Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
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  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/7/2013 9:38:52 PM   
Bil H


Posts: 1981
Joined: 4/24/2003
From: Richmond Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

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.


Regarding slope effects, they are definitely more clear as you apply a finer grid. The attached example is with a 50 meter movement grid and 5 meter contours... of course the lighter the gray the slower the movement. The problem I have with slope effects right now is that they can totally get overwhelmed once terrain elements are applied when really they should be cumulative. Not much we can do about that and I don't see it as a huge issue.

Bil




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ah, well, since you do not wish death, then how about a rubber chicken?

Sam the Eagle

My Website:
http://www.bilhardenberger.com

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 331
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/8/2013 4:31:50 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Thanks Bil, looks great! :) So do you mean slope effects (speed, traversability) do not properly adapt with other terrain layers, or vice versa?

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

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

(in reply to Bil H)
Post #: 332
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/8/2013 5:27:36 PM   
Bil H


Posts: 1981
Joined: 4/24/2003
From: Richmond Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Thanks Bil, looks great! :) So do you mean slope effects (speed, traversability) do not properly adapt with other terrain layers, or vice versa?


Sorry for the confusion... what I mean is that as you add terrain elements, foliage, ground types, etc. the slope effects like in my image above become less and less obvious under all those layers. They are still there, but it becomes hard to differentiate them.. and if the terrain type has a slower movement than the slope gives, then that terrain type will overwhelm the slope effect and in essence there will be no slope effect any more. Ideally, I would expect the slope effect (movement modifier) to be added on top of the terrain type.

That probably doesn't help at all does it?

Bil


_____________________________

Ah, well, since you do not wish death, then how about a rubber chicken?

Sam the Eagle

My Website:
http://www.bilhardenberger.com

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 333
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/8/2013 5:43:07 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bil H

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Thanks Bil, looks great! :) So do you mean slope effects (speed, traversability) do not properly adapt with other terrain layers, or vice versa?


Sorry for the confusion... what I mean is that as you add terrain elements, foliage, ground types, etc. the slope effects like in my image above become less and less obvious under all those layers. They are still there, but it becomes hard to differentiate them.. and if the terrain type has a slower movement than the slope gives, then that terrain type will overwhelm the slope effect and in essence there will be no slope effect any more. Ideally, I would expect the slope effect (movement modifier) to be added on top of the terrain type.

That probably doesn't help at all does it?

Bil



Thanks, just what I meant and no, It helped!

I could imagine there´s some simplifications (or abstractions) in the game, meant to help AI path finding and decision making, so that sort of detail can not be well implemented into 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 Bil H)
Post #: 334
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/9/2013 4:58:09 PM   
stardark

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/16/2012
Status: offline
Some sort of frontline indicator would be very handy indeed!

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 335
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/14/2013 9:10:01 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
In the meantime, I figured that a "frontline" can be established well by proper use of the intel settings, for both sides forces.

No idea if this has been asked for before...at times I´d like to see both sides forces footprints/range rings at the same time. So far, one can only make selections either for friendlies, or enemies, but not both. Would be helpful to see how much enemy and friendly footprints/range rings overlap, so one can better estimate what´s going on with particular unit behaviors.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

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

(in reply to stardark)
Post #: 336
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/14/2013 10:17:51 PM   
bardolph


Posts: 13
Joined: 4/15/2008
Status: offline
This has probably been mentioned already but one thing I would be interested in seeing is multi-multiplayer, like say what is available in TacOps or Scourge of War. It would be very useful to be able to have multiple players per side or on one side for co-op, each with their own command and limited intel on friendly forces not under their control. I would imagine that military clients or prospective clients would find such a feature useful as well.

< Message edited by bardolph -- 1/14/2013 10:47:14 PM >

(in reply to phredd1)
Post #: 337
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/15/2013 2:30:01 AM   
pacwar

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 11/21/2004
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
At the risk that someone else has suggested this let me propose the following...when you get a message about a specific unit it would be useful if you could just click on the message and it would either take you to the unit in question on the map or highlight the unit in the OB so you could click on the OB and get to the unit...as it is now, unless I've missed something, when I get a message that unit so and so has halted or failed in their assault I've got to pause the game and search the OB and/or do a quick visual scan of the battlefield to figure out where the unit is...perhaps this is just a reflection of too much micromanagement on my part but some of the messages can be critical...

(in reply to bardolph)
Post #: 338
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/15/2013 4:09:32 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
pacwar,

That's an excellent suggestion and it's been on our wish list for years. Alas it so far hasn't risen to the top of the pile. Hopefully soon.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pacwar)
Post #: 339
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/15/2013 4:15:00 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bardolph

This has probably been mentioned already but one thing I would be interested in seeing is multi-multiplayer, like say what is available in TacOps or Scourge of War. It would be very useful to be able to have multiple players per side or on one side for co-op, each with their own command and limited intel on friendly forces not under their control. I would imagine that military clients or prospective clients would find such a feature useful as well.

Welcome and thanks for your suggestion. This too has been on our wish list since we first designed the engine back in 1996. But I do think its time to look at this more seriously. Paul Vandoren has just supplied us with some of his scenarios from the Knock on All Dooors Ex Pack he has been working on this last year. They are huge. They play but slowly due to the number of units. One option to address this is to go to multiple commands and run a seperate AI thread for each command. This would distribute the AI processing over multiple cores and take advantage of modern CPUs. I have asked Paul Scobell to look into running an experiment to see if this is worth pursuing.

Having multiple commands per side is foundation for supporting co-op play. Thanks for the timely input.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to bardolph)
Post #: 340
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/15/2013 4:58:39 AM   
bardolph


Posts: 13
Joined: 4/15/2008
Status: offline
Thanks for the kindly response.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 341
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/15/2013 9:53:37 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Hmm..huge scenarios..not my thing sadly. I hope the EF game has a good selection of lowish unit density. As I said a few times I love low unit density but scenarios lasting a few days.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to bardolph)
Post #: 342
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/15/2013 9:55:47 AM   
CriticalMass


Posts: 586
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pacwar

At the risk that someone else has suggested this let me propose the following...when you get a message about a specific unit it would be useful if you could just click on the message and it would either take you to the unit in question on the map or highlight the unit in the OB so you could click on the OB and get to the unit...as it is now, unless I've missed something, when I get a message that unit so and so has halted or failed in their assault I've got to pause the game and search the OB and/or do a quick visual scan of the battlefield to figure out where the unit is...perhaps this is just a reflection of too much micromanagement on my part but some of the messages can be critical...


There is partial support for - the first part of - your suggestion. Check out page 31 of the manual - Navigate Messages.


_____________________________

I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front with my own hands as soon as possible
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel

(in reply to pacwar)
Post #: 343
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/16/2013 8:52:47 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1926
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Click on msg log in sidebar, Critmass (make sure a unit not selected - click on blank area of map - and look at sidebar; the msg log is last on the right). All messages also come up there (though you can change settings to restrict this) and when you click on them there it highlights unit on the map, for most messages, not all. Not for a blown bridge, for example. And playing Meuse to Rhine, for example, it's easy to miss which of the several thousand bridges just went when the map is so huge and you're not usually looking at all of it - then you have to click on each bridge to see if it's there or not by the movement possibilities. I agree, it would be nice if you could click on all messages and the subject was highlighted.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 1/16/2013 8:56:08 AM >

(in reply to CriticalMass)
Post #: 344
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/16/2013 7:58:12 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Two more:

Some indicator for what unit is currently calling for artillery support (and which, if there´s multiple of the same type available). Maybe a Binoc symbol on the counter and a line similar to the command and supply ones.

I´d also like to see units blinking (or framed, or whatever), that race across the map, indicating an intel update to units that were lost contact to formerly. I find it oftenly confusing and disturbing to see those "intel update moves" mixed with true moves of units that can currently be observed by any friendlies.

_____________________________

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 #: 345
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/18/2013 8:36:57 AM   
invernomuto


Posts: 957
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Some suggestions, mostly already mentioned:

1) an option to scold / replace a commander that it's not performing well (you are the CinC, that's part of the fun :) ).
2) a "linked scenarios" campaing system
3) more randomization options for scenarios (e.g. : have selectable random "variants" for scenarios, random reinforcements, random supply etc).
4) multiplayer co-op.
5) more detailed maps (3d, 2d with elevation layers etc).
6) consult with your high HQ staff to develop the initial plan of a scenario.

_____________________________

Small Ship, Big War - the Voyages of the Hibiki
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1363103

Best AAR I've ever seen!!!

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 346
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/27/2013 4:19:52 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Something that likely could be rather easily be implemented, ...what about some weather forecast added to the side bar Weather Display? Some 48 hours would be quite useful, for planning operations. Since some the data is already available from the mission editor, maybe some not too complicated routines would do the purpose.

As sort of expedient, a mission maker could provide some basic data (mission briefing) from the mission editor, but only makes sense for the starting days and historical weather.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

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

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 347
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/27/2013 10:39:34 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
The excellent Battle planner, drawing overlay tool that they added in the latest Hearts of Iron 3 game would be a very nice addition to this game.

See here for examples:

Edit: Can't post the link yet as I have not been on this forum long enough yet.
Just go the Hearts of Iron Forum, and take a look at the player created examples in one of the threads there.

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 348
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/27/2013 10:44:13 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Being able to select multiple units by Ctrl clicking on the OOB list would be good.

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 349
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/27/2013 11:19:20 PM   
miya

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/8/2011
Status: offline
Today I experimented with the Scenario Maker, by the way, I like the new tool to compare the combat values.

Taking a look at the objectives and the circular shaped perimeter, it could be a useful addition to change the perimeter to a elliptical shape.
The idea is to match better the outline, the contour of a ridge or a city.
It would require three values to save, the angle of the axis, length of the major axis and length of the minor axis.
Would there be any impact on the AI if it has to secure an objective which is narrow on one axis and stretched on the other ? What I have in mind, maybe the AI would arrange its forces in a long line.

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 350
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 1:14:36 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Not a new feature as such but what I'd like to see in future games is in the scenario description it says roughly what scale your playing at..i.e Corps or Division or Battalion. That way I know roughly how many units will be in a scenario before I choose to play it. Or even if it says small\medium\large\extra large..

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to miya)
Post #: 351
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 3:38:06 PM   
miya

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/8/2011
Status: offline
What about an option to rename units during the game ?

I'm thinking of a situation where the player might collect several companies from three or four different battalions and combines them under one battalion HQ. In that case I would prefer to give the battalion a new name and call it "Lonsdale Force" or "KG Walther" for example.
Of course this only makes sense during longer and larger operations.
It certainly will add to the flavor, while playing.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 352
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 4:56:25 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I'd like in the final AAR screen to be able to see starting number of equip and finishing number..for both your troops and the enemies..I'd also like to review the enemies OOB and be able to see what units where taken out at a glance. I'd like also to be able to see the enemies Commanders names if known at the end. I'd like to see formation pointers for the enemy as well when you click on a unit during the review AAR.

Then obviously what many have asked for be able to see what unit the enemy unit surrendered to or was destroyed by, even if possible a breakdown of what weapon and which unit per casualty.

I'd also like leaders to have a bigger impact and with that also have leader casualties where they are either out of action for a couple of days and then come back or are wounded enough to mean they want be back in the game or dead..then you get a replacement with different stats taking over the unit. Not only is this great for immersion I think if Leaders where made to have a big impact on unit performance you'd able to get those situations where a unit with a great leader held out against the odds..

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to miya)
Post #: 353
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 7:30:06 PM   
GBS

 

Posts: 819
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Southeastern USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Being able to select multiple units by Ctrl clicking on the OOB list would be good.



THIS!

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 354
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 8:03:26 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Unit leader losses and replacements, or possibly manually changing them.

Consolidation (dissolving) of units. Was more of a german practice, than for the western allies though.

A replacement of men an material system, particuarly for longer operation games.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

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

(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 355
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 10:11:37 PM   
BofH


Posts: 57
Joined: 2/12/2009
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: miya

What about an option to rename units during the game ?

I'm thinking of a situation where the player might collect several companies from three or four different battalions and combines them under one battalion HQ. In that case I would prefer to give the battalion a new name and call it "Lonsdale Force" or "KG Walther" for example.


Seconded.

(in reply to miya)
Post #: 356
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 11:49:59 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Unit leader losses and replacements, or possibly manually changing them.

Consolidation (dissolving) of units. Was more of a german practice, than for the western allies though.

A replacement of men an material system, particuarly for longer operation games.



Consolidation already happens in game I think..units when low on men are disbanded and they are sent to fill up other units.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 357
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/30/2013 11:59:01 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Unit leader losses and replacements, or possibly manually changing them.

Consolidation (dissolving) of units. Was more of a german practice, than for the western allies though.

A replacement of men an material system, particuarly for longer operation games.



Consolidation already happens in game I think..units when low on men are disbanded and they are sent to fill up other units.


Yep, I meant manually consolidating units, not the automatic ones, when certain units are as good as destroyed. Say...purposely merging 2 x 20-30% strength units, or feeding them to other units, to get them up full strength again.

_____________________________

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 #: 358
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/31/2013 1:04:07 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
In the AAR review part of the game, I'd like to be able to see what the enemy supply levels were, as well as their strength as a proportion of starting strength.

Along with wanting to know abo/ut individual unit combat effectiveness (the tank company I had on the hill all game, did they actually hit anything), I want to know the answers to questions like 'that group of enemy units I managed to cut off, how close were they to running out of ammo?'

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 359
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/31/2013 12:28:11 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Some of these AAR requests go against the principle of not providing perfect intel. In real life commanders would never know the answers to some of these questions.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   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

0.121