RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Conquest of the Aegean



Message

rn -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (8/30/2006 7:59:22 PM)

Love both HTTR and COTA - My question refers to planning: is there any way that an alpha channel with text and drawing tools could be added to the map as an overlay that could be turned off and on like the km grid? The idea is that you could use this overlay to plan your campaign, draw force boundaries, outline routes, note timetables, pop it up occasionally to see how things are going relative to the original plan or refresh your memory, jot whatever down in a corner – pretty much the way some players use a notepad or printed map while playing. A planning aid, basically, since so much of the game is involved with planning. Decisive Action from HPS has a feature like this that is kind of intriguing.



RayWolfe -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (8/30/2006 10:56:46 PM)

It's on the list. [:)]
The list is long. [:(]
.... but would't it be great? [8D]

Cheers
Ray



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (8/31/2006 1:45:05 AM)

rn,

Yes it's been on the wish list for some time. However, to do this properly we need to overhaul our graphics engine. It uses MFCs graphics system not the more modern and powerful DX system, which supports transparencies and lots of cool stuff. This is a HUGE job.



Major Disaster -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/1/2006 3:35:45 AM)

Have you considered doing a game using this engine at a higher level such as at Bn level say at 5-10  minute intervals? It would be neat to play bigger battles with bigger maps. [8D]



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/1/2006 3:58:05 AM)

Major Disaster ( <g> I love that name [:)] ),

Yes we have but to do so would require a major overhaul of the combat and reaction rules. At the moment these are tuned for the current scale. Scaling the data ( maps, units, time interval would be straight forward ) but the combat routines would need major work. Effectively you would have make them more abstract. That's do-able but a lot of work. Further the reaction rules would need even more work as now you have to handle cases where a single unit can occupy a big area or a long line ( we would need to segment the occupied area when moving in road column for instance ) and it encounters another unit similarly laid out. Again do-able but a lot of work.

We really need to make some money first before we could entertain that shift. However, it would be nice. [:)]



Jakerson -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/1/2006 2:26:46 PM)

I hope that you include some type of asynchronous warfare to some of your later realise like eastern front game as partisans had significant role blowing up Germans supply convoys and attacking against rear area troops and disappearing before stronger troops can come in. Maybe introducing totally new infantry company type in game some kind of partisan light infantry that could use new stance ambush along the road causing big casualties to road column formation if ambush is successful.

I’m not sure if this in the game mechanics but this is just an idea.




Major Disaster -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/4/2006 5:50:57 AM)

In regard to applying airborne assualt engine to larger scales and other theaters I think a 1914 WW1 version would really be interesting. I am reading a book on the Battle Of Tannenburg and while reading it I can't help thinking that this would make a great battle for AA. Perhaps a Battle of the Marne/Battle of Tannenburg combo would be good. These are not exactly mainstream battles to do but neither is COTA. Also, these two battles probably affected world history about as much as any two battles in the 20th century in that had the French lost the Batte of the Marne history would have tunred out quite differently and had Russia not had the huge defeat at Tannenburg perhaps there might not have been a Russian Revolution. And both are manuever battles and not the static type battles that occured for most of the remaneder of WW1. [8D]



Major Disaster -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/12/2006 7:29:32 AM)

To follow up on my post, it seems that one of the big factors both in Tannenburg and in France 1914 leading up to the Marne was to keep gaps from forming in the lines due to poor coordination between commanders of the different units that had to act together to form a line. In a turn based hex game this is very difficult to simulate becuase the player can keep all the units coordinated and perfectly do what they are commanded. The AA engine it would seem can simulate this uncertainty of both orders and execution because any number of units can be given orders to move into a line but they may not execute these orders at the same time and gaps in the line may appear due to this that can be exploited by the other side. That way say in a Tannenburg scenario the numerical superiority of the Russians could be offset by better coordination and faster command response of the Germans (i.e. as faster OODA loop). This seems to have become less of a problem in WWII, possibly because of better communication and perhaps more unified command structures. Even so, we can sort of see this in COTA in that the British and the Greek forces have different response times so that it is hard to synchronize them to arrive some point at the same time. This problem was even more acute in WW1 in that local commaders would often total ignore orders and advance  when they were orderd to stay put, stay put when ordered to advance, etc. The local commander had to be independent becuase of the primitive communications.

At any rate, I certainly don't expect to see a WW1 version of the AA anytime soon (if even ever) but never the less it looks like the AA engine would be perfect for capturing the operational problems of that era and these problesm look to be very interesting from the reading I hav been doing on this period (as a result of a bit of burn out on WW2 after reading the umpty umpth book on it). 



Red2112 -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/12/2006 3:02:50 PM)

Hi,

As I seen above, someone already requested for plannig tools. I find that, yes, sometimes its hard to remeber where you place your units In your planning stage once the battle started. "Dangerous Waters" has a tool where you can place a crosshair on the map and name it, you can also place range rings on map. I understand it must be hard to do this. I just wanted to give a example. A couple of tools should do the job. I´am not a programer but aim sure DW engine calculates at a high levels as COTA, but If its a graphical problem with transparenceis, then we are cool as it is. Just my two cents, keep up the great work.



MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/12/2006 4:45:41 PM)

I would like to see an overlay capability, but in terms of unit locating, it is pretty straight forward.

You have:
- Filters (the ability remove most units, but the category of interest).
- OOB (find the unit in the organic chain of command and click it; goes to unit on the map).
- Arrow keys (walk the chain of command).

In terms of plan display:

(1) Hit "=" to display those units with orders.
(2) Drag select all units on the map.

Resultant orders displayed is your plan.

I hope that helps.



Red2112 -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/12/2006 6:11:01 PM)

Thank you Marshot,

Yes, I played around with these tools and found them very useful. Specialy when you have units one over the other. The game is very well though of, the more I fool around with it, the more I see that. Fantastic! Thanks.



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/13/2006 1:28:38 AM)

Red2112,

Nice sig!



Red2112 -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (9/13/2006 2:06:01 AM)

Thank you Sir,

Good people and a good game deserves a nice sig. [&o]



laska2k8 -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/12/2006 5:39:17 PM)

I wish when clicking on a unit to see a straight line to its target.

Not multiple lines (like threats) but a single line to actual target.

massimo



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/12/2006 11:59:45 PM)

laska2k4,

I presume you mean the last unit it fired at. If so, then do you keep showing that line even if both the unit and target have moved/changed locations? In other words is there range limit and/or time limit?



laska2k8 -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/13/2006 12:23:54 PM)

I was thinking something like Combat Mission series. If you click on a unit
you see a red line pointing a target. If target unit is out of range or it's moved or
my unit stop firing then the line disappear.

The "threats" option sometimes is misleading.



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/13/2006 1:10:53 PM)

One option is to use a special colour within the existing threats tool to highlight the threat the unit last targeted/fired at. Eg if you have four potential thyreats and one of those the unit has just fired at then its line could be coloured purple for instance.



wodin -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/13/2006 4:11:20 PM)

Think this has been mentioned before. How about a more detailed AAR. Stating who destroyed who, who surredered to who. How many casualties a unit inflicted. I notice troops sureender in drips and drabs. It would be nice to see how many shouted Kamerad! at each loss.

Also how about abit of chrome. I.E Nominations for medals (at comapny level) and which medals would be a great bit of detail at the end of the battle.



RayWolfe -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/13/2006 10:03:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also how about abit of chrome. I.E Nominations for medals (at comapny level) and which medals would be a great bit of detail at the end of the battle.


Oh dear! [:'(]
Ray



PanzerMax -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/13/2006 11:45:06 PM)

What are the major new features of the next game?



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/14/2006 1:34:39 AM)

The BIG new feature will be dynamic terrain and minefields. At present when a crossing is blown there is a noticeable pause in the game as movement maps and terrain maps need to be recalced. Part of the delay is due to replanning ( which is not avoidable ) but a goodly portion is due to the recalcs. By implementing a new dynamic terrain class we hope to erradicate the recalc delays. We need to do this for BFTB because we want to introiduce minefields and road blocks and these will get cleared throughout the course of the game. Because of the large number of them we would end up with significant pauses throughout the game as minefields are cleared and that's not a good thing.

The scenario designer will be able to lay down minefields in the ScenMaker app and players and the AI can clear these in the game. Units entering a minefield will suffer casualties and react appropriately. Intel will be updated and routes will avoid known minefields where possible. Engineers will be assigned to clear them etc.

Another big feature, code wise, has been the overhaul of the forceGroup class. Paul has just finished this and it will allow us to better represent the different command structures ( organic, player, unit ) during the game. It will also allow for the preservation of lower level cross attachments, something the current class could not. If time permits we may even allow players to restructure the organic OB, but we'll see how we go. As usual there is so much to do and so little time to do it in. ( And yes I sometimes look in the mirror to see if I have turned into the rabit with a watch in the looking glass. [;)] )



wodin -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/14/2006 10:13:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also how about abit of chrome. I.E Nominations for medals (at comapny level) and which medals would be a great bit of detail at the end of the battle.


Oh dear! [:'(]
Ray


hehehe.....



laska2k8 -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (10/16/2006 9:10:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

One option is to use a special colour within the existing threats tool to highlight the threat the unit last targeted/fired at. Eg if you have four potential thyreats and one of those the unit has just fired at then its line could be coloured purple for instance.


yes, you found the solution, and probably isn't so expensive to implement with the actual code.



Pergite! -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (12/9/2006 5:48:57 PM)

I lack the ability to prioritze the supply chain, as well as the option to close down SEP´s during air drop scenarios.

After the patch I have taken the time to do the big 9 day Maleme scenario as the Germans. I really enjoyed it, but one of my FJ regmints wherent all that happy. When the airport opened for supplies I decided that I no longer needed to keep the small SEP in prison valley. I moved my troops out of there and up to Galatas and dug in.
What I had missed was that these poor paratroopers all got their supplies from that SEP. The GJ´s always had full stores, but the blue little couners where always starving.
What really puzzeled me in this was that their supply based had plenty of basic supplies themselves, but nothing to distrubute. Emergency supply was requested all the time, and the logs kept stating that supplies was on the way, but nothing ever turned up. The supply routes where all clear and the distances and roads close to perfect (on highway 1km between base and unit). Maybe I was doing something wrong, but I dont think so.

That whole game however lead me to the two suggestions mentioned above. The ability to prioritze the supply chain, and direct everyhing to one needy unit. And why not share supplies between companies and battalions? Something practised alot when the regular supply funciton is broken.

I also would like the option to close down SEP´s during air drop scenarios, like the Maleme one, so I dont have to spend troops holding a desolate valley out in nowehere just because the JU52´s keep dropping in food and ammunition.

Thank you for a great game!



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (12/10/2006 12:56:46 AM)

re prioritising: We've discussed this at length on the dev forum and the conclusion we came to if we were to implement such a system would be to restrict it to a particular formation  - eg 1st Bde or 2nd Regt etc. Specifying a particular unit is not realistic. Anyway it's on the wish list already. [:)]

Re turning off of SEPs. Again you are wanting a degree of control not available to WW2 comanders at the level of the simulation. I can understand your desire to have that control, but supply deliveries were invariably worked out by higher command and the operational commander had to deal with it. Usually once established these arrangements were set in concrete ( as it were ) and took considerable time to change. This is particularly so for airborne ops. The Brits at Arnhem being a classic case.



Pergite! -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (12/10/2006 4:02:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

re prioritising: We've discussed this at length on the dev forum and the conclusion we came to if we were to implement such a system would be to restrict it to a particular formation - eg 1st Bde or 2nd Regt etc. Specifying a particular unit is not realistic. Anyway it's on the wish list already. [:)]


Great, I must have missed it.


quote:


Re turning off of SEPs. Again you are wanting a degree of control not available to WW2 comanders at the level of the simulation. I can understand your desire to have that control, but supply deliveries were invariably worked out by higher command and the operational commander had to deal with it. Usually once established these arrangements were set in concrete ( as it were ) and took considerable time to change. This is particularly so for airborne ops. The Brits at Arnhem being a classic case.


Where not the problem with the supply drops / air support during Market Garden mainly due to the almost total failure of the 1st Airborne Division's communcations net. On Crete I even have the whole operational command landed with General Student and the whole corps staff. If they cant cancel or move the drops, then who can?
I guess its good to keep the SEP as a extra "victory objective", but in that case I guess the briefing somehow should include that.

I have also realised the need for a better logistic overview. Some kind of window where I can see exactly how much of everything that have arrived and where it has gone. This got me thinking why not implement staff officers that are there to aid you? S1 (personell) to make you review your losses and combat effectivness on all your unit. S2 (intel) and S3 (operations) is allready presented on the map. More intel could for example be given in the form of a enemy OOB consisting of a vauge idea of the composition of enemy forces, that could be updated after time. S4 (logistics) would be able to cover the supply overview I am talking about. A spread-sheet of some sort for easy acces for each staff function to complement the action on the map. Just a tought, which you probably allready have discussed [;)]

Concerning reinforcements I had a bit of a surprise when Robert Laycock materialized with a complete battalion of commandos(Layforce) right in the middle of occupied Souda. Maybe it would be good with alternative reinforcement placings if the primary one is occupied, or that arrivals by sea need a port in the same way air landings need a runway?

I know that you are second only to Santa Claus when it comes to wishes, but hey, you hopefully have long series of games to try them out in. [&o]



06 Maestro -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (12/22/2006 8:59:36 PM)

Not to be too nit picky, but could something be done about the log and message dialog box order?  In the Log dialog box, the current entries are at the top, with multiple older entries below.  In the Message dialog box, the current message is at the bottom, with multiple older entries above.
I frequently switch back and forth between these two info windows; it may cost me a second or two just to make sure I’m reading it right.  This translates into game minutes lost when those minutes count.
I can live with the current displays for the next couple of games.  However, f it is not too much trouble, I would like to have a more uniform display of info.
 



MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (12/22/2006 9:16:09 PM)

I believe that very issue of sequencing for the side bar came up recently in the beta forum. As I recall, we were pretty much split on sort sequence. And I think one of us proposed to make it an option ... just the type of thing for Dave to work on in his spare time. :)



Arjuna -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (12/23/2006 1:24:31 AM)

Yeh, yeh yeh Mark. I believe you have a bit of spare time now. Isn't that right? Me, I'm on holidays. It's official. My wife says so. [;)]



kilowatts -> RE: Wishlist (cont'd) (2/21/2007 10:36:23 PM)

Here's a simple thing I think deserves a look... When I click on the Stratmap to move the Battle map, if the point I click on is already shown in the Battle map then nothing happens. I expected the Battlemap to shift to center on the clicked location.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75