Suggestion for enhancements - game after next

[Fred98]

Some enhancements I would like to see for the game after next:


When I zoom in and zoom out, that the unit counters increase/decrease in proportion to the map.

Sometimes a tree-line is overlooking some open ground. When I place a brigade in the tree-line in defence to cover the open ground, that the units are placed in the tree-line. Currently they creep forward and occupy the open ground becoming easy targets.

[Arjuna]

Joe 98,
 
We have already made some improvements to the Get Ground of Tactical Importance routines. IIRC I think you will find it much better now at staying in the trees. However, there is only a limited scope that it has to play with - ie the units can only move +/1 X metres from where there should be. The amount of latitude is usually up to 500m but can be reduced by poor visibility etc. So you will need to ensure that you place the objective close to the treeline. Where you deem this important, I recommend you zoom in, set the frontage and depth and drag the objective so that the occupied area box ( markes in yellow ) overlaps the desired deployment area.

[Fred98]

OK, thanks how about the other point.
 
-

[Arjuna]

We can't efficiently modify the icon size at the moment. Once we convert to use DX graphics, then it can be done. As to when, that depends on a lot of things. So I can't really say for sure that it will the game after next.

[hank]

I think you should consider adding a button that transports the user to 3D mode where you can fly across the battlefield with free rotation and zoom capabilities so you can watch your soldiers and armor moving across the field of battle executing the commands you've given them.  Similar to being in a helicopter or scout plane with binoculars.

OK, I'm being a little unrealistic.  But since the subject is for future enhancements I thought I'd chime in.

OH, of course if you crossed behind enemy lines, there would some chance of being shot down thus losing the ability to enter the 3D mode again ...

[;)]

[Arjuna]

Surely if you were shot down, you would most likely be a casualty and we'd have to end the game. [:)]
 
As to 3D view and flythrough, this will have to wait till we overhaul the map classes and map drawing code. It's on ethe list. But it is a big job.

[hank]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Surely if you were shot down, you would most likely be a casualty and we'd have to end the game. [:)]

As to 3D view and flythrough, this will have to wait till we overhaul the map classes and map drawing code. It's on ethe list. But it is a big job.

Yes, getting shot down would be a problem. You would be confined to a POW camp and not have any input into the battle ... assuming you survived the crash. Maybe your forces would only be able to execute the commands you already gave them and no other ... so most likely you would lose. Flying around behind enemy lines would be a risky proposition.

You know the fly-over 3D viewing thingy was tongue-in-cheek but if it was possible it would be fun.

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

I'm pretty sure there are TT's for these already but it sure would be cool to have the ability to give formations a reserve order (defensive or offensive) and have them join the fray either at their own discretion or (possibly) their onmap superior's. I guess this would probably go hand in hand with a "tripwire" feature.
My other pet feature would be a seperate movement class for tracked units. This is almost a "must" for the Eastern front game IMHO at least.
[&o][&o]

Rob. [:)]

[Arjuna]

Rob,
 
Yep there are TaskTracker items for all those things. The reserve capability you refer to requires a number of new features:
[ol][*]sequential tasking ( ie the ability to give multiple orders that are conducted in sequence )
[*]named areas of interest ( NAI ) ( ie the ability to define an area or location on the map and give it a name )
[*]and what the military call "Triggers" ( ie conditions that trigger a specified response - eg if Town X ( a NAI ) is occupied by the enemy, then Attack Town X )[/ol]

[John21b]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Rob,

Yep there are TaskTracker items for all those things. The reserve capability you refer to requires a number of new features:
[ol][*]sequential tasking ( ie the ability to give multiple orders that are conducted in sequence )
[*]named areas of interest ( NAI ) ( ie the ability to define an area or location on the map and give it a name )
[*]and what the military call "Triggers" ( ie conditions that trigger a specified response - eg if Town X ( a NAI ) is occupied by the enemy, then Attack Town X )[/ol]

Surely all of these concepts will be included in the Aussie Defense Ministry version that you are working on..... [;)]

[FredSanford3]

Here's a few that I know have probably been mentioned elsewhere:
1. Minefields and other obstacles - could a minefield be modeled somewhat similar to a major water obstacle. The crossing point/bridge building would be analogous to clearing a lane thru a minefield. An engineer would have 'obstacle clearing capability' similar to '# bridges' they have now. For laying a minefield, well I dunno...
2. Smokescreens - would make movement in the face of opposing artillery a little more possible. If you really want to get crazy, throw chem warfare in there, too.
3. Mount/Dismount for motorized units (been discussed) this is actually improvement priority #1 IMO.
4. Field fortifications shown and buildable- e.g. you could be able to order your engineer units to go prepare positions in an area for later occupation by your forces. Kind of goes with #1 above.
5. Sharing of supplies within co-located units in the same command. I hate it when one company kills an entire bn's manuever by running out of gas when his comrades nearby and under the same CO with the same mission have plenty.
6. More detailed air model - aerial recon, CAS based upon actual army's doctrines/capabilities, a 'real' airdrop model (how cool would it be to plot an airborne landing attack that has air transport unit icons enter the map, try to execute the assigned flight path and drop it's troops in the assigned place, and have the airborne troops scatter and drift according to wind). With all those planes whizzing around, we'd need AA guns that are used as AA guns, too.
7. Similar to the airdrop model, having an amphib/river crossing capability with landing craft or boats delivering troops.
8. Campaign mode or extended scenarios.

Boy, I don't ask for much, do I? [8|]

[Llyranor]

Hey, if we're going to give suggestions, I'll reiterate multiple commands per side, thus allowing for multiplayer co-op play!

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

An idea that might be a bit of a shortcut for mounted/dismounted infantry. Avoids the "where do the trucks go" and autocreating a special unit for them when the troops dismount and related concerns:

Implement 2 new commands for motorized infantry units – mount and dismount. When a dismount command is issued to a motorized unit it would immediately convert to a “leg” movement type for purposes of movement/combat/supply and ignore its wheeled transport. As far as I can recall this ignoring of wheeled equipment seems to happen already in some units in some scenarios (see the Italian Base units with their mountain trucks in the Battle of the Pindos Bases scenario) where there are trucks in the unit but it is displayed with the leg movement icon and behaves as a leg type. These commands would add additional time to orders delay and impose a reduction in unit/formation cohesion – possibly forcing a reorg as well. Only after the dismount was complete could the subsequent attack/probe/move order be given. It might be a solution to the “where do the trucks go when their troops dismount” concern. We just abstract them out of the equation for this iteration.

The affected units/formations would for all purposes remain leg types until such time as they were given orders to re-mount and would again convert to wheeled movement types with another addition to orders delay and loss of cohesion – and a possible reorg as well. You could even “freeze” the unit in place by reorg or rest for however long it would take the abstracted trucks (as determined by mechanics similar to those in determining the length of time, routing, potential for losses, aborts etc. used for the existing but abstracted supply convoy system routine) to rejoin their units. Routing and duration calculations would be based on the geographical points where the dismount/mount orders were given. In this variation units/formations would again become wheeled movement types only when the trucks arrived at the new location so to speak. If the trucks were delayed the player could always wait out the delay or issue another order (which would cancel out the abstracted truck move) implying that the units/formation remained leg types until such time as the order was issued again. If so, the cycle would repeat. If the rejoining trucks aborted then the player would have the same options as in delayed arrival. Losses to trucks in an abstracted movement could occur also. Similar (from a player’s perspective) to the abstracted supply routines in place today.
I realize (again) that I have no way of knowing the level of effort this would involve. Probably more than I guess. Aside from the 2 new orders I believe that it builds on existing functionality so that should mitigate effort somewhat.

What do others think??

Rob. [:)]

[Arjuna]

Nice try Rob, but alas no good. The trouble with your recommended solution is that the unit would still have the same estab. Therefore it would still have the same equipment. It would still have the same personnel. I would have to write a plethora of exception code to handle things differently based on the mounted/dismounted setting. In short the pain would not be worth the gain. I might as well do the job properly. Quick hacks like you suggest rarely work out. Don't worry it's high on the wish list.
 
I believe that priority of development should be towards fleshing out the shortcomings in the simulation - such as correctly modelling mounted infantry. I include in this things like modelling bridge construction, cross river assaults, realistic formation movement ( based on phase lines and subordinate routes, rather than the current abstract method of using a formation hub and offsets ), HQ basing ( so they don't lead the charge when components of a force are moved independently ), off-map fire-support, realistic air strikes and minefield clearance. In fact we have done automated bridge construction for BFTB and will be addressing the realistic formation movement and HQ basing. The rest will have to wait. I would add to this list of AI changes UI features like sequential tasking ( so you can lay down a sequence of tasks for a force ) and triggers ( so you can set conditions on which a task ends or starts ). There are plenty of other less important ones like converting the map to DX graphics so we can support graphic and planning overlays ( where the player can draw and annotate on the map to help develop his plan ). 
 
If I had to rank them then it would depend on the next battle we will cover but I would say at this stage they should be:
[ol][*]cross river assaults
[*]off-map fire-support
[*]sequential tasking
[*]triggers[/ol]
Our approach has always been to work from the ground up. Perfect the base game mechanics like movement and combat, layer onto this the ability to develop basic tasks and then develop complex plans and so on. Once the engine can simulate just about any WW2 operation, then I reckon we should look at things like multi co-op play.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Quick hacks like you suggest rarely work out. Don't worry it's high on the wish list.

Talking about quick hacks, without knowing the source-code, but wouldn't it be relatively easy to apply some "IF-loops / conditions" for motorized Inf units, which would let them have instant losses (if a unit's motor pool consists of trucks or motorbikes only, setting the number of vehicles to "0" instantly) on enemy contact, and then check the estab to pull the original number of vehicles once they have disengaged and once enemy units are further away than let's say 800 or 1000 meters?
That procedure wouldn't require the coding of memory banks for holding the individual units' vehicle pool data. This would make ambushes (waiting for enemy convoys) less effective, but the current situation, where it takes motorized units something between 8-48 hours to cross 1 km of rough terrain (let alone that they can't access woods at all), is anything than enjoying.

Also, if I'd be a military commander in RL, I wouldn't allow my Inf units to promenade their trucks in front of the enemy's toes (and heavy weapons). Quite amusing, this happens in COTA and it will happen in BFTB as well. [:)]
I'd expect truck losses on supply routes (inflicted by arty or tactical bombers, or breakdowns), but not right at the front line. [:-]

Well I know some java, but not Unix or C++, so..... just an idea. [:)]

[Guibix]

Hi all!

I propose an idea to visualize the influence areas of our forces.
It is something we usually use the military.



Here is the German 6th Geb Div and the 31st Tk Regt, deployed in Larissa:



If we see a global vision of the situation, it’s difficult to know where start and end our battalions, regiments, etc. We must make many scrolls and zooms or filters to view it.




I propose a system based on "maximum polygon area" to define the influence area of our forces.
The result would be something like this:






With hidden units:



I have omitted to supply bases. Rarely are included in the combat formations. Could it represent in some way.




In the confrontation, these areas are affected by the enemy position.

I represent a theoretical clash of UK Arm Bde with 141 ° Geb Regt in the SE area of division.






When you see the enemy, the influence area of division is changed.
The enemy can be displayed with areas for each unit and one area for all known units











When the battalion is surrounded, it's beyond the regimental and divisional influence.



I guess that all situations can be represented whith this system.
Can be a powerful tool to understand complex situations


This is only a simple idea, can be improved in many ways and add many options:

-Mark the HQs with flags.
-Add military symbols in borders and areas, with the designations of forces.
-Mark the units that are surrounded.
-And a large etc.

What do you think about this?

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Sign me up as wanting the overlays/annotation that Arjuna mentioned, and I also like Guibix's graphical influence areas thing. One of my desires forever for PC wargames has been to be able to "grease pencil" on the map; when I played board games I would place the maps under plexiglass and use grease pencils to delineate formations and boundaries and objectives and stuff. Always wanted to do that in a game on the PC.

[Guibix]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

Sign me up as wanting the overlays/annotation that Arjuna mentioned, and I also like Guibix's graphical influence areas thing. One of my desires forever for PC wargames has been to be able to "grease pencil" on the map; when I played board games I would place the maps under plexiglass and use grease pencils to delineate formations and boundaries and objectives and stuff. Always wanted to do that in a game on the PC.

I think the same.
I did those things also, and very bad things also.[:D]

The system can be activated and desactivated with simple button. Or can be a menu with all activable layers: battallion, regiment, HQs, designations, etc.

Is a possibility, but I guess there are other.[8|]

PD: By the way is a relatively simple algorithm. I don't know how is it, but is easy to find

[Arjuna]

Interesting idea. Thank you.