Future Directions - Features

[Fred98]

The messages come in 3 colours: Red, Yellow and Green.

That the player can choose that the game pauses on:
Red, Yellow and Green messages or;
Red and Yellow messages or;
Red messages only or;
Neve pause on a message.


When I click on a mesage in the message box, it centers the map over the unit. However sometimes its not obvious which unit it is. That the unit be highlighted in a Red, Green or Yellow border as the case may be.

Click on the map and the coloured border goes away.
-

[Arjuna]

Re pausing on message of type X. Would it be also worth just slowing the game, rather than pausing?

[PeterD]

I'd like to see the map scrolling limits changed so that the center of the map window can go as far as the map corners. It annoys me when I right click near a unit and try to drag that part of the map to the centre of the window, but because the unit is near the map edge, it's sort of stuck. This will allow any unit to be brought to the centre of the window, which could make jumping to unit location (e.g. for associated messages) more consistent. This might not suit everybody, so it would make sense to have an option to enable/disable it.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Re pausing on message of type X. Would it be also worth just slowing the game, rather than pausing?

I love more options: The player has another option that on message type x he can choose that the game be paused or slowed to the slowest speed.

It may be that with more options, that you now need an options page and things boxes are checked so the option is "ON" or "OFF"

-

-

[Templer_12]

I would love to see for German units in place of the NATO symbols the original historic German units icons.
The game is usually so correct!

[DanOppenheim]

That'd be nice as an option, but for those of us who'd have no idea but understand NATO symbols, please don't replace them.

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: DanO

That'd be nice as an option, but for those of us who'd have no idea but understand NATO symbols, please don't replace them.

Learning is the key to success. Do not be so comfortable. [;)]
But a an option it would be also great!

[DanOppenheim]

Hmm, I'm not sure how using a different set of icons to the perfectly functional NATO ones would help me be more successful, but I would be interested in seeing what they are.

[Templer_12]

@ DanO,

these icons are from a Advanced Tactics mod.

There was also a good and informative site on the Internet but I can´t find it anymore.

And no, these icons won´t (like many of the proposals to new features in this thread) help you be more successful, but adds more historical, accurate feeling to the game.

Here are some examples:

[Fred98]

The Germans invented the concept of such symbols in the first place.

After WW2, NATO embraced the conmcept of symbols and produced the NATO symbols we know.

Using German symbols on German troops would add a bit of flavour.

-

[Chief Rudiger]

Like this. Crazy.


http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/symbols/_symbols_39.html

[Templer_12]

Thanks Chief,

Exactly what I meant.

I'm still fairly new to the game. To fresh to make specific proposals on technical gameplay features.

I would, however, enjoy some graphical additions to the game very much.

By that I mean no Hollywood mature graphic explosions or other eye-catcher.

I would also like to see division patches in the game.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

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.

I have been thinking about a friendly fire option and forcing you to think about where to approach, how and with what. Either you give firezones and/or declare paths for movement that don't interdict anybody else's line of fire.

As of now the unit formation governs the speed, the amount of firepower and the damage a unit can sustain from certain angles. Units tie up roads and hamper each others movements, but that is I understand it all (quite brilliant as it is actually) really.

If a company started to move around between another company and the enemy, either the own volume of fire would go down, or you would suffer of fratricide, lower cohesion and eventually a route.

When I play I regard that this is abstracted enough into the model on a current scale. But if somebody would do something on a more tactical level such a feature would add a lot to the game (while of course draining massive amounts of processor power)

[Templer_12]

As scout/recon seems certain to raise questions in the forum.

How about an additional scout/reconnaissance button/command on the Orders tab of the sidebar with preset functions and commands?

[Arjuna]

Templer,

What behaviour do you want to see?

[Haiku]

I can't tell for Templer, but as far as I'm concerned, something along the lines:

"Send a few men to the 2 or 3 best sighting spots within our radius, and report what you see. Avoid any shootings"

I don't know how it could be implemented. Maybe just increase LOS capability, decrease chance of being spot, and decrease cohesion status ?

[Alchenar]

When I asked about scouting, what I was actually thinking of at the time was a 'move to contact with screens' type behaviour, where you'd see a road column with a unit or two thrown out in advance and in a more combat-ready stance (with the group as a whole concequently moving slower than a regular move order).  When the lead elements come into contact with the enemy then the group automatically deploys into a combat formation. 

I think scouting parties in general would require a bit of fudging to work in the game engine. Does the game pretend that units have men thrown forward in OPs or are is it more of a case of 'neither side has it so there's no imbalance'.

[johndoesecond]

I'm not a WW2 military expert, but maybe (just maybe), this feature should be abstracted in some way, given the scale of the game.

Again, I don't know what the standard scouting procedures have been used there in the WW2 (and in this campaign in particular) but if we're talking about sending 2-3 (or even 10-20 motorised) guys ahead, then that I believe would not be appropriate to visualise on the Command Ops map, since here 100+ people coy are our atoms, the elementary building blocks given the command level simulated.

But probably the feature could be abstracted in some way, so that we actually get the scouting feature in some way.

Maybe it can be done by putting another set of options in the Order details (like "Scouting", possibly with setting - say - the radius, or zone, together with the stealth level).
Upon setting these things, you wouldn't actually see scouts reaching out out there, but internally they'd be set out for the mission so you would get the information if something gets spotted).

I'm just thinking out loud, and I see how what I just wrote may be too complicated and inelegant in comparison to the rest.

At the end, what I like about this game is it's maniacal adherence to historical military mechanics of WW2 operational commanding, so I think it should be done in a way to be accurate by the standards of historical military tactics, while in the same time naturally fitting to the current game mechanics and spirit. Not an easy task.

However, I agree that is seems to me too limiting if the only way to do it is to dettach a 100+ people motorised company, as I'm quite sure there were other ways of doing this in the real war.

Here, that were my 5 cents ...

[Arjuna]

One option I have considered is using the recon value we currently store with each unit and modifying this based on a task setting or circumstance. Eg. We could have a recon setting for a task (min, normal, max) and use this to modify the unit/force's standard recon value and recon range. If the unit was defending with a max recon and it was deployed or better then we could assume that a greater percentage of its personnel were patrolling and subsequently increase its chance of detection by expanding its detection range. There should be a downside to this too in that there would be fewer personnel available to defend the position if attacked directly. For a Move, with a max recon setting, we could expand the detection range of the vanguard ( ie the unit in the lead ). Similarly it should suffer a reduction in capability should it be attacked directly.

[SwampYankee68]

That sounds pretty good, but one point - in the books I have read often when a unit is deployed or dug in and has OPs and patrols out and they are succesful, when they perceive an oncoming assault force they have the time to recall the OPs and patrols.

I would think that for a unit defending and deployed the recons (OPs LPs & patrols) would be abstracted into their detection ability - however a moving recon of less than company strength with the ability to order them to avoid contact / observe and report would be nice.