Please allow later move or fire!

[dougman4]

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.

[Blashy]

Sorry dougman but I expect bugs to be ironed out before anything else.

And since the market is probably over 75% singleplayer people, I would expect considerable work be done to improve it.

So Huberts statement is in line with the majority, that would be my bet.

This feature many want is nice, but it does not make the game unplayable, it might be a supreme irritant to you but I have my own supreme irritant as well, the list can get long .

As for the work required, well since only ONE person built the engine, I think only ONE person knows how much work it would require and the consequences, if he says it is a daunting task, then I'll beleive him.

BTW, I would not mind seeing this feature myself but if it never shows up, it won't bother me.

[dougman4]

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.

[pzgndr]

dougman4, did you miss Hubert's previous comment?

I still want to focus on bug fixing and AI improvements first

[dougman4]

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!

[Bromley]

A johnny-come-lately vote for dougman4's suggestion. Along with the tiles (which I know is not going to be addressed ), not being able to reselect a unit is the most frustrating feature of the game for me.

However, I can see that the AI needed to be improved such that you'd at least get D-Days from the Allied AI before this was addressed. I haven't played SP for a while now, but I think we were there with 1.04?

[n0kn0k]

Good bump This is still something i'd really really want.

[Hubert Cater]

dougman4, unfortunately this is not the type of feature that is easily added in at this stage of the game... but definitely something to consider for down the road

[dougman4]

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.

[SeaMonkey]

Isn't it obvious D4, SC isn't your game, PG is.

Just as you wish flexibility from others, you must also display it yourself.

Sorry you couldn't adapt, the dinosaurs couldn't either.

[dougman4]

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.

[Timskorn]

No, but a fantastic wargame with two expansions and a loyal fan base does.

You clearly want to enjoy SC2 or you wouldn't keep coming back, but it is what it is, and it isn't what you want. Sorry.

I don't even think this has even been discussed since Hubert's last post on this thread in 2006. Just isn't an issue here. It's quite possible we're all just nuts and you're the voice of reason.

[dougman4]

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

[rjh1971]

From my point of view it seems a pity Doug's request hasn't been considered, leaving aside difficulties with its implementation which might be to great to surpass.

Imo it would greatly increase SC2 playability, how many times I had to decide wether to attack and stay in the same position or retreat when what I would have like to do was attack and withdraw to a better position.

Or other many times I have moved units into combat and decided not to attack because odds were against me, in PG2 you could pound the enemy unit with other units and then used the one you had moved to attack. I'd love to see this in SC2 and expansions.

So I have to say I completely agree with Doug, exception is that I will continue playing the game but probably would play it more if his request is attended, can't you all see he is asking for something completely reasonable, once again leaving aside the implementation difficulties which probably are BIG.

If there is time please reconsider.

Just my two cents

Regards.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by rjh1971:

From my point of view it seems a pity Doug's request hasn't been considered, leaving aside difficulties with its implementation which might be to great to surpass.

Imo it would greatly increase SC2 playability, how many times I had to decide wether to attack and stay in the same position or retreat when what I would have like to do was attack and withdraw to a better position.

Or other many times I have moved units into combat and decided not to attack because odds were against me, in PG2 you could pound the enemy unit with other units and then used the one you had moved to attack. I'd love to see this in SC2 and expansions.

So I have to say I completely agree with Doug, exception is that I will continue playing the game but probably would play it more if his request is attended, can't you all see he is asking for something completely reasonable, once again leaving aside the implementation difficulties which probably are BIG.

If there is time please reconsider.

Just my two cents

Regards.

:confused: Ok right now you can attack and move the same turn..so you can attack and move to another location. If it doesnt work for you its either to low supply..low action points (invest in motorisation), control of the squares around the unit.

Regarding the 2nd option: Move move other unit attack with first unit attack with 2nd unit. Sometimes it would be helpful. On th other hand it adds to the skill in the game if you have to know what your unit expects before moving it to attack. The information regarding loses defenders / attackers are already a kind of cheat to aid you in the learning exp..

[Timskorn]

Originally posted by rjh1971:

Or other many times I have moved units into combat and decided not to attack because odds were against me, in PG2 you could pound the enemy unit with other units and then used the one you had moved to attack. I'd love to see this in SC2 and expansions.

I can certainly see why people would want this, but I couldn't ever agree this is a "game breaker". I think the repercussions of a change like this would really have to be weighed against how it would affect the game mechanics as they are now, and the AI. Two things that have really been refined over the years, only to be possibly broken by adding this.

Likely a big headache at this point. Maybe HC could consider it for a future game if he does one like this again.

[PowerGmbH]

Guys Remember CHESS: As long as you have the "Unit" in your hand = no Move.

If you let it OFF your hand you MOVED Definitely.

Every chessplayer knows this.

So think (!) before moving and see it similarly with SC2. so for me there is a no-go for simple off-click or on-click, or move-shot-move or so.

[Hubert Cater]

dougman,

It is a valid idea but one that unfortunately for now would require a bit of work on my end, as Timskorn has allueded to, to rework possible balance and AI issues.

At the end of the day there is only so much time for what needs to be done that currently we are working generally within the existing game engine framework and on new content.

I do hope that one day when there is more time to revisit ideas such as yours and go from there.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[xwormwood]

dougman4: this is a splendid suggestion for the "StratCom Design Challenge".

Btw: it really is s shame that this feature didn't made its way into the game. Truly.

I was often angry myself when i simply misclicked and the attack wasn't possible anymore.

Sea Monkey, your comment was a really bad one, there is no need to anger someone so needlessly.

[dougman4]

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.

[Hubert Cater]

dougman4,

Thanks for your feedback and in the end it might come down to the idea that what you suggest as a "fix" may not be viewed similarly by others, including for now, myself.

Other "fixes" have also been proposed in the past such as stacking but again this would change the nature of the game play as would what you suggest.

In the end the game is what it is right now and while many seem to enjoy the current style of play, there are of course others who prefer a different setup such as yourself.

That being said, I won't say it will never be implemented but if changes like the one you suggest are to be implemented it will likely be for a different game or another incarnation of Strategic Command all together.

Also, for reference, my mentioning content is simply another way of saying to make the most of what I have done so far since it has been a success up until now, i.e. limit the risk of future development, and continue to make a living in a timely manner. It is unfortunate that it has to be this way but it is the sad reality for games such as mine.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[Timskorn]

Doug, that's really too bad because you're missing out on an amazing game. Clearly it is preventing you from playing it as is, and are unable to get around it without being frustrated in the process. The fact remains that many more people play and enjoy it now, without what you are proposing and without the frustration.

The issue you have is very similar to those who can't play this game because it's not hex-based. For whatever reason they have, they cannot play SC2 because of it, even though it IS playable as attested to the fact that SC2 is now clearly a successful franchise with 2 expansions and a competitve multiplayer league.

Point being, and touching on what Hubert said, to change the game to hexes at this point would be counter-productive and costly. As would adding what you propose. Does Hubert spend time (and consequently, money) adding something that has negligible income benefits, or use that time to create an expansion lots of people will buy?

Your point is well presented and most people agree it would be nice to have. But it appears that's as far as it's going to go for now.

[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?

[SeaMonkey]

Now this is more like it D4! So how much more are you and your friends willing to pay over and above the usual PC game price for this feature?

I'll help, but I would like some other features like combat from sea invasion tiles/hexes or maybe an independent CAG for the Carriers.

And yes I'm willing to pay more. How about I match the price you and your friends pay for a copy of the game with your preferred feature?

Sound fair?

And Xwood, my comments weren't made to catalyze an angry thought, just stating the facts as HC had already alluded to. Stated with the same emphatic reference D4 made to the consequence of not having his feature.

Or maybe better said like one of my favorite musical groups, "You can't always get what you want......., but you might find"...... Do you remember the finish?

[rjh1971]

Interesting paying the developer to include features where most people agree :cool: