Version 4.0 specs

Real time World War II combat simulation
User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Version 4.0 specs

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:31 pm

I'm working hard on the new version of Firefight and if you'd like to see some of the specs go to this page:

http://www.windowsgames.co.uk/ff%20new.html

You can see spreadsheets of the data the game uses there so if you're a serious WWIIer you can check I've not made any errors!

I'll put a beta copy of the demo version up there probably by the 12th of September so you can take a look at the improvements.

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 » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:29 pm

Wow! Sean! This is looking totally awesome! You've taken it to the next level, man!
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 » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:01 pm

very nice graphics sean...as for the data...its all GREEK to me :(
if you run..you'll only die tired

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

Post by Andy » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:36 pm

wow, we get to shoot cows :twisted:
________
Ferrari F2008 history
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Quitch » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:14 pm

Woah, sounding good. Will the AI understand the concept of tanks being weaker at the side and from behind?

Now, all we need are more objectives besides assault and defend, the AI to use flamethrowers to stop tank blitz, and options to allow those of us with god-like machines to start an all out war on a map of epic proportions...

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 » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:26 pm

Quitch wrote:Woah, sounding good. Will the AI understand the concept of tanks being weaker at the side and from behind?

Now, all we need are more objectives besides assault and defend, the AI to use flamethrowers to stop tank blitz, and options to allow those of us with god-like machines to start an all out war on a map of epic proportions...


Lol! You think big, Quitch!

@ Sean: Oh, and I love the new half-track vehicles. Totally coolness!
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

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

Post by Sean OConnor » Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:50 am

Quitch wrote:Woah, sounding good. Will the AI understand the concept of tanks being weaker at the side and from behind?


Tanks have always tried to align themselves face on to the enemy to give themselves better protection.

Luca Morandini

Post by Luca Morandini » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:48 am

If I may dare to suggest:

1) Network play (it will make me and my son real happy).

2) Capability of building and saving scenarios (with limitless spending on
troops and equipment, in order to model some historic engagements).

3) Linked to point 2: a map-making utility... hmm, it will take a lot of effort though. On the other hand, the ability to create historically accurate scenarios will make FireFight more popular amongst wargamers and motivate people to make and share such scenarios.

4) Infantry mounted on APC or tanks for faster movements.

5) A kitchen sink ;)




:wink: :wink:

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

Post by Andy » Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:19 pm

Luca Morandini wrote:4) Infantry mounted on APC or tanks for faster movements.


with the new halftracks can infantry hop in the back? possibly a full squad but at least a recce team would be nice.

is there any scope in the game for the possibilty of coastal engagements - on beaches, cliffs (cliffs anywhere would be nice, generated with the maps, possibly looking something like AoE) and enerally a swathe of openness on one side.

combining those two ideas - MTBs, carrying troops across larger rivers, maybe even a duck or two (the amphibious tank, i dont recall how its spelt)
________
TL1000S
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Sean OConnor » Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:16 pm

Luca Morandini wrote:If I may dare to suggest:

1) Network play (it will make me and my son real happy).

2) Capability of building and saving scenarios (with limitless spending on
troops and equipment, in order to model some historic engagements).

3) Linked to point 2: a map-making utility... hmm, it will take a lot of effort though. On the other hand, the ability to create historically accurate scenarios will make FireFight more popular amongst wargamers and motivate people to make and share such scenarios.

4) Infantry mounted on APC or tanks for faster movements.

5) A kitchen sink ;)


I'd love to add these things but I have to always bear in mind how many extra copies I'd sell against how many hours it would take to write. I do have plans to add networking and a map design feature but they won't be in version 4.0, but maybe they'll make it into 4.1 I'm going to release 4.0 and give it a good bit of advertising and depending on the feedback I'll either add new things to the game or move on to another project.

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

Post by TheKangaroo » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:33 pm

I indeed have to make a comment on a possible historical error:
The 'German version of the Bazooka' actually was called 'Panzerschreck' (=Tank Terror) and fielded in 1943 after German troops captured American Bazookas in North Africa. The 'Panzerfaust' (=Tank Fist) also was a antitank rocket weapon but it was not reusable as the Panzerschreck was.
Though it still would be a minor mistake to have Panzerschrecks from the beginning of the war in my opinion it should be called Panzerschreck instead of Panzerfaust.

Well, and as it was said multiple times before: looks like the new version of Firefight will be just awesome!

Guest

Post by Guest » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:47 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:
Luca Morandini wrote:If I may dare to suggest:

2) Capability of building and saving scenarios (with limitless spending on
troops and equipment, in order to model some historic engagements).

4) Infantry mounted on APC or tanks for faster movements.



I'd love to add these things but I have to always bear in mind how many extra copies I'd sell against how many hours it would take to write.


Quite sensibile... on the other hand, I presume points 2 and 4 could be added without much effort.

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

Post by Quitch » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:36 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:
Quitch wrote:Woah, sounding good. Will the AI understand the concept of tanks being weaker at the side and from behind?


Tanks have always tried to align themselves face on to the enemy to give themselves better protection.


I was thinking more along the lines of if the AI's Sherman runs into my Tiger, will the AI understand that its Sherman needs to get around behind my Tiger?

Quite sensibile... on the other hand, I presume points 2 and 4 could be added without much effort.


I'd be willing to bet that you're wrong on that, unfortunately, at least on point 4.

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

Post by Andy » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:55 pm

either a command and a new interface would have to be create - makin the gameplay more complicated, or the guys would figure out that if they and the vehicle were goin in the same direction to hitch a lift, complications if you changed where one was going tho

id still like to see and ammo supply somehow, either with a truck driving about doin deliveries, or sitting at the back with guys doing runs to it
________
Honda Racing Corporation history
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Luca Morandini

Post by Luca Morandini » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:22 pm

OK, let's get the record straight on the Italian WWII tanks:

1) The L3 was armed only with a couple MGs.
2) The M11 had an hull-mounted 37 mm Vickers-Terni L/40 and jsut a couple MGs in the turret, hence I'd rather model it as a turretless tank.
3) Italian tanks M13 and M14 had the 47 mm Model 37 L/32 gun, not the 75 mm.
4) The M40 was a kind of SturmGeschutz, hence the gun was in the hull and there was no turret.
5) Lastly, I'd remove the "Ansaldo", "Armato", "Veloce" and "Semovente" from tank names, and add model's year insted, hence: L3/35, L6/40, M11/39, M13/40, M14/41, (only one exception to the rule: M40 75/18).

Post Reply