Future Directions - Features

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Part of what you are suggesting would be addressed by a course of action (COA) analyser, where multiple plans are developed from which the player can select one and modify it if they desire.

Hm... if you post a one-liner like that, and not something like "re introduction of analyzer requires to recode the entire engine so it's a really big job, and we want to get 20 other items in the game, first" [;)], it must have made you think. I sense it may be feasable. [:D] [:)] [&o]

[Arjuna]

Feasable yes, but the real question is "is it fundable". It's something I have been working on for the military. I did a scoping study for them a couple of years ago and am doing more work on it right now. I can't tell you any more than that, so don't ask.

[SapperAstro_MatrixForum]

Campaign! Apart from that, keep on doing what you are doing.

[schmolywar]

My Holy Grail:

Saveable multiplayer

Never seen before in any real time game for some reason.

[heyhellowhatsnew]

More scenarios please [&o]

[rfrizz]

ORIGINAL: schmolywar

My Holy Grail:

Saveable multiplayer

Never seen before in any real time game for some reason.

What about Doom?

I know, I know. You meant a wargame, not a FPS.

[Phoenix100]

What do you mean by Saveable MP? If you play H2H Command Ops then you can save it whenever you want.

[altipueri]

More scenarios.
Random scenario generator.
Ability to change settings from a loaded save - switch sides or change settings.

It may be that for programming reasons you cannot do a random scenario generator like CMx1 Combat Mission or Advanced Tactics where it creates the terrain; but could do one with existing maps, and units like the old Sid Meier's Gettysburg or the newer Combat Mission. You seem to have done the difficult part which is creating an AI that does a "reasonable job", now you need to expand the appeal such that Command Ops becomes a "must have" game for anybody who even vaguely looks at wargames. Civilization is a "must have" game. Combat Mission was, but I think they've lost it with CMx2 - even though I have it. Much probably depends on how you want to run your business. Many wargames seem to me to end up becoming ever more obscure as they move to satisfy only their core user base who demand ever greater refinements on spotting or machine gun use, or cavalry versus squares just to change the era. The games risk becoming ever more difficult for new comers as the experts demand more rules or situations. In fact you can make the difficult settings as difficult as you like (e.g. Deity in Civilization) as long as the easy settings remain easy.

Go, the Chinese/Japanese game can be at one level just placing black and white stones on a 19x19 grid; but computers still cannot beat top Go players (I think) whereas they can in chess.

[wodin]

I'd like the option to have fire arrows that go from the unit to the unit it's shooting at (colour coded to say the intensity of fire).The colour could change dynamically if you keep them on due to various levels of fire intensity. Be able to have the option just to show it on the unit selected, formation selected or all. Also have the option to show return fire arrows on or off (would have to be different colour to stand out if you have both on)the return fire arrow again same options..You can have show any incoming fire arrows shown when you select a unit, formation or all. Similar thickness to formation lines (though could make them a touch thinner).

Another option I'd like is if you click on one of your units then any enemy units spotted are highlighted.

Finally I've mentioned this before more radio feedback..i.e taking heavy fire, need reinforcements,enemy formation spotted, request to be pulled back, enemy broke through defense, panic in ranks (a pre warning rout message) etc. I'd like more sitreps overall so I can leave the game on slow or pause and shift through them, obviously colour graded etc, similar to what we have now but more info.

[HappyHedonist]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd like the option to have fire arrows that go from the unit to the unit it's shooting at (colour coded to say the intensity of fire).The colour could change dynamically if you keep them on due to various levels of fire intensity. Be able to have the option just to show it on the unit selected, formation selected or all. Also have the option to show return fire arrows on or off (would have to be different colour to stand out if you have both on)the return fire arrow again same options..You can have show any incoming fire arrows shown when you select a unit, formation or all. Similar thickness to formation lines (though could make them a touch thinner).

Another option I'd like is if you click on one of your units then any enemy units spotted are highlighted.

Finally I've mentioned this before more radio feedback..i.e taking heavy fire, need reinforcements,enemy formation spotted, request to be pulled back, enemy broke through defense, panic in ranks (a pre warning rout message) etc. I'd like more sitreps overall so I can leave the game on slow or pause and shift through them, obviously colour graded etc, similar to what we have now but more info.

I think those are all great suggestions Wodin. What you described instantly reminded me of all the toolbar buttons in the Panzer Campaign series.

[RockinHarry]

From my latest high intensity testing OP Veritable battle, I figured I could make good use of the following:

Map Indicator for where known entrenchments/foxholes are located.

Sort of a "frontline" indicator, measureed by captured enemy or friendly ground should be sufficient (ground controlled by fire obviously would be more difficult to be implemnented)

Fog of war for bridge status. One really should NOT know if a bridge is operable, primed or unprimed, unless one is very close to a site. Maybe difficult to handle for AI though.

"Threat" tool to be applied for enemy units as well. Oftentimes I´d like to know, if particular enemy units are threatening any friendlies and which at a glance.

Tool for showing supply lines currently in use.

Steeply sloped terrain. So far I don´t see slopes that can´t be handled by any unit, that lets me assume that Performance data "Max Gradient", "Max Fording Depth" and "Max Trench Width" is currently superfluous. Or did I miss something? [X(] Steepest slopes I´ve seen so far are 16 Deg I think.

Smoke. [:D]
Terrain Fires. [X(]

Dynamicly created rubbled and cratered terrain. Figured I could fake rubbled terrain, by layering a modified "broken" ( 0 MotMov) beneath a city part, to make it inaccessible for vehicle movements. Yet need to check Direct and area fire cover. [:)] Off course that is non dynamic. Edit: Does not work. [:(]

So far...

[wodin]

Harry +1 to all to those aswell..esp the foxhole\trench indicators and craters\rubble.

[Alchenar]

Is my tank company hull-down, or is it stitting on a crest?

It is a mystery to me. Perhaps some kind of vulnerability indicator.

[wodin]

Alchemar.not sure that fits the scale mate...

[Phoenix100]

Cota had quite a lot of terrain so steep it was 'impassable, RockinHarry.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Cota had quite a lot of terrain so steep it was 'impassable, RockinHarry.

I´d assume so, but I never owned COTA, so can´t compare. What is the max steepness on COTA maps? I just checked BFTB maps and found there´s none steeper than 16 - 17 degrees. Generally I find the BFTB Ardennes terrain not that much of a tactical/operational terrain obstacle, If leaving the road network aside.

If it comes to EF, there´s also a whole lot to consider, the balkas i.e and the generally difficult terrain.

On my OP Veritable map, I´m not able to create slopes at places, I know that where impassable for vehicles. Some the places I know personally from my past battlefield touring.

Think, I´ll help myself with layering modified rough terrain...

I now had success creatiung rubbled terrain by changing "industrial" to something appropiate. The more difficult part, was making the graphics. Now on to testing. Bombed out cities now should look and play more realistic, although I can´t yet tell if the AI might have problems with my tweaks.

Any the modders around here have an idea, how to change fortification graphics to "invisible"? No matter how I change the graphics and transparency layer, I don´t succeed.

[Phoenix100]

Well, like this, for example, (from COTA):

[RockinHarry]

I see. What´s the base difference between height layers in this case? How much do they need to be apart horizontally? Is there a minimum distance for the averaging of heights between layers? Normally one would assume a 100m difference in height and range, yielding to 45° slopes, but I assume this does not quite work this way in the game.

[RockinHarry]

Some feature bugging me slight a bit, is the noticable cohesion loss in the very first game seconds, when units do initial facing. That shouldn´t be the case. Thus I´d wish for that not to happen for the initial situation and fixing unit "facing" right in the sceneario editor, would be another good feature.

Edit: Initial Cohesion loss could be up to 25% and some units take upto 1 hour to recover. And all that without enemy contact or other actions happening.

[Phoenix100]

I think Dave said the facing thing was 'fixed' a long while back - by which I mean the way units are facing all the wrong way at scenario start. Is that what you mean?
I don't have a clue about map making etc. Sorry. Just gave you the shot from COTA because I assume if that kind of terrain was possible there then it is possible in BFTB. But you would need someone who knows about these things to answer you.