Future Directions - Features

[wodin]

Hey I'm happy with 2D. It's just Battle Command is the way it should be done if it went 3D.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: wodin


Its a message about campaigns.......I have come across a few .... posts.....where the power needed was mentioned. It has been debated several times now......

My impression of those discussions, was that a campaign would continue to be played at company level.

But if all the companies were merged unit one unit labelled a battalion, the processing problem goes away.

-

[Arjuna]

Back in RDOA we had Bn sized units, but they didn't really work that well. It's a scale thing. We really need to modify the combat system to better handle larger units. And that's a big job.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

This is really hard. I say that because there are some fairly minute and sophisticated functions that the game-engine, as is, doesn't do particularly well. For example, German RECCE units don't really fight as portrayed in the game. To be effective, they'd break up into little combined-arms battle-groups to do their job. That comment isn't really intended as a criticism of the game, BTW. Rather, it's all about trade-offs. The game, AA as I still call it, is at its best when operations are modeled at the company level. If you move the whole deal to battalion level, you'll gain the ability to play larger operations, but you'll lose some of the fidelity that's the hallmark of the series. As is so often the case, there's no free lunch.

[Haiku]

About the 3D map, I agree it could be less readable than the actual 2D map if done improperly.

But I don't want a "real" 3D map, with trees, villages, rocks and factories modeled (as "mesh"). Just the landscape's shape upon which is applied the same map texture than for the 2D map and simple unit sprites. Nothing more. This should be readable enough, even more than the 2D one, as far as I'm concerned.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Haiku

About the 3D map, I agree it could be less readable than the actual 2D map if done improperly.

But I don't want a "real" 3D map, with trees, villages, rocks and factories modeled (as "mesh"). Just the landscape's shape upon which is applied the same map texture than for the 2D map and simple unit sprites. Nothing more. This should be readable enough, even more than the 2D one, as far as I'm concerned.

Did you check my link to Battle Command above?

They do it the way you envisage.

Also keep it at company level please Dave.

[Haiku]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Did you check my link to Battle Command above?

They do it the way you envisage.

You're right, it's really what I want.

http://www.historicalsoftware.com/BC_Ga ... fullsize=1

[8D]

Really, it's not about fancy graphics, I don't care (so much). But IMO such 3D maps improve UI, immersion and overall gameplay.

I agree it's not the most important feature, and I'm afraid the cost for such a feature may be high.

[Nico165b165]

If this hasn't been said yet - a divisional color tool option that you can toggle on and off, like in HPS campaigns series. This would prove very useful in crowded scenarios around Bastogne !

[Arimus]

Larger scenarios.
 
Expanded Artillery fire direction (radio and FO with unit, comm failures, calling unit status checks, etc)
 
Also break out artillery ammo from regular ammo, it needs its own category (Artillery Ammo, Ammo, Basic, Fuel)

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

....If you move the whole deal to battalion level, you'll gain the ability to play larger operations, but you'll lose some of the fidelity that's the hallmark of the series. As is so often the case, there's no free lunch.

Correct. The dedicated reserve pool/class I suggested on page 1 would allow to cover different levels of fidelity, though. You could create Kampfgruppen, but the engine would then also be able to divide units on the fly, initiated by the AI or the player.

And that way, you'd have your Recon groups spread out and rejoin the unit's core/skeleton in a 100% historically correct manner. The engine could then use different doctrines for nations that did not make (extensive) use of Recce units.
I would have to double-check some OOBs I found a while ago, but if I am not mistaken, the French did not have many fast (+light) armored units (employed as Recon units) in 1940, which reduced their Recon range/effectiveness.
Doctrine/equipment and the ability to divide units (or lack therof, depending on the nation) could then be coupled to render each side's recon philosophy in a historically correct manner, with what I'd call flexible resolution/fidelity.

[moberly]

I am not sure how reasonable the possibility is, but I'd love for there to be a 'replay' feature, where I could watch the battle from the start from either side (or have FOW turned off and be able to see all the units on both sides). And it would be very cool to be able to download replays from other players, so it would be possible to watch games played by the experts. Combat Missions was a great game for a lot of reasons, but being able to play through games by great players just by downloading their turn files was an awesome feature.

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: Haiku
* Lessen the efficiency of weak scattered units lost behind enemy lines. Unless commando units, they should have very low morale, very higher order delay or even stay in route status until the situation improves for them. IMO, they are too much pain (both for me or for the AI) than they historically should have.

* Replay.

* Option to relocate HQ without affecting subordinates.

I totally agree with you on these points.

I add: more realistic artillery usage, I hate those "squares"! I want to specify the affected area, and maybe the pattern (linear and advancing, for barrages, circular...)

[Arimus]

There are times when I would like to move just the HQ company, and not the entire force that it commands. Currently to do this you have to detach all the units under its command and reattach them when finished.

[CriticalMass]

I guess this dettach/attach may simulate the SOP of the time: "you guys are own your own, do as you are told until we contact you again oh and by the way...you (points to Btn leader) are in charge until then".

But, I agree there should be a single "task" to do that. 

[Arimus]

meh, its more like "I'm moving the HQ company, don't follow me!"

[jnpoint]

Is all this feature-talking just something we are dreaming about, or will someone use it for anything. And if 'yes', will it then come out as a patch or add-on? just curious.

[DanOppenheim]

Paths: When checking paths with the pathing tools it would be great to be able to hold shift and set waypoints.

jnpoint: See the first post in the thread, but this is for Panther Games to gather what future features users would like to see and so determine what they'll be working on next. I'm not sure if that means patches or add-ons or the next game - probably a bit of each.

[Fred98]

1. Use the pathing tools to choose the preferred path.

2. The line of the path is drawn on the map.

3. At the same time (say) 10 waypoints are provided.

4. The player can then grab any way point and move it a bit to make the path more precise.

-

[Arimus]

There are two formations I would like to see added. A Screen formation and a Patrol formation. The screen would be like the line formation with a larger spacing per man and automatically be set to low aggro.
The patrol formation would probable take some programming but patrolling is a big part of military operations. With these two formations and the ability to stretch an individual unit we could probable consolidate platoons into companiesin the scenario OOB's. Infantry platoons and recon platoons are a pain. They are very fragile, have little combat power, can't be recombined into a company, and create alot of work for the player that takes away from the focus of the game. A corps or division commander should be giving orders to battalions and companies.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Arimus

There are two formations I would like to see added. A Screen formation and a Patrol formation. The screen would be like the line formation with a larger spacing per man and automatically be set to low aggro.
The patrol formation would probable take some programming but patrolling is a big part of military operations. With these two formations and the ability to stretch an individual unit we could probable consolidate platoons into companiesin the scenario OOB's. Infantry platoons and recon platoons are a pain. They are very fragile, have little combat power, can't be recombined into a company, and create alot of work for the player that takes away from the focus of the game. A corps or division commander should be giving orders to battalions and companies.

Can't you do the screen yourself. I think the probe command is sufficient.

Best leave partrolling to the computer. It's probably implied in the unit's detection range already.