Feature suggestion - unit movement enhancements

[Zumwalt_446]

The current framework for unit movement is very detailed in certain aspects, but I feel that it could be improved in a few areas. Some suggestions are below:

1. It would be interesting to introduce (random) events that disable one or more subunits in a formation to represent factors such as engine problems, throwing tracks, vehicle collisions, and others. This could be expanded to include modifiers for certain conditions (for instance, making vehicle collisions more likely for high-speed movement, while making damage/immobilization more likely when moving through rough terrain such as forests).

2. Although civilians are not explicitly modeled in the game, it is likely (in my opinion) that civilian traffic would hamper unit movement to the front, especially during wartime. This could be modeled by introducing a "traffic factor" that could be varied over the course of the scenario and would only apply on roads (not when moving through off-road terrain). I assume that measures would be taken in this case to clear critical roads for military movement, but I would still expect some roads to exhibit this (the extent is, of course, open to debate).

Any thoughts are appreciated.

[SgtZdog]

1. Created as FPSS-6903. I don't think we'll get to this anytime soon as to do it properly would really require a lot of data that isn't in the game yet, but it's an interesting idea. (It does also have the problem of creating Feels Bad moments for players where they can be punished for something in which they have little agency over. Especially since this sort of thing would be most likely to occur in low mobility hexes where units are already moving slower.)
2. Created as FPSS-6904. This seems like a cool idea, a good compromise between not wanting civilians in the game, while still letting them have an impact. (Though I'm not sure how important this is as most of the game of course takes place well after any evacuations should have been completed, so this is probably still low priority.)

[Zumwalt_446]

Re (1): I agree that this would add an element of randomness to gameplay, but as numerous examples over the past few years alone (the star one being the Russian advance to Kyiv in Feb 2022) demonstrate, such factors do indeed appear and play a major role in the overall outcome. At the least, having the potential for units to become immobilized/damaged in rough terrain would perhaps discourage some of the more "gamey" tactics that have units advancing through heavily forested hexes to achieve concealment.

[CapnDarwin]

1. We are looking at adding a Degraded/incapacitated state for subunits to deal with things like non-lethal weapons, and it could also extend into perhaps equipment. These are local to the unit and generally movement independent. Dealing with units bogged down in heavy terrain, rubble, and mud is something we would need to consider. Again, the all-or-none nature of the units makes this a tough one, since a single tank in a platoon "bogged down" while the others could move would be impossible to implement since we don't do unit splits or reforms in the game.

2. We won't be dealing with civilians in the game, even in an abstract manner. There would be UI and other considerations that would be a mess to work out, and we already have working mechanics for them in the Pro offering.

[GiveWarAchance]

Another suggestion.

I filled out your survey but forgot a vital point to include: I hope you make longer scenarios because I often run out of time in the middle of heated battles in these Flashpoint games. Or include an option for the player to add on more time if possible. I like longer battles with a lot of destruction.

[WildCatNL]

Another suggestion.

I filled out your survey but forgot a vital point to include: I hope you make longer scenarios because I often run out of time in the middle of heated battles in these Flashpoint games. Or include an option for the player to add on more time if possible. I like longer battles with a lot of destruction.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Just to clarify (and not take away from the suggestion): if you feel that the time limit of a specific scenario is reducing your joy playing that scenario, simply consider loading the scenario in the scenario editor, saving it under a new name and changing the time limit (up to 23hrs, IIRC), and saving it for a final time. Subsequently, you can launch and play 'your scenario' with more time / less time pressure.

[GiveWarAchance]

thanks WildCat good tip

[SgtZdog]

I will make a slight addendum to the just lengthen the scenario suggestion. You may not wish to lengthen a scenario by more than 50%, as a minimum of 2/3 of the scenario time needs to elapse before you can end it early. So lengthening a scenario by more than 50% means you will be forced to play the scenario for a period longer than it was originally designed for.