Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000 From: Vermont, USA Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: junk2drive A readme (that is what us old timers expect, not a what's new pdf) that explains how to setup the configuration screen before you start.
Yes, this will definitely be added to the readme and I'll post the same info in the forum as soon as I get a chance to discuss this with the developers for their input as well.
Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002 From: Melbourne Australia Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kipper
Adam, I think you want a perfect duplicate of PzG :-)
Yup - except I knew it was restricted to the East Front
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kipper
If you're used to NATO icons from previous games you may want them here. I for one like to role-play being a general in front of a map, in many ways that is an important part of *operational* level war-gaming for me.
That's cool I see where you're coming from.
But PG which this game offers itself as emulating, was all about players seeing their units - seeing the Wespe's and the Hummel's, the Pz38's and the MkIV's, the HE111's and the Stuka's - and growing them to elite status, worrying about Green reinforcements, balancing decisions in investment and research.
Operation Barbarossa imo lost its focus. It's first aim became its 3D art - which properly set up graphically looks really nice. It then bacame hobbled in this art in only allowing for top down-tilt zoom - not very useful for seeing the whole map. Not very useful for making out units on a highly colored map unless very close up which is silly when units represent divisions.
If this game just purports to portray operational warfare on the East Front with no relation to PG, oh my goodness, it will never return to my HD. This type of game it just can not seriously believe itself to be. As a wargame it is very poor. It's like Commander Napoleon at War - a very age 7-12 attempt at portraying Napoleonics. At age 13, we move on.
Re: using NATO icons and seeing what units are at a glance... don't understand this. Never had a problem with TOAW etc
I never understood why TOAW III had such a small fan-base when it was re-given new life. I thought for sure this would take over the whole gaming community by storm.
1. Improve interface, if clicking on units isn't spot on the unit wanders off to a undesired direction 2. Half tracks can't fire after moving. 3. It appears the german campaigns are too short, don't go the length of the historic campaign
< Message edited by BASB -- 9/13/2009 3:26:37 AM >
1) Allow us to rename units. I really find it hard to empathize with the Nebelwerfer unit. 2) Put a circle under a unit that is getting low on fuel or ammo. 3) I'm not sure what the Ogre is capable of, but I have a hard time selecting units and I'm constantly scrolling up, down to either side to get the pointer on the right unit.
2) Put a circle under a unit that is getting low on fuel or ammo.
Great idea.
I forget. How did this get indicated in PG?
+1 indicator for low ammo and fuel. Spice up the battle effects. Currently they are ok, but a little subdued. Tweak the 3D units with more detail and animation (if possible) Additional scenarios and campaigns More detail in the overhead map
We are following this thread with deep interest. We happy to hear what you like to see in the game and we will debate each suggestion in the team and with Matrix Games to get the best out of them.
Anyway not every idea may be suitable for the game, so please understand not all will be involved.
As soon as particular proposals are accepted and will be integrated we will inform you.
For the next iteration, I would like to have the option in the editor to add (one big) overlay ground texture over the tiled hexes. Look at this photomontage for an visualization of the idea.
Someone mentioned that Engineers create fortifications when you click on them. Apparently this is because they were clicked on twice. I'm not sure if that is the case...I've just selected my first Engineer unit...the very first Engineer unit I've had in the game and the very first time I clicked on one and it created a fortification.
So one of three things needs to happen with that... 1. Make it less sensitive (have a delay between the clicks where anything less than that value and nothing happens) 2. Have a popup making sure you want to create those fortifications 3. Allow the undo button
2 and 3 are my favoured options (I don't actually know the reasoning behind undoing the action anyway).
This also goes for anything else that allows a unit to do something in place when clicked on (I haven't yet noticed this as a problem when selecting an air unit which is over a ground unit).
Erm...you really need to do something about the Engineers...about 50% of the time on selecting them, they were building fortifications...not at all ideal without a undo feature.
Also, after my last post, I had an air unit that I clicked on which was on top of an enemy unit, and it attacked.
Seems your detection of a second click is way too sensitive.
Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000 From: Vermont, USA Status: offline
This seems to vary somewhat based on mouse hardware/drivers. I don't see this on our systems, but we've had multiple reports of this behavior from customers. What kind of mouse/driver are you using, out of curiosity?
I'm actually using the Microsoft HID Complian Mouse Driver v5.1.2600.0...though I am surprised, as it's a Razer Diamondback and I would've sworn I installed the drivers for it.
However, regardless...could I suggest (just in case you're going to ) that it "not" be suggested that I increase the double click time, as outside of this game it's working fine...as an example, if I may, when I click on a shortcut on my desktop, it highlights the shortcut, it doesn't open the program the shortcut is pointing to.
I can see why an undo feature is going to be problematic (when an air unit is over an enemy ground unit, attacks (by mistake) and then undo to give the action back. And I can also see how a popup could be annoying for any units that can perform an action in the same hex they reside!
It is very annoying though, I restarted a game 3 times yesterday because of clicking my Engineers only to have them build fortifications. Now, before I select my Engineers I save the game so I can load from my last point...other than this (and the few very minor issues pointed out in various other threads) it's a great game.
However, I will install the Razer drivers tonight to see if there is any change.
Just a wee note...the right click on a unit to see the unit details...sometimes (quite often) when I do this, it closes the dialog immediately...even though it appeared I only clicked once...I never reported it because it wasn't really that annoying...but it seems linked (possibly to my hardware).
I'll also buy a new mouse today and try that. I wanted one for my laptop anyway.
Posts: 228
Joined: 4/19/2008 From: Plymouth, England Status: offline
SITREP- Op Barb isn't drawing as much interest at my Few Good Men club as i thought it would, as most people are put off by the "toytown/legoland" graphics which act as a 'sound barrier' through which they can't or won't penetrate to the game beyond, so i can't emphasise enough how 2D counters should be given highest priority on the wishlist.
Ditto the NATO icons and a battalion based TO&E description would be nice for each unit(customizable by player) with the appropriate changes automatically enhancing the unit's attributes.
I mean these are division, regiment size units and that usually means a representation of a combined arms team.
I've been playing a lot of OB and PG3SE lately. I'm trying to pick out the things I like and dislike.
1) Clicking on a specific unit and moving it is challenging, sometimes. Sometimes the unit does something you didn't want it to do. If you don't expose a new enemy unit you can just move the unit back. 2) There has got to be a way that during the enemies turn and he moves the camera should jump to it, so that I can see it. I hate the computer's turn, because I only see the action if a battle takes place. I've read through the manual once and didn't see that I can adjust that, so I'm sorry if I've missed something. 3) I would like to see my tanks gaining a bonus in close combat if one of my infantry units is adjacent to it. I loved that about PG. It rewarded you for keeping task force cohesion. You could pay if one of your tanks took off chasing some unit retreating. 4) For some reason I really like the leaders in PG3. It kind of made me care about my units more. If I was destroyed in combat not only did I lose the best equipment, but I lost the best commander. I don't know I'm flexible with leaders. You addressed with the experience point system. I'm just for more personalization of the units. 5) Polish. The key is by PG3SE there was a lot of polish. And, I await the future of this series. 6) More back story, a graphical still slide of the unit relating its own historical significance to the unit. Goes back to polish which will come with part deux.
Dear god, if there was one thing I didn't like about PG3D it was that terrible unit-leader gimmick. Now don't get me wrong, there was an interesting angle in it which COULD have worked, but you were so damn penalized because a Full Grown leader occupied so many precious unit slots. And you only got so few limited slots to work with!
I found myself constantly with high level leaders just sitting out idle in my games. And this went even worse in Scorched Earth. In SE, they added missions where now you must make a certain number of units exit the map at point B, and air units don't count. The funny thing is if you used any decent leaders it was impossible because you wouldn't get enough room for the minimum units in the first place! They tried to relax the harsh restrictions in SE for this particular reason, and even then it's a real problem and you are not going to want to use those great leaders you tried to build up. This was the #1 complaint I remember from just about everyone when these two releases were popular.
I guess it was their way of adding the Jensen Cap. Unfortunately, I think this was the worst way possible.
Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007 From: San Diego, Ca. Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Poor Old Spike
1- Incorporate a 2D counter option so the game will appeal to the mature wargamer market who are put off at the moment by the 3D 'toytown' graphics
I have to admit, I'm one of these gamers who toss out the games based on the toytown 3d perspective. I know it seems odd to some people but I just can't get over the "Mattel" mass market feeling I get from these. Even coming from Matrix I'm very very reluctant.
_____________________________
History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.
Regarding the graphics, I'm hesitant to buy this game because I have a hard time discerning the units on the map...my eyesight is not the greatest and based on the numerous pics I have seen, I don't think I will be comfortable playing it.....if there was a 2-D option, I would jump on it....
Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000 From: Vermont, USA Status: offline
Keep in mind that seeing the units themselves is easy (remember that the strength numbers are high contrast and always there to highlight that a unit is in the hex even if you have trouble distinguishing the unit graphic), I guess the main concern would be "can I see the difference between a Panzer II and a Panzer IV?". The answer to that is, IMHO, definitely yes. Telling the difference between a IIIH and a IIIJ is going to be very hard though. However, hovering your mouse over the unit will give you that info as well and right clicking on it will give you even more detailed info.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Operation Barbarossa: The Struggle for Russia >> Wishlist 
Wishlist - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread