Suggestion for more options
 

I find that when playing the germans vs the russians, I run into a ton of anti-air units from the start. Like 10 37mm and 10 aamg for a battalion sized game. I play on small to medium sized maps (around 50-70 hexes) and it get's a bit pointless to buy aircraft since they generally get damaged right away.

I suggest an option for setting max % of points the ai can spend on AA (also would be nice to have similar settings for other types like Tanks, Artillery & Planes).

I also feel the reaction fire has gone a bit overboard compared to the original games. Here everyone seems to shoot at everyone. When defending vs multiple units, it's pointless to shoot since the unit will get suppressed to hell right away, so it's best to rely on reaction fire. I'd like an option for less aggressive reaction fire.

Possibly something like: When a unit shoots, only it's target & anyone who has the shooter as it's target are guaranteed to return fire. Enemies without a target will get a chance, and enemies with another target will get a smaller chance. The chances should be affected by distance, so units are more likely to shoot at closer targets. Reaction fire on movement could be similar.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I have to disagree with you regarding reaction fire, one of the things that makes this game is the fact reaction fire is fairly intelligent, certainly far more so than any other incarnations of SP I have played.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

Welcome PKH. I'd like to help you out, but I'm not quite sure as to your meaning(s). In the first paragraph, I presume you're talking about a situation in which enemy units have moved up during their turn, and one of your exposed units--that is, in the enemy's line of sight (LOS)--would be slaughtered if it fired at any one of them. The reaction (or "opportunity") fire would be devastating.

Well, you don't have to fire, at least not at first, with your most exposed, closest unit. You could fire with other units that have LOS on one or more of the enemy units, and are further away so any return fire wouldn't be so damaging. (Also bear in mind that units which have moved are less accurate than those remaining stationary--check out the online game manual). If all or most enemy units are pinned or worse, you could then try firing with the exposed, closest unit. If all else fails, you could try retreating or popping smoke. Remember, you don't HAVE to fire during your turn; it's optional.

What exactly do you mean by "Enemies without a target will get a chance, and enemies with another target will get a smaller chance"? Maybe the first phrase was meant to read, "Enemies without ANOTHER target will get a BETTER chance," in which case you could run into contingency problems during the course of a sequential turn that I attempt to address further below. Otherwise kindly be a little more specific.

Basically the system operates on LOS and effective range. If you fire at enemy units during your (half-) turn, any enemy units with LOS, in effective range, and with shots available, can fire back, and vice-versa.

As far as units being more likely to fire at closer targets is concerned, I dunno how that could be arranged. Since movement and fire is sequential, it's impossible to determine which units will be further or closer by the end of the turn.

And even if a unit IS closer when a particular firing sequence begins, it doesn't always follow that the closer unit is going to fire at all (its suppression might be too high to begin with, or it might be suppressed/damaged/whatever in the first round[s] of fire). So it would be pointless for op-firing units to hold fire in expectation of a better shot at a closer unit, if that unit won't fire anyway during that turn. As you can imagine, there's a whole bunch of variables at work here.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't then please clarify your questions and somebody on the forum would be happy to answer.

Cheers and happy gaming!

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

Just to clarify & this is only from playing but units are more likely to fire at closer (as in easier to hit targets including moving infantry) than harder to hit targets.
My guess is there is a routine based on chance to hit & inflict damage plus a threat level routine, but I have no idea its just observation.
Examples
I have 2 infantry squads one moving one stationary. The stationary one is far more likely to fire at medium to long range than the moving one as its fire is more accurate.

The squad that doesn't use its AT weapon because it moved or is suppressed & hence will most likely miss.
Also a nice touch on occasion they seem just not to bother then open up in their turn causing a bit of a surprise.

Tank ignores the halftrack at moderate range as its no real threat yet opens up at the tank. Try running enough halftracks past it though & it might decide to take the shot rather than wait for a better target.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

It's generally an issue where several units on each side have line of sight to each other. In this case it's pointless to shoot on the defensive since every attacker will shoot back at the firing unit. So the game gets very passive, and basically plays itself (when playing the AI). The problem as I see it is that every unit gets reaction shots vs. every other unit. It doesn't feel realistic, and makes defending very passive.

It means exactly what it says. When a unit shoots, enemy units without a target gets a chance to shoot back at it with reaction fire (they will then have a target). Enemy units who already have a target also has a chance to shoot at it (switching targets), but at a reduced chance since they are already engaged with someone else.

It would be arranged by measuring the distance in hexes at the time the reaction fire was to be resolved.

This was about reaction fire when a unit does shoot or move. It makes sense to me that a unit is more likely to switch to another target if the new target is closer, and less likely to switch to another that is further away. The way I see it, having a target in this game represents engaging it and also getting the benefits of incremental accuracy increases. It makes little sense logically or realistically to constantly switch targets.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

OK PKH, thanks for your reply. The suggestions you make are beyond my puny capabilities to evaluate, so I'd better let others handle it. Good luck.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I like PKH's suggestion. Here's an example of how it could work.

For example, assume friendly unit A has targeted enemy unit 1 at a range of 5 hexes. Enemy unit 2 moves into A's LOS at a range of 8 hexes; A would not fire at 2 since it is farther. Enemy unit 3 pops up 3 hexes from A; A MAY fire at 3 since it is closer. Enemy unit 4 shows up adjacent to A; A would fire at unit 4.

Units appearing adjacent would be fired on 100% of the time if visible, same as now. Units closer than the current target could be handled by an algorithm which would make it more probable to fire the closer the the appearing unit is to the firing unit. Per the example: divide 100 by the range of the current target minus 1 (100 / (5 - 1) = 25). So each hex closer would have a 25% chance of being fired at; a unit at a range of 3 would have a 50% chance of being fired at, at a range of 2 a 75% chance.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

OK, so you're talking about opfire during your opponent's turn, right? Sorry if I misunderstood the OP.

Marmonger's suggestion has merit, although I'm not sure it would make all that much practical difference. As Imp notes from his own experience and observation, there already seems to be some consideration for hit probability and danger assessment.

Besides, if you believe the reaction fire is excessive, then why not simply hit the y-key and adjust the firing range of your units so they don't fire beyond a certain distance? That should ameliorate at least some of your objection to what you consider over-aggressive opfire.

Cheers and have fun.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I could still not fire myself without getting reaction/op fire from all enemy units in range. So the best strategy in defense is to do nothing a lot of the time, and instead rely on reaction fire in the opponents turn.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

You got it. Set your units to fire at half-range, quarter-range or even less (I often set mine to one hex, or 50 meters, if there's armor in the neighborhood) depending on the circumstances. If, as a defender, you fire during YOUR movement/fire phase you don't get the same benefit as when ENEMY units are moving and firing, especially if you restrict your reaction/opfire to an effective (shorter) range.

Naturally, if you're attacking, things are a bit different ;). Sometimes I'll fire "blind" into hexes I believe are occupied before moving anybody forward. It's called "area" fire (z-fire in the game) and was used plenty of times in WWII, notably by Rommel in France 1940 and the Eighth Army in North Africa (British infantry would advance through a smokescreen, firing from the hip until they came on the enemy trenches; then it was hand-to-hand IF the enemy didn't run or surrender first).

This is a terrific game and all of us are privileged to play it, whether we appreciate it or not. Cheerio and carry on. :up:

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

While I'm making suggestions, can something be done with the hex grid. The edges are clearly rendered twice using different vertices, and don't overlap correctly leaving gaps. This has been the case since the first game. Second, an option for a transparent grid would be nice.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I understand what you mean by this but it has never bothered me ( and if it did I would have fixed it ) and it's taken 15 years for it to bother anyone to the point they would mention it. ( you are the first one....) The only real way it can be seen is if you are running the game 480x640 zoomed in the the max. The problem is the angle of the top and bottom hex side cannot be made to match up exactly top and bottom at the master level ( level 4 ) so they join seamlessly. If you find the solution to that so that one hex outline Icon can be recreated hundreds of times and all match perfectly, let me know. That said I will note this down for further study

I would also like to know what you consider a "transparent grid" and then explain why it would be nice and explain how that might be possible with a 256 colour palette that contains one colour that the game shows as transparent but all that would do is create the same effect as turning the grid off which is already an option.

Don

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

The split edges are visible even on high resolutions when zoomed in. I just think it looks sloppy, and I've noticed it since the first steel panthers game.

I would like a transparent grid because I find the current one has too high contrast, and it reduces immersion for me. I prefer playing without a grid, but I find it necessary to have it on a lot of the time. If it can't be done because of the games limited colors I understand that.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I don't end up doing this very often or doing much micro managing with the Y key on ranges.
If you are heavily outnumbered not firing the odd unit is sometimes better but good use of smoke or the dust from artillery & other fires means you can normally get local superiority at least against the AI.
So most turns its all guns blazing with the exception of any units you think are still undiscovered & don't want to give away their positions.
<!-- / message -->

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

Something which could be done regarding the grid, which I've seen on other grid based maps, is only rendering the corners of the grid instead of the whole edge, or rendering just a point in the center of each hex. It gives the same information but is less visible.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

The "problem" here is that this is your issue and your issue alone.

Nobody... and I mean NOBODY has brought this up before in the 15 years we've been doing this so I'm going to put this out as a question to anyone reading this thread..... do you find the existing hex grid obtrusive to your gaming experience ??


Don

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I can only make suggestions based on my own preferences. I don't have any expectations that anything will happen because of it, but at least I've made my thoughts known.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

Nope, not me. If anybody doesn't like the grid, just turn it OFF :D.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

We are looking at allowing as an option one of the first ten "colours" of the game palette to be chosen for people who own the game. They are all gray-scale so the range would run from full black as default to light gray. I have experimented with those tones in the code and have found that , depending on the map type and terrain ( and your monitor and the condition of your eyes... etc ) , can produce more subtle grid lines that are still there but not BOLDLY THERE. We haven't delved into it beyond a basic test or two but we are thinking it would be offered as a secondary option for the grid on/off hot key. With a choice of 10 tones there would be something for everyone.

Don

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

:up: I like the sound of that! - I tend to play with the grid off because I DO find it a little too "boldly there". Obviously not a massively high priority fix but a definate "it-would-be-nice-if".

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

Here's what colour #4 looks like.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1377640604

It doesn't show well on a summer map in this example but when it's showing the full screen you know it's there.. it's not obviously "THERE".

We will experiment further. If it works out it will be in the next patch update for CD holders with 10 choices

Don

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

That looks great!

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

This looks quite nice I think.

On another issue, is there any chance you could show the path in real time from the currently selected unit to the cursor position with remaining movement points shown per hex in the path.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I would say at this time......No.

Don

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

Would not want that turns it into an RTS type game, getting caught in the open because you couldn't quite make it seems realistic to me & you can always move units in small increments if path finding is tricky.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

If you are looking at allowing colour selection for the hex grid would it be possible to do it for winter maps & the greyed out overlay for hexes you have no LOS to. Something with a greater contrast to the white background would be great as I find it very difficult to distinguish at times.
This would actually be useful & I could even live with it being a bit garish like dull red.
If you could find something that improves it even half as much as the excellent work you did on the backgrounds of the information screens that would be superb.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

[quote=Imp;821778]Total agree :D

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

We are not allowing "colour" just black to medium-light gray.

I have NO IDEA what you mean but "Something with a greater contrast to the white background would be great ".......how much more than this do you need ??

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1377890137

In any event the only way to change that is change the pallete. Dark areas like that are created when the game selects a specific set of darker colours that are " twinned" to the ones you see on screen and if I change them it changes everything that uses that colour.


Don

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

Fair point on the contrast meant something that stood out more clearly, for me the main problem is easily defining rough hexes as they look fairly similar, still probably its just me.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I never had issues not being able to identify terrain properly.
Visually and at least with CD-Version descripted at the top edge of the screen since the last patch.

But that's just my subjective opinion and this need not apply to everyone.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

My wishlist would be:

To be able to dig the troops in. (at the expence of the fire rate for the duration of the work)

Or to bundle troops.

For example: all routed troops who flee from battlefield do this in direction of the next generic troop. Searching for the close of the next troop (in contact?) and try to combine.(At last the force don't exceed the maximum of 19)


Or to be able to give the troops a special command.

Maybe like:
Be able to advance faster at the glance of not beeing able to shoot first.

Or:

Save your ammo, shoot only if you're sure to kill the enemy.
(if greater then hitchance of 50% and greater than quality green or lesser then 100 meters then 1 kill. If not goto "klick sound" and save ammo)



This all would be nice and maybe unnecessary. I am very satisfied about how the things work in Spww2 and MBT. Except not beeing able to held transport planes in my core force. (I usually have the intention to win the whole campaign only with core forces)

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

I'd love to see a setting for Long Campaigns that could change the type of enemy forces you are likely to encounter. For instance, you could change between 3 settings (dunno what you'd name them). If on setting 1, your forces are most likely to encounter experienced, veteran troops, commandos, experienced tank battalions with heavy armor, etc. If on 2, you meet average troops. If on 3, you meet reserve units, police forces, light tanks etc. It wouldn't be foolproof and you might still run into completely different forces to what the setting was at, but it would allow you to fight enemy's more your own size.

Re: Suggestion for more options
 

How would this turn it into an RTS type game ? "War in the East" & "The Operational Art Of War" both have this, and I don't think anyone would call them RTS type games. It's just a convenience for the player.