Future Directions - Features (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series



Message


Arjuna -> Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:19:05 AM)

Hi all,

Here is where you can discuss what engine features ( user interface, AI, networking etc ) we should focus on.

Please keep any discussion on price to the designated threads.

We are very much looking forward to your feedback on engine features.


I'll be back to kick start this in a while.




bairdlander -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:40:51 AM)

Thanks,Im downloading now and will post my feedback soon.




Franklin Nimitz -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:46:38 AM)

Some of these are were mentioned in COTA threads on the same subject:

1. mount/dismount troops
2. smoke
3. minefields/obstacles
4. patrolling- if a unit is stationary for a certain period it will begin sending out patrols either all around or in player designated areas. Greater intel, arty spotting and possible ambushes
5. longer term operations support- repair/replacements, infrastructure development (use engineers to build roads, fortifications, etc.), strategic movement-road/rail
6. campaign game (you knew that was coming)
7. non-western AI doctrines that can be designated in the estab editor for a side/service
8. build up/breakdown units i.e. dissolve beat up units into a kampfgruppe/TF, detach platoons, etc. (within reason so that one can't dissolve your entire force into one huge super unit or some other distortion).
9. abandon/destroy equipment & vehicles
10. casualty details- # kia/mia/wia/pow, types of vehicles destroyed/captured
11. more detailed air support- aircraft rendered, CAS per country doctrine
12. comms equipment included in estab data, and used in determining orders delay. i.e. if a unit's radio(s) are destroyed, the order delays for that unit are negatively impacted. Stationary units could use field telephones and have a quick response until they move. Also, not just any wandering remant can call in artillery- they actually have to have a working radio.
13. Landing craft/naval gunfire- full model of amphibious assaults






Llyranor -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 4:05:13 AM)

Online co-op! As great as the games are as 1v1 games, I'd find them exponentially more enjoyable if co-op was also an option.




Chad Harrison -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 4:08:30 AM)

I would also like to see longer operation games. This would need a replacement system to work properly. Actually, I think that a replacement system could be useful even for current length scenarios. Getting replacements within a 14 day period would be more than probable.




GoodGuy -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 5:24:38 AM)

  • 1.) Dismount Infantry/equipment feature to
  • 2.) a) allow Motorized Inf or Gun units to access rough terrain and woods, and

    b) allow medium tanks to plow through light woods. The Germans used to set up defensive perimeters with StuG IIIs near my grandfathers village (in 1945), an area with DENSE/heavy woods in fact, in the "Bergisches Land", a hilly area east of Cologne (around 80km from Cologne) ... and the tanks didn't fly there. Tanks can access woods, IF the terrain isn't muddy or sticky (so that the tanks sink in.) Only one of those StuGs got stuck, but was still able to keep the US units from crossing the local main river (the minor River "Wisser" I think) for days, as it was sitting on a little hill packed with woods, where the US units could not make out the exact position, let alone reach it (from across the river), until it ran out of ammo.
    The progress in that area allowed the Allies to move to the Ruhrgebiet and surround the Germans in the "Ruhrkessel" (Ruhr-pocket), trapping some 300,000 Germans in the process.

  • 3.) Minefields.
  • 4.) Allow amphibious forces (or tanks with wade equipment) to cross rivers (eg. German tanks crossing rivers in Russia) or to land from off-shore locations/vessels (Normandy landings).
  • 5.) Off-map artillery.
  • 6.) Dedicated Reserve pool and class that allows ...
    a) for automatic commitment of reserves (AI)
    b) for automatic or manual allocation of replacements to battered units
    c) the engine to divide units on the fly:

    means 1) to send out (say platoon sized) combat patrols and 2) to allow building of Kampfgruppen (eg. consisting of returning stragglers or of ad-hoc formations the PLAYER creates)

  • 7.) Aircraft combat patrols (render tactical bombers/fighters screening and patroling battle fields) (necessary for Normandy theater). Rendering them would enable the player to re-direct troops and equipment to safer routes.
  • 8.) Render nightfighter capabilities.
  • 9.) Render off-shore artillery (ships: from destroyers up to battleships).
  • 10.) Allow nations with dedicated tank retrievers to retrieve and repair tanks during the operation (With Germany having the highest retrieval/recover rate, eg. like in North Africa, where they retrieved and repaired 7 of 10 knocked out tanks, sometimes 9 of 10).
  • 11.) Campaign mode (that considers and takes over previous progress/achievements/losses)
  • 12.) At least sort scenarios (by date) so that players are able to see some sort of a timeline, so they can at least play the scenarios in a particular historical correct order. (I suggested that but Dave insisted on keeping "weird" scenario names, although I suggested a good format a while ago). Players have asked for this during the last few days.
  • 13.) Introduce the general map I created a while ago, which shows ALL mission areas and their titles - with dates and duration.




Arjuna -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 5:46:43 AM)

Hey GoodGuy, can you please provide a link to your point 13). My overloaded brain can't recall it.




GoodGuy -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 5:57:47 AM)

Sure.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2124857


While you're at it, you might also want to review my suggestion regarding the naming (-format + date) of missions, in the same thread, post number 7.




GoodGuy -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 7:00:26 AM)

  • 14.) Introduce "flexible order delay", to simulate local decision-making processes where a superior's decision (or opinion) is not needed, eg. for detached units and where this function then allows the player say to detach a company and let it proceed to move with the rest of the division, without the COY or the DIV having to reorg' and redo plans. Say the player would then just let the particular Coy take the next exit on a given highway, and let them leave the Division's route and proceed with their secret order/plans [;)], then there should not be ANY delay, as the Coy was given the freedom to act independently .. That would be my take on a "local" flexible order delay.

    Other examples would be occasions where a Coy commander decides to immediately pull out his platoon or his Coy, in order to save resources (men).

  • 15.) Introduce a dedicated Retreat button/function (which should work like a move order) that automatically switches to lowest aggro settings and that OVERRIDES the order delay (either completely or partially), so that the player can pull out troops that are endangered to retreat (means the uncontrollable forced retreat), or endangered to be cut off/surrounded, in time.

  • 16.) Introduce a STOP button/function that makes a detached company stop RIGHT AWAY. Quite some players are misusing the fire-command currently to make their troops stop immediately.

  • 17.) Introduce a "General leads from the front (line)" function, maybe according to historical facts/events, where a General (divisional commander) can LEAVE the HQ (after he issued orders) and JOIN one of the spearheads of his units. Example, a division moving in column formation:

    This function would ensure that the LEADING unit would stop (and take cover if they get under fire) and react to the enemy fire, but where the rest of the division (say the bulk of the middle section and the rear of the column) would slow down immediately and halt eventually, IF the leading general accompanies one of the spearheading units (like Rommel did in France) - reducing the order delay by a vital amount.
    Such a function could also be used to boost morale or combat effectiveness, since the General would be with their spearheads.

    Actually, the German officers corps (involving ranks from Cpt to General) had a very high casualty rate. This was caused by a common belief that an officer had to lead by example (and show dedication/bravery) to motivate the troops, plus the officer could get a first-hand impression on terrain layout and difficulties or advantages for a certain approach. Some officers did not do that, but the majority of German officer corps was more exposed to enemy fire than some of their subordinates had wished for, I'd say.
    Another example: If US officers would have inspected the Kall-trail in Hürtgenwald, they would not have picked it as main supply route, and maybe the whole operation wouldn't have carried out in the first place.

    Rommel's "Vorne-Führung" in France is a vital example of such type of leadership on the General level. There was a saying back then: "Wo Rommel ist, ist vorn" (which means that you can indicate the front or the head of a column by checking where Rommel is. [:)] Rommel's own quote "Geführt wird vorne" (which translates to: the leader should lead his unit from the head position) was exemplary as well.




Andrew Williams -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 7:25:59 AM)

From all reports this is an outstanding realtime operational level engine.

If it were married to the Close Combat Tactical level engine to determine the result of individual battles I think we would have the makings of the ultimate wargame.

The user could choose wether to resolve the battle results using BFTB or get down and dirty and fight with CC with the Operational level on pause.

Both games feature high levels of detail in weapon modelling etc

Personally I see it as a perfect marriage.




ETF -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 1:39:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

Online co-op! As great as the games are as 1v1 games, I'd find them exponentially more enjoyable if co-op was also an option.


Here here!




Joe 98 -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 1:55:37 PM)

In the scenario selection screen, that the screen be organized like a screen from Uncommon Valour.

Scenario name
Scenario number
Scenario difficulty level
Scenario date
Nearest major town


The player would click on the title of each column and sort the table as he sees fit - and then choose a scenario.

-




Joe 98 -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 1:57:05 PM)

When a message appears, that you can drill down into the message and the map centered over that action.

-

-





Joe 98 -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 1:58:08 PM)

When you zoom out of the map, that the units shrink an size and remain in scale.

-





CriticalMass -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:10:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Sure.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2124857


While you're at it, you might also want to review my suggestion regarding the naming (-format + date) of missions, in the same thread, post number 7.


WOW, this is exactly one year and one day since you originally posted it GG...synchronicity




OlegHasky -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:16:58 PM)

Some very interesting propositions. (-light woods open for medium/light tanks , engenier capabilities, unit patrol aera.. etc)

I would give highest priority to three things.

-Airforce options expansion. (details, recon option is crucial)
- Also option to cover the specific aera by fighter presence for a peroid of time would be good. (but thats just too far out I gues - I would trade that for recon, or just for any details)

- Multiplayer -Co-op mode

- KIJA MIJA WIJA details
(that could easily be the first on the list)






Lanconic -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:20:15 PM)

I am not interested in playing scenarios, for the express reason that you are locked into historical mistakes.

Case in point in Bulge simulations:

The SS Panzer corps is deployed to attack thru the worst possible terrain against a full strength enemy.
It takes no imagination to postulate the likely outcome.

Now...imagine the same units deployed at the Monschua Gap. (forgive my spelling)

OR....

Bastogne would be unlikely to hold against two SS panzer corp.

Just simple examples




OlegHasky -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:26:40 PM)

quote:

2. smoke
[X(][:'(]
You ment details on cigarate rates distribution? [8D]

Good Guy with all your points are very intresting ,and have backup. The one (15.) seem that have less potential to convince Panther. Automatic lowest aggro on the retreat button The argument that could decide a rope for this one could be that sometimes it is good to retreat slowly , and with return fire.




Joe 98 -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:27:26 PM)

When you click on a scenario, before actually choosing that scenario, you get a preview of the map just like in Close Combat.

-




OlegHasky -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 2:34:05 PM)

quote:

I am not interested in playing scenarios, for the express reason that you are locked into historical mistakes.

Case in point in Bulge simulations:

The SS Panzer corps is deployed to attack thru the worst possible terrain against a full strength enemy.
It takes no imagination to postulate the likely outcome.

Now...imagine the same units deployed at the Monschua Gap. (forgive my spelling)

OR....

Bastogne would be unlikely to hold against two SS panzer corp.

Just simple examples


Thats a good time to point "manual unit placement" option. Wich seem that could be the blessing fpor ...series like "Decisives Battles of WW2".[:'(]
As BFTB/COTA/HTTR operates on a smaller scale. We know its impossible.

You can always check Yorself how much You can pull out from the "mistake"




henri51 -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 3:35:44 PM)

It would be fun and instructive for the player to be able to easily modify the scenario, for example to replace all of the commanders with the three stooges or Rommel and Patton to see the difference. And to modify the units, for example to equip the German Armored Companies with all Panthers and all the Americans tanks with Stuarts!...It would be interesting to see a scenario that is normally unwinnable by the Germans with all Peipers commanding the German tank units and all doctors from Mash commanding the Allied tanks...[:'(]

Although at first sight this sounds like stupid fun, in fact it would allow the player to better grasp the effect of various factors such as leadership and equipment. I bet most wargamers (not the ones on this forum[:D]) have no idea of what their units contain and what they are capable of, and especially what the difference in capabiity would be if some things were changed.

In the meantime being able to change the commanders at various levels of command would be fun.

Henri




Lanconic -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 3:45:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

quote:

I am not interested in playing scenarios, for the express reason that you are locked into historical mistakes.

Case in point in Bulge simulations:

The SS Panzer corps is deployed to attack thru the worst possible terrain against a full strength enemy.
It takes no imagination to postulate the likely outcome.

Now...imagine the same units deployed at the Monschua Gap. (forgive my spelling)

OR....

Bastogne would be unlikely to hold against two SS panzer corp.

Just simple examples


Thats a good time to point "manual unit placement" option. Wich seem that could be the blessing fpor ...series like "Decisives Battles of WW2".[:'(]
As BFTB/COTA/HTTR operates on a smaller scale. We know its impossible.

You can always check Yorself how much You can pull out from the "mistake"


Does this 'option' allow you to add units that are not included in the historical scenario?

I can offer you a Wargame on this level that DOES have a campaign scenario, even if a bit dated.
However, it isnt a computer wargame, very sad.
'Wacht am Rhein' - SPI 1978? I cant recall

So it IS possible to do it.




Mac -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 3:55:57 PM)

One small feature that came into my mind while watching and playing the tutorial is this. Coordinating the units would be much easier if you showed the times at the various waypoints for the selected unit(s). Say I click a commanding unit, I see what the commander has planned for the route, but why not also put the time at the waypoint on the map at the same time? Then I wouldn't have to click on the individual waypoint to check when he will get there. I also like to select my commanding unit, then shift-down to see all the subordinates and how the commander has planned to use them. In this case I would expect to see the time on target for each.




Arjuna -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 4:05:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac

One small feature that came into my mind while watching and playing the tutorial is this. Coordinating the units would be much easier if you showed the times at the various waypoints for the selected unit(s). Say I click a commanding unit, I see what the commander has planned for the route, but why not also put the time at the waypoint on the map at the same time? Then I wouldn't have to click on the individual waypoint to check when he will get there. I also like to select my commanding unit, then shift-down to see all the subordinates and how the commander has planned to use them. In this case I would expect to see the time on target for each.

Nice idea. The only trouble being this, that when you nissue the order we do not calc the route. Thi is done when the subordinate receives the order ( ie after orders delay ) so there would be a lag. If you are wanting an estimate, then that's another matter, but for an actual time based on the calced route there would be a delay before displaying.




Franklin Nimitz -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 4:30:32 PM)

Or maybe in each linked scenario, you get to invest VP's (same currency as the on-map objectives) on a menu of available formations. Each Formation has a VP cost and a time-to-enter map estimate (and location). If you want the I SS Panzer Korps for the Monshau Gap Scenario, it'll cost say 120 VP's. For that investment, you better sweep the map. This allows a commander to allocate resources to different places in the line. During the game, instead of a fixed reinforcement schedule, you have access to the Available Formation menu for in-game 'emergency' requests. But it'll cost you, and they may take awhile to get there. There could even be some scattering of arrival times (stretching and random-delays on the entry) due to enemy air superiority or other interdiction efforts. Further, as time goes on, some formations may no longer be available as they are assigned missions elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

quote:

I am not interested in playing scenarios, for the express reason that you are locked into historical mistakes.

Case in point in Bulge simulations:

The SS Panzer corps is deployed to attack thru the worst possible terrain against a full strength enemy.
It takes no imagination to postulate the likely outcome.

Now...imagine the same units deployed at the Monschua Gap. (forgive my spelling)

OR....

Bastogne would be unlikely to hold against two SS panzer corp.

Just simple examples


Thats a good time to point "manual unit placement" option. Wich seem that could be the blessing fpor ...series like "Decisives Battles of WW2".[:'(]
As BFTB/COTA/HTTR operates on a smaller scale. We know its impossible.

You can always check Yorself how much You can pull out from the "mistake"





Mac -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 5:23:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac

One small feature that came into my mind while watching and playing the tutorial is this. Coordinating the units would be much easier if you showed the times at the various waypoints for the selected unit(s). Say I click a commanding unit, I see what the commander has planned for the route, but why not also put the time at the waypoint on the map at the same time? Then I wouldn't have to click on the individual waypoint to check when he will get there. I also like to select my commanding unit, then shift-down to see all the subordinates and how the commander has planned to use them. In this case I would expect to see the time on target for each.

Nice idea. The only trouble being this, that when you nissue the order we do not calc the route. Thi is done when the subordinate receives the order ( ie after orders delay ) so there would be a lag. If you are wanting an estimate, then that's another matter, but for an actual time based on the calced route there would be a delay before displaying.


Yeah, it's not really a problem if you first display an estimate. I realized this from the tutorials that you can make so much better estimates than I [:)]. So something like the method you did manually including quick path + guesses for reorg etc. would be just super. You could display these in brackets i.e. (16:34). Then when you have the actual times available just show it e.g. 16:37.




DanO -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 5:45:29 PM)

I would like a way to dump force lists at the end of scenarios, please! As requested in this thread.




Renato -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 6:04:54 PM)

Here are my preferences (not necessarily in order of importance because that depends on the chosen scenarios):

- Mount and dismount infantry and equipment
- Minefields, roadblocks, trenches
- Off-map and naval artillery
- Vehicles recovery and repair
- Campaign mode (carry-over of units from a scenario to the following one, reserves)
- More coordinated intelligence where previous information is remembered
- Indication of general area where supplies are eliminated or interdicted
- New doctrines (Russian and maybe Japanese)
- Smoke
- Amphibious equipment and landings




GoodGuy -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/29/2010 10:05:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CriticalMass

WOW, this is exactly one year and one day since you originally posted it GG...synchronicity


Woah, that scares me now. I didn't notice. Well, the same second, but I missed it by 3 minutes. Spooky, though. [X(][:D]

Good find, CM.




phredd1 -> RE: Future Directions - Features (5/30/2010 1:20:19 AM)

I'd give this system a chance if there was an Eastern Front title. The current subjects just haven't pulled at me enough to try them.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02