RE: If you could add one feature... (Full Version)

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



Message

IronMikeGolf -> RE: If you could add one feature... (2/13/2019 3:40:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zackree

The current model ignores the difference between a long range front shot that has almost no possibility of a kill and a flank or rear shot with a high probability of a kill.


Well, not really, but you, the player don't currently get a lot of information about the shots. And that is because or goal is to give your a feel for what it is like at the Battalion and Brigade/Regiment level of command.

The times that we adjudicate a shot as non-frontal is most often tied to whether the target unit is surprised. And that is because AFV crews are trained to immediately put frontal armor towards the enemy. What we need to do better is accounting for a unit being engaged from multiple directions simultaneously and we are working towards addressing that.

The other case is engaging a moving unit that continues to move on its original path. That is a consequence of Assault movement. We're looking at that, too.



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (2/14/2019 12:43:14 AM)

Let me see if I can catch up on a few things people have stated.

1. Engineering. We are planning to improve on the abstraction from Red Storm to have a set number of assets to end bridge spam and also to have those items show up on the map better when in use. Bridges for stream/river crossings and Engineers for clearing obstacles and making improved positions.

2. In general, many improvements to how command and control and orders and some new SOPs to help both the player and AI use units with better fidelity and realism.

3. Random map maker or a map maker tool in general. Not going to happen for some time if at all. William has done a great job of documenting the map making process and if you look at it there is no easy way to make a user-friendly hit a button and make appears program. Not right now at least. That is the tradeoff of doing real-world locations versus old school SSI map generations. Sorry, there no better answer.

4. Battle generator. Like the map maker in #3, we did not build the game to be a skirmish mode type game. We are looking at a number of additions in scenario making that will allow for quicker construction of scenarios and we are hoping to have some tools worked out that will allow players to swap out gear easier. Maybe down the road when the game is stable and we have worked through some of the expansions we can revisit the means to build on the fly scenarios.

5. Improvements in our combat model and the information provided to the player are on our list of things to do for the new game engine. We want the game to tell a deeper story and the player to be able to get at the information they need easier. Always a challenge to have a UI that is informative but not overwhelming.

There will be a number of changes in the look and feel of the new game engine. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we can start showing and telling in more detail. We are working on getting a dedicated web design/support person going and that will speed up our ability to talk more about development.



WABAC -> RE: If you could add one feature... (11/13/2019 12:55:16 AM)

I don't know if this has been mentioned previously . . . Not that it matters [:)]

I think an option to turn off the victory point tab would be a giant step towards enhancing fog of war in Southern Storm. It is now too easy to manage to the losses you see the enemy accumulating. I tend to play the forces of the decadent West. So I am typically on defense.



hapshott -> RE: If you could add one feature... (11/13/2019 1:08:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

Hi,

ease of swapping type/mark/date of units in the editor.

So a shipped scenario is dated August '89 with M1A1 tank units. Swap the mark of tanks to M60A3s and have them automaticity deploy into the same locations as the shipped units.

A lot great scenarios that I would love to play set in say '83 or some such dated.

Fantastic wargame/simulation..
All the best,
Kip.




Hello Kip,

There is a workaround for swapping units. See: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4519944

This workaround is unfortunately only possible for the same faction. I converted all scenario's to the 1970 and 1980 equipment.

Going back to the topic. A random scenario generator would be great. Or a scenario generator which helps you in calculating the objective points. I have real difficulties in determining the points such that the AI is smarter or that the victory matches what you think should be the victory level. e.g I got a marginal victory but wiped out almiost every enemy unit.

Best regards,

Hapshott





Hub6Actual -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/11/2019 4:33:50 AM)

“If pK value is < than x, then hold fire.”

Where the player may set what x is. And hand-in-hand is a target priority SOP, but that has already been mentioned. Oops.

Seriously, this is an excellent game system and I hope for it’s continued health and long life.



Hub6Actual -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/22/2019 9:31:55 PM)

The ability to import text into the side briefings used in the scenario editor.



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 1:37:56 AM)

@Hub6Actual, You can copy and paste from an external document into the scenario description, the two mission briefings, and the designer notes. What else are we missing? [8D]



Hub6Actual -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 3:13:56 AM)

I tried it today, several times. It didn't work. I ended up typing it all in by hand.



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 2:16:18 PM)

What program was the original text in? Can you highlight text and do a copy/paste into another program or open document? Have you tried running both programs (FPRS and text doc) as admin? Seems like a strange glitch. When you click on the text boxes in Red Storm do you get a vertical cursor blinking? Also, what is your OS and Language?



Hub6Actual -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 5:23:07 PM)

Was waiting for an appointment, so typed some stuff and emailed it home. Did ctrl-c, ctrl-v out of MS Outlook on English W10 when I got home, to the mission briefing box, and it wouldn't go. Copy/pasted something from Outlook to Notepad just now to test, and that worked as it should. Just tried the game again to be sure, and nothing happened, although the cursor stopped blinking for about two seconds before starting up again, and still no text transfer. As near as I can sort out, the Admin privileges are the same as everything else on my laptop.



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 5:50:57 PM)

Try a right click in the scenario editor boxes and see if you can select paste. CTRL+V does not work for me either, but the right click and paste does. Just tested in my Steam version to make sure it was not Dev mode or anything odd. [8D]



Hub6Actual -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 5:57:37 PM)

That method of selection works. Never thought of doing it that way, because like Pavlov’s dog, I was wired to do it another way. It just occurred to me that in the game, function ctrl-c in the editor activates viewing hex elevation values. Would that have anything to do with anything?



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 6:03:56 PM)

I would assume that the game is "taking over" the various CTRL/ALT/Shift keys for it's own use. We will need to be more clear in the Editing Documents how to do an external cut/paste operation.



Hub6Actual -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 6:10:37 PM)

Thanks for the assist. The one thing I hate doing in designing scenarios is writing the briefings, etc. Not the game’s fault - I’m poor with words and I just loathe doing it, so anything that makes that part easier is a blessing for me. Thanks again.



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 6:24:35 PM)

Glad it works. The auto briefings are not bad and have a number of details and you can modify from there. I will agree that making the overview and briefings can be time consuming. Best of luck. Enjoy the Holidays!



wodin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 7:44:59 PM)

More refined los\lof esp regarding infantry in built up areas.

Also more detailed inf combat

Oh and Helicopters don't feel right. Though bring in heli insertions! That would make them cool!



Jace11 -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 8:54:28 PM)

Importing / exporting OOB unit names. At the moment if you make a mission, you CAN use the suffix feature that is offered up when you add a formation to a map to help get your OOB names in order, however any subsequent changes are incredibly laborious, difficult to standardize and require right clicks on every unit. If you also have 3 versions of a mission (NATO, H2H, Sov) then it becomes tripled. Possibly, hundreds of right clicks to edit the all the units in the OOBs and no way to compare them, or look for errors. Considerably easier would be to export it to a .csv or .txt file, edit it there then import back but also it would be available to import other missions, useful I think.

To be honest, I've been converting many of the default missions because I found it annoying that scenarios changed the way they named and numbered units, seemingly arbitrarily, despite them being by the same author and featuring the same units / sides, but I have a bad case of OCD when it comes to correct unit designations.



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (12/23/2019 9:27:35 PM)

@Wodin, LOS and LOF in and out of built up areas is getting revamped to be more restrictive. Not sure about more detailed infantry combat. What are you looking for here? We are also working on some better AI and control on Helos. Insertions/extractions are in our road map, but not an SS release item for now.

@Jace, Hopefully a number of changes and features will make what you are describing a bit easier in the new game engine. The game engines have a parsing routine (not an easy one) to do a default scheme based on the formation data fed from the data files. If a scenario designer wants to make more accurate designation in Red Storm, hand edits are the only way right now.



Seer -> RE: If you could add one feature... (5/13/2020 3:29:22 PM)

I'll post here since the wishlist thread is quite old. An encyclopedia with each national army, accessible from the main menu only, would be very helpful to familiarize yourself with various platforms etc. over the course of playing the game. Failing that, some kind of pdf document which lists units by their nationality and features would be a good substitute. I'm not the only one to suggest it, but the last time it was brought up was in 2013 so I figured it was worth restating.

Eventually a campaign revolving around a Second Korean War would be nice for a different theater and new combatants, but that's a future game! Figured I'd throw it out there anyway. The only other things I've noticed is how counter-battery settings on arty seems superfluous, and, I might be mistaken, but AT weapons (RPGs etc.) seem quite rare.

Otherwise, it's all been said before from what I've seen, which is good! I would also like to emphasize that the abstraction of this game is, imo, its core feature and shouldn't be messed with overmuch. What really drew me in is how I could concentrate on the flow of battle rather than the micromanagement of various units: I've gotten enough of that from "wargames" like Eugen's Red Dragon, AirLand Battle, and European Escalation. It's not what a commander should be doing.

Case in point, Red Dragon has ended up at a point where if someone's M1A2, for example, is destroyed by an airstrike people will ragequit. Not the experience I thought it would be back when I first started with EE in 2012. This came about because the devs listened to suggestions for unit inclusions, which is fine until it enters the realm of prototypes. Some, like the Super Patton, made sense if just for fun. Others, like the aforementioned M1A2 with its 1992 year listing, were included to satisfy certain lobbies. Point being, it's the kind of result possible when the playerbase exerts the wrong kind of influence over a dev team. Shiny toys are given rather than improvements to the core experience, and the former results in the detriment of the latter. The team here seem aware of this threat which is to their credit. I don't mean to lecture, just reporting what I've witnessed elsewhere.

Red Storm isn't as graphically impressive as Eugen's titles but makes up for it in spades elsewhere, and it's impressive for that reason. Well done! I look forward to SS but will enjoy RS in the meantime.



dvphimself -> RE: If you could add one feature... (8/4/2020 4:19:39 PM)

Several units from each belligerent state have an ECCM module listed in the sub-unit inspector panel. What they do is not clear to the player. This is true to such a degree that when I first purchased the game and asked this question in a facebook war-gaming group, the consensus answer was that the ECCM module was simply fluff.

Suggestion: Have it mentioned in the log, either in association with 'to-hit' probabilities for AGTMs or next to the log entry of ATGMs that miss in part due to ECCM interference.

This is a feature that is already in the game, but it is obfuscated to the point where even avid players think it currently does nothing.

A feature that you might add in relation to ECCM modules: EW rating governs Order Delay. ECCM modules deployed between 'the orderer' and 'the ordered' might provide minor relief from EW effects in a future version of this series.



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (8/4/2020 7:37:53 PM)

@dvphimself - Electronic Warfare (EW) is the jamming or your radars and communication nodes by the enemy and that impacts overall orders delays, CB fires, arty FSCC calls, etc. Electronic Counter Measures (ECM), mainly found of aircraft of the day, are systems that jam enemy radars and radar-guided munitions thus degrading their hit/kill percentages. Electronic Counter Counter Measures (ECCM) is mainly hardening of weapon system electronics and making them less impacted by ECM. Right now there are no countermeasures in-game that impact the effectiveness of the enemies jamming efforts to your command cycle. What your forces are getting is what the result of everything is in that aspect.

I hope that breaks things down better.



dvphimself -> RE: If you could add one feature... (8/7/2020 4:24:08 PM)

Thanks for that explanation. The first part of my suggestion is simply that the functions of ECM and ECCM be made apparent to the player. The second, using ECCM to prevent corruption of radio communications, was just a 'wishlist feature' and not intended to represent the capabilities of the units with ECCM modules already in-game.

In an instance where a missile fails to hit due to the ECM factor, it would be neat if that was somehow in the log. Similarly, if a missile successfully hits a target despite ECM because of ECCM, it would be neat if that was somehow in the log. Perhaps in the to-hit percentiles? "4% chance to hit(ECM)"/"44%chance to hit (ECCM)"

As you succinctly describe, the module does in fact have an impact in the game. But if you ask around with players of the game, they don't know that.

The suggestion of having it show up in the log is less about the fact that I couldn't work out what they were affecting, and more about the wide assortment of (experienced?) OFRS players on Facebook from whom I got the same answer repeated: The ECCM module is just window dressing/fluff, and is potentially the only module listed on the subunit inspector panel that doesnt have a dynamic impact on the game.

You were my white knight on that FB question at the time, Capn, so you must have also seen the player base not knowing what it does.

edit: I also appreciate that the application of FoW in FC involves varied opacity when it comes to the information you recieve back from the field. Adding specific factor changes due to a particular module may be too far down the 'omniscience' road from where the game designer wants the commander's awareness to be. Something to indicate it is a functioning module is all I suggest.

edit edit: do ECM and ECCM modules on hexes directly between weapon and target have the same effect? or is it only modules attached to the weapon and target?



CapnDarwin -> RE: If you could add one feature... (8/8/2020 1:47:22 PM)

1. ECCM does not apply to radio coms in the sense that it does with discreet weapon/jammer/decoy type of action. The player's radio coms are based only on the EW hindrance the enemy is doing. Granted we abstract a fair amount here since we are not trying to be a communications simulation. Radio in the 80s is a matter of knowing the frequencies being used and then having jammers in the area to flood the bandwidth. We do have some ideas on adding some control to how the comm net is being used, but that will be post SS release at this point.
2. Showing the factors and rolls in the black box of the combat model is something I like to see and we will be working to give players the option to see more information as time goes on.
3. ECM and ECCM only work in the "local" engagement/attack. We do not model (now) any area effects of ECM (say like having a jammer platform of some type) beyond the EW levels in the scenario.



dvphimself -> RE: If you could add one feature... (8/9/2020 1:49:07 AM)

Thank you for all of this information.



dvphimself -> RE: If you could add one feature... (6/2/2021 8:59:33 PM)

One feature that I added myself (mostly using assets already inside the game folder) is an O.O.B. scratch card.

I included such cards in some of my earlier AARs and a few people remarked that they would like that feature.

In the "f2" game info window where you go to detailed force roster:
Add a button that says "print scratch card" or some such. It examines the order of battle and chain of command for the force the player currently has loaded in this scenario, and arranges the representing icons (with labels) in an intelligent and easy to follow way.

One could either print out a hard copy before battle like I do and scratch things off and make notes like great achievements of a unit. Or, one could keep using the 'print/generate' function as the game progresses and have the game automatically update the scratchcard with losses.

Included below are a basic and an embellished version of the concept:


[img]https://i.imgur.com/HfIKRSX.png[/img]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/pMK94yl.png[/img]

Thanks for reading.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125