Great Game/Too bad...

[Marshal Villars]

Before I say anything, I have to say this is simply the best operational simulation of all time.

I have just done my duty and purchased the HTTR/BFTB expansion to continue to support the development of this incredible product. I have purchased every engine release since (and including) the original HTTR.

However,

1. I find it too bad that there is still no individual sound for the availability of an airstrike. I find it very difficult to always be checking the airstrike symbol to see if it is available (and I often miss them because I did not see them). Arjuna, can you do anything simple to change the sound to make it obvious we have one waiting for us?

2. I still find it difficult -- if not impossible -- to see elevation differences in the city, or even the woods (of which there are plenty). It would be great to have an "elevation lines layer", but I know there are no "layers" available due to the engine being used. However, has anyone created a landscape mod with lighter (more see through) woods? A slight improvement would be appreciated.

3a. I did a dumb thing and withdrew a regiment in the face of the enemy using a "defend" order (more appropriate may have been a "withdrawl" order follwed by a defend order, marking out the area to be defended). However, I still find the total reversal of the regiment with the HQ at the (new) rear of the formation without any protection unfortunate. I am currently trying to figure out how to get my HQ protected and watching to see how long it will sit there before moving to the "rear" of the recently designated defensive perimeter (as in image). Yet, I suppose this is an example of "do as I mean, not as I say". LOL. Would it be difficult to take threats into account when moving these formations and to protect the HQ appropriately? Again, I am happy to accept a, "you didn't do that right...you should have executed a withdraw order in the face of the enemy". But then I wonder, at what point can I order the defensive position? And should I use "in situ" to make it so that my HQ isn't exposed? Any advice on how to execute these maneuvers right?

[Marshal Villars]

3b. Here is another example of the same thing (again, I won't say it is a problem...maybe I just need to make sure I don't issue defend orders when engaged with an enemy and the natural result would be a withdrawl to the new position).

The battalion in the woods has been reattached to the regimental HQ and the regimental HQ has been given an order to defend at the new position shown. The battalion is then given orders (by the regimental HQ apparently) to pull back, but the battalion HQ shown is the last to come out. My father, who was a company commander in 1960s Europe said this would not happen.

Again, only constructive criticism. And I understand AI can't be perfect. And it may be an example of do as I mean and not as I say. But I don't think the reg HQ should be giving orders out which destroy the Bn HQs.

[Marshal Villars]

4. I don't know if this problem has been fixed, but in the attached screen shot from an old version, enemy artillery bombardments exhausted this highlighted unit while it was in the open and heading for the woods. They stopped moving for cover a few meters in front of the woods and (as I remember) were destroyed shortly thereafter. I thought they were out of fuel or something. But they weren't.

Can anyone tell me if in the last year this kind of behavior has changed? I think it doesn't make sense that a unit would stop just shy of the woods and allow its destruction with cover just meters away.

[Arjuna]

MV,

Thanks for the feedback.

re 1. Sound for air availability. I'll see what I can do.

re 2. difficulty in seeing elevation layers. Point taken. Have you tried any of the map pattern graphics designed by users?

re 3. It's nigh impossible for the AI to second guess your intentions here. I am sure if I put some smarts in that converted the Defend to a Withdraw if your troops were close to the enemy that you would then find issue with that in a different circumstance - eg if an enemy force had gotten in behind your lines and yet you still wanted to press on to defend the ridge line. Under such an exampl your force would then move its HQ group ahead of the main force to the ridge line. So we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Therefore I think the current arrangements where the user makes the choice between a defend or withdraw is the right approach. Sorry.

Re 4. Units under bombardment not rushing for trees. In fact if you look at the terrain effects you will see that while woods gives a benefit against direct fire it is actually a detreiment to bombardment due to the tree bursts which which cause wood splinters to fly everywhere. So staying put where they are is better than moving to the woods.

[Lieste]

Although if they dropped out of LOS, they might only have to endure a few tree burst before being left in relative peace

[Arjuna]

True but that would depend on where the spotter was and the liklihood of further detection.

[loyalcitizen]

While sound for an available airstrike would be nice, I have asked a few times over the past couple of years to expand the "Run-To" feature to have a check box for Airstrike/Reinforcements. They should just share one checkbox. Anyone using Run-To will want the game to stop on either one of these.
Adding this as Run-To stop point might alleviate the need for an available airstrike sound.

[Lieste]

Also I'd appreciate a run-until at one of the lower simulation rates - rather than assuming that I want the highest rate. Often I want to watch the unfolding of a situation, and also to record the situation at regular intervals. An option to autosave incrementally would work, but there are several features that are 'lost' on reloading a save (message queue, details of deadpile units etc).

[Marshal Villars]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

MV,

Thanks for the feedback.

re 1. Sound for air availability. I'll see what I can do.

re 2. difficulty in seeing elevation layers. Point taken. Have you tried any of the map pattern graphics designed by users?

re 3. It's nigh impossible for the AI to second guess your intentions here. I am sure if I put some smarts in that converted the Defend to a Withdraw if your troops were close to the enemy that you would then find issue with that in a different circumstance - eg if an enemy force had gotten in behind your lines and yet you still wanted to press on to defend the ridge line. Under such an exampl your force would then move its HQ group ahead of the main force to the ridge line. So we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Therefore I think the current arrangements where the user makes the choice between a defend or withdraw is the right approach. Sorry.

Re 4. Units under bombardment not rushing for trees. In fact if you look at the terrain effects you will see that while woods gives a benefit against direct fire it is actually a detreiment to bombardment due to the tree bursts which which cause wood splinters to fly everywhere. So staying put where they are is better than moving to the woods.

Thanks for the answers Arjuna. To be honest, of all of my gaming experiences in almost 30 years of play, Panther Games provides the BEST customer service -- bar none.

1. AIR AVAILABILITY: Any significantly different sound would be great.

2. ELEVATION LAYERS: I will look for another map pack and maybe it will do the trick. Maybe a future engine can introduce the badly needed "layers" option so we can turn elevation lines on and off at a whim.

3. RETREAT TO DEFEND: I understand your point completely and even wondered this myself, thinking -- it is probably best if there are no modifications so we always know what we are getting. But then I would like to know how to execute this maneuver optimally. So, how does one best retreat to a new defensive line in the face of an enemy without risking this kind of a "back to the enemy" kind of formation? Secondly, how can you keep this from happening if one of your reg HQ's orders a Bn to do the same (as in the second example above).

4. UNITS STUCK IN THE OPEN: I don't expect them to rush for the trees on their own. I was only hoping that they might ignore their fatigue enough to get into the cover of woods when ordered to do so. I still think there needs to be a mechanic where if cover (or a safer place) is close enough, they will ignore fatigue levels to get to it. I am not quite sure how this would be done exactly, but I have ideas. I just don't see how a bunch of guys whose lives are at risk would stop 20 meters short of a tree line because shelling had pushed them to the point of exhaustion. It is my humble opinion that the fear/exhaustion model doesn't take fear into account, but only exhaustion. I think "fear" should temporarily overcome exhaustion. So, Effective Exhaustion = Standard Exhaustion - Survival Benefit of Continued Action. That equation would only work over periods of a week as the body simply can't store much more energy than that in secret, inaccessible places. And recent studies show that we have LOTS of energy stored in ways which are not accessible unless HIGHLY stressed or threatened. It simply isn't available. For very good reasons. It is our LAST RESORT lifeline.

Again, still a 95/100 game!

[Arjuna]

Re Retreat to defend. Either order th force as a whole to withdraw. They will end up defending the final objective but will move the HQ and support units out first. Or break things down for yourself and order the HQ with support staff to Defend at the final objective with no delay and then do the same for the line units but with Start At time of say three hours hence. That should give time for the HQ and support units to move off while protected by the line units. Check the orders delay for the HQ/Spt group and ensure that the start time for the line group is at least an hour after the HQ should start moving.

[Marshal Villars]

Okay. Will withdraw to disengage and setup new defensive lines. Thanks.

[Marshal Villars]

deleted (re-post as was having problems with the interface/internet connection)