RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"Message Log option to hide messages that break fog of war"

Just noticed this one. Can't you do this already through game and message log options? Is there some aspect that those options don't cover?

Not my submission but unless it's been changed since I turned it off in the message log, I'd like to see the weapon to-hit calculations that don't break fog of war. I.e., I'd like to see how or why my missile missed the incoming weapon without revealing what that specific incoming weapon was.

I'm fine with the way it is now that I've turned it off but there are many times I'm flabbergasted that so many expensive weapons can have such a hard time hitting something.

[thewood1]

Isn't it still listed in the message file, even if its turned off in the message window? I never checked.

[miller7219]

I would like to have a "Back" button the database viewer. Now that we can view a platform and click on a weapon link to view the details of a specific weapon the platform employs, I need to go back to the platform after I've viewed the weapon! Same with the new links on the weapon entries. I want to go "Back" to the weapon after I've viewed a platform that uses it.

[Reg]

I feel that the campaign engine would definitely benefit from the introduction of a decision function where if the scenario result is a success then progress to scenario X otherwise progress to scenario Y.

This should be a relatively simple to implement (ha ha, how many times have you heard that [:)]) and would allow the campaign flow to reflect actual player results. The down side would be additional work on the part of campaign designer as they would have to create scenarios for every eventuality (which may or may not be played) but they could make it as simple or as complex as they like. Alternate paths would enhance re-playability. [:)] If you wanted the current method of preventing progression on mission failure just loop back to the same scenario.

These scenarios would will still rely on pre-designed OOBs and will not reflect casualties from previous games which I believe is not such a bad thing. They had a campaign system in Steel Panthers World at War (SP-WaW) which was based around a core force which carried through from scenario to scenario with casualties carried forward, replacements (influenced by previous game results) and supplementary one scenario only forces. However in practice this turned out like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Once you had bad luck in one scenario and took heavy casualties, you entered the next scenario under strength and likely to lose even worse than last time. This just kept snowballing until defeat was inevitable. Play balance by the designer was difficult to achieve as the opposite was also true, a quick win and light casualties results in a pro player bias for the next game.

Just my thoughts,

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: Reg


I feel that the campaign engine would definitely benefit from the introduction of a decision function where if the scenario result is a success then progress to scenario X otherwise progress to scenario Y.

This should be a relatively simple to implement (ha ha, how many times have you heard that [:)]) and would allow the campaign flow to reflect actual player results. The down side would be additional work on the part of campaign designer as they would have to create scenarios for every eventuality (which may or may not be played) but they could make it as simple or as complex as they like. Alternate paths would enhance re-playability. [:)] If you wanted the current method of preventing progression on mission failure just loop back to the same scenario.

These scenarios would will still rely on pre-designed OOBs and will not reflect casualties from previous games which I believe is not such a bad thing. They had a campaign system in Steel Panthers World at War (SP-WaW) which was based around a core force which carried through from scenario to scenario with casualties carried forward, replacements (influenced by previous game results) and supplementary one scenario only forces. However in practice this turned out like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Once you had bad luck in one scenario and took heavy casualties, you entered the next scenario under strength and likely to lose even worse than last time. This just kept snowballing until defeat was inevitable. Play balance by the designer was difficult to achieve as the opposite was also true, a quick win and light casualties results in a pro player bias for the next game.

Just my thoughts,

This is something I've thought about quite a bit. Continuity and feeling the impact of prior choices, successes or lack thereof is a really cool game feature. The downside, as you allude to, is that it will (literally) exponentially increase the amount of work scenario designers need to put in to produce a playable campaign.

Using the example of the 1980s mini-campaign in The Silent Service, that currently runs at 6 scenarios. If you were to have 1 starting scenario and then offer two unique choices for each subsequent scenario, you would end up having to make 32 scenarios in total. As a measure of how much work that is, the 18 scenarios in The Silent Service took me over 6 months of averaging 20+ hours a week working on them, as well as a lot of support from the Dev team and Beta testers. Even the thought of producing a 32 scenario campaign fills me with dread (and I had a blast producing The Silent Service). You could share some scenarios or make other modifications to reduce this number, but it is still a very big endeavour.

I would like this functionality, but I also think we need to realistically acknowledge (as you did) how much work would go into using it.

[Reg]

While it is true that the number of potential scenarios increases exponentially with the number of stages, this is the worst case situation.

Not every scenario needs to have two separate outcome scenarios and creative story lines can loop back to previous scenarios or merge back into the main branch further down track.

A very simple option would be to run straight through the main story line with only one or two bonus scenarios which merge back into main story path afterwards. You would be amazed at the difference even this minor addition would make.

Though it wouldn't need to be used to it's fullest extent, I think the existence of this sort of editor capability would add another useful tool to the scenario designers tool box.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: Reg


While it is true that the number of potential scenarios increases exponentially with the number of stages, this is the worst case situation.

Not every scenario needs to have two separate outcome scenarios and creative story lines can loop back to previous scenarios or merge back into the main branch further down track.

A very simple option would be to run straight through the main story line with only one or two bonus scenarios which merge back into main story path afterwards. You would be amazed at the difference even this minor addition would make.

Though it wouldn't need to be used to it's fullest extent, I think the existence of this sort of editor capability would add another useful tool to the scenario designers tool box.

Agreed 100%

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: Reg

I feel that the campaign engine would definitely benefit from the introduction of a decision function where if the scenario result is a success then progress to scenario X otherwise progress to scenario Y.
...

Potentially this idea could be developed to create rolling campaigns, consisting of sequential generated scenarios. This would need some sort of programming environment (maybe Lua?) with variables reading/writing aspects of the scenario, such as placing what units where. There would need to be continuity between scenarios, where the variables (state machine) of the finishing scenario is accessible to the program environment creating the following one.

For example, if your Task Force is reduced by 30% in one scenario, that's what you start with in the next. This next scenario may be a follow-up advance or a last-ditch defence, depending on outcome of the previous one.

[Filitch]

There is a awareness problem in case of many units under command. Player see a swarm of alike symbols, have to click every symbol to check - what unit it is, which squadron it belongs to. What if every unit has two characteristics - a short name and a full name. The short name could be a call-sign and the full name - name of unit detachment, squadron e.t.c. Could be several display modes. Show short name for every unit, only for selected unit, show full name for every unit, only for selected unit.

[nukkxx5058]

New feature request for the message log.
Could a message be generated in the log when a torpedo/missile is launched ? Ideally the message would include the ID of the launching unit.
Thank you

(discussion and details here tm.asp?m=4450308)

[SunlitZelkova]

This might fall into the Advanced Strike Planner category, but a dedicated system/interface for allocating targets to nuclear missiles with MIRVs is what I would like to request.

Currently, once MIRVs separate from the missile, they automatically find a target surrounding the one the missile was targeted at. Being able to select what the MIRVs actually hit would be a nice addition.

[nukkxx5058]

I think that there should be some improvement in the way the software interacts with the player. For example, when trying to perform an illegal action, like for example trying to deploy a dipping sonar from a sub, there should be a 'specific angry beep' and ideally a message telling the user that something is wrong/illegal and illegal actions should be grayed out in the menus. Not only for dipping sonars of course but as a general rule within the whole software. Also, when the command is successful, there should be another specific 'friendly beep' to let the player understand that the command was valid and the order was registered. Because sometimes it's hard to figure out what's going on and one needs to start forensic-like investigations (including posting a save on the forum) to try to understand what is the problem, or if there's a problem at all ... Sometime we click somewhere and simply have no feed back at all and no idea whether the command had any effect. A simple beep with the appropriate message would save lots of energy. IMHO.
Thx

[Puciek]

AI/Doctrine improvement when attacking airfields - feature request.

While playing "Hit Hard Hit Fast" it struck me how important is micromanagement in this scenario, and that's not good since this scenario features a lot of aeroplanes and targets. And sadly to perform there well you need not only a solid plan but also then you have to (or at least I had to) manually guide my bombers onto the right parts of an airfield because, despite having intel on them and confirmed locations of Egypt planes, AI will not prefer to strike those instead of potentially empty spaces.

To put it in an example, let's say the airport has three hangars which we set as targets:

Hangar #1 - unknown
Hangar #2 - Mig
Hangar #3 - confirmed empty

A plan when approaching those 3 hangars will attack one of them, either it's random or the closest one, while if the pilot was a bit smarter then he would start by downing the Hangar #2, as it's confirmed to be hosting an enemy aeroplane. I am not sure if there ever is a downside to this behaviour if there is this could be a weapon/doctrine switch, but this sure would remove a lot of micromanagement from shutting down airports. And as this is something we can do by managing the plane manually, and it's based on available intel, I can't see why AI pilots shouldn't be able to do it.

Thanks for listening!

[thewood1]

But if you have the intel, wouldn't you set the mission up with that plan in place? Part of the real world planning process is that level of detail when tasking you aircraft, I would think. I'm not saying the feature isn't useful, but isn't it the planner's (player's) responsibility to have that plan in place at that level of detail?

And just like in real life, if new intel becomes available, you have interceded or change the plan. As long as I am understanding what you are asking for.

[Puciek]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

But if you have the intel, wouldn't you set the mission up with that plan in place? Part of the real world planning process is that level of detail when tasking you aircraft, I would think. I'm not saying the feature isn't useful, but isn't it the planner's (player's) responsibility to have that plan in place at that level of detail?

And just like in real life, if new intel becomes available, you have interceded or change the plan. As long as I am understanding what you are asking for.

Except that only leads to a lot of micromanagement by adding... I really not know what. And when you have large scenario, like "Hit Hard Hit Fast" having to re-arrange all the strikes with every fly-by of your recon plane is extremely tedious. The Intel mentioned comes from playing, not scenario-set intel (so from plane fly-byes). The real-life planning of this action would be "those are the targets, but focus on dropping your payload on the occupied hangars first" I imagine. Not too much to expect of pilots, especially as we can do so by micromanaging.
So this is really as simple as a preference for pilots to bomb the more valuable target first out of the targets assigned to them, instead of the random order.

[thewood1]

But isn't that real life. The recon is usually coordinated through an air staff. At that point the air staff would alter the mission on the ground and assign specific targets or retask those flights in the air. The pilots aren't typically in direct comms with a recon asset.

Now where I can see the issue is if during the strike ingress the contents of the hangers were revealed, pilots might retask themselves, but I would think even then, it might require a call back to air staff. And I think using the term "valuable" is problematic. Its the air staff that set the value. So again, I think it comes back to planning. And the tools are already there in the mission editor for that. And tedious might be the word, I am sure just like in real life.

So the short of it to me is that the mission planning is where that tasking happens. If the flight is in the air, the the mission gets adjusted by air staff. The only place I can see this being an issue is during the very short time the flight is in combat and discovering some intel during the attack.

I think we have probably 90% of the tools to handle this like a real life mission plan and execution. Just my guess.

[Puciek]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

But isn't that real life. The recon is usually coordinated through an air staff. At that point the air staff would alter the mission on the ground and assign specific targets or retask those flights in the air. The pilots aren't typically in direct comms with a recon asset.

Now where I can see the issue is if during the strike ingress the contents of the hangers were revealed, pilots might retask themselves, but I would think even then, it might require a call back to air staff. And I think using the term "valuable" is problematic. Its the air staff that set the value. So again, I think it comes back to planning. And the tools are already there in the mission editor for that. And tedious might be the word, I am sure just like in real life.

So the short of it to me is that the mission planning is where that tasking happens. If the flight is in the air, the the mission gets adjusted by air staff. The only place I can see this being an issue is during the very short time the flight is in combat and discovering some intel during the attack.

I think we have probably 90% of the tools to handle this like a real life mission plan and execution. Just my guess.

And what does this tediousness add to the game? Because this is a game, to be fun, and constantly re-targetting 10+ groups of aeroplanes across 10 airports is... really not fun. I don't see what can possibly be fun about it. You spend a lot of time pausing, retargeting X groups, unpausing and trying to keep eyes on what another group may be on approach to be manually put on the valuable targets.

Just not fun.

[thewood1]

I say this with respect for you opinion, but maybe this isn't the game for you. Others are pushing for more realistic flight planning. Its one of the things that attracts people to the game. Also, I tend to agree on some forms of simplification, but this is such a simple thing to fix with a change in how you play the game, I am hoping the devs don't spend a lot of time on it.

edit...one thing I forgot to write: I have played this game a lot and have maybe once or twice in all the time had to retask aircraft (or ships) based on detailed intel like that at an airbase. I have done it when going after surface groups when I discover an HVU I hadn't known about prior to launch. But I don't think I have ever manually had to switch targets. At airbases, unless my orders counter this, I focus on access ways and taxi ways. Once you hit those, you can ignore the hangers or go after them as a hobby.

[Puciek]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I say this with respect for you opinion, but maybe this isn't the game for you. Others are pushing for more realistic flight planning. Its one of the things that attracts people to the game. Also, I tend to agree on some forms of simplification, but this is such a simple thing to fix with a change in how you play the game, I am hoping the devs don't spend a lot of time on it.

edit...one thing I forgot to write: I have played this game a lot and have maybe once or twice in all the time had to retask aircraft (or ships) based on detailed intel like that at an airbase. I have done it when going after surface groups when I discover an HVU I hadn't known about prior to launch. But I don't think I have ever manually had to switch targets. At airbases, unless my orders counter this, I focus on access ways and taxi ways. Once you hit those, you can ignore the hangers or go after them as a hobby.

I did mention which scenario specifically this is a big problem with, but thanks to hear that this game isn't for me. I will ignore your posts from now on.

[thewood1]

That's a nice debating skill. I'll have to remember that one.