Matrix Games Forums

The fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch!
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 >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/1/2010 9:37:49 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

This is why I think they should list radios and maybe wire gear as equipment. Only units with functioning comms gear (some radios only function when a unit has basics (i.e. batteries)) should be able to call in artillery.


Radios weren't the only tools that were used to communicate with arty assets, though. Especially on fixed frontlines, the Germans mostly used their field telephones to call in arty support, but even with moving frontlines, field telephones were still widely used. For instance, German Infantry Gun Coys employed a radio car (in order to communicate with the forward arty observer), but also a car with a switchboard hosting a telephone exchange crew. In addition, motorbike messengers (Kradmelder) could be sent in order to establish contact with a line company's arty liaison officer, or with the Bn/Rgt commander.
The messenger system was used all through the war and used by Army and SS, either as backup system or to maintain a certain level of secrecy (eg. when setting up the offensive in the Ardennes).
That said, the Germans did not need radios to call in and receive arty support.
I don't think that US/British forces were using field telephones often, but I know that they had employed runners or messengers as well, occasionally at least.


< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/1/2010 9:41:25 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 Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 61
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/1/2010 10:40:54 PM   
Deathtreader


Posts: 716
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline
Hi all,

Here's another one to add to my 2 earlier posts (numbers 42 and 56) on this thread.......

How about a dedicated counter battery mission button for artillery units? The AI sometimes does a decent job of this when on call but often has other priorities that occasionally mystify me. I would like to be able to at least make it the priority fire mission for a designated battery or so.
Thanks.

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 62
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/2/2010 12:18:59 AM   
Deathtreader


Posts: 716
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline


and................ sequential tasking.

and.......... triggers as well.



Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to Deathtreader)
Post #: 63
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/2/2010 2:37:02 AM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4039
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
A replay.

Close Combat has a replay.

The replay file is a separate file so it can be uploaded to the forum and people can download it and watch it.

The option to watch the replay from one side or the other.

The ability to stop a replay at any time, step in and continue the battle as though it were not a replay.

-

(in reply to Deathtreader)
Post #: 64
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/2/2010 8:50:02 AM   
ElchDivision


Posts: 33
Joined: 5/27/2010
From: Deep inside the Reich
Status: offline

I would certainly vote in favour of a subscription model to finance future expansion packs (Eastern Front, 1939/40 Blitzkrieg etc). If that would assure a regular supply of new battles, maps and units I'd be a happy camper.

Grüße

Rob

_____________________________

http://www.gilgenbachs-eifel.com/wk2
Rest peacefully in foreign soil - Never forgotten

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 65
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/2/2010 11:54:48 AM   
sharper


Posts: 271
Joined: 5/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElchDivision


I would certainly vote in favour of a subscription model to finance future expansion packs (Eastern Front, 1939/40 Blitzkrieg etc). If that would assure a regular supply of new battles, maps and units I'd be a happy camper.

Grüße

Rob


So would I

_____________________________

All the best
Stephen

(in reply to ElchDivision)
Post #: 66
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/3/2010 1:52:31 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2769
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
Can we have friendly fog of war?  You won't know the condition and location of your subbordinate units until they are able to send you a SITREP.
Already implemented in games like POA2 and Flashpoint Germany.

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to sharper)
Post #: 67
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/3/2010 3:43:31 PM   
Haiku

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
* A 3D map "a la" Google Map will be a blast. I dream about switching between 2D/3D map during game play.

* Improve scenario selection screen. Many room for improvements here, such as numbers of units involved, overall complexity of the scenario, a map overview, ...

* Remove, or at least rethink, the gamey "fire" button.

* Clicking on a message focus on the unit that trigger it.

* E&S panel should provides actual numbers and starting numbers for equipment. So if you you have "M4 Sherman 3/5" you know you already lost 2 Sherman.

* Order delay could be set distinctly for both side. Thus I could play with painful realistic delay, but let the AI on realistic delay, to reduce the burden on its shoulders.

* Lessen the efficiency of weak scattered units lost behind enemy lines. Unless commando units, they should have very low morale, very higher order delay or even stay in route status until the situation improves for them. IMO, they are too much pain (both for me or for the AI) than they historically should have.

* Improve player control on recon mission: Maybe add a recon task, or rather a recon checkable option. Range of Sight should definitely increase when a unit is fully deployed on a well known area, than when moving on an unknown road path.

* Replay.

* Option to relocate HQ without affecting subordinates.

* Improve AI: It's already one of the best AI around the place. So it really worth the effort to improve it even further, to achieve excellency. In my opinion it works very well on "tactical" level or how to achieve tasks, such as assign units roles to attack a village, but lack on the "strategic" level, i.e on what those tasks should be. It had a hard time about global topology of the map (choke point, area control, defensive line...) and about securing its assess and its supply lines. I know it's not an easy task, especially since nothing is scripted, but still, AI is a major feature of this game.



(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 68
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/4/2010 4:25:30 AM   
emerson

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 3/24/2009
From: Fort Worth
Status: offline
Path duration is an awesome addition; how about the distance of the path listed too?

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 69
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/4/2010 8:20:42 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17793
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Why not I say!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to emerson)
Post #: 70
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/4/2010 5:31:44 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haiku

* A 3D map "a la" Google Map will be a blast. I dream about switching between 2D/3D map during game play.

* Improve scenario selection screen. Many room for improvements here, such as numbers of units involved, overall complexity of the scenario, a map overview, ...

* Remove, or at least rethink, the gamey "fire" button.

* Clicking on a message focus on the unit that trigger it.

* E&S panel should provides actual numbers and starting numbers for equipment. So if you you have "M4 Sherman 3/5" you know you already lost 2 Sherman.

* Order delay could be set distinctly for both side. Thus I could play with painful realistic delay, but let the AI on realistic delay, to reduce the burden on its shoulders.

* Lessen the efficiency of weak scattered units lost behind enemy lines. Unless commando units, they should have very low morale, very higher order delay or even stay in route status until the situation improves for them. IMO, they are too much pain (both for me or for the AI) than they historically should have.

* Improve player control on recon mission: Maybe add a recon task, or rather a recon checkable option. Range of Sight should definitely increase when a unit is fully deployed on a well known area, than when moving on an unknown road path.

* Replay.

* Option to relocate HQ without affecting subordinates.

* Improve AI: It's already one of the best AI around the place. So it really worth the effort to improve it even further, to achieve excellency. In my opinion it works very well on "tactical" level or how to achieve tasks, such as assign units roles to attack a village, but lack on the "strategic" level, i.e on what those tasks should be. It had a hard time about global topology of the map (choke point, area control, defensive line...) and about securing its assess and its supply lines. I know it's not an easy task, especially since nothing is scripted, but still, AI is a major feature of this game.





I second all points....very good indeed.

Here is a link to how I think the 3D map could work...its in a game already...

LINKBATTLECOMMAND

If the above game had a AI then it would be good competition for this game.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Haiku)
Post #: 71
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/4/2010 5:32:25 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: emerson

Path duration is an awesome addition; how about the distance of the path listed too?


+1

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to emerson)
Post #: 72
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/4/2010 5:43:23 PM   
TMO

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
A couple of things I'd like to see in future games, though these have particular reference to Normandy.

1 Amphibious landings
2 Off-shore artillery
2 Units growing in strength during the scenario

In relation to point 3 for instance, Lt Col Otway's 9 Bn 6 Abn attack om the Merville battery. The longer you wait for the unit to grow in strength the more prepared/determined the enemy response. However this last request may be better simulated at company level rather than the level of scale in this game.

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 6/5/2010 8:11:34 AM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 73
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/5/2010 12:34:26 PM   
DanO

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/4/2010
Status: offline
It would be great if reattaching units didn't cause a full reorganisation or at least didn't cause subordinates who are already committed from having their plans changed. Would it be possible for the reattached units to be, say, moved into a reserve position or perhaps for the HQ to find a gap that needs plugging? My reasoning is that, if a commander did receive reinforcements, which is pretty much what reattaching does, then they'd look to see where they can be utilised in the current plan rather than creating a new one.

(in reply to TMO)
Post #: 74
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/5/2010 1:26:39 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17793
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
DanO,

Good idea.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to DanO)
Post #: 75
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/6/2010 12:35:57 PM   
jnpoint


Posts: 297
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: Holstebro, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Haiku

* A 3D map "a la" Google Map will be a blast. I dream about switching between 2D/3D map during game play.

* Improve scenario selection screen. Many room for improvements here, such as numbers of units involved, overall complexity of the scenario, a map overview, ...

* Remove, or at least rethink, the gamey "fire" button.

* Clicking on a message focus on the unit that trigger it.

* E&S panel should provides actual numbers and starting numbers for equipment. So if you you have "M4 Sherman 3/5" you know you already lost 2 Sherman.

* Order delay could be set distinctly for both side. Thus I could play with painful realistic delay, but let the AI on realistic delay, to reduce the burden on its shoulders.

* Lessen the efficiency of weak scattered units lost behind enemy lines. Unless commando units, they should have very low morale, very higher order delay or even stay in route status until the situation improves for them. IMO, they are too much pain (both for me or for the AI) than they historically should have.

* Improve player control on recon mission: Maybe add a recon task, or rather a recon checkable option. Range of Sight should definitely increase when a unit is fully deployed on a well known area, than when moving on an unknown road path.

* Replay.

* Option to relocate HQ without affecting subordinates.

* Improve AI: It's already one of the best AI around the place. So it really worth the effort to improve it even further, to achieve excellency. In my opinion it works very well on "tactical" level or how to achieve tasks, such as assign units roles to attack a village, but lack on the "strategic" level, i.e on what those tasks should be. It had a hard time about global topology of the map (choke point, area control, defensive line...) and about securing its assess and its supply lines. I know it's not an easy task, especially since nothing is scripted, but still, AI is a major feature of this game.





I second all points....very good indeed.

Here is a link to how I think the 3D map could work...its in a game already...

LINKBATTLECOMMAND

If the above game had a AI then it would be good competition for this game.


This looks very good - agreed!!! 3D map!

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 76
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/6/2010 8:16:09 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Yeah Battle Command 3d is perfect. Relly shows what can be done with a game like this in 3D.

If Battle Command had the AI of Panther games we would have a winner alround.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jnpoint)
Post #: 77
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/6/2010 10:44:46 PM   
IDontThinkSo


Posts: 64
Joined: 5/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yeah Battle Command 3d is perfect. Relly shows what can be done with a game like this in 3D.

If Battle Command had the AI of Panther games we would have a winner alround.


I sure hope not. I find the 2D graphics, really, really beautiful and easy on the eyes, whereas BC is way too "busy" for my taste. Besides, being in the commander's shoes does not mean I'm hovering over the battlefield in a balloon or something.

I also think developing a solid 3D engine would increase the development costs and hence the price.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 78
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/6/2010 11:10:21 PM   
jnpoint


Posts: 297
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: Holstebro, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IDontThinkSo


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yeah Battle Command 3d is perfect. Relly shows what can be done with a game like this in 3D.

If Battle Command had the AI of Panther games we would have a winner alround.


I sure hope not. I find the 2D graphics, really, really beautiful and easy on the eyes, whereas BC is way too "busy" for my taste. Besides, being in the commander's shoes does not mean I'm hovering over the battlefield in a balloon or something.

I also think developing a solid 3D engine would increase the development costs and hence the price.


Maybe you are right about 'easy on the eye', but for me it looks more like a boardgame than a computergame with these maps.
And sorry it's not because I want to be condescending towards the great work that has been done with this game (far from), I like the many features too, although I am still struggling to figure out what to do, but I find it too 'cheap' with 2d graphics and no music.
Here is probably some hardcore wargamers which have a different opinion, but this is now my opinion.
And I don't care about the price - it's the product that is importent!!

(in reply to IDontThinkSo)
Post #: 79
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 2:21:06 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2769
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Yeah Battle Command 3d is perfect. Relly shows what can be done with a game like this in 3D.


World War 2 commanders don't see the action in 3D.
They looks at flat map. 3D might just take away the immersion and make it just like any other RTS.


_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 80
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 2:26:50 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Hey I'm happy with 2D. It's just Battle Command is the way it should be done if it went 3D.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 81
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 4:08:55 AM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4039
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


Its a message about campaigns.......I have come across a few .... posts.....where the power needed was mentioned. It has been debated several times now......




My impression of those discussions, was that a campaign would continue to be played at company level.

But if all the companies were merged unit one unit labelled a battalion, the processing problem goes away.

-

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 82
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 5:40:51 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17793
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Back in RDOA we had Bn sized units, but they didn't really work that well. It's a scale thing. We really need to modify the combat system to better handle larger units. And that's a big job.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 83
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 6:11:27 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2453
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
This is really hard. I say that because there are some fairly minute and sophisticated functions that the game-engine, as is, doesn't do particularly well. For example, German RECCE units don't really fight as portrayed in the game. To be effective, they'd break up into little combined-arms battle-groups to do their job. That comment isn't really intended as a criticism of the game, BTW. Rather, it's all about trade-offs. The game, AA as I still call it, is at its best when operations are modeled at the company level. If you move the whole deal to battalion level, you'll gain the ability to play larger operations, but you'll lose some of the fidelity that's the hallmark of the series. As is so often the case, there's no free lunch.

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 84
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 9:35:40 AM   
Haiku

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
About the 3D map, I agree it could be less readable than the actual 2D map if done improperly.

But I don't want a "real" 3D map, with trees, villages, rocks and factories modeled (as "mesh"). Just the landscape's shape upon which is applied the same map texture than for the 2D map and simple unit sprites. Nothing more. This should be readable enough, even more than the 2D one, as far as I'm concerned.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 85
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 2:30:41 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8054
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haiku

About the 3D map, I agree it could be less readable than the actual 2D map if done improperly.

But I don't want a "real" 3D map, with trees, villages, rocks and factories modeled (as "mesh"). Just the landscape's shape upon which is applied the same map texture than for the 2D map and simple unit sprites. Nothing more. This should be readable enough, even more than the 2D one, as far as I'm concerned.


Did you check my link to Battle Command above?

They do it the way you envisage.

Also keep it at company level please Dave.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Haiku)
Post #: 86
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 3:05:04 PM   
Haiku

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Did you check my link to Battle Command above?

They do it the way you envisage.



You're right, it's really what I want.

http://www.historicalsoftware.com/BC_Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=102&fullsize=1



Really, it's not about fancy graphics, I don't care (so much). But IMO such 3D maps improve UI, immersion and overall gameplay.

I agree it's not the most important feature, and I'm afraid the cost for such a feature may be high.


(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 87
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/7/2010 5:27:50 PM   
Nico165


Posts: 11
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
If this hasn't been said yet - a divisional color tool option that you can toggle on and off, like in HPS campaigns series. This would prove very useful in crowded scenarios around Bastogne !

(in reply to Haiku)
Post #: 88
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/8/2010 12:36:04 AM   
Arimus

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline
Larger scenarios.

Expanded Artillery fire direction (radio and FO with unit, comm failures, calling unit status checks, etc)

Also break out artillery ammo from regular ammo, it needs its own category (Artillery Ammo, Ammo, Basic, Fuel)

(in reply to Nico165)
Post #: 89
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/8/2010 12:36:41 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1503
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

....If you move the whole deal to battalion level, you'll gain the ability to play larger operations, but you'll lose some of the fidelity that's the hallmark of the series. As is so often the case, there's no free lunch.


Correct. The dedicated reserve pool/class I suggested on page 1 would allow to cover different levels of fidelity, though. You could create Kampfgruppen, but the engine would then also be able to divide units on the fly, initiated by the AI or the player.

And that way, you'd have your Recon groups spread out and rejoin the unit's core/skeleton in a 100% historically correct manner. The engine could then use different doctrines for nations that did not make (extensive) use of Recce units.
I would have to double-check some OOBs I found a while ago, but if I am not mistaken, the French did not have many fast (+light) armored units (employed as Recon units) in 1940, which reduced their Recon range/effectiveness.
Doctrine/equipment and the ability to divide units (or lack therof, depending on the nation) could then be coupled to render each side's recon philosophy in a historically correct manner, with what I'd call flexible resolution/fidelity.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/8/2010 12:58:36 AM >


_____________________________

"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 Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.207