PitF Wish List Thread

Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog is the first new release (not a re-make of a previous games) in years in the critically acclaimed Close Combat series. It details the desperate German counter-attack at Mortain, the last chance of the Wehrmacht to stave off defeat in Normandy. Can you match the tenacity of the American defenders of Hill 314? Or can you succeed where the Panzers failed, driving through to the sea and changing history? Improved 32-bit graphics and the ability to control more squads than ever bring the Close Combat engine to a new level.
User avatar
Kanov
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: México

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Kanov »

Ok here's some wishes:


-Refitting, let the player decide which teams get replacements, these are accordingly limited and finite, but could get restocked every day or so.
-Upgrading, not at the extreme of CC3 that spans several years, but say upgrade an ad-hoc team to a rifle team, an AT gun type A1 to a Type A2 which is the same gun but with more tungsten rounds or something.
-If a BG/unit gets surrounded (Strategic/tactical map respectively), they start next battle with whatever ammo and weapons they finished with from last battle even if they are captured weapons. Morale and stamina penalties. Cannot refit or switch teams from BG/Unit.
-Let the player be represented on the Battlefield commanding a company, be it random or let him decide.
-Company commanders have the appropriate rank. Platoon commanders too.
-Let the ammo have its own Data sheet so we can name it and modify it more thoroughly. Name of ammo being used appears in-game in some way next to the weapon used. There's a lot of wasted space in the soldier monitor.
-Immerse the player in the game. Take notes of CC2 videos and briefings, of CC3 detailed operational history of every soldier which could be modified to represent battles instead of operations fought.
-Strategic Ambush. A BG could be ordered to hide and after certain number of turns and depending on the terrain, it could achieve ambush status, if enemy BG enters Ambushing BG map, some sort of penalty occurs like: Enemy BG forced to deploy in column, Enemy units get -2 morale levels while ambushing BG gets +2, etc
-More infantry survivability.
-A "Hide" command, units in Hiding do not shoot and do not ambush. Just hide. In case the enemy is right on top of them, I suppose hand to hand combat ensues. This already happens if you run into an ambushing team from behind or run into them really fast.

I liked these:
ORIGINAL: Cathartes
1. inability to identify enemy unit and number of men until you are right on top of or immediately adjacent to unit, or enemy unit is running in the open.
2. VL capture remains unknown unless your own units are immediately adjacent to or have captured VLs.
4. Misidentification of units possible: e.g. a PzIV can be mistaken for a Tiger (we know the difference in a game, but soldiers in heat & excitement of battle did not see so clearly).
5. Tracked vehicles & tanks should be identifiable as such before LOS is established. Enemy could hear a tank coming before they saw it. Not sure how this would be displayed on map except that there could be an icon for "supposed" position that remains outside of LOS.
ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt

Dynamic sounds for tanks and vehicles, if the vehicle is on the screen you should hear it moving. The sound should fade as the screen is scrolled away from the moving vehicle. This would make a hidden / still tank more of a suprise.

And so excited about this making the cut:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

ORIGINAL: xambrium

ohh nice!

Another wish, infantry riding on halftracks?

This has been under discussion and is pretty likely to make it in. But I don't want to promise specific features until they're set in stone. So please take it as 'maybe' at this point. :)

Hard-core Spectre
User avatar
Platoon_Michael
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:14 am

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Platoon_Michael »

You really need to individualize the game a LOT more.

I.E.
1)BG Characteristics that change by DAY and not just 1 overall setting.
In the Campaign text change the Recycle Disbanded BGs (0 = Never come back, 1 = Return next day)1 to be more individualize as well.Not only per side but per Day.

2)BGs retreat on rout (0 = disband on rout, 1 = retreat on rout)1
Same as above,Per BG and Per Day.

3) Battle group 'base' battle plans: Controls the default plan used by
# A given BG when opposed by a given enemy BG. Plans are:
# 0 = all out attack, 1 = limited attack, 2 = probing attack, 3 = defend, 4 = survive

Again Per BG and Per Day

4)Change Night Turns to also be Early Morning Turns without having to cheat the game to get support for the first early Morning Turn in a GC.

5)You got to find a way that when playing a GC I'm not dissapointed by Dec 21st (Day 6) with NO opposing BG's to fight against.
Why include a 25 Day GC in the game when all I need is 6-maybe 10 at best?
Your giving me NOTHING to fight here.
What is it 9 Allied BG's against 26 Axis BG's?
That's not going to keep me coming back.
The only thing I got going for me here is using the Save Game Editor and switch sides.

Image
Attachments
UO0255.jpg
UO0255.jpg (144.43 KiB) Viewed 189 times
xe5
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 5:06 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by xe5 »

Thoughts on the above suggestions:

@Gary - At CC's operational scale I much prefer area-based maps over hex or point-to-point. They look and feel more organic than hexes, which after so many decades of hex-based wargames, seem artificial and abstract. Given a hex strat map you'd have to further uglify it to indicate lack of movement connections. Also, rumor has it that PitF will support 8 entry/exit connections per area while hexes are limited to 6. Granted, despite Southern Land's .BGM eye candy, the current tactical maps are still going to be based the unseen grid of 2x2 meter terrain squares defined in the map.txt file.

re: a 1:1 scale - Fine for the static warfare of WW1 but what happens when that company is pulled out of the line after heavy losses, or when that couple of miles of strat map changes control in a few hours? You'd need a lot of company-sized (Allied) BGs and, considering the mobility involved in WW2 operations, still wind up with a pretty short GC.

I believe you meant TGA not TIF. TGA is a relatively common game graphics format. Photoshop can handle these. The 'special program' you're referring to is the tool that unpacks-repacks and/or converts the game graphics (a 'reversed' TGA format) to and from TGA.

@DampSquib re: user-definable hotkeys - add hotkey toggles for overview map Zoom as well as the various team icon and soldier outline states.

@Bradley62 re: orders in Pause - definitely useful for noobs but at the risk of an RTS becoming somewhat turn-based. Possibly limit this to a realism option checkbox or only the lower difficulty levels. Occasionally it would be informative to scroll a paused map without a huge Pause box in the center, including at the end of a battle rather than automatically advancing to the Debrief screen.

@Cathartes - almost completely concur, especially with the FoW. The ability to specify location "lockable units" in the static BGs allows (via a bit of file editing voodoo) for the creation of uniquely interesting battles and ops which avoid the games rather generic initial unit placements.

Increased FoW at the higher difficulty levels would go a long way towards offsetting CC's AI limitations and provide play balance for CC vets.

Realistically, I shouldnt know:
* when an enemy soldier is KIA/Incap without except at very close range or with clear LOS in open terrain (ie. many fewer enemy death .SFX and bodies)
* which enemy team has what casualties or morale states
* enemy infantry team types
* what the enemy's force morale is
* who controls a VL that I dont currently occupy
* what the enemy deployment zone is (anything but friendly should display as neutral)
* how much time is left on the game clock
Etc.

Additionally, I'd like a realism option to show only enemy units spotted by the currently selected friendly team rather than the aggregate of enemy units currently spotted by any friendly unit(s).

The only quibble I have concerns seeing enemy vehicles w/o LOS. The game already makes some effort to do this but unfortunately displays precise location info when doing so.


@Stiener - I very much value the addition (circa CC5) of tactical unit retreat under fire. I believe it aligns well with CC's emphasis on the soldier psych model (however much I dislike the game mechanic that kills cowards before effectives). In reality, a unit becoming pinned and unable/unwilling to advance was a lot more common than CC would lead one to believe. These werent the hordes of Roosky cannon fodder mowed down in droves on the Eastern front. In CC the player can send unit after unit into an absolute kill zone w/o penalty other than loss of force morale.

@Kanov - refit/upgrade wouldnt really apply in a 6 day PitF campaign. I do like how LSA imposes reduced strength units on out-of-supply BGs to simulate their beleagured status.

re: Strategic Ambush - if, as in LSA, PitF allows BGs to choose between Attack and Move onto an enemy-controlled maps then I agree, the choice to Move rather than Attack should be penalized (eg. column deployment) in some fashion. By the same token, fighting a successful battle after choosing to move onto an enemy-controlled map should be rewarded, possibly with additional force morale-based VL gains.

Fully agree with "more infantry survivabilty", although this should be offset by reduced manueverability for units under fire. I'd like to see units in bldgs have increased concealment and cover. The survivability of AI units would be improved if they didnt get 'happy feet' so often and advance from cover into the open, especially while under fire.

@Plt_Michael - 1) I dont have a problem with as is now. 2) I'd like to see a minimum force level established, below which a BG would disband rather than retreat. Those last few enemy teams shouldnt be able to slip away as easily. 3) I'd do away with the AI's base BG battle plans entirely and make it situation dependent. eg. an all-out attack if an AI BG were facing a small/depleted player BG but downgrading mid-battle to probe/defend/survive should the tactical circumstances warrant. 4) I dont understand. 5) Game balance for experienced players is certainly a big, if not the biggest issue. In LSA I won a GC as the Germans without ever redeploying or moving a team. I'd suggest:

a) far fewer available teams at Elite difficulty

b) the fog of war options enumerated above

c) separate Force Morale levels for each force; distinct FM levels to be determined by difficulty. If the 'slider' I see at the top of some of the PitF preview images is the new FM meter then, IMO, we're headed in the opposite direction.

Image

d) a realism toggle to force the player to accept the default deployment (Grogs Rule #1)

-----------------

A vehicle 'passengers' feature ala CCM sounds good. So is persistent tracking of soldier stats. How about enabling export of battle and soldier stats? Am also very curious which previous CC game features (blown bridges, underpass, static and stackable BGs) will or wont be in PitF?
Attachments
FMbar2.jpg
FMbar2.jpg (18.98 KiB) Viewed 190 times
heckler
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:21 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by heckler »

These might not work in combination, and I hope they are as clear on paper as they are in my head...
 
1) Russian Front with a campaign. Maybe a Minsk area Destruction of Army Group Center 1944
2) Scaled at a level where battlegroups of different speeds can move multiple strategic maps in a turn...
    and allowing battlegroups that meet in a meeting engagement have deployment zones predicated on their speed-my fast group would get to deploy further onto the map (maybe along the road I was taking when I ran into you) than the leg infantry that walked on.
3) A campaign that depicts an overall meeting engagement-lines not in contact at start.
4) Maybe a closer to 1:1 depiction...
    if battalion size bg's, maybe the 1st company is available at start, plus the heavy weapons company. You can refit, and that resets the company assets (to represent the lead company pulling out due to losses)-but the attachments would not reset. If company level, no refits.
5) having a platoon integrity mechanic-I'll use a British group from The Longest Day as an example...if I bring a platoon hq, then I would be locked in to  that platoon, and would not be able to field another until the 6 half-squad teams(3 Bren/3 Rifle), 2# mortar, and PIAT (the base platoon element) were all fielded. With the stacked BG mechanic, maybe some slots (2 per platoon if 21 is the new total) would be available for add-ons. And maybe in a meeting engagement you have to bring the whole platoon before ading another, where in a set piece battle you could start 2 or 3, to represent forces more 'on-line' and allow you to have more customisation.
 
Whew, I'm long winded. Note i don't know how you'd do any of this, but that's why its called a wish list, amiright?[;)]
   
User avatar
Kanov
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: México

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Kanov »

Manual refitting by player could work very well with PitF and add another layer of strategic decisions. The game must however, have some sort of mechanism that limits the player, be it points as in CC3/LSA or a limited reserve pool of soldiers (different from BG forcepool) from which to draw replacements. Another third option could be the way it was handled in CC2 which was very fun, it was automatic but severely depleted teams that were similar got merged together so you could end up with a Bren team with two Bren guns, it also depended on how many hours passed between cease fires and how well supplied was the sector.

From CC4 onwards, the refitting is automatic which gives the impression that you have an endless reserve force. What CC4 had in its favor was that it used static BG selection so if a BG got surrounded it couldn't refit its units and you were forced to fight with understrength teams.

Upgrading I agree it doesn't work very well with the limited time of the operation but it was fun to do.

Another wish is that I would like to see modular damage to tanks, instead of being "damaged" I would like to read "Optics damaged" for example, and have its aim accordingly reduced. Also, In line with the FoW wishes exposed above, I should not know what damage has an enemy tank received, how many crew it has left or if its destroyed unless it explodes or something.
Hard-core Spectre
User avatar
SteveMcClaire
Posts: 4303
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by SteveMcClaire »

ORIGINAL: xe5
c) separate Force Morale levels for each force; distinct FM levels to be determined by difficulty. If the 'slider' I see at the top of some of the PitF preview images is the new FM meter then, IMO, we're headed in the opposite direction.

Image

That is the force morale indicator for PitF. The graphic needs to be changed (it's all green no matter the level in the current dev build) but it works the same way as existing FM mechanism in LSA/TLD/WaR.
xe5
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 5:06 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by xe5 »

If the timer and FM bar are being repositioned to the top of the map, I hope they can be toggled off. That would be a nod toward additional FoW, plus, I like to play with a 'clean' UI (toolbar & soldier monitor only) and can envision where the new timer/FM positioning would interfere with seeing and accessing units along the top of the map.

@Kanov - my mistake...CC3-style partial team refit using Requisition points would be a nice addition. The current method where soldiers from low-strength (<50%) teams being disbanded are used as replacements to fill out empty slots in other teams could be retained, but any additional replacements required should cost Req points if the player chooses to do so.

re: '2 Brens in CC2 teams' - Agree, any game function which randomizes the standard 'cookie-cutter' team rosters to any degree would be welcome. Something along the lines of "If enough soldiers from low strength teams are left over (i.e. not needed to fill out other units in the Battle Group) they are grouped together to form reduced strength teams (4 man ad-hoc / ersatz rifle teams, or 2 man light machine gun teams) that are added to your Forcepool automatically" except that those 'left-overs' would retain their original weapons and be grouped in 2-4 man teams.

re: "Panthers in the Fog will keep the history of all your teams and soldiers, even when you remove them from your active team slots. These teams will also receive individual replacements, but that happens automatically. - Steve McClaire"

Im guessing that teams with any battle history, which reside in the inactive roster, will be the first teams available for selection from their respective team type pools.
Tejszd
Posts: 3466
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:32 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Tejszd »

Definitely agree that the morale and time graphics should be able to toggled on or off. At higher difficulty levels the graphic should be hidden automatically or to get the 100% realistic score....
User avatar
kweniston
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:32 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by kweniston »

Please check the wishlist for LSA (lots of tweaks, add-ons, options suggested), including not putting BG/support/movement icons over the map names on the stratmap. The latest screenshots from the PitF strategic map show this hasn't been picked up (yet)...
heckler
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:21 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by heckler »

7) Reconnaisance units (recon, scouts, armored cars, snipers, etc) able to deploy in the 'no man's land' to represent them 'scouting'.
8) Some function where a map attacked from two directions gives the attacker an expanded deployment, and maybe an 'outflanked tax' against the defender, where they lose slots.
User avatar
Kanov
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: México

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Kanov »

Original: xe5
"If enough soldiers from low strength teams are left over (i.e. not needed to fill out other units in the Battle Group) they are grouped together to form reduced strength teams (4 man ad-hoc / ersatz rifle teams, or 2 man light machine gun teams) that are added to your Forcepool automatically" except that those 'left-overs' would retain their original weapons and be grouped in 2-4 man teams.

Yes! true Ad-hoc/Ersatz teams composed of remnants of maimed teams would be very cool.

I'm going to throw a couple of more wishes here that I may have posted somewhere else:

-Battlemaker editor comparable to CC2/CC3, that is, choose a map, lay out a deploy area and set an amount of points to let players choose their force over all the units available.
-In the same spirit, an option to create custom BG's (with custom FP), let us create customized BG's to do user created operations or campaigns. Something like this was available with the tool CCReq for CC5, only that it worked for one battle not a whole operation as it created a save game instead of a true custom battle that ended when the tactical battle finished.

Too late for those maybe, but something to consider for CC:Next ;)

-Track prints on terrain may be doable though, right? or at least a fix to the wooden fence so it can be crushed like the stone fence that turns into debris when a tank goes on top of it.
Hard-core Spectre
User avatar
Platoon_Michael
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:14 am

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Platoon_Michael »

I thought wooden fences did get crushed?

I 'd like something like what Free Deploy Editor used to be.
Wouldn't mind a click and drag BTD Editor in there as well.
User avatar
Kanov
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: México

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Kanov »

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

I thought wooden fences did get crushed?

The map element changes but the graphic doesn't, at least in CC5 and tLD, I don't have CoI/WaR/CCMT/LSA. With stone fences you get both.

-Throwing custom made maps into the map folder and have the Scenario editor recognize them like in CC3 would be cool, this for custom single battles. There would need to be two distinct scenario editors though, one for single battles where you choose whatever map is on the maps folder and one for operations where the Strategic map is available and only the maps used by it are available.

-Soldiers whose team is firing to a target but they can't see the enemy at the moment repositioning themselves to available windows and doors to get LOF would be nice.

-A new soldier sprite with an overcoat or something.

-Separate sound files for: Game sounds (UI misc sounds), Background sounds (wind, distant battle sounds, dogs etc), Weapon sounds, Vehicle Engine sounds (You know you want to).

Hard-core Spectre
heckler
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:21 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by heckler »

ORIGINAL: Kanov


-Soldiers whose team is firing to a target but they can't see the enemy at the moment repositioning themselves to available windows and doors to get LOF would be nice.


This!
User avatar
SteveMcClaire
Posts: 4303
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by SteveMcClaire »

Thanks for the suggestions guys.&nbsp; Yes, I am taking notes.&nbsp; Many of these are things that have been discussed, though no promises until I know for certain what will make the cut.
&nbsp;
User avatar
Platoon_Michael
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:14 am

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Platoon_Michael »

I'd like to see the Team Types on the BG Excel page expanded.(Currently set at 40 different types)
And have them be able to change per day.

Like to see a True 360 degree arc for Ambush/Defend.
Like to see a Command Team have/hold the VL set point.
I.E. if Command team is in a house then that's where the VL is,If they relocate then that's where the VL goes.
Like to see a wreck displayed for AT Guns.
Like to see FX graphics carried over if the Battle is on the same day
I.E. Burning/Smoldering,dead bodies
User avatar
SteveMcClaire
Posts: 4303
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by SteveMcClaire »

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael
Like to see a Command Team have/hold the VL set point.
I.E. if Command team is in a house then that's where the VL is,If they relocate then that's where the VL goes.

That's an interesting idea. So a command team would basically become a victory location / objective for the enemy? Would need some thought in terms of how the enemy player sees it, as it would be basically giving away where your command team is, but an interesting twist.

User avatar
Platoon_Michael
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:14 am

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Platoon_Michael »

Could be based on LOS,
Say 15-25M,I would assume in under normal circumstances that the enemy would know by that range where one's Command Post was therefore that VL would only show up in that range.

Depending on the BG your up against that VL could also become an Exit VL.

A very Important BG for the opponent to beat would be an Exit VL captured to a Map one needs in the GC to be successful,where as a pretty normal or insufficient BG would be a Major VL or Normal VL.


You couldn't pin point your attacks so closely on a map as is the case now with VL's set in stone if you had to account for Battle Field conditions of ones Command directing/retreating their troops..
User avatar
Kanov
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 2:02 pm
Location: México

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by Kanov »

I liked the suggestion posted on CCseries about dynamic VL's present on a rts Civil war game, that is the game may present you with normal static VL's but as battle takes place in that map, contested points gain VL status and VL's that don't get contested much disappear over time.

So you got for example a VL set originally on a building but that building in game doesn't get to see much action so its VL starts to fade overtime until it eventually disappears meanwhile a heavily contested little farm house starts to sport a little translucent VL with a random name that gets bigger and more noticeable over time as more casualties occur near it.
Hard-core Spectre
xe5
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 5:06 pm

RE: PitF Wish List Thread

Post by xe5 »

So how does the enemy 'capture' the points for the VL/HQ command team? All KIA/Incap? If so that means often the last surviving Pvt on the team becomes the most important soldier on the map. It also will make players more reticent about committing such a valuable asset on the front line and fewer teams would get the benefit of command radius.

I do like the idea of a user-defined HQ/VL location but it doesnt necessarily have to be a team. It could just be a notional concept of a tactical HQ (possessing its own command radius), which, once placed in the deploy phase, would remain immobile during battle. If located in cover it would also be invisible to the enemy until he occupied that location and the game notified him of the capture (the actual HQ troops being presumed to have 'bugged out' prior to the enemy's arrival). In the open the HQ/VL could become visible as a newly dug trench.

re: "...how the enemy player sees it, as it would be basically giving away where your command team is..." - this is already a problem in that eventually all team types are rather easily identified on both the tactical and overview maps.

----------------------------------------------------------

w/r/t VLs in general:

It gets stale fighting for the same fixed VLs ad infinitum. Each map could have a set of ~24 VLs (in addition to its fixed entry/exit VLs). from which the game would select 10-15 to be used any time that map was attacked. The same 10-15 VLs (+ fixed entry/exit VLs) would be used long as the battle continued on that map. In solo play, if the AI is the attacker, fewer VLs would be selected. When the player attacks, more VLs would be selected.

Allow maps to have a strategic value separate from their total VL point value.

VLs that arent being actively garrisoned should display as neutral (ie. distant VLs shouldnt serve as free recon when they change sides)

Whenever possible, dont locate VLs in the open (eg. on a road). There is nothing intrinsically valuable about such a location. It only tilts play balance further in favor of armor and away from the tactically-challenged AI.

Do something about victory conditions. Its bizarre to attack onto a map, demolish the enemy, get the 3 VL Force Morale bonus and still lose the battle.

Given that a map represents an area of many square kilometers on the strat map, supply lines shouldnt get cut just because the enemy occupies a zone around an exit VL somewhere on the map. If a supply line is being traced thru the map, and that side controls any combination of roads between the exit VLs the supply line would use, the supply line should remain open.

If the LSA choice between attacking or moving onto a map is retained - Attacking BGs could get a shallow but broad deploy zone and Moving BGs could get a deep but narrow deploy zone.
Post Reply

Return to “Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog”