Wish List

Real time World War II combat simulation
pedroski
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:23 am

Post by pedroski » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:19 pm

By the way there already is snow in some locations like Russia. But only during winter months. Its actually pretty cool.

Fultron
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:41 am

oh

Post by Fultron » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:41 pm

Oh really, sorry, I didn't realize. I have yet to play anything involving the Russians or any other country for that matter besides a single game as the Americans.

I'm currently playing a campaign as the Canadians and have yet to leave North Africa. Raising hell with the mighty Bren Carrier :)

Knut
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:06 pm

Post by Knut » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:31 pm

Hello, just bought the game and find it an excellent play. I thought I'd give my early ideas for improvements.

I'd like to see terrain that is impassable to tanks. I'm talking about very steep hills and constructed features such as Dragon's Teeth. This would provide plenty of options to reduce the power of tanks on the battlefield.

Bunkers. Three sizes - MG, light anti-tank, and heavy (88). The graphics would be easy - grey square (brown striped for logs in the pacific?), and the model could be copied directly from the armor, with just the movement cancelled and armor upgraded.

I'd also like to see the defender AI cover the flanks better, or at least put the objective occasionally to one corner to prevent the obvious double flanking attack.

A couple scenarios that I think would provide new tactical challenges:

1. Break the line scenario. The terrain and objectives would be basically the same, but there would be added on fortifications for the defense, such as bunkers, and dragons teeth anti-tank obstacles. These would be strewn from one side of the map to the other in an interlocking support pattern, so that they couldn't be easily flanked, and so you had to use a combined force of armor and infantry to break through. You could replicate fighting the Maginot line in '40, or the Siegfried line in '45, or the Gothic line in Italy in '44, or the various island battles in the pacific.

2. Take the hill scenario. This would consist of having a large hill/mountain (taking up 1/5+ of the screen?) of perhaps 80-100+ meters in height that would prove a great challenge to take. The defender should be able to see most of the battlefield from the heights, and much of the mountain should be impassable (too steep) to tanks. You could do everything from Iwo Jima to Monte Cassino scenarios with bunkers, or others without.

The only real 'problem' I've had so far is the tendencies for tanks to "shut down" under fire. I had a case where 3 widely spaced tanks all froze up when confronted by ATGs, and they didn't withdraw and wouldn't respond to my orders to withdraw. I can see the point of freezing up under fire, but I think the length of time they do can be excessive, and think they should still be able to withdraw by reversing at least most of the time.

Knut
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:06 pm

Post by Knut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:08 pm

Oh, and I'd like to see some Russian assault guns, like the Su-85 and SU-100 and SU-122 based on the T-34 chassis, the ISU-152 on the JS-2 chassis, and the SU-76 on the T-70 chassis. It would give a lot of different looks to the Soviet forces, and I'd especially like to see what those big shells from the 100mm, 122mm, and 152mm guns would do.

JeanBoule
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:10 am
Location: L'Australie

Good Ideas

Post by JeanBoule » Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:13 am

Yeah, some good ideas there Knut.

In all my plays of the game, there does not seem to be any such thing as impassable terrain for vehicles, let alone infantry.

Old infanteers like myself pride ourselves on our attitude that nothing is impassable, but we do recognize that some places are very, very, difficult.

And that there are some places the tanks cannot come with us, so we hafta manage without.

About Russian Assault guns, you should be able to do this yourself, I have not done it but Sean acknowledged in a fairly recent post that many vehicles in the game were player contributions.

cheers.
Voila du boudin!

T2K
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:46 am
Location: American in Singapore

Post by T2K » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:10 pm

I bought it about two weeks ago and have played maybe 30 games. Love it! Vaguely comparable to Sudden Strike, except better.

#1 On my wish list is the frequently mentioned "Hold Fire" button. Better yet, give the unit a range to open at (could be a percentage of max range or in meters).

#2 This was also mentioned above. There is too much advantage to "last tank standing". I find myself starting all scenarios trying to isolate and destroy tanks, then just using my remaining tank(s) to chase the rest of the infantry and win. Infantry at close range should be able to harm tanks using grenades. If this can happen at present, I've never seen it, they just flee.

#3 This is minor, but the gun movement needs to be fixed. In reality, a gun crew moving anything bigger than a 37mm or maybe 47mm gun just couldn't happen with any kind of speed.

#4 Tanks shouldn't be able to go into deep woods. They should only be able to go into the periphery of a forest, thus increasing the value of infantry. This is realistic.

#5 Japanese shouldn't surrender.

Again, love the game.

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

Post by Andy Brown » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:59 pm

T2K wrote:#2 This was also mentioned above. There is too much advantage to "last tank standing". I find myself starting all scenarios trying to isolate and destroy tanks, then just using my remaining tank(s) to chase the rest of the infantry and win. Infantry at close range should be able to harm tanks using grenades. If this can happen at present, I've never seen it, they just flee.


Late war games against panzerschrecks/bazookas go some way to addressing this. The German volksgrenadiers with their panzerfausts can spring some nasty surprises.

You might want to add a panzerfaust to all your German infantry squads, or add one or two to the enemy's HQ squad if you want to give your tanks some end-game challenges.

Note also that you can mod panzerfausts to have up to three shots, which makes them more effective.

Cheers,

Andy (NZ)

T2K
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:46 am
Location: American in Singapore

Post by T2K » Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:52 am

Thanks Andy, will try some of that eventually. I haven't gotten to a mod stage yet, but I do think I could manage it.

Knut
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:06 pm

Post by Knut » Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:50 pm

I will have to look into modding the game. Never really done that, except for lowering the hetzer superstructure front armor down to 60mm from 120. I could add the stats for for a Pershing for the US, but I would still have to us a sherman graphic which would be somewhat confusing. The same goes for the Soviet assault guns, what would I use as graphics?

I also tried playing late war Italians. Both those allied with the US, and the fascists that held out in the north. All the equipment that came up was the same early war tanks and assault guns. It would be nice to see the Semovente M.41 90/53. The 90mm gun would give some serious muscle to Italian forces post 1941. It characteristics were the same as the german 88. The gun was mounted with just a gun shield at the back of the chassis. It would also be nice to have Italian field guns, at least the 47mm atg. It would also be good to see the Italian P40 (75mm gun) tank post-'43, and the Semovente M43 105/25. Over 100 of those were produced in 1943, and the 105mm would give some serious punch.

I could probably mod those myself - is there a tutorial showing how to do that? Particularly in regards to adding guns where there are none.


Oh, and I was thinking anoth type of impassable terrain for armor could be swamps and marshes. They certainly showed up in various theaters - Russia, the Pacific, and having them pop up occasionally in the maps would really give a twist to your strategy - funneling attacks, preventing "Rush the flag" by the AI, etc.

In regards to the infantry vs. tanks ideas, some anti-tank grenades, German teller mines, magnetic mines, and Japanese pole-mounted anti-tank charges would be good to see in at least some infantry units as back-up weapons for riflemen. Being close-in weapons, they should have a fairly low chance of success, however.


I can see that Sean has a lot on his plate so may not get to a new upgrade very soon, but I wouldn't mind if he made an expansion set that you had to pay extra for ($10?) that would encompanse the more complicated things like Armor Impassable Terrain, Bunkers and Dragon's Teeth, and multiplayer. Just throwing that out there.

JeanBoule
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:10 am
Location: L'Australie

Swamps and anti-tank measures

Post by JeanBoule » Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:18 am

Knut wrote:IOh, and I was thinking anoth type of impassable terrain for armor could be swamps and marshes. .

There were marshes in the North African desert.
I have been reading an account of the Aust 9th Div at El Alamein. Near the sea, there were salt marshes which severely slowed and restricted German tanks.

Knut wrote: In regards to the infantry vs. tanks ideas, some anti-tank grenades, [etc] would be good to see ... for riflemen. Being close-in weapons, they should have a fairly low chance of success, however..


I support that. There were sticky bombs also, and let's not forget the molotov cocktail. The defensive tactic was to fire small arms at tanks to keep the crews buttoned up. Then some daring chap could get close enough to attack with a bomb. This meant tanks could not stop on the objective unless closely supported by infantry.
Voila du boudin!

Max Power
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:07 pm

Post by Max Power » Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:23 pm

maybe someone can make a few new units or sounds and send them to Sean for the next version of Firefight ?!?

T2K
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:46 am
Location: American in Singapore

Post by T2K » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:39 am

I've now, after playing a hundred or so games, narrowed my wish list down to one and only one:

Reduce the absolute invulnerability of all armored vehicles to infantry!

Here's how:

1. Many vehicles in the game have open tops (half tracks, many self-propelled guns) and the crew could be engaged with small arms from higher elevations or from close range or with grenades. Just like there is a "turret y/n" thing there should be a "top armor y/n" part of the vehicle options.

2. HMG's have light armor piercing capability, certainly enough to deal with a Bren Carrier or other lightly armored vehicles.

3. Infantry at 0m range should have a small chance of sneaking up on anything, even a Tiger, and destroying it or at least getting a 'mobility' kill.
It would show in the kill box for the tank as "infantry AT mine" or something like that.

4. Tanks shouldn't be able to go into forests.

Early in the war, when there are not many infantry AT weapons, it's crazy to have my 100 German infantrymen terrorized by a Bren gun carrier!

Other than that, and even with that, I still love this game and play it daily.

wst50
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:37 pm

Post by wst50 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:36 pm

T2K wrote:#4 Tanks shouldn't be able to go into deep woods. They should only be able to go into the periphery of a forest, thus increasing the value of infantry. This is realistic.


Didn't loads of Panzers just brute force their way through the Ardennes? Tanks should be able to go deep into woods, but they should take a lot longer, and actually push the trees down.

JeanBoule
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:10 am
Location: L'Australie

Post by JeanBoule » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:50 am

wst50 wrote:Didn't loads of Panzers just brute force their way through the Ardennes? Tanks should be able to go deep into woods, but they should take a lot longer, and actually push the trees down.


The Ardennes was a hilly, forested area. It was traversed by a network of roads and there were open patches. In places the roads had to descend into ravines and cross narrow bridges.Thus the french regarded the Ardennes as an area which would be impracticable for large-scale operations by armoured forces. They turned out to be wrong. The German forces were not opposed by significant forces until they had exited the Ardennes.

The later Battle of the Bulge was fought in the Ardennes, but the Germans were resisted by forces strong enough to slow them down until reinforcements could arrive. This made a huge difference.

I have seen Australian Army training films showing a centurion tank pushing thru jungle. It could just manage it but was so covered by debris that its ability to aim its weapons would have been severely limited. As pointed out above, it would have been very vulnerable to attack by infantry anti-tank measures.

Nevertheless, the Aus army used tanks in Viet Nam with infantry in close country (jungle and rubber plantations). It was vital that the support was mutual.
Voila du boudin!

T2K
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:46 am
Location: American in Singapore

Post by T2K » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:08 am

wst50 wrote:
T2K wrote:#4 Tanks shouldn't be able to go into deep woods. They should only be able to go into the periphery of a forest, thus increasing the value of infantry. This is realistic.


Didn't loads of Panzers just brute force their way through the Ardennes? Tanks should be able to go deep into woods, but they should take a lot longer, and actually push the trees down.


As noted above - no. The Ardennes had roads, difficult to traverse raods, but still roads plus some villages and open areas. It certainly wasn't classic "tank country" like the Russian steppes. However, to consider it "unpassable" like the French did in 1940 was a big mistake.

I was in a mechanized infantry battalion in the US Army for three years.
Tanks / tracked vehicles are much more mobile over rough terrain than wheeled vehicles, true. However, they are not unstoppable or even particularly hard to stop. Rough, uneven terrain with rocks and tree roots (like a forest) will definitely prevent tracked vehicle movement.

And, while I never saw a tank try it, I'm pretty sure they can't knock down big mature trees as found in thick forests. Small trees, yes definitely.

Post Reply