If you could add one feature...

[CapnDarwin]

Try a right click in the scenario editor boxes and see if you can select paste. CTRL+V does not work for me either, but the right click and paste does. Just tested in my Steam version to make sure it was not Dev mode or anything odd. [8D]

[Hub6Actual]

That method of selection works. Never thought of doing it that way, because like Pavlov’s dog, I was wired to do it another way. It just occurred to me that in the game, function ctrl-c in the editor activates viewing hex elevation values. Would that have anything to do with anything?

[CapnDarwin]

I would assume that the game is "taking over" the various CTRL/ALT/Shift keys for it's own use. We will need to be more clear in the Editing Documents how to do an external cut/paste operation.

[Hub6Actual]

Thanks for the assist. The one thing I hate doing in designing scenarios is writing the briefings, etc. Not the game’s fault - I’m poor with words and I just loathe doing it, so anything that makes that part easier is a blessing for me. Thanks again.

[CapnDarwin]

Glad it works. The auto briefings are not bad and have a number of details and you can modify from there. I will agree that making the overview and briefings can be time consuming. Best of luck. Enjoy the Holidays!

[wodin]

More refined los\lof esp regarding infantry in built up areas.

Also more detailed inf combat

Oh and Helicopters don't feel right. Though bring in heli insertions! That would make them cool!

[Jace11]

Importing / exporting OOB unit names. At the moment if you make a mission, you CAN use the suffix feature that is offered up when you add a formation to a map to help get your OOB names in order, however any subsequent changes are incredibly laborious, difficult to standardize and require right clicks on every unit. If you also have 3 versions of a mission (NATO, H2H, Sov) then it becomes tripled. Possibly, hundreds of right clicks to edit the all the units in the OOBs and no way to compare them, or look for errors. Considerably easier would be to export it to a .csv or .txt file, edit it there then import back but also it would be available to import other missions, useful I think.

To be honest, I've been converting many of the default missions because I found it annoying that scenarios changed the way they named and numbered units, seemingly arbitrarily, despite them being by the same author and featuring the same units / sides, but I have a bad case of OCD when it comes to correct unit designations.

[CapnDarwin]

@Wodin, LOS and LOF in and out of built up areas is getting revamped to be more restrictive. Not sure about more detailed infantry combat. What are you looking for here? We are also working on some better AI and control on Helos. Insertions/extractions are in our road map, but not an SS release item for now.

@Jace, Hopefully a number of changes and features will make what you are describing a bit easier in the new game engine. The game engines have a parsing routine (not an easy one) to do a default scheme based on the formation data fed from the data files. If a scenario designer wants to make more accurate designation in Red Storm, hand edits are the only way right now.

[Seer]

I'll post here since the wishlist thread is quite old. An encyclopedia with each national army, accessible from the main menu only, would be very helpful to familiarize yourself with various platforms etc. over the course of playing the game. Failing that, some kind of pdf document which lists units by their nationality and features would be a good substitute. I'm not the only one to suggest it, but the last time it was brought up was in 2013 so I figured it was worth restating.

Eventually a campaign revolving around a Second Korean War would be nice for a different theater and new combatants, but that's a future game! Figured I'd throw it out there anyway. The only other things I've noticed is how counter-battery settings on arty seems superfluous, and, I might be mistaken, but AT weapons (RPGs etc.) seem quite rare.

Otherwise, it's all been said before from what I've seen, which is good! I would also like to emphasize that the abstraction of this game is, imo, its core feature and shouldn't be messed with overmuch. What really drew me in is how I could concentrate on the flow of battle rather than the micromanagement of various units: I've gotten enough of that from "wargames" like Eugen's Red Dragon, AirLand Battle, and European Escalation. It's not what a commander should be doing.

Case in point, Red Dragon has ended up at a point where if someone's M1A2, for example, is destroyed by an airstrike people will ragequit. Not the experience I thought it would be back when I first started with EE in 2012. This came about because the devs listened to suggestions for unit inclusions, which is fine until it enters the realm of prototypes. Some, like the Super Patton, made sense if just for fun. Others, like the aforementioned M1A2 with its 1992 year listing, were included to satisfy certain lobbies. Point being, it's the kind of result possible when the playerbase exerts the wrong kind of influence over a dev team. Shiny toys are given rather than improvements to the core experience, and the former results in the detriment of the latter. The team here seem aware of this threat which is to their credit. I don't mean to lecture, just reporting what I've witnessed elsewhere.

Red Storm isn't as graphically impressive as Eugen's titles but makes up for it in spades elsewhere, and it's impressive for that reason. Well done! I look forward to SS but will enjoy RS in the meantime.

[dvphimself]

Several units from each belligerent state have an ECCM module listed in the sub-unit inspector panel. What they do is not clear to the player. This is true to such a degree that when I first purchased the game and asked this question in a facebook war-gaming group, the consensus answer was that the ECCM module was simply fluff.

Suggestion: Have it mentioned in the log, either in association with 'to-hit' probabilities for AGTMs or next to the log entry of ATGMs that miss in part due to ECCM interference.

This is a feature that is already in the game, but it is obfuscated to the point where even avid players think it currently does nothing.

A feature that you might add in relation to ECCM modules: EW rating governs Order Delay. ECCM modules deployed between 'the orderer' and 'the ordered' might provide minor relief from EW effects in a future version of this series.

[CapnDarwin]

@dvphimself - Electronic Warfare (EW) is the jamming or your radars and communication nodes by the enemy and that impacts overall orders delays, CB fires, arty FSCC calls, etc. Electronic Counter Measures (ECM), mainly found of aircraft of the day, are systems that jam enemy radars and radar-guided munitions thus degrading their hit/kill percentages. Electronic Counter Counter Measures (ECCM) is mainly hardening of weapon system electronics and making them less impacted by ECM. Right now there are no countermeasures in-game that impact the effectiveness of the enemies jamming efforts to your command cycle. What your forces are getting is what the result of everything is in that aspect.

I hope that breaks things down better.

[dvphimself]

Thanks for that explanation. The first part of my suggestion is simply that the functions of ECM and ECCM be made apparent to the player. The second, using ECCM to prevent corruption of radio communications, was just a 'wishlist feature' and not intended to represent the capabilities of the units with ECCM modules already in-game.

In an instance where a missile fails to hit due to the ECM factor, it would be neat if that was somehow in the log. Similarly, if a missile successfully hits a target despite ECM because of ECCM, it would be neat if that was somehow in the log. Perhaps in the to-hit percentiles? "4% chance to hit(ECM)"/"44%chance to hit (ECCM)"

As you succinctly describe, the module does in fact have an impact in the game. But if you ask around with players of the game, they don't know that.

The suggestion of having it show up in the log is less about the fact that I couldn't work out what they were affecting, and more about the wide assortment of (experienced?) OFRS players on Facebook from whom I got the same answer repeated: The ECCM module is just window dressing/fluff, and is potentially the only module listed on the subunit inspector panel that doesnt have a dynamic impact on the game.

You were my white knight on that FB question at the time, Capn, so you must have also seen the player base not knowing what it does.

edit: I also appreciate that the application of FoW in FC involves varied opacity when it comes to the information you recieve back from the field. Adding specific factor changes due to a particular module may be too far down the 'omniscience' road from where the game designer wants the commander's awareness to be. Something to indicate it is a functioning module is all I suggest.

edit edit: do ECM and ECCM modules on hexes directly between weapon and target have the same effect? or is it only modules attached to the weapon and target?

[CapnDarwin]

1. ECCM does not apply to radio coms in the sense that it does with discreet weapon/jammer/decoy type of action. The player's radio coms are based only on the EW hindrance the enemy is doing. Granted we abstract a fair amount here since we are not trying to be a communications simulation. Radio in the 80s is a matter of knowing the frequencies being used and then having jammers in the area to flood the bandwidth. We do have some ideas on adding some control to how the comm net is being used, but that will be post SS release at this point.
2. Showing the factors and rolls in the black box of the combat model is something I like to see and we will be working to give players the option to see more information as time goes on.
3. ECM and ECCM only work in the "local" engagement/attack. We do not model (now) any area effects of ECM (say like having a jammer platform of some type) beyond the EW levels in the scenario.

[dvphimself]

Thank you for all of this information.

[dvphimself]

One feature that I added myself (mostly using assets already inside the game folder) is an O.O.B. scratch card.

I included such cards in some of my earlier AARs and a few people remarked that they would like that feature.

In the "f2" game info window where you go to detailed force roster:
Add a button that says "print scratch card" or some such. It examines the order of battle and chain of command for the force the player currently has loaded in this scenario, and arranges the representing icons (with labels) in an intelligent and easy to follow way.

One could either print out a hard copy before battle like I do and scratch things off and make notes like great achievements of a unit. Or, one could keep using the 'print/generate' function as the game progresses and have the game automatically update the scratchcard with losses.

Included below are a basic and an embellished version of the concept:






Thanks for reading.