Future Directions - Features

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Frank.Costanzo

....I do not like counting up the ticks on the LOS tool, so it becomes a matter of enhancing a existing feature by adding a number at the end of the LOS tool to indicate the current distance.

Same here.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Frank.Costanzo
I do not like counting up the ticks on the LOS tool, so it becomes a matter of enhancing a existing feature by adding a number at the end of the LOS tool to indicate the current distance.

I agree. It is a computer game so we should not have to count.

-

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: moet

My suggestion : add an "UNDO" button that give the player the opportunity to cancel the order he just gave. The canceling window would remains few seconds or till the player give another order.

Why not just pause the game, think things through then give the order. If you want to undo it, then just delete it and give another order. We are striving for realism regarding this level of command, then a floating undo button to erase time hardly is the solution.

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
I agree. It is a computer game so we should not have to count.

Agreed. What would also be great is a CRT, a terrain effects table, the ability to show likely results before an attack. Showing the dice throw would help. How about an undo button? Column shifts, step losses, tactical bonuses shown on the screen would all help, after all it's a computer game. We shouldn't have to calculate!
Tell you what, if you overlaid the map with hexes and had to move each unit individually whilst taking turns, that would be really cool.
<sarcasm mode off>
Cheers
Ray

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

<sarcasm mode off>
Cheers
Ray

The developer's are smart enough to provide a measuring too.

The tool could be enhanced by having numbers on the scale. The other option is to remove the measuring tool.

Measuring distance using compass map and geometry was common till the GPs was invented.

-

[Frank.Costanzo]

I would like to see the "fire" order to have the ability to lock on to a specific target. If that target moves during the duration of the fire order, then the firing unit would still be locked on to that target as it moves. This would be a enhancement to the direct fire feature that already exists the game.

Frank

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Frank.Costanzo

I would like to see the "fire" order to have the ability to lock on to a specific target. If that target moves during the duration of the fire order, then the firing unit would still be locked on to that target as it moves. This would be a enhancement to the direct fire feature that already exists the game.

Frank

Good one!!

It might also help solve the problems with enemy remnants haunting your rear areas, trashing your supply columns, and calling in arty strikes............

Rob. [:)]

[hank]

I seem to recall this being discussed before but I can't seem to find it.

Add to the direct fire order the ability for a unit to fire on another unit instead of a piece of land. The target unit must obviously be in the LOS of the attacking unit and identified under the Current Intell (that may be obvious too)

I'm not sure how that discussion ended either but I had a situation last battle where I wanted my Shermans to fire on a unit of PzIVs but they kept firing on the spot I picked on (dead center of the Pz unit box) ... even when the the Pz Unit moved away from the point I picked ... and it was still in LOS.

Of course when the attacked unit moves out of the LOS the firing stops.

[hank]

Is there no input on this one?

today I was playing Hell on Wheels and I had two Allied Armored Companies (each with 9 to 11 tanks each, a mix of 75 and 76mm equipped shermans) ... given orders for a fire mission on one Axis armored (Panzer) company with 11 tanks (Panthers). I gave them the fire order and the shooting started. But a few seconds after I gave the order, the Panther unit moved from the spot I gave the fire order but my tanks kept firing on the same piece of dirt. You have to be able to target a unit, in addition to targetting a piece of dirt.

You can't tell me tankers can not follow a moving target as long as its in the LOS.

For good armored combat this needs to be addressed. I know from playing SteelBeasts until my fingers bled, once a tanker has a bead on a group of tanks, they won't let go until they've blown a few turrets off ... and they especially won't keep firing at a piece of ground if there's no MBT's there to shoot at.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: hank

I seem to recall this being discussed before but I can't seem to find it.

Add to the direct fire order the ability for a unit to fire on another unit instead of a piece of land. The target unit must obviously be in the LOS of the attacking unit and identified under the Current Intell (that may be obvious too)

Yes, that had been discussed before, I suggested a "Lock-on"-function to track foes, say you detach an AT Coy, then you have to use the Fire command in order to get them firing like madmen and actually switch to max ROF. This is quite cumersome. Once a given unit is tasked with a max ROF/defend order, it should actually stick to the order, without the user having to intervene.
I also had stragglers in mind (lock-on -> to chase an enemy unit automatically), and now I'm thinking that this could be either implemented with an "infinite task" option, or with a duration function.

Others seemed to like these ideas, but I don't think it caught Dave's interest. I can't remember getting input from him, at least.

[FredSanford3]

A different approach to the Fire command that I think would be more suitable for an operational game is using it as a "set kill zone" order- if you give a unit or formation the Fire command it will either:
(a) If the unit can see the location the fire command is set at, it will face that direction, and will fire if an enemy unit moves into the kill zone, or
(b) If the unit cannot see the fire command location, it will move to a location where it can see, and then defend per (a).

This could be used with the ambush selection quite effectively, or conventionally on defense to ensure the critical approaches to a position are covered.

[Arjuna]

FN,

I like your idea. It's much more realistic that the unit tracker approach. Do I take it that you also want to restrict the force's fires to that zone alone. Ie if a threat appears elsewhere it won't fire at it.

[loyalcitizen]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

FN,

I like your idea. It's much more realistic that the unit tracker approach. Do I take it that you also want to restrict the force's fires to that zone alone. Ie if a threat appears elsewhere it won't fire at it.

I like the idea. I would answer your question by saying that it wouldn't fire at the threat unless fired on by it.

[FredSanford3]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

FN,

I like your idea. It's much more realistic that the unit tracker approach. Do I take it that you also want to restrict the force's fires to that zone alone. Ie if a threat appears elsewhere it won't fire at it.

Perhaps that could be adjustable based upon aggro setting- ranging from min(ambush mode)- units will fire exclusively in the kill zone; up to max aggro, where they fire at anything that moves that they can see anywhere. In that case, the kill box setting would really only help govern the deployment of the units.

[SwampYankee68]

Forgive the ignorance here, I'm a new owner who has read through the manual and is on day 4 of the tutorial - Assuming the enemy is in the unit's LOS, would just having it set to defend with high Aggro & ROF ensure they would keep the targets under fire until the targets were destroyed or moved out of LOS?

[FredSanford3]

yes, but this 'kill zone' idea is to ensure that units will position themselves to ensure they have a LOS to a particular patch of ground.

[SwampYankee68]

Yes - I like the "kill zone" idea very much - I was referring my question more to the original issues raised.

[hank]

The kill zone concept is good IMHO. After thinking it through ... as a tanker for example ... if you lock on to a group of armored targets, they're usually in a Kill Zone and whether those targets are in unit A (or company A) or unit B is irrelevant. If you can see them, they are targets of opportunity.

good stuff

[johnasl]

How about a message about capturing/intercepting the enemy's supply convoys? I spend a fair amount of time making sure my supply lines are in order and try to fix situations where my convoys are getting intercepted. It would seem that having the reverse information (i.e., capture of enemy supply convoy) would be useful intelligence. I think it may also help in tracking down those "pesky" units way behind your lines since their supply must be getting intercepted as well.

[RockinHarry]

Now having played with the demo a little bit, things I´d like to see in the future would be, arty smoke missions, flame tanks (brit Crocodile would be cool in particular), blinking or highlighted units, after clicking the related message in the message box, turnable map (I prefer moving/playing my units bottom up, which feels more naturally to me), a "LOS area" option that always allows checking LOS as under perfect (weather/TOD) conditions, a more accurate micro grid of maybe 50m, to avoid those gross inacuracies, when using the terrain data tool and compare with what you actually see on the map, a more realistic FOW presentation (looks unrealistic, when a unit is one time reported as beeing a Panther tank unit, another time a Stug unit and so forth. Units should be reported as basic infantry, tank, or else and then grudally uncovered to be of the correct type over time), distinct weapon sound FX, at least for those that have one (like german MG42 buzzsaw,..), including primed/unprimed bridge status info to FOW routines, an automatic stop (configurable, like in the HOI game series)for particular important game status messages. So far so good. [8D]