Hi! I'm brand new on the forum, and first of all, I want to thx for this ( badly disguised expletive deleted )awesome game. Since I got it, I only play whit this.

I was thinking, what could make the gameplay more and more exciting.

What about medical units? They could decrease the amount of damage for the infantry units

There should be bridge building and mechanical repair by engenier units

Airunits could do some dogfight (they could be just like AA units)

and one importent thing... I wish there would be a feature, just like in Close Combat (to see all members of a unit, with names) It makes me happy to see that Private Ryen survived the whole war in onepiece:D

I guess most of my ideas were told you, but I hope you can think about it. It could be in the next patch, if you have that in mind.

Can I find here some enemys for teambattle (2on2)?

Re: some ideas
 

Congratulations, you're the first person on this forum to catch an infraction on his first post. DO NOT do it again.

"Medical" units in a game of this scale patch people up just enough to send them to the rear. Dead or alive "Casualties" are "Casualties". If an man is wounded seriously enough to generate a "casualty" report no medic is going to change that

Neither bridge building nor mechanical repair belong in a game of this scale and timespan as we have said more than a few times in the past

Air units cannot dogfight because the code is not set up to allow both enemy and friendly aircraft on the map at the same time in the same way only one aircraft is ever on the map at the same time and that is not going to change

The reason this game doesn't name individual soldiers like Close Combat is because it operates at the unit level NOT the individual soldier level. If you want that kind of game, play Close Combat


Don

Re: some ideas
 

Probably it would be possible to make like counterbattery fire. :up:

After flight enemy airunits, it is destroyed fighters, available in bombardment menu.

Re: some ideas
 

That would create the need for a new class, something like "fighter" wich can dogfight, or else we would have light bombers doing this :D

Re: some ideas
 

True enough, fighter bombers loaded with ordinance do not dogfight so it would have to be restricted to aircraft with guns and cannon only under a certain size and it would also require an entire re-write of a large chunk of code for something neither Andy nor I have any interest in not only from a personal standpoint but also from a game design standpoint.

The existing game engine is already stretched far more than anyone thought possible 10 years ago and we have already had to deal with bugs that crop up because of it so anything we add from here on will have to be not only something very useful to the game but also something that does not impact a lot of other code and most importantly, something we think worthwhile.

This just doesn't qualify

Don

Re: some ideas
 

What about something like a die roll wich gives the chance for A/C to be shot down?fighters circling around battle areas("on call") loaded with bombs would jettison ordnance and engage enemy fighters if in danger(p47 is a nice example for this role)

Re: some ideas
 

Sorry but I can't see your average battalion commander ringing up the local airbase and saying "Give me 3 flights of fighter bombers and cover them with two flights of fighters".

More like the Battalion CO says to his air force liaison - "We need air support and it has to come through!!!" The liaison talks to his boss who then looks at his list of available AC and orders up two flights of FB and seeing that the ground pounders are desperate, reluctantly pulls a couple of fighters off CAP leaving a hole elsewhere and adds them to the strike force. The grunts never see the fighters, just the FBs rolling in.

If you want a realistic change to air support:

Outside of designed scenarios, the player should only be able to pay for unspecified "air support" with the exact composition left to the AI. Whatever comes through is assumed to have had enough fighter cover to make it to the battle area unmolested - just as it works now.

Re: some ideas
 

That's not exactly what i meant, but your post has good arguments, btw by 'unspecified' you mean random? is that possible?:confused:

Re: some ideas
 

Hi Pat,

Interesting, but I think a Commanding Officer, or FOO, would have at least requested the type of air support he wanted.

For example, if he wanted a stone bridge KO'd, that would be very relevant to the type of aircraft/ordinance requested. No good sending a whole squadron of rocket laden aircraft, it's not going to help.

As for being able to choose specific aircraft in SP, this is consistent with being able to choose specific vehicles and tanks.

I guess we could let the AI choose our battalion AND our aircraft, if we wanted to be more realistic.


cheers,
Cross

Re: some ideas
 

It would be quite good in a campaign if you could toggle support points to the AI idealy being allowed to spend a few first if you want some fortifications ATGs or whatever. But then just let it decide what HQ has available in the way of arty & air dependant on engagement type. Meetings high chance 120s or smaller assaults increased chance of big stuff dedicated planes. For meetings it could even decide you are out of luck no gun available on that pass minus 200 points. Its not a balance problem as the other side wont get the points either.

Re: some ideas
 

The ground Commander could ask for what targets he wanted taken out,But the Air Corps decided how to do it,so having it the way it is now is "gamey" but i think it was put in to give the player a little control,also since they have intel they could "suggest" with air they knew were availible.

As far as Dogfights in this game,Let's say Andy or Don could do this or wanted to, (doubt either)

Then with fighter support would that not make air units very expensive?
Extra planes ain't free after all.
And if dogfight occurs then depending on the year and planes used,
How to calculate the outcome and how many Bombers/fighters are lost?,

The way it is now it's a guessing game on how much to spend on AA,
Will my opponent spend on A/C should I? and how much should I spend on AA?,puts an element how to use your pts.wisely, isn't that all that matters?

Re: some ideas
 

Hi Cross - Yes I was arguing the other edge case to a degree ;). To build on your point below, the battalion commander would say "I need to kill a bridge/bunker/infantry in the open/tanks" but it would still be up to the flyboys to plot out the mission and ordnance. He would have no control at all over CAP or escort.


Actually - I would love to see a "deplete force by 10%/20%/30%/50%" button. <i>That</i> would be realistic.

Re: some ideas
 

Yes, I'm sure you are right that the battlion would only request a specific type of target, at a map reference, with some sort of timeframe.

But again, this game could be seen to allow a battalion commander micro control over tanks several KM away, so why not aircraft. Personally, I think this is part of the fun of the game, and I really like the aircraft system as is.

I guess you could switch your aircraft to AI control, if you wanted to keep their control more distant. AI control of aircraft could even be an agreement between two human players, but that wouldn't be my preference.

As for depleted forces, I think we are able to replicate that. Take your 5000 point game, reduce to 4500, there you've just depeleted your force by 10% :D

I know, I know, that's not what you meant...

I guess against another human you could make rules where companies were not complete, or a third party mediated missing elements.

Some selective force choices (like using renamed scouts, or 3 man LMG sections etc) could make units appear to be partial sections/squads, for a scenario.

And then there's always Mobhack ;)


cheers,
Cross

Re: some ideas
 

Alright! Thanks for the info... it would be nice to see some dogfighst... but I have to look for it in a another game:D Oh one more thing...

How could the army data base for a specific country (Hungary) to be updated?

Re: some ideas
 

jeah I remember:D:D:D:D

what about organizing the army when I purchase the units? and a save game option is also a good idea I think


don't get me wrong... I love this game... I got addicted... I even play it in work:D but I want to improve it more and more:D

Re: some ideas
 

I plan for dogfights.... you could purchase the unit before a battle, and the fighter planes should make the bombers not arrive on the scene

It could be onlya a report

(bf109 intercepted the b17) or something like that, and the b17 crashes in to the battlefield... so only one plane should arrive to the scene

Re: some ideas
 

what do you think? could we make a revolutionary change in the game?

with a little bit roleplaying with pbem game? with battalion commanders, teamleaders... etc.

Re: some ideas
 

I have no idea what you may be thinking here. "Updated" in what way ?

We will not be making any "revolutionary change in the game". If we were planning a "revolutionary change in the game" we'd toss out the entire existing code and start from square one and although we have discussed this many times there are no plans to do so. Were we to do that all SP development would cease. That was one option a few years back. Had we done so there likely still wouldn't be a new game ready , it's wouldn't be anything like SP and the Windows version of both MBT and WW2 wouldn't exist

Don

Re: some ideas
 

For the update I meant something to improve the units... like make some changes in the infantry, to make new pictures to the unit etc.

The revolutionary gameplay is all about this forum... There would be some politic... who arrange the fighting... there would be some generals, who make the armys... and some squad leaders, who organize the platoons. In the forum, there would be a rpg plot, whic defines, how much points will have the individual armys. But I guess this is just to great to be real:D Sorry... I get excited by this game, and I wish I could make it more amusing...

Re: some ideas
 

I'M GLAD FOR THE SP SERIES! don't get me wrong... I still play 1956 against the soviets:D

Re: some ideas
 

If you abstracted planes like that you may as well do the whole army that way.
Your 20 tanks 8 did not make it to the field as straffed while moving there etc etc.
You are talking strategic level now the game assumes the planes got through just like your ground force did.

Re: some ideas
 

Oh I see... How do you know so much about military? You're a soldier or something?

axishistory.com (if you plan to refresh the oob-s... especially Hungary)

Does anybody know someone, who could make a campaign called "The siege of Budapest"? I can help you to get info on the operation...

I hope I can find somepeople, who can make historically acurate maps

Re: some ideas
 

If you are replying to someone, please use the quote button. Then it is much easier to realise what post your reply pertains to.

1) I take it you did not read the sticky post entitled "welcome" first?

2) Unit editing - see Mobhack. Game Guide -> Help tab ->Mobhack help. Then look at the posts in the TO&E sub forum.

3) Campaign stuff - why not take a look at the posts in the campaigns & scenariossub-forum?.

Andy

Re: some ideas
 

I already dug through the campaigns and did not found nothing:S

Yeah I did not read the welcome, cause I read this forum since I got my copy of the game (not the cd version:( )

In pbem game, is it possible to have a coop campaign against the computer?

Thaks in advance:D and sorry for the mess I made:D

Re: some ideas
 

The purpose of the sticky threads is to provide guidance to new posters, and posters are expected to read and understand those before blundering in and posting.

It is also clear that you did not read the FAQ section before posting, since you managed to get yourself an infraction on your first post for use of inappropriate language..
(The FAQs are available from the menu item FAQ at the bar at the top of the forum. These guidelines are not optional)

As I said - try reading the posts in the Campaigns and scenarios sub-forum. As for the cooperative campaign then why not try this thread there (it is currently the first one in that forum) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43905

Andy

Re: some ideas
 

Who are you replying to here?

Don

Re: some ideas
 

It can be done but its not a small project. You are probably looking at a year or two of design and playtesting . . and that's after all of the OOB, map and other information is assembled.

Re: some ideas
 

We just have to make the battlefield. Well as acurrate we can make.

Re: some ideas
 

I mean you all (who read this thread).

Re: some ideas
 

If you mean building the maps, that's the easy part. You have to have the maps before you can place units and even begin playtesting. I'm not sure you have an idea of the scope of the work involved in creating a user campaign in this game, if thats what your overall intent is.

Re: some ideas
 

You get a lot of miltary, both active and retired. I met a marine recruiter back when I played SP1 that we spent ten minutes or so telling his partner about how wonderful the game was. (I wonder if he's still playing.) You also get people like me who is an amature wargamer, historian and military enthusiast. Don't forget that we've also got people from at least four contenants and a couple dozen countires.

This sort of project draws all kinds of people together and you can bet that a good chunk of them are going to have firsthand experience in what they're talking about. You might be hard pressed to find another group of people that have as much background as the group involved in wargaming.

Re: some ideas
 

Actually I realy don't know. I'm just theoritical... But why we need the playtests?

Re: some ideas
 

Any user campaign will need all of the scenario's playtested and then the campaign as a whole will need to playtested. At least that's how I do mine. You are probably looking at a 4-12 month time frame from start to finish depending on how big you want it to be.

Re: some ideas
 

For the same reason you always do test runs with a new weapon and the same reason that squads will practice taking a bridge over and over before they actually do it. There will always be bugs or problems that you won't find until somebody tries it.