Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Future Directions - Features

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/26/2012 2:17:21 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Part of what you are suggesting would be addressed by a course of action (COA) analyser, where multiple plans are developed from which the player can select one and modify it if they desire.


Hm... if you post a one-liner like that, and not something like "re introduction of analyzer requires to recode the entire engine so it's a really big job, and we want to get 20 other items in the game, first" , it must have made you think. I sense it may be feasable.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 7/26/2012 2:19:44 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 301
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/27/2012 12:28:32 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online 		Feasable yes, but the real question is "is it fundable". It's something I have been working on for the military. I did a scoping study for them a couple of years ago and am doing more work on it right now. I can't tell you any more than that, so don't ask.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 302
RE: Future Directions - Features - 8/12/2012 5:24:36 PM   
SapperAstro

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Penrith, Australia
Status: offline 		Campaign! Apart from that, keep on doing what you are doing.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 303
RE: Future Directions - Features - 10/28/2012 6:45:01 PM   
schmolywar

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 12/12/2010
Status: offline 		My Holy Grail:

Saveable multiplayer

Never seen before in any real time game for some reason.

_____________________________

"The Russian advance over this hastily improvised road, constructed with the aid of the most primitive facilities, was, for a time,accompanied by the strains of band music.".

-Peculiarities of russian warfare

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 304
RE: Future Directions - Features - 12/22/2012 4:27:39 AM   
heyhellowhatsnew


Posts: 179
Joined: 4/19/2012
From: New York
Status: offline 		More scenarios please :(

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 305
RE: Future Directions - Features - 12/23/2012 10:24:24 AM   
rfrizz


Posts: 72
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: schmolywar

My Holy Grail:

Saveable multiplayer

Never seen before in any real time game for some reason.


What about Doom?

I know, I know. You meant a wargame, not a FPS.

(in reply to schmolywar)
Post #: 306
RE: Future Directions - Features - 12/23/2012 10:53:16 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		What do you mean by Saveable MP? If you play H2H Command Ops then you can save it whenever you want.

(in reply to rfrizz)
Post #: 307
RE: Future Directions - Features - 12/27/2012 7:29:32 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline 		More scenarios.
Random scenario generator.
Ability to change settings from a loaded save - switch sides or change settings.

It may be that for programming reasons you cannot do a random scenario generator like CMx1 Combat Mission or Advanced Tactics where it creates the terrain; but could do one with existing maps, and units like the old Sid Meier's Gettysburg or the newer Combat Mission. You seem to have done the difficult part which is creating an AI that does a "reasonable job", now you need to expand the appeal such that Command Ops becomes a "must have" game for anybody who even vaguely looks at wargames. Civilization is a "must have" game. Combat Mission was, but I think they've lost it with CMx2 - even though I have it. Much probably depends on how you want to run your business. Many wargames seem to me to end up becoming ever more obscure as they move to satisfy only their core user base who demand ever greater refinements on spotting or machine gun use, or cavalry versus squares just to change the era. The games risk becoming ever more difficult for new comers as the experts demand more rules or situations. In fact you can make the difficult settings as difficult as you like (e.g. Deity in Civilization) as long as the easy settings remain easy.

Go, the Chinese/Japanese game can be at one level just placing black and white stones on a 19x19 grid; but computers still cannot beat top Go players (I think) whereas they can in chess.


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 308
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/5/2013 3:55:27 PM   
wodin


Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		I'd like the option to have fire arrows that go from the unit to the unit it's shooting at (colour coded to say the intensity of fire).The colour could change dynamically if you keep them on due to various levels of fire intensity. Be able to have the option just to show it on the unit selected, formation selected or all. Also have the option to show return fire arrows on or off (would have to be different colour to stand out if you have both on)the return fire arrow again same options..You can have show any incoming fire arrows shown when you select a unit, formation or all. Similar thickness to formation lines (though could make them a touch thinner).

Another option I'd like is if you click on one of your units then any enemy units spotted are highlighted.

Finally I've mentioned this before more radio feedback..i.e taking heavy fire, need reinforcements,enemy formation spotted, request to be pulled back, enemy broke through defense, panic in ranks (a pre warning rout message) etc. I'd like more sitreps overall so I can leave the game on slow or pause and shift through them, obviously colour graded etc, similar to what we have now but more info.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 309
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/5/2013 4:52:45 PM   
Happy Hedonist

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/16/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd like the option to have fire arrows that go from the unit to the unit it's shooting at (colour coded to say the intensity of fire).The colour could change dynamically if you keep them on due to various levels of fire intensity. Be able to have the option just to show it on the unit selected, formation selected or all. Also have the option to show return fire arrows on or off (would have to be different colour to stand out if you have both on)the return fire arrow again same options..You can have show any incoming fire arrows shown when you select a unit, formation or all. Similar thickness to formation lines (though could make them a touch thinner).

Another option I'd like is if you click on one of your units then any enemy units spotted are highlighted.

Finally I've mentioned this before more radio feedback..i.e taking heavy fire, need reinforcements,enemy formation spotted, request to be pulled back, enemy broke through defense, panic in ranks (a pre warning rout message) etc. I'd like more sitreps overall so I can leave the game on slow or pause and shift through them, obviously colour graded etc, similar to what we have now but more info.


I think those are all great suggestions Wodin. What you described instantly reminded me of all the toolbar buttons in the Panzer Campaign series.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 310
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/5/2013 5:56:36 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2941
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		From my latest high intensity testing OP Veritable battle, I figured I could make good use of the following:

Map Indicator for where known entrenchments/foxholes are located.

Sort of a "frontline" indicator, measureed by captured enemy or friendly ground should be sufficient (ground controlled by fire obviously would be more difficult to be implemnented)

Fog of war for bridge status. One really should NOT know if a bridge is operable, primed or unprimed, unless one is very close to a site. Maybe difficult to handle for AI though.

"Threat" tool to be applied for enemy units as well. Oftentimes I´d like to know, if particular enemy units are threatening any friendlies and which at a glance.

Tool for showing supply lines currently in use.

Steeply sloped terrain. So far I don´t see slopes that can´t be handled by any unit, that lets me assume that Performance data "Max Gradient", "Max Fording Depth" and "Max Trench Width" is currently superfluous. Or did I miss something? Steepest slopes I´ve seen so far are 16 Deg I think.

Smoke.
Terrain Fires.

Dynamicly created rubbled and cratered terrain. Figured I could fake rubbled terrain, by layering a modified "broken" ( 0 MotMov) beneath a city part, to make it inaccessible for vehicle movements. Yet need to check Direct and area fire cover. Off course that is non dynamic. Edit: Does not work.

So far...

< Message edited by RockinHarry -- 1/5/2013 6:03:33 PM >

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to Happy Hedonist)
Post #: 311
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/5/2013 6:10:24 PM   
wodin


Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		Harry +1 to all to those aswell..esp the foxhole\trench indicators and craters\rubble.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 312
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 12:06:49 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		Is my tank company hull-down, or is it stitting on a crest?

It is a mystery to me. Perhaps some kind of vulnerability indicator.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 313
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 1:13:08 AM   
wodin


Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		Alchemar.not sure that fits the scale mate...

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 314
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 8:26:01 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		Cota had quite a lot of terrain so steep it was 'impassable, RockinHarry.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 315
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 11:25:36 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2941
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Cota had quite a lot of terrain so steep it was 'impassable, RockinHarry.


I´d assume so, but I never owned COTA, so can´t compare. What is the max steepness on COTA maps? I just checked BFTB maps and found there´s none steeper than 16 - 17 degrees. Generally I find the BFTB Ardennes terrain not that much of a tactical/operational terrain obstacle, If leaving the road network aside.

If it comes to EF, there´s also a whole lot to consider, the balkas i.e and the generally difficult terrain.

On my OP Veritable map, I´m not able to create slopes at places, I know that where impassable for vehicles. Some the places I know personally from my past battlefield touring.

Think, I´ll help myself with layering modified rough terrain...

I now had success creatiung rubbled terrain by changing "industrial" to something appropiate. The more difficult part, was making the graphics. Now on to testing. Bombed out cities now should look and play more realistic, although I can´t yet tell if the AI might have problems with my tweaks.

Any the modders around here have an idea, how to change fortification graphics to "invisible"? No matter how I change the graphics and transparency layer, I don´t succeed. :(



_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 316
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 12:15:56 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		Well, like this, for example, (from COTA):




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 317
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 2:31:47 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2941
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I see. What´s the base difference between height layers in this case? How much do they need to be apart horizontally? Is there a minimum distance for the averaging of heights between layers? Normally one would assume a 100m difference in height and range, yielding to 45° slopes, but I assume this does not quite work this way in the game.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 318
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 2:36:59 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2941
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Some feature bugging me slight a bit, is the noticable cohesion loss in the very first game seconds, when units do initial facing. That shouldn´t be the case. Thus I´d wish for that not to happen for the initial situation and fixing unit "facing" right in the sceneario editor, would be another good feature.

Edit: Initial Cohesion loss could be up to 25% and some units take upto 1 hour to recover. And all that without enemy contact or other actions happening.

< Message edited by RockinHarry -- 1/6/2013 3:02:24 PM >

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 319
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 3:16:45 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		I think Dave said the facing thing was 'fixed' a long while back - by which I mean the way units are facing all the wrong way at scenario start. Is that what you mean?
I don't have a clue about map making etc. Sorry. Just gave you the shot from COTA because I assume if that kind of terrain was possible there then it is possible in BFTB. But you would need someone who knows about these things to answer you.

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 320
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 3:51:32 PM   
wodin


Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		Narvik map for one had loads of impassable terrain..great map aswell.

Harry you have PM's blocked you know?

< Message edited by wodin -- 1/6/2013 3:55:49 PM >

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 321
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 3:57:27 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2941
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I think Dave said the facing thing was 'fixed' a long while back - by which I mean the way units are facing all the wrong way at scenario start. Is that what you mean?
I don't have a clue about map making etc. Sorry. Just gave you the shot from COTA because I assume if that kind of terrain was possible there then it is possible in BFTB. But you would need someone who knows about these things to answer you.


No, it´s just the odd Cohesion loss, when units do their initial facing at battle start. Assuming appropiate intel on enemy units is given, units actual facing gets more or less right. IMHO what is calculated at games start s/b precalculated before the first game seconds, or even "fixed" in the scenario editor.

With regard to slopes and layer setup, I´ll do some further testing, in order to grasp the game engine limits. I assume it has something to do with the 100m sub grid and anything below is likely very much smoothed/averaged, yielding in slope steepness that is far less than what one would expect in that cases.

Could also make a difference with regard to "metres per altitude layer" setting. Currently I have it at 5m for my Veritable map, as I wanted a finer resolution. Highest areas are around 40m, so layers used is 0,5,10,15...40. Theres a hill (Moyland wood), that declines very steeply towards the Rhine river plain, at a very short distance (around 50 to 100m), from 45m to sea kevel. Steepest slopes I get are 16°, when they more should approach the 30° level.

Maybe Bil H has the idea to get that working for his 30m sub grid setting for LOTB. Could be, I´m going one step to far with details, but currently I don´t want to start the map anew.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 322
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/6/2013 4:01:20 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2941
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Harry you have PM's blocked you know?


Thanks, "fixed"

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 323
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 1:13:07 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Alchemar.not sure that fits the scale mate...



No it is, there's a big difference between placing a Company on the crest of a hill and placing it on a forward slope.


(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 324
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 5:05:40 PM   
wodin


Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		Yes but unlikely a whole coy will be placed on a hill..platoon maybe..but coy unlikely..the coy would split into paltoons..remeber that sort of level is abstracted.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 325
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 5:54:29 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		Wodin, in the BFTB tutorial vid, I believe, Dave makes a point of showing the new detail grid which allows you to position units (meaning, generally, I guess, companies) behind, for example, the tree line. So why not behind a ridge? I have noticed, however, that it's not so straightforward in the game and that the destination indicator tends to snap to a position which isn't always where you would want it to be. I have always assumed that the box indicator (which you can change the dimensions of) for a unit's 'footprint' indicates roughly the position of the unit's men. Though, as you say, it's clearly an abstraction of sorts (it's a rectangle, after all) I had always assumed that if you want, for example, the unit to be behind a ridge, you should ensure that the limits of that rectangle are behind the ridge. Am I wrong?

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 326
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 6:08:31 PM   
wodin


Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		Pheonix I understand that...putting a platoon behind the ridge I can imagine all tanks lined up in hull down position, but if you talking about a coy size tank unit you have to be talking about some sort of abstraction going on as the platoons use tactics within the footprint. I'm not sure how often a whole coy of tanks all lined up in hull down positions happened..I just think that sort of thing like hull down is for a lower scale..you have to think that they are in hull down positions within the footprint or at least some of them are..

Now setting up a Inf coy behind a ridge or along a treeline is coy level stuff...see what I'm saying some tanks in a coy maybe hull down others maybe moving to attack from the side etc..platoon is the manauvre element of a Tank unit so I feel putting them all in hull down positions be possible..coy it will be that some are and some aren't but presume a few are..etc etc. Also remember the terrain isn't as hi res as say the platoon level game Bil is making where I expect hull down would become something you can do and set as an SOP maybe. Or I would say that that scale it's a good feature request to ask for..

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 327
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 6:21:11 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		Yes, I see what you mean. Yes, of course, you don't have to deal with things like 'hull down' or not - I agree.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 328
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 8:10:59 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline 		Having played the game a bit more and seen some of the points made I think for a team of a couple of guys (for that's what it seems to be now) they could do with a source of revenue. My blunt advice would be to grab as much of that Defence Department consultancy money as they can whilst there's still some around. However, as a wargamer:

I think the game is easily good enough as it is. Crikey, Phoenix and I have each had a few hours banging away Hofen and nothing in the game was so in need of fixing that we didn't get a few hours good play.

I think I read somewhere that there was a move to update COTA/HTTR scenarios so they all run on one engine (BFTB?)? If so that would be great - and I presume they would be sold as a pack or add-on. Maybe all included in new 2013 sales of BFTB and $20 for previous owners of the game in some form.

Making new scenarios does seem to be a really laborious labour of love, especially given the nit picking that will greet errors. But how about a fictional variation or two for some or all of the existing scenarios. For example (see my Monschau windows thread) the US pitched up at Hofen with 12 3" AT guns of the 612 Tank Destroyer just 2 days before the German assault. German intelligence probably was still saying the sector was weakly held - so would that have made a difference? The original scenario designer should be able to make some such changes without too much new work required. You can take a view on whether the changes should be disclosed to players before or after. I guess another example would of course be Arnhem where the Brits were warned, but it was too late to really change plans.


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 329
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 8:56:10 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		HTTR already available as a a pack to put into BFTB, Alti - to buy, I mean. Somewhere on the Matrix site. Get it if you can. The battles there are great, though there's only about 8 or 10 scenarios, much less than the original HTTR. The COTA pack is just about done, I believe and will probably be sold within a couple of months or so. That is to include all the COTA scenarios, I think, so will be well worth it. There are great, interesting battles in COTA. I still play on the old COTA, which has less options than the BFTB engine, less info available, and I assume isn't so sophistique - but - to be honest - I haven't really noticed (it works fine, anyway). But not worth buying original COTA now when you can get the pack in a couple of months.

You should try Manhay Crossroads next, from BFTB. As Axis. That is tough, but small and manageable, again, like Hofen (about the same size as Hofen). The RL battle was a real turning point, I think, in that Manhay was where the Axis advance ended up getting funnelled when it couldn't get anywhere in the north. It's a very challenging scenario. I've never won it, I don't think. You start off strong (as Axis) but the allies get a lot of arty to cripple you with. I have no idea how to win it.

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.314