2.05 - Better or worse? Let us know.

[CapnDarwin]

We are working hard on fixing a couple of bugs/issues stemming from 2.04/2.05 with the 2.06 we are currently working on. One are of focus is improving the scooting and resupply logic. There are a couple of other new and improved items too, but I'll wait on those until we get them all tested out in-house.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
One wishlist item I'm wanting now is a decent S-4 logistics report to quickly show how units are doing on fuel and ammo.  A simple report showing which units are yellow (<50%) or red (<25%) would be helpful.  As it is, unless I'm missing something?, I have to mentally keep track of who's been heavily engaged and then click individual units to check. 

For 2.06, any chance of addressing this? Or is there something already that I'm missing? Just curious how others are managing their logistics without manually checking indvidual units. Sorry, a year being a Bde Asst S-4 compels me to ask silly things like this... [;)]

[CapnDarwin]

Pzgndr, best I can do is ask in tonight's Dev call. We are working primarily on big bugs and AI issues so we can cut the cord and start on 2.1. I agree it would be a useful dialog, but I can see it growing in code need once it works. On question I have is how do you determine the two conditions? If you are tracking ammo, readiness, and morale?

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
...I can see it growing in code need once it works. On question I have is how do you determine the two conditions?

Well, I'm not looking for anything fancy. The individual unit info already shows ammo status in red if <25%. A very simple report listing all units in red status, and yellow if <50%, would be helpful. I've only been playing the small scenarios when I get a chance, so I can still mentally keep track of which units have been shooting a lot and then check up on them manually. Larger scenarios would be a pain, not in a game-breaker sense but just tedious to click on individual units just to see what their status is. Same info for fuel, readiness and morale would be helpful. As commander, you could see at a glance which units you need to consider pulling back for resupply and rest, and which other units you need to keep an eye on for future order cycle(s).

Alternatively, maybe a user-selectable status indicator (green/yellow/red/black or something) at the top of the unit counter or a unit highlighting feature would provide a useful visual. KISS Just a thought.

[CapnDarwin]

You could, for now, look at the Force Roster. It lists all of that information. Not color coded, but you can scan the list and note low units.

[Plodder]

Why not a table similar to the kills table but showing readiness,ammo,and morale?

[CapnDarwin]

There are a number of solutions. The issue is time to do it in 2.06 versus having the feature in 2.1.

[Mad Russian]

We need to stop adding things to the current code or you guys will never see the next generation of the game. We need to stop where we are so we can move on.

Good Hunting.

MR

[WayneBGood]

If artillery is broken as described in some previous posts. I would think that this issue needs to be fixed first. Without active artillery spotting from WP units it really gives an advantage to NATO units since they are usually in fixed positions in most scenarios.

[CapnDarwin]

Badcat, arty does work, but there are some sub functions like counter battery and direct support missions that have had issues not working as intended or at all in the case of DS. On map CB fire is getting some adjustments to get it working again in the 2.06 update. DS is a deep AI/orders breakdown and we will deal with it when we revamp the arty system. We will also be able to get the off map CB issues worked out as well. To Steve's point, if we don't break from Red Storm, we'll never be able to ship a new Southern Storm game next year with all the new bells and whistles. Having Red Storm work and be playable is why we are still taking down a few remaining bugs and also tweaking game play and adding stuff this late in the support cycle.

That being said, there is no issue I am aware of with Soviet spotting and arty fire. For now steer clear of setting arty on direct support and things should be fine.

[WayneBGood]

Hi Cap.

I just wanted to say that a turn cycle in PBEM can be anywhere from 16-8 minutes. If requesting DS, then that only comes after the turn cycle which is unrealistic in modern warfare. WW2 times were about 2-4 minutes depending upon who was spotting. Currently the times can be a lot longer. Whereas when a unit makes contact it may be upwards to 16 minutes of game time before artillery can be called in after spotting.
Thanks,
Wayne

[Richie61]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

We need to stop adding things to the current code or you guys will never see the next generation of the game. We need to stop where we are so we can move on.

Good Hunting.

MR

Probably not going to be liked over these views, but I have bought FPRS.

I agree about adding new content to FPRS, but everything should work instead of backwards fixes like don't do this or manually control this or that because the game function is broken. Not sure how patches can break a feature after time spent on beta testing and the general buying public picks up on these broken or not working correctly pieces of a game.

I have spoke with a few other gaming buddies and they agreed that having another FP series complete or broke doesn't leave future purchases with the warm & fuzzes. I almost bought the first FP series but was told by others to past on it because of broken items or because the game was incomplete. I won't call out other companies, but I can purchase other PC games in a series and they are complete and working. Be it Eastern Front, WWI, Vietnam or European conflicts. I think Flashpoint should be along the same lines.

I think the series has lots of potential and could be a great title years down the line, but it should be fixed/ patched/ updated to perform correctly before looking to do another title. Maybe it's a money thing or upper management looking to future games? I just feel that leaving titles in this state to product another title in the same era & landmass does make future PC purchases knock down your door to buy your product. I for one look
at pass games now after getting sucked into the Panzer Command Ostfront game. [&:] I should have really based my purchase on the past titles that were released to sell "improved" features/ content and said "past" on PCO [:(]

Now a PLUS side [:)]
Talking to people, we feel the graphics are good and adding content like more Nations and weapon systems is key.
You have people redoing maps and counters already, so why not expend on content [:D]

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: Richie61

Probably not going to be liked over these views, but I have bought FPRS.
We appreciate all honest comments and criticisms.

I agree about adding new content to FPRS, but everything should work instead of backwards fixes like don't do this or manually control this or that because the game function is broken. Not sure how patches can break a feature after time spent on beta testing and the general buying public picks up on these broken or not working correctly pieces of a game.
I have learned a lot in working with this game. The programing code is long and with many interconnecting parts. You correct or tweak something in one part and it can have major affects in another part. The problem with beta testing is that there is never enough beta testers and they have a tendency to disappear. Also, it is easy to get focused on one part of the game as a beta tester and miss another part. That is how things get missed. This game is not broken. However, like any program, there are always bugs and the team is working trying to get as many as we can find squashed. However, it will never be perfect--just like any other game. The problem with wargames such as FPCRS is that this is a more of a hobby for us involved. We all have other jobs, family, and responsibilities. It is worked on in our spare time. Most wargames companies today are like this. That is one reason it takes so long to get things done.

I have spoke with a few other gaming buddies and they agreed that having another FP series complete or broke doesn't leave future purchases with the warm & fuzzes. I almost bought the first FP series but was told by others to past on it because of broken items or because the game was incomplete. I won't call out other companies, but I can purchase other PC games in a series and they are complete and working. Be it Eastern Front, WWI, Vietnam or European conflicts. I think Flashpoint should be along the same lines.

I had nothing to do with the development of the first FPG game. I brought the game, played it and enjoyed it. It is not broken or incomplete. It is just old and it had its limitations. Players did want the original FPG to be more out of the game, but it was not broken or incomplete. FPCRS is based on that game, but it has been rewritten and much improved.

I think the series has lots of potential and could be a great title years down the line, but it should be fixed/ patched/ updated to perform correctly before looking to do another title. Maybe it's a money thing or upper management looking to future games? I just feel that leaving titles in this state to product another title in the same era & landmass does make future PC purchases knock down your door to buy your product. I for one look
at pass games now after getting sucked into the Panzer Command Ostfront game. [&:] I should have really based my purchase on the past titles that were released to sell "improved" features/ content and said "past" on PCO [:(]

I don't know where you are getting that the game is broken or is not performing correctly or that we are leaving the game in it current state. It is a fairly new game and it has had its growing pains. The majority of things in the game that are not exactly working are things that players requested after the game was released that the programmers decided to add to accommodate players wishes. It takes time to implement these requests, to get them working correctly, and then to balance the game. There has been some major changes to the game that the players wanted and the programmers decided to add to the game. They could have said, "Sorry, but the game plays great and we are not going to add anything else." However, that is not Rob or Jim. They want a game that the players enjoy and wants to play.

[zakblood]

well just speed read through some of it, and if it's long term beta testers thats needed, just pm, i'll sign a NDA and give my time if needed, at home all day every day apart from a few holidays i have over the year, so retired and free

love the game, can't say i have given the time it needs playing it atm, but just done 3 beta and 1 alpha testing.

the thing i have found with testing (beta) that is, is that sometimes and some might not know this so i'll share it, you play a game or battle or part of a campaign for that many times you kind of get used to it, and sometimes bored of it, if one you don't find anything new to report or play it like you normally would, testing isn't like playing, you're not there to have fun or sometimes even enjoy yourself, as it can be repetitively boring, you're there to bug find and notice small AI errors and post them.

time taken or needed to test can vary, i run a 3 system setup and can spend 8 to 10 hours a day most days 5 days a week testing, so if 10 members are testing, times weeks or months in beta, some have been years tbh, then the hours spent testing a battle / campaign can be lengthy with even then some things going passed everyone eyes, as you can't find everything, no matter how many look for it, as there's too many pc setups, some playstyles can't be replicated / tested for either...

for the 30/40+ hours i've played the game for, i've really enjoyed it, not seen anything ground breaking bug wise, if anything the level of detail is way more than needed for most like myself so can see the passion thats gone into the game, and the frustrations that some are still not 100% happy with it also (and thats just the programmers) the one thing that most love these games for are the support, you know it will be tweaked and patched for ever and a day.

reason is for most who do it if not all, is they love to play them, if they wanted to make money as programmers, they would move jobs and work for fps makers, and maybe make a lot more money in the process, as our games are on the fringes, cost v's development costs might not make a lot of business sense to most as lets be honest they aren't mass sellers in the millions...

so i'll end this with thanks for the game, thanks for the updates / support and keep your chin up and enjoy it, as most do love to play them, even though a few still moan, i for one don't care if a anti tank missile drops short on it's 3200 mtr range by 2 inch, and will let that go[;)][8|]

[Phoenix100]

The game is great, I think, and works well. I am enjoying learning it. Nuff said (by me) already on the graphics. I understand Richie61's viewpoint too, of course - because with most things you shell out money for there is some form of consumer legislation which is meant to guarantee that the item is fit for the purpose etc and if a shoe has a hole in it you take it back, no questions asked. Getting it clear that games are not like shoes and that the way it is- especially with those games (interestingly, and sadly, the most challenging to code, in terms of AI, and the most rewarding to play) that are effectively niche games, produced by enthusiasts in their spare time - the way it is is that very definitely what comes out of the box is always wip, which works, or doesn't work to varying degrees. The model you have in your head has to be different to shoes and toasters. I'm not being patronising. I have to remind myself of this all the time. Mostly, I think it helps to recall that nobody makes any money worth speaking of out of this type of excellent game, so the usual 'I give you money, you give me a perfect product' rules just don't apply. We're lucky people are interested enough to work on these things. Support for this game is outstanding. And, given that this type of game, as I said, is always wip, there's always going to have to be decisions made as to when to move on. I have played a lot of Command Ops over the years and the position is exactly the same with that game. We're all involved in the project, basically, because we're all - to some degree - beta testers, permanently - not with the rigour zakblood describes, but certainly in the sense that you never just get to play the game with the confidence of knowing that if something looks strange or funny then it's got to be down to you, because often it's down to the code.... And that never changes.

Just my view. [:)]

Peter

[CapnDarwin]

I need to be quick and get to my day job, but a couple points:
1). We have been in pretty much 24/7 support of the game from launch.
2). The game for most players (some odd localization issues) for day one.
3). The game in its current state is not broken or unplayable. It does have a number of noted behaviors that cause frustration, but those are the main things being worked in these updates including 2.06.
4). No amount of human beta testing will uncover all the bugs. Maybe you catch 15-20% tops. We had 50 or so beta testers, got feedback from maybe a dozen and only had three to four that where hammerering away. Hence, computer games will never be "done".
5). We need to break off of the 2.0x chain and focus on 2.1 for next year. That does not mean we are dropping support of Red Storm since the 2.1 engine is an expansion and improvement of the existing game engine.
6). We are also working the map art issues. Had to be said. [:D]
7). Red Storm was launched "complete". Not sure what is missing in your opinion. Plus we have added scenarios, campaigns, and requested features all along the way.

I could hit on more items but really need to go. I will look back in on this thread tonight.

[Phoenix100]

I was actually praising the game and the [&o]support in my post. Maybe that wasn't clear.....[&o]

[zakblood]

+1 to above for me also, was all praise or meant to be[&o][&o][&o]

[CapnDarwin]

Guys, no problem. Just covering the beta, incomplete, broken side of things. Plus I should not post in the early morning when my brain filters are coming up to speed. [:D]

[zakblood]

the best developers who care the most are always touchy when it comes to letting their babies go, reading through the lines here, i don't think it's the users who want so much change as much as the development team maybe, your passion for perfection may never be realized but thats your call to keep trying....

the incomplete, broken side of things as you put it are not really mentioned here tbh as most here can't find them in the first place, wish lists are one thing, minor annoyances are another that some have, for me it all works so you all need to worry less, enjoy more, drink more coffee, or tea if you're from the UK like me and sit back and pat yourselves on the back for a job very well done, when your ready to move on, do it, never seen really one post asking for you to either do more or rush....

99% love it, 1 % will always moan anyway as thats life[X(]