Wishlist (cont'd)

[Arjuna]

The BIG new feature will be dynamic terrain and minefields. At present when a crossing is blown there is a noticeable pause in the game as movement maps and terrain maps need to be recalced. Part of the delay is due to replanning ( which is not avoidable ) but a goodly portion is due to the recalcs. By implementing a new dynamic terrain class we hope to erradicate the recalc delays. We need to do this for BFTB because we want to introiduce minefields and road blocks and these will get cleared throughout the course of the game. Because of the large number of them we would end up with significant pauses throughout the game as minefields are cleared and that's not a good thing.
 
The scenario designer will be able to lay down minefields in the ScenMaker app and players and the AI can clear these in the game. Units entering a minefield will suffer casualties and react appropriately. Intel will be updated and routes will avoid known minefields where possible. Engineers will be assigned to clear them etc.
 
Another big feature, code wise, has been the overhaul of the forceGroup class. Paul has just finished this and it will allow us to better represent the different command structures ( organic, player, unit ) during the game. It will also allow for the preservation of lower level cross attachments, something the current class could not. If time permits we may even allow players to restructure the organic OB, but we'll see how we go. As usual there is so much to do and so little time to do it in. ( And yes I sometimes look in the mirror to see if I have turned into the rabit with a watch in the looking glass. [;)] )

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also how about abit of chrome. I.E Nominations for medals (at comapny level) and which medals would be a great bit of detail at the end of the battle.

Oh dear! [:'(]
Ray

hehehe.....

[laska2k8]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

One option is to use a special colour within the existing threats tool to highlight the threat the unit last targeted/fired at. Eg if you have four potential thyreats and one of those the unit has just fired at then its line could be coloured purple for instance.

yes, you found the solution, and probably isn't so expensive to implement with the actual code.

[Pergite!]

I lack the ability to prioritze the supply chain, as well as the option to close down SEP´s during air drop scenarios.

After the patch I have taken the time to do the big 9 day Maleme scenario as the Germans. I really enjoyed it, but one of my FJ regmints wherent all that happy. When the airport opened for supplies I decided that I no longer needed to keep the small SEP in prison valley. I moved my troops out of there and up to Galatas and dug in.
What I had missed was that these poor paratroopers all got their supplies from that SEP. The GJ´s always had full stores, but the blue little couners where always starving.
What really puzzeled me in this was that their supply based had plenty of basic supplies themselves, but nothing to distrubute. Emergency supply was requested all the time, and the logs kept stating that supplies was on the way, but nothing ever turned up. The supply routes where all clear and the distances and roads close to perfect (on highway 1km between base and unit). Maybe I was doing something wrong, but I dont think so.

That whole game however lead me to the two suggestions mentioned above. The ability to prioritze the supply chain, and direct everyhing to one needy unit. And why not share supplies between companies and battalions? Something practised alot when the regular supply funciton is broken.

I also would like the option to close down SEP´s during air drop scenarios, like the Maleme one, so I dont have to spend troops holding a desolate valley out in nowehere just because the JU52´s keep dropping in food and ammunition.

Thank you for a great game!

[Arjuna]

re prioritising: We've discussed this at length on the dev forum and the conclusion we came to if we were to implement such a system would be to restrict it to a particular formation  - eg 1st Bde or 2nd Regt etc. Specifying a particular unit is not realistic. Anyway it's on the wish list already. [:)]
 
Re turning off of SEPs. Again you are wanting a degree of control not available to WW2 comanders at the level of the simulation. I can understand your desire to have that control, but supply deliveries were invariably worked out by higher command and the operational commander had to deal with it. Usually once established these arrangements were set in concrete ( as it were ) and took considerable time to change. This is particularly so for airborne ops. The Brits at Arnhem being a classic case.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

re prioritising: We've discussed this at length on the dev forum and the conclusion we came to if we were to implement such a system would be to restrict it to a particular formation - eg 1st Bde or 2nd Regt etc. Specifying a particular unit is not realistic. Anyway it's on the wish list already. [:)]

Great, I must have missed it.

Re turning off of SEPs. Again you are wanting a degree of control not available to WW2 comanders at the level of the simulation. I can understand your desire to have that control, but supply deliveries were invariably worked out by higher command and the operational commander had to deal with it. Usually once established these arrangements were set in concrete ( as it were ) and took considerable time to change. This is particularly so for airborne ops. The Brits at Arnhem being a classic case.

Where not the problem with the supply drops / air support during Market Garden mainly due to the almost total failure of the 1st Airborne Division's communcations net. On Crete I even have the whole operational command landed with General Student and the whole corps staff. If they cant cancel or move the drops, then who can?
I guess its good to keep the SEP as a extra "victory objective", but in that case I guess the briefing somehow should include that.

I have also realised the need for a better logistic overview. Some kind of window where I can see exactly how much of everything that have arrived and where it has gone. This got me thinking why not implement staff officers that are there to aid you? S1 (personell) to make you review your losses and combat effectivness on all your unit. S2 (intel) and S3 (operations) is allready presented on the map. More intel could for example be given in the form of a enemy OOB consisting of a vauge idea of the composition of enemy forces, that could be updated after time. S4 (logistics) would be able to cover the supply overview I am talking about. A spread-sheet of some sort for easy acces for each staff function to complement the action on the map. Just a tought, which you probably allready have discussed [;)]

Concerning reinforcements I had a bit of a surprise when Robert Laycock materialized with a complete battalion of commandos(Layforce) right in the middle of occupied Souda. Maybe it would be good with alternative reinforcement placings if the primary one is occupied, or that arrivals by sea need a port in the same way air landings need a runway?

I know that you are second only to Santa Claus when it comes to wishes, but hey, you hopefully have long series of games to try them out in. [&o]

[06 Maestro]

[font="times new roman"]Not to be too nit picky, but could something be done about the log and message dialog box order?  In the Log dialog box, the current entries are at the top, with multiple older entries below.  In the Message dialog box, the current message is at the bottom, with multiple older entries above. [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I frequently switch back and forth between these two info windows; it may cost me a second or two just to make sure I’m reading it right.  This translates into game minutes lost when those minutes count.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]I can live with the current displays for the next couple of games.  However, f it is not too much trouble, I would like to have a more uniform display of info. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[MarkShot]

I believe that very issue of sequencing for the side bar came up recently in the beta forum. As I recall, we were pretty much split on sort sequence. And I think one of us proposed to make it an option ... just the type of thing for Dave to work on in his spare time.

[Arjuna]

Yeh, yeh yeh Mark. I believe you have a bit of spare time now. Isn't that right? Me, I'm on holidays. It's official. My wife says so. [;)]

[kilowatts]

Here's a simple thing I think deserves a look... When I click on the Stratmap to move the Battle map, if the point I click on is already shown in the Battle map then nothing happens. I expected the Battlemap to shift to center on the clicked location.

[MarkShot]

Hmm ... I never noticed that.

What I have wanted for the last five years is RTS style assigning a hot key to a force or a map location. But so far, my wish isn't even on the back burner; not even a TT number. Snivel, snivel ... Oh, well.

[Vance]

I often find myself using my thumb and little finger for estimating range rings at another location than the location the unit is curently in. So I got the brilliant idea of using the LOS tool for measuring distances, but counting the black bars is a little clumsy.

So I thought this was a great item for the whish list. Fortunately before asking, I searched the forum and it turns out it is already in:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

TT2977 - UI - Add range to the LOS tool

And

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
<snip>
I still think that for BFTB we'll try and add in a text number every kilometer, just to make it easier.

Why not display the range as numbers at the cursor position, like "TLOS" for the threads tool? (The answer will probablly be that "TLOS" is a bitmap and not free text) Or display the range in a box in the toolbar?

[gazrang]

My wish is the addition&nbsp;of the 'reverse cycling' by using right-click on display toolbar buttons.
&nbsp;
On&nbsp;other buttons, reverse&nbsp;cycling&nbsp;is very convenient to me when battle is on rush.

[Doobious]

I like a few of the ideas so far...

Someone mentioned in another thread about having a small picture show up when you select a particular unit. An image that is represenative of what that unit is/the units main equipment that would give us a good idea about the unit. As I recall they even made a little mock-up of it. I really liked that idea. Combine that with a display of the information that is available in the senario editor being available in-game, and I think that would make a huge difference.

The idea of draging the units around in the OB screen to organize units is a GREAT idea! Very intuitave method of organizing units IMHO. (I actually tried to do this a couple times when I first started playing, only to discover that it didn't work [:D])

What about some audio cues for when certain messages arrive. I seem to miss messages alot when the action is going. For instance, when reinforcements arrive, a nationality specific voiceover telling us that reinforcements have arrived, along with the text message. If it is Greek troops, then a guy with a thick Greek accent tells me that Greek reinforcements have arrived. This would work for artillery barrages ending, supplies arriving, when an enemy/friendly unit is eliminated, and maybe when troops retreat or are routed. Some of them could be humorous too.

Anything that adds more immersion to the game is good!

What about giving different units their own sound effects (based on unit type, not each individual unit in the editor). The effects do this a little, but more unique effects to give a clearer audio que to what exactly is firing. You might not know where the tank brigade is, but you can sure hear it! Infantry units attacking sounds like small arms fire, tanks attack and you get mg fire and main guns firing, motorcycle units sound like reving 'cycle engines and small arms fire, AT guns sound like, well, AT guns, etc... and this could be modable in the senario editor with the ability to add your own sounds.

Any possibility of a campaign mode where we can take units from senario to senario, and they progress in experience as the campaign moves along?

I love Tomus' idea about the LOS/terrain graph showing the lay of the land. Combine this with elevation/grade lines on the map and the range indicator in the LOS tool and that would be a huge improvement.

We have normal and small unit icons, what about ones that are 150% larger than the normal ones? Maybe with more unit info on the icon and larger text? I am running this on a large LCD monitor and sometimes the normal icons seem small.

Great game. Can't wait for the Bulge!

[Archy]

Is it possible to get maps that are at least 10x bigger ? i find scenarios to be too short even 6 days ones. I would like to play whole campaigns, manage my units and bring them to the front, releive others, It would be great. Low ammo warnings/estimations. Redesign of air support, add some air supply, air reinforcements, new airwar system where you need to send recon/fighters/bombers instead of 'airstrikes'.&nbsp;Ability to entranch/fortificate faster with engineer units. Im both always micro and macro managing and love it so much , i love how your AI does it's thing , it's just neat and responds mostly&nbsp;to what you order them. I know that more units tend to make calculation harder so perhaps if bigger maps came maybe adapt it to higher numbers.
&nbsp;
This game really brings it to another level by removing hex wich i never liked at all and always turned me off. I would like this kind of game engine used to make it more of a rts approach. Unfortunatly this game is too non graphical and complex for 99.9% of the crowd and will never appeal to mass market. It's very hard to find someone to play in mp with.

[lian]

I agree with Doobious: small picture of a unit when selecting it would be nice (I loved the photos in Close Combat 5 when you select your units before beginning the fight. It was just a little picture but you saw the kind of unit you get) and much "realistic" sounds.
It's very frustrating to read that a unit has surrended and you don't know where it happened (I'm so a great general that units prefer to surrender rather than fight when I'm on the field [:D]): you have to search all over the field for the little cross.
And other thing is the Info Box. I&nbsp;prefer to get the combat power&nbsp;and it would be nice we can get two informations at the same time (like strengh+Combat power. You can get a good combat power and not notice at first sight the unit has great losses).
Well, it's only some wishes, I don't know if it's hard to do, if it's very usefull for most players.
Thank you for your job. I'm taking pleasure with the game (my 14 old son cannot imagine I play this kind of games) and it's the more important.

[FredSanford3]

Here's a big wish: Being able to back-patch AA, HttR, & CotA with all the neato features like mines that will be in BftB.&nbsp; A 'master estab' and scenario/map editor to go with, as long as we're dreaming...Bundle it all as a "Gold Edition" like other pubs...

[Arjuna]

Well we will be including the original HTTR estabs in BFTB so users will be able to redesign the HTTR scenarios and play them in BFTB. We won't be including the COTA estabs though.

[FredSanford3]

But wouldn't it be fun to run some King Tigers through a 1940-41 era 1st UK Armd Bde equipped with A10's? [:D]

[FredSanford3]

How about Counter-battery artillery fire as a possible Order/Task?
&nbsp;
Also, is aerial recon considered in spotting (still thinking along the conter-battery lines)?