Things I wish were different (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

iberian -> Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 10:14:44 AM)

Things that I noticed that I wish were different:

- The placement of mines during the setup fase may give up the initial placement of enemy units. Since you cannot place mines within five squares from the enemy setup, you can guess were the initial enemy concentration is located, even if Fog of War is on. This is very evident in the Tutorial #2, and may not be a problem in other scenarios. It would be good that during initial setup phace, the limitation of not being able to setup mine counters within 5 squared be relaxed. What's the purpose of this rule, anyway?

- Standard Operating Procedures. Is there anyway to set a global setting for the SOP? It's very tiresome to go through an entire battalion changing the same value for every unit. If not possible, it would be interesting to have different default SOP for different kind of units. It's fine for a HQ unit to start retreating if an enemy unit approaches, but having a dug-in company of M1A1's retreating at the sight of an enemy motorized unit at 2Km strikes me as odd.

Greetings and congratulations for the great game you produced.



Jarhead0331 -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 2:55:21 PM)

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!



JudgeDredd -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 4:31:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!


Not again! [>:]



Catgh_MatrixForum -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:22:18 PM)

iberian,

We have a list of changes and enhancements in the tester forum and I will add your comments to the list.

jarhead,

I would add your request, but it is already there at the top. [;)]



Kelm -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:24:51 PM)

quote:

Not again! [>:]


I do not understand why, one could not say on this forum, which regrets it has fot this game. And if the (always) same answer, is only "not again" it is not very constructive.
I am sorry, but same if I find this game rather good, I think that in more of certain remarks on with gameplay dimensions, a player can express what it finds astonishing, at the level of several aspects of the game that it considers insufficient.

A last thing, I play matrix's games for a some time, and consults without taking part this forum to find any assistance on a particular game, and I believe that finally it was well better like that.

Sorry iberian if my answer is except subject compared to your question.



Jarhead0331 -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:25:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!


Not again! [>:]


I find it disappointing that few people on this forum share my sense of humor...with the exception of that guy Sarge...He thinks I'm a riot!



JudgeDredd -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:35:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!


Not again! [>:]


I find it disappointing that few people on this forum share my sense of humor...with the exception of that guy Sarge...He thinks I'm a riot!


The problem with a sense of humour is it takes special attention to get it across when "writing" it.

I deliberately made my post seem "aggressive" to your post to show you that, even though I was only joking, it can be construed the wrong way...just as your post was (the ones you are talkign about on another thread).

Without the appropriate emicons, it looks aggressive or downright rude.

Hence my post
quote:


Not again! [>:]


Would have looked better and less destructive as
quote:


Not again! [>:] [;)]


I hope this helps you to understand how messages can be misinterpreted

Anyway, this is off topic. The guy wanted to start a thread about things he wants in the future, and you have, again, poisoned it with another thread about Infantry. YOu simply could've put

quote:


Seperate Infantry units


That would've sufficed.

Regards
The Judge



Erik Rutins -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:44:18 PM)

Everyone, please, just relax. FPG is out for what, less than a week now? We expect to hear some comments repeated, it's no big deal. Kelm, we're happy to hear your advice. Jarhead, ditto but please note that we've not just already noted it, but we had a plan to expand infantry support before release. The modeling of infantry in the current release is as designed and in the future, by design, we plan to expand it to cover non-mechanized infantry as well.

Regards,

- Erik



Jarhead0331 -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:45:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!


Not again! [>:]


I find it disappointing that few people on this forum share my sense of humor...with the exception of that guy Sarge...He thinks I'm a riot!


The problem with a sense of humour is it takes special attention to get it across when "writing" it.

I deliberately made my post seem "aggressive" to your post to show you that, even though I was only joking, it can be construed the wrong way...just as your post was (the ones you are talkign about on another thread).

Without the appropriate emicons, it looks aggressive or downright rude.

Hence my post
quote:


Not again! [>:]


Would have looked better and less destructive as
quote:


Not again! [>:] [;)]


I hope this helps you to understand how messages can be misinterpreted

Anyway, this is off topic. The guy wanted to start a thread about things he wants in the future, and you have, again, poisoned it with another thread about Infantry. YOu simply could've put

quote:


Seperate Infantry units


That would've sufficed.

Regards
The Judge


There are way too many A**holes on the matrix forums...I bought this game and the developer has a real committment to supporting it...this is the first time I've been turned off to a game and/or game forum by its loser fanbase...I guess there is first time for everything

EDIT: I would just like to re-iterate the fact that the administrators and the developers have been great...There should be more like you...but the fanboys...oh the fanboys...



JudgeDredd -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:48:34 PM)

Erik

It's not really about the game. This has been explained several times to him.

It's the fact that he thinks his posts can be innoffensive and everyone elses are offensive.

I know I'm being a baby



Jarhead0331 -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:50:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Erik

It's not really about the game. This has been explained several times to him.

It's the fact that he thinks his posts can be innoffensive and everyone elses are offensive.

I know I'm being a baby


Now who is hijacking the thread? I suggest you re-read my initial post and then re-read yours and tell me which one is offensive...



Erik Rutins -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:50:36 PM)

Enough, already. Let's get back to gathering suggestions for future updates and expansions. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik



Marc von Martial -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:52:43 PM)

quote:

There are way too many A**holes on the matrix forums...I bought this game and the developer has a real committment to supporting it...this is the first time I've been turned off to a game and/or game forum by its loser fanbase...I guess there is first time for everything


Cool down guys, there´s also way to many people around here that take certain things way too seriously at times [;)].

If you have too much agressiveness left then go and play some games or fight it out on the virtual battlefield.

JudgeDreed is a kickass betatester, he put great input into FPG. He´s far from beeing an "A**hole". And even with the two ** in it it doesn´t make it sound nicer.



Marc von Martial -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:53:30 PM)

One more OT word and this thread is closed, just to mention it.



Jarhead0331 -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 5:54:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

quote:

There are way too many A**holes on the matrix forums...I bought this game and the developer has a real committment to supporting it...this is the first time I've been turned off to a game and/or game forum by its loser fanbase...I guess there is first time for everything


Cool down guys, there´s also way to many people around here that take certain things way too seriously at times [;)].

If you have too much agressiveness left then go and play some games or fight it out on the virtual battlefield.

JudgeDreed is a kickass betatester, he put great input into FPG. He´s far from beeing an "A**hole". And even with the two ** in it it doesn´t make it sound nicer.


I agree about the ** thing...I also agree about Dredds committment to the game...I will seek anger management classes and keep you all posted...



Erik Rutins -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 6:04:54 PM)

Ok, I'll attempt to salvage this thread and steer it back on topic. Please post any suggestions for updates and future releases here. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 6:09:56 PM)

Ey!
I really don't mind for the time being not having dismounted infantry.
However, given that so many have asked for it, I wonder. What about we edit the mounted infantry parameters (change mobility, weapons available, vulnerability, concelment, everything) and we edit its corresponding icon. Could that be possible?
Cheers,



Jarhead0331 -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 6:13:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Ey!
I really don't mind for the time being not having dismounted infantry.
However, given that so many have asked for it, I wonder. What about we edit the mounted infantry parameters (change mobility, weapons available, vulnerability, concelment, everything) and we edit its corresponding icon. Could that be possible?
Cheers,


Thats a great idea for a future release/enhancement...in fact, I inquired about the possibilities of exactly that...the way the editor works now, as I understand it, you can only edit the OOB with the equipment provided in the game already...I suppose the editor would have to be re-worked to provide for the possibility of adding additional units and equipment...



Siljanus -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 6:18:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iberian



- Standard Operating Procedures. Is there anyway to set a global setting for the SOP? It's very tiresome to go through an entire battalion changing the same value for every unit. If not possible, it would be interesting to have different default SOP for different kind of units. It's fine for a HQ unit to start retreating if an enemy unit approaches, but having a dug-in company of M1A1's retreating at the sight of an enemy motorized unit at 2Km strikes me as odd.

Greetings and congratulations for the great game you produced.


Excellent idea and I'm glad it's been forwarded to the tester forum

I have a question about chemical attacks in the game. Do the effects of gas persist beyond one game turn? If so, can we have some kind of marker or way of marking the area as being contaminated? If the attack is initiated by me, perhaps I could see the marker/terrain effects immediately. If my opponent launched the attack however, I wouldn't see the contaminated terrain until I ran into it or maybe from one square away, depending on the quality of my detection equipment. I looked closely at the map after using chem weapons and didn't see any changes to the grid other than the cute little gas plume in the grid that dissipated soon after. If I'm missing something, please let me know. I assumed in the span of a particular scenario that chemical contamination from a chemical attack should persist in the enviroment for a few hours unless it was raining perhaps.

As for nuclear weapons, best nuke effects ever! [:)]

Thanks and look forward to see this game evolve even further!



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 7:37:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331
I will seek anger management classes and keep you all posted...
P...R...O...Z...A...C...[&o][8|][;)]



hank -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 7:41:21 PM)

I downloaded it last night but not played yet due to some 'puter problems on my end.

But, I did noticed one thing that's become a peeve to me. The startup menu does not have a minimize feature (button).

Its totally inconsequential to the game itself but I wonder why some games get the minimize button on the startup menu and others don't.

HttR's start menu can be minimize ... but BiN can't. ... and I know I can detour around that thing by making my own icon pointing to the game exe itself.

Like I said ... its my peeve. [;)]

... and what I saw of the game before my 'puter probs, looked great ... can't wait for this weekend. Lots of new stuff to do.

hank



HomeFries -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 8:53:10 PM)

I just downloaded the game last night and immediately fell in love with it! I especially like the WEGO and the doctrinal approach to unit actions. To me that makes this like Combat Mission but without the planning tedium.

Keeping in mind that I have gone through Tutorial #1 and one scenario (and haven't dug into the manual), I propose the following enhancements:

1) Using LOS, it isn't immediately obvious if a unit is in the LOS block because the color of the unit icon doesn't change. Perhaps (for example) making the USSR units go bright red or allowing for transparency when in LOS would be a great way to make this obvious.

2) Use of elevation and cover is essential, but again there is no way to tell how much cover/elevation exists on the terrain where the unit you are targeting resides. Again, perhaps the option of transparency for units would be a big help here.

3) To me, it is fairly intuitive to determine cover based on terrain graphics, but elevation is another story. I would love to see a relief shader when the E key is selected; this is much easier for evaluating elevation and slope at a glance, rather than scanning numbers. This would be great because sometimes the graphics are counterintuitive to the elevation (e.g. forests on either side of fields/orchards would make you believe that the fields are in a valley, when in fact the opposite is the case).

4) I would love to get some ingame music; even if it meant only providing mp3 support for our own tunes (Courage Under Fire comes readily to mind). Hearts of Iron did this well.

5) I would like to reiterate the idea of having a platform dependent global doctrine, so you don't have to tweak each unit every time. This would also prevent inadvertent actions due to one unit slipping through the cracks.


Great stuff overall. I look forward to the evolution of this series.



Poliorcetes -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 9:49:27 PM)

You CAN see the enemy square's elevation/cover, you just have to turn OFF unit icons. Which is annoying when you are trying to analyze a square.

As for SOP, I see in the manual that Dug In overrides the SOP. There are also some situatins where you get partial overriding of the SOP, but I haven't seen enough of the the game to comment on that.

I have found something frustrating about HQ units. I keep them on Move to try to save them from counterbattery fire. But I find that after artillary strikes, the WP HQ units switch to "on call" and lose the movement orders. So I have to reissue them, which raises the radio profile . . .

Poliorcetes



Catgh_MatrixForum -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/28/2005 10:16:22 PM)

Poliorcetes,

When giving different commands, the SOP does get changed. For example issuing an assualt command will set the distance to enemy to a lower value.

Perhaps the SOP that is set should be for "normal" movement and when the unit goes to "screen".

I would be curious to hear others thoughts.



iberian -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/29/2005 6:44:10 PM)

Another thing I'd like to see treated different:

- The endurance of helicopter units. I'm yet new to the game system, but by reading the manual, and playing the "Clash of Titans" scenario, I've found that helicopter units have as much endurance as the rest of the ground units. I've had a flight of two helos stick with me during a battle that raged through several hours. I don't find that realistic.

I would prefer to have the helicopter units be automatically recalled after a given number of turns, much as reinforcement units can appear after a number of turns. The present helo system lends itself to "gamey" tactics. For the moment I'd stick with scenarios without them.

Regards.



Siljanus -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/29/2005 7:27:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iberian

Another thing I'd like to see treated different:

- The endurance of helicopter units. I'm yet new to the game system, but by reading the manual, and playing the "Clash of Titans" scenario, I've found that helicopter units have as much endurance as the rest of the ground units. I've had a flight of two helos stick with me during a battle that raged through several hours. I don't find that realistic.

I would prefer to have the helicopter units be automatically recalled after a given number of turns, much as reinforcement units can appear after a number of turns. The present helo system lends itself to "gamey" tactics. For the moment I'd stick with scenarios without them.

Regards.


I found the helo units to be quite powerful up until the point they ran out of ammo. Their resupply, I thought, took longer than what I was seeing for ground units. Longer resupply times would be a good way to give some balance, forcing you to ground them more often to keep them supplied or if you used it all up you have to park them somewhere safe and just wait for them to be replenished.

What's the loiter time for a combat helicopter anyway under battlefield conditions?



iberian -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/29/2005 7:59:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

I found the helo units to be quite powerful up until the point they ran out of ammo. Their resupply, I thought, took longer than what I was seeing for ground units. Longer resupply times would be a good way to give some balance, forcing you to ground them more often to keep them supplied or if you used it all up you have to park them somewhere safe and just wait for them to be replenished.

What's the loiter time for a combat helicopter anyway under battlefield conditions?



Loiter time for a combat helicopter of the kind we are dealing with (AH-1, AH-64, etc.), taking into account weapon load and flight time to a FARP, should be around 2.5-3 hours at most. Even less if we take into account nap of the earth flight.

I don't believe longer resupply times would help. After expending the ammo, you can just have them fly around as an extremely long-endurance UAV, a la Predator, and have a constant peak on the "other side of the hill".

I think the only way out of this is having an automatic recall after 5-6 turns. Anything else, is not realistic. (that's not a problem "per se", but it can lend to "gamey" use).



Black Cat -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/29/2005 8:50:25 PM)

Initial Thoughts:


Playing "Tank Rush" as the WP I noticed two things.

As others have commented on, the AI player it is waaaay too fond of doing a "Light Brigade " charge irregardless of the tactical sitution ( they are in defensive mode ) or numbers against them. It "seems" they "key" toward the the player HQ units.

Perhaps I`ve not played enough, but a fire and fall back mode AI routine is needed when the Allies AI are playing against the attacking WP numbers. Or have them some ( AI units) dig in.

The 30% chance of " Shooting & Scooting" is not enough and needs a default setting of making that routine. ( or lowering the rather too deadly and waaaay too accurate off map Arty for the U.S. VS the WP HQ`s and Arty. Units ) IMHO of course.

I had a Tank Company shoot off all it`s Ammo by turn 3, I pulled it back for "Rest & Refit" orders, it was never Resupplied by end of game.

So far, the Games fun, hopefully some fine tunning can be made to the AI opps.....



Siljanus -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/29/2005 10:57:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iberian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

I found the helo units to be quite powerful up until the point they ran out of ammo. Their resupply, I thought, took longer than what I was seeing for ground units. Longer resupply times would be a good way to give some balance, forcing you to ground them more often to keep them supplied or if you used it all up you have to park them somewhere safe and just wait for them to be replenished.

What's the loiter time for a combat helicopter anyway under battlefield conditions?



Loiter time for a combat helicopter of the kind we are dealing with (AH-1, AH-64, etc.), taking into account weapon load and flight time to a FARP, should be around 2.5-3 hours at most. Even less if we take into account nap of the earth flight.

I don't believe longer resupply times would help. After expending the ammo, you can just have them fly around as an extremely long-endurance UAV, a la Predator, and have a constant peak on the "other side of the hill".

I think the only way out of this is having an automatic recall after 5-6 turns. Anything else, is not realistic. (that's not a problem "per se", but it can lend to "gamey" use).


Yeah, I was avoiding using my helos for permanent recon after they ran out of ammo but I certainly can see that happening. So perhaps they can be withdrawn after a period of time off map for rest and refit but depending on the span of the scenario come back later in the game? Or we can just have them run out of gas and plop down wherever they happen to be at the moment if you don't take the time to rest and refit them...



Catgh_MatrixForum -> RE: Things I wish were different (1/29/2005 11:22:45 PM)

The helicopters being on map is a different thing than the original SimCan. I know Robert will be looking at them and the rules that surround them in depth. So keep up the good brainstorming.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625