Some features that I wish

Please post your wish lists for future updates and releases here.

Moderator: MOD_Flashpoint

Post Reply
exsonic01
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA

Some features that I wish

Post by exsonic01 »

Things I've been thinking...

1) Ability to induce penalty point if specific hex is bombarded / airstriked.
Because of historically important structure, or because of human shield by civilians and POWs, sometimes commanders are limited to use any fire support in specific region, even with the modern accurate guide system. One of the good examples is Operation Allied Force. It would be great if the FPC-RS or SS give the similar option in the scenario editor, in terms of penalty point like tactical nuke or chemicals.

2) Single hex chemicals by artillery.
Both PACT and NATO had plenty of chemical mortar/artillery shells in their arsenal. I think it would be good to introduce this feature to this game, with proper amount of penalty point.

3) n vs n multi game, or Co-op against AI.
2v2 or 2vAI PBEM would be hard to introduce, but it would be great if it is available. I already tried manual 2:2 in CMBS PBEM with some friends using Dropbox, and it was not that bad. If such features are in this game, that would be great.

4) Counter-battery by air strike
Modern AtoG missiles and cruise missiles with data link system induced the counter artillery (including off the map arty) ability to airplanes. This would increase the lethality of strike packages by NATO air forces.

5) Several modern-features for modding
Similar with 4), things like APS, UAV, modern sensors, modern ECMs... are essential to modern battle field. If those abilities are introduced, mods for future battle field would enrich the game itself and the community.

6) More options for clearing mine / obstacles
Tanks with mine plow would greatly reduce the chance of taking damage from mines for armor units in mine hex. Counter-IED-devices also proved their value in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think those could help vehicles if such options are introduced in the game. Explosive by engineers / artillery shells / airstrike on mine hex / obstacle hex also would reduce the time required for clearing the hex. (Or could entirely clear the mine/barriers)

7) Able to resupply special munitions for arty
As far as I know, smoke, DPICM, FASCAM shells also can be resupplied. I'm not sure why this is not introduced in game.

8) Explain reason for the delay
I mentioned this before, but it would be great to let players know why and how the order to units is delayed. Like "movement to hex xxxx at 1240. Reason for 0115 amount of delay is out of command range, and low readiness" That would help the players to improve their command in this game.

Thanks
User avatar
Deathtreader
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:49 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada.

RE: Some features that I wish

Post by Deathtreader »

Hi,

I like/agree with all of the above, ESPECIALLY number 8.

Rob. [:)]
So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: Some features that I wish

Post by CapnDarwin »

Let me take a quick pass at all of these good ideas.

1). We are planning and working on a number of additions, changes, and improvements to the scenario editor to allow for things like this to be possible in a scenario. Not to mention being able to do a number of other cool things too. Will have more on that down the road in our DevBlog if we ever get our site fixed (not a good subject right now [:@])

2) and 7). Both of these should be likely with the planned changes to artillery and the scenario editor.

3). This has been brought up in Dev calls, but if I was a betting man, this won't be seen until after the release of Southern. There are some technical hurdles to clear to make this system work beyond a PBEM single player setup.

4). Not sure about this one in a Cold War setting. You would need two things to make this even viable. First, you need to own the sky completely with suppressed air defenses. Second, no other targets of higher value. CAS needs to take down ground forces (tanks and troops) and interdiction is hunting command and control, POL, ammo, SEAD, and reserve forces. Counter battery operations already fall into artillery and rocket units. Now in a different setting, you could do these things if required to support ground operations. As it is, you can attack on map arty with aircraft now.

5). These systems and others will get added into a new "modern" game engine that we want to do in the near future to cover post Cold War (90s) to near future (2030ish) time frame.

6). We will be adding some more resolution to engineering operations, but we haven't hit on all the details yet. I don't know if we will ever dig down to counting plows on tanks, but adding some additional options for those kind of things could find their way in.

8). Hopefully, we will address some of this with the changes in UI and reporting. More on this down the road to with the DevBlog.

Have a good day! [8D]
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
exsonic01
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA

RE: Some features that I wish

Post by exsonic01 »

Thanks Capt.

Regarding #4, Air-launched cruise missiles used in action during Operation Desert Storm and Operation Allied Force, even in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those would be divisional / corp level asset, mainly to strike the strategic targets. However, those might be perfect weapon to strike the high valued target on the field such as HQ, and off-map enemy artys if available. I think those long range stand off missiles might be available for regimental/brigage level field commanders if the situation become necessary or inevitable, like we see the Lance missile in several scenarios. We may reduce the number of available missiles for balance though. State-of-art airborne standoff cruise missiles (like Jassm) might be the the out of Cold war era. But early models (like AGM-86) is OK to be in the game's time frame IMO. Those missiles could carry nukes as well.

Regarding #6, engineering features would make the game not only more realistic, but also could greatly help the players to reduce the time to clear mines and obstacles. Wish to see in the FPC-SS.

One more thing: Do you guys have plan to introduce different urban hex tile? Such as Flattened/heavily/medium/lightly destroyed urban hex, which have different mobility and cover bonus based on level of destruction. This should be easy to put in the game, and would affects on game's reality and strategic/tactical importance of city/towns. In addition, destroyed urban hexes might be the perfect playground for engineers to clear the way from building rubbles amd damaged street.
IronMikeGolf
Posts: 1054
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:53 pm

RE: Some features that I wish

Post by IronMikeGolf »

re: #6

The thought that having mineplows installed on tanks (Soviet basis of issue was one per tank platoon) reduces losses holds true when the existence and location of a mine belt is known. Tanks don't drive everywhere with the plow deployed. They do no good preventing casualties is the mines are discovered by driving over them.

There's a good argument for tracking that bit of kit (and others like it) and reducing both casualties from and the time to breach known minefields.

And, oh by the way, we are planning on tracking bridging assets in SS.
Jeff
Sua Sponte
exsonic01
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA

RE: Some features that I wish

Post by exsonic01 »

Thanks to let me know, but is the "known minefield" means that the ones discovered before the beginning of the scenario, by satellite image or intelligence from division/corps? Or detected by my recons or rot.wings (not by tanks) in game? I think "known minefield" by in-game units should also have same bonus.

By the way, UAVs were used in the 1st Gulf war, so I think it should be OK in 1989 cold war. Can we see UAVs in FPC-SS?
User avatar
WildCatNL
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:21 pm
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands

RE: Some features that I wish

Post by WildCatNL »

ORIGINAL: exsonic01
By the way, UAVs were used in the 1st Gulf war, so I think it should be OK in 1989 cold war. Can we see UAVs in FPC-SS?

Keep in mind that in the late eighties UAVs (and cruise missiles as well) weren't used by ground forces for tactical purposes (except, perhaps, in Lebanon '82).
Most UAVs recorded on film (CL-289), and flew a fixed route which had to be pre-programmed. It takes a good amount of time to program the UAV, launch it, fly the route, get recovered, develop the film, analyze the film and act upon.
Unless the areas of interests are deep behind the front-line, sending in a scout helicopter might provide actionable information quicker.

William
William
On Target Simulations LLC
Post Reply

Return to “Requested Features and Ideas”