Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/21/2010 4:52:39 AM   
Frank.Costanzo

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline
Is there a way to auto determine distance from one point to the next?

If not, I would like to see a distance indicator at the end of the LOS line.

Also, I would like to see a more dramatic graphic at the when showing rocket FFE.

Frank

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 121
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/21/2010 9:16:40 AM   
RayWolfe

 

Posts: 1548
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Kent in the UK
Status: offline
Well, you have the KM grid. In normal combat (WWII) you would take the KMs (miles) then take tenths and hey presto, you're within 100 metres.
They didn't have GPS back then!

(in reply to Frank.Costanzo)
Post #: 122
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/21/2010 12:22:59 PM   
Frank.Costanzo

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline
Understood. Still, there are many weapon platforms in the game with various ranges, and using the grid to determine distance many times during the game is not very efficient. Having a distance indicator at the end of the LOS line would make the game more enjoyable, and give the commander the ability to quickly evaluate the battlefiled.

Frank

(in reply to RayWolfe)
Post #: 123
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/21/2010 1:24:19 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
How about when you click on a weapon in the est you get a circle (like you have now) for it's min and max range...at the moment we can see a generic one for anit personel and anit armour.

Frank what graphic do you mean?

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Frank.Costanzo)
Post #: 124
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/21/2010 1:38:06 PM   
Franklin Nimitz

 

Posts: 541
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline
How about an Autosave with adjustable save time in game time units? Also with the option of overwriting the existing autosave or giving it a unique name in order to save a game series. <steps along the way to a 'playback' feature.

It's be nice to autosave every [set] period of game time for AAR's and ctd's. 20 minutes of real time can be many hours of game time lost.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 125
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/22/2010 2:57:52 AM   
Frank.Costanzo

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline
I like to check out LOS's from areas on the map that I have not occupied yet. If I am checking a LOS from some unoccupied postion (to maybe a choke point), I would also like to check the distance from point to point using the LOS line, so I can determine the right type of unit to move to that postion. A distance indicator at the end of the LOS line would be great!

Frank

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 126
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/22/2010 9:11:52 AM   
RayWolfe

 

Posts: 1548
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Kent in the UK
Status: offline
Sorry guys. I'm not disagreeing that it would be great to have a distance indicator, I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to have it in a WWII context. We have all grown up with hex based games where you, the player, has god like abilities. This game is trying to simulate a real commanders perspective. A real commander takes distances from grids on the map, not laser measuring instruments or GPS systems.

(in reply to Frank.Costanzo)
Post #: 127
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/22/2010 9:23:00 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Ray,

I agree....maybe need to change the way we think about wargames with this particular game system. I think alot of the problems that are being reported are because we are so used to other systems that it requires a total rethink to analyse what is going and what is WAD and why it is WAD.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to RayWolfe)
Post #: 128
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/22/2010 10:53:14 PM   
Franklin Nimitz

 

Posts: 541
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline
You can measure distances already-just count the tick marks on the LOS tool

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 129
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/22/2010 11:12:43 PM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4033
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

You can measure distances already-just count the tick marks on the LOS tool



Yes, the marks are 100 meter intervals.

-



(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 130
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/26/2010 11:34:56 AM   
Count Sessine

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 10/30/2003
Status: offline
Many good suggestions in this thread - I'd like to add these:

1/ Map: I'm not a bad map reader, but if a 2D map is way to go, then I'd like to see more information in it, like overlays (height, impassability etc) - as it is it is sometimes difficult to decode. A 3D map would of course be sweet :-)

2/ Better implementation of artillery command and control. It seems unrealistic to be able to call in fire missions with dozens and dozens of artillery batteries within 2 mins on any point of the map with the 'bombard' order. There need to be some kind of artillery organisation and C&C restrictions. I know its probably a tall order with big differences in how different countries organised their artillery, capabilities in training and equipment (radios), circumstances (were wires laid out) and many other things... but any kind of abstracted system is better than the current one, imo.





(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 131
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/26/2010 2:03:20 PM   
RayWolfe

 

Posts: 1548
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Kent in the UK
Status: offline
Here is the dilemma:
In 1 you want it to be unrealistic in the sense that a commander at the time had ONLY 2-d maps. In two you want it to be unrealistic because it was possible for big shoots to be called at a few minutes notice.
I go for realism every time.
Poor developers can't win!

(in reply to Count Sessine)
Post #: 132
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/26/2010 5:37:09 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Z axis is the height....just right click on the map

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to RayWolfe)
Post #: 133
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/27/2010 9:01:59 AM   
Morg

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 6/26/2010
Status: offline
Hi,

I am new to this type of wargame and I find it very hard to evaluate my own performance. I would like more statistics about kills/death when reviewing the final situation. As it is now I have no idea how effective for example my anti-tank units were. I know kills isn't everything but it would still be a good indicator to which units I placed at good positions during a defence.

The ideal would of course be a list of exactly the equipment/men each unit destroyed, but just a kill indicator would go a long way!

Regards
/Martin

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 134
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/28/2010 9:35:52 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

Sorry guys. I'm not disagreeing that it would be great to have a distance indicator, I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to have it in a WWII context. We have all grown up with hex based games where you, the player, has god like abilities. This game is trying to simulate a real commanders perspective. A real commander takes distances from grids on the map, not laser measuring instruments or GPS systems.


Right. And how does he take distances from a point between the grid -> then half across the map -> to a point between another 2 grid lines? With a pair of compasses and a ruler.
He'd then compute say something like 5" on the map = XY kilometers in RL, and he'd instantly know the "exact" (well at least with the corresponding accuracy of common WW2 maps) length or range of a given line/circle.

A RL commander could touch the map, fold it, draw on it, carry it with him, measure it, eat it, stomp on it, sleep on it, or use it as cover when he'd decide to take a nap.

The players can't do these things.
So you could give them compass and ruler, at least.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/28/2010 9:51:13 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 RayWolfe)
Post #: 135
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/28/2010 10:31:27 PM   
RayWolfe

 

Posts: 1548
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Kent in the UK
Status: offline
So.
Use a ruler on the screen!
Sleep under a laptop.
Eat off the keyboard.
I do all these. Don't you?

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 136
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/30/2010 2:10:37 AM   
moet


Posts: 170
Joined: 5/18/2008
From: Montréal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Sorry guys. I'm not disagreeing that it would be great to have a distance indicator, I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to have it in a WWII context. We have all grown up with hex based games where you, the player, has god like abilities. This game is trying to simulate a real commanders perspective. A real commander takes distances from grids on the map, not laser measuring instruments or GPS systems.

You are certainly right. But is it realistic that in BFTB we can get a quite fine information with the LOS and AOS tools on any part of the map, including what exactly the enemies can see of our forces from their positions or what exactly we will be able to see when we will reach a far-away position ? I think this is about giving a god eye to the player, which I personally appreciate a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
So. Use a ruler on the screen!

The demand from Costanzo is not unrealistic : a distance indicator would just give the player the information that a real commander would get using a simple rule on his map.

< Message edited by moet -- 6/30/2010 2:29:24 AM >

(in reply to RayWolfe)
Post #: 137
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/30/2010 2:33:33 AM   
moet


Posts: 170
Joined: 5/18/2008
From: Montréal
Status: offline
My suggestion : add an "UNDO" button that give the player the opportunity to cancel the order he just gave. The canceling window would remains few seconds or till the player give another order.

(in reply to moet)
Post #: 138
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/30/2010 2:44:52 AM   
Franklin Nimitz

 

Posts: 541
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline
ummm....everyone....its already there
quote:

ORIGINAL: moet

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Sorry guys. I'm not disagreeing that it would be great to have a distance indicator, I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to have it in a WWII context. We have all grown up with hex based games where you, the player, has god like abilities. This game is trying to simulate a real commanders perspective. A real commander takes distances from grids on the map, not laser measuring instruments or GPS systems.

You are certainly right. But is it realistic that in BFTB we can get a quite fine information with the LOS and AOS tools on any part of the map, including what exactly the enemies can see of our forces from their positions or what exactly we will be able to see when we will reach a far-away position ? I think this is about giving a god eye to the player, which I personally appreciate a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
So. Use a ruler on the screen!

The demand from Costanzo is not unrealistic : a distance indicator would just give the player the information that a real commander would get using a simple rule on his map.


(in reply to moet)
Post #: 139
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/30/2010 7:34:05 AM   
Frank.Costanzo

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline
Yes, I see now that a distance indicator of sorts is "already there". The realisim argument goes away because the distance indicator feature is already included in the game LOS tool. From my point of view, I do not like counting up the ticks on the LOS tool, so it becomes a matter of enhancing a existing feature by adding a number at the end of the LOS tool to indicate the current distance.

Frank

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 140
RE: Future Directions - Features - 6/30/2010 3:58:35 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank.Costanzo

....I do not like counting up the ticks on the LOS tool, so it becomes a matter of enhancing a existing feature by adding a number at the end of the LOS tool to indicate the current distance.

Same here.


_____________________________

"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 Frank.Costanzo)
Post #: 141
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/1/2010 2:10:01 AM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4033
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank.Costanzo
I do not like counting up the ticks on the LOS tool, so it becomes a matter of enhancing a existing feature by adding a number at the end of the LOS tool to indicate the current distance.



I agree. It is a computer game so we should not have to count.

-


(in reply to Frank.Costanzo)
Post #: 142
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/1/2010 9:04:05 AM   
Pergite!

 

Posts: 461
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: The temperate climate zone
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moet

My suggestion : add an "UNDO" button that give the player the opportunity to cancel the order he just gave. The canceling window would remains few seconds or till the player give another order.


Why not just pause the game, think things through then give the order. If you want to undo it, then just delete it and give another order. We are striving for realism regarding this level of command, then a floating undo button to erase time hardly is the solution.

(in reply to moet)
Post #: 143
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/1/2010 9:35:48 AM   
RayWolfe

 

Posts: 1548
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Kent in the UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
I agree. It is a computer game so we should not have to count.

Agreed. What would also be great is a CRT, a terrain effects table, the ability to show likely results before an attack. Showing the dice throw would help. How about an undo button? Column shifts, step losses, tactical bonuses shown on the screen would all help, after all it's a computer game. We shouldn't have to calculate!
Tell you what, if you overlaid the map with hexes and had to move each unit individually whilst taking turns, that would be really cool.
<sarcasm mode off>
Cheers
Ray

(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 144
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/2/2010 2:11:20 AM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4033
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

<sarcasm mode off>
Cheers
Ray



The developer's are smart enough to provide a measuring too.

The tool could be enhanced by having numbers on the scale. The other option is to remove the measuring tool.

Measuring distance using compass map and geometry was common till the GPs was invented.

-

(in reply to RayWolfe)
Post #: 145
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/5/2010 3:19:56 PM   
Frank.Costanzo

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline
I would like to see the "fire" order to have the ability to lock on to a specific target. If that target moves during the duration of the fire order, then the firing unit would still be locked on to that target as it moves. This would be a enhancement to the direct fire feature that already exists the game.

Frank

(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 146
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/6/2010 11:17:51 PM   
Deathtreader


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank.Costanzo

I would like to see the "fire" order to have the ability to lock on to a specific target. If that target moves during the duration of the fire order, then the firing unit would still be locked on to that target as it moves. This would be a enhancement to the direct fire feature that already exists the game.

Frank


Good one!!

It might also help solve the problems with enemy remnants haunting your rear areas, trashing your supply columns, and calling in arty strikes............

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 Frank.Costanzo)
Post #: 147
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/7/2010 12:03:40 AM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
I seem to recall this being discussed before but I can't seem to find it.

Add to the direct fire order the ability for a unit to fire on another unit instead of a piece of land. The target unit must obviously be in the LOS of the attacking unit and identified under the Current Intell (that may be obvious too)

I'm not sure how that discussion ended either but I had a situation last battle where I wanted my Shermans to fire on a unit of PzIVs but they kept firing on the spot I picked on (dead center of the Pz unit box) ... even when the the Pz Unit moved away from the point I picked ... and it was still in LOS.

Of course when the attacked unit moves out of the LOS the firing stops.

(in reply to Deathtreader)
Post #: 148
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/9/2010 12:58:32 AM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
Is there no input on this one?

today I was playing Hell on Wheels and I had two Allied Armored Companies (each with 9 to 11 tanks each, a mix of 75 and 76mm equipped shermans) ... given orders for a fire mission on one Axis armored (Panzer) company with 11 tanks (Panthers). I gave them the fire order and the shooting started. But a few seconds after I gave the order, the Panther unit moved from the spot I gave the fire order but my tanks kept firing on the same piece of dirt. You have to be able to target a unit, in addition to targetting a piece of dirt.

You can't tell me tankers can not follow a moving target as long as its in the LOS.

For good armored combat this needs to be addressed. I know from playing SteelBeasts until my fingers bled, once a tanker has a bead on a group of tanks, they won't let go until they've blown a few turrets off ... and they especially won't keep firing at a piece of ground if there's no MBT's there to shoot at.


(in reply to hank)
Post #: 149
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/9/2010 11:04:43 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

I seem to recall this being discussed before but I can't seem to find it.

Add to the direct fire order the ability for a unit to fire on another unit instead of a piece of land. The target unit must obviously be in the LOS of the attacking unit and identified under the Current Intell (that may be obvious too)


Yes, that had been discussed before, I suggested a "Lock-on"-function to track foes, say you detach an AT Coy, then you have to use the Fire command in order to get them firing like madmen and actually switch to max ROF. This is quite cumersome. Once a given unit is tasked with a max ROF/defend order, it should actually stick to the order, without the user having to intervene.
I also had stragglers in mind (lock-on -> to chase an enemy unit automatically), and now I'm thinking that this could be either implemented with an "infinite task" option, or with a duration function.

Others seemed to like these ideas, but I don't think it caught Dave's interest. I can't remember getting input from him, at least.


< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 7/10/2010 12:31:38 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 hank)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.139