Future Directions - Features

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

This is one from a posting of mine back in the COTA forums:

The ability to have each player (or the AI) play at different Orders delay levels. Newer players or the AI could play at realistic (as an example) while the more experienced player plays the match at painfully realistic. Just another way to find play balance without always resorting to more or less supply/reinforcements.

Rob.

[FredSanford3]

Here's an easy one I'd like: the ability to toggle on/off whether a unit will request/be sent supplies. If I know a unit is cut off, why do my supply convoys insist on conducting suicide missions?

[Arjuna]

FN,

A supply column is only sent if at that time a valid supply route can be traced to it. Once I'm back at work I will try to remember to look into this.

[FredSanford3]

Really what I'm referring to is situations where you the player think its risky. The base AI may think it's got a valid route, but I still get plenty of messages about convoys getting hit. I'm basically asking for a "none" button to go with the min/avg/max supply selection we have now.

[johndoesecond]

Hi all,

I know this has been mentioned before, but now after weeks of playing BFTB, I really need to re-new this request for "future directions".

The issue are the LOS tools (LOS and LOS area). Currently, these two calculate the LOS under current visibility conditions, therfore taking into account current weather and above all lighting (i.e. day/night). This makes somewhat hard to estimate what the LOS would be under other conditions, and above all, since the great majority of scenarios start during the night, what would be visible under the daylight.

What I believe is needed is another set of LOS tools giving you something like the best-possible daylight LOS. Or even better (although it may overwelm the interface): a daylight LOS under different possible weather visibility conditions.

As I mentioned, this would be especially helpful at the beginning of the scenarios which start at night, where you really have to make the grand plan, set plenty of waypoints for plenty units, and you'd really like to be able to do that better by easily knowing what exactly will be seen from where during the day.

Maybe it can be solved by puting a sort of a checkbox or drop-down list options on the LOS tools panel, or maybe there are other neater ways to implement it, but I have little doubts that it is utterly necessary and of great usefulness.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards.

[tukker]

That would be helpful- but is it realistic? If a force occupies a certain terrain feature at night, it won't know the exact LOS during daytime until sunrise.

Pieter

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: tukker

That would be helpful- but is it realistic? If a force occupies a certain terrain feature at night, it won't know the exact LOS during daytime until sunrise.

Pieter

Although my BFTB experience is just from the demo so far, I would support johndoesecond´s suggestions for the reason, that BFTB is an operational level game, where one can assume that commanders and staffs have maps/tools readily available for proper terrain evaluation. Beside that, adding "generic LOS measuring" in the game, would be a nice feature, although nonessential.

I´d rather get rid of things like, "true crossing site state always visible", or adding a bit of terrain FOW, as true ground state (clear-firm-mud-impassable??) not always visible from the game map, as long as you haven´t actually moved a friendly unit into it.

[johndoesecond]

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

ORIGINAL: tukker

That would be helpful- but is it realistic? If a force occupies a certain terrain feature at night, it won't know the exact LOS during daytime until sunrise.

Pieter

Although my BFTB experience is just from the demo so far, I would support johndoesecond´s suggestions for the reason, that BFTB is an operational level game, where one can assume that commanders and staffs have maps/tools readily available for proper terrain evaluation. Beside that, adding "generic LOS measuring" in the game, would be a nice feature, although nonessential.

I´d rather get rid of things like, "true crossing site state always visible", or adding a bit of terrain FOW, as true ground state (clear-firm-mud-impassable??) not always visible from the game map, as long as you haven´t actually moved a friendly unit into it.

Yeah, that were my thoughts exactly. When you pick objectives, waypoints, strongholds, etc., you - operational commander - would look at the map at your hand and base you assessments on that. You would obviously take into account that there is night coming after a day, and day coming after a night, but you would also - and above all, I'd add - take into acount the mere orography of the terrain.

I support anything that makes us closer to FOW realism, so I agree with RockinHarry's ideas. Actually, anything that improves on the realism of being op commander is welcome. Sometimes I think this should maybe bring about some uncertainly about your own units' position! In the real war I assume you wouldn't know the position and the status of your units minute-by-minute with the degree of certainty you get in this game. There may be time lags, information missing for 5-10 minutes, etc.

Wouldn't that kind of untertainty (at least as an option) bring in a whole new dimension in this wonderful simulation?

You see, what I love in this game is precisely the fact that you cannot see things that are not "seeable" at that level of command in the real war. Elsewhere, some ppl. were talking about missing 3D battlefield (Combat-Mission-like), and my answer is ... well, that's exactly the point! As a real-world commander you'd never have the chance to fly over, buzz and roam with a camera over your troops.
So in BFTB you get something much closer to the real op commander experience, and I love its "quantum uncertainty" about where exactly your single vehicles, guns and men are, how exactly they are positioned (the unit's footprint we have in this game is precisely that: a statistical hypothesis), and how the conflicts are resolved at that statistical level. There is something magical with this game that simply works because everything fits exactly and perfectly its geographical, commanding and military organisational scale, and nothing seems to belong to some other extraneous level, scale or domain.


Cheers.

[wodin]

You have to remember that to much realism may end up with a game that isn't any fun to play anymore....I love realism..but there is always a trade off with playability....I feel to much FoW may harm the overall enjoyment and make the game a lesson in frustration and maybe to much guess work...a happy medium is required...again I'm all for as much realism as possible as long as it isn't to the detriment of the overall playability and enjoyment..

In the end you would have a map thats not fully accurate and a teleprinter with info coming from company commanders and Forward Observers....then you would have a list of options on what they should do depending on one their mission and two what they have just reported...that would be the main screen of the game...you then have to mark on the map where they are and where you told them to go...that would be realistic FoW game for you..

[johndoesecond]

Not bad ...

But I'd hope a more elevated compromise is possible. Don't you believe so?

[FredSanford3]

How about something where each time you (or the AI/subordinate) give an order, or a message/supply request is generated by the unit, a "Comms Check" is made? The reliability and thus likelihood of passing the comms check is a function of what kind/redundant types of communications gear is available, whether it's operable, how long you were stationary, etc. If you (or the unit) passes the check, then the order or message goes through (subject to orders delay). If not, well it keeps trying but the likelihood of a subsequent try could also be assessed, depending on circumstances. If a "messenger" was sent, there would be a calculated delay before the comms check was conducted (similar to a supply run), and a failure wouldn't necessarily be reported (he got shot on the way).

If units are out of communication for an extended period- say several hours, then it gets treated like a "potential target/unknown" depending on current sighting rules, modified to include the possibility of friendly units. This goes on until a comms check is passed and the unit can provide an up-to-date status report.

This would be neat if sequential/conditional orders were implemented- you could have troops literally under seperate AI command for extended periods. This could also be used to show the challenges of having different formations occupying the same real estate, or crossing paths. Friendly fire would have to be considered.

[FredSanford3]

I have an idea concerning reinforcements: How about variable reinforcements that a player could request on a VP-cost basis? There could still be a scripted reinforcement list, but we should recognize that in many of the historical scenarios, the arrival time and place of reinforcements as given are in response to requests for reinforcements due to the circumstances as they unfolded in the real battle. A player could 'request reinforcements' by asking for (historically available reserves or nearby forces) that may be available. The VP cost and time delay could be on sliding scales (kind of like the occupation VP locations work) depending on how readily the desired formation can be commited-e.g. a unit that historically was moving closer to the battle would have a VP cost and time delay that would decrease to a minimum late in the game. Or, a reserve that historically was available, but ended up being commited elsewhere could have a VP cost that escalates over time. If need be, units could be rushed forward at a premium (and fatigue hit). Likewise, units could held off-map for an end of game VP credit (or a higher in-game VP credit if you forego the unit permanently), or brought on in an emergency. A VP cost and time delay could also be assessed if you want to alter the entry location.

[Arjuna]

FN,

Nice ideas.

Re Radios. We originally planned to go down this route. We even have radios as a class of equipement. In the end though we decided against modelling them in great detail, only because time was running out and there were other more pressing priorities.

[johndoesecond]

Hi Arjuna,

May I ask you what are your thoughts on the proposals and ideas about the LOS tools (see above my post from 10/15/2010 4:07:11 PM)?

I don't believe these would be too hard to implement.

Thanks.

[ZBrisk]

I've just been trying the demo. Love it so far. But the changes in routing behavior since CotA seem to have a drawback.

I had a sherman company attacking some hopeless German flak unit near Lommsweiler. While they couldn't do jack to the Shermans, a German airstrike saved them. This destroyed one Sherman which made another promptly surrender. A little strange, but believable.

But after the Sherman coy had routed into the village, night fell and the flak unit moved nearby (presumably just to get into the objective zone). Even though there were friendly units all around, the flak unit still couldn't harm the Shermans, and there was plenty of room to retreat to, the Shermans just kept surrendering because they were still in route recovery. I ordered everyone nearby to attack and destroy the flak which they promptly did, but it was too late and the whole Sherman company surrendered.

I'm glad there are no more ping-pong routing units, but this seems a bit too far in the other direction. A routed unit should have a chance at pulling back again if there's such a clear chance, IMO.

[hawkeye_de]

I would vote for post-wwii scenarios, especially Vietnam and other cold-war stuff.

Any chance that you provide a random mission/map generator? I think that game cries for procedural content generation .

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: johndoesecond

Hi Arjuna,

May I ask you what are your thoughts on the proposals and ideas about the LOS tools (see above my post from 10/15/2010 4:07:11 PM)?

I don't believe these would be too hard to implement.

Thanks.

Yes it's a good suggestion.

I'm glad you believe it wouldn't be too hard to implement. [;)] But actually you are right. We just need to find some screen realestate to put a control from which you can set the visibility condition. Thanks for the idea.

[johndoesecond]

Hi Dave, hi all,

If you read things I've been posting lately, you'll think I'm obsessed with troop movements. Well, I am!

So here's a little idea for a possible future direction.

From reading an answer by Dave in another post, I learned that there is something like a distance tolerance among units when they move in formation. Basically, that defines how far the advance guard is allowed to go ahead, and how far the main guard, hub, line fillers, read guard, ecc. are allowed to be among each other, before they begin to wait for each other.

Indeed, if I understood it well, in one post Dave said that he increased this tolerance in the latest patch.

Now, wouldn't it be useful to be able to set this tolerance directly in the order settings, instead of having it hard coded in the game engine?

There would be few interesting aspects if that's allowed, especially if one is commanding on higher echelon levels (regimental or higher).

Let me work through an example to explain it better.

Let say you give a Regt. with 2 Bns a move order. As things stand now, sometimes if one unit from one battalion encounters an enemy unit, the whole Regt. formation halts (within some margins of freedom within the whole formation). In this way, the whole regiment may be halted due to an enemy unit encountering a unit from, say, the rear guard battalion.
So, in other words, what you have is a situation where the read guard unit of the read guard battalion halts the whole regiment.

But, if one is able to set the distance tolerated among subordinates, and let's say I put it to maximum (or numerically, say, to 10 km), then the advance guard battalion could still carry on moving, even if the read guard battalion is halted.

So this new setting I'm talking about would really be a constraint on how "compact" you want the whole force to keep together while moving. And this IS a relevant operational level commanding decision.


In some cases you'd want them to stick together (say, when you expect there's a significant opposition force at the destination, so you want them all to arrive more or less at the same time). But in some other cases, you would prefer the battalions and - trickling it down - their subordinate companies to be able to carry on moving further on even if someone else in the formation is halted (say, this may be a more appropriate approach when you expect to encounter a lot of single scattered units along the way which you want to clear up or don't want to delay the whole battlegroup, something that for example is desirable during the crossing of the woods in the Elsborn Ridge scenario).

What do you think about all this?

Thank you for your attention.

Cheers.

[nicwb]

I don't know if you're still taking suggestions - one thing I would like in the game is - better information as to when I'm calling an artillery strike too close to my own troops.

My battery commander (the AI) will give me a message that I'm trying to bombard outside of maximum range. But the only information I get about placing a barrage too close to my own troops - is when I'm told the fire mission is completed - that's after some minutes have elapsed. In this simulation time can be critical and a message similar to the "out of range" message would at least allow re-positioning of the artillery plot.

Thanks.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: nicwb

I don't know if you're still taking suggestions - one thing I would like in the game is - better information as to when I'm calling an artillery strike too close to my own troops.

My battery commander (the AI) will give me a message that I'm trying to bombard outside of maximum range. But the only information I get about placing a barrage too close to my own troops - is when I'm told the fire mission is completed - that's after some minutes have elapsed. In this simulation time can be critical and a message similar to the "out of range" message would at least allow re-positioning of the artillery plot.

Thanks.

I think "Freindlies in the way" is delayed maybe a few minutes but does come up before the end of the default mission length of 10 minutes.