16! That seems a little limiting

Real time World War II combat simulation
User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

16! That seems a little limiting

Post by Fighter_Ace » Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:46 am

I think that 16 for a max amount of units is a little annoying! If I want more troops instead of tanks and other costly stuff, I have to stop at 16 units and have two choices. (1) Sell some units back and force myself to buy some more expensive stuff, or (2) waste a whole lot of money by stopping at 16 cheap units with all that money left over :? . In REAL life, the only limit on the amount of units you have is as much as you can afford. This really bugs me :x ! What are other peoples' thoughts :idea: ?
Last edited by Fighter_Ace on Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

Andywoolnough
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by Andywoolnough » Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:44 am

I kinda agree, within reason. The game seems to be very resource hungry - for example, four/five infantry units will be needed to provide cover while you edge one forward to attack a hill. That's usually half your infantry, plus a couple of mortors and a tank and that's way over half your force taken up by what usually turns out to be just four enemies. Also, your guys tend to die from accurate enemy fire more readily than you manage to get the badies so it would be quite nice to have a bit more to play with.

I'm on campaign mode (yep, still in the desert, yawn) and I'm still with a Lieutenant. Does your rank go up, and if so, does your spending power/size of force? If not, that might be an option - you earn your promotions using the usual points/resources, but as you rate superb consistently, you gain promotions occasionally and therefore more forces?

Quick gripe - vision. I had four units staring at a German-shaped hole in the desert and they still didn't see him until he opened up. They were on top of the guy. Surely that's taking it too far! :?

spiegel
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:10 pm

16 is plenty

Post by spiegel » Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:43 am

Although I agree in principal that it would be nice to play a horde, let's face facts: this is a real-time simulation with no hotkeys and no "group units" function. Heck, if you want to fire you mortars, you have to go look at the far edge of the field where you hide 'em before it will let you move to the part of the screen where that nasty artillery piece is. My wrist already ets tired from all of the click-drags!

Add another five units and the game would be unmanageable. You'd get seasick from all of the screen-dancing while you tried to react to that sudden pop-up of five infantrymen by your Looey. Firefight is an excellent game, but recognize the limitations of it. mMn

Besides, so far as the British in North Africa, the "superb" strategy seems to be to go with a recon unit or three, an HMG or two, *maybe* a mortar, then as much armor as you can afford. (I start the buy with the armor and work backwards.)

I move up my recons until the bad guy exposes his anti-tank guns, take those out with off-board artillery and massed fire from my armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), then make squishy sounds with my treads. Lots of my missions last <10 minutes, and I never have enough cash for more than eleven units even though I am buying infantry in 4-man counters or less. Usually, it's my leader, 3-5 AFV, an HMG and 2-3 recons = 8-10 units.

meiner Meinung nach

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

Re: 16 is plenty

Post by Fighter_Ace » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:05 pm

spiegel wrote:Although I agree in principal that it would be nice to play a horde, let's face facts: this is a real-time simulation with no hotkeys and no "group units" function. Heck, if you want to fire you mortars, you have to go look at the far edge of the field where you hide 'em before it will let you move to the part of the screen where that nasty artillery piece is. My wrist already ets tired from all of the click-drags!

Add another five units and the game would be unmanageable. You'd get seasick from all of the screen-dancing while you tried to react to that sudden pop-up of five infantrymen by your Looey. Firefight is an excellent game, but recognize the limitations of it. mMn

Besides, so far as the British in North Africa, the "superb" strategy seems to be to go with a recon unit or three, an HMG or two, *maybe* a mortar, then as much armor as you can afford. (I start the buy with the armor and work backwards.)

I move up my recons until the bad guy exposes his anti-tank guns, take those out with off-board artillery and massed fire from my armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), then make squishy sounds with my treads. Lots of my missions last <10 minutes, and I never have enough cash for more than eleven units even though I am buying infantry in 4-man counters or less. Usually, it's my leader, 3-5 AFV, an HMG and 2-3 recons = 8-10 units.

meiner Meinung nach


You have a point. It would be rather unmanageable if you had a bunch of troops all over the board. So, why can you have squads! That would be great. You could have them in groups so when you push a number, it selects all the units in that group. For instance, "Hmm, I need to shell that bunker with some mortars. Wait! Where are my mortar men? Oh, almost forgot! *presses one* BOOM! He is toast, man!". Sounds pretty nice to me :wink: ! Then you could manage more infantry and open hundreds of more aspects to the game. Another example would be the larger choice of what you want in your army. You could spend money however you want :) !
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:14 am

I think a limit in the amount of troops to command is quite reasonable given that you are playing a Lieutenant who actually would only have commanded a platoon or maybe a company and not half a division. Maybe that number should be slightly higher, I don't really have an opinion on that.
Anyway Firefight is kind of a company-level strategy game and it should stay like that, although I don't know exactly why I think so. Maybe the option to have the player advance in rank and therefore set him in command of bigger formations would be an option. Maybe by changing the actual squads you could buy from 'Squads' to 'Platoons' which are then ordered the same way as squads were before. Well, would make a bigger map necessary.
I don't know, was just thinking without any link between the words I'm saying, I guess...

User avatar
qwas
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 16 is plenty

Post by qwas » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:04 am

Fighter_Ace wrote:
spiegel wrote:You could spend money however you want :) !


Then I would spend all my money on beans on toast!
Proud member of Seans forum since 14th April 2005. 1 year and still counting.
Now to spam those 30 messages to get into 3rd place in post count. :D

I'd like to buy your soul please.
http://www.mindistortion.net/iwantyours ... lex_Rider2

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:50 am

I thought if you had more than 16 units the game would just get unmanagable.

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Post by Andy » Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:45 am

what about being able to group units and have hotkey access to them (0-9). it would be useful and allow better comined use of tanks and infantry, especially in the desert. also a thought ive just had - could maybe 3 guys sit ontop of a tank? it would at least give an excuse to MG a tank :lol:
________
vaporizer
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sid6.7
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:07 am
Location: WEST USA
Contact:

Post by sid6.7 » Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:46 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:I thought if you had more than 16 units the game would just get unmanagable.


yes and also rememeber everyone, your HQ can only reach so far
so if you had double the amount of men(lets say 32 units) you
would have to amass them in the same area as 16....
it would become a mess...militarily speaking....i already have a hard
enough time keeping everyone in range yet dealing with wide
spread targets and yet spaced far enough apart so artillery dont
get it...
if you run..you'll only die tired

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

Post by Fighter_Ace » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:18 pm

No comment there, man! You guys have convinced me it is fine the way it is :roll: ! Heh heh!

Andy wrote:what about being able to group units and have hotkey access to them (0-9). it would be useful and allow better comined use of tanks and infantry, especially in the desert. also a thought ive just had - could maybe 3 guys sit ontop of a tank? it would at least give an excuse to MG a tank :lol:


Yeah! That would be fun! Image

But seriously, you could use that to transport men if all else fails.
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

Post by Fighter_Ace » Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:17 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:I thought if you had more than 16 units the game would just get unmanagable.


But still, wouldn't it be nice to have a choice? If you didn't want more than 16, then don't get more than 16. Simple as that. Then, that way, people that wanted more men could get more :roll: . It sure would make your defence a whole lot bigger/stronger I can tell you that! Instead of having to buy tanks on defence missions, I could get all flamethrowers!!! Bingo baby!!!
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

User avatar
sid6.7
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:07 am
Location: WEST USA
Contact:

Post by sid6.7 » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:59 pm

your a pyro at heart aren't you FA?.....:)
if you run..you'll only die tired

User avatar
Garnier
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:11 pm
Location: America
Contact:

Post by Garnier » Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:38 pm

Id say a good solution would be to do what they did in close combat 2, having the same troops carried through the battles, with a limit, being able to decide which ones out of the limited force pool to us, and to only be able to requisition a certain amount depending on how much points you have. This sets two limits. One on the total campaign, so you dont just waste troops, and another on each battle, so you dont simply get all the tanks and assault troops at the beginning of the campaign and end up fighting with replacement half teams at the end, because you already wasted all the better guys. Some form of carrying through with the same men would be superb. Maybe it would actually get me to play the game again.

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

Post by Fighter_Ace » Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:57 pm

sid6.7 wrote:your a pyro at heart aren't you FA?.....:)


-off topic-

Yeah, I really am... totally! At 4th of July, lets just say there are no mosquitoes hanging around my house Image!

-back on topic-
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:10 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:I thought if you had more than 16 units the game would just get unmanagable.


Actually, I think Fighter_Ace has a good point. Games shouldn't second guess the player. Put an option in options "Limit of 16 squads" and have it on by default, then if the player tries to turn it off have a warning confirmation box. Oh, and let the player buy a new HQ for every 16 squads they have.

Is there any particular reason why the maps can't be larger. After all, how long has this game been around now? There's no need to limit it to what you think the hardware can handle since in a couple of years I'll be on even more powerful hardware yet still most likely playing this game.

The defaults should be what you think the hardware can handle, then include options, complete with relevant warnings, that allow the user to really push the hardware and their dexterity should they wish it. I rather fancy trying a village defence with 48 squads ;)

Post Reply