RE: Feature Request

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Feature Request

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Tigers on the Hunt >> RE: Feature Request

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Feature Request - 6/17/2016 6:29:41 AM

fran52

Posts: 598
Joined: 6/4/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

multi-hex fire groups.

Again the multi hex fire, but in the last edition of ASL played by me,the multi-hex was deleted.I don't know if later was reintroduced.

(in reply to happyloaf)

Post #: 211

RE: Feature Request - 6/17/2016 12:30:10 PM

GJK

Posts: 554
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline

Unfortunately, I've sat aside this game until Peter can add firegrouping to it. You can't even try and pretend that it's anything like ASL without them no matter how much you try and make it look like it. And yes, I realize that this isn't ASL per se but I don't think anybody is fooling anybody any longer as to what the game is trying to model.

I'd also hope that Peter would do away with the "feature" that shows a player where he has LOS to before he even makes a shot. This gives an unfair advantage to the player - and if the computer cheats by doing the same, so be it...it can use the help. Instead, I'd suggest that a player indicates any shots and if the LOS turned out to be blocked, the game would show him a LOS where it was blocked and then the roll made for the breaking of any weapons and then the attack is done (ala real ASL).

Must have smoke. Don't care what some books say about who used how much smoke.

You know what...I'll cut to the chase. I hope that Matrix can work out something with Wizards of the Coast to get a license to produce a computer ASL so that Peter can really make the game that he wants to make with no restrictions. Then we can see the IFT and the drm's and have a game that isn't trying to skirt around some corners looking like one thing but pretending that under the hood it really isn't. Peter, Erik...anybody working on that agreement???

< Message edited by GJK -- 6/17/2016 12:33:16 PM >

(in reply to fran52)

Post #: 212

RE: Feature Request - 6/19/2016 2:00:56 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

firegroups will totally make the AI redundant , You can plan to group 6 -12 units together to form a firegroup .
But it`s a single player game , Do you really think an AI can plan and coordinate the same ?
Advantage player :) .
firegroups are for player vs player , not player vs AI

(in reply to GJK)

Post #: 213

RE: Feature Request - 6/19/2016 5:18:21 PM

GJK

Posts: 554
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline

The AI seems to coordinate attacks well in oh say, TOAWIII, which came out in the 90's.

(in reply to fuselex)

Post #: 214

RE: Feature Request - 7/14/2016 5:01:14 PM

rico21

Posts: 2990
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

I'd like adapted this scenario,could you add the Martians please Peter.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Krasny)

Post #: 215

RE: Feature Request - 7/19/2016 6:57:10 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

I`m really fascinated by the obsession of fire groups , so what you would like is a 3 stack of 3 units with officers
.weapons , why?
Do you think at any point if I have 2 afv`s together I should count there firepower together , No that's insane ,
every Afv fires alone , and if they get a hit they roll alone ,
So why do ppl think an infantry unit next to another should get a bonus ? , every stack gets a roll , and that
roll only , if you would like to increase the odds , increase the stack , ( and pray :) )

but why should a unit get massive bonuses by being near 2 stacks of 3 units , can they shoot better ? .
Nah ,

< Message edited by fuselex -- 7/19/2016 7:22:50 PM >

(in reply to rico21)

Post #: 216

RE: Feature Request - 7/19/2016 7:32:19 PM

rico21

Posts: 2990
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

Found on the Net

Quick question - I'm reading the rules and trying to get my head around fire groups. Coming from an ASL background, when you firegroup in ASL, you simply add all the firepower up of the attacking squads. Here in CC, each additional attacking unit/weapon simply adds +1.

So the basic question, is what is the advantage of firegrouping versus firing at the same target individually, especially when elimination of a unit requires it to break twice?

Is the main advantage for an attacker the simple card preservation which theoretically keeps the time track from advancing quicker? It would seem in a case where I have 3 units with 5 fp each, that three separate 5fp attacks might have more success than 1 attack at 7 fp.

I figured that you folks who have actually played multiple games would have some insights.

Otherwise, CC seems like an awesome change of pace from ASL.

1
Thumb up
tip
Hide

Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:08 pm
QuickReply

QuickQuote

Reply

Well, there are certainly many instances where a couple of extra points on an Attack will make the difference between breaking the Defender or not. So there IS the reason that it's more FP. As you say, it's hard to eliminate a unit in two hits but sometimes just breaking it is enough to remove its threat for a bit.

Also, don't forget that in Op Fire, you only get ONE shot per hex so you definitely want to maximize your attack.

There are a lot of reasons for grouping or not grouping (deck burning or not being one valid one) but the choice has to be made based on the tactical situation at the moment.

If I'm not mistaken, the reason you don't add all the FPs straight together is based on Chad's research that shows just firing more bullets isn't exponentially more effective. Or something like that.

(in reply to fran52)

Post #: 217

RE: Feature Request - 7/19/2016 7:52:43 PM

GJK

Posts: 554
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline

That's the answer. This is a game - it's not a simulation - and giving the player the decision of whether or not wor what with to firegroup adds choices for the player and thus adds to the flavor of the game. In ASL, whether or not to firegroup (or say, fire just the SW) during first fire/subsequent/final protective fire is one of the most difficult decisions to weigh in the game. Hoping that Peter can get that added some time.

< Message edited by GJK -- 7/19/2016 7:55:49 PM >

(in reply to rico21)

Post #: 218

RE: Feature Request - 7/20/2016 5:36:06 PM

UP844

Posts: 1662
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline

As suggested by Double Deuce in the thread about the new campaign game, it would be nice to be able to specify the status of the units (pinned, broken, broken+) when they are placed on the map. After all, AFVs can be set up in "immobilised" state. Another related feature I'd like to see is the possibility of setting up SW and Ordnance unpossessed at start.

I think these feature would be handy where one side is disorganized at the start of the scenario even though it has not suffered casualties (e.g. just after a paradrop, being ambushed).

(in reply to GJK)

Post #: 219

RE: Feature Request - 7/20/2016 7:49:23 PM

rico21

Posts: 2990
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

And add paradog war please...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to UP844)

Post #: 220

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 6:20:37 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

I really, just in case no one noticed believe the firegroup argument makes no sense .
The computer is not going be able to ,in the near future, plan to move a lot of units in 1 phase
with the intention of forming firegroups .
The player can .
We need to work with what we have available :) .
Some of the scenario developers are asking for mines , barbed wire , transport .
they are achievable ,
But to think the AI can possibly form a firegroup like a player can?

(in reply to rico21)

Post #: 221

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 6:22:11 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

Think paradog is more realistic :)

(in reply to fuselex)

Post #: 222

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 6:25:22 PM

rico21

Posts: 2990
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

haha

(in reply to fran52)

Post #: 223

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 6:36:49 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

Have I played a scenario where I needed firegroups yet ?
Possibly ? , would have made it easier .
But can I say I needed them ?
Play 1 down 2 to go :) , I think grouping would ruin that . Firegroups would not have forced myself into CC.
The best part about it was CC

(in reply to fuselex)

Post #: 224

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 6:40:34 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

don`t want o be a work, health and safety officer there paradog .
But I don`t see your safety googles ?

(in reply to fuselex)

Post #: 225

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 6:48:16 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

don`t mean to be pushy ,but I have seen others who have not made the jump so well :)

< Message edited by fuselex -- 7/29/2016 6:43:51 PM >

(in reply to fuselex)

Post #: 226

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 6:52:46 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

well that wasn`t great , no idea that pic was huge , please ignore and I`ll find another broken paradog :)

(in reply to fuselex)

Post #: 227

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 7:06:31 PM

fuselex

Posts: 788
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline

We know him as Bazza
Worked with Paradog in special ops.
Last tour of duty was Afghanistan.
Some say he had a cold , we will never know.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to fuselex)

Post #: 228

RE: Feature Request - 7/21/2016 7:06:45 PM

Gerry4321

Posts: 874
Joined: 3/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GJK

That's the answer. This is a game - it's not a simulation - and giving the player the decision of whether or not wor what with to firegroup adds choices for the player and thus adds to the flavor of the game. In ASL, whether or not to firegroup (or say, fire just the SW) during first fire/subsequent/final protective fire is one of the most difficult decisions to weigh in the game. Hoping that Peter can get that added some time.

Hope so too. Give the AI side a bonus if you think the human has an advantage.

(in reply to GJK)

Post #: 229

RE: Feature Request - 7/22/2016 3:11:28 PM

GJK

Posts: 554
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline

Gerry: For example I played the "Pavlov's House" scenario from the VotG HASL with an ASL gaming buddy yesterday and it was an exciting challenge to sequence my defensive fires from one of the fortified locations knowing that he had at least 3 HS's with DC's, a flamethrower and who knows what else coming at me. I had two 628's with a HMG and a 9-1 leader. HMG retained rate on a great tear and I kept one of the 628's out of the firegroup in case the HMG lost rate and was facing sustained fire penalties. I held them all off and was very lucky to of done so with a pin (and later break) of an assault engineer squad that was attempting to place a DC in my location. Later in the game one of my lt. mortars on the top floor of a gutted building dropped a perfectly placed round next to a STuG that took off it's track and broke the squad and leader that were using it for cover. Love ASL!...

I'm not going to say 'if' but 'when' Peter can replicate that with an AI opponent in the game and add those mechanics (firegroups)...my ASL buddy may be left without a playing opponent! (kidding).

< Message edited by GJK -- 7/22/2016 3:14:23 PM >

(in reply to Gerry4321)

Post #: 230

RE: Feature Request - 7/24/2016 2:08:22 PM

Gerry4321

Posts: 874
Joined: 3/24/2003
Status: offline

Great story.

My concern with TotH is that there is only Peter and Jorgen and Peter is busy with his regular job.

(in reply to GJK)

Post #: 231

RE: Feature Request - 7/24/2016 5:18:03 PM

rico21

Posts: 2990
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

work?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to fran52)

Post #: 232

RE: Feature Request - 8/5/2016 5:24:45 PM

vonotto

Posts: 13
Joined: 8/4/2016
Status: offline

I do not know if it can be done but one of the few issues I have is scrolling all over the small text window to see what results occurred during attack/defense etc, so I would like to see the text box "detachable" or movable so I could stretch it wider and place it on a second monitor.

(in reply to rico21)

Post #: 233

RE: Feature Request - 8/10/2016 2:54:32 PM

LeeChard

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Suul

Hello all,

I was thinking about this for my style of play. I personally prefer using only the mouse. If possible could the leader, squad and weapon frame have a click on/click off style for each element. For example click the leader, he is selected, click the squad it is selected, and if I change my mind before the right click for the attack I could click the leader again to deselect him, maybe to use him in a different attack? I would like to play on a laptop, tablet and a TV screen. Clicking units on and clicking units off independently means I would not be repeatedly reaching for the control key on the keyboard. To make a group for moving or firing requires clicking the correct units, but is it really necessary to have to also hold down the control key?

New to the game and like it very much. My main issue is reflected in Suul's post.
I know nothing about programming so I don't know if this is a simple change or a non starter.
It's tedious to constantly have to reach for the control button.
Otherwise a very enjoyable game!

(in reply to Suul)

Post #: 234

RE: Feature Request - 8/10/2016 4:07:52 PM

GJK

Posts: 554
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline

I would think that it would be rather possible to have it so that if you click a hex with units, you could then click the top line of text (where you normally ctrl-click) that has the Hex ID info to select ALL the units in the hex. You could then left click to deselect individual units/items. If you mis-click, you could *then* ctrl-click to re-add a unit or, simply click the top line of text (again, where the Hex ID info is) to reselect them all and then left click indivual items to deselect them.

(in reply to LeeChard)

Post #: 235

RE: Feature Request - 11/9/2016 11:27:06 AM

iPhoneAppz

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/10/2016
Status: offline

Could you please make the LOS tool usable? Instead of having to remember 2 sets of coordinates (because the LOS tool is modal and I can't even click the hexes to get their coordinates while I'm in the dialog), let me just click on the two hexes.

(in reply to Krasny)

Post #: 236

RE: Feature Request - 11/10/2016 4:39:18 PM

iPhoneAppz

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/10/2016
Status: offline

I'd love to see the terrain data from Section 8.3 in the manual displayed in the right pane when I mouse over terrain. It would be nice to know that Grain provides hindrance in-season without having to refer to the manual.

(in reply to iPhoneAppz)

Post #: 237

RE: Feature Request - 12/5/2016 9:33:23 AM

Ticonderoga60

Posts: 86
Joined: 10/12/2016
From: Italy
Status: offline

In movement and Rout phase, there's confusion. Is possible highlighted ONLY enemy unit that move o routed?
P.S.: News about update?

(in reply to iPhoneAppz)

Post #: 238

RE: Feature Request - 12/5/2016 11:09:45 AM

UP844

Posts: 1662
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline

Moving and routing units are highlighted by the yellow dot in the hex they just left and by the small red arrow icon in their bottom right corner. The latter, unfortunately, is not visibile if the unit carries a Support Weapon: the issue has already been reported to Peter, but the red arrow is an "attribute" of the individual unit, so it cannot be shown above the moving stack.

You can also:
- right-click on a hex to see if the units in the hex have moved (i.e. if they are highlighted by the red arrow)
- select the hex: the lines associated with moving units will include <MOVE>.

By the way, the game will not allow firing on non-moving units in the Movement Segment.

Units routing using low crawl are highlighted by the blue upper right corner (but they cannot be interdicted anyway).

< Message edited by UP844 -- 12/5/2016 11:10:51 AM >

(in reply to Ticonderoga60)

Post #: 239

RE: Feature Request - 12/6/2016 9:12:13 AM

Ticonderoga60

Posts: 86
Joined: 10/12/2016
From: Italy
Status: offline

Tanks UP. Your answer are Always welcome.

(in reply to UP844)

Post #: 240