Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

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

....The SS Panzer corps is deployed to attack thru the worst possible terrain against a full strength enemy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain_Ahab

Some ideas for greater immersion.

1.  More staff officer type briefings. Eg. Chief of Staff informs you what he thinks enemy intentions may be, or suggests plans.
2. In game scripting, for example an Operation Cobra scenario would require carpet bombing by the US/British airforce and this could be included, but because it was a strategic decision, it would be outside of your control.
3. The ability to plan an artillery barrage. Useful for set-piece battle type scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grim.Reaper

I know this probably won't make it in, but after playing other games that have this feature, I find myself missing it. When moving around the map, I would like to be able to click and drag the map which allows for better positioning of the map. Although scrolling to the edge if screens is fine, I just think you can get more precise if clicking and moving. I would also still keep in the edge scrolling as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: boogada

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grim.Reaper

I know this probably won't make it in, but after playing other games that have this feature, I find myself missing it. When moving around the map, I would like to be able to click and drag the map which allows for better positioning of the map. Although scrolling to the edge if screens is fine, I just think you can get more precise if clicking and moving. I would also still keep in the edge scrolling as well.

Wow...thank you so much. That is exactly what I wanted!
this feature is in BftB. Right click and move the mouse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi all,

Just some things I'd like to see:

1/ A more realistic routine for mounting/dismounting. I know the current process is only a temp. routine but greatly look forward to something a little more robust.

2/ A seperate movement type/class for tracked equipment. The current 2 classes (foot and motorized) do not (IMO) accurately reflect the differences between a tank and a truck in varying terrain and ground conditions. Unless there is already something under the hood that is not discernable to the user??

3/ The ability to create forces and make attachments etc. from the OOB lists. Control clicking off the map in unit congested areas can be an adventure in fat fingers for some of us.

4/ The ability to capture and use at least some basics and fuel from surrendered or destroyed enemy units. Especially enemy bases. Not ammo for obvious reasons.

5/ The ability for units within the same force -- at the lowest level ( i.e. companies and platoons within the same CURRENT battalion or company level force structure) -- to be able to share basics/fuel/ammo between themselves when in very close proximity to each other and no spotted enemy units are around. This could be a manual process initiated by the lassoo tecnique followed by an order to rebalance supplies within the force.

6/ The ability to ascertain whether reinforcements are foot or motorized (and hopefully mechanized if #2 above sees the light of day).

7/ Reinforcements more than 24 hours away should not always be visible to the player as there were often occasions when formations only became available at the proverbial last minute. A dynamic reinforcement list. Sort of a friendly fog of war.

8/ In line with #7 above we should not have as much precise info on reinforcements that are hours or days out of the battle. Their actual strength etc. should only become truly apparent at the time of entry. More friendly fog of war......

9/ Routing units should be losing/abondoning way more of their heavy equipment than is the case if they are truly disorganized and fleeing for their very lives. Maybe rout less and retreat more?? Or perhaps a new condition somewhere between what we currently call routing and retreating??

10/ More fog of war when it comes to things like always knowing whether a particular enemy held bridge is primed or not. Also applies to new features like mines. Ooops, unit "X" just plowed into a minefield and sustained "Y" per cent losses. Only then does the new minefield terrain graphic become apparent. Sometimes we know ahead of time and sometimes we don't........

Those are my top ten and do not include Arjuna's existing announced list of enhacements such as a cross river assault process, amphibeous assaults, off map artillery ......... all of which I would also like to see!!



Rob.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyrspawn

More feedback from high command, the magical instant appearance of 30 corps in HTTR for example. It would be nice if high command can "wire" you a message saying "Hey these guys just broke through our lines and are barreling toward you" in a little box like the end mission box. It would also be cool if subordinate on map officers could provide stuff like "I need artillery support" or "I am unable to accomplish my current objective with my force level" etc

Very rarely should a gigantic enemy formation (like a division) appear out of nowhere.

ALSO:

The ability to click on an event text and zoom to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

Arjuna,

This was something I brought up a couple of years ago and hopefully you can add it into the next title.

Pretty simple gripe I had mainly with COTA as for me, it was a battle I knew little to nothing about. Front end interface, when selecting battles without going through the text files it was very difficult to figure out how each battle linked from one to the next and what the timeline was. When selecting a scenario, it would be great if they were displayed on a map of the entire theatre, showing the location and time of the battle in relation to the other scenarios. This way you could give the player a guide as to the scenario they are playing and how it actually fits into the bigger picture of the entire battle. I found myself enjoying the COTA scenarios but having no clue as to how or why I was fighting them in the grand scheme of things.

I hope you understand my point and it kind of makes sense! Im downloading BftB as I type

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

Arjuna,

This was something I brought up a couple of years ago and hopefully you can add it into the next title.

Pretty simple gripe I had mainly with COTA as for me, it was a battle I knew little to nothing about. Front end interface, when selecting battles without going through the text files it was very difficult to figure out how each battle linked from one to the next and what the timeline was. When selecting a scenario, it would be great if they were displayed on a map of the entire theatre, showing the location and time of the battle in relation to the other scenarios. This way you could give the player a guide as to the scenario they are playing and how it actually fits into the bigger picture of the entire battle. I found myself enjoying the COTA scenarios but having no clue as to how or why I was fighting them in the grand scheme of things.

I hope you understand my point and it kind of makes sense! Im downloading BftB as I type

We came very close to developing code to implement this, so it may be a possibility for next time. Here's an example of what the graphic for "Race for Bastogne" would have looked like when you selected it on the scenario menu:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi,

Forgot to add on my above post (number 42) a way to target those pesky enemy remnants that haunt your rear areas, trash your supply columns, and call in incessant artillery strikes. I really don't think it's the role of the Divisional or Corps commander to personally supervise their pursuit and destruction, but if you don't you're entirely at the mercy of the six most dangerous enemy troops on the map.

Rob.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanO

Yep, that'd be good. Just a way to say "hello, commander performing such and such operation, I'm giving you this bunch of batteries as fire support. Use them sensibly.".

I also agree with tyrspawn: it'd be great to get more status reports from subordinates. If I'm at the corps level and I instruct a regiment to go off and perform a task, I'd really like more feedback from it or its divisional commander as to how the operation is proceeding. More than the failed/succeeded messages that seem to be the current limit. Information is key and, although it's possible to get all that information by trawling the OB and E&S tabs, it'd be nice to receive a digested version from subordinates. Otherwise I'm going to start removing those lazy officers from their commands...

If extra log messages were added, then it'd be pretty important to add a lot more filtering functionality, e.g. filtering by unit.