Campaign Series Vietnam

[MikeGER]

Sorry, no. They are what they are.

no problem  :)

thanks for the ultra fast response   :bd:

[Crossroads]

thanks for the ultra fast response   :bd:

You are welcome! It is Friday evening, I don't have a life, so of course I am here by my computer  :nerd:

[Blucher]

I really love the fog of war in this. Its outstanding Viet Cong dissapear into the jungle its great.

[devoncop]

I really love the fog of war in this. Its outstanding Viet Cong dissapear into the jungle its great.

It is part of what makes this game special.

Really atmospheric game to play.

[Crossroads]

Thanks guys, also why it took us the time it took to deliver the game. So many basic features such as Concealment factors and modifiers were totally revamped, in addition to making them part of Adaptive AI data, so can be tuned at per-scenario basis.

[Pete Dero]

Edit: this here, right?

yes  :)

i have another personal comfy improvment question:

Is there a file somewhere that i can edit (with a text editor) to change a few hotkey bindings?

instead of the arrow keys i would like to use WASD and so had to change some bindings

You could use Autohotkey for this  (https://www.autohotkey.com/docs/misc/Remap.htm - https://www.autohotkey.com/docs/KeyList.htm).

I need this sometimes as I live in one of the few countries who uses Azerty keyboards, but is also useful in many other cases.

[ArizonaTank]

While I want the devs to keep up the good work...hopefully somebody is starting work on a new engine.

It would be a bummer if we go into the middle of the 21st century with a 20th century game engine.

Cheers @Arizona Tank, do you mean the presentation layer of the game? If I may rephrase this a bit:

What we did with CS Middle East is we took our time bringing the Game ("rules") engine from World War 2 to Modern Wars (up to 1985) level. New weapons systems, new capabilities, etc. This work with Game engine (as I defined it here) continued with CS Vietnam, in particular with how different the Vietnam battleground was with vasts Jungles. Concealment, tactics, it took a while.

Then, the Lua based Event Engine was upgraded to what it is now, with over 800 function apis each scenario can call as it is being played. That took a good time to implement as well.

Now, with Game and Event engines in good shape, yes, we have plans for upgrading our Graphics engine as well, there's no date on that yet though.

I don't want to throw the thread off the tracks...so I'll just say this:

Ultimately, an upgrade graphically won't really get there IMHO.

Right now it seems like all of the JTS family of games are locked into a very old fashioned UI flow that was good 25 years ago...but has fallen far behind these days (IMHO); basically using the same UI framework for everything.

I guess my word, "game engine" doesn't really capture what I mean. Maybe what is closer to what I mean is the "look, feel and ease of use" of the game.

For examples of what I mean look at "War in the East 2." It is arguably more complex than most JTS based games...but the interface is a great tool, not a chore. Another example would be "Lock'n Load Tactical Digital" that has a wonderful UI flow. I'd also give honorable mention to the "Decisive Campaigns" series.

And while I am dreaming about UI, it might also be wonderful to someday have a 3d map....I might say that is a leap...but then there is "Grand Tactician: The Civil War" that is getting very close to Nirvanna.

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to say the games you guys are putting out are not great...  They are great, and I have all of them. You guys are clearly working wonders with the tools you have...but I am just trying to make a humble suggestion.


 

[Jason Petho]

it might also be wonderful to someday have a 3d map

Alas, yes, that is a lovely dream to have indeed. The problem with that, from a scenario design perspective, is a couple of things. 1. Game Scale. The scale that we're creating the game at is platoon level. The action that you'd be seeing would be too small to be useful. 2. That would put a stop to any of the big scenarios that we like to build due to the limitations of the hardware that most people have. Our maps are HUGE, 3D in these type of games tend to be limited in size due to a variety of hardware limitations. Would be nice to have? Absolutely. Realistic? No, unfortunately.

the interface is a great tool, not a chore.

How would you suggest improving the interface? What is wrong specifically with the current interface that is complicated to use? I'm genuinely curious.

Thank you for your feedback and support!

[Jarhead0331]

the interface is a great tool, not a chore.

How would you suggest improving the interface? What is wrong specifically with the current interface that is complicated to use? I'm genuinely curious.

Thank you for your feedback and support!

I wasn't asked, but I'll echo the sentiment. One of my few complaints with CSVN is the UI, and I realize this has nothing to do with the team, but the underlying engine of the game.

It is little things like having to change from movement to fire mode...the way units need to be selected or unselected in stacks...some of the colors make it difficult to perceive which units are actively selected...having to hit F2 and go to the unit handbook to see the organization of a particular unit (this is something that should be in the unit sidebar)...the frustrating Windows "ding!" sound that goes off every time you try to do something that the UI doesn't want to let you do...

So, it's a bunch of little things that add up to make the UI feel very archaic and antiquated. I do think it holds the game from having a little bit of a broader appeal. Of course, nothing that is going to hold any of us Grogs back!

[Jason Petho]

Thank you!! That's the kind of feedback that helps us sort out how to "modernize" the UI!

It's in the details... thank you for sharing the details!

[Jarhead0331]

This one has me scratching my head...

Its the 1948 Battle for Giong Dinh pitting a French airborne force supported by Foreign Legionnaires against a fairly heavily defended Viet Minh HQ force entrenched in the village. I made steady progress, took all objectives in the village with relatively light casualties and held village points for long enough to earn three event based point awards. It appears the majority of the enemy force was wiped out too...so, how in the heck was this a minor defeat for the French? What is the arbitrary objective that I failed to achieve?   Is it that I did not find and destroy the weapon and supply caches? The briefing did not make it sound like this was a primary objective, the failure of which would result in a defeat, even in the face of successful occupation of all map objectives.

[Jason Petho]

Ah yes... that is one that is about subtly in the scenario briefing. I've tried to explain that not everything will be spelled out for you in detail. There is an additional mission of probing outside of the village areas to hunt down supplies and the headquarters that is around the area.

That is where you will gain the victory by holding the objectives, killing the VC, but also going out to find the supplies and headquarters and destroying them.

If you just sit in the village area where the objectives are, you won't win.

[Jason Petho]

I'll update the mission briefing to emphasize the importance of that part of the mission.

I'll include it in 1.01

[Jason Petho]

"MISSION:\n" ..
                   "\n" ..
                   "Your primary mission is to secure the village of Giong Dinh.\n" ..
                   "\n" ..
                   "Clearing the village of all Viet Minh forces and be on the lookout for any supplies as a secondary mission. If they are found, they should be destroyed. Expands your area of operations to search out these caches.\n" ..
                   "\n" ..

That should help clarify the missions. That was on one of the first scripts and briefings I wrote, so hadn't got the hang of ensuring all the details were there, but not too obvious.

Hope that helps.

[Jarhead0331]

Ah yes... that is one that is about subtly in the scenario briefing. I've tried to explain that not everything will be spelled out for you in detail. There is an additional mission of probing outside of the village areas to hunt down supplies and the headquarters that is around the area.

That is where you will gain the victory by holding the objectives, killing the VC, but also going out to find the supplies and headquarters and destroying them.

If you just sit in the village area where the objectives are, you won't win.

I understand that some ambiguity involving the objectives, strength, location, etc. of the enemy and perhaps other matters (ie. civilian presence) makes a lot of sense, particularly with respect to this conflict, but I don't think that ambiguity should carry over to the player's own objectives or their importance for spelling the difference between victory and defeat. This needs to be spelled out clearly. I also think where there are primary and secondary objectives, the point allocation needs to be adjusted to achieve an outcome that makes sense. For instance, since clearing the village and holding it is the primary mission, shouldn't accomplishing this result in at least a draw or minor victory, while also achieving the secondary mission will result in the major victory? If not, there should be an indication that command will not consider the mission a success unless...

In any event, the disappointing end result did not impact the enjoyment I had playing through the scenario. It was a real nail biter. Jumping into a rice paddy and advancing to contact in the vill.  Great stuff.

One other point I'd like to make...I wish there was more visual material in the game. Like photos of units and vehicles in the unit handbook or photographic or artistic unit cards on the sidebar.  Sort of like what you see in the other Tiller titles.