BattlePlan suggestion

[DCETRADER]

I hope that FCSS can upgrade a function in the future, that is, BATTLEPLAN can also be used on the human player side, or like Steel Beasts, the path plan can be saved as a file.
In this way, players can call out their own battle strategy at any time, and save time for re establishing waypoint planning.
Thanks team!

[IronMikeGolf]

"I hope that FCSS can upgrade a function in the future, that is, BATTLEPLAN can also be used on the human player side, or like Steel Beasts, the path plan can be saved as a file.
In this way, players can call out their own battle strategy at any time"

There is definitely a lot of good in what you say. We've been looking at how to provide the ability for a human plyer to make a battle plan and there's several ways to approach that. It needs more study.

But I gotta tell you, the idea of a player going to a file and "call out their own battle strategy at any time" is just not something I can support. The reasons are bot technical and, well, get into what we feel is the core of the player experience we want to deliver.

First, the technical:
The glib answer is to tell you to go craft 3 or 4 scenarios with 3 or 4 Battle Plans in each, then reframe your question. But it's way too early for that.

So, the fact is the way Battle Plans work now is they are very much tied to how your force is organized. In a scenario, the computer player does not organize the force. The scenario designer does. And the organization applies to all Battle Plans. As an example, take a Soviet Regiment, be it Tank or Motorized Rifle. There are three of one kind of battalion and one of the other (3 x tank and 1 x MR, or 3 x MR and 1 x Tank). When building BPs for the computer player, the organization is constant. One can certainly plan things out with pure battalions. Or take the "odd battalion" and add a company to the three density battalions. Either way, that organization applies to across the board and the planning of the BPs takes that into account.

But one of the important capabilities we give to the human player is the ability to "shuffle the force deck". So how does that line up with some saved BP? And don't just think about how YOU would use it. It kinda feels like giving a toddler a carving knife and telling them "Now, this is sharp. Be careful. Don't run with it and don't cut yourself. Have fun!" It feels like setting Players up for failure and frustration.

Then there is the philosophical! It sounds like you want an Easy Button to shorten planning. Well, planning your main job as a Player. That's the job of the people you are role playing when you fight in FCSS. Colonels and their staffs. so I am absolutely opposed to that sort of Easy Button. The notion of having a Playbook is totally contrary. And our hope is that the Community will foster additional BPs for the computer player for lots of scenarios.

So, what is my helpful advice on how to be successful (and have fun, because winning is fun, isn't it?)? Planning. Not just planning but planning where and when you need to make decisions. I say that because if you get surprised in this game, you are in a precarious position. Most folks will think through "if they come on my left flank, I'll do this and on my right flank I'll shift that" and that's a great first step. The next is to take into account the friction of battle and that is an important part of our design. If something is a real-world source of friction, well, here's your ticket. If we can add it, we will.

This game is about your decision making and having you endure the consequences of your decisions. That's the foundation. The next layer is "at what level"? Battalion/Brigade/Regiment. So I look at any request/suggestion/stompy-foot demand through that lens. Things that make navigating through the UI easier? Sure? Automating decision making? Nope!

For an example of my planning process, see https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9&t=390169