Some modifications I'd like to see

Real time World War II combat simulation
Post Reply
Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Some modifications I'd like to see

Post by Andy Brown » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:22 am

Having done my bit supporting the game at download.com, I thought I'd draw up a list of modifications I'd like to see that, IMO, would make Firefight a bit more user friendly.

I'd like to have a "no tanks" option where the computer would choose a force without any armour. Sometimes, I'd like to generate an infantry only firefight.

(I also wouldn't mind a "tank heavy" option where the computer force would be mainly tanks with only a squad or two of infantry and support weapons but that's not quite so important)

I frequently use the "Fire" command to check lines-of-sight, to make sure that the unit can engage the area that I want it to engage from where it is. I'd like to be able to do this during setup, especially when defending.

I'd like to be able to "Repeat" the most recent artillery bombardment (HE or smoke) without having to adjust it all over again (this is what happens in real life).

In the campaign, I'd like not to have to fight any more than three of the same type of battle in a row (eg Brits v Italians in the desert, 1940).

Cheers,

Andy

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

Post by Quitch » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:02 am

You can use the fire command during setup, just press F.

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

Post by Sean OConnor » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:22 am

There are some great suggestions there Andy - I think you've worked up my enthusiasm to get working on a new version early next year!

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

Post by Andy Brown » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:33 am

I didn't mention fixing any of the technical or historical anomalies because they don't affect the play of the game and only serious wargamers or military historians like myself are going to notice them. But if you could get someone like that to give the unit database a once over to correct some of the more obvious errors, that would be good too.

Oh, yeah, one other feature I'd really like to see. Either tank and anti-tank gun ammo being divided into armour-piercing for use against tanks and high-explosive for use against infantry or some way of preventing tanks and anti-tank guns from firing their big guns at infantry while enemy tanks are still unaccounted for.

Cheers,

Andy

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

Post by Quitch » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:00 pm

Allow me to add my thoughts then:

1. Units should be reployed instantly during setup.

2. Missions which involve mulitple sides. It'd be nice to have joint operations, and all the disorganisation that entails (your ally would be under AI control of course).

3. Network support for up to 4 players! :)

4. More mission types, like:

Make it from A to B within certain time.

Both sides have to take a neutral objective.

Get only a third of your force, hold the enemy for X minutes, then get rest and reinforcements and drive them from the field of battle.

You know, things like that :)

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

Post by Andy Brown » Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:45 pm

A couple of housekeeping issues that also bug me.

After a game, you get the "Mission Over" graphic but you can still look around the battlefield and check out the state of your units using the right-click feature. For some reason, you can't do this after campaign battles, which is a bit frustrating.

Also, when you do this, any men killed have their ammo and number of kills replaced by the graphic that tells how they perished. I would like to see ALL this information displayed so I can get some indication of how useful a man was before he died.

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

Post by Quitch » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:40 am

Ah, now I remember my last one:

When clicking a unit on the command bar, I don't want to be taken to its position. When trying to direct mortar fire this is very annoying. Can't double-clicking be linked to this behaviour?

Guest

Post by Guest » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:30 pm

I'd also like to have better vision for troops - I just rolled over a hill with two tanks and some infantry and spectacularly failed to locate an anti-tank gun. Surely in real life you'd be able to see some of the larger enemy units, especially when you're on top of them?

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

Post by Andy Brown » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:21 pm

Quitch wrote:When clicking a unit on the command bar, I don't want to be taken to its position. When trying to direct mortar fire this is very annoying.


Yeah, this is a good one but only for mortars. Most other units I DO want to be taken to their position on the map!

I've got no worries about the spotting rules. Tanks usually stuck out like dogs balls but anti-tank gun crews usually relied on not being seen to survive. You had to neutralise them with artillery and clear them out with infantry: it was all part of the combined arms dynamic.

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:32 pm

I don't doubt your tactical/historical knowledge - what I'm talking about is having units either practically on top of anti-tank weapons or with a clear line of sight and still be unable to spot them - that's got nothing to do with historical accuracy. :D

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

Post by Quitch » Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:18 pm

Andy Brown wrote:
Quitch wrote:When clicking a unit on the command bar, I don't want to be taken to its position. When trying to direct mortar fire this is very annoying.


Yeah, this is a good one but only for mortars. Most other units I DO want to be taken to their position on the map!

I've got no worries about the spotting rules. Tanks usually stuck out like dogs balls but anti-tank gun crews usually relied on not being seen to survive. You had to neutralise them with artillery and clear them out with infantry: it was all part of the combined arms dynamic.


Yeah, but they tended to be hidden, in woods, or the lower stories of houses. I know what they mean, sometimes you're on a hill, five feet from the enemy, and you still can't see them.

I had my entire army surround one man on a desert map and he STILL wasn't visible. I don't expect tanks to have good vision, but the men appear to be virtually blind.

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

Post by Andy Brown » Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:23 pm

I had my entire army surround one man on a desert map and he STILL wasn't visible. I don't expect tanks to have good vision, but the men appear to be virtually blind.


Your men knew he was there. They just couldn't locate him accurately enough to pinpoint. This was not necessarily because they were blind. Nobody was willing to risk sticking their head up long enough to take a decent look.

A good thing about Firefight is that your boys will shoot at where they think an enemy is, even if they can't see him. In this respect, Firefight is quite realistic. Pinpointing the enemy can be difficult. If you want a movie that shows this, try "Thin Red Line".

Andy

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

Post by Quitch » Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:00 am

I understand the idea, and normally love firing at an enemy I can't see... especially as you're never really sure how many are left (can't wait for a networkable version).

But there comes a time when the enemy should be visible, it was so ridiculous I almost took a screenshot. I had 62 infantry and two tanks all on higher ground, and not one of them could see this guy, a while screen inch away. I don't believe one man supressed all of that :)

The real laugh is, he managed to kill a couple of my men before getting away! He was in the middle of a flat piece of desert too!

Guest

Post by Guest » Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:13 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:There are some great suggestions there Andy - I think you've worked up my enthusiasm to get working on a new version early next year!


Well if you're going to do a new version- again, my two suggestions are a meeting engagement type of battle and the Pacific theater of operations.

cpn

sightlines

Post by cpn » Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:34 am

In the desert scenarios it would seem that visibility of the enemy is a serious possibility... I've played several desert maps and you can't see the enemy at all! remarkable, since in the sand there is little cover. The positions on the hills can't see the enemy on the desert floor.

More importantly, the sightlines for troops on a hills seems to be impeded by the lower reaches of the very hill itself. This seems awkward as troops, or HMG on a hill should have wonderful range.. but it's not at all the case.
In specific I refer to the 16.6.1940 North Africa games... Also, just for fun's sake, some trees in N.Af. would be good... the desert isn't all simply sand and hills. Or even some buildings, etc. would be nice in the sand. Not as important as the sightlines from hills of course.

It's a feckin' sweet game Sean.. so don't get us wrong.. lovely piece of work it is.
.
Npc

Post Reply