Page 10 of 10

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:14 pm
by Knut

1. When the AI is in the defense, they don't patrol or move at all except in response to what you do. If some of the AI's troops have a visual on you, but are out of range, they may withdraw to their flag once you bypass them.

In the offense, I think they just send everything forward at once. It would be cool if sometimes they sent out a recon patrol first or something.

2. As you stated, you can spot enemy vehicles and guns before you are spotted, but it would be very rare to spot enemy infantry. I think they expectation is that when the enemy is in the defensive, they are dug in and observing their surroundings intently, and so would almost invariably spot someone approaching them before you could see them.

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:35 pm
by UberMoo
I see what you mean. Do enemy squads ever attempt flanking manoeuvres then when in defence or only in offence?

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:21 pm
by Andy Brown

It depends on how they set up. Enemy squads in defence that do not sight (are not engaged?) by the player's forces seem to withdraw towards the objective after a certain time. Sometimes, this withdrawal causes them to appear on the player's flank. Occasionally, an attacking player can use this knowledge to ambush enemy squads withdrawing from a part of the map the player has avoided.

Note that, when attacking, each enemy squad/vehicle deploys semi-randomly along the startline and basically moves from its starting position directly towards the objective. I say semi-randomly because there always seems to be a part of the startline where the enemy forces concentrate. Most of the time, the AI also seems to deploy a smaller force (two/three squads/vehicles) at some other point of the startline to simulate a kind of feint or diversion.

The attacking AI would become a lot more interesting if it could insert a waypoint between each unit's starting position and the objective.

After a game has finished, if you want to see where the enemy set up, restart the game (you have to have saved it during setup) and immediately order Retreat. The game will finish showing the enemy in their starting positions.


Andy Brown

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:18 pm
by Perturabo
One thing that could be cool, would be a friendly fog of war. If units are outside communication range, they could be invisible just like the enemy units, and only the soldiers seen by these within the range would be visible.

simple but effective

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:07 am
by andrew516
I think the way the game works so far is great like, not many bag things to say about what it does so far IMO. However, few things I'd have and i've seen mentioned before but i'll talk about how i think they could be implemented.

Units opening up and spraying the less out of a target miles away, leading to inaccurate fire and instantly revealing your location. To stop this you could set units to 'ambush'. That is the unit wont open fire until the enemy is much closer so that initial volley causes more havoc. This wont stop the unit firing completly like in a 'hold fire' situation so wont lead to such micromanagement of squads. But you still get to decrease the range at which they will fire.

With smoke and HE arty, instant repeat fires if you place a target template over an old fire for effect site. This site will be where the 3rd of the 3 ranging shots fell so in attack prep fires can be made on sites you think will contain enemy concentrations. Start of battle, do your prep fires where you want them up to the 3rd ranging shot. If the fire order is cancelled after this the fire for effect range is still recorded and can be used later to call in instant barrages. If a new template is placed overlapping the old template but isnt directly on top (between 40%-80% coverage, one ranging shot is required to represent the off screen arty adjusting their range. If less than 40% but above 0% two ranging shots are required. If the template does not cover the area of pre existing FFEs then the usual 3 ranging shots are required. In defence up to 3 pre planned FFEs can be placed and used after the game starts with the same rules above. Obviously in attack they must be planned while the clock is ticking so you can be thorough about it but it will cost you time and if you plan 3 areas with 3 ranging shots each thats 9 HE shells you've already wasted before firing a shot so there are pros and cons which will make the player think twice.

Finally, multiplayer, because the AI is at the end of the day AI and i'd much rather rout a human controlled force but thats the ultimate wish and I left it til last because the other 2 ideas will be much easier to implement. I have no suggestions on multiplayer implementation because frankly i wouldnt have a clue what i was talking about haha.

Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:53 pm
by UberMoo
Quick thought: Smoke shells for mortars.

Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:40 am
by Full Spectrum Warrior
Deeper commands without killing the ease of play the game already affords.

Not something as in-depth as say, Armored Brigade, which has almost too deep of a command system for a 2D view real-time game but something along the lines of a pre-mission planning stage with simple commands that go deeper than those in-game.

Maybe after picking units for the battles you can designate different types of formations and such. Even when moving the blue arrows, along with being able to turn them or lengthen them, you could also suggest a formation by right clicking or something. A defend, dig-in, ambush or fire order, etc.

How about when infantry go inside buildings it actaully looks like they've taken up postions inside buildings in windows and such? A zoom feature would be nice to see this, but maybe the game has a zoom feature I don't already know about. I set my resolution really low to see things at a closer view but it would be nice to be able to zoom a different way while keeping the resolution higher.

I just want this game to completely overshadow the likes of the Close Combat series in every way possible without having the same problems with A.I. and pathfinding as that series.

It just needs some more depth added to it to be able to do so. The CC games have never been accused of being too hard to figure out or too busy, but instead being called easy to figure out and get into. So adding things into FF that CC does well would benefit Firefight greatly. It wouldn't make the game any less easy to play. It would add strategic layers without making the game less fun.

I'm just tired of having to divide my time between so many games just to be able to experience everything that could be in one, near perfect game. Firefight seems to be the platform to go that route seeing as CC hasn't changed since 1996 where as FF has changed considerably over the years.

Basically, what I'm saying, is to take everything the CC games do right and make them your own in FF and this will be the defacto real time tactics game on PC. No question about it seeing as the CC games have held that title for 15 years and have'nt changed since the late 1990's.

Charge more for the game if you have to if all these upgrades call for it. The CC games have been overpriced for 10 years and they still sell like crazy to the CC fanbase. FF would pull those players away from CC if the things they liked about CC were in FF. Again, doing it and keeping the ease of play is paramount. Don't add things in that bog the game down to a lot of micro-management.

You can do it Sean. :D

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:08 am
by Perturabo
Full Spectrum Warrior wrote:Not something as in-depth as say, Armored Brigade, which has almost too deep of a command system for a 2D view real-time game
Why almost too deep?

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:11 am
by Full Spectrum Warrior
Perturabo wrote:
Full Spectrum Warrior wrote:Not something as in-depth as say, Armored Brigade, which has almost too deep of a command system for a 2D view real-time game
Why almost too deep?
Mainly because it has so many units (depending on how many you choose, although not bringing enough to battle ends your game quickly)and so much going on already that having soooo many commands makes it harder to just turn on and enjoy versus it feeling like a job. I like the depth of AB, but it's just too much for those of us with limited time to play to begin with.

Maybe I'm alone feeling that way, but I've recently found I have more fun with simpler games such as Mud and Blood 2 (best flash game I've ever played btw) even though it's designed to be unfair and screw you over so the better you get at it, the more and quicker it screws you over. But it's so addictive and is deeper than many retail strategy games yet they made it simple at the same time.

So maybe FF is already deep enough in that respect and doesn't need to be any deeper. I've already stopped playing my most recnt CC game I just bought 2 weeks ago because I don't feel like setting things up and such but just want to start up and play.

I've been a console gamer since the early '80's with the 2600 and up until June never played on PC so my pick-up-and-play console roots are still with me. Probably always will be, although console gaming has been destroyed with all the dlc, online passes and overly scripted and linear big budget games so I can't see going back to it.

I just want depth and simplicity at the same time but, well, that's not really possible. M&B2 is the closest I've found to that but it's not really a "real" game.

Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:04 am
by Knut
Sometimes I play maps that have large areas of flat, open, terrain, bisected only by hedgerows. I would like for the enemy AI be programed to allow the enemy infantry to deploy along such a hedgerow, instead of only in buildings, forests, or hills.

Re: Wish List

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:24 pm
by tamorrison
My wish list:

1. Field fortifications: fighting holes (foxholes), trenches, bunkers, gun emplacements, etc.

2. Obstacles: Abatis, barbed wire, roadblocks, anti-tank ditches, dragon's teeth, mine fields (anti-personnel and anti-tank), punji stakes, etc.

3. Weapons: sniper rifles, anti-tank rifles that also affect infantry, off-board artillery of different calibers that a player can "buy," melee weapons (bayonets, swords, kukris, etc.), Molotov cocktails, sidearms for artillery and mortar crews, flaming logs that can (only) roll downhill, command-detonated explosives, satchel charges, magnetic anti-tank mines (sticky bombs), booby traps, explosives belts, car bombs, etc.

4. Terrain: rivers, ditches, urban settings (multi-story buildings, sewers, etc.), cliffs, shorelines, mud, bridges (wood, stone, drawbridges, etc.), swamps, etc. Vehicles driving over soft sand should kick up a cloud of dust, making them easier to spot. Deep mud should bog down wheeled and (most) tracked vehicles. Some terrain should be "no-go" -- i.e., areas that certain vehicles cannot traverse.

5. Mods: the ability for players to modify weapons to allow them to create modern or classic scenarios (from Napoleonic times to the present day); the computer would determine point values depending on the weapon's range, damage, rate of fire, armor penetration, etc., much like it determines the point values of player-modified vehicles.

6. Vehicles: fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, boats, landing craft, etc.

7. Horses: Cavalry! Also horse teams to pull artillery, which was still common in World War II.

8. Runners: The ability of the HQ to send a single man to a unit that is otherwise not in contact. If the runner makes it to the unit, it will receive ONE command; by default, the runner will attempt to rejoin the HQ once the "message" is delivered. This would reflect the command and control problems that less-developed countries had over the major industrial powers. It would also enable modding the game to reflect times before radios (i.e., Napoleonic times, American Civil War, etc.).

9. Monsters, Giant Robots, and Dinosaurs: Actually, I'm half-serious about this. It would allow players to modify the game to reflect fantasy battles.

10. Campaigns: Revise the campaign mechanics to provide more rewards and growth for good commanders. Start the campaign as a second lieutenant, able to command six units (i.e., platoon headquarters, three squads, and two attachments); allow promotions to first lieutenant (nine units), captain (twelve plus four lieutenants), major (twelve plus two captains and two lieutenants), and lieutenant colonel (twelve plus one major and three captains). Subordinate officers would be AI, much like subordinate squad/section leaders are currently, and would command groups of squads/sections. In real life, captains do not command squads: Captains command lieutenants, who command sergeants, who command squads! Furthermore, a good commander should be rewarded for high kill ratios by having troops carry over from one battle to the next with growing levels of experience, much like Panzer General does -- replacements should be Raw unless the player expends points to "buy" more experienced troops. Likewise, a commander with a high success rating should gain more points with which to fight the next battle -- again, like the Prestige system used by Panzer General. However, unlike Panzer General, the campaign should still continue more or less along a set path at least until the player gains command of a battalion, because a platoon- or company-sized skirmish rarely turns the tide in a corps- or army-level campaign. Once the player racks up successes at the battalion level, however, he or she should get a few kudos in the mission briefs and should get some sense of accomplishment by having missions reflect a more favorable strategic situation, such as where a smashing success in a defensive mission leads to an ahistoric offensive one (i.e., once the player reaches battalion command, the campaign timeline should be more flexible).

11. Weather: Rain, fog, snow, dust storms, etc.

12. Camouflage: Soldiers with appropriate uniforms and vehicles with appropriate paint schemes should be harder to spot. Likewise, Elite troops should be better at hiding (defense) and sneaking (offense); Raw troops should be worse. Camouflage nets should be "buyable" as "buildings" that provide no armor protection, but improve the ability of the unit under it to avoid being spotted.

13. Crew quality: Vehicles and artillery should have different troop qualities for their crews, which the players could "buy."

14. Suicide troops: From the Japanese anti-tank soldier sitting in a hole in the road, ready to kill a tank by striking an artillery shell with a brick, to modern suicide bombers, suicide troops are a fact of modern warfare. This could be done by having a Troop Quality of "Suicidal," generally equal to Raw but harder to suppress than even Elite troops.

15. Player-created terrain: Let the players be able to draw maps of their own to re-create historic battles or to create fantasy battles.

16. Counter-battery fire: A side with artillery support should be able to direct some of it to suppress enemy artillery support. For simplicity, we should assume that the enemy artillery is within range of friendly counter-battery fire if the friendly artillery is of equal or greater caliber. To simulate directing fire off-map, the side directing counter-battery fire must have a line of sight to the edge of the map on the enemy's side.

Re: Wish List

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:14 pm
by spillblood
I'd like:
- urban environments, because some of the most crucial battles in WWII were fought in cities (Stalingrad for example)
- multiplayer (competetive and coop)
- troops that gain experience and can be carried over into the next missions of a campaign
- improved AI (the suggestions above regarding waypoints etc for the AI sound great), it should be able to execute flanking manouvers etc.
Firefight could become the ultimate WWII real time tactics game, would only need some more depth (without becoming too complicated!). Setting a higher price for the game in order to be able to develop it further is a good idea. If it would be a bit better known I'm pretty sure Indie strategy publishers like Slitherine/Matrix Games or Battlefront would be willing to distribute it.

Re: Wish List

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:43 pm
by tamorrison
One word for making this a reality: Crowdsourcing!