Paul Saunders
Posts: 21
Joined: 9/21/2000
From: Wales, UK
Status: offline
|
PREFERENCES
UNIT COMM & COMMAND CONTROL. Having these as separate features introduces interesting new possibilities. Many people don't like using Command Control because it's too restrictive, however many of these restrictions stem from units being out of communication. If Unit Comm is switched off, all units will always be in contact (irrespective of radios or the 3 hex command radius). This would make Command Control far easier to use.
Even though one would still be restricted by orders and objectives, one wouldn't "lose" units due to being out of contact, so units could function well at a distance. Those players who don't like using Command Control might do well to try switching Unit Comm off and Command Control on. This could provide some of the fun of "giving orders" without all of the disadvantages normally associated with it. It could also provide an easier way of weaning yourself onto using the full Command Control.
REDUCED SQUADS. I wondered if this effect would be cumulative, i.e. if you use this option when designing a scenario, would the squads be further reduced when playing that scenario. It turns out that it isn't. If you design a scenario with reduced squads on then play it with reduced squads off, the scenario loads as you designed it (with reduced squads). But if you play it with reduced squads on, the squad reductions are recalculated, so some may have more, some less.
Therefore, I think the best approach is to design all scenarios with reduced squads off. This would give players the choice of using full or reduced squads. If a scenario is designed with reduced squads on, it will play with reduced squads no matter what the player sets it to, so in effect there will be no choice. You could design a scenario this way to force the player to use reduced squads.
COMMAND INTERVENTIONS - TIMEOUTS. I think the timeout rule is back to front. The sooner you choose it the more time you get, which encourages players to hit the button early. But if you hit it early you won't know whether you really need it or not. You're most likely to need it if you're almost out of time and there's something else you desperately need to do, but if you press it then you'll get virtually no benefit.
In football (American) teams often save their timeouts until the last possible moment. I've seen a timeout called one second before the end of the game, this is how timeouts are used. I think a timeout should give a fixed amount of extra time (equal to the turn length?), that way they can be used when players really need them rather than when players simply think they might need them.
OPFIRE CONFIRMATION. Another great new feature, however there are a couple of things that annoy me about it. One is that I don't know what my chance to hit is. Normally when I fire at something I like to see what the odds are, especially if I risk exposing a hidden unit. It would be very helpful to see the percentage chance to hit displayed.
Secondly, if you don't choose to fire, the default is that you don't fire. However, in almost every instance I do want to fire. I'd prefer the default to be "fire if I don't cancel" rather than "don't fire unless I confirm". It would be nice to choose which of these to have as the default.
Alternatively, I'd prefer to be able to set specific units to "Opfire Confirm", so that most units could opfire automatically, but critical units would have a choice (this would speed up play in larger battles - I could set only armour units to "Opfire Confirm" for example).
Another consideration is being able to choose which weapons to opfire with, but I guess that's getting overly complex.
FEATURES
SURRENDER. Another great new feature, ideal if you're losing and you don't want to play to the bitter end. But what if you're winning and you don't want to play to the bitter end? Sometimes winning can be tedious. Couldn't the AI surrender in such a case? Perhaps you could "offer" a surrender to the AI? (The AI must not be allowed to surrender in an exit hexes scenario.)
EXIT VICTORY HEXES. When these are in place the defender immediately gets half the value of the attacker's force in victory points. The attacker is then committed to exit at least half his force to get a marginal victory against the AI (not considering other factors).
I have a scenario in which getting off the board would be desirable, but it isn't likely. I'd like to be able to win without necessarily exiting anything, but anything I do exit would be a bonus. Would it be possible for the scenario designer to specify how many points the defending force should get at the beginning of an exit hex scenario? This would give the designer a lot more control over the victory conditions.
A question. If a crew abandons a vehicle and then exits through an exit hex, do they get the full points value of the vehicle, or only the crew?
IMMOBILISATION/BREAKDOWN
Apparently a suppression of 0 is required to effect vehicle repair. At first I thought this was impossible since units can never rally back to 0 after taking suppression, but apparently they now can! I was surprised that units can now regain the advantage of being fresh.
I really like the new vehicle immobilisations caused by moving too fast or through difficult terrain, it'll help to dissuade players from using all their movement points just because they've got them. However, I notice that when a vehicle is immobilised in this way there's nothing to indicate that it's been immobilised. Immobilisation as a result of combat is displayed, but not as a result of moving too fast. This needs to be remedied. I guess the vital difference between the two is that movement immobilisation can be repaired, but combat immobilisation cannot. Is this correct?
Now here's a silly one. Immobilised motorcyclists cannot move! Couldn't they just get off the bikes and walk? Even sillier, immobilised motorcyclists can't change facing to fire at the enemy! I realise that motorcyclists are a special case, but treating them like tanks just doesn't work, perhaps this could be looked into? Maybe represent the bikes as
separate transportation?
WEAPON MALFUNCTIONS. I like this too, but when it happens the weapon in question disappears from it's slot. Surely it should remain but with a malfunction indicator? Supposedly it's possible to repair weapons, but I've yet to see this happen (presumably because it's disappeared). If the weapon is no longer listed, how am I supposed to know that I've got a malfunctioned weapon (assuming I actually have)?
TERRAIN
Hill borders don't always blend well with other terrain types, in particular rocks, boulders, mud, high grass and rough. There's always been a problem with rough not blending in certain configurations, it seems to be spreading.
In the rough and jungle terrain sets, rocks and boulders appear sunken on hilltops rather than protruding above the surrounding land.
It costs 3MP for infantry to move through rocks and boulders, surely this should be much higher for boulders?
When placing rocks/boulders onto streams, the hex info correctly lists stream/rocks, but the stream graphic disappears, it shouldn't. (This can probably be edited in WaWMap.) If you place a stream over rocks, both stream and rock graphics co-exist, but only the stream is listed in the hex info, the rocks no longer have any effect (vehicles can move through). This shouldn't happen either.
Placing rocks and boulders in streams is not only realistic for hilly/mountainous areas, but it's a good way of making streams uncrossable by vehicles (if only it worked correctly).
Stream placement has always tended to generate additional terrain (rough/swamp/beach) except when placed one hex at a time between adjacent hexes. I've always used this one-hex technique to get exactly the terrain I want under the stream. Now however, one-hex placement is generating these extra terrain types! It is now very frustrating to design stream terrain, I have to repeatedly delete the spurious terrain and it just keeps on creating more! Aargh! Can we have it the way it was before? (WaWMap may provide a solution to this, albeit a very fiddly one.)
N.B. I've just tried this again and it's not happening now, seems to be an intermittent effect.
When placing trenches I've noticed that stream/gully hexes are sometimes generated.
When trees are placed over rocks the hex info then reports trees/boulders, not that there's much difference between them.
Large groups of boulders display an unsightly hex pattern.
Vehicles can move through canals? When did this happen? I always thought canals were a major obstacle. Perhaps there should be two types, deep and shallow canals? (Perhaps this could be painstakingly edited in WaWMap?)
Canals can (or could) be used to simulate one hex wide rivers (deep and uncrossable as distinct from easily crossable streams). Unfortunately there's no graphic to join streams and rivers (canals) together. Perhaps we need a new terrain type - single-hex rivers?
The new snow terrain looks exactly the same as rough (winter tileset).
The new marsh terrain looks very much like a lake, in fact swampy areas do have lakes in them so it's good to mix these two terrains. It seems that marsh could be used to represent lakes in hilly areas. One problem though, it seems to share the same characteristics as swamp, meaning infantry and vehicles can move through them. Surely these lakes (marsh) should have more of an impediment to movement? I'm still not happy that vehicles of any type can move through swamp and marsh.
I presume the difference between the new jungle and rough tile sets is purely cosmetic, there are no different effects on movement or combat?
MISCELLANEOUS
Germans 1943 - the Stummel Sec and the Capt Tank Plt both list the same units.
Both US Jumbo tanks show the wrong accompanying picture.
The Terrain Effects Help Screen is formatted wrongly.
FINALLY
There's still no extra movement cost for infantry moving uphill. This is totally unrealistic. Using Naismith's Formula (the authoritative formula for walking/backpacking) I've calculated that moving one hex on flat ground should take 36 seconds and ascending 5 metres should take an additional 30 seconds. So moving from height 0 to a height 5 slope hex would take 66 seconds, roughly double the movement cost. This works out at 2 extra MPs per 5 height ascended. So moving from height 0 to a height 15 slope hex should cost 2MP + 6MP = 8MP. This would be far more realistic. Steep slopes would then have a real effect.
I'm very happy that we now have some mountainous terrain types, but infantry can still run up and down hills without getting out of breath (I wish I could do that). I know of no other wargame that doesn't penalise uphill movement for infantry. BTW, moving at least one hex should always be allowed even if the cost exceeds what the unit has available.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
SPWAW v4 Comments, Bugs and Suggestions - 
- 
...and if David Heath is listening - Congratulations to all the team on the best SP yet. You guys are the best!
But I do have a question. Is there a way in future versions for the victory margins to be changed? For example in a battle with small victory values, no matter how well you do against the enemy you still only manage a draw. To illustrate this i did an FAP scenario in Normandy where you have a number of tigers blocking the road against a strong force of Allied tanks. I absolutely annihilated them with a 6:1 kill rate. But because of the low victory points I still only got a draw. This should be a serious setback for the Allies because they didn't even reach the victory exit hex. It's a little bit annoying to do so well in a scenario only to be rewarded with a 'draw'.
Just a thought....
Albert
- 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread