Things I wish were different

[iberian]

Things that I noticed that I wish were different:

- The placement of mines during the setup fase may give up the initial placement of enemy units. Since you cannot place mines within five squares from the enemy setup, you can guess were the initial enemy concentration is located, even if Fog of War is on. This is very evident in the Tutorial #2, and may not be a problem in other scenarios. It would be good that during initial setup phace, the limitation of not being able to setup mine counters within 5 squared be relaxed. What's the purpose of this rule, anyway?

- Standard Operating Procedures. Is there anyway to set a global setting for the SOP? It's very tiresome to go through an entire battalion changing the same value for every unit. If not possible, it would be interesting to have different default SOP for different kind of units. It's fine for a HQ unit to start retreating if an enemy unit approaches, but having a dug-in company of M1A1's retreating at the sight of an enemy motorized unit at 2Km strikes me as odd.

Greetings and congratulations for the great game you produced.

[Jarhead0331]

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!

Not again! [>:]

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

iberian,

We have a list of changes and enhancements in the tester forum and I will add your comments to the list.

jarhead,

I would add your request, but it is already there at the top. [;)]

[Kelm]

Not again! [>:]

I do not understand why, one could not say on this forum, which regrets it has fot this game. And if the (always) same answer, is only "not again" it is not very constructive.
I am sorry, but same if I find this game rather good, I think that in more of certain remarks on with gameplay dimensions, a player can express what it finds astonishing, at the level of several aspects of the game that it considers insufficient.

A last thing, I play matrix's games for a some time, and consults without taking part this forum to find any assistance on a particular game, and I believe that finally it was well better like that.

Sorry iberian if my answer is except subject compared to your question.

[Jarhead0331]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!

Not again! [>:]

I find it disappointing that few people on this forum share my sense of humor...with the exception of that guy Sarge...He thinks I'm a riot!

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

This thread should maybe get a sticky...that way player comments in regard to a wishlist for future releases or just general concerns can all be placed in one visible place. Oh yeah...and then nobody will bust my chops when I complain about the lack of dedicated INFANTRY!!!!

Not again! [>:]

I find it disappointing that few people on this forum share my sense of humor...with the exception of that guy Sarge...He thinks I'm a riot!

The problem with a sense of humour is it takes special attention to get it across when "writing" it.

I deliberately made my post seem "aggressive" to your post to show you that, even though I was only joking, it can be construed the wrong way...just as your post was (the ones you are talkign about on another thread).

Without the appropriate emicons, it looks aggressive or downright rude.

Hence my post

Not again! [>:]

Would have looked better and less destructive as

Not again! [>:] [;)]

I hope this helps you to understand how messages can be misinterpreted

Anyway, this is off topic. The guy wanted to start a thread about things he wants in the future, and you have, again, poisoned it with another thread about Infantry. YOu simply could've put

Seperate Infantry units

That would've sufficed.

Regards
The Judge

[Erik Rutins]

Everyone, please, just relax. FPG is out for what, less than a week now? We expect to hear some comments repeated, it's no big deal. Kelm, we're happy to hear your advice. Jarhead, ditto but please note that we've not just already noted it, but we had a plan to expand infantry support before release. The modeling of infantry in the current release is as designed and in the future, by design, we plan to expand it to cover non-mechanized infantry as well.

Regards,

- Erik

[Jarhead0331]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd



Not again! [>:]

I find it disappointing that few people on this forum share my sense of humor...with the exception of that guy Sarge...He thinks I'm a riot!

The problem with a sense of humour is it takes special attention to get it across when "writing" it.

I deliberately made my post seem "aggressive" to your post to show you that, even though I was only joking, it can be construed the wrong way...just as your post was (the ones you are talkign about on another thread).

Without the appropriate emicons, it looks aggressive or downright rude.

Hence my post

Not again! [>:]

Would have looked better and less destructive as

Not again! [>:] [;)]

I hope this helps you to understand how messages can be misinterpreted

Anyway, this is off topic. The guy wanted to start a thread about things he wants in the future, and you have, again, poisoned it with another thread about Infantry. YOu simply could've put

Seperate Infantry units

That would've sufficed.

Regards
The Judge

There are way too many A**holes on the matrix forums...I bought this game and the developer has a real committment to supporting it...this is the first time I've been turned off to a game and/or game forum by its loser fanbase...I guess there is first time for everything

EDIT: I would just like to re-iterate the fact that the administrators and the developers have been great...There should be more like you...but the fanboys...oh the fanboys...

[JudgeDredd]

Erik

It's not really about the game. This has been explained several times to him.

It's the fact that he thinks his posts can be innoffensive and everyone elses are offensive.

I know I'm being a baby

[Jarhead0331]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Erik

It's not really about the game. This has been explained several times to him.

It's the fact that he thinks his posts can be innoffensive and everyone elses are offensive.

I know I'm being a baby

Now who is hijacking the thread? I suggest you re-read my initial post and then re-read yours and tell me which one is offensive...

[Erik Rutins]

Enough, already. Let's get back to gathering suggestions for future updates and expansions. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

[Marc von Martial]

There are way too many A**holes on the matrix forums...I bought this game and the developer has a real committment to supporting it...this is the first time I've been turned off to a game and/or game forum by its loser fanbase...I guess there is first time for everything

Cool down guys, there´s also way to many people around here that take certain things way too seriously at times [;)].

If you have too much agressiveness left then go and play some games or fight it out on the virtual battlefield.

JudgeDreed is a kickass betatester, he put great input into FPG. He´s far from beeing an "A**hole". And even with the two ** in it it doesn´t make it sound nicer.

[Marc von Martial]

One more OT word and this thread is closed, just to mention it.

[Jarhead0331]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

There are way too many A**holes on the matrix forums...I bought this game and the developer has a real committment to supporting it...this is the first time I've been turned off to a game and/or game forum by its loser fanbase...I guess there is first time for everything

Cool down guys, there´s also way to many people around here that take certain things way too seriously at times [;)].

If you have too much agressiveness left then go and play some games or fight it out on the virtual battlefield.

JudgeDreed is a kickass betatester, he put great input into FPG. He´s far from beeing an "A**hole". And even with the two ** in it it doesn´t make it sound nicer.

I agree about the ** thing...I also agree about Dredds committment to the game...I will seek anger management classes and keep you all posted...

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, I'll attempt to salvage this thread and steer it back on topic. Please post any suggestions for updates and future releases here. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ey!
I really don't mind for the time being not having dismounted infantry.
However, given that so many have asked for it, I wonder. What about we edit the mounted infantry parameters (change mobility, weapons available, vulnerability, concelment, everything) and we edit its corresponding icon. Could that be possible?
Cheers,

[Jarhead0331]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Ey!
I really don't mind for the time being not having dismounted infantry.
However, given that so many have asked for it, I wonder. What about we edit the mounted infantry parameters (change mobility, weapons available, vulnerability, concelment, everything) and we edit its corresponding icon. Could that be possible?
Cheers,

Thats a great idea for a future release/enhancement...in fact, I inquired about the possibilities of exactly that...the way the editor works now, as I understand it, you can only edit the OOB with the equipment provided in the game already...I suppose the editor would have to be re-worked to provide for the possibility of adding additional units and equipment...

[Siljanus]

ORIGINAL: iberian



- Standard Operating Procedures. Is there anyway to set a global setting for the SOP? It's very tiresome to go through an entire battalion changing the same value for every unit. If not possible, it would be interesting to have different default SOP for different kind of units. It's fine for a HQ unit to start retreating if an enemy unit approaches, but having a dug-in company of M1A1's retreating at the sight of an enemy motorized unit at 2Km strikes me as odd.

Greetings and congratulations for the great game you produced.

Excellent idea and I'm glad it's been forwarded to the tester forum

I have a question about chemical attacks in the game. Do the effects of gas persist beyond one game turn? If so, can we have some kind of marker or way of marking the area as being contaminated? If the attack is initiated by me, perhaps I could see the marker/terrain effects immediately. If my opponent launched the attack however, I wouldn't see the contaminated terrain until I ran into it or maybe from one square away, depending on the quality of my detection equipment. I looked closely at the map after using chem weapons and didn't see any changes to the grid other than the cute little gas plume in the grid that dissipated soon after. If I'm missing something, please let me know. I assumed in the span of a particular scenario that chemical contamination from a chemical attack should persist in the enviroment for a few hours unless it was raining perhaps.

As for nuclear weapons, best nuke effects ever! [:)]

Thanks and look forward to see this game evolve even further!

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331
I will seek anger management classes and keep you all posted...

P...R...O...Z...A...C...[&o][8|][;)]