PitF Wish List Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog



Message


Gary Childress -> PitF Wish List Thread (4/27/2012 11:02:41 PM)

Granted much of the game is probably already set in stone but if anything can still be changed maybe this thread will give some ideas. Also this could be a good place to get ideas for the successor engine to PitF.

Things I would like to see in CC:

1. Hex based strategic map: I know, probably will never happen but I can still dream. [:D]

2. 1 to 1 scale: A battlegroup should represent a company, not a battalion or regiment. Also a hex of a hex based stragegic map should only represnt a couple miles in scale. This would get rid of the current abstractness in battles.

3. Easier modability. I hate working with TIF files, having to load and reload them with a special program. If everything could be done in photoshop or Paintshop pro that would be ideal. Or if there were a worldbuilder type editor associated with PitF that would be even better!

[sm=innocent0001.gif]




Tejszd -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (4/28/2012 4:53:26 PM)

Based on a post in the Slitherine forum it sounds like tilting tanks are being drawn again.




Steve McClaire -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/1/2012 4:42:03 PM)

Yes, tilting tanks are in.

There are some new features on the strategic map, but it won't be a hex grid this time around, and there is still some abstraction in the strategic units.




kweniston -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/2/2012 11:27:39 PM)

As this is the last CC on the current engine, I would hope that Matrix/Slitherine pack everything CC has got in this final version, with every cool feature of all the CC re-releases (plus maybe some of the improvements I and others suggested on the forums before). Blow us away!




xambrium -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/12/2012 2:49:19 PM)

20min timer pls [:)]




Steve McClaire -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/12/2012 6:14:54 PM)

A 20 minute battle timer was added for LSA, and it will be in Panthers in the Fog too.




xambrium -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/13/2012 9:58:39 PM)

ohh nice!

Another wish, infantry riding on halftracks?




Steve McClaire -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/15/2012 5:48:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xambrium

ohh nice!

Another wish, infantry riding on halftracks?


This has been under discussion and is pretty likely to make it in. But I don't want to promise specific features until they're set in stone. So please take it as 'maybe' at this point. :)





DampSquib -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/16/2012 3:11:19 AM)

user definable quick keys etc...

A selfish request really...but would be good.





kweniston -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/16/2012 5:31:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DampSquib
user definable quick keys etc...
A selfish request really...but would be good.


yeah...(not selfish!)
and almost everything else I suggested as an improvement for LSA...






Steve McClaire -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/16/2012 6:54:44 PM)

If there's something you'd like to see in the game, you can always ask.  Of course we have to balance everything against how many people want it, and how much time we have to do everything, but it never hurts to ask.




Bradley62 -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/16/2012 11:38:40 PM)

Being able to pause and modify or give additional orders would be great.




DampSquib -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/17/2012 2:53:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kweniston

yeah...(not selfish!)
and almost everything else I suggested as an improvement for LSA...



Cheers, i missed that post or would of said i'd like the same.
Anyhoo let's hope more want the same :)




Platoon_Michael -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/17/2012 11:22:31 AM)

Commander/BG Characteristics that can be changed daily rather than just one setting would be nice.




Renato -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/17/2012 4:25:58 PM)

An improved AI.




Cathartes -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/17/2012 7:31:59 PM)

static BGs:
1. available for both Allies and Axis
2. option of lockable units that remain in place until map experiences a first battle, or is inhabited by friendly BG
3. allow static BGs to be absorbed or remain separate (player's choice).
4. Static BGs to be available for custom-made, single-battle scenarios without having to include a standard BG.

Ok, lotta wishing here. [:D]




Cathartes -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/17/2012 7:32:51 PM)

double post, drats




Cathartes -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/17/2012 8:02:25 PM)

besides the "fog" in Panther in the Fog, more FOW features:

1. inability to identify enemy unit and number of men until you are right on top of or immediately adjacent to unit, or enemy unit is running in the open.
2. VL capture remains unknown unless your own units are immediately adjacent to or have captured VLs.
3. Above features can be switched on or off.
4. Misidentification of units possible: e.g. a PzIV can be mistaken for a Tiger (we know the difference in a game, but soldiers in heat & excitement of battle did not see so clearly).
5. Tracked vehicles & tanks should be identifiable as such before LOS is established. Enemy could hear a tank coming before they saw it. Not sure how this would be displayed on map except that there could be an icon for "supposed" position that remains outside of LOS.

...more serious wishing.




Pvt_Grunt -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/19/2012 7:02:28 AM)

Dynamic sounds for tanks and vehicles, if the vehicle is on the screen you should hear it moving. The sound should fade as the screen is scrolled away from the moving vehicle. This would make a hidden / still tank more of a suprise.




STIENER -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/19/2012 8:43:53 AM)

how about a game thats finished before its sold to the public. not sure i like being a play tester after i spent my money. nothing like having to restart a GC 20 times because of new patchs.

-no crawl of death and then turn around and crawl back, like in LSA and other CC games.
-a/t guns that hide better than LSA and have some sort of survivabilty from mortors and MG fire.




Kanov -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/22/2012 9:37:17 PM)

Ok here's some wishes:


-Refitting, let the player decide which teams get replacements, these are accordingly limited and finite, but could get restocked every day or so.
-Upgrading, not at the extreme of CC3 that spans several years, but say upgrade an ad-hoc team to a rifle team, an AT gun type A1 to a Type A2 which is the same gun but with more tungsten rounds or something.
-If a BG/unit gets surrounded (Strategic/tactical map respectively), they start next battle with whatever ammo and weapons they finished with from last battle even if they are captured weapons. Morale and stamina penalties. Cannot refit or switch teams from BG/Unit.
-Let the player be represented on the Battlefield commanding a company, be it random or let him decide.
-Company commanders have the appropriate rank. Platoon commanders too.
-Let the ammo have its own Data sheet so we can name it and modify it more thoroughly. Name of ammo being used appears in-game in some way next to the weapon used. There's a lot of wasted space in the soldier monitor.
-Immerse the player in the game. Take notes of CC2 videos and briefings, of CC3 detailed operational history of every soldier which could be modified to represent battles instead of operations fought.
-Strategic Ambush. A BG could be ordered to hide and after certain number of turns and depending on the terrain, it could achieve ambush status, if enemy BG enters Ambushing BG map, some sort of penalty occurs like: Enemy BG forced to deploy in column, Enemy units get -2 morale levels while ambushing BG gets +2, etc
-More infantry survivability.
-A "Hide" command, units in Hiding do not shoot and do not ambush. Just hide. In case the enemy is right on top of them, I suppose hand to hand combat ensues. This already happens if you run into an ambushing team from behind or run into them really fast.

I liked these:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes
1. inability to identify enemy unit and number of men until you are right on top of or immediately adjacent to unit, or enemy unit is running in the open.
2. VL capture remains unknown unless your own units are immediately adjacent to or have captured VLs.
4. Misidentification of units possible: e.g. a PzIV can be mistaken for a Tiger (we know the difference in a game, but soldiers in heat & excitement of battle did not see so clearly).
5. Tracked vehicles & tanks should be identifiable as such before LOS is established. Enemy could hear a tank coming before they saw it. Not sure how this would be displayed on map except that there could be an icon for "supposed" position that remains outside of LOS.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt

Dynamic sounds for tanks and vehicles, if the vehicle is on the screen you should hear it moving. The sound should fade as the screen is scrolled away from the moving vehicle. This would make a hidden / still tank more of a suprise.


And so excited about this making the cut:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire


quote:

ORIGINAL: xambrium

ohh nice!

Another wish, infantry riding on halftracks?


This has been under discussion and is pretty likely to make it in. But I don't want to promise specific features until they're set in stone. So please take it as 'maybe' at this point. :)






Platoon_Michael -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/25/2012 4:10:12 AM)

You really need to individualize the game a LOT more.

I.E.
1)BG Characteristics that change by DAY and not just 1 overall setting.
In the Campaign text change the Recycle Disbanded BGs (0 = Never come back, 1 = Return next day)1 to be more individualize as well.Not only per side but per Day.

2)BGs retreat on rout (0 = disband on rout, 1 = retreat on rout)1
Same as above,Per BG and Per Day.

3) Battle group 'base' battle plans: Controls the default plan used by
# A given BG when opposed by a given enemy BG. Plans are:
# 0 = all out attack, 1 = limited attack, 2 = probing attack, 3 = defend, 4 = survive

Again Per BG and Per Day

4)Change Night Turns to also be Early Morning Turns without having to cheat the game to get support for the first early Morning Turn in a GC.

5)You got to find a way that when playing a GC I'm not dissapointed by Dec 21st (Day 6) with NO opposing BG's to fight against.
Why include a 25 Day GC in the game when all I need is 6-maybe 10 at best?
Your giving me NOTHING to fight here.
What is it 9 Allied BG's against 26 Axis BG's?
That's not going to keep me coming back.
The only thing I got going for me here is using the Save Game Editor and switch sides.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/8EAAD1E5BBB14B5094F1C4B2AB47D696.jpg[/image]




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
Etc.

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.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/3714BBABC66C41798159D44405AC4507.jpg[/image]

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?




heckler -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/25/2012 7:26:43 PM)

These might not work in combination, and I hope they are as clear on paper as they are in my head...

1) Russian Front with a campaign. Maybe a Minsk area Destruction of Army Group Center 1944
2) Scaled at a level where battlegroups of different speeds can move multiple strategic maps in a turn...
   and allowing battlegroups that meet in a meeting engagement have deployment zones predicated on their speed-my fast group would get to deploy further onto the map (maybe along the road I was taking when I ran into you) than the leg infantry that walked on.
3) A campaign that depicts an overall meeting engagement-lines not in contact at start.
4) Maybe a closer to 1:1 depiction...
   if battalion size bg's, maybe the 1st company is available at start, plus the heavy weapons company. You can refit, and that resets the company assets (to represent the lead company pulling out due to losses)-but the attachments would not reset. If company level, no refits.
5) having a platoon integrity mechanic-I'll use a British group from The Longest Day as an example...if I bring a platoon hq, then I would be locked in to  that platoon, and would not be able to field another until the 6 half-squad teams(3 Bren/3 Rifle), 2# mortar, and PIAT (the base platoon element) were all fielded. With the stacked BG mechanic, maybe some slots (2 per platoon if 21 is the new total) would be available for add-ons. And maybe in a meeting engagement you have to bring the whole platoon before ading another, where in a set piece battle you could start 2 or 3, to represent forces more 'on-line' and allow you to have more customisation.

Whew, I'm long winded. Note i don't know how you'd do any of this, but that's why its called a wish list, amiright?[;)]
  




Kanov -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/26/2012 6:10:21 PM)

Manual refitting by player could work very well with PitF and add another layer of strategic decisions. The game must however, have some sort of mechanism that limits the player, be it points as in CC3/LSA or a limited reserve pool of soldiers (different from BG forcepool) from which to draw replacements. Another third option could be the way it was handled in CC2 which was very fun, it was automatic but severely depleted teams that were similar got merged together so you could end up with a Bren team with two Bren guns, it also depended on how many hours passed between cease fires and how well supplied was the sector.

From CC4 onwards, the refitting is automatic which gives the impression that you have an endless reserve force. What CC4 had in its favor was that it used static BG selection so if a BG got surrounded it couldn't refit its units and you were forced to fight with understrength teams.

Upgrading I agree it doesn't work very well with the limited time of the operation but it was fun to do.

Another wish is that I would like to see modular damage to tanks, instead of being "damaged" I would like to read "Optics damaged" for example, and have its aim accordingly reduced. Also, In line with the FoW wishes exposed above, I should not know what damage has an enemy tank received, how many crew it has left or if its destroyed unless it explodes or something.




Steve McClaire -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/26/2012 7:24:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5
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.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/3714BBABC66C41798159D44405AC4507.jpg[/image]


That is the force morale indicator for PitF. The graphic needs to be changed (it's all green no matter the level in the current dev build) but it works the same way as existing FM mechanism in LSA/TLD/WaR.




xe5 -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/26/2012 11:52:14 PM)

If the timer and FM bar are being repositioned to the top of the map, I hope they can be toggled off. That would be a nod toward additional FoW, plus, I like to play with a 'clean' UI (toolbar & soldier monitor only) and can envision where the new timer/FM positioning would interfere with seeing and accessing units along the top of the map.

@Kanov - my mistake...CC3-style partial team refit using Requisition points would be a nice addition. The current method where soldiers from low-strength (<50%) teams being disbanded are used as replacements to fill out empty slots in other teams could be retained, but any additional replacements required should cost Req points if the player chooses to do so.

re: '2 Brens in CC2 teams' - Agree, any game function which randomizes the standard 'cookie-cutter' team rosters to any degree would be welcome. Something along the lines of "If enough soldiers from low strength teams are left over (i.e. not needed to fill out other units in the Battle Group) they are grouped together to form reduced strength teams (4 man ad-hoc / ersatz rifle teams, or 2 man light machine gun teams) that are added to your Forcepool automatically" except that those 'left-overs' would retain their original weapons and be grouped in 2-4 man teams.

re: "Panthers in the Fog will keep the history of all your teams and soldiers, even when you remove them from your active team slots. These teams will also receive individual replacements, but that happens automatically. - Steve McClaire"

Im guessing that teams with any battle history, which reside in the inactive roster, will be the first teams available for selection from their respective team type pools.




Tejszd -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/27/2012 1:46:22 AM)

Definitely agree that the morale and time graphics should be able to toggled on or off. At higher difficulty levels the graphic should be hidden automatically or to get the 100% realistic score....




kweniston -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/30/2012 5:44:15 PM)

Please check the wishlist for LSA (lots of tweaks, add-ons, options suggested), including not putting BG/support/movement icons over the map names on the stratmap. The latest screenshots from the PitF strategic map show this hasn't been picked up (yet)...




heckler -> RE: PitF Wish List Thread (5/31/2012 3:12:43 PM)

7) Reconnaisance units (recon, scouts, armored cars, snipers, etc) able to deploy in the 'no man's land' to represent them 'scouting'.
8) Some function where a map attacked from two directions gives the attacker an expanded deployment, and maybe an 'outflanked tax' against the defender, where they lose slots.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.199219E-02