RE: Future Directions - Features: LOS

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The 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: LOS

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: LOS

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Future Directions - Features: LOS - 10/16/2010 3:42:06 AM

Franklin Nimitz

Posts: 541
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline

How about something where each time you (or the AI/subordinate) give an order, or a message/supply request is generated by the unit, a "Comms Check" is made? The reliability and thus likelihood of passing the comms check is a function of what kind/redundant types of communications gear is available, whether it's operable, how long you were stationary, etc. If you (or the unit) passes the check, then the order or message goes through (subject to orders delay). If not, well it keeps trying but the likelihood of a subsequent try could also be assessed, depending on circumstances. If a "messenger" was sent, there would be a calculated delay before the comms check was conducted (similar to a supply run), and a failure wouldn't necessarily be reported (he got shot on the way).

If units are out of communication for an extended period- say several hours, then it gets treated like a "potential target/unknown" depending on current sighting rules, modified to include the possibility of friendly units. This goes on until a comms check is passed and the unit can provide an up-to-date status report.

This would be neat if sequential/conditional orders were implemented- you could have troops literally under seperate AI command for extended periods. This could also be used to show the challenges of having different formations occupying the same real estate, or crossing paths. Friendly fire would have to be considered.

(in reply to johndoesecond)

Post #: 211

RE: Reinforcements - 10/16/2010 4:08:41 AM

Franklin Nimitz

Posts: 541
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline

I have an idea concerning reinforcements: How about variable reinforcements that a player could request on a VP-cost basis? There could still be a scripted reinforcement list, but we should recognize that in many of the historical scenarios, the arrival time and place of reinforcements as given are in response to requests for reinforcements due to the circumstances as they unfolded in the real battle. A player could 'request reinforcements' by asking for (historically available reserves or nearby forces) that may be available. The VP cost and time delay could be on sliding scales (kind of like the occupation VP locations work) depending on how readily the desired formation can be commited-e.g. a unit that historically was moving closer to the battle would have a VP cost and time delay that would decrease to a minimum late in the game. Or, a reserve that historically was available, but ended up being commited elsewhere could have a VP cost that escalates over time. If need be, units could be rushed forward at a premium (and fatigue hit). Likewise, units could held off-map for an end of game VP credit (or a higher in-game VP credit if you forego the unit permanently), or brought on in an emergency. A VP cost and time delay could also be assessed if you want to alter the entry location.

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)

Post #: 212

RE: Reinforcements - 10/16/2010 11:27:32 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

FN,

Nice ideas.

Re Radios. We originally planned to go down this route. We even have radios as a class of equipement. In the end though we decided against modelling them in great detail, only because time was running out and there were other more pressing priorities.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)

Post #: 213

RE: Reinforcements - 10/17/2010 2:50:15 PM

johndoesecond

Posts: 873
Joined: 8/3/2010
Status: offline

Hi Arjuna,

May I ask you what are your thoughts on the proposals and ideas about the LOS tools (see above my post from 10/15/2010 4:07:11 PM)?

I don't believe these would be too hard to implement.

Thanks.

< Message edited by johndoesecond -- 10/17/2010 2:53:22 PM >

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 214

RE: Future Directions - Features - 10/18/2010 7:29:49 AM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

I've just been trying the demo. Love it so far. But the changes in routing behavior since CotA seem to have a drawback.

I had a sherman company attacking some hopeless German flak unit near Lommsweiler. While they couldn't do jack to the Shermans, a German airstrike saved them. This destroyed one Sherman which made another promptly surrender. A little strange, but believable.

But after the Sherman coy had routed into the village, night fell and the flak unit moved nearby (presumably just to get into the objective zone). Even though there were friendly units all around, the flak unit still couldn't harm the Shermans, and there was plenty of room to retreat to, the Shermans just kept surrendering because they were still in route recovery. I ordered everyone nearby to attack and destroy the flak which they promptly did, but it was too late and the whole Sherman company surrendered.

I'm glad there are no more ping-pong routing units, but this seems a bit too far in the other direction. A routed unit should have a chance at pulling back again if there's such a clear chance, IMO.

< Message edited by ZBrisk -- 10/18/2010 7:32:00 AM >

(in reply to phredd1)

Post #: 215

RE: Future Directions - Features - 10/18/2010 8:59:24 PM

hawkeye_de

Posts: 16
Joined: 4/19/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

I would vote for post-wwii scenarios, especially Vietnam and other cold-war stuff.

Any chance that you provide a random mission/map generator? I think that game cries for procedural content generation :).

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 216

RE: Reinforcements - 10/18/2010 11:40:15 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: johndoesecond

Hi Arjuna,

May I ask you what are your thoughts on the proposals and ideas about the LOS tools (see above my post from 10/15/2010 4:07:11 PM)?

I don't believe these would be too hard to implement.

Thanks.

Yes it's a good suggestion.

I'm glad you believe it wouldn't be too hard to implement.

But actually you are right. We just need to find some screen realestate to put a control from which you can set the visibility condition. Thanks for the idea.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to johndoesecond)

Post #: 217

RE: Reinforcements - 11/10/2010 12:32:42 PM

johndoesecond

Posts: 873
Joined: 8/3/2010
Status: offline

Hi Dave, hi all,

If you read things I've been posting lately, you'll think I'm obsessed with troop movements. Well, I am!

So here's a little idea for a possible future direction.

From reading an answer by Dave in another post, I learned that there is something like a distance tolerance among units when they move in formation. Basically, that defines how far the advance guard is allowed to go ahead, and how far the main guard, hub, line fillers, read guard, ecc. are allowed to be among each other, before they begin to wait for each other.

Indeed, if I understood it well, in one post Dave said that he increased this tolerance in the latest patch.

Now, wouldn't it be useful to be able to set this tolerance directly in the order settings, instead of having it hard coded in the game engine?

There would be few interesting aspects if that's allowed, especially if one is commanding on higher echelon levels (regimental or higher).

Let me work through an example to explain it better.

Let say you give a Regt. with 2 Bns a move order. As things stand now, sometimes if one unit from one battalion encounters an enemy unit, the whole Regt. formation halts (within some margins of freedom within the whole formation). In this way, the whole regiment may be halted due to an enemy unit encountering a unit from, say, the rear guard battalion.
So, in other words, what you have is a situation where the read guard unit of the read guard battalion halts the whole regiment.

But, if one is able to set the distance tolerated among subordinates, and let's say I put it to maximum (or numerically, say, to 10 km), then the advance guard battalion could still carry on moving, even if the read guard battalion is halted.

So this new setting I'm talking about would really be a constraint on how "compact" you want the whole force to keep together while moving. And this IS a relevant operational level commanding decision.

In some cases you'd want them to stick together (say, when you expect there's a significant opposition force at the destination, so you want them all to arrive more or less at the same time). But in some other cases, you would prefer the battalions and - trickling it down - their subordinate companies to be able to carry on moving further on even if someone else in the formation is halted (say, this may be a more appropriate approach when you expect to encounter a lot of single scattered units along the way which you want to clear up or don't want to delay the whole battlegroup, something that for example is desirable during the crossing of the woods in the Elsborn Ridge scenario).

What do you think about all this?

Thank you for your attention.

Cheers.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 218

RE: Reinforcements - 12/28/2010 1:38:24 PM

nicwb

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline

I don't know if you're still taking suggestions - one thing I would like in the game is - better information as to when I'm calling an artillery strike too close to my own troops.

My battery commander (the AI) will give me a message that I'm trying to bombard outside of maximum range. But the only information I get about placing a barrage too close to my own troops - is when I'm told the fire mission is completed - that's after some minutes have elapsed. In this simulation time can be critical and a message similar to the "out of range" message would at least allow re-positioning of the artillery plot.

Thanks.

(in reply to johndoesecond)

Post #: 219

RE: Reinforcements - 12/28/2010 5:05:04 PM

simovitch

Posts: 3887
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

I don't know if you're still taking suggestions - one thing I would like in the game is - better information as to when I'm calling an artillery strike too close to my own troops.

My battery commander (the AI) will give me a message that I'm trying to bombard outside of maximum range. But the only information I get about placing a barrage too close to my own troops - is when I'm told the fire mission is completed - that's after some minutes have elapsed. In this simulation time can be critical and a message similar to the "out of range" message would at least allow re-positioning of the artillery plot.

Thanks.

I think "Freindlies in the way" is delayed maybe a few minutes but does come up before the end of the default mission length of 10 minutes.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to nicwb)

Post #: 220

RE: Reinforcements - 12/28/2010 5:43:35 PM

RayWolfe

Posts: 1544
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Kent in the UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb
But the only information I get about placing a barrage too close to my own troops - is when I'm told the fire mission is completed - that's after some minutes have elapsed.

The thing about this game is you cannot act as a god. On the real battlefield if an artillery shoot is made too close to friendly troops, you don't know immediately, you know when someone shouts at you! Try to get away from the old style war game thinking where the commander knows everything. You will be advised if friendlies are in the way in due course, meanwhile, as in real life, some of your guys die.
Just think about the number of friendly fire incidents today in modern conflicts and you will get some idea of the huge numbers of such incidents there were in 1944.

(in reply to nicwb)

Post #: 221

RE: Reinforcements - 12/29/2010 12:37:09 AM

nicwb

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline

Thanks for the replies Simovitch and RayWolfe.

I know the game does display a message -eventually but what concerns me is that if I have to lay artillery that close it usually means it's situation of some urgency and time is of the essence. (or it does given my hamfisted ability

).

To be honest Raywolfe, I don't think I'm asking to act as a god. The question becomes how far you abrogate your involvement to the game. BFTB is very good in removing or at least allowing you to delegate micromanagement to your subordinates (the AI) but if you delegate everything I feel it ceases to become a game and more a semi-interactive movie. The game allows intervention to a degree- but then again in RL the challenge for any senior officer is how much do you intervene ? Sometimes the senior officer might have more awareness of the significance of an event to the overall situation than a junior officer on the spot. At that point an order by the senior commander may be"acting as god" but I think that's what they do.

I suspect my real problem is the difficulty of placing a barrage on the map without making an estimation or guess) - (as I write this it occurs to me the LOS tool is gradated and might provide a partial solution to my problem - so thanks for making me think this out properly). I still think an immediate message would be of gameplay value though.

I think in RL the request for artillery support would come normally up the chain of command from the unit commander on the ground. He or another officer would also place the shots for the artillery support. But that means someone is spotting and calling in shots which gives something the game doesn't quite replicate - a man on the spot saying "map ref here","too close" or "too far" etc. The game replicates this well for normally occuring barrages but not "barred' strikes.

Perhaps the concept requires some examination. I understand from the tutorial vids that the restriction replicates US fire support doctorine. But as you say RL is something different. Inexperience, ineptitude, fear or simply worn out equipment all caused FF incidents - maybe the game should allow this too? As I undertstand it - airstrikes can result in FF incidents so why not artillery ? Or even some form of "error factor" based on unit training and experience ?

I started out wanting a simple message - now I'm suggesting programme changes

(in reply to RayWolfe)

Post #: 222

RE: Reinforcements - 12/29/2010 3:55:14 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Don't worry it happens to the best of us.

BTW you do know that arty will default to lifting their fire if friendlies are too close anbd you do have the option to ignore the automatic lifting and wear the consequences if your friendlies gte clobbered by your own fire.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to nicwb)

Post #: 223

RE: Reinforcements - 12/30/2010 6:23:56 AM

nicwb

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline

Arjuna,

don't tell me that !! I knew that the artillery will default to not firing if too close to friendlies but but I had the operation to ignore this !!?!!

Ignore what I said - and it's back to the manual then.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 224

RE: Reinforcements - 12/30/2010 9:04:25 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

A tick-box on the call-for-fire dialogue - I think it only applies to player called missions though, and the AI won't use it.

(in reply to nicwb)

Post #: 225

RE: Reinforcements - 1/1/2011 3:47:34 AM

nicwb

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline

Thanks Lieste !

Found it !

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 226

RE: Reinforcements - 1/24/2011 12:15:08 AM

save

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline

An idea, tanks and vehicles should have the ability to be immobilized by an attack. If they are routed or are retreating , the unit simply abandon the immobilized vehicles.
Given time though, they can be be repaired, specially in entrenched position or if they are not in direct contact with enemy / under fire.

Since I used to be a tanker IRL myself, I have witnessed so many occasions where we where left tanks for repair , in battle we would probably have abandoned them if we where in a retreat situation.

(in reply to nicwb)

Post #: 227

RE: Reinforcements - 1/24/2011 5:22:59 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

save,

A good suggestion. In fact it's on our wish list already.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to save)

Post #: 228

RE: Reinforcements - 1/24/2011 11:12:35 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 652
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

save,

A good suggestion. In fact it's on our wish list already.

Soooooooooooo................... any chance of a preview of what's on the list from all of the feedback in this thread (and others).

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 Arjuna)

Post #: 229

RE: Reinforcements - 1/24/2011 11:23:42 PM

wodin

Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

I asked that a couple of months back...I think they are going to be busy with Military contracts for awhile yet before anything is done again.

We will get the HTTR scenario expansion pack and maybe another most likely CotA (though I don't see enough difference between BftB and the original CotA to require doing it again).

_____________________________

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 Deathtreader)

Post #: 230

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/26/2011 8:38:11 PM

parmenio

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/6/2009
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline

A couple of points.

Is there any way these suggested features could be collated? Something along the lines of the Comprehensive Wishlist for TOAW that Bob Cross maintains.

It's difficult to determine duplicate items and the following may be one....

An Intel view that fades enemy unit icons from fully opaque to totally transparent (and just the border) based on age and possibly validity as well.

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 231

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/26/2011 10:25:56 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Re Intel view fading with age. Great idea. Love it. Again I've been wanting this for ages. But alas our graphics engine built on the nerable MS MFC doesn't support transparency effects. MS have put out a new version of MFC that does support them but you have to be using Vista/Win7. I still think there are large numbers of users out there using XP. So that makes it difficult tyo make the jump.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to parmenio)

Post #: 232

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/26/2011 10:39:21 PM

parmenio

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/6/2009
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

But alas our graphics engine built on the nerable MS MFC doesn't support transparency effects.

You mean.... MFC's still going!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

MS have put out a new version of MFC that does support them but you have to be using Vista/Win7. I still think there are large numbers of users out there using XP. So that makes it difficult tyo make the jump.

I can feel the need for an IF...THEN... statement

i.e.
if (Windows 7 || Vista)
{
// Nice shiny new transparency option
}
else
{
// Bad luck mate!
}

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 233

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/26/2011 10:41:30 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 652
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Hi,

Here's another one for consideration:

Allow the placement of orders/waypoints across rivers whilst bridges are being constructed so that as soon as the bridge is completed formations can begin to cross. I'm playing the Axis in "No one comes back" (just to see what the battle looks like from the other side) and I've been monitoring bridge building progress very closely. When I figured the bridge was about 90 mins to completion I tried to give movement orders to my formations to cross thinking that this would save me the orders delay period. i.e by the time the bridge finished the orders to move across would be almost down to the unit level. No joy......

The game kept snapping me back to my side of the river with the usual message that my orders were adjusted to the nearest reachable location. This meant that I had to wait until the bridge was actually finished before Icould issue orders to cross and that cost me lost time with no movement due to orders delay.
Maybe that reachable placement restriction could somehow be tied in to the "start at" function??
Just a thought........

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 Arjuna)

Post #: 234

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/26/2011 10:52:51 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Rob,

That's a tricky one. It is very hard to second guess a human players intent. I'll ponder that one a bit more.

One thing that would mitigate this is if we supported sequential tasking. This would mean that you could order a Bde to Move to the crossing, then construct a bridge and then Move somewehre else on the far bank. We could then check to see if a preceding task was a bridge construction and if so, then to ignore the reachability test. moreover, we could readily reduce orders delay between sequential tasks.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 235

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/26/2011 10:58:57 PM

johndoesecond

Posts: 873
Joined: 8/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi,

Here's another one for consideration:

Allow the placement of orders/waypoints across rivers whilst bridges are being constructed so that as soon as the bridge is completed formations can begin to cross. I'm playing the Axis in "No one comes back" (just to see what the battle looks like from the other side) and I've been monitoring bridge building progress very closely. When I figured the bridge was about 90 mins to completion I tried to give movement orders to my formations to cross thinking that this would save me the orders delay period. i.e by the time the bridge finished the orders to move across would be almost down to the unit level. No joy......
The game kept snapping me back to my side of the river with the usual message that my orders were adjusted to the nearest reachable location. This meant that I had to wait until the bridge was actually finished before Icould issue orders to cross and that cost me lost time with no movement due to orders delay.
Maybe that reachable placement restriction could somehow be tied in to the "start at" function??
Just a thought........

Rob.

Hi Deathreader,

I don't know if you know this, so just saying ...

If you have a bridge eng. coy attached to the battlegroup for whom you want to set the move destination on the other side of the river, it works.

Not that what you're proposing isn't a somewhat different concept, and would indeed be of some use.

Cheers.

< Message edited by johndoesecond -- 1/27/2011 7:05:32 AM >

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 236

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/27/2011 12:59:07 AM

Deathtreader

Posts: 652
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Hi johndoesecond,

I didn't know that!! Thanks!

Sadly though that's all it does i.e. it allows the placement of orders on the enemy side of the river without the reachability rules invoked and it does generate a constuct bridge task at the HQ level (914 Grenadier Regt HQ in this test)with the entire regt moving to the proposed site but the engineers never construct a bridge they just sit and go to defend tasks. Fastforwarded to the end of the scenario in the test and zippo in the way of built bridges.

Again, thanks anyway.

(in reply to johndoesecond)

Post #: 237

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/27/2011 4:13:57 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

The Engineers must have a bridge available, as indicated by the pontoon symbol on their command bar.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 238

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/27/2011 6:57:06 AM

johndoesecond

Posts: 873
Joined: 8/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi johndoesecond,

I didn't know that!! Thanks!

Sadly though that's all it does i.e. it allows the placement of orders on the enemy side of the river without the reachability rules invoked and it does generate a constuct bridge task at the HQ level (914 Grenadier Regt HQ in this test)with the entire regt moving to the proposed site but the engineers never construct a bridge they just sit and go to defend tasks. Fastforwarded to the end of the scenario in the test and zippo in the way of built bridges.

Again, thanks anyway.

Rob.

Hi Rob,

Actually, when I give such order, for me the bridge engineers (if they indeed have bridging capabilities, as Arjuna said earlier) usually start building the bridge. Then, once built, the whole battlegroup almost immediately trace its route to its destination.

I said "usually", for once it happened to me that bridge eng. didn't start building the bridge, but just sat nearby in defend position. Unfortunatelly, I wasn't able to reproduce that behaviour so I did't signal it as a bug, for maybe I was mistaken.

But, for example, I just tried the scenario you were mentioning ("Nobody comes back"), and it worked. You can give such move order to a divisional HQ which has bridge eng. as it's organic subordinate, but it also works if you attach it to another battlegroup (I tried with the FJ eng coy at the north crossing attached to that FJ regt. further east). Give it a second try.

Anyway, I agree this is not exactly what you were asking for, and is not a perfect workaround to avoid the order delay you were mentioning.

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 239

RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/28/2011 2:39:50 AM

freeboy

Posts: 8345
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I find myself repeatedly givingthe same set of clicks, no rest, etc.. as I push my weary troops at night to meet the needs.. can we fix a default settignthe user creats for these orders?
For myself I am always clicking off straglers.. basing, and less rest?? thanks

(in reply to johndoesecond)

Post #: 240