Semi-official 'work in progress' report

[Stimo]

What about prisonners ?

I played a lot since I downloaded the game, and never took any prisonner, even when unarmed crew are encircled, they don't surrender. I have to kill them

I was not such a bloody commander before ToW.

[Sneaksie]

When tank is ordered to attack another tank and got gun disabled, it will go forward, firing bow MG, and eventually will bump right into target. It is a bug and it can be fixed, but there is a big catch.

If it's target is halftrack or AT gun or MG nest, then such decision is valid - sometimes even tank with no main gun can devastate defence line, crushing the target under tracks.

So, simply put, programmers said they can program tank do not go anywhere in such situation, just stand and fire MG at it's target, regardless of its type. But would you like such a fix, as after that tanks with disabled main guns would not try to crush AT guns if their target was AT gun?

So it's your choice what they should do after gun failure - mad ramming with possibility of crushing the target under tracks (if it is crushable), or passive staying and firing MG at the target you've set. Tanks can not disregard your direct order, because they can't determine whether they can damage target with what is left from their weaponry (they are not very smart, you know:)). There are early tankettes which can be damaged by MG fire from close distance; there are tanks with more than one cannon.

Dialog box is in the wishlist, can't say now about probability of it's realization. Rifle grenades and mortars will be in addon, but maybe mortars will be stationery like heavy MGs (many animations requred). Also there will be smoke weaponry, but not for everyone (for example, Soviet army didn't have smoke grenades and shells until '44, only mortar mines). Sadly, there will be molotov cocktails in addon, but no flamethrowers or spreading flames. Programmers don't want to make a fake fire system, they plan accurate as i-dont-know-what fire system, which delays it. I hope it will be done, but probably serious work on this matter will start after addon release. There is much to be done in other tasks for now.

Infantry too shouldn't wander off. If one soldier goes forward then he saw enemy but didn't have LOF and advanced. This behavior will be tuned in addon along with major other changes in infantry AI, infantry squads will act as a whole, click will select entire squad (CC fans rejoice!), but selecting one soldier will be also possible.

[Sneaksie]

Originally posted by Stimo:

Sneaksie, thanks again !

It's now clear that I didn't understood everything I saw in game.

I allways refused to let my tanks go forward to engage an ennemy it saw but couldn't fire at.

I'll sure try this, and specially observe if it comes back to previous position.

I prefer to order directly too, because situations where there is only one target are rare. When tank goes to attack one target he may be wasted by another from flank for example, so hold order is usually useful. On other hand, tank must do something when it have no LOF and left alone by player (because enemy can have LOF at him), so it tries to do something.

With "don't move" assigned to my panzer, it stood looking at east, but simply refused to fire when another ennemy tank group came in my ambush zone, because none were exactly in front of him.

With it's freedom to move, my panzer left his place to engage the first ennemy group, and was instantely destroyed by flanking tank group.

I don't know exactly why it didn't fire, but i think he couldn't see them from his position even after they entered ambush area. In such situation i would order him directly to attack one of the tanks from the second group when they are close, so it will start moving towards them and fire as soon it have LOF.

When it left his ambush to engage first group did he see them or not?

I stop the archer and issue a "don't move" order.

When ennemy finally comes, the first that can be shooted is at 10 o'clock from the archer, but it doesn't turn... and would surely have died if my other tanks hadn't broke ennemy's gun.

Do you understang why I talked about SPG to be able to rotate when ordered not to move ?

Yes, but in other situation, if SPG could turn in hold stance, it would ruin your ambush for example. It's one of the things that are difficult to program to behave correctly in all situations, so it must be decided by player in each situation. I think rotating SPG when ordered to stand still would be much more frustrating:)

BTW : why is the archer so slow in game ?

It's speed is set at 5 km/h, but I saw that it's cross-country speed was almost 12km/h (8mph).

sources :

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/tanks-destroyer/archer.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer

Because archer in the game is always in battle position, moving actually backwards:) If you order him to go back, it will be faster. Driver is on the opposite side from the gun.

[Sneaksie]

Prisoners are in wishlist, nothing more specific for now.

[FinnN]

Well, if it's all or nothing then I think on balance I'd go for it to stop (or better yet retreat). After all it can then be ordered forward again anyway. Only in the case of AT guns would that leave the tank in critical danger. The current behaviour puts the tank at greater risk in all circumstances as by rushing into the enemy lines it closes with enemies that can only destroy it at close range unnecessarily. Surely though, all that'd be required is an extra check on the target to see if it can still damage it at the point that the gun is destroyed - if not then cancel the target.

Great to be getting all this information btw, looks like someone decided to change policy somewhere!

Have fun

Finn

[Stimo]

In conclusion about ambush policy, the best is to keep an eye on the trap and trigger it manually.

After all, that's what we commanders are paid for.

Because archer in the game is always in battle position, moving actually backwards:) If you order him to go back, it will be faster. Driver is on the opposite side from the gun.

I knew about the Archer built "upside down", but simply didn't tried reverse

Originally posted by Sneaksie:

When it left his ambush to engage first group did he see them or not?

He couldn't saw the 1st group, but other units could.

This and other things I saw in my early hours made me figure units were to march towards the sound of the gun. This seems to be finally wrong.

Last question then : why do those units we left at the rear without orders allways go to the frontline ?

[FinnN]

It's the infantry marching to the sounds of the guns. Basically when a man becomes aware of the enemy but can't shoot at it he goes forward to a position where he can shoot. I think there's a cut off point to this as eventually they wander back a bit, then seem to become aware again and wander forward a bit. As the becoming aware bit is dependent on skills officers and veterans are most at risk from this - which destroys unit cohesion as the rest stay in place. It's usually incredibly dangerous for the people doing it too.

If they were just moving around within a small area to adjust their positions it'd be fine, but they can end up moving large distances out of carefully chosen positions into open fields, over hills, etc. Luckily from what Sneaksie is saying this is getting addressed.

Have fun

Finn

[Sneaksie]

Originally posted by Stimo:

Last question then : why do those units we left at the rear without orders allways go to the frontline ?

One important thing about TOW is that your units have an exactly same unit AI as enemy's. If we change it so they will not turn towards and engage enemy they don't see, but other friendly units see, then AI units will behave in the same way. You would slaughter one part of enemy army while other will just stand where they don't see you and be happy:) Because of this you, player, have 'hold position' order instead.

[Sneaksie]

Originally posted by Stimo:

I knew about the Archer built "upside down", but simply didn't tried reverse

As real thing, Archer have an advantage - he can shoot and then go away fast because he don't need to reverse or turn around:)

[FinnN]

Indeed, I use 'hold position' almost 100% of the time after setup and when making moves. Couldn't it be made a default order for the player's units when a previous order expires? Certainly after setup at least?

Have fun

Finn

[Stimo]

Another suggestion I would make is about units talking.

When you select a unit, it usually says something like "ready sir !".

Basically, I know it's ready to be given orders when I select it.

What would really be usefull, is that units say "ready sir !" when they accomplished last order, so even if I don't look at it, I hear this unit is ready for next action.

[Reichenberg]

Thanks Sneaksie for all the info about the current work on ToW and for keeping us informed.

Too bad that a replay feature can not be implemented, but your explanation seems to be rather understandable.

I am sure all the planned improvements (smoke, entering buildings anyone??) will move ToW closer to the position it deserves by the potential in it.

Uwe

[rofl]

I would like to see the units can be moved but keep the hold position command until the player or script change to move free mode.

[Tartari]

Sneaksie, thanks again for giving good news!

I have 2 questions though:

Nothings about the 88 Dual Purpose gun?

Will the full map tool be one day available to us? I like the current Map Editor but it is almost useless because it has no road tracing capability and no elevation tool.

[ August 31, 2007, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Tartari ]

[Barrabas]

Very interesting read! Good to know this game will be developed further.

I would like to add my vote for a retreat option, it is really annoying having one side fight to the death every time.

Has the bolt-action animation for semi-automatic rifles (Garand and SVT) been mentioned? Will it be fixed?

Another thing. As the campaign progresses, the roster of available units become bigger and bigger. After a while it quite hard to pick out the guys you want in your "starting units" Could an option to remove units from the roster be implemented?

Thank you and keep up the good work!

[CAS]

Another thing. As the campaign progresses, the roster of available units become bigger and bigger. After a while it quite hard to pick out the guys you want in your "starting units" Could an option to remove units from the roster be implemented?

Good idea

I've added Retreat function request into our internal wiki wishlist along with most other suggestions.

I hope they can change it in the patch!

(I hate replaying missions over and over)

In new campaign i didn't see units respawn in close proximity, they are arriving from map borders, so you'll probably be content. It was not used much before because of player would be bored waiting for them to arrive. Maps are large and infantry moves slowly

I was never bored waiting for enemy infantery to arrive. (but i was annoyed about units spawning next to my hidden units)

I would gladly wait for my own reinforcements to come rolling in from a off map area. Infantery could be loaded into trucks. I would even accept that some get toasted before they enter the play area!

Alone the possibilety of off map spawn makes TOW more attractiv for me than CMSF.

Thanks for the reply.

[PV]

Sneaksie

quote

------------------------------------------------

The most popular demand was about quick mission generator. There is a number of technical difficulties concerning that and because of current game structure it is hard to implement

-------------------------------------------------

it will be in the next patch (its hard, but its posible, just nead time) or not?

tanks for the effort!

[SlapHappy]

Thanks for the info about future plans, Sneaksie.

It's been awhile since I've posted. I just wanted to comment about the plans for "enterable buildings" and building combat in general.

I posted a comment a few months ago about the two different approaches for infantry to utilize buildings. One of them was the static position approach you seem to have chosen for your implementation of the concept. I believe this is the correct approach for a few reasons...

While free-form movement within a structure may seem more realistic, it often leads to problems with units who end up in less than advantageous positions. Anyone who has played GI Combat knows what i am talking about here...I won't elaborate!

Secondly, what do you really gain by free-form building placement? Nothing as far as I can see...the downside issues are much more problematic than anything you gain in the way of graphical reality.

Even if you want soldiers to cover and not engage inside buildings, if the developers put in the capability to change from standing, prone, kneeling, etc. that should still be possible.

Another advantage is that players will have an accurate idea about what to expect from a particular building and it's capabilities as far as number of firing positions, max capacity, etc.

In effect what you are doing is treating the building as if it were an immobile vehicle with semi-hard cover...which, when you think about it, is all it really is...for purposes of the game at least.

Another advantage is that it will probably be easier to code than an abstract building model because you won't have to deal with fixing the placement problems inside buildings through complicated pathing algorithms which never seem to work anyway (see GI Combat).

I just have one request: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let us lob grenades through the windows!!!!

[SlapHappy]

Ok, so I lied. I have a few more requests.

In no particular order of importance:

I personally believe critically wounded soldiers shouldn't be able to move. They should, at best, have a very limited capability of defending themselves with sporadic fire and only when threatened in close proximity.

HMG's are kinda useless right now and here's why....There needs to be some way of putting static heavy weapons in better cover situations. Right now if your HMG opens up on a group of charging infantry, they simply mass fire on the unit and within a few seconds all the crew are dead. This simply isn't how it happened. Emplaced MG's often had to be rooted out methodically and carefully. Otherwise you had a casualty bloodbath on your hands. They were deadly.

Infantry should be able to move over SOME walls and fences. An entire squad channeled around a picket fence or a seven foot stone wall to go in a gate is ridiculous. The AI or player moving troops over walls should be penalized within the game system by the act by making his soldiers vulnerable to waiting troops on the other side of course...... On the other hand, it would be nice to see it properly implemented such that when Fritz goes over the top and gets blasted off the wall, his comrades have enough sense to not methodically follow him over and get killed in turn like automatons...I think you see my point.

Finally hand to hand combat. What I wouldn't give to see a soldier bash the enemy in the chops with a rifle butt or a pack shovel. Yeah, Yeah, I know. More animations. What a pain. Still, if you put this in, I can almost guarantee you that any reviewer will give you a bonus 3 review points simply for having it in the game

[PV]

what happens with the experience that has 1c with soldiers howw2, with the use of the direct control of the units?

the capacity to handle a tank in showw2 is super! (using the arrows key and the mouse)

[Sfox28]

This IS GREAT NEWS! As some of the people in the above statements have said.....I will dust off my TOW icon and get with the program again. It just needed some tweeking and support! Mahalo...

[markh]

Sneaksie

I, like many of the other posters, thank you for the progress report.

For my part, I am an active user of the Mission Editor and Map Editor because I prefer to make my own scenarios.

My request - if it is possible - is to have some ADDITIONAL SUMMER MAPS in the new addon, in the same way that the first update contained many new winter maps (Moscow Campaign).

I am aware that the current summer maps can be modified by the Map Editor - but the overall lay-out is still essentially the same, and these maps have become too familiar after the hours of playing I have devoted to the game.

Additional Summer maps will enhance the replay value.

I appreciate what you have said about how time consuming creating such maps can be - but I for one would not be seeking a faithful recreation of a particular part of France, Germany of Poland, merely a series of generic new rural (and hopefully small town) maps on which to create future missions.

Regards

[Glennovich]

Sneaksie, I have 1 ? but , I think, for many gamers a very important 1! Are they (the great team of 1C) going to modifie the sounds. Even with top end graphics, good sounds are very important to shape a 'real' virtual world!

Keep up the good work!

[Aries]

Sneaksie, many thanks for the interesting update

[Freeboy]

these post are incouraging..

Here is an idea... I did not see..

HAve a hold chassis in possition command to allow tanks to rotate turret yet keep stationary...Ie hold possition, chassis, turn turret to 278 degree, to the right etc..

think about it