and you can check any Hex for LOS

_____________________________

Heia Safari

(in reply to Panzer_Leader)

Post #: 2

RE: A couple of observations - 1/5/2015 1:17:10 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer_Leader

Playing FPC-RS over the break I've noticed a couple of things I thought I would comment on:

2. I know blowing bridges has been discussed in other threads but I notice pure tank and headquarters units have the ability to blow bridges. While I can understand infantry potentially having the ability to blow bridges (without engineer support, which I know is abstracted) it's less believable that HQ and pure tank units can. The former because it distracts them from the more important job of commanding and the latter because they don't have the manpower and are unlikely to draw the explosives to do so. This will also make it harder / require more explicit trade-offs to blow more than 1-2 bridges on a map. At the moment I can order any unit to do so.

You will no doubt have seen in other posts that combat engineers are abstracted. So, if you accept that combat engineers are with infantry units what is it about them being with an HQ or a tank unit you don't get? We were assigned to tank units as well. And who ever said to you that all the units in the game were to be considered pure????

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Panzer_Leader)

Post #: 3

RE: A couple of observations - 1/5/2015 1:35:35 AM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

As MR points out, any unit can "call in" engineering support to blow bridges, clear mines and obstacles. We will be looking at refining this more in 2.1 with better discreet accounting of engineering units and types. This will eliminate the call in abstractions and force the player to carefully utilize the limited engineering resources.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 4

RE: A couple of observations - 1/6/2015 7:02:06 PM

Panzer_Leader

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/10/2014
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeinzBaby

Shift-Left Click and you can check any Hex for LOS

Thanks HeinzBaby, that's good to know. I probably should have double-checked the manual (RTFM!) before requesting that one though

(in reply to HeinzBaby)

Post #: 5

RE: A couple of observations - 1/6/2015 7:43:24 PM

Panzer_Leader

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/10/2014
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

As MR points out, any unit can "call in" engineering support to blow bridges, clear mines and obstacles. We will be looking at refining this more in 2.1 with better discreet accounting of engineering units and types. This will eliminate the call in abstractions and force the player to carefully utilize the limited engineering resources.

Great, thanks Capn Darwin. I totally understand the current abstraction in engineers but like the idea of resources to perform engineering tasks being more limited and commanders having to make more explicit trade-offs about blowing or placing this bridge or that bridge rather than as many as I want, wherever I want as can currently happen. It sounds like you guys have it well in hand though and I look forward to the changes coming in 2.1.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 6

RE: A couple of observations - 1/6/2015 11:51:43 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer_Leader

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

As MR points out, any unit can "call in" engineering support to blow bridges, clear mines and obstacles. We will be looking at refining this more in 2.1 with better discreet accounting of engineering units and types. This will eliminate the call in abstractions and force the player to carefully utilize the limited engineering resources.

Great, thanks Capn Darwin. I totally understand the current abstraction in engineers but like the idea of resources to perform engineering tasks being more limited and commanders having to make more explicit trade-offs about blowing or placing this bridge or that bridge rather than as many as I want, wherever I want as can currently happen. It sounds like you guys have it well in hand though and I look forward to the changes coming in 2.1.

In Germany all bridges were built with chambers in them to hold explosives. In the NATO part of Germany they were pre-prepared for bridge demolition. So, in that part of the world, for that time period at least, blowing bridges would have been easy. Any bridge, at any time.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Panzer_Leader)

Post #: 7

RE: A couple of observations - 1/7/2015 1:35:58 AM

AFIntel

Posts: 157
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Saginaw, TX
Status: offline

quote:

In Germany all bridges were built with chambers in them to hold explosives. In the NATO part of Germany they were pre-prepared for bridge demolition. So, in that part of the world, for that time period at least, blowing bridges would have been easy. Any bridge, at any time.

Not that it applies here, but most of the bridges in the northern part of S. Korea were pre-designed to be rapidly and easily blown as well. Even the highway overpasses in Seoul.

On one of my assignments there, I was told by a U.S. Army infantry officer that supposedly the bridges over the Han River were actually pre-rigged with explosives and just needed to be fast wired and detonated. I don't know the validity of that claim, though.

I just focused on my main concern, which was planning the destruction of (among other targets) bridges in N. Korea.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 8

RE: A couple of observations - 1/10/2015 2:36:40 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFIntel

Not that it applies here, but most of the bridges in the northern part of S. Korea were pre-designed to be rapidly and easily blown as well. Even the highway overpasses in Seoul.

On one of my assignments there, I was told by a U.S. Army infantry officer that supposedly the bridges over the Han River were actually pre-rigged with explosives and just needed to be fast wired and detonated. I don't know the validity of that claim, though.

I just focused on my main concern, which was planning the destruction of (among other targets) bridges in N. Korea.

It may apply sooner than later. Korea is on our radar screen.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to AFIntel)

Post #: 9

RE: A couple of observations - 1/10/2015 9:35:36 PM

Panzer_Leader

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/10/2014
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

Understood. Bridges in the AO come ready to blow so there's less trade off required by the commander. If the Reds are coming the bridges are dropping. Now all I have to do is work out how to get my units to the bridge, blow it and withdraw in time without being overrun by lead Soviet elements! The trade off in that case is blow the bridge or lose the unit dropping it...

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 10

RE: A couple of observations - 1/10/2015 9:47:15 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

There is always a trade off!!!

I have yet to have them code that out of the game!!

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Panzer_Leader)

Post #: 11

RE: A couple of observations - 1/14/2015 4:54:11 AM

AFIntel

Posts: 157
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Saginaw, TX
Status: offline

quote:

It may apply sooner than later. Korea is on our radar screen.

Ohhh, juicy!

I'm assuming the idea for this theater is still jostling in y'alls craniums, but do you have a time period in mind?

50's? 60's?

Or more modern day?

I was an intelligence analyst there for two years. I'd love to game out some of the "what ifs" we toyed with while there.

Eddie

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 12

RE: A couple of observations - 1/15/2015 10:06:46 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

The time period would probably stay consistent...1989.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to AFIntel)

Post #: 13