RE: The Wish List (Full Version)

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



Message

TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: The Wish List (11/21/2013 11:56:12 PM)

More interesting/informative counters, such as using different designs for air, arty, HQ, etc. Maybe colored bars or gradients or something. More visible, and more variety, for the formation indicators, so we can have more than eight. The OB tab listing could be more clearly displayed; as it is, it's so narrow because of the fixed window that you can't get enough horizontal dispersion to show a real TO&E nicely; unit symbols on the TO&E would be nice too. The scenario selection bit at the start could use work. Instead of just a list of file names, a prettier list with a callout panel when you select one, that shows a map of the area of operations with the scenario area inset.

Stuff like this is pretty cosmetic but would add to the feel and playability of what is already a great game. Oh, and for the map, as noted elsewhere, more landmarks (road names, river names, hills and woods, etc.) would be nice.




wodin -> RE: The Wish List (11/22/2013 6:26:55 AM)

Off Map supply source tracing..so if you blew up a bridge (As requested further up) you could in effect cut supply off until a new one is built.



CapnDarwin -> RE: The Wish List (11/22/2013 11:17:16 AM)

Loggy functions are on a whole different playing field. To slow that down would mean hitting bridges behind the on map forces. If you could take down bridges I could see resupply efforts being hampered for a time. Not an easy task behind the enemies lines.



trebcourie -> RE: The Wish List (11/22/2013 2:25:44 PM)

For the record, I really like the gameplay now. While I like many of the items on the wish list, too many take this game out of the nice niche it's in.

Supply/resupply is very abstract. I like that. Formations on the front may have to take a pause to resupply, but other than that the logistics battle isn't important to an 8-12 hour high-tempo regimental attack. Plus, making logistics "vulnerable" adds another factor that may unduly imbalance a scenario.

The formations/options may need some tweaking and some help with withdrawals and multiple formations with one order (e.g., Deliberate to Point 1, Assault to Point 2), but overall I like the options we have now. Putting yourself in the brigade/regimental commander's shoes, you're not specifying the how for every platoon and company there -- you just tell them where to be and hopefully when.

I would echo the comments above about a better, more manageable OOB roster. And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (11/22/2013 2:38:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD

And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.


That is in reference to campaign scenarios. At the moment the campaign doesn't show the individual briefings. In most cases they were done and just don't show. They have the full briefing. It's one of my wish lists to get the individual briefings to show for each campaign scenario. Much more immersion.

Good Hunting.

MR



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: The Wish List (11/23/2013 5:55:55 AM)

Then I have also the following wish

There where differend projectss underway, but they where ended by the end of the cold war in 1991
What about that the cold war has not ended in 1991. But continues. What about to add the Leopard III (140mm) and other of these projects.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 4:58:54 AM)

In the editor you can set a reinforcement arrival time. I like to see that you can also set a possibilty of arrival en set a possible delay. I mean you can say a tank unit arrives about 20 minutes for 80%, and can have a delay between 1 to 5 minutes. This also possible for withdrawls



Arnir -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 5:06:27 AM)

After playing for a while I am really interested in having units from different decades. I wonder how my game would have played out with M60s or M48 instead of M1A1s or M113s vs Bradleys, etc.



DoubleDeuce -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 6:34:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD

And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.


For mine (in other game systems as I haven't finished designing and released a scenario in this game yet) I have tried to use the actual US Army OPORD format for the briefing but many people don't like it. When I use it, I tend to get negative feedback via email from those who say it just confuses them, especially those without a military background. I may go with a separate .pdf file with that information so a player can read print it out and have a hard copy to reference while playing. Just a thought.



Aztec -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 11:26:00 AM)

Wishlist?

A TT Font or .abr file for Photoshop with basic NATO military symbols

I would love to see some simple programmable SOP's, but I have a feeling those are probably already factored into the unit mode (H,S,M etc)



Plodder -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 11:36:39 AM)

quote:

A TT Font or .abr file for Photoshop with basic NATO military symbols


Do you mean this: MapSymbs



Aztec -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 11:58:47 AM)

[:(] Been all over that but it won't work on my OS, don't know why?



--And as soon as I posted that...I found mil-esri.zip, a collection of 9 TTF's with military symbology!



wodin -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 3:36:30 PM)

Why do I love these symbols? Sometimes I think I may have Aspergers..

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

quote:

A TT Font or .abr file for Photoshop with basic NATO military symbols


Do you mean this: MapSymbs




trebcourie -> RE: The Wish List (11/25/2013 4:52:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD

And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.


For mine (in other game systems as I haven't finished designing and released a scenario in this game yet) I have tried to use the actual US Army OPORD format for the briefing but many people don't like it. When I use it, I tend to get negative feedback via email from those who say it just confuses them, especially those without a military background. I may go with a separate .pdf file with that information so a player can read print it out and have a hard copy to reference while playing. Just a thought.


Well, heck. It's the Army. It should confuse them! [8D]



Hexagon -> RE: The Wish List (11/27/2013 8:39:01 AM)

One thing i want see is a way to "edit" scenarios only changing the OOB, i refer to something like this:

With a game tool open a scenario you can change the year for scen if you want(and with this you limit hardware selection) when you do this you can in OOB select diferent tanks, APCs, infantry squad etc etc and when changes are done save this as a new scen, with this we have a tool to with a single scen have multiple scens in diferent years or only changing the hardware with minimal work.

The idea is have the same scen except you change the date (well you need change to scen briefing date) and the hardware, with this you can do a new scen for game and with a few minutes of work have the same scen set in diferent years.

Editor is good, of course has limitations but is good enough, but when you want a scen set in a diferent date you need do from zero the scen when you only change the hardware... i know that maybe formations are not the same in different years but i only search that in a battle between LeoII and Leo I VS T-80 have exactly the same but with Leo I and M48 VS T-64/T-72 and T-62.

Point is have a tool where you can edit the OOB in a scen only changing the hardware and scen date, nothing more... maybe could be possible do this in the editor??? open a scen, change date and with right click in the unit have a "change hardware" option??? you have in screen a list of possible usable hardware in the date you select and when you do the changes you want save this as a new scen ummm maybe this is interesting to made editor more powerfull, now if you want a battalion or a regiment with a mixed hardware you need done this company by company or battalion to battalion... maybe a way to add the standar formation and when is on map edit the hardware in subunits is a good point.

Thanks.



wodin -> RE: The Wish List (12/2/2013 7:46:36 AM)

Any chance the FOW of enemy units becomes lees as more info comes back on what it is..at the moment we either no all the sub units or we never get to know what the sub units are (unless you follow the the messages when they get destroyed..which then breaks the FOW the counter is representing anyway).



CapnDarwin -> RE: The Wish List (12/2/2013 12:17:25 PM)

We plan to address a number of the FoW items in the 2.04 update. This will include counter info, hints, and diary info. Also try to address settings for seeing arty and mine crosses when not seen. We will see what else we can tweak too.



Hexagon -> RE: The Wish List (12/2/2013 1:10:19 PM)

A little question, is any plan to expand the "reinforcement" feature??? i refer to define where appear reinforces... not all, you can set the reinforcement units as "variable" and a certain number of turns before their appear game ask you where you want they appear and you select where, this is to add more FOW.



mb4329 -> RE: The Wish List (12/11/2013 10:50:31 AM)

Ability for the player the designate withdraw/screen retrograde paths (the equivalent of on contact fail back to position/town X)

The ability to add a modifier to the hold and screen commands based on a specified level of contact. For example hold until spotted, fired on, or until unit takes some level of losses (say light or moderate).

Ability to modify the standoff distances. Ideally by general type (ie. different values for tanks, IFVs, APC, SPAAGs). If I am in a helo I want to stay well away from any identified SPAAG, but from a game standpoint I am not as worried about tanks, IFV/APCs, artillery etc. From a tank side I may want to maintain (or close) distance with other tanks, but have less concern over other armor. From an IFV/APC standpoint closing with like armor (especially APCs) may not be so bad, but I want to stay well away from anti-tank and tank units.

Ability to assign a movement path to a reinforcing unit the turn it will arrive. It would be nice to have the units not just sit still the first impulse they arrive. They likely would have been under some sort of order before they arrived and wouldn't just show up on the battlefield and halt. Maybe something like at the end of the players turn, but before any action is undertaken, the player assigns units that are due to arrive that turn orders independent of the players command limits (if the units fail to arrive then the process would begin anew next turn). After that first impulse they would then fall under the normal C2 restrictions.

Merrick



TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: The Wish List (12/11/2013 11:52:11 AM)

I'm guessing that a lot of these requests (which would be good to have, mostly!) would be a bear for the AI to handle. It's easy for a player to assign different values based on intuitive assessments of conditions, but poor AI needs pretty rigorous algorithmic input to make those decisions I'm guessing. And for me, any changes to the game system that the AI can't handle for solo play aren't worth it.



Tazak -> RE: The Wish List (12/11/2013 2:22:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mb4329
Ability to assign a movement path to a reinforcing unit the turn it will arrive. It would be nice to have the units not just sit still the first impulse they arrive. They likely would have been under some sort of order before they arrived and wouldn't just show up on the battlefield and halt. Maybe something like at the end of the players turn, but before any action is undertaken, the player assigns units that are due to arrive that turn orders independent of the players command limits (if the units fail to arrive then the process would begin anew next turn). After that first impulse they would then fall under the normal C2 restrictions.


would love to see this, even if its pasue and issue 1 'order' rather than the normal 3, with command cycles changing depending on the state of the players C3 chain planning scenario reinforcements to arrive at the 'start' of a command cycle is tricky.



mb4329 -> RE: The Wish List (12/11/2013 9:27:47 PM)

@TheWombat could point on not wanting to negatively impact the AI.

Don't know how challenging they would be to handle or not so I figured I would through them out for consideration/coversation. In some cases it appears that some of it is basically there. For example the retrograde movement issue could use the existing movement scheme of placing waypoints, but they are only triggered when a unit displaces in screening mode due to enemy proximity (as it will currently). If the player doesn't assign retrograde waypoints the AI behaves as it currently does and if there have been retrograde waypoints assigned it tries to execute them using the existing movement routine.

The second point could be more of a condition test before the AI displaces the unit.

The third may be more challenging to handle as there may be a fair bit of logic needed to make it work well, but I wouldn't put anything past the development team.

As to the fourth item and to address Tazak's point I see that reinforcement's first turn as similar to the initial setup. I think forcing a player to do assign orders at the start of the turn was my attempt at preventing the player from reacting to data they would not normally have until the turn is complete while exempting them from the command limit was based on the premise that the arriving unit had some existing order driving their appearance. Trying to balance that freebee of not burning C2 "points" with not allowing the player to get to gamey.

Merrick



CapnDarwin -> RE: The Wish List (12/11/2013 9:53:13 PM)

Merrick,

Apparently the tubes ate my response from earlier. [:@]

Both points 1 and 2 are in our wish list pipeline for a future engine feature. We do want to get to having more waypoints and then being able to set the action and state of those waypoints. Move hasty here, assault to here and hold/aggressive or screen/fallback to here and screen, etc. Add a bit more detail and choice will allow for #3 to happen better by the AI. Also giving the AI a over arching battle plan will help too. Nothing we will see tomorrow, but hopefully in the 2.1 engine. The fourth point is going to be tough. The best we might be able to do is revamp the system such that any units that will appear during the upcoming command cycle get placed on the map as inactive units but allow orders to be given that will fire when the unit wakes up during the turn. And yes I would agree at no cost to limited orders and no delay when the unit wakes up.

All very good points and we just need to hit the lottery and make this our day job to get it done faster. [:D]




mb4329 -> RE: The Wish List (12/14/2013 4:27:43 PM)

Sounds good Jim.

After playing a bit more it would also be nice to have the ability to specify at what range or PK a unit engages various targets. I have been finding that my IFV units (playing as NATO) engage Pact helicopters beyond a point where they have a reasonable PK (often 2000-2500m) and seemingly before they themselves are spotted (basing that on lack of WP fire prior to engagement). The end result is the WP unit identifies and engages the IFV unit often suffering no causalities and the NATO IFVs often suffer 50-75% losses. It would be nice to have the ability to assign a value, either range or PK, at which a unit (or class of units) will engage a threat. If a unit is fired on first, all bets can be off with respect engagement ranges.

Merrick



Panta_slith -> RE: The Wish List (12/18/2013 2:30:39 PM)

I wonder if this has been suggested before, but for us silly amateurish scenario makers it would be interesting to be able to give a random probability of appearance of the units. You could determine, for instance, a 20% chance of a tank battalion to enter at time 1005 in coordinates such and such, for instance and a 40% of another battalion to popup at 1437 in some other place. That adds a certain degree of unpredictability each time you start the scenario and increase its replayability. Steel Beasts's editor works like that and it is very useful.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (12/18/2013 4:03:07 PM)

Random probability is great for playing against yourself. It is the worst tool available in the editor for play balance of scenarios you are trying to create for others if you want a calculated result.

What does that mean?

As a scenario designer I want a specific result. I want the scenario to play competitively. I don't want it to be either too easy or impossible to beat. Now, of course, that is subjective to my own personal playing skills and that is where having playtesters helps identify how a scenario plays.

If you are running a scenario with unit(s) that come in with a random time that makes a calculated result difficult if not impossible to obtain. Did that unit come in at 3 hours or 5 hours? That will make a tremendous difference as to how the scenario plays out. That's not a big deal, in fact, it's a good result if you are playing the scenario just against yourself. When others play it you will usually want more control over the outcome and that means reinforcements come in at very close to a specific time so you know when they will begin to impact game play.

Good Hunting.

MR



Panta_slith -> RE: The Wish List (12/18/2013 4:16:47 PM)

Please allow me disagree a bit on that point. It is just a matter of scenario design philosophy. Perhaps the difference is that in SBP you also script the routes, therefore it makes a difference if you appear in one place than somewhere else and also the route the units take as well. To be honest, most AIs are disappointing up to a certain degree, and unless you elaborate the routes/behaviours of the units, they are forced to aim for the VPs in a more or less straight way. When you create scenarios in supposedly sophisticated games, played by civilians AND the military, like Harpoon and SBP and see how unsophisticated they are at the very end, you realize that nothing compares to the challenge of playing against one or more fellow humans. And maybe is precisely in those situations where random events may be more helpful. [:(]



Mad Russian -> RE: The Wish List (12/18/2013 4:39:43 PM)

If the result you are looking for is a controlled one, such as where several people play the same scenario to see how well they do in say a tournament, or even comparing scores, a scenario with reinforcements that come in at a very wide variance are not good.

Just depends on your end goal. I've made scenarios for a multitude of games. Some with variable unit entry and some without. Where I learned to leave variable unit entry almost completely out of public scenarios was from games that had variable entry available.

Good Hunting.

MR



Panta_slith -> RE: The Wish List (12/18/2013 5:04:14 PM)

Possibly I do not fit in the average player profile, I suppose. Canned scenarios are not my cup of tea, except to do some sparring before playing with friends. I understand that the requirements of a professional game designer are much different, you have to sell the game to your public, and if that public demands solo scenarios of a certain kind, you have to make them or die. I hope you do well because I have already said that I find this game excellent, specially because if you are not satisfied with the scenarios, you can do your own with the very good editors that come in the package.
Personally I found the canned scenarios in most tactical/grand tactical games really disappointing, just a variation of Space Invaders, no room for subtleties like maneuver,deceiving (maskirovka) or bluffing, to name just a few. And that goes the same for TacOps, Combat Mission, Decisive action, SBP, you name it, though all those excel in multiplayer. But I understand that you need to sell as much as possible in terms to be able to continue improving the product thus you need to make more solo scenarios. It is just that I would like to have that random possibility tool, I promise not to force anyone to use it, I am not a North Korean leader! [:)]



Hexagon -> RE: The Wish List (12/18/2013 6:21:32 PM)

Something i dont read here... is possible add filters in the scenario selection screen??? i think in filter scens by date, size... and maybe by nations (for example if i search a scen with german troops show only them).

Thanks.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875