Ideas that may not have been brought up!

[C'Rogers]

Alright like everyone else I have my ideas on what can be done to make the game better. Unlike some I have actually tried to give the game some play before posting. But like others I don't have the patience for 1.02 to come out so going to post now.

I won't be bringing up the issues that already have been beaten to death -TAC AI and such- and am trying to bring up ideas that have not been mentioned.

I have been enjoying the game and mean for this post not to focus on game flaws but on issues that may make the game better -also would like to know if these are even possible-.

1) It would be nice just to select quick battle maps.

2) Is there any particular reason that with all these wonderful victory conditions they are unable to be used in quick battles? It seems to me in my infinite wisdom which comes from no software programming knowledge that there is no need for QBs to be limited to occupy zone. Create a QB map and as an example lock it to assault where the defending team -whether they be Syrian or American- must preserve a certain building. Unit objectives could be trickier but I don't think the terrain objectives must be so limited.

3) Can objectives be tiered into multiple categories? For example take ammo. Could I tier it so if a side had <90% ammo it got 50 points, from 50 - 90% 40 points, 10 points for 25 - 50%, and 0 otherwise. If a scenario designer was willing to take time he could thus creae a kind of sliding scale -reflecting a steep dropoff pointwise from where the unit may have gone from ability to continue fighting with ammo supply to not-.

4) Is there any way to give certain types of ammo more weight -in points or does the engine already do so-? For example I wouldn't mind working on a scenario and saying the US force can fire away all their bullets without penalty, but command is going to be upset if you expend most of your javelins.

5) Are negative victory points possible? One of the topics that has been brought up is that it benefits the US side in urban situations to just level the entire area. If the US could be assigned an "objective" to destroy the buildings, with each building being worth -5, then "success" would subtract from US points. There are workarounds to accomplsih the same thing I imagine but this might be a more conveint options.

6) Ok this idea is a little more out there but I will throw it. Would it be possible to create an option that would allow a player to assign a "priority" to enemy units. For example on the first campaign scenario I wanted to take out the enemy bunkers with tanks but apparently the TAC AI did not think it was worthwhile to waste the ammo. So I had to indiviualy target each bunker -not a game killer obviously but surprising and annoying-.

Under this option a player could issue priority orders on enemy units. For example I could just click on each bunker and assign it high priority. My TAC AI would now know what I thought the bunkers were worth being destroyed and could have all availble assets target away.

This might not be a problem once TAC AI has been improved. But it seems a perhaps quicker way to dealing with targeting issues that have become much more important in real time, even though it is the reverse of how things are generally done. Instead of selecting multiple units and the target command the one enemy that you wanted target would be all that would need to be selected. Maybe it is impossible or just not good, occurred to me this morning and wanted to throw it out there.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Can't you choose quick battle maps by temporarily removing all other maps from the directory?

[Pandur]

interessting aproach