Wish List

[Arjuna]

Apollo 11 ( great moniker BTW ),

This has been on the wish list for some time now. I agree it would be a nice feature.

[EricGuitarJames]

Whilst playing against the AI can never be as 'testing' as against a human opponent I have a suggestion for 'spicing up' solo play. Give the player options on enemy AI behaviour - say 'offensive', 'aggressive', 'defensive' or whatever[;)]. This would add to the replayability of the game without resorting to 'handicapping' by playing around with the reinforcement and supply schedules.

[Arjuna]

We already factor in commander characteristics. I take it that what you are saying is to provide this as an option when you select the scenario parameters?

[EricGuitarJames]

More or less! Earlier on I suggested that we could change commanders (although this was related more to the possible 'campaign mode') so maybe this could maybe be factored in?

We discussed before how a commander such as Patton could have affected the outcome of 'Market Garden', an option to play against the Allied AI with his command characteristics would be interesting!

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Apollo 11 ( great moniker BTW ),

Nah... [;)]

I was unable to think of anything else when I started to play on-line long long long ago (I think it was 10+ years ago now)...

Since I was born on that day I said to myself "what the heck - let me use that because it means a lot to me and it is very small chance of anyone else using it as well" ...

BTW, the avatar shows the famous picture of Armstrong taking photograph of Aldrin.

This has been on the wish list for some time now. I agree it would be a nice feature.

Ahh... didn't see it in the list... sorry for reposting...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Arjuna]

I did'nt mean the list in this thread but on our internal TaskTracker database. Don't worry about duplication. Just keep the suggestions ( civil of course ) coming. [:)]

[pamak1970]

i am not sure if this wish can be supported my the game engine and AI ,still i would like to have the option to assign Zones and Areas of operations for large formations ,like regiment and above.

The idea would be that the units acting inside their AO will have some sort of advantage (one idea might be shorter delay or more rapid artillery support) while if they act outside their AO ,theywill suffer some penalties (even disrupt other friendly formations near by).

[young turk]

here's what i'd most like to see:

1. more detailed representation of who is firing what at whom. graphically, i can imagine something like combat mission; the greater the volume of firepower, the more and/or brighter the lines. also, scalable volume of sounds: the greater the firepower, the louder the volume.

it isnt clear to me if the game is computing combat results only when a line is being drawn, or if more is going on behind the scenes. if more is going on, it would be great to have it depicted graphically.

2. a tab for orders delay. it would show a mini oob, green light means orders are processed, yellow processing, and red waiting for orders. could also show the time at which the orders will be completely processed, and the time interval for each level.

3. something more at the end of the game? click on a unit and get kill totals? a mini movie that shows the advance of the troops, a la civilization?

4. correct the "to close" bombardment typo [:D]

[young turk]

btw, really great game.

[Stinger22]

The ability to try a coordinate attacks. IOW you can tell units at what time to attack (with an advisory if they cannot conduct the attack within the time frame). Of course like all orders the actually delay is an approximate. I believe this happens within a command group but I'd like to tell two different HQ's to attack with thier respective subordinates at a spot at a certain time, tell the arty to start it's bombardment early, etc.

[Barbarossa]

Two ideas....

1) When units rout they don't seem to lose any extra equipment. It seems a little odd to me that a mortar company can run away at full tilt and yet retain their heavy weapons / equipment (at least I haven't seen a situation where routing units lose extra equipment but it might just be fow).

2) This will be impossible but...... terrain type should change after coninued bombardment. Nice open fields aren't so nice after two days of continued shelling.


Patrick

[Arjuna]

Barbarossa,

Actually there is code in place re losing heavy equipment on rout. It depends a lot on the quality of troops though. It might need further tweaking. I'll add it to my list.

Re "shell holes" - some people want a lot hey! It would be a nice touch but I'll have to be honest it's not going to make its way to the top of the wish list in a hurry. But you never know what that rascall Paul will add in just because he would like it [;)]

[MarkShot]

Well, those shell holes can come in handy.

The other day, I was playing CMBB and had to take an objective on top of hill surrounded by open ground. I think I did a planned fire barrage of 150mm or 210mm stuff.

The barrage left a wonderful scattering of craters which could be used as cover to cross the open ground.

[Panther Paul]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Well, those shell holes can come in handy.

The other day, I was playing CMBB and had to take an objective on top of hill surrounded by open ground. I think I did a planned fire barrage of 150mm or 210mm stuff.

The barrage left a wonderful scattering of craters which could be used as cover to cross the open ground.

I hope this was before your boys arrived [:D]

[Barbarossa]

I'm new to the game - bare that in mind when reading my feedback . It makes sense that the quality of the troops would have a bearing on how much equipment they could take with them, and it also makes sense that what >>I<< see may not be the "reality" of the situation, but in my current game I have seen a few occasions where twenty odd men with one truck, routing, have managed to take four six pounders with them. Not bad when you're being chased across a field by a company of tanks .

As for the shell holes / territory degradation I knew I was asking a lot . Thinking about it though I guess it depends on how you store terrain data - it's already stored somewhere..... it would be a case of a) allowing it to be modified during the course of a battle and b) deciding how much bombardment was needed to degrade it (ie increase it's defensive bonus) and tracking that.

Random thoughts.......


Patrick

[Barbarossa]

Another idea. When you are focussed closely on the battlefield it can be difficult to know the max / min ranges of the artillery unit you want to bombard with. Would it be possible to display the range rings on the mini map in the top left hand corner?


Patrick

[HercMighty]

on the comander tab instead of the number of minutes for delay to have the estimated time here and let the computer do the math for me. For instance if it is 1200 and a the unit has 43 minute and 73 minute delays the values present on the comander tab would be 1243 and 1313.

[Grouchy]

Minefields

[Lifer]

Here's mine:

Say I have a unit with a frontage of 1500 and depth of 600 and I want the unit to make an attack (sweeping for enemy units before it) for a distance of two kilometers. When I click the destination hex, I would like the formation to default to 1500X600. Not autoXauto. Understand.

Lifer

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Lifer

Here's mine:

Say I have a unit with a frontage of 1500 and depth of 600 and I want the unit to make an attack (sweeping for enemy units before it) for a distance of two kilometers. When I click the destination hex, I would like the formation to default to 1500X600. Not autoXauto. Understand.

Lifer

Try this:

1. Select the unit.

2. Select the current task (the one that has the frontage set). It will turn yellow.

3. Click on the Attack task button or press "A".

4. Shift-click to plot the route to the FUP, the FUP, and the Attack objective.

The unit will now make an attack using the same settings as its current task.

Regards
33