RE: The Wish List

RE: The Wish List (Full Version)

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

Message

benpark -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 4:21:10 PM)
-Waypoints with mixed orders. Helpful for getting forces to move up quickly, then switching to a more covered move type as they close with the enemy -A "withdraw" order. This would allow the unit in question to utilize the best cover in it's hex in order to break contact. Smoke enabled units could also utilize additional cover. Useful for preserving what's left of those beaten up units. Hopefully the AI could also be taught this behavior. -"Ambush" command. Allows unit a better first fire chance when engaged. The unit with this order will gain a benefit due to better sighting advantages, etc. This order would need 1/3 an hour or so to be properly implemented (getting units in place, etc). Works somewhat like "hold fire", but with statistical advantages when the unit breaks cover to fire the first shots. I also like a lot of the ideas above- surrender especially. Units fighting to the death in wargames has always bothered me. Unit types like airborne would also be great. Named leaders with some basic stats that may impact their subordinate units slightly would also be great. That said, there's lots here already to like.

Hexagon -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 7:45:15 PM)
I want see: -A "merge units" option to merge heavy damage units in a single unit/counter, a way to reduce the number of counters and improve units fighting value... i think that this kind of units improve morale and readiness when merge. -More control in cross rivers with amphibios units, put a waypoint near a river and set this a a cross point using a bridge or using vehicles. -Maybe i think game needs add "damage units" and not only use kills, for example in a tank company of 10 tanks you have 4 tanks destroyed and 2 damage this means you lose 5 tanks in combat value because damage units count 50% of a non damage unit. -Add a way to highlight the organization selected... i refer if i select a company i want see the counters of this battalion marked, if i select a HQ see the units under this HQ marked etc etc. Other things you say are good to improve game to. EDIT: surround units... maybe a surrender rule as optional where when an unit with no retreat options under certain value in morale have a % of surrender, % that increase any 5-10 minutes it stays with no retreat path.

Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 8:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hexagon I want see: -A "merge units" option to merge heavy damage units in a single unit/counter, a way to reduce the number of counters and improve units fighting value... i think that this kind of units improve morale and readiness when merge. I wouldn't agree with this. I don't think merging two heavily damaged unit creates one of better morale and readiness. I think it creates a larger unit that is heavily damaged with low readiness. Half this unit doesn't have a personal relationship with the new unit leaders, they haven't trained together, they have already taken heavy casualties and seen friends and acquaintances die. Add all that up and I don't think they gain anything but numbers. quote: -More control in cross rivers with amphibios units, put a waypoint near a river and set this a a cross point using a bridge or using vehicles. If you put a movement order waypoint on both sides of a river it will do amphibious assault now if everybody in the unit is amphibious capable. quote: -Maybe i think game needs add "damage units" and not only use kills, for example in a tank company of 10 tanks you have 4 tanks destroyed and 2 damage this means you lose 5 tanks in combat value because damage units count 50% of a non damage unit. I don't understand this one. -Add a way to highlight the organization selected... i refer if i select a company i want see the counters of this battalion marked, if i select a HQ see the units under this HQ marked etc etc. You mean marked on the map? Good Hunting. MR

Hexagon -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 8:29:52 PM)
I refer that in other wargames you select a unit and the units in same organization (battalion, regiment, division...) highlight on map and you see them better when are a lot of units and you miss where you send the 3rd company [:D] Damage units... now is hit and score a kill, i think that see damage units is interesting, you can kill an unit or damage it and have the damage unit with a 50% of his combat value. Merge units... well, you are right but are examples where destroyed units merge to create add-hoc units and manage to hold... i think in germans in WWII, they use a lot of this emergency units (and not allways with rest of first line units)... maybe if you see it better when 2 units merge (you only can merge units if both joined dont create an unit over the bigger unit... if you join a company and a section you cant have something bigger than a company) and both units are heavy damage you can have a chance of have a bigger unit with same problems or a unit a little better. Even when you join 2 total diferent units think that military training is to create standar units, you can form task forces with companies from diferent units and they mantein a certain good teamwork.

Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 9:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hexagon Damage units... now is hit and score a kill, i think that see damage units is interesting, you can kill an unit or damage it and have the damage unit with a 50% of his combat value. So, let me get this right, you want a crew that was in a perfectly good tank that was then damaged by enemy fire to sit still in it and keep fighting until they are killed? That doesn't happen in actual situations; for the obvious reason I stated. quote: Merge units... well, you are right but are examples where destroyed units merge to create add-hoc units and manage to hold... i think in germans in WWII, they use a lot of this emergency units (and not allways with rest of first line units)... maybe if you see it better when 2 units merge (you only can merge units if both joined dont create an unit over the bigger unit... if you join a company and a section you cant have something bigger than a company) and both units are heavy damage you can have a chance of have a bigger unit with same problems or a unit a little better. Even when you join 2 total diferent units think that military training is to create standar units, you can form task forces with companies from diferent units and they mantein a certain good teamwork. I'm not saying two battered units haven't ever combined in world history. I'm saying they get no benefit other than larger numbers for doing so. Your first post gave examples of them gaining benefits from the merge. I don't think that's correct. Good Hunting. MR

TomBombadil711 -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 9:25:27 PM)
No idea if this may be possible, but campaigns playable PBEM++ would be fine too.

Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 9:27:32 PM)
We have discussed that. From a single side or possibly having a 2 player campaign. Where two units fight a series of actions against each other. Issues are who would decide when the next battle would be fought, etc... Good Hunting. MR

CptHowdy -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 10:41:21 PM)
I would like to be able to give my arty units more than 3 barrage orders in a turn. currently I can order my arty to barrage a hex 3 times and all 3 barrages will arrive in about a 10 minute time period, usually at the beginning of the turn. if I have a command cycle of 30-50 minutes that means I have arty on call and being directed by the AI for the rest of the turn. I know we have shoot and scoot and that is fine but at least let me order my arty to continue to pound the same hex for the duration of my turn. it can move all it wants just keep firing where I told it when possible!! I let the AI give fire orders but a lot of times I find it lacking such as using suppressing fire or firing on empty hexes when I have enemy spotted in more dangerous positions.

Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 10:44:16 PM)
What about the turns when you have 20 minute command cycles? Good Hunting. MR

CptHowdy -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 10:55:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian What about the turns when you have 20 minute command cycles? Good Hunting. MR doesn't really matter the cycle time. i want my arty to pound that hex whenever it can for as long as possible. perhaps im preparing for an assault. if it can only do it 4 times in twenty minutes then so be it. ill order it to do more on the next turn.

Radagy -> RE: The Wish List (10/22/2013 10:56:05 PM)
Freely placing minefields and fortified areas each time you start a scenario would be welcome.

CptHowdy -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 5:40:31 AM)
need more info about the battlefields. I just started black horse scenario as nato. briefing tells me there are two soviet elements that got split up on way to Nordheim von der Rhon. one took highway 285 and one took 279. where is bad neustatd in relation to von der rhon? north, south? where are routes 285, 279? do they both lead to von der rhon? kinda hard to stay between the 113th and 66th if I don't know the lay of the land. im assuming bad neustatd is north because my units start in the northeast and northwest and van der rhon is southeast, southwest of those. so I should expect the 66th to come in from the north as well? also not clear on my objective for the mission. is it to keep the two elements from joining in von der rhon? since im recon do i avoid the fight in von der rhon and just try to cap VP's outside of town or am i itching for a fight?

nukkxx5058 -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 6:18:25 AM)
one wore wish: Been able to search [ Ctrl-F ] in the diary.

Hexagon -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 9:37:30 AM)
I dont say that, i say that in game there is only one type of casualty, this is kill, but not all casualties need be kills... i explain better, a tank can lose his gun (a major damage) or only lose the thermal module, fire computer (Leo II for example can use manual system), turret damage or lose a crew member not all the damage in a tank means it retreat from battlefield specially for NATO, yes, is better retreat damage units but this is more tactical combat and even a damage tank can offer more on battlefield than in rear... i remember when in SP i use tanks with no gun to distract enemy and force him leave units to cover a flank for example. Maybe after think on it a little more i see that if a tank has 100% combat value (only count hardware) is possible that you can damage them and degradate it combat value, for example a heavy hit can finish in a 70% reduction in combat value or a light hit reduce a 10% the tank combat value (main advantage of NATO tanks over soviet tanks is that they survive more on battlefield, this means that hits that kill a soviet tank for them ends in damage or heavy damage). If you dont want see heavy damage tanks in battlefield is easy set a rule that says if a tank has a damage over 30-40-50% the unit appear as send to repairs, same as destroy the unit because is not present in battlefield but count less for victory purpouses apart that you can recover the unit for next battles in a campaign. When i talk about merge i refer that i prefer have 1 counter with 3 tanks than 3 counter with 1 tank... and well, what is more effective, 3 tanks fighting in separate sections or 3 tanks fighting in same section??? when you join 3 tanks from diferent units in a single unit... well, i think that improve morale and performance have 3 tanks with physical support apart that in long battles you can mantein number of counters in relation with the true power of units in battlefield. Two players campaigns... well, i dont know if you play Tiller games... in campaign between battles you take decisions that send you to a battlefield or other, maybe is possible create variants from a basic scen where casualties from previous battle and tactical decisions from players send them to one of the variants of the scen... you have the same campaign structure, battle 1-2-3-4 but previous battle and players decisions can send you to 1-2a-3b-4a.

CapnDarwin -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 12:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Radagy Freely placing minefields and fortified areas each time you start a scenario would be welcome. Not to burst a bubble here, but this will not be happening any time soon for mines or obstacles (you can move fortifications and PPF markers now). The game had "free" placement until I took all the mines and obstacle markers and made a 5 deep wall at few key objective areas effectively stopping the enemy from even getting close. We may entertain having a limited number with placement restrictions down the road, but it will need to be looked at so it can't be abused as a gamey mechanic.

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 12:36:10 PM)
Some good, some iffy ideas here--par for the course for wargamers! [:)] My $0.02 mostly concerns UI/info display. Highlighting a formation, and better indication of formation and command relationships in general. I'd like to see, for instance, an option to visually trace the command route from a HQ to its subordinates, and vice versa; click on a unit and it shows a line to its subordinates, if any, and to its superior HQ. Right now it's a bit difficult to visualize how to position command elements so that everyone is in command. BTW, what does making a formation independent actually mean in game terms? The F6 unit info page functionality is also in need of enhancement I think. For instance, if the vehicle side of a counter is showing, you get the vehicle info, but not the passenger info. Generally, if I have Territorial infantry units in a truck, I don't want to see the capabilities of the truck! So making it either display both, or have a quick toggle would be useful. I agree with those who want more map info. I understand it's a battle between info density and clutter, but water obstacle names (if any), important road designations, etc. are nice to have. Also, the way text is displayed on the map (place names) as it is done now needs improvement. Craters, shell impacts, crosses, smoke, etc. all overlay the names in an irregular fashion and results in a definite degradation of readability at times. The OB list in the tab on the right is fairly sensitive, and I've often mistakenly re-attached a unit to some other unit when all I wanted to do is click on something. The hierarchy is also sometimes ambiguous, in that what is subordinate to what is often hard to tell, exactly. Partly that's nomenclature, particularly with Pact forces, and partly it's a limitation of the narrow width of the OB window. But really, the game is spiffy. Needs more unicorns, rainbows, and poodles, but other than that, not much beyond the stuff that's planned for the future already.

Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 12:43:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CptHowdy quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian What about the turns when you have 20 minute command cycles? Good Hunting. MR doesn't really matter the cycle time. i want my arty to pound that hex whenever it can for as long as possible. perhaps im preparing for an assault. if it can only do it 4 times in twenty minutes then so be it. ill order it to do more on the next turn. So, you want a barrage order. One that has the artillery fire until told to stop? At the moment as artillery finishes it's fire missions it moves. This is to keep it from being targeted by counter battery fire. The type of mission you are describing would put your own artillery at very high risk to counter battery fire. Good Hunting. MR

Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 12:45:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CptHowdy need more info about the battlefields. I just started black horse scenario as nato. briefing tells me there are two soviet elements that got split up on way to Nordheim von der Rhon. one took highway 285 and one took 279. where is bad neustatd in relation to von der rhon? north, south? where are routes 285, 279? do they both lead to von der rhon? kinda hard to stay between the 113th and 66th if I don't know the lay of the land. im assuming bad neustatd is north because my units start in the northeast and northwest and van der rhon is southeast, southwest of those. so I should expect the 66th to come in from the north as well? also not clear on my objective for the mission. is it to keep the two elements from joining in von der rhon? since im recon do i avoid the fight in von der rhon and just try to cap VP's outside of town or am i itching for a fight? That's a shortcoming of the scenario designer not the game. I'll look into fixing that for you. Good Hunting. MR

Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 12:51:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hexagon I dont say that, i say that in game there is only one type of casualty, this is kill, but not all casualties need be kills... That's not entirely correct. There are three types of vehicle casualties in the game. Those that are killed, those that have heavy enough damage to pull out of the fight (non-runners) and those that take light damage but can stay in the fight. You see all three types of damage now. At the end of the scenario the after action report shows how many dropped out. Those that were lightly damaged stayed in the battle and don't get reported. quote: When i talk about merge i refer that i prefer have 1 counter with 3 tanks than 3 counter with 1 tank... and well, what is more effective, 3 tanks fighting in separate sections or 3 tanks fighting in same section??? when you join 3 tanks from diferent units in a single unit... well, i think that improve morale and performance have 3 tanks with physical support apart that in long battles you can mantein number of counters in relation with the true power of units in battlefield. I understand merge. I'm just telling if you do that you won't be getting any performance improvements. If anything their morale and training would go down not up. quote: Two players campaigns... well, i dont know if you play Tiller games... in campaign between battles you take decisions that send you to a battlefield or other, maybe is possible create variants from a basic scen where casualties from previous battle and tactical decisions from players send them to one of the variants of the scen... you have the same campaign structure, battle 1-2-3-4 but previous battle and players decisions can send you to 1-2a-3b-4a. Like I said, it's something we are looking at. Good Hunting. MR

CptHowdy -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 1:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian quote: ORIGINAL: CptHowdy quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian What about the turns when you have 20 minute command cycles? Good Hunting. MR doesn't really matter the cycle time. i want my arty to pound that hex whenever it can for as long as possible. perhaps im preparing for an assault. if it can only do it 4 times in twenty minutes then so be it. ill order it to do more on the next turn. So, you want a barrage order. One that has the artillery fire until told to stop? At the moment as artillery finishes it's fire missions it moves. This is to keep it from being targeted by counter battery fire. The type of mission you are describing would put your own artillery at very high risk to counter battery fire. Good Hunting. MR shoot and scoot is fine, it saves me the trouble of having to remember to move a unit but after it moves I would like it to continue to fire on the same hex and not pick another target. after the arty moves maybe a pop-up "Sir, would you like us to continue to fire on hex 1819 or select our own targets?"

nukkxx5058 -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 5:09:24 PM)
I almost forgot on my wish list : TCP/IP multiplayer games :-) [&o]

CapnDarwin -> RE: The Wish List (10/23/2013 6:31:31 PM)
Once PBEM is stable and working it will give us the foundation to go after LAN style play and more.

budd -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 3:07:00 AM)
How about when your on the new game screen and make your picks i.e. WP or N, single or campaign the next screen is filtered by your choices, so if you pick nato and single scenario the only things that show are the scenarios best played as nato and that are single scenarios, i'd also like to suggest a filter by size of the scenario on the new game screen. With all the possible add-on scenarios, user made and official scenario hopefully on the way[;)] a filter might be nice to have.

Waz -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 5:35:26 AM)
Great game. I've seen a lot of good ideas above and for my inaugural post I have a simple suggestion. Please give us a Hold Fire order of some sort. It makes me crazy to see a scout section open fire at 2 km and expose their position when often the smartest thing to do is lie low, watch, and report. The order could be cancelled if they are approached by an enemy, maybe a chance to fire as a function of their training level and the distance to the enemy.

Plodder -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 5:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: budd How about when your on the new game screen and make your picks i.e. WP or N, single or campaign the next screen is filtered by your choices, so if you pick nato and single scenario the only things that show are the scenarios best played as nato and that are single scenarios, i'd also like to suggest a filter by size of the scenario on the new game screen. With all the possible add-on scenarios, user made and official scenario hopefully on the way[;)] a filter might be nice to have. +1

Radagy -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 7:37:44 AM)
Another suggestion: the colored triangle on the upper right side of a counter should have two colors. On the vertex the regiment's color, at the base of the triangle, a stripe reporting the batallion's color. This way It should be much easier keeping unit in command.

76mm -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 10:39:11 AM)
quote: Please give us a Hold Fire order of some sort. Given the lengths of the turns, I don't think that Hold Fire would be adequate, re really need an Ambush order (as mentioned by others previously). Ideally you'd be able to draw a "covered arc" similar to in the CM games. In addition to Ambush, my top three wishlist items are: --allowing different orders for each waypoint; --showing command relationships on the counters; and --individual leader names/characteristics.

wodin -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 11:58:24 AM)
76mm..are covered arcs right for this scale? 500m hex and platoon size units? I'd like an ambush order though. However not sure covered arcs are necessary.

76mm -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 12:13:35 PM)
quote: 76mm..are covered arcs right for this scale? 500m hex and platoon size units? I'd like an ambush order though. However not sure covered arcs are necessary. I think so. I was a tank platoon leader in Germany in the late eighties, and as a basic part of any defensive planning platoons were assigned sectors, which are basically the same as covered arcs. An ambush order needs some mechanism to be implemented such as a trigger range, and a covered arc is basically just a graphical representation of a trigger range. Or maybe I'm missing something, dunno...

wodin -> RE: The Wish List (10/24/2013 12:14:46 PM)
OK cool.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.421875