Semi-official 'work in progress' report

[Sneaksie]

Remove "ready sir"-like saying when unit is selected

=================

Lead designer said no, because it contradicts with game design.

Make 'hold' default command, keep hold after other orders

=================

Probably no. Considered as part of unit's initiative. Remember CC, when units sometimes decide to attack by themselves? It's somewhat similar. Btw, in TOW they can't ignore your hold order, while in CC they could.

Formation spacing

=================

I think that tanks are too far away from each other too by default, but this is strongly based

on army regulations of that time. Tanks are 50-60m far from each other because an infantry section of 7-10 soldiers should be able to find a room between them, with spacing between individual soldiers being 5-6m.

But in addon there will be new formation system, allowing you to modify formation spacing on-the-fly (probably by holding Ctrl key or such).

Keeping previous formation by default

=================

Imagine an infantry squad of 10 men. You can select all of them, or first 5, or 3,5,7,9, or 1,2, and 10, and the game can't keep track of all possible combinations and remember their last formation.

Use group system instead. If you have assigned group by selecting needed units with Ctrl+number, the group will remember it's formation even after deselcting or even after death of some units in the group. It's easy:)

Full map editor with elevation tool

=====================

It will be in addon. Keep in mind, however, that it still needs map drawn in graphics editor. Grass color will be determined by texture pixel in it's place, there is maximum number of statics, etc. Limitations are not critical, but they are.

Proper animation for auto rifles

=====================

Because there are very few rifles of this type in the game, problem is considered as 2nd priority. It will be fixed if animators would have time.

Retreat functions, surrendering soldiers

======================

Maybe, not clear at the moment.

When mission wizard for editor will be ready

======================

In a patch before addon release.

Wounded soldiers die, dont't move

======================

Already done in addon. Critically hit soldiers don't move and shoot and die after some time. Severely wounded can move very slowly and shoot with large penalty, etc.

Hopping over fences

======================

Already in addon.

Hand-to-hand

======================

Already in addon.

Direct control similar to games soldiers-heroes of ww2 1&2

======================

Probably never, considered as completely different type of game.

Improving sounds

======================

Being done constantly.

Use of captured equipment in next missions

======================

In addon.

Infantry distinguishable only from close distance (officer - MG gunner - AT soldier, etc.)

======================

Maybe, not clear at the moment.

[Dr.Jones]

Hi,

well done Sneaksie, nice to see that 1C is still supporting this game.

br.

Dr.Jones

[Flanker15]

Very exciting news!

[Glennovich]

HOERAAAAAAA

[Barrabas]

Thank you Sneaksie!

I'm sorry to hear that the correct animations for semi-auto rifles are seen as low priority. The way it is now, they have the same rate of fire as the bolt-action rifles, thus entirely removing their tactical advantage. I would argue that is a serious bug in a game of this character.

In the game, the Garand is the main rifle for the US forces and the SVT seems very overrepresented in the Soviet units also, so even though there are only two such rifles, they make up a rather big part of the game. I'm hoping this will be fixed.

I'll repost a suggestion that you missed. I think it's a rather good idea that might not be very hard to implement:

Another thing. As the campaign progresses, the roster of available units become bigger and bigger. After a while it is quite hard to pick the guys you want in your "starting units", because of the vast number of units and vehicles to chose from.

Could an option to permanently remove units from the roster be implemented?

Again, thank you for keeping us informed about the progress.

[Flanker15]

Dose this project have a name or a web site yet?

[SlapHappy]

Sneaksie

In regards to animations, I was wondering about all those animations that were developed for the "novelty" movie which BFC and 1C put up on Youtube, etc. with the captured russian soldier and the hilarious kung-fu sequences.

There were a ton of totally unique animations used for that feature. Aren't any of those recyclable for the game? That movie was made entirely using the regular game engine, correct?

The semi-automatic rifle is a bigger issue to most players than perhaps it is to 1C. When you consider the Garand was the standard issue rifle for the entire US Army, I feel it's improper modelling is quite an issue indeed. I've tinkered with the fire rates of the Garand and was easily able to achieve higher fire rates by switching to the SMG animation and adjusting the fire rate values. All we really need is a "semi-auto" class to assign to the Garand, Tokarev, and MP 43/44 and the required animation(s) so they look right.

[Gcoat]

Sneaksie,

"Make 'hold' default command, keep hold after other orders

=================

Probably no. Considered as part of unit's initiative. Remember CC, when units sometimes decide to attack by themselves? It's somewhat similar. Btw, in TOW they can't ignore your hold order, while in CC they could. "

1) Could this please be looked at one more time? To me, this is perhaps the most annoying and most tedious issue with ToW right now.

If AI tactical behavior and their sense of LOS/LOF and overview/memory of enemy units is greatly improved in the add-on, this is a very nice option, but right now the player constantly has to keep a close eye on its units to ensure they make the proper moves.

E.g. if a tank gets killed in a certain position, normally another one would think twice before moving to that position. The commander would send out some scouts, call in air or artillery support or take a different route. I mean, showing initiative without some kind of sound tactical plan is usually pointless. The player however, is very much capable of making these decisions.

Is it still considered to make this a player option? In that case everyone can choose if they need/like this or not.

2) One other thing that I suggest to improve is the camera movement which is too restricted near the edge of the map. I think it's better if one would be able to zoom beyond the map much further. Now sometimes you have to select your reserve units from 12 o'clock low and point you view straight down and overview is lost.

3) Is there a 'camera memory view'? I mean, I usually have a nicely chosen camera view like 150 meters high, ~ 30% downward angle so I can see the relevant battle area. However when I select e.g. a tank and press 'return' see its adversary I lose my overview and have to setup the view again.

Is it possible to 'remember' a particular camera view so I can quickly return to my generic overview?

Mark

[Gnasher]

My wish list & suggestions any chance of any of these being implemented?

On the issue of tanks vision I'd like to see 2 settings: buttoned down where tanks vision is reduced to approx 40% of what it is now to simulate looking through the vision slits & unbuttoned where vision is increased to approx 125% because of the commander's higher vantage points. This should only apply to the tank's commander & turret crew, unbuttoned crew could have the same vision as a normal infantryman would have having approximately the same head height in RL. Of course unbuttoned crewmembers would also have to be vunerable to small arms / artillery fire so that there is both an advantage & a penalty for both buttoned and unbuttoned crew. I can already imagine my delight in calling in arty & killing my MP opponent's unbuttoned tank crew doing very little damage to the tank itself allowing me to capture it & give the bastard bloody hell using his own kit....ahhh...that would be Heaven!

I think that Jabos should have either rocket or bomb loadouts in addition to just strafing attacks (IL2, P47, Me109, FW190, Typhoon), & that the bombs should have bigger explosive effect than what we have at present IMHO. Rockets/Bombs from jabos should be able to kill tanks regularly. Rockets or bombs should be selectable within the editor as a choice for the mission designer. Also we desperately need more aircraft types, especially for the RAF, Blenheims & Hurricances are just so crap for late war scenarios, as are B17s providing tactical support (unless it's alot of aircraft i.e. 20+ from 10000m+ height.) & the lack of ju87s for Eastern front battles also screams from the rooftops. With the exception of the Typhoon, these aircraft would be reusable reskinned for all allied air forces, the B25 (RAF/USAAF/VVS), A20 (RAF/USAAF/VVS), & the Axis airforce's Stukas (Bomb & 37mm loadouts selectable in editor) immediately come to mind as the highest priorities. It would also be historically correct if P47/Spitfire/Hurricane were selectable for the VVS with suitable skins. Surely IL2 3d models could be modified for ToW use making this easier to do?

Also I've noticed what seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of 100% damage to tank guns rendering them unable to fire. IMHO this should be lessened (as a sacrifice to gameplay?) with maybe an up to 60-70% accuracy penalty to the gunner to simulate hits on the tanks optics to compensate for keeping the gun firing, IIRC even HE rounds are capable of damaging a tank's optics.

Add a infantry class of Combat engineers that are able to lay/clear mines & use satchel charges to destroy tanks/objects, & at a later date use flamethrowers. Maybe one for a pay addon?

Flak36, nuff said?

[ September 03, 2007, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Gnasher ]

[Gnasher]

Another one:

Release templates & add skin options to game to grow a community of skinners for vehicles within the game.

[SlapHappy]

I agree rockets would be a nice touch to the air support, Gnasher.

Incidentally, heavier air support was originally going to be available in the game, but it was decided to remove it because BFC felt that it was outside the scope of the game's tactical level.

ie., it was overkill.....

[Gnasher]

If a range of bombs were selectable it could be taylored to the scenario by the designer.... bomblets (PTAB?), 50kg, 250kg, 500kg (approx wieight/class) should do the trick for all sides.

[Gnasher]

Ohh I'd like to emphasise that I only mean these suggestions to be selectable ass mission designer options to be used on an as needed basis.

[Txema]

Sneaksie,

Thank you very much for all the information and for taking into account the user's suggestions.

Way to go !!!

Txema

[Sneaksie]

Removing not needed squads from roster

========================

Maybe, in wishlist now.

Semi-auto rifles animation

========================

Right now animators have other tasks, maybe later.

Option for 'hold' being default stance

========================

Maybe, in wishlist now.

Return to previous camera position after unit view

========================

Problem is, it was that way and was found uncomfortable by Battlefront and 1C before release.

More planes, different loadouts for them (rockets, bombs)

========================

Work is underway, will be in addon unless serious problems arise.

Button/unbutton

========================

In general, problem lies in crew animations. By lead designer estimation, making neccessary animations for tanks only (not SPGs and armored cars) will require 180 hours of work and more.

Make camera travel further

========================

If you rise camera to high altitude (200+m)and move it to the edge of the map, you'll see graphical artifacts already (sharp texture detalisation transition). Min distance to map's edge is 180m now and lowering it further will result in you being able to see ugly 2d trees, pixels with size of a car, etc. Bad;)

[ColonelBlimp]

I think the biggest problem with the air support is how it is implemented, esp. against tanks.

IIRC at the moment the air support has a list of priority targets, with tanks being lowest priority, meaning that they hardly ever get targeted. If we could choose what type of enemy to target, with a greater variety of weaponry, this would be much more useful.

Also, I'd like to make the fighter cover universal and non-player-controlled, as currently when the enemy's planes attack, and you call for fighter support, it always arrives too late.

[nachinus]

I find that generally speaking, this game badly lacks more attention to infantry vs tank action. Infantry units severely lack ways to engage tanks, resulting in an unrealistic overpower of tanks when fighting infantry in close quarters battle.

Currently there are few weapons that infantry squads can use against armored vehicles: few AT grenades that appear late in the game, even fewer AT rocket launchers that appear even later, and some few reallistically scarce and ineffective AT rifles . During the first years battles (1939-42 aprox), almost all infanfry squads lack any AT weaponry. I'm playing German campaign right now and I needed to get to Op. Citadel ('43) to see ONE of my squads armed with some few AT grenades and ONE of my squads armed with Panzerfausts.

Until then, I couldn't chose any single squad armed with any means to fight tanks. During the previous years, apart from At rifles, the game doesn't have any weapon or tactic that infantry squads can use against tanks, which make driving tanks across enemy infantry absolutely safe: in a mission, the russians could park for a looong time a T-60 between 30 of my soldiers, surrounded by them, and it was absolutely safe. In real life, the soldiers would have used satchel charges, rifle AT grenades, magnetic or hand mines or any other system to disable it, or would have assaulted it, climbing over it, shooting through visor hatches, putting grenades in vulnerable spots and things alike. The crew of the T-60 would either be killed/injured or panicked. None of this can happen in this game, and if I wouldn't have towed an AT gun to destroy this tank, it would have safely stood there, shooting his MG at my men without any danger.

I think that adding more ways to early infantry to engage enemy tanks at close quarters battle is really needed to fill this 'realism gap'.

[Gcoat]

Sneaksie,

"Option for 'hold' being default stance

========================

Maybe, in wishlist now."

Good to hear it's in the wish list

"Return to previous camera position after unit view

========================

Problem is, it was that way and was found uncomfortable by Battlefront and 1C before release."

Okay, understand. Maybe if a smart LOS/LOF tool will be added a lot of camera movement to check units' positions can be avoided. It will likely lead to less zoom-in/out camera movement and player will have a better overview.

"Make camera travel further

========================

If you rise camera to high altitude (200+m)and move it to the edge of the map, you'll see graphical artifacts already (sharp texture detalisation transition). Min distance to map's edge is 180m now and lowering it further will result in you being able to see ugly 2d trees, pixels with size of a car, etc. Bad;)"

To me, graphics mean less than ease of play. I'm not put off by less detailed graphics near the end of a map (a bit like IL2) if it would improve camera movement and playability. It was on my wish list because reserves usually appear near the edge of the map while sometimes under attack. Right now, it's troublesome to move them quickly elsewhere.

Mark

[DTT]

Sneaksie,

It's great to see how involved you guys are with the community. Keep it up!

Possibly the future missions won't be so unbalanced

[Sneaksie]

For me, Polish campaign is the hardest. It's a pity, because many people naturally played it first and were frustrated.

I found difficulty in new Normandy campaign much more manageable, hopefully you guys will try it soon.

[FinnN]

Maybe a rating for campaigns could be added to warn people?

Glad to hear that hold position is being considered, if it's only at the end of normal move orders or when units appear as reinforcements it'd be enough.

Personally, I think I'm probably alone here, I think the player has way, way, way too much control over air support as it is and when they appear they don't seem to behave like real planes (flight-wise) anyway. I'd like ground-attack support to be made into an option to be bought at the beginning then they arrive at some random point during the mission and choose their own targets at will. Same goes for the fighters (except maybe they stay around for longer).

Good to hear the wait isn't going to be too long! (I saw end of the year for the add-on, and other stuff sooner - yipee!)

Have fun

Finn

[Banquet]

Sneaksie,

Thanks for posting this update. I must admit I was disappointed in ToW when I first bought it and shelved it after a short time. To me the biggest problems were lack of randon/quick battles, overly scripted scenario's, LOS/LOF/cover problems, lack of ability to enter buildings and (call me petty) no on map mortar teams.

It seems you have most of that covered, and more. Since reading your announcement I've given ToW another go and am enjoying it more this time. Partly, probably, due to lower expectations this time around, and partly because I can see the game has a future now, and is heading in the right direction.

Playing the game again I can see there are some wonderful touches in the gameplay. There are so many good things about ToW, I hope the patch and addon can alleviate the problems. I'll certainly buy the addon if it does what you say it will

[Banquet]

PS, I posted a short video on youtube if anyone is interested in watching. Too late for the competition, but I had fun making it!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LF_ipD7LbXw

[Slapaho]

I enjoyed that - very nice video. I liked the music, what is it?

[sandy]

Please let us know when the game has Quick Battles similar to CM1 (but NOT CMSF!) and I'll be happy to take another look.