Tactical Exercise - Brigade Day Attack - Playing as Allies

[ioncore]

3D terrain meshes is also the thing I was thinking about for a long time.
And yes, that's a huge feature and it what'd be the best to combine it with the complete GUI overhaul. I'd think about migrating to something like GPU-friendly (OpenGL-based) free GUI like CEGUI (I had quite an amount of experience with that one and it was quite nice), or just some modern cross-platform GUI that supports OpenGL (Qt would be my first selection here). Aside of 3D terrain, that approach would also allow us to have a cross-platform and truly modern (in terms of speed and scalability) GUI.

But, honestly, there are so many crucial engine features missing. Mounted ops? Engineering & minefields? Environmental effects? Ops boundaries? Enhanced artillery management? Enhanced planning? Enhanced supply model? Campaign mode? You just name it. And there are many gameplay and UI bugfixes to do, as well. So I bet any fancy chrome won't be even seriously considered, as far as existing GUI more or less suits the need. Or, let me say, at least I hope it won't be considered

However, there's one thing that I think is really feasible: the map editor's terrain elevation data generation. Currently scenario designers have to create all the terrain isolines (aka contours) manually via infernal amount of clicking. But there are tons of SRTM (and other sorts of digital terrain elevation) data publicly available that could be used to automate the terrain generation. That'd greatly ease the creation of new maps (both official ones and the ones designed by the community) and provide a wider selection of scenarios over time, also contributing to the community and userbase growth. And, of course, that'd be also the first step towards the future 3D terrains, because converting SRTM (and alike) data to isolines (and other internal in-game data), would certainly require substantial amount of research and implementation related to the elevation grids. And also it's quite compact and manageable in terms of implementation (unlike 3D terrain that'd require to overhaul just everything). But even then it's not a top-priority stuff IMHO and could be addressed, say, after the EF release.

 

[john connor]

I would put refining the AI, both in the attack and in the defence, top of that list, closely followed by mounted ops. Followed by repairs and replacements. It now feels very odd to me playing scenarios over, say, 2 days long, and there being no provision for repairs to armour and replacements. Repairs to armour, depending on the theatre, were crucial for Axis and Allies. And I agree now also that it seems odd to play scenarios (even the recent Westwall ones around the Loobeck, for example) where your attacks are somewhat artificially funnelled down roads between trees, marshes whatever, because you can't do what they did in the actual battle - get out and go on foot. But top of the list would be the AI improvements for me. We've talked about this elsewhere too. For me there are two key things the AI does not presently do. (1) Plan large coordinated attacks utilising properly all of its strength to take key objectives. Many, many scenarios I see the enemy AI loses and yet has pretty scary 'reserves' of armour and troops sitting unused. Only sometimes sitting on useful objectives. Mostly sitting on low value objectives. (2) Some way to stop the AI moving off the starting defensive positions the scenario designer so carefully sets up (which is presently a waste of time) and doing a wholesale rejuggle to conform to its own assessment of which objectives are important, combined with bunching units on objectives and not ever making 'line' type defences.

I guess Dave is working hard now, when he can, on sequential tasking, and will then move on to mounted ops (not sure if you're also working on that ioncore?) and then we will get an EF pack. But the AI characteristics I describe above will hamper scenario design for the pack, I would think. And repair of tanks, in particular, was clearly crucial in Axis EF ops. That's even obvious if you read the book that seems to be the inspiration for picking the Chir River firebrigade actions for the EF pack, the name of which escapes me now...

Peter

 

[ioncore]

Yup, hopefully I could help guys out with some of the stuff. And true, EF über Alles now.

PS T-34s of 17th Tank Corps ("Saturn", winter 42/43) swarming right into the EF pack, lol.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Pavel,

The only reason we used contours originally was because we would be using printed maps. Internally, the data is stored as a matrix of spot heights. We use an algorithm to generate these based on the contour poly/area. If we supported something like DTED then we could just suck in the spot heights and forget the contours altogether.

 

[ioncore]

Thanks Dave, that means it's even easier to implement. The only thing we will need to care of is a correct projections' transform (GDAL/libgdal is our friend here) and also the possibility to manually adjust and fine-tune the re-projected data (as, however precise your projection transform is, you always have the map image distortions and you need to fit your re-projected data to your real map image). Combined with a simple GUI to define the RoI and download DTED automatically (from SRTM site, f.ex.) that'd be a real helper for any scenario designer.
But anyway, that's not what we really need now.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

One can dream!

 

[Daz]

My list of wants (dreams) is similar to Pavel and Peter's.
Like Peter I think one way forward may be the kickstarter option.

Panther Games is well established and you have an excellent support record, all things that would go in your favour to bring in support and money to take a big plunge, and address all the games shortcomings as listed above by Pavel, in one fell swoop.

If your like me however, I can understand not wanting to take the risk and the hassle involved in expanding the business like this.
I have had many opportunities to expand my own business, but am content to just tick along with what I know without all the hassle of extra staff big money, and deadline problems.

I think a good gauge as to if there is a mass market for the game will be to see how the sales go for Hearts of Iron IV.
If my own experience is anything to go by, if you like HOI4 you would like an improved, modern, 3D terrain version of Command Ops.

 

[DerGrenadier]

Iam with Daz. I would immediately support Panther Games via Kickstarter. I never supported anything through Kickstarter before but Panther Games would be a no brainer for me and I would support without hesitation.

 

[Rob]

Iam with Daz. I would immediately support Panther Games via Kickstarter. I never supported anything through Kickstarter before but Panther Games would be a no brainer for me and I would support without hesitation.

I'd sign on too!

Rob.

 

[john connor]

That makes four of us. They should be ok then....

 

[Kurt]

Well said all

 

[Daz]

Should be enough to keep Dave caffeined up for the ten years or so he will need to do the work on his own

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

All beef and heart Daz.

 

[Iconoclast]

While we are at it...

I am currently in the position that I will not buy any more scenario packs before the next engine upgrade. Partly because I don't have much time anyway at the moment. Partly because I am slightly disappointed that the money I spend so far for CO2, has "just" brought a new GUI. I know a lot of work must have been going into that, but I was expecting a few new features also, in terms of the military simulation aspect of the game. No offense, I just say how I feel at the moment.

in marketing terms, many have mentioned that from their point of view (including mine)CO is not very well advertised. But something that might deterr new players from CO too, is that there is no very clear "future road" yet. I would appreciate an update on what features are being worked on, when we can expect the next engine update, and what we will see in it. I know that the last "future road" thread was a big failure, but to deprive the customers from information can't be the solution either.

Ignore everything I said, in case it was answered somewhere else already. I am not very active here lately.

When it comes to "wishlists", I think my No. 1 would be recon. Some sort of solution for modelling smaller combat patrols. I was on an CPX 2 weeks ago (Counterattacking a "red" Bn into its flanks with a TnkBn) and that showed me painfully how much I miss proper recon mechanics. Then again, the excercise involved about 100 people...

Cheers everyone,

A

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Iconoclast, I appreciate your feedback and of course , as always, I respect your call on whether you pass or buy any of our products. But let me say a few things. In terms of the way ahead. Earlier this year I said our number one priority was the release of CO2 with all the GUI changes that people had been clambering for a long time. I also said that then we would be focusing on releasing new data content - something else people had been demanding. Then I said we would focus on an engine update. Well it's been a very full time here and while we are a little behind we have managed to release a major engine update with CO2 in the middle of the year, followed by first Westwall and now KOAD. That is three product releases in six months and from a team with only one full time developer. Because of those resource constraints it is very hard for us to manage concurrent development work.

In fact it has only been since the release of KOAD that I can now focus on the next engine update. For details on this see:
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/sitrep.1107/page-22#post-13226

 

[Daz]

A
What most of the 'most active posters' on here have decided is 'the most important' direction in regards to future features is sequential tasking, because that is a prerequisite to mounted ops, which in my opinion at least. is the most important thing, with the biggest impact, feature that could possible be done to the game.
What are you views on that mate?

 

[Iconoclast]

Sorry if I have made the impression of being to harsh. That was certainly not my intend. I try as best as I can to share CO with my friend and family and always advocate in favour for it. Always.

In terms of the way ahead. Earlier this year I said our number one priority was the release of CO2 with all the GUI changes that people had been clambering for a long time. I also said that then we would be focusing on releasing new data content - something else people had been demanding. Then I said we would focus on an engine update.

I do not argue that this has not been #1 Prio. You know that better than I do. Maybe my image, that can certainly be flawed, was too much influanced by the "future road thread" over at matrix. The old one. Maybe to put it a bit differently: I was not expecting a truck load of new "military" features now, but I somehow had the idea that a few future features will be included before CO goes to 1.0. So far, I have paid full price for pretty much the same scenarios and a GUI that I can move around. And I am "expected" to pay again for the first batch of "gameplay features". Don't gte me wrong, I will gladly pay and I am so much looking forwards to this, but I would be lying if I would say that it doesn't make me a wee bit uncomfortable. Maybe my expectations was so distorted because I found it hard to actually find reliable info on what CO2 will include. It feels like the information that was there had to be gathered in various threads and some old information was still out there without ever being taken back. I appreciate your answer in regards to where 'we' are now and also appreciate your latest post in the SITREP thread. That was very informative.

What most of the 'most active posters' on here have decided is 'the most important' direction in regards to future features is sequential tasking, because that is a prerequisite to mounted ops, which in my opinion at least. is the most important thing, with the biggest impact, feature that could possible be done to the game.
What are you views on that mate?

Not quite sure where you want to go with this. I have never said that my suggestion or wishlist trups the views of other active posters. That is my very personal view, and I am fully aware that it is nothing more than this. I agree that sequential tasking and mounted ops will change the game massively to the better.

If I will ever make big bank and my first child is born, I will make sure to donate 45 billion to Dave so we can all enjoy CO the way it should be.

Until then,

A

P.S.: If Dave doesn't spend all of the money on CO (which is unlikely) remind me to wire a few bucks to the next orphanage.

 

[Daz]

Not quite sure where you want to go with this. I have never said that my suggestion or wishlist trups the views of other active posters. That is my very personal view, and I am fully aware that it is nothing more than this. I agree that sequential tasking and mounted ops will change the game massively to the better.

I certainly didn't what to go where you think I was belittling your view on what you would like to see in game A

I was merely trying to suggest a better (in my opinion) direction for the next future feature, baring in mind how limited resources Panther Games have in order to give you some direction and something to look forward to.
I don't think I have ever seen a suggested feature in the Future Features forum that I would not like to see in game, the question is what to prioritize.
I happen to think that Mounted Ops is the most important thing to have in the game at the moment and was asking if you agreed.
I would also like to see your idea for recon or something like it in the game and a million other ideas.
We are going to need a lot of that coffee for Dave

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Ha Daz. I'm not sure more coffee will help.

Iconoclast, I welcome your feedback and take it for what I believe you intended - ie as a positive statement of your views on the future directions and development of the engine.

All, I want to encourage others to offer their opinion on how and where we head to. I realise that this may be an exercise in frustration for some but it helps crystalize the things most people want. We want to satisfy our customers. That is important to us.

But please bear this in mind. One we have very limited resources. Two, we need to eat and do regularly. Three, we therefore need to keep releasing data product. Four, most in demand are east front scenarios. Five, to model these we need mounted ops. Six, to implement mounted ops for the human player the GUI needs to support sequential tasking so you can create a series of tasks like Mount, Move, Dismount.

Also there are two aspects of mounted ops - integrated transport, such as you get with mechanised infantry where the vehicles are organic to the grunts, and non-integrated transport, such as where a truck company is temporarily assigned to move a leg unit or as the Soviets did with tank riders. Modelling both these aspects is a complex undertaking. It will take significant time to develop.

This leads me onto point Seven, we need to undertake this development in a series of bite size chunks so we can get money in as we go. If we can't do that then I can't survive and it all folds. So some things are going to miss out this time around and will have to wait for another update. But at least we will be progressing.

 

[DerGrenadier]

This leads me onto point Seven, we need to undertake this development in a series of bite size chunks so we can get money in as we go. If we can't do that then I can't survive and it all folds. So some things are going to miss out this time around and will have to wait for another update. But at least we will be progressing.

Honestly Dave why not considering the Kickstarter option? I never started an Kickstarter project so I dont know if its complicated. But in my opinion its worth a try.