Suggestions for improvement

[Larry2017]

I've been a programmer for many years. I have personally experienced the joys of maintaining legacy applications written by other people many years ago.

When people make suggestions, they almost certainly are trying to be helpful. Telling them "that's just the way it is and that's the way it's going to stay" isn't a good way to encourage more input from your customers. If something isn't practical because it would break lots of code and require a major code rewrite, just say so. Your customers will understand.

Speaking of which:

>> In SP series games an abandoned unit is now a map decoration. It can be destroyed by a unit of yours camping out on the same hex for a turn, but that is the only way you can destroy the decoration. It's built into the basic code that way, and to redo that would mean writing a new game from scratch, where guns and vehicles came as 2 separate conjoined units at the start, infantry as 1 unit.

I understand now... major rewrite. But maybe not totally from scratch :-) Thank you for the explanation.

But let me put a bug in your ear for sometime when you're bored :-)
You already have a game mechanism for this: trucks with loaded infantry. So why not artillery with loaded crews. I know it's not the "same" but it's a starting point.

[DRG]

If people make suggestions, we consider them and if we agree it gets implemented which has happened many, many times over the 2 decades we've been doing this and if we don't then it doesn't and that's just the way it is.

[Mobhack]

If abandoned things were still considered active targets then the AI would as likely expend valuable ordnance killing them off rather than moving on to "live" targets.

[lansoar]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

If abandoned things were still considered active targets then the AI would as likely expend valuable ordnance killing them off rather than moving on to "live" targets.

This is an important point. a feature enhancement such as described needs to take into account the limitations of the AI routines of which I would offer are the majority of the situations players face with this game. (maybe I'm wrong, but I've rarely had the time to schedule a human vs human play by email battle)

A lot of work has gone into making the AI a "decent" opponent in a variety of situations from attack to defense. Artillery remains a problematic issue as even in the latest versions of WinSP the AI often seems to "be a step behind" the actions of the human opponent. I should know.....I've often been thankful that a massive Soviet BM-XX bombardment was 500-1000 meters behind where my units are in the current turn. A human opponent would not be so forgiving.

I agree with Mobhack that this enhancement might result in further making the AI focus on non essential targets.

[DRG]

In SP, guns are not the target, the crew is and that is baked into the basic code and we don't see the need, or have the desire to change that. Once abandoned guns cease to function and are no longer "targets" for the AI or the human player but a crew that has been forced to retreat from the gun can rally and recrew it which re-activates the gun to target status but until they recrew the gun THEY are the legitimate targets.

Vehicles are targets until destroyed and then maybe a crew bails out and then the surviving crew becomes a legitimate target but a gun crew is not inside a gun, it crews from outside and that's the way it is.

[Crazy_Dutch]

To increase the number of weapons slots from 4 to 6 or 8

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Crazy_Dutch

To increase the number of weapons slots from 4 to 6 or 8

Been suggested many times in the past 2 decades both inside and outside the development team and it could be done with a total re-write of the code which is why it hasn't and won't be done

[Mobhack]

Not just a total rewrite of the code, each and every scenario would need to be reengineered, including those buried inside the campaign games. Also every save game on everyone's own hard drive would need an updater run manually by them at thier end. Any PBEM games in progress would be toasted (normal for any update).

Needless to say umpteen end users then would completely ignore any message on the installer (even if in red text and a pop-up alert was displayed to that effect) and then they would write in with "my save game exploded!" type messages...

So, not going to happen. A change to the basic game data structures so fundemental would really require a brand new game from the ground up, with all new scenarios and campaigns being written just for it as a rewrite is likely to miss bits leaving "gotchas". And it would sold separately of course!.

Likelyhood of that happening is vanishingly small.

[ctcharger]

New to the party but #3 would be really nice. I understand the fog of war argument but with current state of graphics relative to what the soldiers would have available, giving us at least the option is warranted imho.