2 options that would really spice the game up.

Real time World War II combat simulation
the space predator
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: Montr?al

Post by the space predator » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:08 am

Knut wrote:And I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong about soldiers "running away" while bombs are falling a few meters from them. Every soldier is trained to hit the dirt when arty or mortars start falling. Fragments from even a medium mortar can fly and kill an upright man 30m away.


Yes, but officier can give them order to retreat, exemple: I put a squad on a hill, and I see that ennemies is very well placed to shot this squad on the hill, I will not let them there and die, I will retreat them fast. But in firefigth, they will stay on the hill until ennemies give them a minute to walk slowly whitout shooting on them.
I need to write something, so i create that signature.

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

Post by TheKangaroo » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:43 pm

I'm perfectly with the case that Firefight as it models these things now is definitely among the games best simulating real life engagements and the game itself should by no means be reduced to something simpler. But still I believe that maybe an option to switch to 'shoot em up' mode, which will be simpler and by far less realistic, will make all those of us here who would prefer it like that (provided that all the debate keeps coming up again and again one can't argue with the fact that some people would) recommend the game to their friends resulting in a boost of sales, hopefully. Seeing it from that standpoint, it would make sense to 'defeat the original concept'.
Except for Sean having to invest time I don't see how that would be doing any harm, as long as a realistic default mode isn't being watered down by it.

pedroski
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:23 am

Post by pedroski » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:51 pm

The point is that you wouldn't remove suppression you just have it not last quite as long, I think the game would still feel pretty realistic.

The same with visibility, one of the best things about firefight is the ability to sneak and it should stay this way just a little better sight would be nice, especially vs tanks, in real life tanks that are running and ready to fire really can't hide.

the space predator
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: Montr?al

Post by the space predator » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:17 pm

I agree, in a game in lowland, my troops have not being able to see an ennemy tank at 60m of them, in real life, you can see tank from far
I need to write something, so i create that signature.

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

Post by Andy Brown » Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:51 am

pedroski wrote:The point is that you wouldn't remove suppression you just have it not last quite as long, I think the game would still feel pretty realistic.


Suppression is one of those game features where a balance between "realism" and "playability" is unlikely ever to be achieved.

One of the most instructive "firefights" ever is the fight by 2 pls of A Coy, 2 Para against Argentine defenders on Darwin Ridge during the Falklands Battle for Goose Green. This included the incident where Lt Col H Jones, CO 2 Para, won a VC and lost his life. Two platoons of elite troops were pinned down (suppressed) in a gully for 3 & 1/2 hours by a similar number of Argentine conscripts.

This example is significant because it was fought primarily only with the direct fire weapons carried by the troops involved. Supporting weapons and indirect fire assets were little used until right at the end when the Brits brought up Milan ATGM to break the deadlock. It was, in short, a typical Firefight scenario.

So, to be quite honest, reducing suppression in Firefight would not "still feel pretty realistic". In my opinion, suppression in Firefight isn't very realistic now but it's still more realistic than in most real- or continuous-time tactical games. The fact that many people find the game less enjoyable because of this is one of those design issues that wargame developers constantly have to deal with.

Cheers,

Andy Brown

pedroski
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:23 am

Post by pedroski » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:42 am

I suggested an option that would let the game be more enjoyable for quite a few players.

I don't understand why almost every reply is attacking me for wanting the game to be "unrealistic"

But I guess it doesn't matter because it's not going to be done anyway.

See ya

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

Post by Andy Brown » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:59 am

Wasn't attacking you mate. Just trying to point out that every man and his dog has an opinion about "realism" and none of them are the same.

You're right to note that providing player-selectable options IS one way of dealing with this. I guess that's the game designer's call on a feature-by-feature basis.

I'm not suggesting you stop discussing what would make FF a better game for you. I was just coming back at you with another point-of-view.

Cheers,

Andy Brown

pedroski
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:23 am

Post by pedroski » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:10 pm

Andy Brown wrote:Wasn't attacking you mate. Just trying to point out that every man and his dog has an opinion about "realism" and none of them are the same.

You're right to note that providing player-selectable options IS one way of dealing with this. I guess that's the game designer's call on a feature-by-feature basis.

I'm not suggesting you stop discussing what would make FF a better game for you. I was just coming back at you with another point-of-view.

Cheers,

Andy Brown


Alright, I get it.

User avatar
Legacy
Posts: 664
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Wellsboro, PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Legacy » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:01 pm

10 meter, and not in the midle of the groups, and pouf! they are all supressed, and we can't make them "run for your life" in real war, if an officier said "evryone retreat", all the men will run away, not stay there and wait 30 second before moving. bomb fall, it will not take you 5 second to continue, but less then 30.


I have friends who've been in convoy ambushes in Iraq, and a couple bombs can paralyze entire platoons. Whoever fires first or with the biggest guns has the advantage of surprise, which tends to freeze our fight or flight reflexes for a little while.

I still think the best solution is a sliding scale that would act as a decimal modifier on the suppression times, so if you want to, you can have anything from practically no suppression right up to the present scale, or anything in between. That way it wouldn't affect any of the other content in the game, just a few lines of code to add the option in the menu, and add the variable to the places where the calculations are made.

Oh, and as for infantry damaging tanks, I think there should just be a small, random probability when tanks and infantry come upon eachother for the grunt to jump on the tank and toss a grenade down the hatch. I know it would change my tactic of pinning the enemy with infantry and then running them over with armor.
"Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him."

Don't take life too seriously, you won't make it out alive!

the space predator
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: Montr?al

Post by the space predator » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:46 pm

Legacy wrote:Oh, and as for infantry damaging tanks, I think there should just be a small, random probability when tanks and infantry come upon eachother for the grunt to jump on the tank and toss a grenade down the hatch. I know it would change my tactic of pinning the enemy with infantry and then running them over with armor.


If infantry can go on tank to destroy it, why not go on it to be carried?
I need to write something, so i create that signature.

Perturabo
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:26 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Perturabo » Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:49 am

If the infantry is pinned down by infantry that escorts tanks, it probably won't run to a tank anyway.

Knut wrote:I guess I don't understand you. If you want "unrealism" in a game, you probably should find another game. What's even the point in Sean trying to make an "unrealistic" version of the game? He's gone to a lot of work to make a great little simulation, and I can't understand why he should want to ruin it. It wouldn't be any more "fun" by being realistic, since most people complain about "unrealistic" parts of the game in the first place.

Very true. Especially that there are tons of unrealistic games with much more flashy graphics, multiplayer mode, etc.

Personally, I'd prefer if there would be changes to make it even more realistic.
...

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

Post by Knut » Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:50 pm

The one thing that really needs to be changed is the ability of tanks to see other tanks. I know it encourages the close cooperation of tanks with infantry, which is going along with the infantry nature of the game, but to have a tank drive 20m in front of your tank and not be seen, goes beyond unrealistic to the point of silly.

the space predator
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: Montr?al

Post by the space predator » Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:49 am

Knut wrote:The one thing that really needs to be changed is the ability of tanks to see other tanks. I know it encourages the close cooperation of tanks with infantry, which is going along with the infantry nature of the game, but to have a tank drive 20m in front of your tank and not be seen, goes beyond unrealistic to the point of silly.


Personnaly, I think that a game can alway be inproved. But I think that infantry can also see tank easyly, a tank 20m in front of somebody, he will see it.
I need to write something, so i create that signature.

Post Reply