Up to beta version 3.99m now!

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:

Post by Sean OConnor » Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:56 am

I avoided mines as:

- It would be cumbersome at the beginning of a game to place a minefield
- I don't think players like being told almost randomly "your man stepped on a mine and he's dead" as it feels like that was totally out of their control.
- I'd have to make the enemy AI pick their way round a minefield.

I've always had a note on my "to-do" list regarding minefields but I'd rather work on other stuff like multiplayer and a map designer first.

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

Post by TheKangaroo » Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:47 pm

Maybe marked minefields as part of the scenery could be an easier alternative, still not too useful, though.

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

Post by Quitch » Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:02 pm

No to minefields I think. It would ruin the dynamic.

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 » Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:32 am

The only way I see mines possible is through the use also of minesweepers. That way you could blame yourself for losing a man due to the fact you sent no minesweepers along also. Then again, it would move a lot into and out of the game with the addition of mines. You definitely would have to recreate your strategies for the game. Maybe though, you could have specific missions where you were warned about mines and your task was to avoid them at all cost and determine a safe rout to the other side. Heh, I need to check out the beta version before I get in too deep :P . Nevermind me.
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

User avatar
Ross_Moorhouse
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:50 am

Re: Up to beta version 3.99m now!

Post by Ross_Moorhouse » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:26 am

Sean O'Connor wrote:Improvements are:

- You can play as Japanese, Chinese, Dutch, NZ or Australian now - thanks Paolo, that was an amazing amount of work you did!

- I've added a jungle landscape and desert landscapes are much more interesting now with Paolo's new graphics.

- There is a fantastic new set of sounds for weapons firing - thanks Ross!

- Flamethrowers have less range and less ammo now to make them less powerful.

- You can have flamethrower tanks now.

- The data for news headlines during campaigns is in .txt files so is moddable.

- The data for where you are posted depending on your nationality is now all in .txt files too so is moddable as well.


Glad you like the sounds mate.

Love the flamethrower tank. Great way to take on the Japs. Pin them down with your infantry and then roll the flamerhtrower sherman in and fry them.... :wink:
Ross Moorhouse

Image

www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org
CSO Group providing Expertise and Vision to a Dynamic World

User avatar
Paolo Sforza
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:07 pm

Post by Paolo Sforza » Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:00 am

Hi Sean,

I noticed in another thread that you are thinking of creating a different 'nationality' for US Marines. Can I pitch my two penneth in for not doing that. Most US ground troops engaged with the Japanese were US Army, not USMC and in many cases the USMC relied on having the army guys around because of their heavy support weapons.

Can I suggest a different approach - that at the top level (the into screen) that the game is split into two. First you choose your nation and your year and if you're a nation that can start in more than one theatre, you start in the Far East or in the West (including the Eastern Front, if you see what I mean!). Transfer between theatres happened for ground troops, but comparatively rarely. The Australians were the main exception as they almost all went as man from West to East to defend SE Asia after Pearl Harbour (not as we currently have it with them in Italy). The New Zealanders stayed in Europe. British troops were transfered for operations in Burma after the Fall of Singapore. These are major movements and only happened in few cases. One of the big shifts were the Soviets to fight the Japanese right at the end of the war. So...

Chinese, Japanese (Far East from Q2 1937)
Germans, Poles (Europe from Q2 1939)
Finns (Europe from Q4 1939)
Italians (Europe from Q2 1940 to Q3 1943)
Republican and Nationalist Spanish Spanish (Europe from Q3 1937 to Q1 1939)
British (Europe from Q 1939 to Q4 1941; a choice (or random) if after 1941)
Canadians and New Zealanders (Europe from Q3 1939)
Australians (Europe if before 1942; Far East after 1941)
French (Europe - this is one nationality that could be split as the Free French were on one side and Vichy the other and they did end up fighting one another).
Soviets (Europe if before Q3 1945; a choice (or random) if after Q2 1945)
Americans (A choice (or random) from Q1 1942)
Dutch (Far East from Q1 1942).

That's the history. The custom game component of Firefight allows plenty of 'what if scope'.

I'm slowly trying to work through 3.99m to find any problems. Not a problem, but maybe an issue is how green the desert looks nowadays - it probably needs a lot fewer trees. Anyway, that got me thinking as to how the terrain generator must be parameterized at set-up. Do you have any details on this (varying tree density, etc.) If so could you send the file structure for these parameter files on to me ad my hotmail address. This is part of the game that could be very useful to have a degree of player control over. Firefight has become very modifiable and is much more interesting for it going in that direction. I wouldn't mind having a go at designing the terrain parameters for the Far East theatres.

In fact there are so many options for new campaigns and custom games nowadays that the new campaign and new mission windows probably need a bit of a redesign to make choices easier.

I've found a few issues around T-junctions of roads (if the T is in a village then one road can end up being blocked by a house and some hedges get very distorted at T-junctions and block one or more of the roads).

Is it me or are artillery gun crews deserting their guns more readily nowadays?

Right - on with checking 3.99m. First impressions? It's a joy. Some issues, but I'm trying to do this methodically.

Oh yes, one more question. Is it possible for troops to be hit by friendly fire? The reason I ask this is twofold (1) I had an unwounded GI surrounded by 10 Japanese who were in turn flanked by other GIs. A blistering crossfire from 6 sections quickly wiped out the Japanese but the central (lucky GI) was unscathed, and (2) having had the defended objective overrun by 3 Japanese tanks*, my Chinese commander almost next to the flag called down his own artillery to fire 'on his pod'. A lucky spread of shots knocked out all three tanks (very satisfying and a bit gobsmacking) and left my commander and a nearby mortar team without a scratch. Bullets and shrapnel shouldn't really be selective.

* This was in a wood again, and I think the one most important improvements to the AI would be stopping tanks going into built-up or wooded areas without close infantry support. In effect, it would be like having a tank always assume that there is an big, fat AT gun in there somewhere, until the infantry have proved otherwise. That's the way it works in real life.

Oh yes, one more thought. Someone in the past may have mentioned it, but when a commander is killed, the next person to take over should really be the next in the chain of command (the nearest 1st Lt, or failing that 2nd Lt), not a private in the HQ section.

Not a problem with 3.99m, but it'd be really good to have a mechanism (right mouse click/function button pressed/whatever, when over a man) that returned the blue position line back to its unit. It can be a pain searching for that 'move to here' line during a critical point (particularly if the blue has turned black).

Final question is version stability. How long have we got to check 3.99m before 3.99n comes out? It'd be nice not to have a moving target for a while, unless there is something major that needs fixing. Presumably new and changed data and graphics can be added as and when and released separately from the executable?

Great work as usual Sean. I am in awe once again.

Cheers.

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

Post by Andywoolnough » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:11 pm

Question. What is the point of defending on very hard? All you do it put your two or three units somewhere on the map and then watch them get killed. Your artillery comes down so slowly, even if you want it to keep firing in the same place after the three salvos, so usually your men are dead before you get two barrages off. Meanwhile their artillery seems to kill anyone it comes close, rather like mortors in the earlier versions. I'm in the Chinese campaign and if you add up the two missions I've played I'm on 94% casualties and an adequate performance. Defending a hill against 120 men and a tank with 22 men and a tank could be construed as suicidal. Tactically would any commander order this unless it was absolutely vital? Surely a commander would consider this to be a waste of 22 men and decide a further retreat to link up with other units might be in order, or sending reinforcements to at least make a battle of it?

Sitting there watching your men turn red is a fairly dull way to spend an hour. Was artillery really that slow? I watched a documentary on The Somme last night it was saying the French success in the south was due to close artillery support, rather than the static English artillery. French soldiers met obstacles and called in artillery which arrives fairly quickly. Sorry to sound overly critical but I really can't see the point of sitting and watching your men get killed for 10 minutes.

rich12545
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:14 pm

Post by rich12545 » Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:25 am

I disagree about the Marines and, if feasable, it would be nice. Kind of an elite infantry. They were indespensible in taking the islands.

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

Post by TheKangaroo » Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:47 pm

I watched a documentary on The Somme last night it was saying the French success in the south was due to close artillery support

The French actually ever had any success? :shock:
(Just kidding, no offense to our french friends)

Well, I'd also like a little quicker barrages or at least the possibility to repeat a barrage without having to adjust fire again.

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

Post by Andy » Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:05 pm

yeah, french total success, brits barely succeeded in living (30,000 casualties on the first day, out of 60,000 sent in).
ive always thought the arty as a bit slow, but can be lived with. a repeat function however IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY, from what i see its been requested ever since i started reading this forum and is yet to be put in. not sure how it would work and i have ABSOLUTELY no idea about programming, but surely it cant be that much of a job, least not like adding in campaigns all over the place. perhaps icons for places that have been zeroed in on, that could be pressed again to send a salvo that way???

would there be any weight to sandbagged positions to fortify HMGs, make them a bit of an obstacle in attack?
________
Subaru Tribeca
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:38 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 » Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:44 pm

Actually, an artillery fire mission ought to take a bit longer than it does in the game. In real life you would have to walk the shots to the left and right until you were pretty much on line with the target, and then walk them backwards and forwards until you were within about 50m. And for each shot that the OP calls in the poor artillerymen have to work out angles and numbers of charge bags etc... to use before they can fire. I know - I've directed artillery fire on Salisbury Plain!

You ought to be able to put down the same barrage again though straight away to be more realistic and that's something I'll probably do one day. And before the battle starts you should be able to designate areas that have been pre-zeroed in on already.

But, I think the effects of an HE barrage are massively under-valued in Firefight. My guess is that 18 rounds of 155mm HE exploding near you would either kill you or make you decide to give up and go home.

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

Post by Andywoolnough » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:34 pm

You would know man, I've never done it. It does seem awkward not to be able to call a barrage down in exactly the same place as the last one though.

Defence on hard and very hard is getting really tedious now though. AT gets taken out immediately and infantry just sits there and turns red. I now just hit retreat as soon as the game starts and leave the game running while I do something else until the next mission gives me a few more men to defend with. Sorry.

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Andy Brown » Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:51 am

Andywoolnough wrote:Defence on hard and very hard is getting really tedious now though. AT gets taken out immediately and infantry just sits there and turns red. I now just hit retreat as soon as the game starts and leave the game running while I do something else until the next mission gives me a few more men to defend with. Sorry.


Maybe that's why it's called "Very hard"? :twisted:

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

Post by Andywoolnough » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:36 pm

Just some feedback fella. I get the basic concept of very hard, so if I wanted patronising then I'd ask someone with a bit more imagination and wit than you have to do it.

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

Post by Andywoolnough » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:54 pm

Now I've calmed down, what I was saying about difficulty is that very hard could actually be called too hard. I'm sure you military enthusiasts can win on very hard as you know a lot about the tactics involved to do it, it appears. I know that sometimes units had to face unbelieveable odds etc etc. That's not the issue.

If you want to widen the appeal of this game and make its creator more money, then my suggestion would be to at least give people the feeling that they might have a chance to succeed on the hardest settings. At the moment, on very hard and hard your boys just lie there and get killed, AT gets taken out quickly and it's all a bit of a mess. there's no feeling of control, and there's no sense that you can acheive your mission of successfully defending the objective.

I'm all for having really hard levels, but if there's no way in hell you can even move a unit from start to finish then what's the point? Similarly with the very easy level, it's too easy.

But of course, I don't understand the concept of "very hard" so there you go. Just having worked for a video games publisher I thought this might be a helpful view.

Cheerio

Post Reply