Future Directions - Features

[DanOppenheim]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

It is our intention to head in this direction - ie allowing a free form draw layer. Not sure when we will get there, though.

Hooray! I'll wait!

In the meantime, however, I might take a look at writing something to do this via a separate program. I've been looking for a reasonable and interesting home project. I'll make do with screenshot stitching for now, but if you feel like adding an export-to-image function to map maker...

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: DanO

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Instead of burdening the software with maintaining an "current" and a "planning" cache in real time, the "current" can be exported to a separate program for planning purposes.

It's little different from what goes on in a combat operations center where real time graphics are pinned to a wall and tactical / strategic specialists move pins around on the map to determine the best options for progressing from the last known deployment of friendly and enemy forces.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm entirely clear as to what you mean here, sorry. Do you mean dynamic planning? I'm only talking about static drawing on a map, preferably with some predefined brushes (arrows, shading areas, NATO symbols) and text. The sort of thing I'd normally do in my head or on a bit of paper. It doesn't need to be anything more complex than that.

Your concept addresses the concern.

It was about burdening the engine by maintaining a "current situation" layer with planning tools available (LOS, Threat, Routing, Formation Modes, etc.) and adding a "planning" layer with the same utilities available to the software burdens.

If I were to prioritize, I'd rather see modelling capabilities for dismounted operations, river crossing / beach landing, denial of maneuver (minefields / anti-mobility emplacements), and a future air mobility capability (defining drop zones at game start with a pre-planned stub to morph to helicopter airmobile operations) winning a bigger claim on the engine's "new" software burden(s).

[wodin]

I agree with Jim..his requests, esp dismounted troops, I feel are a priority. The planning layer tools etc would be a "cool" feature but not one that really improves gameplay at a fundamental level.

[DanOppenheim]

Of course, I agree with you both! I'd much rather resources were put into gameplay additions and updates as well as planning aids that can't be done outside the engine. The drawing layers would just be a convenience. Definitely a Would Be Nice feature, not a Requirement.

Personally, I'd prefer more complex recon modelling first, but someone already mentioned that, so I suggested something I'd not seen (in the pages I'd read).

[dazkaz15]

I totally disagree with all three of you with regards to how important the tactical overlay is.

Unless you already do all your planning on a piece of paper first, or are good enough to be able to remember it all in your head.
Its at the core to the whole command ops theme.
That's the main reason the orders delay, is there, its all about encouraging you to form a plan, to get and maintain the initiative over the enemy.

If you don't plan out your scenario, then you just end up reacting to the enemy rather than following a thought out plan, and an overlay that allows you to create and follow, but also adapt if necessary, that plan easily, is a huge help.
In a short scenario I would say that half the total time spent playing it, should be spent planning it with the overlay tool, before you even go near the play button, and for me anyway, is a large part of the enjoyment of it.

On a larger one, you could probably spend a whole gaming session just drawing on it, and researching your objectives, reserves, quality of the troops, ground, LOS, choke points etc.

Having an overlay for your map makes it easy to see if you are still on course to achieve your objectives, and exactly where you had planned to send your reinforcements, all at the touch of a button.
It allows you to plot enemy observed movements, mark on impassable terrain, even draw in your own contour lines in key areas.
You can mark on the best positions for OP's that you checked with the LOS tool during daylight, so that you can move into them during the night without forgetting where they are, mark the last known position of that infiltrating enemy unit so that when the Intel wears off you remember that one is there.
I think I mentioned this before, but you can even write stuff like don't forget to pick up the wife on it.
The possibilities are endless.

How many Corps Commanders do you think never marked their plans on an overlay map, and just relied upon current and past Intel for their ops? Not many I bet, and as we are meant to be wearing their hat, I think we should have a simulation of the kind of tools that they would have been using on a daily basis.

Don't let the enemy have the initiative, plan your battles

[DanOppenheim]

I agree with your estimation of the utility of overlay drawing and I absolutely agree that planning is fundamental. Like I said in an earlier post, I often screenshot the maps and do my own planning in a paint program or I'll print them out and go the pen and paper route. I find this very useful but somewhat long-winded, hence my request for in-game support.

All that being said, however, I do think I could get by with this approach, whereas adding or fixing some gameplay features is something that only PG can do, so I'd rather they concentrated on that.

[wodin]

Dazkaz..not saying it wouldn't be handy..but there are more important features like dismounted troops that really effect the way the game plays and effects realism..it's very restrictive. I have never played the game wishing it had the overlay tools..but have played it wishing we could dismount troops, have mine fields and Doctrines and a couple of other things.

Funny enough I probably really need the tools to help me plan..but thats my failing rather than the games failing. Again would love the tools..but hope work is on other things first.

[DanOppenheim]

This thread reminded me that it'd be really useful for the scenario chooser screens to have more information, particularly scenario size. In addition, it'd be useful to be able to sort the scenarios by date.

[DanOppenheim]

A somewhat more far-fetched idea now:

It would be very interesting to be able to turn on fog-of-war for friendly units.

I envisage that the for the purposes of visibility the player would assume the role of the on-map-boss. All units would send status information to their immediate superior, who would collate the information and send that information to their superior, until it reaches the OMB.

It would basically be like order dissemination but reversed and the information packets wouldn't be orders but status updates. Report-delay would be the time it takes for a unit to report its status to its superior. The reported data would be filtered according to the current posture of the unit (resting == excellent, engaged == vague) or whatever else affects its ability to report.

Additional tweaks would be stuff like allowing the OMB to assign resources to increase the accuracy and decrease the delay of reports.


I'm not entirely sure this idea would actually be *fun*. Interesting, though. Also, probably a massive pain to retrofit into an existing engine.

edit: Again, apologies if this is an old idea!

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: DanO

A somewhat more far-fetched idea now:

It would be very interesting to be able to turn on fog-of-war for friendly units.

I envisage that the for the purposes of visibility the player would assume the role of the on-map-boss. All units would send status information to their immediate superior, who would collate the information and send that information to their superior, until it reaches the OMB.

It would basically be like order dissemination but reversed and the information packets wouldn't be orders but status updates. Report-delay would be the time it takes for a unit to report its status to its superior. The reported data would be filtered according to the current posture of the unit (resting == excellent, engaged == vague) or whatever else affects its ability to report.

Additional tweaks would be stuff like allowing the OMB to assign resources to increase the accuracy and decrease the delay of reports.


I'm not entirely sure this idea would actually be *fun*. Interesting, though. Also, probably a massive pain to retrofit into an existing engine.

edit: Again, apologies if this is an old idea!

It would be a lot of fun. IIRC it was proposed before and the answer was no, because it would increase system requirements to scientific supercomputer levels.

[dazkaz15]

It sounds like a completely different game concept to me.

Not saying its a bad idea, but not really something I would be interested in.
I think it would get very confusing, with orders delays on the way out, then more delays, and miss information coming back.

Very realistic I guess, but I'm to much of a control freak to put up with that [:D]

[Alchenar]

I would like a map mode where I can see the actual footprint of units on the map all the time. It would give a much better visual reference to see what units are doing (ie. when things are obviously in line, march column, reorganising etc). Just shade the boxes in Allied Green and Axis Grey and keep the current unit info box in the middle of it.

[dazkaz15]

You can do this very quickly by zooming out a bit, and drag selecting everything you are interested in, this will show the footprints of all the units that are selected.
Unfortunately this won't be permanent though as you have requested, because when you select another individual, or group of units it will de-select the others, and you wont be able to see the footprints for them until you select them again.

You can also select all the units under a particular HQ by holding down shift, and pressing the down arrow key.
If you do this for the on map boss, with the Organic command structure option selected, it will select all the units on the map after a few repeat applications of the down arrow.

[Repsol]

Hello...I have not played this game for quite a while...(I have not had it installed on my new computer)...
but i recently installed. and i like playing it and the future for the series looks very intresting !

I have not read this entire thread so i appologize if my suggestion has already been mentioned...

After recently started playing again one new feature i think would be nice would be to be able to click on the incons in the list (reinforcements tab)and expand (like the OB-display) that reinforcement info to show an actual list of all the units arraving at that time.

As it is now it only gives me the number of units arriving and the senior HQ. I know i can check this in the OB-display but i think that it would be simpler if a could just expand the reinforcements list...

[Major SNAFU_M]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dazkaz..not saying it wouldn't be handy..but there are more important features like dismounted troops that really effect the way the game plays and effects realism..it's very restrictive. I have never played the game wishing it had the overlay tools..but have played it wishing we could dismount troops, have mine fields and Doctrines and a couple of other things.

Funny enough I probably really need the tools to help me plan..but thats my failing rather than the games failing. Again would love the tools..but hope work is on other things first.

And obstacles, both wire and dragon's teeth?

And what about smoke? I keep going back and forth on whether smoke belongs or not. At this point, I believe it does belong as a way to modify visibility is a particular area to augment an attack.

But the one thing I would really like to see is a security overlay similar in implementation to the LOS display. I always struggle with trying to figure out what and where to place security units and where potential holes might be. I would like to have a shaded area overlay displaying estimated level of security based around each unit, with the estimate factoring in: time of day, terrain, LOS and weather factors and current formation type and footprint.

but first I want dismounted troops and resupply of units (personnel and equipment), especially for longer scenarios.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dazkaz..not saying it wouldn't be handy..but there are more important features like dismounted troops that really effect the way the game plays and effects realism..it's very restrictive. I have never played the game wishing it had the overlay tools..but have played it wishing we could dismount troops, have mine fields and Doctrines and a couple of other things.

Funny enough I probably really need the tools to help me plan..but thats my failing rather than the games failing. Again would love the tools..but hope work is on other things first.

. . .
And what about smoke? I keep going back and forth on whether smoke belongs or not. At this point, I believe it does belong as a way to modify visibility is a particular area to augment an attack.

I like the idea.

But the one thing I would really like to see is a security overlay similar in implementation to the LOS display. I always struggle with trying to figure out what and where to place security units and where potential holes might be. I would like to have a shaded area overlay displaying estimated level of security based around each unit, with the estimate factoring in: time of day, terrain, LOS and weather factors and current formation type and footprint.

The threat tool allows the player to determine which units are targeting the selected unit. I think what you're asking for is a kind of "area threat" display taking into account all the known enemy units and their potential to see, and thus target areas of the map.

but first I want dismounted troops and resupply of units (personnel and equipment), especially for longer scenarios.

Agree with dismounted troops.

Not certain about the replacement during battle. The fatigue, morale, and cohesion calculations and the merging of heavily damaged units into peer organizations more or less allow the "operationally available" manpower to vary over the period of a battle in the same manner that healthy soldiers are sent back to the fight or reassigned to a new commander when original unit cohesion is unattainable due to overall unit losses.

But, I'm presuming that, other than in the movies, new recruits entered a unit only during significant lulls in battle.

Replacement of equipment is intriguing. Over longer scenarios it could take into account operations such as heavier repair of battle damaged / fatigued equipment (which brings in consideration of repair parts, maintenance manpower, and maintenance organization in the game software).

As far as "reserve" equipment, the US Army has a concept of battlefield reserve, with a small percentage of equipment (equipment count significantly lower than the number necessary to stand up even the smallest unit organization under the command if soldiers were available to man it) assigned to a higher command structure. It is brought forward as a "loaner" to replace a piece of equipment that had to be towed to the rear for repair.

It was still part of the maintenance operation rather than having enough available to replace totally destroyed equipment with newer units.

[Alchenar]

An old request but one worth repeating: The post-game situation view should give perfect information rather than what it gives now. If I'm going to learn from a game then I need to know what proportion of enemy units remain from the scenario start, what their ammo state is, whether or not they were in supply etc.

[Major SNAFU_M]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

ORIGINAL: Major SNAFU



. . .
And what about smoke? I keep going back and forth on whether smoke belongs or not. At this point, I believe it does belong as a way to modify visibility is a particular area to augment an attack.

I like the idea.

But the one thing I would really like to see is a security overlay similar in implementation to the LOS display. I always struggle with trying to figure out what and where to place security units and where potential holes might be. I would like to have a shaded area overlay displaying estimated level of security based around each unit, with the estimate factoring in: time of day, terrain, LOS and weather factors and current formation type and footprint.

The threat tool allows the player to determine which units are targeting the selected unit. I think what you're asking for is a kind of "area threat" display taking into account all the known enemy units and their potential to see, and thus target areas of the map.

Sorry, I must not have explained well. I want an overview, based on the factors above, of an estimate of the security "screen" on the map. In other words, I want to see where, based on those factors, I am most at risk of infiltration by the enemy.


but first I want dismounted troops and resupply of units (personnel and equipment), especially for longer scenarios.

Agree with dismounted troops.

Not certain about the replacement during battle. The fatigue, morale, and cohesion calculations and the merging of heavily damaged units into peer organizations more or less allow the "operationally available" manpower to vary over the period of a battle in the same manner that healthy soldiers are sent back to the fight or reassigned to a new commander when original unit cohesion is unattainable due to overall unit losses.

But, I'm presuming that, other than in the movies, new recruits entered a unit only during significant lulls in battle.

Replacement of equipment is intriguing. Over longer scenarios it could take into account operations such as heavier repair of battle damaged / fatigued equipment (which brings in consideration of repair parts, maintenance manpower, and maintenance organization in the game software).

As far as "reserve" equipment, the US Army has a concept of battlefield reserve, with a small percentage of equipment (equipment count significantly lower than the number necessary to stand up even the smallest unit organization under the command if soldiers were available to man it) assigned to a higher command structure. It is brought forward as a "loaner" to replace a piece of equipment that had to be towed to the rear for repair.

It was still part of the maintenance operation rather than having enough available to replace totally destroyed equipment with newer units.

I have read any number of accounts where reserves and even new replacements were fed directly into the line. The would arrive at the relevant CP and most often be picked up by an NCO and troops that had come back from the line to obtain supplies and food, and then would be led back to the line and placed into foxholes with little or no orientation as to even where the MLR was. At best, their foxhole mate has been on the line for a while and could fill them in a bit.

This, of course, applies to infantry. But I believe even in the book "Death Traps" it describes that repaired and repainted shermans were fed into the line with green crews to replace casualties during an operation - not between operations. At best they were told something like "the enemy is in that direction...." and off they would go.

So I would like to see for multi-day operations an ability to have a certain number of troops and equipment replaced on the line. I would not be a huge number, but getting a couple of shermans back on day 3 that were lost on day 1 is not unrealistic. A sherman could be taken out by one penetrating round taking out the crew. They would patch it, paint over the blood and a new crew would take it back into the line.

[DanOppenheim]

Another one: I'd like to be able to change the time on the LOS tools. In other words, rather than just getting LOS for the current time, I'd like to know what it will be at some time I specify. It's a bit of pain to have to make plans based on extrapolating from the current state. I very rarely care about LOS at the current time.

Of course, one might say that the LOS of tool shouldn't exist at all because it's a bit gamey, but it does, so I'd like to have it be a bit more functionally useful. It's either that or allow me to overlay a higher-resolution gradient map, rather than the broader current gradient. Then I'll figure it out like I'm supposed to.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Agree with dismounted troops.

Not certain about the replacement during battle. The fatigue, morale, and cohesion calculations and the merging of heavily damaged units into peer organizations more or less allow the "operationally available" manpower to vary over the period of a battle in the same manner that healthy soldiers are sent back to the fight or reassigned to a new commander when original unit cohesion is unattainable due to overall unit losses.

But, I'm presuming that, other than in the movies, new recruits entered a unit only during significant lulls in battle.

Replacement of equipment is intriguing. Over longer scenarios it could take into account operations such as heavier repair of battle damaged / fatigued equipment (which brings in consideration of repair parts, maintenance manpower, and maintenance organization in the game software).

As far as "reserve" equipment, the US Army has a concept of battlefield reserve, with a small percentage of equipment (equipment count significantly lower than the number necessary to stand up even the smallest unit organization under the command if soldiers were available to man it) assigned to a higher command structure. It is brought forward as a "loaner" to replace a piece of equipment that had to be towed to the rear for repair.

It was still part of the maintenance operation rather than having enough available to replace totally destroyed equipment with newer units.

Major SNAFU:

I have read any number of accounts where reserves and even new replacements were fed directly into the line. The would arrive at the relevant CP and most often be picked up by an NCO and troops that had come back from the line to obtain supplies and food, and then would be led back to the line and placed into foxholes with little or no orientation as to even where the MLR was. At best, their foxhole mate has been on the line for a while and could fill them in a bit.

This, of course, applies to infantry. But I believe even in the book "Death Traps" it describes that repaired and repainted shermans were fed into the line with green crews to replace casualties during an operation - not between operations. At best they were told something like "the enemy is in that direction...." and off they would go.

So I would like to see for multi-day operations an ability to have a certain number of troops and equipment replaced on the line. I would not be a huge number, but getting a couple of shermans back on day 3 that were lost on day 1 is not unrealistic. A sherman could be taken out by one penetrating round taking out the crew. They would patch it, paint over the blood and a new crew would take it back into the line.

It's the repair and repainting I was speaking of when discussing perhaps allowing some equipment to return. Certain types of "kills" on a tank, truck, or a gun don't necessarily destroy the weapon system or harm the crew but make it inoperative and in need of repair (consider a flat tire on a truck as a relatively minor example).

Particularly in the case of penetrating rounds, the repairs are significantly more complicated than "patching and painting" and would take longer to perform.

If a round can kill a crew with the debris from the armor it shatters to penetrate the tank it can also do significant damage to those things inside the tank necessary for it to fight effectively.

The hole on the outside of the area hit is much smaller than the crater on the inside the effective penetration created. In effect a penetrating round turns the inner armor into shrapnel (determined by the weight and velocity of the penetrating projectile and the hardening of the armor), which kills the crew in close proximity and does significant damage to hydraulic lines, communications equipment, controls, sights, and turret, automotive, and gun control mechanisms / motors.

It takes time to evaluate what is necessary to return the platform to some form of operational state (ability to move and shoot as a minimum) and more beyond that to repair / replace components necessary to return it to that state.

If it's a mobility kill, where the track was cut (often the result of damage in a minefield), the time is relatively short so long as enough links of track or a road wheel on hand to repair the a mobility kill (the reason why some tanks have lengths of track and spare wheels hung on their front glacis). The crew can usually return the vehicle to operation in a few hours with immediate track repairs.

More significant damage (suspension, interior, control mechanisms, armor) require more refined skills and as a minimum the transport of technicians, parts, and equipment to the damage site, if a repair is capable of being performed in place.

More time yet is necessary for recovery (towing / restoring minimal movement by crew to drive the vehicle to the rear) and repair at a static repair point.

None of this is currently modeled directly in the game.

Though not explicitly modeled, there's a flavor from the unit effectiveness measures for a combat unit, and the recovery times necessary to restore a unit's combat effectiveness from those situations.

As far as combat replacements (manpower) being added, given the lag time between when a unit suffers a combat loss and the military bureaucracy could respond to that loss, I don't think including it in the game time scales is realistic.

I've seen a suggestion for a "campaign mode" concept to be designed into the CO system. As I recall, it would allow a player to take a unit that had serial battles inside a larger campaign to be taken from the first battle it faced to the last using the results of an earlier battle to define the strengths and weaknesses for the unit when included in a later battle. Replacements would definitely fit into that situation (in effect available at the start of the next scenario in the campaign).

But, there wouldn't be 100-percent replacement (or there'd be no sense seeing how a unit does in the "campaign") and given the time frame between scenarios, there could be a significant lag between the time a replacement is needed and one is available.