Matrix Games Forums

This is a wishlist for the next installment in the series. [:)]

Well, I'd love to have some control over supply-assignments, to some extent at least. I guess the supply-bases do their share when being moved, automatically, but including a tid bit of manual order-thingy would add some more thrill to the planning of strategies......

I doubt that an officer, who's responsible for scheduling proper supplies, would order the trucks at his disposal "to the road of ruin". He'd carefully check the situation, and try to avoid enemy contact by all means. So.....vague infos about an enemy occuyping a vital road crossway, or infos about him moving across a vital road without occupying it, would make the officer change plans, to ship around potential threats. Enemy counter-attacks couldn't be avoided that way, I guess, but a dispersed enemy unit trying to return to friendly territory, and stumbling over a supply route in the process, shouldn't be able to disrupt the deliveries using that route, especially if it has left the area ages ago.

Unfortunately, the current supply-system (correct me if I'm wrong), does not feel 100%real at this stage, due to a certain (rare?) amount of checks being made only, I guess.


1st) I could imagine to have a solution where the player has to pass requests (a button saying "process now", for example) being made by the units (HQs), to help avoiding that trucks are being sent to no-go-areas [:D].

2nd) I'd love to be able to exclude units from being re-supplied: Depleted units regarded (by the player) as "unfit" for combat (because they have been decimated down to platoon-sized formations, for example), or rear-guard units that still have enough supplies for "cleaning"-jobs, wouldn't get supplies (ammo/fuel) until all front-line units received supplies. ----- Create a check-box, to apply supply-priority to selected units.------

3rd) Units still love to run into trouble (move-mode/task) when playing with order-delay. (It would be great if that would be reviewed when working on the next installment). It doesn't feel mega-realistic when your unit keeps (set to "min. losses") moving across an entire enemy regiment, even if you're keeping in mind the delay.
Such a unit would halt immediately, take cover, and try to assess the situation.

Also, I'd love to have a more realistic outcome when passing nearby enemy units, it's not as much of an issue when it comes to units stumbling right over unexpected (bad intel, or city/wood environment at night) resistance, though.....the latter seems to be realistic.

I know, the current task-screen offers to order movement with "max" losses, but more control - and a more realistic approach, would be great, PLUS the inclusion of "invulnerable units":

Example: A rifle company (dug in, no PIAT/AT-stuff left, no explosives/molotows) wouldn't be able to hold off a tank company, nor would it be able to do any damage with rifle bullets. Tanks would just reduce speed for one reason only: To transform the bastards (hiding in their foxholes) into roadkill [;)], they'd just make sure to visit all trenches...hehe...kinda...right? :p

But tank units in HTTR + COTA can be seen taking cover, pausing a move task at least, if they come across such units.
Let's imagine a tank company moving their turrets only (to fire at a nearby rifle coy), while maintaining cruise speed to reach the destination.
Adding a check for an opposing enemy's loadout would be a major improvement. In my example, the rifle company has no weapon/explosive at hand to harm the tank, so the tank would be considered invulnerable (for this certain rifle coy).

The Germans installed the following doctrine regarding armoured troops, prior to WW2:
PG units (mostly motorized infantry) and tank units were supposed to attack together, with the PGs also being responsible to protect both flanks, to avoid PIAT/AT fire from the sides.
This doctrine would have made the attack/thrust into France (1940) impossible. Guderian (and Rommel?) ignored orders, and pushed forward hardly, so the infantry units couldn't follow (most soldiers needed new boots after a few days :p), and his tanks were often out of range for any resupply.

I love to move tanks without their attached PG units, since I use 'em to cut supplies (finally, a dream came true [:D]), or to create "firefighter"-brigades. Armoured cars were pretty fast, even light tanks could travel at around 50-60 km/h, and motorbikes ...... dunno if the speed for motorbikes is right, btw....anyway, slicing through units that can't do anything about tanks should possible !!!!!!


One more thing: It seems that retreating units still do some heavy damage at times, is that intended? It kinda feels wrong.....

I mean, retreating doesn't mean withdrawing, nor is it a process of disengagement to refrain from enemy strongpoints, right? It happens if units are being overrun, or if a unit's casualty rate is rocketing to the sky, or if heavy enemy weapons or the vast number of enemies scare the shyte outta those units. Correct me if I'm wrong, I never checked the manuals for those details. [:D]

Btw, don't get me wrong, the game features major improvements, which make it even more fun to play.

Sorry for the long blahblah :p

I have already played through the Crete invasion and the Malta Cmapaigns and the one thing that is lacking is a Fasterest button to really get through the long nights. The >>> seems no faster than HTTR >>. This would really cut down on the amount of house work I would have to do in between action sequences.

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy


1st) I could imagine to have a solution where the player has to pass requests (a button saying "process now", for example) being made by the units (HQs), to help avoiding that trucks are being sent to no-go-areas [:D].

2nd) I'd love to be able to exclude units from being re-supplied: Depleted units regarded (by the player) as "unfit" for combat (because they have been decimated down to platoon-sized formations, for example), or rear-guard units that still have enough supplies for "cleaning"-jobs, wouldn't get supplies (ammo/fuel) until all front-line units received supplies. ----- Create a check-box, to apply supply-priority to selected units.------

We talked about that. We felt with our game size...too complicated and this is an area that would be handled by a staff officer anyway. But who knows what the future will bring.

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
I know, the current task-screen offers to order movement with "max" losses, but more control - and a more realistic approach, would be great, PLUS the inclusion of "invulnerable units":

Example: A rifle company (dug in, no PIAT/AT-stuff left, no explosives/molotows) wouldn't be able to hold off a tank company, nor would it be able to do any damage with rifle bullets. Tanks would just reduce speed for one reason only: To transform the bastards (hiding in their foxholes) into roadkill [;)], they'd just make sure to visit all trenches...hehe...kinda...right? :p

But tank units in HTTR + COTA can be seen taking cover, pausing a move task at least, if they come across such units.
Let's imagine a tank company moving their turrets only (to fire at a nearby rifle coy), while maintaining cruise speed to reach the destination.
Adding a check for an opposing enemy's loadout would be a major improvement. In my example, the rifle company has no weapon/explosive at hand to harm the tank, so the tank would be considered invulnerable (for this certain rifle coy).

You only need a couple of volunteers to find out [;)]. Doubt Joe Treadhead in his noisy tank, buttoned up with only some vieuwslits to look out is going to volunteer. Small arms hitting their armourplates and infantry running around them. That's a reassuring thought for the treadheads. Even if he does I doubt he will find out the complete TO&E of the enemy unit.

Infantry units in this game will exert a shock effect against armour units at short range at night or in close country like woods or towns. Tanks without infantry cover have a deathwish anyway.

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
One more thing: It seems that retreating units still do some heavy damage at times, is that intended? It kinda feels wrong.....

I mean, retreating doesn't mean withdrawing, nor is it a process of disengagement to refrain from enemy strongpoints, right? It happens if units are being overrun, or if a unit's casualty rate is rocketing to the sky, or if heavy enemy weapons or the vast number of enemies scare the shyte outta those units. Correct me if I'm wrong, I never checked the manuals for those details. [:D]

Btw, don't get me wrong, the game features major improvements, which make it even more fun to play.

Sorry for the long blahblah :p

For more info please see page 139 of the CotA reference manual.

ORIGINAL: Grouchy

For more info please see page 139 of the CotA reference manual.

Yeah just checked it.....but there are some occasions where it still feels strange, kinda.

ORIGINAL: Grouchy

Tanks without infantry cover have a deathwish anyway.

I wouldn't generalize it like that. Fast moving tanks on the enemy's flanks can be real assets.

Also, that'd be a typical phrase that could be found in Wehrmacht compendiums issued to officers who were commanding tank coys. Your conclusion complies with the german military doctrine used for the deployment of armoured troops, back then. [:D] A couple of german commanders in WWII used to dump this doctrine, and that behaviour proved to be quite successful.

Another example for the use of fast troops might be the deployment of US armoured forces in Iraq (1st + 2nd war in the Gulf).

Regarding my rifle-coy example: I'd say a tank coy would decide to stomp over a rifle company that fails to bring forward any AT weapon.
Quite contrary to some situations in HttR/COTA, german Pz formations (in WWII) attacking enemy positions or villages often only got cautious or started to choose another approach after losing several tanks, either by enemy fire or AT mines. Many units used to charge aggressively, with or without inf cover, though.

Another wish:

4th) I'd love the inclusion of a lil value-field when choosing "safest" or "avoidance" as type of route. Safest routes appear to be pretty close at times (pls see the screenshot in this thread: tm.asp?m=1158302 ). Creating your own set for paths (SHIFT-key to add waypoints) can be pretty exhausting :p, if you want/have to issue this kind of "Ship-around-order" to several units, as the avoidance/safest settings don't seem to work correctly sometimes (well, they might be correct according to the distance-settings hard-coded in the engine).

Example for a value-field: I choose avoidance/safest and enter a certain value, let's say 500 meters, which would ensure that the distance to the closest enemy units (according to intel and time the task has been issued) would not fall below that value. This would save the player's time, since he could focus on the battles, instead of playing "nurse" for units choosing suicide routes.

Quite a couple of good suggestions in there.

Let me throw one big wish: friendly fog of war.

I don't think I have ever seen a wargame successfully integrating the notion of friendly fog of war that would be realistic while not too frustrating: we wargamers are so used to know everything and anything on our units at any time during a game that it might be a shock for some of us to play a wargame where not only you cannot give orders to a unit that has routed, but on top of that you don't even know where it is at the moment and when you will be in contact with it again !... Friendly fog of war is an inevitable and crucial aspect of war operations but it is rarely modeled in wargames.

Of course, a campaign mode will also be a great feature (but isn't that already in the works for BFTB ?)

Some other wish might be perhaps a bit more detailed modeling of air operations. Air strikes are fine but what other some air recon missions ? What about knowing in advance how many airstrikes could be available to you during the day and try to schedule them in a manner in synch with your plan of operations instead of just getting informed that there is one available over your head at the moment, and never be in a position to decide when they should pop up? Especially if this engine wants to make the leap to modern conflicts such as Vietnam, a more robust aircraft warfare system will be required at some point.

Regarding supply though, I am not too sure I would start to detail the system too much. For example, for supply priority, I would not go down to the possibility of prioritizing for every single unit. There's a fine line between integrating supply in the engine as a worthwhile and important component of the operations, and integrating supply in such details that it detracts for the operational wargame it is supposed to be into a top-heavy logistics micro-management game.

In real life anyway, battlefield commanders do not get themselves involved into supply nitty-gritty questions and details except in very rare circumstances. Usually, they will rather instruct the logistics staff as to what is their current priorities based on their plan of operations and let them manage the details, as it should be.

So giving the player the possibility to indicate the overall supply priorities is good, but I would stop at some higher level of formation, like battalions in smaller scenarios or regiments/brigades for larger scenarios. So for example the system could allow you the possibility of determining 3 supply priorities (A,B,C) for 3 different formations and the system would then put a greater emphasis at getting supplies delivered first to these units in the amount requested, and even cut supply from other if needs be. That would remain a nice refinement while still keeping the overall supply system simple and manageable.

I must say for now I am quite happy with the supply system. I do not yet understand all the intricacies of it, but it seems to be working OK. It's a HUGE improvement already over HTTR, so I would rather see improvements in other areas now.

ORIGINAL: Tzar007

So giving the player the possibility to indicate the overall supply priorities is good, but I would stop at some higher level of formation, like battalions in smaller scenarios or regiments/brigades for larger scenarios. So for example the system could allow you the possibility of determining 3 supply priorities (A,B,C) for 3 different formations and the system would then put a greater emphasis at getting supplies delivered first to these units in the amount requested, and even cut supply from other if needs be. That would remain a nice refinement while still keeping the overall supply system simple and manageable.

That's a good point. So, we agree that the inclusion of some control for the player would be good, at least. [:)]

I like the idea of having friendly fog of war: Units that are cut off, especially if their radio equipment got destroyed or operates out of range for any base/HQ unit, wouldn't be displayed, maybe just with a "vague"-info where they were last seen/contacted. That would be great.

I'm dreaming now: An auto-MICRO-management that would include "KRad-Melder" (sorry for the german blahblah :p, messengers using motorbikes), for example. The Germans didn't trust radio communications very much, they were scared that unencrypted radio messages (trouble calls, adjustment of operations) could be intercepted. This might be the main reason for them using telephone-lines where appropriate, or messengers on motorbikes. Regular messages were encoded (each arm of the forces had its own version of the Enigma, where the Luftwaffe and Army Enigmas' level of encryption were relatively weak -due to having less cylinders-, compared to the U-Boat versions), though.
Now imagine troops waving their hands (transmitted by the messengers or radio com) to tell "we're still here", and whoop the friendly fog of war would reveal these troops. That would be cool.

British forces used carrier pigeons during the invasion in Normandy. The Germans used those KRad Melder units, especially during the retreat in Russia and Romania.

A lil history snippet:
My grandfather's neighbor was a motorbike messenger, and it's like he went on a good number of odysseys, especially after the bad retreat in Romania, where they had the Russians in front of their toes, and the Romanians (after they changed sides and declared war on Germany) in their back. He kept trying to reach Budapest, where he and his comrades got encircled by the Russians, and ended up as russian POW. He got released 8 or 9 yrs after the war ended - he had to work in a russian mine for all those years.

ORIGINAL: Tzar007
Let me throw one big wish: friendly fog of war.

Oooo...there's an interesting one. I wonder how many times in real battles the commander wasn't exactly sure where some of his units were due to poor intel?

Friendly FOW has been on our wish list since we began designing the engine in 1995. I agree it would be great. But there is a good reason why it isn't in already - performance. To be totally realistic every units should maintain its own database of friendly and enemy units. But the data size and processing would be horrendous. As has been noted here on this forum COTA is slower than HTTR and that is primarily because of the extra load on the CPU placed by the AI. Some players would like to have a fast forward button for those periods of seming inactivity. Truth is that we're at max speed now. Machines need to be a lot faster before we can contemplate any more major loads on the CPU.
 
When we go to Team Play we will bite the bullet and go to separate friendly and enemy databases for each command ( probably limiting this tyo 4 per side ). I expect we'll need some heavy duty performance profiling to extract the extra performance required. So we're still a way off having full friendly FOW.

The game speeds I find are perfect. I never use the fastest setting. To quick for my old brian.

I have to say again I really havent played a game that feels so right as this one. It actually plays out like all those books Ive read regarding battles at Coy to Brigade level.

Im very happy with the supply system. No General had everything under control. Far from it.

This system I feel would work well in a WW1 setting aswell. The Arty is so well executed I could imagine a WW1 battle working well.

What's wrong with Brian?
Ray [:'(]

Oh Bu#ger...........erm........well.........My Brain likes to be called Brian.........yes?.....no.....bu#gers

Poor old Brian!

[:D]

Yep. A life of Brian is no fun at all.
BUT
You could always look on the bright side of life, altogether now: ti dum ti dum ...
Sorry wodin but you'd be just the same. [;)]
Ray

You know me to well.......

This thread has been hyjacked. Sorry.

Back to the wish list.

[:D]

"As has been noted here on this forum COTA is slower than HTTR and that is primarily because of the extra load on the CPU placed by the AI."

Are dualcore CPUs supported? Would it help?

The game is multi-threaded. In the absence of Dave or Paul talking about the architecture, it looks to my like the two threads are the AI and the UI. I would guess that the UI CPU charge hasn't increased too much since the days of RDOA and that it is mainly the AI where the charge has been rising. Thus, I would think that a faster CPU is going to be the biggest determinant of performance compared to whether you are single core and hyperthreaded or dual core and quad threaded.

Misty,
 
We don't have a dual core machine here to verify, but because the game is hyperthreaded with separate threads for AI, UI and sounds, it should take advantage of the dual cores and it should run faster on a dual core CPU of the same speed as a single core. But as I said we cannot verify this at the moment. ( Please get your mates to buy a copy so we can buy a dual core machine to test on [;)] ).