Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (Full Version)

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



Message

z1812 -> Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 5:18:55 PM)

Hi All,

It might be useful for all suggestions for improvements to be in one area. Many issues have already been covered and acknowledged by the developer. So please, as far as possible, only items not addressed elsewhere.

I would like to see the system much more open to modding and AI scripting for scenario design. The game system is great. Hopfully it will be the engine for various groups of games in the future. Flexibility in a system re: modding and map editors, only increases a games worth. Many of the most successful games offer this without having future sales jeopardized at all. Quite the contrary in fact.

I can only assume that the abiblity to mod graphics and create maps is overlooked as a sales feature. After all the proof is in the pudding and games such as Combat Mission, to mention only one, are excellent examples of how Modding ability and Map editing has propelled the game arguably close to the top of the heap if not at the pinnacle.

The FPG system has much to offer. I have lots of wargames but I have not felt the same kind of excitement at the potential of a game since the Campaign Series by Talonsoft or the Combat Mission Series by Battlefront.

So thats more like my 2 dollars than my 2 cents. LOL

Regards John



CommC -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 7:10:35 PM)

Feature request: splitting units... if this is already in the game and I missed it, someone please let me know. I would like to split, for example, a tank platoon of 4 tanks into 2 sections of 2 tanks each... or a recon platoon of 6 vehicles into three of 2 each. It would also be nice to be able to recombine them.



leastonh1 -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 7:57:11 PM)

1. Keeping the setting for moving the right display pane over to the left between games. It resets every time at the moment.
2. Change/amend the way the map can be scrolled. Arrow keys instead of mouse as an option would be great.
3. Allow the taskbar to be accessed when the game is full screen. Doesn't work on Win2k as the game stays on top all the time.



hank -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 8:05:08 PM)

I like watching the replay/resolution with the silhouettes on. I plan and move with NATO symbols on.

I would like to see an M2 Bradley IFV silhouette on the map counters if the platoon is all M2's. I would like to see all the silhouettes reflect what the predominant vehicle is.

Also, On some NATO (and maybe some WP) HQ units, I would also like the see the silhouettes for the HQ's reflect the predominant vehicle type (the NATO symbol will show it as an HQ). In the A Few Good TAnks scenario, there are two NATO armored HQ units with 2 M1A1 Abrams; that silhouette should show tanks ... IMHO.

(this was posted elsewhere, but I believe it was ever acknowledged)



IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 8:28:31 PM)

Keep the ideas coming! No promises yet, but we will consider everything carefully.

Cheers all, Rob.



IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 8:32:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

1. Keeping the setting for moving the right display pane over to the left between games. It resets every time at the moment.
2. Change/amend the way the map can be scrolled. Arrow keys instead of mouse as an option would be great.
3. Allow the taskbar to be accessed when the game is full screen. Doesn't work on Win2k as the game stays on top all the time.


I'll add 1 and 2 to the list for version 1.0.2. (ver 1.0.1 has been frozen for final testing now.) Item 3 I believe is a Windows Task Bar setting - something like 'stay on top' if you look at the task bar properties. I did the bulk of the development on Win 2k and the taskbar always showed so you just need to fiddle with it a bit.

Cheers, Rob.



IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 8:58:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

I like watching the replay/resolution with the silhouettes on. I plan and move with NATO symbols on.

I would like to see an M2 Bradley IFV silhouette on the map counters if the platoon is all M2's. I would like to see all the silhouettes reflect what the predominant vehicle is.

Also, On some NATO (and maybe some WP) HQ units, I would also like the see the silhouettes for the HQ's reflect the predominant vehicle type (the NATO symbol will show it as an HQ). In the A Few Good TAnks scenario, there are two NATO armored HQ units with 2 M1A1 Abrams; that silhouette should show tanks ... IMHO.

(this was posted elsewhere, but I believe it was ever acknowledged)


Noted and in the works Hank.

I find that I am not able to keep up with all the posts and also work on the game. It is perfectly alright to repeat things a few times if you think I haven't seen them! If only there were 30 hours in the day....

Cheers, Rob.



leastonh1 -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 9:36:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall
I'll add 1 and 2 to the list for version 1.0.2. (ver 1.0.1 has been frozen for final testing now.) Item 3 I believe is a Windows Task Bar setting - something like 'stay on top' if you look at the task bar properties. I did the bulk of the development on Win 2k and the taskbar always showed so you just need to fiddle with it a bit.
Cheers, Rob.


Brilliant! Thank you Rob [8D]

I don't know if it makes a difference, but I have my taskbar set to "Autohide" and "Always on top". I've played with the taskbar properties several times (e.g. removing and resetting these tickboxes) and just cannot get it to work with Autohide enabled (works perfectly with Autohide disabled btw). I guess it must be a glitch with my system. I'm probably overdue for a reformat anyway. Clean install = less problems [:)]

Regards,
Jim



AlvinS -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/14/2005 9:53:33 PM)

I would like to be able to change SOP settings to a group of units at one time. Also when giving orders to a unit, I would like to be able to "Get" orders from another unit. For those who are familair with TacOps4 you will know what I mean. As an example, I have a unit from company A that I am giving orders to and I want to give it the same orders as a unit in company B, there should be a "Get Orders" button that once I click on it, I can select the unit in company B that I want to copy the orders from. This would set up way points to go to the same location as the unit I selected, then I could fine tune them if I wanted. Little short cuts like these make the game easier to manage when you have a lot of units on the map.

I don't know if these changes are possible with this game engine, just my 2 cents.

I am absolutly addicted to this game. [8D] I don;t normally play by email, but I am thinking of starting with FPG.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 12:12:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall
I'll add 1 and 2 to the list for version 1.0.2. (ver 1.0.1 has been frozen for final testing now.) Item 3 I believe is a Windows Task Bar setting - something like 'stay on top' if you look at the task bar properties. I did the bulk of the development on Win 2k and the taskbar always showed so you just need to fiddle with it a bit.
Cheers, Rob.


Brilliant! Thank you Rob [8D]

I don't know if it makes a difference, but I have my taskbar set to "Autohide" and "Always on top". I've played with the taskbar properties several times (e.g. removing and resetting these tickboxes) and just cannot get it to work with Autohide enabled (works perfectly with Autohide disabled btw). I guess it must be a glitch with my system. I'm probably overdue for a reformat anyway. Clean install = less problems [:)]

Regards,
Jim


Ok...to clear this one up. If you have your taskbar on Autohide, then it will disappear when you start the game...however, you can get it back by pressing the "Windows" key on your keyboard.

If you don't have Autohide on and you have "Always on Top" selected then the taskbar will be displayed at the bottom of the main game window all the time. If you don't have "Always on Top" selected, then you have to press the "Windows" key to display the taskbar.

This was all ran and tested on Windows 2000



JudgeDredd -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 12:17:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvinS

I would like to be able to change SOP settings to a group of units at one time. Also when giving orders to a unit, I would like to be able to "Get" orders from another unit. For those who are familair with TacOps4 you will know what I mean. As an example, I have a unit from company A that I am giving orders to and I want to give it the same orders as a unit in company B, there should be a "Get Orders" button that once I click on it, I can select the unit in company B that I want to copy the orders from. This would set up way points to go to the same location as the unit I selected, then I could fine tune them if I wanted. Little short cuts like these make the game easier to manage when you have a lot of units on the map.

I don't know if these changes are possible with this game engine, just my 2 cents.

I am absolutly addicted to this game. [8D] I don;t normally play by email, but I am thinking of starting with FPG.


Changing SOP for groups of units will be available in v1.0.1. It's been tested and works well.

When I say groups of units, you can either set it at HQ level or Global. At HQ level, you select the HQ, change the SOP settings and then click the "Apply to all subordinate units" will assign those SOPs to the rest of the units in the Company/Battalion. For global changes, you can do this under the "View -> Set Global SOP and Reporting" menu option. This will display a dialogue where you can select, for example, American HQ units and set their SOP and reporting. You can then do this for American Tank units, Mech Infantry, Artillery, etc, etc...You can also set this for the other nationalities, obviously...BUT NOT FOR THE ENEMY!

As for the "Giving same orders to another unit", You can already do this. Holding the Shift key, select the units you want to assign orders to...then select the order (Screen, hold, etc) and click "Proceed"...the units then have the same orders.



Siljanus -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 2:10:56 AM)

Excellent! I'm glad that the ability to change SOP at the HQ level will be in the upcoming update along with some AI tweaks.

I posted this in a previous thread but I was wondering if there will be any changes to the way chemical attacks are modelled, specifically contaminated squares. Currently, when I use chem. weapons on a square I see a nice puff of toxic smoke that rapidly dissipates. I'm not certain if the square will be contaminated for a few turns or if the effects dissipate by the next turn because there's no marker on the square. Now if a square is only contaminated for the single turn, would it be possible to have this extended barring weather conditions like rain which would wash away any chemical agents? I would think that chemical agents would tend to stick around for a few hours which would be within the time frame of many scenarios within the game. And if it is extended, is there any way the square can be marked so the side that initiated the chem. attack can see the contaminated square but the opposing side cannot until the poor suckers run into it, much like the way minefields are modelled?

Thanks! Looking forward to the update!



Marines -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 2:28:32 AM)

Artillery and counter-batterly fire issue-I noticed on one occasion that after an enemy barrage (DPICM), they rolled right over their own mines. I think its an issue all be it not that prevelant.

Has anyone else seen this?



IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 3:01:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marines

Artillery and counter-batterly fire issue-I noticed on one occasion that after an enemy barrage (DPICM), they rolled right over their own mines. I think its an issue all be it not that prevelant.

Has anyone else seen this?


Oooh, owww, yes I am hurting on this one! At this scale (500 x 500m) there is ample room to leave or clear lanes through your own minefields. It is not obvious when you watch it but the units move through friendly minefields at half the speed they otherwise would and this helps too. Even so life isn't perfect and there will be a few losses (war is hell) but those losses just have to be borne...

The problem is that it looks horrible. Nobody thinks it looks right. Accordingly, I have changed the minefield weightings in ver 1.0.1 so that if it is at all possible to drive completely around them then the unit will do so. Let the general rejoicing begin!

Ta, Rob.



IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 3:15:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

Excellent! I'm glad that the ability to change SOP at the HQ level will be in the upcoming update along with some AI tweaks.

I posted this in a previous thread but I was wondering if there will be any changes to the way chemical attacks are modelled, specifically contaminated squares. Currently, when I use chem. weapons on a square I see a nice puff of toxic smoke that rapidly dissipates. I'm not certain if the square will be contaminated for a few turns or if the effects dissipate by the next turn because there's no marker on the square. Now if a square is only contaminated for the single turn, would it be possible to have this extended barring weather conditions like rain which would wash away any chemical agents? I would think that chemical agents would tend to stick around for a few hours which would be within the time frame of many scenarios within the game. And if it is extended, is there any way the square can be marked so the side that initiated the chem. attack can see the contaminated square but the opposing side cannot until the poor suckers run into it, much like the way minefields are modelled?

Thanks! Looking forward to the update!


Good point. I had just started to wonder about it too. I was so fixated on the delivery of the gas and then the dispersion of the cloud that I did not think about the resulting contamination of the ground enough.

Depending on how the chemical payload is formulated it can lose it's toxic effect in a period of time ranging from minutes to decades. Doctrine seems to call for non-persistent gas for battlefield use because there is such a high chance that your own troops will be exposed to it too. The more persistent stuff is for airfields, supply dumps, and rear-area combat support facilities. These are all sites well behind the lines in this game and not really represented. Further, a well orchestrated chemical attack goes on for days, not just a few minutes and the final result is really only to slow things down. Troop deaths are not expected to be very high but the loss of operational tempo can be huge because of the countermeasures that have to be used. This is why I have a fatigue penalty and speed reduction when moving through it.

The other tactical concept was to use it to form barriers of contamination in thinly held areas. Even if enemy troop losses were not very high, the morale effect would be high and this might serve to deny ground to the enemy that they otherwise might want to claim. This would be more of a FPG issue and one that I would like to pursue.

I'm thinking that I might make the average time to dispersion something more like four hours. The 'gas cloud' marker would remain in place the entire time and serve as sign that the location has become persistently contaminated. That would really help with the barrier visualization.

Still thinking...

Rob.



AlvinS -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 3:16:59 AM)

quote:

Changing SOP for groups of units will be available in v1.0.1. It's been tested and works well.

When I say groups of units, you can either set it at HQ level or Global. At HQ level, you select the HQ, change the SOP settings and then click the "Apply to all subordinate units" will assign those SOPs to the rest of the units in the Company/Battalion. For global changes, you can do this under the "View -> Set Global SOP and Reporting" menu option. This will display a dialogue where you can select, for example, American HQ units and set their SOP and reporting. You can then do this for American Tank units, Mech Infantry, Artillery, etc, etc...You can also set this for the other nationalities, obviously...BUT NOT FOR THE ENEMY!

As for the "Giving same orders to another unit", You can already do this. Holding the Shift key, select the units you want to assign orders to...then select the order (Screen, hold, etc) and click "Proceed"...the units then have the same orders.


Awsome! I can't wait for the upcoming patch. [&o]



miclogic -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 3:23:17 AM)

I just want to throw in that you're doing a terrific job, Rob. I for one am always willing to purchase games with such outstanding dev support, and this one is a real gem!



Marines -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 3:55:56 AM)

quote:

Oooh, owww, yes I am hurting on this one! At this scale (500 x 500m) there is ample room to leave or clear lanes through your own minefields. It is not obvious when you watch it but the units move through friendly minefields at half the speed they otherwise would and this helps too. Even so life isn't perfect and there will be a few losses (war is hell) but those losses just have to be borne...

The problem is that it looks horrible. Nobody thinks it looks right. Accordingly, I have changed the minefield weightings in ver 1.0.1 so that if it is at all possible to drive completely around them then the unit will do so. Let the general rejoicing begin!

Ta, Rob.


Outstanding Rob! Of course war is hell, s$%t happens and according to Soviet armored doctrine...this is something they may have done.



Rogue187 -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 8:08:34 AM)

I would like to throw in with the guy about splitting units. I am not sure if its a good idea since we are talking about platoon movement over one or two vechicles. I wanted to recommend the other direction and recombine units that are down to remenant level with possibly other units that are no longer full strength. I just don't know if this will play havoc with the HQ units.

Also, I noticed that friendly fire is an actual problem (well once) I had some Bradleys fighting with a WP group and they backed off and the Bradleys had already been given orders to move. (this was a surprise engagement) Well I had the artillery set to on call so the artillery barrage actually arrived at the same time MY units moved into the hex that the WP was. As a result I lost one Bradley. Is this supposed to happen? I doubt its a bug but it was a surprise.



Nemesis -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 10:54:55 AM)

I have finished few scenarios, and I think this feature is not available:

I would like to be able to review the entire battle from start to finish. that is, I could replay the battle and watch it progress. It would also be nice, if I could re-play the battle with all units from both sides visible. That way I could really see the flow of the battle, and see how each side reacts to actions of the other.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 12:28:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rogue187
Also, I noticed that friendly fire is an actual problem (well once) I had some Bradleys fighting with a WP group and they backed off and the Bradleys had already been given orders to move. (this was a surprise engagement) Well I had the artillery set to on call so the artillery barrage actually arrived at the same time MY units moved into the hex that the WP was. As a result I lost one Bradley. Is this supposed to happen? I doubt its a bug but it was a surprise.


Bug or not, you can't say it's not realistic!. I think it's a good feature (this is the first time I've heard it happen) and if your units are in the same hex as the enemy and arty is coming down...you could well be in line for a loss or two!



CapnDarwin -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 1:15:35 PM)

Throw my vote for global/selectable SOP. I'd also like to see multiselection extended to setting message traffic too.
I also like the split option for units too. In the case of WP forces the one AD unit has no real way of supporting a multi-company formation well. Split would also be nice for scouting/attack helos too. An option to spiltting would be to include sections or teams to be "bought" at scenario start and then "attach" them to a HQ.

My 2 cents

S!

Cap'n D



AlvinS -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 2:01:32 PM)

quote:

Bug or not, you can't say it's not realistic!. I think it's a good feature (this is the first time I've heard it happen) and if your units are in the same hex as the enemy and arty is coming down...you could well be in line for a loss or two!


I have had it happen to me. I have advanced into a hex where the enemy was, and had an artillary barrage called down on me. Ouch. Thats the price of doing business in war.



CoffeeMug -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 2:29:05 PM)

Heya guys!

Exellent thread, great ideas and good news on the incoming patches! Great work, Rob!

Wooot!

Cheers,

CM



Slick91 -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 3:30:43 PM)

I’m not a player that gets into the hardcore OOB and database elements. To me the game has to be fun to play and look good graphically and that is what I love about Matrix’s war games. They don't have to be 100% correct and detailed down to the nuts and bolts. Over-engineering can be a curse in war gaming sometimes.

What I’d like to see are minor items and irrelevant to game play but would add to the look and feel of the game:

1. Individual unit kill tally to units lost. Something that would let me brows each unit or at the end of a game to see how many destroyed units each side had and how many enemy units it was able to destroy.
2. Have a small cross or smoke trail displayed that represents where a destroyed unit or individual vehicle was lost. Of course, a hot key would turn it on or off.
3. A line or other graphical symbol that links the firing unit (if spotted) to the targeted unit during the turn resolution phase.

All of these are little in scale and I hope not a huge thing to code, but I feel that they would add to the look of game play. I have really enjoyed FPG and am looking forward to the patches and any enhancements.



Rogue187 -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/15/2005 8:53:39 PM)

One more suggestion. Maybe vechicular smoke so that we don't have to wait for an artillery shot to drop smoke. I am not sure which vechicles can gernerate their own smoke, but it would be great if say the unit was to back off if the enemy gets within X distance and smoke was an option within SOP assist in a quick get away. Just a thought.



Poliorcetes -> Gas changes (2/16/2005 1:50:14 AM)

Artillary is a big factor in this game, and changing the chemical dispersion time will have a lot of impact.
I'm just thinking of the problem of unlimited minelets in my Non-Staff rules games (the game quickly bogs down into a maze of mines). What will happen when the you add in an 8 turn chemical barrier (consider that in 1 turn WP can lay down 21 squares of gas)? I can easily see where the game becomes a battle of competing artillary duels and everyone becomes immobilized by chemical barriers.
Currently gas is a limited use weapon that can sometimes force Nato to move from a dug in position.
If you did make it persistant perhaps there needs to be a cost like with Nukes to prevent people from going crazy with it.
I also think the minelet supply needs to be limited to help cut down on the map becoming one giant minefield.

Poliorcetes



CapnDarwin -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 5:13:00 AM)

I agree on the arty issues. Ammo supply really needs to be looked at or off board arty needs to be open to opposing off board counter battery fire. Would be nice if at random times you lost off board weapons to CB or they become unavalible for a time to relocate. One arty which is the meanest is the MLRS using ICM. I've wiped entire tank companies off the map with it using a scout helo to find the enemy. As with mines, a near infinite amount of MLRS ammo really turns the tide. I also agree on a penalty cost for going with gas attacks. That level of escalation on the battle field usually open the door for tac nukes.

See the FPG Support threads for a list of bugs, suggestions, and questions. (don't want the same list in two places.[:D])

S!

Cap'n D



Mike_w -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 5:18:35 AM)

Agreed. MAybe just limit off screen ammo so that even on the 3rd (or 4th or whatever)Rest/Refit, it can't still be replenished after you've fired a certain number of barrages. (just make it alot becuase it IS the WP's only real advantage)



Siljanus -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 6:16:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poliorcetes

Artillary is a big factor in this game, and changing the chemical dispersion time will have a lot of impact.
I'm just thinking of the problem of unlimited minelets in my Non-Staff rules games (the game quickly bogs down into a maze of mines). What will happen when the you add in an 8 turn chemical barrier (consider that in 1 turn WP can lay down 21 squares of gas)? I can easily see where the game becomes a battle of competing artillary duels and everyone becomes immobilized by chemical barriers.
Currently gas is a limited use weapon that can sometimes force Nato to move from a dug in position.
If you did make it persistant perhaps there needs to be a cost like with Nukes to prevent people from going crazy with it.
I also think the minelet supply needs to be limited to help cut down on the map becoming one giant minefield.

Poliorcetes


I'd think that chemical attacks would be a double edged sword since you may have to move your forces through the very squares that you have just contaminated. Of course, this gives obvious advantages to the defender. But I still like the concept of some persistant contamination. Perhaps for every turn that passes, the penalty effects on units are diminished. Also, ammo stocks of gas could be limited so either it would take longer to resupply such munitions or once they're gone, they're gone.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.515625