Feature Request

Tigers on the Hunt is a World War 2 hard-core tactical wargame for PC.

It creates a truly and immersive depth tactical simulation. Tigers on the Hunt boasts a ferocious and adaptive AI which will dynamically respond to a player’s maneuvers.

Moderators: Paullus, Peter Fisla

fuselex
Posts: 787
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:04 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by fuselex »

Possibly changing the colouring of hill hexes?
An old fella like me has a bit of trouble with distinguishing between lvl2 and lvl3 hills .
I know mousing over the hex will give me the info , but just glancing at the map and spotting the different lvl`s would be great.
User avatar
rico21
Posts: 3034
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:05 am

RE: Feature Request

Post by rico21 »

+1 [&o]

or place a pin...

Image
Attachments
HillBlocks.gif
HillBlocks.gif (18.09 KiB) Viewed 59 times
fuselex
Posts: 787
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:04 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by fuselex »

+1 again , I realise some people can mod it , but Just as a visual change
User avatar
fran52
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:18 am
Location: Como Italy

RE: Feature Request

Post by fran52 »

I would like see:

1 - Smoke grenades *****
2 - Bypass and Dash movement


3 - Multi-Hex Firegroups
4 - MGs fireline
5 - Spraying fire

6 - Better LOS checker *****

7 - Hexside terrains
8 - Multi-Level Bulding
9 - Ground Snow- Mud
10 -Low Visibility modeling
11 - Factory buildings
12 - User-placed foxholes
13 - User-placed road blocks, mines, wire

14 - Zoom
15 - H-t-H online game


I agree with you also if the more important ,in my opinion,are the 7-9-12-13.With this features implemented we can reproduce a lot of ASL scenarios.
I wait especially
the 9 to reproduce someone ,snow and mud that influence the movement not a graphic change.
kcnicho
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:40 am

RE: Feature Request

Post by kcnicho »

Long time ASLer (even SL!) so I was pretty stoked to see this game with the ASL mod! My wish right now would be for support for larger native screen resolutions.

Just got the game, all excited to play. Clicked "Play" and got an error that says game only supports XYZ resolutions (not mine, of course). Mine is 2560 x 1600 on a 30" screen. I have a laptop at 2880 x 1620, also not supported. Sure, I can "scale" one of the supported resolutions on my monitor, but that never looks good, usually ending up very fuzzy & blurred, not nice, crisp & sharp like with native resolution. I suspect it's because the UI is "hand coded" for specific resolutions, rather than coded in such a way as to allow *any* resolution.

As I read in another comment, these days such resolutions are not all that uncommon, and will be more & more prevalent, even "4k"!

So, keep up the good work, and please consider supporting higher resolutions.


Thanks,

- Kevin
- Kevin
aaatoysandmore
Posts: 2846
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:35 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by aaatoysandmore »

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?

This is me also ^^^ movement is painful in my old age. [:D] Just clicking the mouse is an ordeal but I can deal with that but many games that require keyboard use especially the dreaded wasd keys I shy away from pretty fast. Total mouse control for me with maybe 1 or 2 buttons mostly spacebar and ctrl or alt keys please. [:)]
aaatoysandmore
Posts: 2846
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:35 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by aaatoysandmore »

ORIGINAL: kcnicho

Long time ASLer (even SL!) so I was pretty stoked to see this game with the ASL mod! My wish right now would be for support for larger native screen resolutions.

Just got the game, all excited to play. Clicked "Play" and got an error that says game only supports XYZ resolutions (not mine, of course). Mine is 2560 x 1600 on a 30" screen. I have a laptop at 2880 x 1620, also not supported. Sure, I can "scale" one of the supported resolutions on my monitor, but that never looks good, usually ending up very fuzzy & blurred, not nice, crisp & sharp like with native resolution. I suspect it's because the UI is "hand coded" for specific resolutions, rather than coded in such a way as to allow *any* resolution.

As I read in another comment, these days such resolutions are not all that uncommon, and will be more & more prevalent, even "4k"!

So, keep up the good work, and please consider supporting higher resolutions.


Thanks,

- Kevin

I support "LOWER" resolutions. 600x800 is nice 1024x7xx is perfect though. These higher resolutions are going to ruin eyes in the future. Even the 1600x xxxx helped to ruin mine. I can hardly read anything higher than 1024x's now. I can get by on 1200x's but prefer not to have to.
ParadogsGamer
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:03 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by ParadogsGamer »

We need multi hex fire groups please :-)
jonj01
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:57 am

RE: Feature Request

Post by jonj01 »


[/quote]
Scenario Editor

recurring annoyance - when deleting units from OOB, the list jumps back up to the top (lose your place in a long list) - in a larger size scenario this adds A LOT of clicking/mouse movement

this,
hard to modify units. be able to fix AI units at one hex...the"defend hex" feature is leaky..units still run around
happyloaf
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:25 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by happyloaf »

Smoke and multi-hex fire groups. Rough idea on percentages on effect of shots. A much better manual that explains in depth things like cowering, pinning, and being shot at by moving. The general concepts are there but lack the detail that explains the core mechanics.
User avatar
fran52
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:18 am
Location: Como Italy

RE: Feature Request

Post by fran52 »

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.
User avatar
GJK
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:37 am
Contact:

RE: Feature Request

Post by GJK »

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???
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

-Dean Vernon Wormer
fuselex
Posts: 787
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:04 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by fuselex »

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
User avatar
GJK
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:37 am
Contact:

RE: Feature Request

Post by GJK »

The AI seems to coordinate attacks well in oh say, TOAWIII, which came out in the 90's.
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

-Dean Vernon Wormer
User avatar
rico21
Posts: 3034
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:05 am

RE: Feature Request

Post by rico21 »

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


Image
Attachments
svsmgoty.jpg
svsmgoty.jpg (94.52 KiB) Viewed 61 times
fuselex
Posts: 787
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:04 pm

RE: Feature Request

Post by fuselex »

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 ,
User avatar
rico21
Posts: 3034
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:05 am

RE: Feature Request

Post by rico21 »

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.
User avatar
GJK
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:37 am
Contact:

RE: Feature Request

Post by 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.
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

-Dean Vernon Wormer
User avatar
UP844
Posts: 1668
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:10 pm
Location: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)

RE: Feature Request

Post by UP844 »

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).
Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

Long Range Fire (A7.22)........1/2 FP
User avatar
rico21
Posts: 3034
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:05 am

RE: Feature Request

Post by rico21 »

And add paradog war please...


Image
Attachments
dogpara.jpg
dogpara.jpg (92.52 KiB) Viewed 59 times
Post Reply

Return to “Tigers on the Hunt”