Couple of Gameplay Suggestions

SullyAg · Post by **SullyAg** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:16 pm

Love this game, have a couple of suggestions:

1) Undo feature for single-player -- Many times I've clicked the wrong button on my mouse and been stuck with a move I didn't intend.
2) Deploy mode for all scenarios -- Might be the old board wargamer in me, but I'd always like the option of setting up my units before the game begins.

These are minor criticisms, trivial really, but I think they'd make for slight improvement in future versions.

Thanks for the terrific support, Slitherine!

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:17 pm

Thanks for the feedback!

I will add the undo feature to the wish list. I'm not sure we could allow deployment in all scenarios, as the logic might allow the player to cheat by moving units to positions we don't expect them to be in initially.

Cheers

Pip

SullyAg · Post by **SullyAg** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:07 am

Thanks for the response, Pip!

Regarding your second point, I do see how that could upset a scenario's expected result. On the other hand, I don't see how a player placing units on the map in areas where he's allowed could be considered a cheat.

junk2drive · Post by **junk2drive** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:03 am

In reply to your last post, the scenarios without deployment don't have setup "zones". They would either be unlimited deployment or have to be reworked to restrict the player.

An undo button should only work if the player's unit was not spotted by the enemy. However it could still be a gamey feature if a player uses it to test a move to see if it triggers a reaction, then another spot, and so on.

Merr · Post by **Merr** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:03 am

junk2drive wrote: An undo button should only work if the player's unit was not spotted by the enemy. However it could still be a gamey feature if a player uses it to test a move to see if it triggers a reaction, then another spot, and so on.

Good points...

Also, when a unit moves it checks for bogging/breakdown ...

There's just too much to consider when undoing a move.

I agree about the annoying feature where you could accidently move (fast) as the default click (one left click?).... doh!

I just can't see an undo working in this game ... at all.

SullyAg · Post by **SullyAg** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:09 am

Ah, good points, gentlemen.

Brummbar44 · Post by **Brummbar44** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:58 pm

While we're on the subject...

Would it be possible to prevent the gamey use of trucks/halftracks to draw out tank fire so that the other tanks can then swarm in? Or am I missing something? (ie. will hold fire prioritize targets?).

Great game though...just a minor point I've noticed of late.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:12 pm

Where do you draw the line? If we fixed that, the next thing that happens is you'd be back again complaining about gamey tactics where someone suicides off the M5's so that the Shermans can come in and knock out the Tigers after the fire has been drawn...

This point has been around since the very first beta... and every solution just opens up another exploit.

Brummbar44 · Post by **Brummbar44** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:20 pm

Just wondering if there were some way to program a 'priority' targeting. So instead of just a hold fire, a tank could be set to 'priority' and will ignore trucks/halftracks being on the guard for other tanks.

Or perhaps a refuse to budge programming on the trucks themselves. So that when a tank is in a known area, the truck simply refuses to go there but can be moved elsewhere.

As for the M5 tactic you post above, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Tanks, even light ones, can have a shot at a tank (no matter how slight a chance) so that makes sense. Trucks and Halftracks can't even shoot...so they are strictly there to draw fire. Unrealistic and gamey.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:39 pm

Trucks and Halftracks can't even shoot...

What!?

Or perhaps a refuse to budge programming on the trucks themselves. So that when a tank is in a known area, the truck simply refuses to go there but can be moved elsewhere.

Oh man, I'd have to think on that one for a bit, because I can see everyone else on the forum throwing their hands up on that idea... So you want to prevent them from moving unit A, to position B1, because there is a chance that an enemy unit E, may take a shot and possibly kill it.

Now, THAT is not very realistic either...

Brummbar44 · Post by **Brummbar44** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:46 pm

I'll admit my 'Priority' solution is preferred over restrictive movement (likely easier programatically as well).

It's unlikely that a truck would get ordered to draw enemy tank fire...just as it would be unlikely that tanks would fire on them knowing there are other tanks about. Priority of target is an old military concept. Tanks are meant to protect infantry from other tanks, not trucks.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:02 pm

I do remember a documentary on the Tiger in the Western theatre somewhere...

In packs of Shermans, most were used to draw out fire from the Tigers to indicate that:

A. They were there
B. Their exact location

The few remaining Shermans that were not blown to bits would HOPEFULLY end up behind the Tigs and engage them from there, maximizing mobility...

It was a horrible exchange rate, but when you have your opponent greatly out-numbered, it works.

So, perhaps it's NOT as unrealistic as you may think.

Brummbar44 · Post by **Brummbar44** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:05 pm

Again, tanks I have no problem with, it's part of their job. It's tucks that are the issue. Just wouldn't happen and therefore gamey.

But I'm not here to argue with you...just offering some suggestions.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:29 am

I've already thought of dozens of suggestions ages ago, the problem is we just solve one problem to cause two more. However, if you want to re-open the age old debate, then I dont' have a problem with it. Just maybe, some old grog-nard can think out of the box and get some sort of solution, but I have my doubts.

I'm still curious why you said half-tracks can't even shoot. IIRC just about all of them can shoot both AP and HE shells. Even if you are mostly just playing the Americans, you should at least have an M3 half-track with a stats of 10-41-8.

Merr · Post by **Merr** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 am

A simple solution ... Don't include trucks in the scenario!

Trucks don't need to be running around on the battlefield anyway.

Swap the trucks out (in the current scenarios) with a 30cal jeep or something.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:52 am

And how do all those men load into just a single small jeep?

Merr · Post by **Merr** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:41 am

Obsolete wrote:And how do all those men load into just a single small jeep?

Well, I didn't say they needed to "comfortably" ride into action ...

They can hop a ride on a tank instead ... I think that would work for transportation at that point.

Funny story ... Back in the Steel Panther days, one player noted the effect of having infantry ride on the tanks (in the game). The infantry acted like human shields because the first attack against the tank forced the infantry to jump off and the tank never got hit !

What a bad idea that was ... code-wise. I can't remember if they changed that logic.

Brummbar44 · Post by **Brummbar44** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:51 pm

Along the lines of my 'Priority Targeting' concept. It could be a menu item that allows perhaps different settings.

So
1) Shoot everything
2) Shoot Infantry/Armour
3) Shoot Armour only

Overwatch tanks are often on the lookout for enemy armour, this might help and wouldn't be overly complicated (but might be?).

As for the halftracks...perhaps I haven't explored the game enough, but I don't get the option to shoot at tanks with them...mind you, I haven't tried that too much either. Halftracks are more dangerous than trucks and not as plentiful so I would personally include them under the Infantry/Armour targets above.

Tank riders would be a good idea...but agreed, not like Steel Panthers..

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:16 pm

Trucks can be armoured too, so now we have to work out some extra options to distinguish between the different trucks, and etc... and etc..

...and... ughh...

We been through all this before over a year ago.

There was an old suggestion to give a free shot at trucks, but that doesn't really fix the problem, and still adds other problems.

Now, if that was somewhat of a fix, we could then add a modifier so the more ARMOURED a truck is, the less a chance that shot ends up happening for free... Unfortunately, this isn't really a solution, but perhaps on the right path somewhere... or maybe not.

junk2drive · Post by **junk2drive** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:26 pm

Merr wrote:
Obsolete wrote:And how do all those men load into just a single small jeep?
Well, I didn't say they needed to "comfortably" ride into action ...

They can hop a ride on a tank instead ... I think that would work for transportation at that point.

Funny story ... Back in the Steel Panther days, one player noted the effect of having infantry ride on the tanks (in the game). The infantry acted like human shields because the first attack against the tank forced the infantry to jump off and the tank never got hit !

What a bad idea that was ... code-wise. I can't remember if they changed that logic.

The other advantage in SP was that the mounted infantry could see things 360 degrees that the tank could not. You took the risk of hurting the infantry for the benefit of the tank.

In Panzer Command the mounted infantry can see better than ground level troops. They cannot pass info on to the tank, just to the player. An anti tank round can damage the riders.