A couple of observations

[Panzer_Leader]

Playing FPC-RS over the break I've noticed a couple of things I thought I would comment on:

1. It would be very helpful to be able to right click on a hex and determine LOS from that hex. At present I'm not aware of any way to do that until you have a unit positioned in the hex. This is frustrating when you move a unit to a hex in anticipation of LOS to another hex (in defence for example) and then find out it doesn't. You then have to wait for another order cycle and issue another order and repeat. I guess the ability to right click on a hex to determine LOS could be explained as an abstraction of map and/or commander's ground reconnaissance.

2. I know blowing bridges has been discussed in other threads but I notice pure tank and headquarters units have the ability to blow bridges. While I can understand infantry potentially having the ability to blow bridges (without engineer support, which I know is abstracted) it's less believable that HQ and pure tank units can. The former because it distracts them from the more important job of commanding and the latter because they don't have the manpower and are unlikely to draw the explosives to do so. This will also make it harder / require more explicit trade-offs to blow more than 1-2 bridges on a map. At the moment I can order any unit to do so.

Anyway, I'm loving the game but these were a couple of things I noticed that I thought could be improved.

Cheers

[HeinzBaby]

Shift-Left Click and you can check any Hex for LOS

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Panzer_Leader

Playing FPC-RS over the break I've noticed a couple of things I thought I would comment on:

2. I know blowing bridges has been discussed in other threads but I notice pure tank and headquarters units have the ability to blow bridges. While I can understand infantry potentially having the ability to blow bridges (without engineer support, which I know is abstracted) it's less believable that HQ and pure tank units can. The former because it distracts them from the more important job of commanding and the latter because they don't have the manpower and are unlikely to draw the explosives to do so. This will also make it harder / require more explicit trade-offs to blow more than 1-2 bridges on a map. At the moment I can order any unit to do so.

You will no doubt have seen in other posts that combat engineers are abstracted. So, if you accept that combat engineers are with infantry units what is it about them being with an HQ or a tank unit you don't get? We were assigned to tank units as well. And who ever said to you that all the units in the game were to be considered pure???? [&:]

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

As MR points out, any unit can "call in" engineering support to blow bridges, clear mines and obstacles. We will be looking at refining this more in 2.1 with better discreet accounting of engineering units and types. This will eliminate the call in abstractions and force the player to carefully utilize the limited engineering resources.

[Panzer_Leader]

ORIGINAL: HeinzBaby

Shift-Left Click and you can check any Hex for LOS

Thanks HeinzBaby, that's good to know. I probably should have double-checked the manual (RTFM!) before requesting that one though [&:]

[Panzer_Leader]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

As MR points out, any unit can "call in" engineering support to blow bridges, clear mines and obstacles. We will be looking at refining this more in 2.1 with better discreet accounting of engineering units and types. This will eliminate the call in abstractions and force the player to carefully utilize the limited engineering resources.

Great, thanks Capn Darwin. I totally understand the current abstraction in engineers but like the idea of resources to perform engineering tasks being more limited and commanders having to make more explicit trade-offs about blowing or placing this bridge or that bridge rather than as many as I want, wherever I want as can currently happen. It sounds like you guys have it well in hand though and I look forward to the changes coming in 2.1.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Panzer_Leader

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

As MR points out, any unit can "call in" engineering support to blow bridges, clear mines and obstacles. We will be looking at refining this more in 2.1 with better discreet accounting of engineering units and types. This will eliminate the call in abstractions and force the player to carefully utilize the limited engineering resources.

Great, thanks Capn Darwin. I totally understand the current abstraction in engineers but like the idea of resources to perform engineering tasks being more limited and commanders having to make more explicit trade-offs about blowing or placing this bridge or that bridge rather than as many as I want, wherever I want as can currently happen. It sounds like you guys have it well in hand though and I look forward to the changes coming in 2.1.

In Germany all bridges were built with chambers in them to hold explosives. In the NATO part of Germany they were pre-prepared for bridge demolition. So, in that part of the world, for that time period at least, blowing bridges would have been easy. Any bridge, at any time.

Good Hunting.

MR

[AFIntel]

In Germany all bridges were built with chambers in them to hold explosives. In the NATO part of Germany they were pre-prepared for bridge demolition. So, in that part of the world, for that time period at least, blowing bridges would have been easy. Any bridge, at any time.

Not that it applies here, but most of the bridges in the northern part of S. Korea were pre-designed to be rapidly and easily blown as well. Even the highway overpasses in Seoul.

On one of my assignments there, I was told by a U.S. Army infantry officer that supposedly the bridges over the Han River were actually pre-rigged with explosives and just needed to be fast wired and detonated. I don't know the validity of that claim, though.

I just focused on my main concern, which was planning the destruction of (among other targets) bridges in N. Korea.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: AFIntel

Not that it applies here, but most of the bridges in the northern part of S. Korea were pre-designed to be rapidly and easily blown as well. Even the highway overpasses in Seoul.

On one of my assignments there, I was told by a U.S. Army infantry officer that supposedly the bridges over the Han River were actually pre-rigged with explosives and just needed to be fast wired and detonated. I don't know the validity of that claim, though.

I just focused on my main concern, which was planning the destruction of (among other targets) bridges in N. Korea.

It may apply sooner than later. Korea is on our radar screen. [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[Panzer_Leader]

Understood. Bridges in the AO come ready to blow so there's less trade off required by the commander. If the Reds are coming the bridges are dropping. Now all I have to do is work out how to get my units to the bridge, blow it and withdraw in time without being overrun by lead Soviet elements! The trade off in that case is blow the bridge or lose the unit dropping it... [:(]

[Mad Russian]

There is always a trade off!!! [:@]

I have yet to have them code that out of the game!! [X(]

Good Hunting.

MR

[AFIntel]

It may apply sooner than later. Korea is on our radar screen. [:D]

Ohhh, juicy! [:D]

I'm assuming the idea for this theater is still jostling in y'alls craniums, but do you have a time period in mind?

50's? 60's?

Or more modern day?

I was an intelligence analyst there for two years. I'd love to game out some of the "what ifs" we toyed with while there.

Eddie

[Mad Russian]

The time period would probably stay consistent...1989.

Good Hunting.

MR