Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe 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

 
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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/29/2011 12:27:52 AM   
johndoesecond

 

Posts: 870
Joined: 8/3/2010
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

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


Hm, unchecking stragglers is not exactly the way to push your troops. Remember, if you uncheck it, you're actually telling the HQ to wait for all the others before moving on (or attacking, or whatever you're ordering it to do). If some of these "others" are weary, tired, routed or delayed, the whole battlegroup will wait for them.

< Message edited by johndoesecond -- 1/29/2011 1:44:06 AM >

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 241
RE: Future Directions - Features - 1/29/2011 2:34:46 AM   
wodin


Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		I foudnat first I was giving my troops no let up and stoping them fro rest....thinking it will all happen quicker...I was wrong...I learned to make sure they bed down at night (Keep back a reserve if you want to carry on an attack at night) and carry on the attack in the morning or rotate my troops instead of sending them all in for days on end...this way i found alot more got done than when I was sending everyone I had into attack for days on end...force management is a discipline you need to learn with this game..no other game running in realtime\continous time requires this so it's hard to remember and discipline yourself.

_____________________________

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 johndoesecond)
Post #: 242
RE: Future Directions - Features - 2/1/2011 7:39:55 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline 		This might be a silly suggestion, but is there any chance of making things even more realistic by limiting friendly info too? Combined with situating the player as, for example, the on map boss, whichever rank that is, so that the player only gets the info the highest ranking commander would actually get in real life. I suppose I'm thinking of something like the gradations of enemy info that are presently available applied to friendlies too. I wondered, Arjuna, whether or not with your professional applications, for the real-life military, whether they wouldn't find it like command christmas (and a little unrealistic) to be given God's-eye access to data about the precise position of all their units in real time. Surely that doesn't happen? In real life you're sitting there, I assume, with a staff and, basically, a map (however techinical and sophisticated) which is updated as and when there is contact with units?

Whilst I'm here, is there any word as to when the HTTR add-on for BFTB will be available. I am really keen to BUY it!! Yes, and quite happy to pay for the product, since, to the best of my (perhaps limited) knowledge this is the ONLY game in the strat (or tactical, for that matter) genre that has AI that comes even near to realism. It's the only game where you don't command every single unit, and I'll pay for that very happily. It's an amazing game. Really.

Thanks.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 243
RE: Future Directions - Features - 2/1/2011 8:00:39 PM   
parmenio

 

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

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Whilst I'm here, is there any word as to when the HTTR add-on for BFTB will be available. I am really keen to BUY it!!



Don't worry - you're not alone! My credit card's out on Day 1

BTW - I think it's maybe due for a March/April release? (Someone can confirm)

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 244
RE: Future Directions - Features - 2/1/2011 9:46:51 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 3882
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: parmenio


quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Whilst I'm here, is there any word as to when the HTTR add-on for BFTB will be available. I am really keen to BUY it!!



Don't worry - you're not alone! My credit card's out on Day 1

BTW - I think it's maybe due for a March/April release? (Someone can confirm)

March or April is probably a good bet. All 12 scenarios are completed and are in beta testing.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to parmenio)
Post #: 245
RE: Future Directions - Features - 2/12/2011 11:09:01 PM   
tyrspawn

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 5/30/2010
Status: offline 		Please add the ability to mod faction-specific sounds. I am not asking for you to provide said sounds, just to allow modders to do it. I would like to create a sound mod which has unique, high-quality sounds so that the "heavyMG" of both sides doesn't sound identical. Simply checking for suffixed "axis" or "allies" files in the sound folders and then using them instead of the stock sounds would be great.

Another thing i'd like to see, although I don't expect it to happen, is an option to toggle topographic rings on the map, or a different visual mode. Even after playing the AA-series for this long, I still don't really understand how the maps work, where is high and low elevation etc. I can't eyeball it, I always have to use the map tools and just measure a few things until I can figure out what i'm looking at. I'd also appreciate point altitude reference points (aka "hill #")

< Message edited by tyrspawn -- 2/12/2011 11:13:38 PM >

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 246
RE: Future Directions - Features - 4/6/2011 7:47:20 PM   
chamberlain

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
Lots of posts have asked for various 3D capabilities or tactical levels to BFTB. I say, leave BFTB to do what it does best: 2D operational level wargaming. It's very realistic at this level.

BUT INSTEAD: Make BFTB data more exportable and compatible for those who might want to use it as a scenario-generator / operational layer for tactical wargames that do tactical 3D gaming better: the upcoming Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy, for example.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 247
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/10/2011 11:00:25 PM   
Deathtreader


Posts: 651
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Something I think would be kind of cool (and is therefore sure to be a programming nightmare) is the capability to obtain in-scenario optional but necessarily conditional reinforcements during play. Kind of like what SSG's latest offerings allow for in using "alert" units.
These would only be offered to the player to help stave off imminent disaster or to reward collapsing the enemy front and facilitating subsequent exploitation. Naturally they would cost a hefty number of VP's if chosen but not so many as to nullify their usefullness.

What do others think??

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 #: 248
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/10/2011 11:42:00 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		Some form of scripting, especially for the victory location expiration/activation would be welcome. Currently the victory locations serve not only to 'reward' the player, but also to drive the overall direction of the action...

eg a river defence - if the defender is doing well at holding the crossing points, defeating any bridgeheads and is still 'safe' after 3 days, it makes no sense to abandon this position to take up 'blocking' positions on the roads further back. On the other hand, a successful bridgehead in the first hours may make the river untenable on the first day, with attempts to hold it, rather than withdrawing to blocking positions immediately risking isolation and destruction of much of the forces committed.
The scenario designer cannot predict with any degree of accuracy how long it will take to achieve any single objective - so much depends on local successes at a critical moment that 'a guess' is all that is feasible, and even carefully planned operations will change if the player chooses a significant alteration to the designers' normal style.

Also important are the above mentioned 'optional' reinforcements, and even the possibility to return 'exited' formations using their final strength (augmented or diminished by some designer specified amount possible). - Currently it is possible to exit the 2/2 infantry, and then re-enter a 'similar' formation also named 2/2 infantry, but they have no relationship, and the losses suffered are not (obviously ;) ) carried across.

The final piece that would make the engine capable of much more would be the inclusion of personnel replacements, and recovery/replacement of damaged/destroyed vehicles and guns - particularly for 10-20 day scenarios. IMO, the most important 'rebuild' would be the re-creation of a scratch HQ and Supply formation if the originals are lost, but the bulk of the combat troops are still active.

(in reply to Deathtreader)
Post #: 249
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/11/2011 1:46:51 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 16456
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline 		Lieste,

All good suggestions. Thanks.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 250
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/11/2011 1:47:43 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 16456
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline 		Rob,

I like your idea re the conditional reinforcements too.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 251
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/11/2011 1:10:00 PM   
OlegHasky


Posts: 147
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Hamburg
Status: offline 		Yes, all interesting. ..excluding 3d

Heres another one on the pile..
Merging units / liquid management of inner stuctures

Assigning/transfering equipment to alow the creation of specific task forces in the game.

Well known practice in military - not reflected in btfb.

The level of command given in the game is high enough for such actions.
And without such option, player is limited to base/stone structures.

Still a ferrari without it.. But still in prototype phase.


_____________________________

Hexamon have no use for laws! ..or governments.. We are strrrong... We obey NO ONE!...

Misarians.. Your names all meen -surrender!!...

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 252
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/14/2011 3:18:46 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		Reworking the map coding to allow more than the current 16 height levels. This would make it easier to build consistent, joinable/splittable maps in higher relief areas, as you could use a globally valid common height distribution. It would also be worth (IMO) automating the import of externally generated contour shapefiles - eg those generated in a few seconds from an SRTM cell using Global Mapper - of course an alternative to contoured height maps would be a height field/DEM, with the contours only provided for player information/visuals, but editing tools for vector features are easier to understand for the end user.

You might need support for depressions built in as the automated outputs won't 'know' the requirements to keep a nominal channel to keep lower areas 'external'.

It seems difficult to currently define good valleys in areas of steep relief, as the narrow segments (which may only be a few metres lower than the nominal value for the valley), become hugely deep & steep - see the south-central portion of the COTA Thermopylai map for an example, and hills which are steep but low are poorly represented, except in areas which are generally of low relief.

Now, I know that SRTM (in all it's variants) has some issues with quality, but it would still represent an improvement in most ways over the current labour intensive map generation.

To get the most benefit, the AI might need some re-work, and the ideal force size would probably be smaller eg platoon? (so most units would occupy only a few cells), but I understand this is on the cards for the Military version anyway.

(Sometimes the presence of a small knoll on a high plateau has importance far in advance of the generally larger hills that channel the fighting - often these micro-features vanish completely if they don't cross a contour, or get misplaced where a smaller/less usefully placed feature does, but the tactically important terrain falls entirely within a contour interval).

As I understand it, the terrain engine already deforms the 'ideal' contour derived DEM, to provide a per-cell height, it seems logical to just stream-line the procedure to get these 'real-world' values in, with a more consistent and easier method.

< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/14/2011 3:38:40 AM >

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 253
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/20/2011 3:13:08 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		More options for scenario design -

Ability to specify the ammunition loads by weapon - so expend all HE artillery ammunition, without depleting small-arms, or AT weapons (or vice versa).

Ability to depress the starting morale etc, but to have it recover - currently the starting value is also used as the unit ceiling. A good quality unit 'bashed about a bit' and in need of a rest can't be adequately simulated - either it starts as a good quality unit, or it is permanently crippled - the same degree of damage caused in action within the scenario duration would be mostly recovered within a day or so of rest.

Ability to specify ammunition re-supply availability by type (at least HE artillery, AP artillery, HE tank/AT, AP tank/AT, Mor, Small-arms) but preferably by individual types - both available/not available and also specific quantities/weights - have this by SEP, but also holdings at each base. This information is 'gathered'/used during the supply determination, to fix the base requirements, but it is then discarded, causing all sorts of problems with artillery emptying bases of all ammunition, the vast quantities of 'weight' available translating into huge numbers of artillery missions etc... The calculated 'requirements' could be presented to guide the scenario designer, and during play the usage would remain automated as now, but more weapons types would more frequently be operating on low supplies, without entirely depleting the entire supply chain.





< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/20/2011 3:14:18 AM >

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 254
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/21/2011 2:07:51 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 16456
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline 		Lieste,

The military would agree with all your suggestions. However, I doubt the users here give too much concern. But I am willing to be surprised.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 5/21/2011 2:08:26 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 255
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/22/2011 1:49:41 AM   
US87891

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		I like very mush the re-creation of scratch supply formations.

I think company level would be the most appropriate echelon for wargaming purposes.

Regards. Mat

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 256
FLOT/FEBA/Supply/Ownership et al - 5/22/2011 3:07:11 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		Improving the AI's awareness of 'indian country'.

I set an attack down a track, and hit the enemy from his flank. The attack goes well, but supplies run short.
The initial route is secure, and the supplies could easily reach the attacking formation by following the tracks of the tanks... but instead they drive down the main road, through the town (objective) and get slaughtered...

Worse... the attack on the town is planned, all the formations are arranged around it. Artillery to the rear etc. Each major formation is given 'its bite' of the perimeter to grab... and the HQ/artillery/supply gets routed by the AI through the city to 'hit it from the flank...'. Arrgh.... that isn't a valid route - the whole 'bit I don't occupy' is crawling with enemies... especially the bits near all the objectives...

When planning, I personally reckon on 7 main zones...
What I definitely own.
What he definitely/probably owns - intel reports/instinct about old reports/strongpoints & objectives.
What I think I control - behind my FLOT, except where I think we are intermixed, or he can observe/fire.
What I think he controls - behind his FLOT, plus pocketed troops/bypassed uncleared woods/towns etc.
Bits I control, but he prevents me using (by fire, observation etc).
Bits I assume he controls, but I can fire into, or clearly observe - I can't see everything, but can detect firing or large movements, sufficient to bring at least IDF assets to bear.
No-mans-land. Not under either player's control (AFAICT - at least not mine..) in practice treated like 'his control' but more likely to contain unpleasant surprises - mostly because the frequency of 'normal contacts' is lower, and everyone is busier elsewhere or not paying proper attention. (Really I should know better - I really like finding his floating flank(s), but get carried away and seem to forget mine )

The 'what I think I control' includes all the other portions I assume are under my control, both those I know are 'clear' (ie under unit footprints and not contested, plus areas swept by unit footprints, and continuously observed since...), and those also areas 'cleared' by moving through/near them without contact, or unobserved for some period since, usually night/poor weather, or by moving combat formations away - plus those areas putatively on my side of the FLOT near the scenario start. After a few days, this is reassessed according to situation - I might fear a turned flank, infiltration or breakthrough, and downgrade my own rear areas to 'unknown', except where obviously still 'clear'.

By contrast, the AI seems to permanently assume the enemy only occupies those areas where current/recent contacts are shown, and the entire 'rest of the map' is free. A little more paranoia wouldn't go amiss, this is supposed to be a war.

(in reply to Swamp_Yankee)
Post #: 257
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/23/2011 3:13:30 AM   
wodin


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

ORIGINAL: Lieste

More options for scenario design -

Ability to specify the ammunition loads by weapon - so expend all HE artillery ammunition, without depleting small-arms, or AT weapons (or vice versa).

Ability to depress the starting morale etc, but to have it recover - currently the starting value is also used as the unit ceiling. A good quality unit 'bashed about a bit' and in need of a rest can't be adequately simulated - either it starts as a good quality unit, or it is permanently crippled - the same degree of damage caused in action within the scenario duration would be mostly recovered within a day or so of rest.

Ability to specify ammunition re-supply availability by type (at least HE artillery, AP artillery, HE tank/AT, AP tank/AT, Mor, Small-arms) but preferably by individual types - both available/not available and also specific quantities/weights - have this by SEP, but also holdings at each base. This information is 'gathered'/used during the supply determination, to fix the base requirements, but it is then discarded, causing all sorts of problems with artillery emptying bases of all ammunition, the vast quantities of 'weight' available translating into huge numbers of artillery missions etc... The calculated 'requirements' could be presented to guide the scenario designer, and during play the usage would remain automated as now, but more weapons types would more frequently be operating on low supplies, without entirely depleting the entire supply chain.







Probably going for to much micro management here for me...I'd just get confused by all the options...I'd rather all this be done by the staff and depending on how good the staff are depends on how well managed the supply\ammo is for the particular unit...great staff means the supply is automatically done as above to it's optimum...lower the staff level the more waste comes into play...

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 258
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/23/2011 3:46:27 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		This is more for the AI supply management as set by the Designer, rather than player control during the scenario, or at least that was my original thinking...
In play it would work the same, but the AI might be rationing more types of ammunition, while having plentiful supplies of others.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 259
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/23/2011 6:23:15 PM   
wodin


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

ORIGINAL: Lieste
Currently the victory locations serve not only to 'reward' the player, but also to drive the overall direction of the action...






Which is what I love about this game...I can formulate a plan going by the objectives and when they come on\off etc etc....I wouldn't want this to chnage at all....it really is a masisve help to me at the start...without it I'd probably not play it gain...I'd just boot up a scenario...look at it...look more...get a headache and quit...witht he objectives I can see where I need to be and roughly what direction to go in...then it's upto me to formulate the plan in greater detail and work out how I need to assign my forces...

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 260
RE: Future Directions - Features - 5/23/2011 6:38:58 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		And this wouldn't change - just that the 'front line' objectives would expire at a point that might relate to the success of your forces under command, rather than inexplicably fall back. Sometimes this falling back is appropriate, as conditions developing on a flank might require a re-alignment, but for the 'chokepoint' battles, defending the 'only' local crossings it seems to emphasise 'design/history' over the course of action.

The second line objectives would become 'live' at the point where exploiting to them makes sense, rather than diverting troops from actually completing the first objectives at all.
Players automatically make these adjustments - you garrison the rear areas once the objectives are live, (or even before that if the front has collapsed), but if you are in good condition probably use Bases/HQ/Artillery, leaving the line troops continuing to hold/delay @ the expired crossing etc. front line positions until you need to yield them. The AI only knows it's current objectives, and has no concept that a blocking position actually secures everything else so it worth holding even after it 'should' have fallen and is no longer 'live'.

Hmm, in fact I feel that secure should really mean more 'deny' than garrison - I don't need to occupy a bridge site to deny it to the enemy if it is behind my FLOT & his closest troops are 20km away after all. I can either screen the location with combat troops, occupy the site with troops, or place sufficient fire onto the site to deny access/safety to his forces, preventing movement into/through the area... each would IRL be adequate for some form of occupy/secure/deny, but we only have the 'sit on the target and wait' as our scoring/planning options for the AI and mission success.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 261
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/9/2011 12:44:10 PM   
nestor

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 10/20/2005
Status: offline 		Not sure if this thread is still open for business, but if it is...

I would really like to see some tools in the Scenmaker to assist the designer in getting the AI to mount a credible defence from prepared positions - at the moment there is too much wandering about by the AI and units lose their dug in/entrenchment status as a consequence. Often that status is the only thing standing between them and annihilation by artillery.

2 suggestions:

Fixed units - the scenario designer could specify that a unit can't move from its starting position until a certain criteria is met. i.e. until attacked, until a certain day/time or until a VL/AI objective is threatened/attacked/secured etc. Ideally the designer could specify multiple criteria for each unit. Not a new idea, I know (I remember it was a feature of the first John Tiller Talonsoft games I played), but I think it would be incredibly helpful to have in Command Ops.

Initial orders - the ability to set an order in Scenmaker rather than have all units 'Waiting' at scenario start. I was thinking primarily of a Defend in situ order to aid the defensive AI, but I guess this could potentially be useful for the AI in offensive planning as well.


(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 262
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/10/2011 2:15:02 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 16456
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline 		nestor,

The second option is the better one. Thanks.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to nestor)
Post #: 263
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/10/2011 3:03:43 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		Obstacles - non-lethal (Deliberate Craters/LogCribs/Rubbled Buildings/etc). All of these hampered the early stages of the advance across the Our in 352 VGD areas. They require a brief halt while they are reduced for vehicles to cross, it isn't unheard of for damaged vehicles, or the narrow streets/heavy vehicles to effectively block forces movement on routes either. Could be done as part of or alongside implementing:

Weight limits on bridges, width limits on roads etc. While the truism that tracked vehicles have superior mobility to wheeled ones is good to follow generally, it neglects the problems that the increasing sizes of these had on operational mobility - a PzVIB just isn't going to be able to use the same bridges or narrow routes that could be negotiated by a simple 2.5t truck, or even a PzIVJ. I would note that although ferries are slower than using an existing bridge, they are faster to emplace than a fixed bridge if the right equipments are available, and can be built to carry any conceivable load (although at a very slow rate in elements per hour).  As bridges need to be built to take the vehicle sizes planned, it might not be sufficient to 'just upgrade' an existing light bridge, or to open a light bridge while continuing to complete the structure for heavy vehicles. An option could be to require a medium or heavy bridge to be built 'directly' or on a Medium base, rather than using a narrower 'light' structure as a base, also to consider closing the bridge during expansion work - at the very least consider the bridge 'a traffic jam' during the building periods.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 264
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/11/2011 3:41:07 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 2114
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		I haven't checked the whole thread - I know I should have - but I wonder if it would feasible to "harness" the real-time engine with a WEGO layer, very much in the fashion of Combat Mission (plot plans, compute results, watch a "movie"). I know this could distort considerably the outcomes of the simulation, but it would also broaden the player-base.

_____________________________


Real men go to war on Real tanks

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 265
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/11/2011 5:16:29 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		I wouldn't be terribly interested in actually using a(n external) WEGO option, but I  would be keen on a 'save force' option, that includes all soft factors such as ammunition, and potentially location(?) (essentially making a 'new scenario' feasible from the current position - my interest is to simplify planning/AAR analysis (rather than extract this information from 2-3 screens from each element and manually input into a SS), but I can see the potential to 'kill' a scenario, and commit to a new plan with reserves/replacements, and continue either as the same side, or to choose to swap from e.g. a Defense against a German attack, to Defense against a US counter-attack, or to extract a fragment, modify forces to deterministically 'fix' the outcome of an attack/defense - perhaps as Frei Kriegspeil, perhaps by playing it out in another system, and returning the results).

I feel that most tactical 'games' are not likely to produce meaningful results, as casualty levels/tempo are usually far too high, but the 'in-game' scenario updating on-the-fly to reflect changed circumstances and simplified/improved analysis & reporting seem useful.


< Message edited by Lieste -- 7/11/2011 5:18:34 PM >

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 266
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/11/2011 7:04:00 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 3882
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I haven't checked the whole thread - I know I should have - but I wonder if it would feasible to "harness" the real-time engine with a WEGO layer, very much in the fashion of Combat Mission (plot plans, compute results, watch a "movie"). I know this could distort considerably the outcomes of the simulation, but it would also broaden the player-base.

I agree pbem would be great.
If there was a way to run for an hour, stop, and email to an opponent who then runs for an hour and emails back that would be something.

For this to work you should be able to replay your opponent's hour (with FOW), and then continue your turn.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 267
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/17/2011 7:55:17 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		Rearrange the Estab format to present ammunition/gun specific information, possibly for an arbritary number of ammunition types (perhaps by gun for each ammunition nature?)

Attach the ammunition type/qty to the carrier, not the firing tube.

Currently if I want a 17pr gun firing APCBC and HE, I might need to specify the following types (all of which have similar performance - so much redundant information and huge possibilities for errors).

17pr AT gun - with limber carried ammunition.
17pr AT gun in Archer (39rds)
17pr AT gun in A30 Avenger (55rds)
17pr AT gun in A30 Challenger (42rds)
17pr AT gun in Achilles (50rds)
17pr AT gun in Firefly (77rds)

This doesn't include AT/Apers heavy loadout options, the possibility for some or all of a platoon's vehicles having APDS rounds - the characteristics of which don't work 'well' when merged with the APCBC. If that were taken to be 2 loadouts per vehicle, with the APDS being used for the AT bias for 1 vehicle in each unit... then there might need to be 18 different versions of a single gun... Some could be considered 'close-enough' to allow eg Challenger and Archer, or Achilles and Avenger to share a single value, and the APCBC versions could use a 'mid-weight' ammunition loadout, with the APDS vehicle in addition. But this still calls for 8 'guns' to describe 3 ammunition types fired from 6 vehicles (which would be described as 12 vehicles to split the APDS from APCBC... and so much data is still being copied/duplicated or information lost).

I might be in a minority caring whether the Challenger is correctly shown to be a moderate effectiveness interim vehicle, compared to the Firefly - in game they are directly equivalent - and this appears to be almost entirely due to the poor stowage allowed in the A30.

Ideally, I would like to be able to specify an AArm and Apers performance for each ammunition type modelled, per gun type - so I might have several marques of 25pr, or a gun with poor sights/excellent sights which would modify the accuracy levels.
The vehicle would have a stowage capacity for the gun, and the unit &/or scenario would specify the ammunition types and amounts approved, and in chain of supply.

It should also be possible to define a "stowage slot" with no firepower attached, but containing specified ammunition under armour - eg the M30/Hummel MunitionsPz etc currently their ammunition is ever-ready on the firing platform, and they amount to no more than 'extra' HMG platforms.


(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 268
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/21/2011 1:39:16 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline 		I'd have to add support for stopping daylight supply runs (both out and back) to certain units near the front, or when troops are intermingled.

With short-visibility ranges (terrain &/or weather) units are typically much closer than the 'survivable' range for supply columns, particularly if Estab accuracy/rof values are higher than baseline. If there is even 'fleeting' or tenuous visibility they will suffer frequent losses (typically only small numbers, but there can be many 'silly' runs with a single truck and 50-60kg of food every hour, which will very quickly eliminate any meaningful supply capacity).

More annoying is where an OOS unit has been pulled back by the AI (due to excessive suppression and no capability to respond == very good) it gets a supply run, and immediately recommences the attack... at which point the departing trucks which are still 'attached' until they 'reach the base' get hammered.

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 269
RE: Future Directions - Features - 7/21/2011 2:39:24 PM   
Skyhigh

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/24/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I haven't checked the whole thread - I know I should have - but I wonder if it would feasible to "harness" the real-time engine with a WEGO layer, very much in the fashion of Combat Mission (plot plans, compute results, watch a "movie"). I know this could distort considerably the outcomes of the simulation, but it would also broaden the player-base.

I agree pbem would be great.
If there was a way to run for an hour, stop, and email to an opponent who then runs for an hour and emails back that would be something.

For this to work you should be able to replay your opponent's hour (with FOW), and then continue your turn.


This is something that is implemented in Histwar Les Grognards, which is a similar game for Napoleonic battles, in realtime and order delays. PBEM is in 15 minute increments.

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Future Directions - Features Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

0.359