Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Great Game/Too bad...

 
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 >> Great Game/Too bad... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Great Game/Too bad... - 5/8/2012 3:55:40 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 966
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
Before I say anything, I have to say this is simply the best operational simulation of all time.

I have just done my duty and purchased the HTTR/BFTB expansion to continue to support the development of this incredible product. I have purchased every engine release since (and including) the original HTTR.

However,

1. I find it too bad that there is still no individual sound for the availability of an airstrike. I find it very difficult to always be checking the airstrike symbol to see if it is available (and I often miss them because I did not see them). Arjuna, can you do anything simple to change the sound to make it obvious we have one waiting for us?

2. I still find it difficult -- if not impossible -- to see elevation differences in the city, or even the woods (of which there are plenty). It would be great to have an "elevation lines layer", but I know there are no "layers" available due to the engine being used. However, has anyone created a landscape mod with lighter (more see through) woods? A slight improvement would be appreciated.

3a. I did a dumb thing and withdrew a regiment in the face of the enemy using a "defend" order (more appropriate may have been a "withdrawl" order follwed by a defend order, marking out the area to be defended). However, I still find the total reversal of the regiment with the HQ at the (new) rear of the formation without any protection unfortunate. I am currently trying to figure out how to get my HQ protected and watching to see how long it will sit there before moving to the "rear" of the recently designated defensive perimeter (as in image). Yet, I suppose this is an example of "do as I mean, not as I say". LOL. Would it be difficult to take threats into account when moving these formations and to protect the HQ appropriately? :) Again, I am happy to accept a, "you didn't do that right...you should have executed a withdraw order in the face of the enemy". But then I wonder, at what point can I order the defensive position? And should I use "in situ" to make it so that my HQ isn't exposed? Any advice on how to execute these maneuvers right?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 5/8/2012 4:44:16 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/8/2012 4:23:04 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 966
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
3b. Here is another example of the same thing (again, I won't say it is a problem...maybe I just need to make sure I don't issue defend orders when engaged with an enemy and the natural result would be a withdrawl to the new position).

The battalion in the woods has been reattached to the regimental HQ and the regimental HQ has been given an order to defend at the new position shown. The battalion is then given orders (by the regimental HQ apparently) to pull back, but the battalion HQ shown is the last to come out. My father, who was a company commander in 1960s Europe said this would not happen.

Again, only constructive criticism. And I understand AI can't be perfect. And it may be an example of do as I mean and not as I say. :P But I don't think the reg HQ should be giving orders out which destroy the Bn HQs.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 5/8/2012 4:44:03 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 2
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/8/2012 4:34:30 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 966
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
4. I don't know if this problem has been fixed, but in the attached screen shot from an old version, enemy artillery bombardments exhausted this highlighted unit while it was in the open and heading for the woods. They stopped moving for cover a few meters in front of the woods and (as I remember) were destroyed shortly thereafter. I thought they were out of fuel or something. But they weren't.

Can anyone tell me if in the last year this kind of behavior has changed? I think it doesn't make sense that a unit would stop just shy of the woods and allow its destruction with cover just meters away.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 5/8/2012 4:44:27 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 3
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 1:15:34 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17771
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
MV,

Thanks for the feedback.

re 1. Sound for air availability. I'll see what I can do.

re 2. difficulty in seeing elevation layers. Point taken. Have you tried any of the map pattern graphics designed by users?

re 3. It's nigh impossible for the AI to second guess your intentions here. I am sure if I put some smarts in that converted the Defend to a Withdraw if your troops were close to the enemy that you would then find issue with that in a different circumstance - eg if an enemy force had gotten in behind your lines and yet you still wanted to press on to defend the ridge line. Under such an exampl your force would then move its HQ group ahead of the main force to the ridge line. So we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Therefore I think the current arrangements where the user makes the choice between a defend or withdraw is the right approach. Sorry.

Re 4. Units under bombardment not rushing for trees. In fact if you look at the terrain effects you will see that while woods gives a benefit against direct fire it is actually a detreiment to bombardment due to the tree bursts which which cause wood splinters to fly everywhere. So staying put where they are is better than moving to the woods.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 4
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 3:18:54 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Although if they dropped out of LOS, they might only have to endure a few tree burst before being left in relative peace ;)

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 5
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 3:38:07 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17771
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
True but that would depend on where the spotter was and the liklihood of further detection.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 6
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 5:38:44 AM   
loyalcitizen


Posts: 203
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
While sound for an available airstrike would be nice, I have asked a few times over the past couple of years to expand the "Run-To" feature to have a check box for Airstrike/Reinforcements. They should just share one checkbox. Anyone using Run-To will want the game to stop on either one of these.
Adding this as Run-To stop point might alleviate the need for an available airstrike sound.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 7
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 5:53:06 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Also I'd appreciate a run-until at one of the lower simulation rates - rather than assuming that I want the highest rate. Often I want to watch the unfolding of a situation, and also to record the situation at regular intervals. An option to autosave incrementally would work, but there are several features that are 'lost' on reloading a save (message queue, details of deadpile units etc).

(in reply to loyalcitizen)
Post #: 8
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 11:22:53 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 966
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

MV,

Thanks for the feedback.

re 1. Sound for air availability. I'll see what I can do.

re 2. difficulty in seeing elevation layers. Point taken. Have you tried any of the map pattern graphics designed by users?

re 3. It's nigh impossible for the AI to second guess your intentions here. I am sure if I put some smarts in that converted the Defend to a Withdraw if your troops were close to the enemy that you would then find issue with that in a different circumstance - eg if an enemy force had gotten in behind your lines and yet you still wanted to press on to defend the ridge line. Under such an exampl your force would then move its HQ group ahead of the main force to the ridge line. So we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Therefore I think the current arrangements where the user makes the choice between a defend or withdraw is the right approach. Sorry.

Re 4. Units under bombardment not rushing for trees. In fact if you look at the terrain effects you will see that while woods gives a benefit against direct fire it is actually a detreiment to bombardment due to the tree bursts which which cause wood splinters to fly everywhere. So staying put where they are is better than moving to the woods.



Thanks for the answers Arjuna. To be honest, of all of my gaming experiences in almost 30 years of play, Panther Games provides the BEST customer service -- bar none.

1. AIR AVAILABILITY: Any significantly different sound would be great.

2. ELEVATION LAYERS: I will look for another map pack and maybe it will do the trick. Maybe a future engine can introduce the badly needed "layers" option so we can turn elevation lines on and off at a whim.

3. RETREAT TO DEFEND: I understand your point completely and even wondered this myself, thinking -- it is probably best if there are no modifications so we always know what we are getting. But then I would like to know how to execute this maneuver optimally. So, how does one best retreat to a new defensive line in the face of an enemy without risking this kind of a "back to the enemy" kind of formation? Secondly, how can you keep this from happening if one of your reg HQ's orders a Bn to do the same (as in the second example above).

4. UNITS STUCK IN THE OPEN: I don't expect them to rush for the trees on their own. I was only hoping that they might ignore their fatigue enough to get into the cover of woods when ordered to do so. I still think there needs to be a mechanic where if cover (or a safer place) is close enough, they will ignore fatigue levels to get to it. I am not quite sure how this would be done exactly, but I have ideas. I just don't see how a bunch of guys whose lives are at risk would stop 20 meters short of a tree line because shelling had pushed them to the point of exhaustion. It is my humble opinion that the fear/exhaustion model doesn't take fear into account, but only exhaustion. I think "fear" should temporarily overcome exhaustion. So, Effective Exhaustion = Standard Exhaustion - Survival Benefit of Continued Action. That equation would only work over periods of a week as the body simply can't store much more energy than that in secret, inaccessible places. And recent studies show that we have LOTS of energy stored in ways which are not accessible unless HIGHLY stressed or threatened. It simply isn't available. For very good reasons. It is our LAST RESORT lifeline.

Again, still a 95/100 game! :)

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 5/9/2012 12:17:46 PM >

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 9
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 1:23:11 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17771
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Re Retreat to defend. Either order th force as a whole to withdraw. They will end up defending the final objective but will move the HQ and support units out first. Or break things down for yourself and order the HQ with support staff to Defend at the final objective with no delay and then do the same for the line units but with Start At time of say three hours hence. That should give time for the HQ and support units to move off while protected by the line units. Check the orders delay for the HQ/Spt group and ensure that the start time for the line group is at least an hour after the HQ should start moving.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 10
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 1:29:51 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 966
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
Okay. Will withdraw to disengage and setup new defensive lines. :) Thanks.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 11
RE: Great Game/Too bad... - 5/9/2012 1:30:54 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 966
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
deleted (re-post as was having problems with the interface/internet connection)

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 5/9/2012 1:33:04 PM >

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Great Game/Too bad... Page: [1]
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

0.105