Graviteam
August 17, 2019, 12:59:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 3 Gameplay Suggestions for Devs  (Read 3166 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
hnbdgr
Major
****
Posts: 50



« on: June 07, 2016, 04:31:38 PM »

Hi, posting this here as well, any feedback welcome.


1. Flexibility in deployment on tactical map

I've seen it mentioned a few times before, but it would be great to have a bit more flexibility in deployment. Obviously a fluid drag and drop system would be best, but I understand it would take up a lot of time to re-code this.

Instead I suggest a feature that can be easier to code and would increase flexibility dramatically.

Let's slice up each deployment square into 9 subsquares. How would this work? During the deployment phase - you'd have an additional button called "deploy within square". This button can be hidden under where you currently have deploy and rotate buttons (they are alternate buttons sharing the same space in UI) You can then cycle through these 3 modes with a dedicated cycling shortcut or just activate it directly with a shortcut.

- Deploy
- Rotate
- Deploy withing square

When Deploy within square is selected - all other main squares grey out/fade out/disappear what have you. The square the unit is currently sitting on would be visually divided into 9 sub-squares. You can then position the unit within them much like you can normally. When finished, you go out of the "deploy within square" mode and continue deploying.

This would solve countless headaches with MG and AT gun positioning. It is much needed imho. Just from looking at the squares every time I deploy I thought damn if I could do this I would have the gun right where i wanted it!, only a few meters either way.


2. Position continuity on operational map


terminology:

OP square - big squares making up the operational map
TAC square - small squares making up the tactical map

Let's say you attack an OP square, take some territory and agree a ceasefire. Currently whatever changes of territory happened (and the game gives you credit for in the after action report) - unless you drove the enemy out or taken a keypoint it was all for nothing.

I suggest the game keeps information of squares that have been occupied by both sides and offers these options next time deployment comes up.

Mechanics of programming it would require an additional part of the program keeping track of individual TAC squares changing hands during the tactical phase and drawing a mixed TAC square map for each OP square at the end of the battle. This algorithm would ignore panicked units or special units (only one i can think of is sniper teams)

These mixed OP squares could be either just marked as mixed on the operational map or there could be a simple 2 color 50% opacity overlay option to see what one's deployment options are ahead of initiating battle.

This would introduce another interesting element to both the tactical and the operational part of the game.


3. Sniper units - infiltration deployment


It seems to me (unless it is a bug) that the game sometimes puts snipers in enemy territory by default at the beginning of the battle. This seems interesting but we run into a couple of problems.

a) we can't deploy them in enemy territory ourselves
b) we risk the enemy will deploy in the same spot.

I suggest utilizing the empty areas where there are currently no TAC squares on the map, these empty areas right now designate the border between OP squares.

What if we could utilize them for snipers only?

Mechanics of it would be as follows: When you click on a sniper unit the currently empty areas will activate and reveal squares of blue border or overlay (indicating infitration squares). You can then proceed to place them in these limited areas.


That's what I've got, what do you guys think?
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 5735


Jerk developer


« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2016, 10:23:00 PM »

Let's slice up each deployment square into 9 subsquares. How would this work? During the deployment phase - you'd have an additional button called "deploy within square". This button can be hidden under where you currently have deploy and rotate buttons (they are alternate buttons sharing the same space in UI) You can then cycle through these 3 modes with a dedicated cycling shortcut or just activate it directly with a shortcut.

- Deploy
- Rotate
- Deploy withing square

When Deploy within square is selected - all other main squares grey out/fade out/disappear what have you. The square the unit is currently sitting on would be visually divided into 9 sub-squares. You can then position the unit within them much like you can normally. When finished, you go out of the "deploy within square" mode and continue deploying.

This would solve countless headaches with MG and AT gun positioning. It is much needed imho. Just from looking at the squares every time I deploy I thought damn if I could do this I would have the gun right where i wanted it!, only a few meters either way.

Do not quite understand this point. What would be better, and what it looks like. Can you provide any picture describes this?


2. Position continuity on operational map[/b]
This would introduce another interesting element to both the tactical and the operational part of the game.
This leads to a strange troop configurations (unpredictable) and complexity in the deployment phase. And unrealistic close contact line everywhere in the battle.
As it does not work you can see in Close Combat series games. It makes no sense to repeat this worst feature Smiley.


3. Sniper units - infiltration deployment

It seems to me (unless it is a bug) that the game sometimes puts snipers in enemy territory by default at the beginning of the battle. This seems interesting but we run into a couple of problems.
Not only snipers, any scout units for AI and any units for player.

a) we can't deploy them in enemy territory ourselves
We (players) can deploy same as AI, in this case even better - player can push any units to enemy territory

b) we risk the enemy will deploy in the same spot.
No, player deploy first and his troops block this cells in enemy territory

I suggest utilizing the empty areas where there are currently no TAC squares on the map, these empty areas right now designate the border between OP squares.
The circuit around each cell is made to avoid the great masses of troops at the beginning of the battle did not face, nose to nose, plus some technical restrictions in certain cases.

What if we could utilize them for snipers only?
Why snipers? The game does not classify a sniper units as specific type.

Logged

Реклама для игры показывала отличную графику и обещала стратегию и тактику Второй мировой войны. На самом деле не было ни графики, ни стратегии, ни тактики. Игра представляла собой серию грубых иконок, которые при нажатии ничего не делали, кроме отображения текста.
hnbdgr
Major
****
Posts: 50



« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2016, 08:38:36 PM »

Ah ok,

so to point 2. I take it onboard. Still hope for some sort of fluid/dynamic line system in the future though, but your arguments are valid Smiley

to point 3. I wasn't aware we can place them? I tried in the past i couldn't move the sniper from his position, except on my own squares.

to point 1, behold, this is what I had in mind:

STEP 1


STEP 2


STEP 3


STEP 4


Krabb: Inserted image tags.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2016, 04:50:20 AM by Krabb » Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 5735


Jerk developer


« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2016, 09:32:34 AM »

Vehicles and hvy weapons can deployed only in center of square.
Only this (central) point checked to possibility to deploy, only for this point checked visibility.
Also for this point used for trenches, and is supported in conjunction with the placement of the infantry.

As I understand you want smaller boxes for placement. Only in some strange way Smiley
Logged

Реклама для игры показывала отличную графику и обещала стратегию и тактику Второй мировой войны. На самом деле не было ни графики, ни стратегии, ни тактики. Игра представляла собой серию грубых иконок, которые при нажатии ничего не делали, кроме отображения текста.
hnbdgr
Major
****
Posts: 50



« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2016, 09:47:04 AM »

I see, yes I think a lot of people would appreciate a bit more flexibility when deploying. I did this way, because I thought it could be coded within the existing framework/UI.

Maybe having more squares would be better? Certainly would give a lot more options to deploy - this is crucial for things like MG's and AT's in defense.
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 5735


Jerk developer


« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2016, 11:12:19 AM »

I see, yes I think a lot of people would appreciate a bit more flexibility when deploying.
In most cases, player have so many troops, that does not make sense to place them one by one.
In our case you have to offer significantly slow down and complicate the process of deployment. To this must be a good reasons. What kind?

I did this way, because I thought it could be coded within the existing framework/UI.
UI coding is the most unimportant and easiest part of the whole question.



Maybe having more squares would be better? Certainly would give a lot more options to deploy - this is crucial for things like MG's and AT's in defense.
More squares (or division for existing squares) makes the deployment (and preparatory part for it) a longer and more complex.
Also generates a lot of questions:
1) What if all units are placed in the square do not fit in the square?
2) What should do if the player decides to make a pandemonium?
3) What to do with the trenches?
etc

These questions need clear unambiguous answers.

Also need an answer to the question why it need at all, from your post is unclear. " think a lot of people would appreciate a bit more flexibility when deploying" this is not a reason  Cheesy
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 11:16:13 AM by andrey12345 » Logged

Реклама для игры показывала отличную графику и обещала стратегию и тактику Второй мировой войны. На самом деле не было ни графики, ни стратегии, ни тактики. Игра представляла собой серию грубых иконок, которые при нажатии ничего не делали, кроме отображения текста.
hnbdgr
Major
****
Posts: 50



« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2016, 12:05:11 PM »

Ok look, if you were to post a poll out to everyone who plays mius with this question: "Would you like to have more flexibility in deployment phase?" The answers coming back would be overwhelmingly YES.

It is a glaringly obvious weakness of the deployment system that players cannot place the MG, AT and Vehicles more precisely - this especially when defending. Players then have to use tedious "workarounds" to get AT guns where they want them to be. leading to problems:

example case, deploying an AT gun for defense. I have the near ideal position but cannot utilize it because there is a bloody tree in the way. But if I could move 5 meters north east I'd have ideal concealment and firing position. As it stands I cannot deploy it there. Instead I have to order my units to move there in the beginning of the battle. This raises several problems:

1.) your units will move at the very beginning of the battle - potentially giving away your position, defeating the object of the whole exercise.
2.) currently you need to move the units in a specific way (no formation), which means clicking and choosing the modifier - tedious. Because If you use the line or column formation, your gun or tank or what have you will NOT go where you want it to. instead it will go 25 meters infront of that point.
3.) Unit loses  X% of their ammo when moving to the new position, because of the game mechanics portraying that soldiers can only carry so much ammo (which imho is fine, but here you can see the drawback of that mechanic.)


Believe it or not, players (including me) deploy their units one by one. especially Tanks and AT guns. Each position is important. What good is an AT gun to me if it's automatically deployed behind a tree?

By UI - User interface i also meant (perhaps erroneously) the framework of the game - the square system.  If it can be done within the existing square system, I thought it would be easier for you to do it.

To answer your questions:

Quote
1) What if all units are placed in the square do not fit in the square?

This wouldn't occur. For the simple reason that what I propose is a temporary subdivision of the big square to 9 smaller squares via the Adjust Deployment mode. You would still only place the 1 unit in there. not 2 or 5 or 9. So it is kept within the game's framework. Place an AT gun, adjust position within square (IF necessary), move on. Select infantry, mass deploy them in a line - because I don't care if they are adjusted, infantry are small and highly mobile unlike AT guns.

If a square is RED (as in - vehicles cannot be placed on it) it will remain red.

Quote
2) What should do if the player decides to make a pandemonium?  

I'm not sure I understand. How would the player do that? He's still limited to 1 unit per big square.

Quote
3) What to do with the trenches?

Infantry - leave the trenches central as they are, infantry can be exempt from adjust position mode because they are small an highly mobile and connecting trenches might be a lot of work
Tanks and other vehicles with non dis-mountable crew - this is important since these vehicles don't create "supporting trenches" around themselves, just the big hole for the vehicle. In this case it should be easy to move the trench left right up or down without interfering with other trenches see example:







AT guns and vehicles with dismountable crews, including MG's - in this case move the main trench to the corresponding position and have the supporting smaller trenches fill the rest of the square.

That's I think as simple as it can be within the existing framework.


To the original answer:

Quote
Vehicles and hvy weapons can deployed only in center of square.
Only this (central) point checked to possibility to deploy, only for this point checked visibility.
Also for this point used for trenches, and is supported in conjunction with the placement of the infantry.
 

That's what I'm proposing to change. Isn't this a proprietary engine developed by yourselves? ...obviously work is involved in making this happen. Work I cannot help with I understand that. But I don't see a reason to dismiss it on grounds that it cannot be done, there don't seem to be any hard limitations other then more code...? And again I understand this is additional work for you. But at this point it is a suggestion, I believe it is a good one with less work involved then let's say a fluid drag and drop system.

« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 01:25:50 PM by hnbdgr » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!