dougman4

I appreciate your consideration, regardless of what you are able to incorporate Hubert. I've never seen another hex based war game have this limitation. The one time I did encounter it, in PGI, it was fixed in PGII and no game play issues arose as it didn't change what already could be done - it just gave flexibility by preserving unused actions when units are deselected. The pain of selecting a piece to move, such as ground piece, and realizing after you moved it that it would have been better to have shot first with an air fleet is bracing. The pain of shooting with a piece that hadn't moved first, deselecting it after shooting, and wishing later within the turn that you'd used the unused movement action after firing is sublime. The pain of unintentionally right clicking off a unit, which is normally permitted in war games, is exquisite beyond reason. Don’t forget that far more people in this thread support this request than oppose it, and it would be great if it were in option so everyone could be happy. I’d buy an expansion or SC3 even if it were nothing more than the existing game with this feature added. How can my friends and I make it worth your while if we can’t buy a product with this feature? I know you have to balance time and income considerations, but let’s be honest. You’re an usually dedicated game designer that is extremely responsive to your customer base. Why, it is 8 patches and counting on SCII. Surely, time spent on nothing more than some subset of these patches could have used to successfully implement the save action feature. But I’m not asking you to work for free. I’d help you recover the development expenses, but I don’t see a product to buy with this feature in it. Will you accept a PayPal bribe?

Hubert, thanks for your personal note. I fear I'll never understand why this isn't at the top of everyone's list. I've read about all the bug fixes and improvements in the patches released in the year since last I wrote. None of them mean anything to me. What’s more, I read all of the improvements incorporated into the two game expansions. None of them mean anything to me either. If a patch had to be foregone for this feature to be implemented, I would never have noticed. If one of the two expansions had to be foregone to get this feature implemented, I could at least have enjoyed buying and playing the other. Chess is a great game, and I'm a tournament director. It has endless playability and appeal, and it has absolutely nothing to do with new content. Risk and Axis and Allies are great war games that endure for the same reason. There is endless playability and entertainment even without new content. I’m happy to help fund new content in future expansions, but a playable interface has to be implemented first. Putting this request that many advocate at the top of the “to do” list and spending whatever time needed to knock it out would mean everything. Whatever it preempts at this stage doesn't matter, for incremental improvements and fixes have lessened in importance over time as higher priority ones were addressed earlier – to the point that now they are inconsequential to me for game play enjoyment. However, as this seemingly simple but crucial for game play fix has been postponed, its continued absence is even more glaring. It becomes almost comical to see comparatively inconsequential issues continue to be addressed at the expense of a game feature that affects every move of every turn of every game. Unlike chess, units in SC2 can have varying strengths and varying forecast adjudications against enemy units for many underlying reasons. Careful coordination of units in an attack is the soul of the game. Being able to move 2 or more ground units next to an enemy unit and debate the best order of combat is precious. Moreover, having the option to fire air or naval units before engaging the ground units that have previously been moved is desperately needed. So, ever the optimist, I updated to the latest patch last night and booted it up for the first time in a year. I moved a piece and clicked off of it. I could no longer reactivate the unit to fire it. I sadly exited the game, for there is no fun in it for me as it stands. I remained convinced that whoever feels otherwise has never seen it done another way or is blindly masochistic.

Thanks, Tim, I just wanted to make sure it hadn't been fixed. It continues to be a major issue for me and my friends, funny how you all don't mind. I'm beginning to think ya'll have never been exposed to a game that allows you that flexibility - believe me you'll never go back! I'll check in every so often to see if we can't begin playing the game again and buying expansions. Doesn't look like it will be anytime soon though. All the mods and tweaks that continue to be made in its stead are a complete waste to me - if the interface is not playable then everything else is mute. Best, Doug

Does that mean the latest patches and latest expansions do not allow for one to fire after a move if you've clicked off the unit? Or can a unit that hasn't moved be able to fire and then move afterwards? If not, that's nothing to do with adapting - it simple common sense! No good war game prohibits such basic playability.

Can anyone tell me if this was ever fixed? I've been waiting for years, since SC1, for this to be fixed! I, nor any of my friends, have played this game since my repeated requests - the most recent of which was June 14, 2006. It is just too painful without provision for later move or fire (especially after a unit is deselected). I see many patches and new expansions since I last wrote. Any update without this feature is meaningless though, since game play is too painful and hamstrung without its inclusion. See my messages on the SC1 forum dating October 14 & 15, 2002, too. Five and half years of patient waiting and polite requests! Active players, tell me where we stand today for I yet hold a sliver of hope. Meanwhile, my friends and I will continue to boot up Panzer General II and have fun.

Naturally, pzgndr, I did read Hubert's comment as I clearly stated. > Hubert, thanks for your personal attention > and note! Your continued efforts in > developing war games of this style are > greatly appreciated! I have been patiently waiting for relief and my suggestion to be incorporated into the game. However, I am disappointed to find the latest version 1.05a patch apparently doesn’t address this issue. Frankly, I would have gladly foregone every single patch improvement for the ability to preserve a unit's action after you click off of it. Clearly, this now needs to sorted to the top of the to do list. Let’s put an end to our suffering!

Blashy, I’m sure you are fine beta tester were a prime influence on the stability of the game. There will always be more bugs, and in general they will continue to be more minor in nature and rare in occurrence. Your argument is hunting for more bugs to fix is more important than implementing this feature. I beg to differ. Let’s take for example the bugs Hubert credited you for bringing to his attention to fix in his SC2 patches: - Fixed a Reinforce, Properties error for 3-D minor units, military flag was not shown properly (Blashy) - Fixed an error where adjacent tiles were not updating properly to friendly control (in some cases) after a recently captured resource (Blashy) - Fixed a upgrade/reinforce bug wrt Paratroops that have already been prepated (Blashy) - Added in a few new UNIT events to handle Axis invasion of USA, Spain (Edwin P., Desert Dave, Blashy) - Fixed a bug related to FoW and the right click popup menu (Blashy) - Fixed an error where the Baltic States (if previously surrendered to the Axis) would switch sides once the USSR was DoW'd upon (Blashy) - Fixed a unit sprite error wrt upgrades, i.e. units were sometimes not shown with the proper level sprite (Blashy, Normal Dude) It is probably a testament to your being an outstanding beta tester that most crucial bugs were fixed before the game’s release. And, the remaining bugs are comparatively minor. Frankly, I would not have recommended a single one of the above post release suggestions to Hubert for action before implementing the “move/fire save action” feature. What’s more, the vast majority of patch fixes so far are of lesser importance, at least to me, than the “move/fire save action” feature. Here are some more fine examples of patch fixes that could have waited: - Sub dive percentage lowered back to default of 20% from 30% - Unloaded units now use their specific movement sound (without motorization if applicable) as opposed to the generic corps/army sound - Fixed a rare MPP collection bug (Pueo) - Fixed a minor supply bug (Bill) - Added a prompt to unlicense the game when it is uninstalled Now, I recognize that we all have our pet peeves. Don’t neglect the fact that many people have signed the petition asking for Hubert’s attention on this. I saw no such clamoring for fixes for many of the bugs that have been addressed in patches so far. I requested one modification in SC1, which was customizable unit combat values. Hubert kindly obliged in SC2. I have and will only ask for one modification in SC2, which is this one. I would prefer not to have to wait until SC3 to see it implemented. Please, let’s not let the crusade and quixotic hunt for trivial and rare bug fixes run roughshod over significantly improving a game mechanic that affects every single move in the game.

Hubert, thanks for your personal attention and note! Your continued efforts in developing war games of this style are greatly appreciated! My personal plea is that you’ll shuffle inclusion of such a feature towards the top of your to do list. Frankly, AI can always be improved and as in a great sink hole of time and effort. Frankly, AI for the foreseeable future will always come up short compared to head to head play and cause grumbling – regardless of your efforts. And, your investment in AI will little benefit those of us who prefer head to head play. I can live with the AI as it is for now. Also, I think there are many of us who would place a higher priority on your development of the “move/fire save action” feature than on finding and fixing more bugs. The game is stable as it is, with the major fixes having been incorporated. Additional bugs tend to involve AI and campaign play, or are relatively minor in effect or rare in occurrence. These bugs I also can live with for now. The lack of a “move/fire save action” feature, however, is omnipresent and effects every movement of every piece during every turn in the game – a supreme irritant! It is a show stopper among people I play with, and for me as well. I still discount the supposed effect on game play. This, especially considering that we can customize so many of the unit variables now. Through your efforts, we are self-empowered to tweak game dynamics as we wish. No game re-balancing required! Just so you aware as to how Panzer General II approached and incorporated a “move/fire save action” feature, the unit icon would change color when the move action was completed and a cannonball symbol on the icon would disappear when the fire action was completed. That way, you could quickly scan the map to determine what move/fire actions remain. I believe you have flags that disappear on the unit icons when the move actions are complete, which is perfectly fine. Adding a similar feature for fire actions is all that is required.

It appears you haven’t seen it successfully incorporated as I have. Go buy Panzer Generals 1 & II and put yourself at ease – there is no change in game dynamics whatsoever. Typically, developers have polished their game mechanics before the initial release so that you never need witness such a modification through patches – and what I suggest wouldn’t seem so odd to some of you. To have to continue to hover your mouse while locked on a particular unit and concentrate on avoiding right clicking is completely ludicrous. If you have activated a piece, you should be able to de-active it a will without losing any movement/firing options so that you can explore the map, examine other units, look at various game menus, etc. You cannot hope to properly plan and execute strategy without doing so. You’ll be surprised how much more fun the game becomes. Those who keep referring to a supposed dramatic change in game play simply aren’t thinking through logically. Let’s take for example how my suggestion would affect an army or tank unit, the core of the game. Scenario 1: Turn starts with said unit not adjacent to an enemy unit. You can move your unit next to an enemy unit. You can click off your unit. You can research, go to the bathroom, work out, see a movie, eat dinner, then come back and re-click on your unit and attack the adjacent unit. That’s it, you weren’t able to fire more than once or move more than once. What’s more, you couldn’t do anything more than you can now. This in no way enabled more units to be able to attack another unit than is possible now. You just weren’t forced to sit in the chair and have hand cramps and panic attacks that you might ruin the game by clicking off the unit. Nothing but improvement! Scenario 2: Turn starts with said unit adjacent to an enemy unit. Your options and game actions are precisely the same. You can attack the adjacent enemy unit and then move somewhere else. Or, you can move your unit away from the adjacent enemy unit without attacking. Perhaps next to a second enemy unit that you attack. These options are nothing more than you have now. There is no more opportunity for multiple attacks and breakthroughs than you currently have. Please, people, play a game where you are not so arbitrarily confined and you’ll doubtlessly feel so liberated and happy you’ll jump up and down with me to get Hubert on this at once!! I’ve a network of head to head wargaming players that shun the EC series entirely because this defect alone renders it more frustrating than fun. I guarantee Hubert will garner many more sales once word gets out this is fixed.

I’ve politely requested making it an option to avoid debate as to the merits. I would prefer people who don’t recognize the merits to give the suggestion the benefit of the doubt. This feature is not a change of paradigm to IGOUGO since it is all IGO until the turn is ended, just like normal. The affect on playability is only positive, and there is nothing in the game that I’ve noticed more pressing for HC to work on. The masochistic tendencies of some in the audience should not run roughshod over those who prefer improvement.

bump

bump

bump

I propose this as a toggle. There is no reason we can't all be happy. This is perfectly in line with the customizable variables in SC2. Believe most people will opt to play with this toggle. It is simply criminal not to have your remaining action left if you click off the unit.

bump

I love the way Hubert added all the customizable toggles. I badgered him about that in the last version of the game, and he delivered! The one thing remaining to make this an amazing game is to preserve a unit's remaining ability to shoot or move after you click off the unit. The public clamored for this ability in Panzer General 1. It was fixed in Panzer General 2 and later versions and remains a classic in wargame playability. Please, Hubert, at least give us the option to to be able to click off a unit and preserve what ever remaining action it is able to perform!!!!

1. Fire using a unit. 2. Click off of that unit and move/fire using other units. 3. Return to the original unit and complete the move. Ditto in the case of moving first, going to other pieces, and then coming back to the first piece and firing it. It appears you can only perform both actions consecutively. Panzer General 1, the gold standard of this genre, had this problem which was corrected in Panzer General 2 and following editions. The game is infinitely more playable and fun when you aren't arbitrarily locked into such a unilateral path. Please, please someone tell me how to fix this!!!!

I've been told there is a table of exposure percentages for different units in different types of terrain. However, searching the forum has not revealed it. Someone please post it here or send to me at dougman4@yahoo.com! Thanks, Doug

1. Is it just me that is annoyed that there is a “snap to” feature when targeting (e.g. mortar fire). You can’t target the ground beneath a unit that is in plain line-of-sight even though the unit may not be target-able. It seems ridiculous that you can’t target 1/3 of a tank because 2/3rd of it are hidden, or even the ground beneath it. 2. Units in ambush position should get off the first shots. In my experience units in ambush position are no more likely to get shots off before ambushed units fire themselves. 3. There should be an ability to toggle on a line-of-sight ring around any (friendly) unit selected. This ring of maximum visibility would preclude the tedious need of having to continually draw blue lines to points of interest. 4. It seems haphazard that some fresh troops readily panic/broken/surrender while other troops hang on indefinitely under extreme fire from many directions. 5. There should be an ability to “ignore” enemy units of a particular class or with a low/none target kill forecast. For example, it seems senseless to see AT guns pling away at Tigers that they have no way of wounding much less killing when killable halftracks escape. 6. How close do you have to be to throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails? Is there a way to specifically throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails versus attacking with other weapons? 7. How many people can be in a building? Why not list a building occupancy limit number when you pass a cursor over the building to alleviate guesswork? Why do units in an overcrowded building invariably exit in directions that are exposed to enemy fire (when there is “safe” cover to be had at other sides of the building)? 8. Why don’t units choose the closest available cover when advancing or assaulting and taking heavy fire? Often, advancing/assaulting units fail to go the last couple of meters and instead run 50 or 100 meters to the rear – exposed the whole time and take far more losses than need be. 9. Advancing/assaulting infantry units are easily suppressible to the point of artificially limiting their role in CMBB. 10. When playing PBEM, it appears that the victory percentage appears different to each player throughout the battle. This seems to be a fog of war feature, but it would be helpful to understand how the computer calculates the victory percentage each turn. 11. Same question, but concerning control of flags. Obviously, fog of war will cause out of sight flags to appear unknown. But, why would visible flags appear different to each player which occasionally occurs in my PBEM games? 12. What is the spotting range for hidden units in various terrains? Surely there must be a table somewhere. 13. What are the defensive bonuses for various types of units in various types of terrain? Surely there must be a table somewhere. 14. Do foxholes’ defensive bonuses cumulate with the underlying terrain? For example, do I get an extra defensive bonus for digging a foxhole in woods or do I just get either the foxhole or the woods bonus (if so, which would it be)? 15. Do foxholes give defensive bonuses to all units including AT guns and armored units? 16. Why do my mortars never seem to get the line of sight range which my spotter unit should be able to provide them? 17. Why do units (heavy tanks to be sure) miss so often at point blank range (50 meters or so). 18. Why don’t units in a column stop when the lead unit gets whacked by an ambushed? Instead, they each keep going one by one into the ambush and getting slaughtered. I could understand that if the end units in the column were getting picked off, but it seems ridiculous when the lead ones are being destroyed. 19. Why is it modeled that all Soviet units immediately run from German heavy tanks, when their penetration ability is similar or better than the Germans? It seems silly for the Soviet units to continually backpedal when they are an even or superior match. 20. Why is it that units can shoot through each other, friendly or enemy, to reach their targets? I’ve seen columns of units open fire on other columns which not apparent blocking of view. 21. Why is it that there is instantaneous situational awareness of enemy units? Just because enemy units may be within spotting range doesn’t mean they are acquired the instant that spotting is possible. 22. Why is it that all units tend to fire on just one other enemy unit? I can’t tell you how many turns one enemy tank was repeatedly killed, perhaps a dozen times or more, while numerous other adjacent enemy units remained unscathed. It is to the point that is laughable, where I see dozens of penetration reports just to invariably find one unit had been targeted the whole time. 23. 12 minutes for a spotter to bring in rounds? Please, just leave him out of the game in the next version. That spotter is worthless, even with pre-plotted target areas. 24. How many rounds of different types does it take to bring down different types and sizes of buildings? 25. Are air units really so bad that they bomb friendly as often as enemy units, even in the friendly rear?

Nope, I still can't get it to work. On the leaders screen, I don't have any version number listed in the bottom right hand corner. I still can't play be email and v1.05 didn't help either. Sounds like JPTOUTPRET and I have a similar problem. Would appreciate your help in troubleshooting. [ November 04, 2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

JWagner, the beauty of SC is that it lends itself to be customizable. This isn’t a graphics and sound intensive 3-D game engine. Most if not all of the options below would require VERY little coding. None of these options affects graphics (well maybe stacking), sound, the supply system (HQ units), or combat resolution calculations. This is why I think SC is a potential cult classic blockbuster for the developers; they can make this game endlessly appealing for everyone! 1. Allowing to a unit to fire after it has moved and been deselected 2. Allowing a unit to move after it has fired (if it has not moved previously) 3. Reduced reinforcement (especially when enemy units are adjacent) 4. Restricted purchase of new units when enemy units are adjacent to a city 5. Newly purchased units start at a reduced strength 6. Turning off automatic defensive air sorties 7. Retreating/surrender 8. Overrun/blitz ability for tanks (allowing a tank unit to crush a weakened unit and move and/or fire again in the same turn) 9. Stacking units

Panzer Lehr, in response to my recommended inclusion of various toggle-able options you so cleverly responded: SC isn't broke. It doesn't need fixing. If you like the game as it is, then my recommendations shouldn’t bother you in the least. Because, my recommendations are TOGGLE-ABLE so you’ll always be able to play it the way it is now. But, please don’t be obstructionist for those of us who desire added features and improvements. If you want to relax in the bogged battlefield, fine, have at it. But, just because SC is a highly abstracted game doesn’t mean that units can’t behave to some extent like they did in real life. Sounds like what you want is a SC game for WWI though.

Immer Etwas, your posting is underwhelming. England and France can buy corps practically every turn and you can move existing Canadian and English ground units to France. Leave the Maginot line as it is, the Germans have to go around through the Low Countries. By the time Germany takes over Poland and the Low Countries, allied troops can clog every available hex between Paris and the Low Countries. This results in the quagmired battlefield I stated. So, Immer Etwas, please don’t criticize what you don’t understand as you’ve done on more than one occasion. I’ve never asked anyone to adopt my way of thinking. What I wish for are toggle-able options so that the game can be customized for everyone. We don’t have to agree on the options for us both to be happy. Recommend your toggle-able options at will – I’ll have the courtesy not to be blindly obstinate. EV, you on the other hand, continue to post truly erudite ideas. Your critical insight and recommended improvements could help make SC a classic. I only hope the SC staff takes note of all the gems you have provided. [ October 31, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

Ev/Brain Rock/John DiFool - BEAUTIFULLY SAID!

Panzer Lehr, you should understand that constructive criticism is markedly different from derision. Those of us who see game unbalances that need tweaking are not saying that the game isn’t a wondrous concept. We provide ideas for making it better, or at least customizable, so that everyone can be happy. I don’t insist upon forcing my ideas upon anyone, I just want the opportunity to play SC in a more balanced fashion through toggle-able options. Blindly supporting SC as perfect as it stands, while loyal, is missing the point entirely. Krikke, the retreat idea was intended to un-bog the battlefield. If a (defending) unit fails a morale check or has substantially inferior strength (to the attacker) or something akin to that, then it should retreat. If there is no place to retreat to, it should surrender and be removed from the map. This concept works well in other games, and I would be ecstatic to see it is a toggle-able option in SC. Zeres, I too like EV’s idea that tanks should be able to occupy the location of a vanquished defender as well. And, I’d likewise like to see a retreat option added as I mentioned to Krikke. Hans-Micael, an over-run attack by tank units is a great idea that also worked well in Panzer General series. And, I whole-heartedly agree that reinforcements should be reduced and eliminated as a unit is increasingly surrounded. I’m not familiar with the controlled impulse function you mentioned or paratroopers cutting off supply, but these ideas sound intriguing! To all, it seems to me that it easier to reinforce units than to supply them. Seems like I can click on a unit and see a less than 10 rating for supply and still am able to max out reinforcements. If that unit were having a supply penalty, why wouldn’t it also have a reinforcement penalty? [ October 28, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]