If you could add one feature...

[mattdbook]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your reply. I haven't been on the forum for a while.

I do think the game is excellent in many ways, but I do look forward to any targeting improvements in Southern Storm!

Regards,
Matt

[Jagger2002]

The ability to see where your artillery is landing and if it's scoring hits should be regulated by the presence of units with sufficient Ground Search Radar on the map as opposed to being seen by default - Units like the PRP-4 and SNAR-10 come to mind. The game does an excellent job of modelling electronics systems already, so it couldn't hurt to get a bit more in-depth with regard to the function of these systems, and of course, their vulnerabilities

Yes and also would be nice to remove the precise artillery results from the TOC messages in human to human/PBEM games. I like those artillery TOC messages when playing the AI because they are very useful in understanding the combat mechanism. However in PBEM, those messages make artillery the preferred method of reconnaissance. However, IMO, it is Ok if there is a legitimate justification for knowledge on artillery results when firing on unobserved hexes. It wouldn't surprise me if there is justification of which I am not aware. If there is justification, I would be curious to know how the information would be collected-maybe radio intercepts?

Also targeting...a number have mentioned it already. My recent example involved a T-80 company in the woods stumbling into a jaguar platoon adjacent to a jager infantry platoon. The Jaguars promptly knocked out 6 of my 10 tanks at 500 meters. My tanks had time to fire two return volleys before the Jaguars scooted out of sight. Unfortunately, my tank survivors decided to fire those two volleys at the trucks of the infantry platoon instead of the Jaguars. Did manage to knock out one infantry truck as the Jaguars disappeared deeper into the woods. Ummm....

[CapnDarwin]

We ran into the same issue with VP markers. How would you know it was occupied if you can see it. The simple answer is other intel assets in the battle space. There can be other recon units, spec ops, air recon, radio info, etc., that gets forwarded into your command center. We can look at maybe having an option for this "soft" Intel so you can toggle it on/off/realistic (lies to you about stuff).

Targeting can get weird at times and it really becomes a function of the situation. There is a chance that the tanks were surprised by the Jags. Either did not see them or someone saw them just before going boom. At that point a bunch of your comrades have exploded, there is smoke, fire, and debris all over the place. You spot a vehicle (truck) and fire. Not ideal as a commander, but really possibly for that poor pixel tanker. [8D]

[Jagger2002]

I have had problems with Russian mech Infantry blocking bottlenecks primarily to other large mech infantry units due to stacking limits. If a mech unit is deployed, should it block the roads? I would think the mass of the unit would be deployed off road. So my suggestion is that deployed infantry units should not count towards stacking limits when another unit is passing through the hex in travel mode. In bottlenecks, then a large Russian mech infantry could use roads to pass through another deployed mech unit which is not using the roads.

[ctcharger]

Not really a feature but an entry on lulu.com where I can order the manual and pretty much everything printable related to Flashpoint Campaigns. They will print it on demand and ship it out. They can create a nice product at a reasonable price. Old fashioned that way I guess.

[ctcharger]

I read through them all and didn't see it so here goes. Apologies if it is there.

Yes there is a minefield, "big surprise" so everyone in the back freaking wait for the guys up front to clear it. I have little experience playing the Soviets and it shows, rookie mistake I know. [:-] So I would like to tell my Soviets to NOT stack unless I say they can or tell them to bypass the stupid minefield. I also didn't check the path of my helicopters and some got zapped. Another rookie mistake.

Hey the Commissar is here, I wonder what he wants?!?![&:]

Had to concede the game, so embarrassing...[:(]

[kokovi79]

Instead of fixed time delays I want to be able to set conditions to control start of movement to the next waypoint, like "fight for 5 minutes after contact OR stay until you receive artillery fire, than start deliberate movement to waypoint 2, get into "hold" at waypoint 2; if you receive artillery fire OR fight for 5 minutes after contact, start deliberate movement to waypoint 3, get into "hold" at waypoint 3..." So basically, I want to be able to script unit behavior to be able to properly control defending/delaying/screening actions without everybody just being killed in place by artillery.

I also want units to resume the execution of the original plan after showing local initiative instead of moving one hex, deleting my waypoints and then sitting around uselessly until being killed. And I want them NOT to move towards the enemy lines in road march formation after being shot at. This is even more ridiculous than the instant posture change and then waiting 45 minutes until movement starts because of "order delays". They would start movement earlier even if I would sent my orders by a motorbike messenger!

[kokovi79]

I would also like to get the possibility to properly prepare the battlefield with improved positions, mines and obstacles.

[Zackree]

Like many I first want to say what a great game you have produced. My suggestion is from the perspective of minor improvements. It seems to me that at this scale the lack of unit facing for armored units omits a key element of armored warfare. Maneuvering for shots at weaker flank and rear armor is key to successful armored engagements. This is true for both tanks and infantry. The current model ignores the difference between a long range front shot that has almost no possibility of a kill and a flank or rear shot with a high probability of a kill. This is even more true for infantry against tanks in built up areas. A LAW against the front armor of a T80 has little chance of a kill, but a good one against top or rear armor. I have seen three isolated tanks in built up areas destroy four sections of infantry. In real life they would have difficulty even locating the infantry in buildings let alone destroying them. The infantry on the other hand would easily locate, maneuver and destroy the tanks, i.e. Chechnya. Matching engagement result to existing unit facing with the option of setting stationary unit heading seems like a good idea.

[StuccoFresco]

Anything that helps build new scenarios would be awesome; mainly some form of a map maker or random map generator. I love modding, every game that can be modded or expanded, i eventually will.

The ability to use engineer units to place/clear minefields/obstacles would be fine.

Stacking different subsequent commands seems to be addressed already.

I concur that tanks seems to be too effective in urban terrain, shooting from 2 hexes away at infantry. Looks and feels strange. But i'm not a veteran player so might have been a casual occurrance.

[IronMikeGolf]

ORIGINAL: Zackree

The current model ignores the difference between a long range front shot that has almost no possibility of a kill and a flank or rear shot with a high probability of a kill.

Well, not really, but you, the player don't currently get a lot of information about the shots. And that is because or goal is to give your a feel for what it is like at the Battalion and Brigade/Regiment level of command.

The times that we adjudicate a shot as non-frontal is most often tied to whether the target unit is surprised. And that is because AFV crews are trained to immediately put frontal armor towards the enemy. What we need to do better is accounting for a unit being engaged from multiple directions simultaneously and we are working towards addressing that.

The other case is engaging a moving unit that continues to move on its original path. That is a consequence of Assault movement. We're looking at that, too.

[CapnDarwin]

Let me see if I can catch up on a few things people have stated.

1. Engineering. We are planning to improve on the abstraction from Red Storm to have a set number of assets to end bridge spam and also to have those items show up on the map better when in use. Bridges for stream/river crossings and Engineers for clearing obstacles and making improved positions.

2. In general, many improvements to how command and control and orders and some new SOPs to help both the player and AI use units with better fidelity and realism.

3. Random map maker or a map maker tool in general. Not going to happen for some time if at all. William has done a great job of documenting the map making process and if you look at it there is no easy way to make a user-friendly hit a button and make appears program. Not right now at least. That is the tradeoff of doing real-world locations versus old school SSI map generations. Sorry, there no better answer.

4. Battle generator. Like the map maker in #3, we did not build the game to be a skirmish mode type game. We are looking at a number of additions in scenario making that will allow for quicker construction of scenarios and we are hoping to have some tools worked out that will allow players to swap out gear easier. Maybe down the road when the game is stable and we have worked through some of the expansions we can revisit the means to build on the fly scenarios.

5. Improvements in our combat model and the information provided to the player are on our list of things to do for the new game engine. We want the game to tell a deeper story and the player to be able to get at the information they need easier. Always a challenge to have a UI that is informative but not overwhelming.

There will be a number of changes in the look and feel of the new game engine. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we can start showing and telling in more detail. We are working on getting a dedicated web design/support person going and that will speed up our ability to talk more about development.

[WABAC]

I don't know if this has been mentioned previously . . . Not that it matters [:)]

I think an option to turn off the victory point tab would be a giant step towards enhancing fog of war in Southern Storm. It is now too easy to manage to the losses you see the enemy accumulating. I tend to play the forces of the decadent West. So I am typically on defense.

[hapshott]

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

Hi,

ease of swapping type/mark/date of units in the editor.

So a shipped scenario is dated August '89 with M1A1 tank units. Swap the mark of tanks to M60A3s and have them automaticity deploy into the same locations as the shipped units.

A lot great scenarios that I would love to play set in say '83 or some such dated.

Fantastic wargame/simulation..
All the best,
Kip.

Hello Kip,

There is a workaround for swapping units. See: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4519944

This workaround is unfortunately only possible for the same faction. I converted all scenario's to the 1970 and 1980 equipment.

Going back to the topic. A random scenario generator would be great. Or a scenario generator which helps you in calculating the objective points. I have real difficulties in determining the points such that the AI is smarter or that the victory matches what you think should be the victory level. e.g I got a marginal victory but wiped out almiost every enemy unit.

Best regards,

Hapshott

[Hub6Actual]

“If pK value is < than x, then hold fire.”

Where the player may set what x is. And hand-in-hand is a target priority SOP, but that has already been mentioned. Oops.

Seriously, this is an excellent game system and I hope for it’s continued health and long life.

[Hub6Actual]

The ability to import text into the side briefings used in the scenario editor.

[CapnDarwin]

@Hub6Actual, You can copy and paste from an external document into the scenario description, the two mission briefings, and the designer notes. What else are we missing? [8D]

[Hub6Actual]

I tried it today, several times. It didn't work. I ended up typing it all in by hand.

[CapnDarwin]

What program was the original text in? Can you highlight text and do a copy/paste into another program or open document? Have you tried running both programs (FPRS and text doc) as admin? Seems like a strange glitch. When you click on the text boxes in Red Storm do you get a vertical cursor blinking? Also, what is your OS and Language?

[Hub6Actual]

Was waiting for an appointment, so typed some stuff and emailed it home. Did ctrl-c, ctrl-v out of MS Outlook on English W10 when I got home, to the mission briefing box, and it wouldn't go. Copy/pasted something from Outlook to Notepad just now to test, and that worked as it should. Just tried the game again to be sure, and nothing happened, although the cursor stopped blinking for about two seconds before starting up again, and still no text transfer. As near as I can sort out, the Admin privileges are the same as everything else on my laptop.