xe5 -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/25/2012 7:13:43 PM)
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
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.
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?