Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: mostat

I think being able to detach a platoon from a Bn for recon would be useful for obvious reasons. Or a detachment as a covering force for withdrawl.

Shouldnt this be an easy?

Yes it's an easy ask. [;)]

But breaking down and recombining units ( as would be the case if you wanted to hive off a Platoon ) is NOT EASY AT ALL!!

Actually, when you order a force of more than one line unit to Withdraw it will leave a "rearguard" who will try and block while the main body Moves back. So this is already covered for a force [:)] but not for individual units.

As to Recon, we'll be addressing this issue in future games. We do want to provide players with the ability to task a force to recon, cover and screen and we'll look then at ways in which we can best achieve this based on the scale of the game. So that one's coming. [:)]

Hi everyone!

Firstly - HTTR - excellent game. A new standard for other strategy games!

An option that should be added is the ability to right click on the "equipment" tap and see the information of the selected unit as per the scenario editor. Why the team went to the bother of creating pictures for all those units and describing their armour, etc but then never implementing it into the main game I don't know!

Also, a more detailed supply solution, with the ability to be cut off - and supply lines, supply bases, etc.

Maybe more detail in the airstrike tab too, detailing when aircraft will be in the area and their details?

Some of the other ideas members ahave suggested I really like also - such as the coordinated attack.

I don't know if anyone has already suggested these, if so - sorry

Over and out for now,

Andy

ORIGINAL: as_ugly_as_u

Hi everyone!

Firstly - HTTR - excellent game. A new standard for other strategy games!

Thanks.

An option that should be added is the ability to right click on the "equipment" tap and see the information of the selected unit as per the scenario editor. Why the team went to the bother of creating pictures for all those units and describing their armour, etc but then never implementing it into the main game I don't know!

It's on the wish list. The main reason is we ran out of time to implement.

Also, a more detailed supply solution, with the ability to be cut off - and supply lines, supply bases, etc.

Coming for Battles from the Bulge.

Maybe more detail in the airstrike tab too, detailing when aircraft will be in the area and their details?

On the wish list.

Some of the other ideas members ahave suggested I really like also - such as the coordinated attack.

On the wish list.

Dave,

Maybe you should publish the wish list for folks in a sticky thread and lock it so that people can see what's on it. Then, they can further comment in this thread.

Good idea! I'm flat out at the moment, but I'll see what can be done.

Place reinforcement in a sufficiently large area placing 26 unit in a 100 metre block is very confusing and not realistic.

madmickey,

Well actually what we should do is stagger their arrival to reflect that they will be arriving in road coilumn formation. It's on the wish list.

Another mad idea:
Demos. I know Matrix doesn't really support demos but I've been following the discussions about this game for some monts now and playing along an old demo of RDOA, which I couldn't find the time to learn before, and I'm definetely hooked now and ready to order it.
And now for a very crazy one:
This would possibly work better for human vs human games. Allow for a variable composition of forces, choosen by the players. Say, one third of the force could be changed before the game, maybe adding more arty, more armour, etc. at the expense of other units, and always keeping the proportion. This way the opponent would never know exactly what his/her opponent is up to. Is very sad to see that wargamers have perfect knowledege of the forces involved in a battle, which without being an expert, strikes me as somehow unrealistic. The player could choose its own forces, perhaps based on historical or other factors, the way weathier is chosen now.
Now THAT is crazy
best

Arjuna, That is the best solution for reinforcement situation.

ORIGINAL: Intoxicated Man

And now for a very crazy one:
This would possibly work better for human vs human games. Allow for a variable composition of forces, choosen by the players. Say, one third of the force could be changed before the game, maybe adding more arty, more armour, etc. at the expense of other units, and always keeping the proportion. This way the opponent would never know exactly what his/her opponent is up to. Is very sad to see that wargamers have perfect knowledege of the forces involved in a battle, which without being an expert, strikes me as somehow unrealistic. The player could choose its own forces, perhaps based on historical or other factors, the way weathier is chosen now.

There are actually a few scenarios in which the starting forces are selected from a few different options - for example, in the Battle of the Arnhem Bases, you could get an all-infantry force, an all-armour force, or a mixed bag, this is chosen at random at game start so you will only find out what you've got when the game begins; and your opponent will have to find out during the battle.

Regards
33

very interesting!
thanks

I would love to be able to place markers or map out areas of the map to tell my commanders to avoid them. Far too often I see the AI try and set up an artillery base in an area that I know has enemy troops, I just don't have any current intel on the area. If I could mark areas as enemy, friendly and contested I think the AI would behave much better. Some areas are obvious artillery kill zones and if I could indicate to my subordinates to avoid them it would be cool.

Here's one. A button to consolidate your forces. Instead of having a bunch of battleweary 20 man company's running around, having a button to consolidate forces (just like reorg command) where a bunch of small company's will get together to form full sized units.

ORIGINAL: deadman

Here's one. A button to consolidate your forces. Instead of having a bunch of battleweary 20 man company's running around, having a button to consolidate forces (just like reorg command) where a bunch of small company's will get together to form full sized units.

If I get you, you are looking for a "join" command, a la Panzer Campaigns. Interesting idea, but I don't think it's appropriate for the time scale typically involved. Doing a consolidation of numerous companies would probably take 1-2 days in reality. Perhaps the joining of two companies would be realistic, though.

Good point Crimguy. Maybe a join forces command with the ability to merge a few units might be more appropriate for this game.

Most of these have been mentioned above....

Some form of AAR generation. Even a log of the command messages would be nice.

The ability to set a zero hour for an order. If you wanted to get fancy, you could even give a bonus for a unit given longer to plan its action. (If nominal orders delay is 90 mins, and I set zero hour for 4 hours hence, should there be better fire support or coordination between attacking elements? Not sure if it could be implemented though)

Info on orders delays. Not "accurate" info - the estimated info is fine. But some idea of when a new order will be executed. It's impossible in a big scenario to remember when an order was issued, and so one cannot determine whether the unit is 'about to move' or not.

The ability to short-circuit orders delay for certain tasks. Right now, as I understand it, orders delay applies to almost any order or change, except en-route moves, which carry no delay. It seems to me that the instantanoeus replanning of an approach march is wrong (and leads to a gamey feel; real battalions do not execute 180 degrees turns in 30 seconds). But it should be easier to STOP an order being executed. Some kind of "stand in place" should be possible in a shorter period of time than the typical delay. Currently an attack launched into thin air (due to faulty intel) must proceed for some 2 hours after the superior HQ knows its a mistake. That's more like a WW1 over-the-top no radio situation than a WW2 simulation.

Support units leading the attack (due for a patch?)

Artillery wandering all over the map. I've seen arty assets, assigned to the div HQ which has a defend order in the rear, end up wandering all over the map in search of the perfect location. Sometimes they end up waaaay behind enemy lines as a result (arty is fast, and if you don't spot them as they head off.....). Perhaps it's some kind of crazy "one line unit takes the defend order and 6 arty units pull back from the defensive area thing? It makes setting up firebase type locations quite tedious, since you have to detach arty from their organic commander.

MadScot,

Well, besides a count down timer until when the current assigned order will reach all the lowest units. Here is something else you don't know that you're missing yet ... so, I'll help you out.

(1) The force delay estimation in the CMD Tab should be immediately available when the force is formed and not wait until the force initiates carrying out its first order.

(2) Despite the order delay waiver period, it should be possible to know what the force delay will be when the waiver period has concluded for a given force.

(3) It should be possible to hypothetically compose a force to see what its delay would be. (However, if you had #1, then I suppose you could SAVE, compose the force(s) you want and see what you get, then reload and issue orders.)

Some ideas for scenario maker:
-Different objectives for different reinforcement times (favour allies/axis)
-Exit map objective: "X" Victory Point for exiting "Y" number of units (optional: avility to assign priority for the exiting units, when higher priority, more points it gives). This should include the avility to asign specific units "exit status" and it "exiting priority"; in-game should be added a new friendly unit filter called "exiting units" or whatever similar.
The ideal would be assigning an exit ID to the units per exit objective. For example if I place 2 exit objectives, they will be ID 1 and ID 2; then when I select a unit and set up it as an "exiting unit" I must specify which ID, if I say ID 1 then it only can exit throught exit objective 1. If this is too complicate initially only one exiting point should be allowed per scenario.
If I give exiting status to a HQ unit, all it's subordinates will have to exit to get the points, or if not, the percentage of points you get by exiting that unit it's split within it's subordinates. Example, total exiting points for escaping 5 HQ & subordinates are 10; that is 2 VP per HQ supposing each unit counts the same (it has same "exiting priority" or "exiting VP"). If one of the HQ has 3 subordinates, it will be 2/4 = 0.5 VP points for each unit included in the formation (including HQ).

NOTE: HQ shouldn't give more VP because what is a HQ w/o it's fighting units?

An other idea for ScenMaker:

-Mirror objective(s): pick one or various objectives (ctrl+click) an click "Mirror Objective" in "Tool" bar. The same objective will be copied in the same place, and with equal priority, VP, etc (then you can modify it if you want). If the objective was securing crossing, for the other side it will be deny crossing.

That would save some time.

- Optional pause when reinforcements arrive
- Optional pause when an airstrike becomes available
- Pause at a set time