RE: Gas changes (Full Version)

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



Message

Adam Parker -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 7:18:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

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)


Mike, what is the time duration of the average scenario? That should be the determining factor imo.

There are some series where issues like these can be significant. Squad Battles for example where rocket equipped infantry can fire ad infinitum slogging through the jungle with their RPG's and LAW's.

At this scale though, it seems that Robert wants to omit the need to chrome relating to supply and I actually agree with it. Unnecessary ad hoc and obtuse supply rules can kill a game. However, one would expect Electronic Warfare to delay or impact arty effectiveness.

Is everyone saying that arty is too easy to bring down and too constant?

Adam.



Poliorcetes -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 7:55:02 AM)

Artillary under the non-Staff rules can be overwhelming, depending on the scenario. Tank Rush is an obvious example of where Nato's offboard arty, if given unlimited orders, can turn the map into a giant minefield (12 squares a turn). And Nato can win the game without advancing, so you quickly get into a race where the WP has to try to rush past your mine lines and the keep moving before you surround him again with mines (I have a game with a map full of mine "squares", where I surrounded the WP units in 1-2 turns with mines in any direction they go, and I haven't run low on ammo yet).

Persistant Chemicals would give an even bigger problem. You can win just by being inside a quadrant. So one tactic would be to use the WP arty (7 offboard in Tank rush) to totally fill the surrounding quadrants with gas except for a corridor for your group to rush through. And if you know where Nato starts you could utterly gas his entire starting force and reinforcements.
In my opinion there seems to be a huge supply of gas and Minelets ammo, which even if accurate can quickly tilt the game balance without order limitations (Staff option On).

Poliorcetes



sarjen -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 10:00:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Is everyone saying that arty is too easy to bring down and too constant?

Adam.



Artillery should have limited ammo with two or three supply options.



John21b -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 2:11:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sarjen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Is everyone saying that arty is too easy to bring down and too constant?

Adam.



Artillery should have limited ammo with two or three supply options.


I agree, in my talks as an Engineer with the Arty guys, the hated to fire SCATMINES. In order to lay an effective field they needed to stay put to long. Plus their basic load for SCATMINES was not very big >5% if I remember. I don't think a BN could put anywhere near the number of minfields that have been popping up in the Game.



CoffeeMug -> RE: Gas changes (2/16/2005 4:57:18 PM)

Hi all,

when it comes to arty utilization, then ammo and availability should be the limiting factor, not orders.

Please have in mind that from a certain SP arty forcs about one third is available only, the others are moving (counter battery fire), resting and taking ammo etc.). Ok, you have more than this in the first hour of WW3 but after that the "moving" stuff kicks in.

And dont forget that as a battalion you have to share the SP arty battalion of your brigade with two to three other fighting battalions.

Cheers,

CM



John21b -> RE: Gas changes (2/17/2005 2:46:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug

Hi all,

when it comes to arty utilization, then ammo and availability should be the limiting factor, not orders.

Please have in mind that from a certain SP arty forcs about one third is available only, the others are moving (counter battery fire), resting and taking ammo etc.). Ok, you have more than this in the first hour of WW3 but after that the "moving" stuff kicks in.

And dont forget that as a battalion you have to share the SP arty battalion of your brigade with two to three other fighting battalions.

Cheers,

CM


Yup, NATO (US not sure about others) one Direct Support BN (155mm SP) per Combat BDE. If your BDE is the priority or in dicy situation you could count on GS and GS Reinf fire from another BN or two. Div MLRS was 80% to Counter Battery fire.

WP is a different story. Main Division in a main attack Army could conceivabley have a RAG, DAG + AAG or two. Possibly 10-20 BN's in support. However if you are not that main effort you could get jack.

John



harlikwin -> RE: Gas changes (2/17/2005 6:35:51 PM)

I'd mainly like to see some sort of option to link scenarios together in some sort of mini campaign, utilizing a "core" force that would be kept track of and might be randomly reinforcable. i.e. you win the battle but loose 20% of your force, you might get 10% of them back or something.



leastonh1 -> RE: Gas changes (2/17/2005 9:26:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlikwin
I'd mainly like to see some sort of option to link scenarios together in some sort of mini campaign, utilizing a "core" force that would be kept track of and might be randomly reinforcable. i.e. you win the battle but loose 20% of your force, you might get 10% of them back or something.


Good idea. I also like the idea of a campaign module :) How about promoting units between scenarios too if there's a campaign, say from green or replacements to veteran with limitations on accuracy and morale?

Regards,
Jim.



kmb -> RE: Gas changes (2/17/2005 9:50:43 PM)

sounds awesome



Poliorcetes -> RE: Gas changes (2/20/2005 8:25:36 PM)

Weather forecast. Its strange with the weather option on, you never have any idea of what the day's weather is going to be like. This could be a major factor in planning of there was an 80% chance of rain. Of course weather forecasts aren't always right . . .

Poliorcetes



hank -> RE: Gas changes (2/20/2005 10:02:00 PM)

One thing I would like to see is more scenario's with night action. And ... With the weapon systems that have the thermal sighting feature gaining distinct advantage or those that don't. Not all MBT's for WP or NATO had thermal sighting (at this time of the cold war, ALTMK). It adds a new twist to tactics. This has been simulated in PzCampaigns Modern Battles with good results (especially Fulda Gap and North German Plains).

Just another of my $0.02.

Hank

Trivia Time:

Has anyone heard of Kurt Knispel?



ciril -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/20/2005 11:18:13 PM)

Would it be possible to make the counters slide from one square to another? Ideally the sliding speed would be adjustable. That would make it easier to follow the units' movement during the execution phase. As it now is it's a bit complicated to follow who is going/shooting where at what moment.



Adam Parker -> Move the end turn button (2/21/2005 3:46:52 AM)

Place the "end turn" button to the left of the large button list rather than the right. This will avoid accidentally pressing the "close Window/program" button located nearby per the usual Windows interface.

IIRC Talonsoft made a similar change with it's Campaign series with the end turn and end game buttons originally being close by.



themattcurtis -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (2/21/2005 3:18:13 PM)

I have a possible suggestion, but I got kinda pretentious and put it in a separate thread rather than plunking it here.

Could there be, at some point, a way to break off sub-units (platoons, whatever) and attach them to another company to create ad hoc units?

Example: You want to exploit a development on the battlefield, so you take a platoon of mechanized infantry from its parent company and attach it to a company of tanks.

It seems like it could be feasible. Some of these battles take place over half a day, and in that time it seems as if a field commander could adapt to what's happening around him (IE -- I want you to take n platoon and move up that yada yada ridgeline).

Maybe field it through the orders mechanic (something like "split" or "join") that would involve a certain delay as everyone gets organized. From then on, that attached unit can receive orders and not suffer the initial penalty from being distant from its original HQ.

Make sense?



Capitaine -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/5/2005 7:44:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick91

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.


These suggestions are exactly what I was wishing for as well as I played the game for the first time. Particularly no. 3 so we could follow the firing unit to the target (which is identified by the highlight anyway). As long as we watch a replay, I'd like to view the action so it's meaningful to me. It could be optional in case some think it's "unrealistic"... [8|]

It would really enhance the game experience for many I think, and it's a rather small graphic detail that wouldn't appear too difficult.



ciril -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/6/2005 2:06:32 PM)

If I may, I'd I third the third suggestion.



AlvinS -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/8/2005 9:55:17 PM)

For scenarios where you have a large number of reinforcements coming, I would like to be able to set "Rally Points" in advance, for these units to move to when they arrive. In scenarios like "A Thin Blue Line" as NATO you end up with alot of units arriving and awaiting orders. With EW set to high and limited staff rule in effect you end up with a lot of units congregating in a small area awaiting orders. I know in the heat of battle you can only make so many decisions in a given period of time, but if reinforcments are planned and not a last minute request, you should at least be able to get them to initially move to a rally point of your choosing.

Being prior Air Force, my knowledge of how things really work with ground forces, is limited to what I read in books and on the Internet. For those of you with experience, is this request un-realistic? Would anyone else want this ability?

The more I play FPG the more I love it. I finally started playing PBEM and it is great![8D] This game will only get better.



Poliorcetes -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/8/2005 11:30:18 PM)

I'd be happy just knowing which part of the map the reinforcements were coming too. In one scenario as WP I have reinforcements showing up at 3 different roads (North, South, and West).



IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/14/2005 2:20:05 AM)

I am seeing lots of great ideas here. Some were already on the list and many others will go on it - especially the easy to do ones [:D]. I'm not quite ready to make any specific promises but if you want to contribute your suggestions, this is the place to do it!

Cheers, Rob.



MikeS369 -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/26/2005 8:15:35 PM)

Hexes, hexes hexes. Sorry but I'm just use to hexes.

My suggestion is more of a visual idea and I realize it may not be feasible. I'm sure game play functions, such as LOS, were developed using squares. But I sure would rather see hexes.

Sorry if this has already been posted.



cbelva -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/26/2005 10:29:13 PM)

One issue regarding the use of chemcals that I find unrealistic is the way the IA uses chemicals in orportunity fire missions. [:@] As a former Chemical Officer, I find that totally unrealistic, esp from the NATO side. The commander (ie the player) should have complete comtrol over the use of chemical agents. I recommend a setting for the Arty units where the player could set the way the AI uses chemical weapons. Either it could give total freedom to use on target of opportunity, make the AI ask permission first, or no uses except by order of the player. That would be more realistic. Chemical weapons are not predictable and normally they would be a design in the overall plan. In orther words, their would be fairly strick conditions set up in the way chemical could or would be used. Also, the use of chemicals should be something which is set in the scenario creation process. Even WP forces would not use them the way they are used now! They arty officer would not have the authority to thow chemical all over the battlefield. [:-]



Siljanus -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/29/2005 3:54:22 AM)

Apologies if this has been suggested already but would it be possible to have some sort of delay hostile force order a la Highway to the Reich? I'd like to be able to set up a delayed fighting withdrawal with specific waypoints that my unit should follow. You could possibly link the probability that the unit will carry out the order with its proximity to it's organic HQ. I figure that when faced with overwhelming odds there is a good chance that the unit would run like hell rather than follow a preordered path when withdrawing. With an HQ close by, the chances of carrying out an orderly withdrawal after delaying the enemy could go up. Also, if a unit happens to get mauled while trying to delay an enemy force, then self-preservation would take over and it would just run for the hills.



dpabrams -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (3/30/2005 3:40:10 AM)

I must say that I am enjoying the game. It fills a void for me after the demise of the Cold War. Sort of reminiscent of the the old GDW Assault system. There are as many improvements I can suggest as possibilities for this system. Lets hope FPG evolves. Here are my suggestions:

1.More attention to formation and facing. (ie, march, wedge, defilade, column etc).
2.More attention to smoke (ie, smoke dischargers, generators).
3.It has been mentioned but splitting platoons into sections would be nice.
4.I have the mod for the unit ID's and it works for me.
5.Greter detail in fortifacations.

A solid engine would lend itself to a Operational sim that could fill a great void in the PC gaming industry. I find this sytem far more user friendly than BCT and ATF.

Pete Abrams




IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (4/1/2005 2:36:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva

One issue regarding the use of chemcals that I find unrealistic is the way the IA uses chemicals in orportunity fire missions. [:@] As a former Chemical Officer, I find that totally unrealistic, esp from the NATO side. The commander (ie the player) should have complete comtrol over the use of chemical agents. I recommend a setting for the Arty units where the player could set the way the AI uses chemical weapons. Either it could give total freedom to use on target of opportunity, make the AI ask permission first, or no uses except by order of the player. That would be more realistic. Chemical weapons are not predictable and normally they would be a design in the overall plan. In orther words, their would be fairly strick conditions set up in the way chemical could or would be used. Also, the use of chemicals should be something which is set in the scenario creation process. Even WP forces would not use them the way they are used now! They arty officer would not have the authority to thow chemical all over the battlefield. [:-]


I love to hear from former serving officers and to collect a 'first post' too is an added bonus. I definitely want to model the artillery support a little more deeply in a couple of areas and if it is OK with you I will implement this idea just as you have described it. I like that it is clear and immediately obvious how it applies. Being authentic helps too!

Many thanks, cheers, Rob.

P.S. My design notebook is full of ideas from this and the other threads. This feedback is incredibly energizing and even my dear wife has noticed that instead of collapsing after the game shipped I am still in fine form adding new features and refinements. This has given me a new jolt of creativity right when I thought I had run dry.

There is so much stuff that I just had to move everything to a fatter binder. My desk is awash in paper again but I'm not complaining! Its a *lot* more fun doing it this way.

What is the timing of all these new features? Hard to say but mainly because Matrix wants me to add some more bells and whistles to the AI and not the UI, or the data, or the game mechanics, etc until after. I kind of like to work on all at once so that there is something for everyone, but honestly, when working on the AI it is smarter to be totally concentrated on just that and not make any mistakes. It requires fairly complete immersion so as not to dull it rather than sharpen it.



cbelva -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (4/1/2005 2:39:50 PM)

Robert, Thanks for the reply. It is nice to know that someone is listening. Overall, FPG is an excellent sim and has a lot of promise. As a former Chemical Officer, I take notice of any sim that incorporates NBC into the game. I look forward to seeing the changes and watching this game evolve and grow.



IronManBeta -> RE: Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements. (4/9/2005 8:20:50 PM)

Hey, that's what makes it fun!

Ta, Rob



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.033203