BGForums

BattleGoat Studios
It is currently Nov 22 2017

All times are UTC-05:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 21 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 03 2009
Posts: 1113
Human: Yes
1. Complete developement of the game.

2. Make unit capabilities more realistic.

3. Make zone of control proportionate to the range of the unit.

4. Eliminate map hexes or make them transparent to the player.

5. Add more granularity to unit size.

6. Add more granularity to unit classes.

7. Prompt for names of new bases and allow base names to be edited by the player.

8. Introduce firing accuracy.

9. Add more garrison control.

10. Add another layer to the map for ECM.

11. Add a "Unit Response Range" setting.

12. No un-exploitable resources.

13. Stop missile waste.

14. Add combat hot-keys.

15. Have AIs place unused units into reserve.

16. Have AIs exploit their own resources like petroleum.

17. Allow multiple selections of missile platforms/battle groups to be armed/disarmed/rearmed with missiles together.

Restore all SR2010 features. Make espionage work - spy assinations, true theft of designs and research. Implement mine warfare and ECM (see later suggestion or this). Replace missile silos.

Have AIs launch satellites and use spies and nukes.

Bring region initial default techs up to the current game year - 2020 or whatever. Currently their techs are still stuck in 2010.

Get the unit specs right - no more size 1 and 2 missile sizes, duplicate units, etc. (see item 3). No more garrisons that can destroy battleships. Clean up the indirect fire mess. One ship cannot fire a volley that damages an entire 200 square km area, nor would an artillery unit fire on such a huge area without specific targets.

Implement a realistic "zone of control" for each unit - don't just use a three hex diameter. This dovetails with the next suggestion - keep map hex information for use in loyality, LOS, terrain, etc. But hide the hexes from the user and allow units to be located anywhere on the map with a granularity of 40000X18000 instead of just 1800x800. No more stacks of units. Mobile units with multiple components keep a one-km spacing, but single ships could be located in closer proximity. Bases could exceed one km in size to permit multiple units. This would enforce a realistic base capacity.

Add more granularity to the hex matrix and permit large cities to cover multiple hexes. This would allow bases to be located closer together, like in the crowded San Diego military complex where there are navy bases, naval air stations, sub bases and shipyards.

Shrink the size of units, especially AA units. Use specified unit sizes for fabrication, not class defaults.

Create seperate classes for naval aircraft and airborne land units and others. Allow modders to create their own classes.

When building a new base, assign a default name that corresponds to the nearest location. Add a game setting to allow the player to be prompted for the name of each new base.

Enforce firing accuracy, decreased by range, unit efficiency and ECM.

Make the "Reduce Garrisions" DM priority work. Add a "No Garrisons" selection to the initial game settings. In the ROE, add a selection for "Do not attack Garrisons".

Add a new internal map layer to contain radar data. This would allow the implementation of ECM and seperation of radar spotting from visual spotting.

Add a "Unit Response Range" setting to limit the distance that units will travel to service a sea or air transport request.

Don't show resources on the map if they cannot be developed by some region. Eliminate resources in U.N. territory or allow them to be leased.

Mark all initial AI region missile stocks and all imported missiles for Autodeploy. Change missile role defaults from both "land" and "sea" to "land" for land units and air platforms and "sea" for ships. Ensure that each launch platform in an AI region has all of its missiles granted Launch authority whenever it is loaded with missiles. When missile platforms in an AI region go in for repair, insure that all of its missiles are re-usable (autoload - LA) when placing them back into inventory.

Have AIs save up long-range missiles to mount deep strikes against enemies. Add a game setting to prohibit multiple missile salvos against a single target (See item 14, Combat Hot Keys). Allow the player to take control of a launch platform or battle group and manually launch missile salvos with the "Space" bar.

Provide a "one target - one launcher" game setting. When enabled, the first missile platform to engage a target will flag that target as "engaged". Other launchers will not automatically engage a target that is already being engaged. The number of automatic missile salvos should be calculated according to the size of the target. Patrol boats and artillery get one salvo, while tanks and ships get as many as are required to make a kill.

Make self-sufficiency the default for Production Ministers. Limit bond sales for AI regions to financing new construction only - no borrowing money to cover operating expenses or weapons.

Currently if I select a group of loaded missile platforms and desire to change their roles I must re-arm each one manually. If I have selected a group of platforms and then press the "Unload All" button, then only the last, bottom platform is actually unloaded. Modify the missile control to allow the player to re-arm a selected group of platforms at the same time.

_________________
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: Dec 14 2008
Posts: 574
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire, England.
Some good points there.

Also...

Allowing liberation of defeated country's. Allied or not. Re-drawing the land area's could be done via the loyalty overlay, as that never changes regardless of occupying forces. (if based on the sr engine).

Choice to annex or puppet states.

Alliances based on political agenda/ideology. Most of the sr2020 alliances just don't make any sense.

Allow spies a much wider amount of missions. Assassinations, coup's that sort of thing.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Dec 11 2008
Posts: 3601
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
My thoughts about the points
Quote:
1. Complete developement of the game. - I Agree

2. Make unit capabilities more realistic. - How? I Think this is among the most realistic.

3. Make zone of control proportionate to the range of the unit. - ?

4. Eliminate map hexes or make them transparent to the player. - Personally I would not want them to be transparent, but I think it should be an option to choose from.

5. Add more granularity to unit size. - No comment - granularity?

6. Add more granularity to unit classes. -No comment - granularity?

7. Prompt for names of new bases and allow base names to be edited by the player. - Agreed

8. Introduce firing accuracy. - I think it would a interesting new feature

9. Add more garrison control. - I agree, I want a button that automatically deploy a certain amout of garrisons to all complexes, and maybe give the option to garrison tanks, other infantry etc of own choosing.
10. Add another layer to the map for ECM. - I would wan't to se some moves towards a 3D:ich map where maybe use of space equipment

11. Add a "Unit Response Range" setting. - I don't think it is a need but would be a +

12. No un-exploitable resources. - Think there should be a way to claim new hexes instead to close straits, claim new resourses and such.

13. Stop missile waste. - I would try to add a better missile control system.

14. Add combat hot-keys. - why not

15. Have AIs place unused units into reserve. - I most sincerely agree and have them sell or scrap "old" equipement that they don't use.

16. Have AIs exploit their own resources like petroleum. - I agree.

17. Allow multiple selections of missile platforms/battle groups to be armed/disarmed/rearmed with missiles together. - I agree

_________________
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: Dec 14 2008
Posts: 574
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire, England.
Hullu Hevonen wrote:

granularity?



gran·u·lar (grny-lr)
adj.
1. Composed or appearing to be composed of granules or grains.
2. Having a grainy texture.
3. Biology Containing granules: granular cells.
granu·lari·ty (-lr-t) n.
granu·lar·ly adv.

granularity [ˌgrænjʊˈlærɪtɪ]
n
1. the state or quality of being grainy or granular
2. the state or quality of being composed of many individual pieces or elements

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Dec 11 2008
Posts: 3601
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Ragu wrote:
Hullu Hevonen wrote:

granularity?


?

Aaaa, I see... mmm... Täh?(What?)
Grain, Nano technology, Grand moms, oddity, nervous system, huh?
My native tongue is not English... I tried to search for an answer on the Internet, but found too complex explanations that I could understand.

_________________
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 03 2009
Posts: 1113
Human: Yes
Ragu wrote:
Hullu Hevonen wrote:

granularity?



gran·u·lar (grny-lr)
adj.
1. Composed or appearing to be composed of granules or grains.
2. Having a grainy texture.
3. Biology Containing granules: granular cells.
granu·lari·ty (-lr-t) n.
granu·lar·ly adv.

granularity [ˌgrænjʊˈlærɪtɪ]
n
1. the state or quality of being grainy or granular
2. the state or quality of being composed of many individual pieces or elements


You've got it - "2. the state or quality of being composed of many individual pieces or elements"

catatonic wrote:
5. Add more granularity to unit size.

6. Add more granularity to unit classes.


Each of the 17 suggestions have corresponding explainations below the formal list.

catatonic wrote:
Shrink the size of units, especially AA units. Use specified unit sizes for fabrication, not class defaults.


Shrinking the size of units makes each unit "grain" or atom smaller. This would allow a more realistic modeling of their combat capabilities. No more 540 garrison soldiers in a village, no more 70-launcher Stinger units.

Increased granularity implies more "grains" and thus more choices and flexibility for the player.

catatonic wrote:
Create seperate classes for naval aircraft and airborne land units and others. Allow modders to create their own classes.


There are now 21 classes of units, including a huge "missile" class that includes bombs, conventional and nuke warheads. Class 8 - missiles could be sub-divided into bombs, conventional missiles and nukes, or even bombs, land-launched, air-launched, sea-launched, etc.

_________________
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 03 2009
Posts: 1113
Human: Yes
Hullu Hevonen wrote:
My thoughts about the points...

3. Make zone of control proportionate to the range of the unit. - ?


catatonic wrote:
Implement a realistic "zone of control" for each unit - don't just use a three hex diameter.


Currently the effective firing range, etc. of each unit is distorted and exaggerated by the ZOC concept. Garrisons 16 km away can attack destroyers on the adjacent ocean hex. Urban defenders can use close-combat attack values on tanks attacking from outside the city. Hand-held units with 4 km ranges can attack units in an adjacent hex.

What I am suggesting is that a unit's ZOC be equal to its statistical attack range. This includes engineers and the effects of other unit-types. 540 engineers should not be effective over a 14000 square km area. This is convienient, but somewhat unrealistic. Supply aircraft are unlikely to actually supply other units when they are 16 km away.

IMHO, ZOC is a "dumbing down" of the game - a convienient way for the developers to dodge the issue of ranged fire.

_________________
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 03 2009
Posts: 1113
Human: Yes
catatonic wrote:
10. Add another layer to the map for ECM.


Hullu Hevonen wrote:
My thoughts about the points...

I would wan't to see some moves towards a 3D:ich map where maybe use of space equipment


catatonic wrote:
Add a new internal map layer to contain radar data. This would allow the implementation of ECM and seperation of radar spotting from visual spotting.


I was not suggesting a 3D HUD but an "internal" map of areas of ECM for use by the game engine. Currently BG seems incapable of dealing with ECM due to the limitations of their game engine. Calculations are on a 2D space where radar, sonar and LOS treated pretty much the same internally. If there was a dedicated "map layer" that mapped areas of ECM, then the existing radar spotting data could be modified accordingly.

_________________
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 03 2009
Posts: 1113
Human: Yes
catatonic wrote:
12. No un-exploitable resources.


Hullu Hevonen wrote:
My thoughts about the points...
Think there should be a way to claim new hexes instead to close straits, claim new resourses and such.


Perhaps I should elaborate on this - When I try to "prospect" for hexes upon which to build a water works, about 90% of the highlighted fresh water is un-usable. This makes a micro-management task a frustrating MMT, since I have to move the cursor over every fresh-water hex in order to finally locate that prime spot that will accept a full six water-works.

The new feature where you let the Minister locate facilities is OK, but its selections are rarely optimum.

Petroleum also has mis-leading info - oil deposits with towns or on a little river cannot accept oil/gas fields. And prime oil deposits just out of reach in UN territory is just infuriating.

_________________
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 03 2009
Posts: 1113
Human: Yes
catatonic wrote:
11. Add a "Unit Response Range" setting. -

Hullu Hevonen wrote:
My thoughts about the points...
I don't think it is a need but would be a +.


Don't you ever get tired of your transport helos from another continent trying to fly across an ocean to service the air-transport request of a single Marine, or having a flock of transports arrive late, long after the requesting unit has been transported?

For me the transport services are too important and the micro-management tasks too large.

_________________
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Dec 11 2008
Posts: 3601
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
catatonic wrote:
Hullu Hevonen wrote:
My thoughts about the points...

3. Make zone of control proportionate to the range of the unit. - ?


catatonic wrote:
Implement a realistic "zone of control" for each unit - don't just use a three hex diameter.


Currently the effective firing range, etc. of each unit is distorted and exaggerated by the ZOC concept. Garrisons 16 km away can attack destroyers on the adjacent ocean hex. Urban defenders can use close-combat attack values on tanks attacking from outside the city. Hand-held units with 4 km ranges can attack units in an adjacent hex.

What I am suggesting is that a unit's ZOC be equal to its statistical attack range. This includes engineers and the effects of other unit-types. 540 engineers should not be effective over a 14000 square km area. This is convienient, but somewhat unrealistic. Supply aircraft are unlikely to actually supply other units when they are 16 km away.

IMHO, ZOC is a "dumbing down" of the game - a convienient way for the developers to dodge the issue of ranged fire.

Close combat is not a bunch of old conscripts(now Militia) running around with swords. In modern urban warfare is considered to be "Close Combat", I think that the ranges can be modded, When I was experimenting some files(Ordes.csv I think, could be wrong) I accidentally got the units ranges to those specified in the .unit files, I can't remeber exactly what values I changed.

catatonic wrote:
Don't you ever get tired of your transport helos from another continent trying to fly across an ocean to service the air-transport request of a single Marine, or having a flock of transports arrive late, long after the requesting unit has been transported?

For me the transport services are too important and the micro-management tasks too large.
Not really, I haven't stumbled across that problem that many times to get tired of it. I use carriers and don't ever let the AI control my forces

_________________
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Sep 11 2008
Posts: 1857
Quote:
a convienient way for the developers to dodge the issue of ranged fire.


Doesnt the the longer range units get to shoot 1st / do damage 1st ? Seems like that was mentioned a long time ago and it was just assumed that once the 1st shot was fired and the battle began the units would close the attack range.

Besides , How else could they do it ? Its not like the guy with the shorter arms is going to jump out and show himself and swing on a guy with longer arms when he knows he doesnt have the reach to hit him yet. Which is basically what we have in this game. When you see a unit, you see the whole unit, you know what type of unit it is, you know how strong it is , you know everything you need to know about it. You also see what else is the same hex as the unit and usually whats sitting in hex behind it, beside it, and and front of it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 23 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Jun 03 2009
Posts: 1113
Human: Yes
You do understand ZOC, right? A hand-held AT inside a city, with a range of 4 km can hit, with perfect accuracy and effect, any spotted target within its ZOC - which is a minimum of 16 km. And I believe, that since it is located inside a close-combat hex (a city) when this AT over-reaches its short range, it does so with CC attack values, even though the target is not in a CC hex.

What I mean by "ranged fire" is that an attacker's efficiency at engaging its target decreases with range, target movement and the efficiency of the attacking unit. Currently if an attacker can spot a target, it can and will hit it with full effect - perfect accuracy.

If this was ship-on-ship then you would say "Well, either the attacking ship hits the other ship or it doesn't". This would be especially true of a missile attack. But a lot of the time in SR2020 we are looking at 54-squad units firing on other multiple squad units. So then you have to look at how many of the attacking units actually hit their target units.

Say I have a city with a Stinger AA unit guarding it. This unit has 40 Stinger launchers - an unrealistic number. An enemy missile flies past the city, not through it, on its way to another target. The missile is going really, really fast, and it is technically outside of the Stinger's range of 14 km. How much damage should the AA do to the missile? They have it greatly out-numbered, but the missile is outside of the Stinger's official range. With the ZOC in effect, all 40 Stinger missiles will hit the enemy missile - even infantry units would hit it. Bye-bye enemy missile.

What I am proposing is that no Stingers would hit the passing missile, because it is out of the Stinger's range.

In RL if the missile actually flew over the city at high speed, would all 40 Stingers actually be able to hit it? Would the teams even know that it was there until it had already hit or passed over? Probably not, but using ranged fire, the target's speed would greatly reduce the damage done to it.

An argument against this is that ranged fire is computationally more costly. Yet according to reports, the current game engine doesn't approach anywhere near 100% processor usage. And if the game managed the building and deployment of units better, there would be a lot more processing power available. And if the game processing did begin to slow down, the software could adapt and revert to less subtle firing computations - this is a game, not cardiac pace-maker control software.

_________________
"War is merely the continuation of politics [diplomacy] by other means"
General Carl von Clausewitz - 1832

"Defense: De ting dat keeps de cows off de road."
Catatonic - 2012


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 24 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Sep 11 2008
Posts: 1857
Quote:
Currently if an attacker can spot a target, it can and will hit it with full effect - perfect accuracy.


In SR2020 all units in contact will shoot and never miss. Everyone thats played the game for any length of time knows this. It works the same way for the AI as it does the player. The player can gain the edge in battles by providing constant supply and other support to the battlefield.

Quote:
The missile is going really, really fast, and it is technically outside of the Stinger's range of 14 km.


Depends on what kinds of missiles your using,,, In the real world, A tomahawk travels around 550mph a Stinger will reach speeds up to Mach 2. In game terms, A tomahawk is a close air target and stingers can hit close air targets.

Try using a different type of missile , one thats mid air or high air and those Stingers wont be able to shoot it down.

Edit : just an afterthough...IM all for you adding Waypoints to your list above and if you add that, how about waypoints for guided missiles. Might help solve alot the frustrations people have with using missiles.


Top
   
PostPosted: Jun 24 2010 
Offline
Supreme Ruler
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04 2002
Posts: 11943
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
Hundane wrote:
Quote:
Currently if an attacker can spot a target, it can and will hit it with full effect - perfect accuracy.


In SR2020 all units in contact will shoot and never miss. Everyone thats played the game for any length of time knows this. It works the same way for the AI as it does the player. The player can gain the edge in battles by providing constant supply and other support to the battlefield.


This has come up alot,and theres an argument that also comes up that explains away this perception.A single "shot" from a unit is not really a single shot,its more of an engagement in which all the equipment of a unit fires off mutliple shots in a set time period.Because the time passage scale is so large,and all equipment in a unit fires at the same time gamewise.

So, as has been said a few times now,the units never miss view can be incorrect.It can simply be that the pieces of equipment that miss are already factored in,and the damage is the average of the multiple shots,both hits and misses ,presented as a static figure.

As the devs have said a few times now also, they arent into "random".Even the games random events arent random, but based on criteria.

This changes "perfect accuracy" into an "averaged accuracy", and "units cant miss" to "all the equipment in a unit cant miss at once".And even thats not fully accurate .

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited