RE: Game Suggestions:

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Game Suggestions:

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions:

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/7/2011 7:43:08 PM

neuromancer

Posts: 627
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
It is always a problem with wargames that the pace of operations will tend to be higher than historical unless players are limited somehow. However, I think Soviet offensive capabilities should be restricted more by supply availability. The Static concept seems a bit artifical. After 1941 neither the Soviets nor the Germans could bring forward the supplies necessary for offensive operations on more than part of the front.

+1!

Supply is sometimes more of a limiting factor in what military forces can do than anything else. It was quite possibly the single largest limiting factor for the Germans over the course of the war, and had a very significant impact for both sides on the East Front.

This doesn't seem to be adequately represented in this game.

HQ build-up could be revamped as a way of sending supplies to a specific front in preparation for an attack. It doesn't do anything other than send supply to that HQ and its units that turn, and focus supply flow on that HQ and its units for the next few turns. Although you'd need an idea of how much supply you have available to do that with so you don't spread your supplies too thin - which shouldn't really be too hard.

If the overall availability of supplies is reduced, and that most of the time the supplies are allowed to build up (slowly!) for these offensives then you could represent the historical limitations more accurately.

Obviously some supplies would be going out to every unit every turn, but as long as they are just sitting there holding the line, their use of supply and (in particular) ammunition should be low. The system wouldn't try for 100% levels normally, some sort of comfortable maintenance level so they could defend effectively if attacked.

But if you want to go on the offensive, and thus really burn through ammo and other supplies, you need to bring forward stocks for that offensive. Facing a heavy offensive you should need to bring up extra supply for the defending units as well (in August and September, units all along the line stopped to resupply, but heavy attacks against AGC caused them to burn through ammo at an accelerated rate, and so while they repulsed the Soviet attacks, ended up with even less ammo available than when they started).

You don't (or at least shouldn't) have enough for the entire front, so you have to pick your battles.

Literally.

Right now I will most likely attack with EVERY unit that is in contact with the enemy, every turn except blizzard - usually a deliberate attack if I'm just trying to punch the enemy because he's there - and that is kinda silly.

< Message edited by neuromancer -- 6/7/2011 7:59:35 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 271

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/7/2011 11:09:02 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1823
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

As noted above, in 1942, the Soviet supply level after build-up for the Kharkov operation was only 1.5 times the unit of fire on average, with some well below a unit of fire. This against a supply requirement of 5.5 units of fire for artillery and 4.5 units for most other weapons.

This is when supply was 'good', and stockpiles were being built... in areas of troop concentration, the supply density must fall from that which could be attained elsewhere unless exceptional efforts are made.

(in reply to neuromancer)

Post #: 272

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/8/2011 1:08:45 PM

Chris10

Posts: 114
Joined: 6/7/2011
From: Germany,living in Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
There are some things that for WitE won't change, like the 10 mile per hex scale or the fact that we use an IGOUGO system. That won't change either. Nor will you see phasers, photon torpedoes, nor heavy armored vehicles like you see below

Some reasonable country and division type related unit sprites with pop up info boxes with an on/off function for nato symbols and a coloured frame around them (green,yellow,orange,red) for indicating instant unit strength and combat readiness and a sprite/symbol swap depending on zoom level + 1 additional zoom-in level are some reasonable game improovements who certainly could make the game more accessable and appealing to more no hardcore hexgamers.

That said..when having more than 1 unit on hex only the strongest could be displayed dy default and the others get invisible and on selecting a certain unit the selected unit sprite is displayed...

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 273

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/9/2011 6:39:11 PM

Omat

Posts: 2414
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline

Hello

I don`t know where to post this problem there for I post it her. In tech forum it seems the wrong froum because nobody reacted.

GC 1941-1945 the Italian "Autotransportabile IT Corps" don�t have a leader assign. Therefore never a leader can be assgigne to this corps...

In the "Operation Barbbarrossa" scenario Zingales is in command. So I suggest to change it the same way.

Here are some pictures and a save where you see the problem:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2832703

Omat

< Message edited by Omat -- 6/9/2011 6:57:23 PM >

_____________________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

(in reply to neuromancer)

Post #: 274

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/9/2011 6:42:58 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I don`t know where to post this problem there for I post it her. In tech forum it seems the wrong froum because nobody reacted.

GC 1941-1945 the Italian "Autotransportabile IT Corps" don�t have a leader assign. Therefore never a leader can be assgigne to this corps...3 solutions:

- delete this corps from the GC 1941-1945 or
- assign a leader even if it not historically the right one or
- change the code. If this happen it should be possible to change the leader for free

Here are some pictures and a save where you see the problem:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2832703

Omat

I'll get it noted over on the tester forum.

_____________________________

(in reply to Omat)

Post #: 275

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/9/2011 8:03:55 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 276

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/9/2011 10:04:37 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

This has been an issue for quite some time and honestly I don't know the best answer for it. The time to build forts has been extended and there are some limitations already in place and have been since release. Players still manage though to build massive in-depth defenses that make it tough for either side to break thru. It's a pretty tough balance to make sure that the Soviets aren't just over run prior to the first winter but then ensure that the Germans in 42 have a chance at making historical gains.

We've discussed this in length on the tester forum at one time or another. Ap cost was one possible solution but nothing definitive has yet been decided. Other issues have taken precedence so far.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 277

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 12:06:06 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I would really like the morale of air units displayed on the list when assigning to an airfield. At the moment you have ready and experience displayed. PLEASE can morale be added.
Here is what I have to do to select an airgroup with a high enough morale when assigning to an airfield. And each turn I might be assigning 50+ groups (I rotate when morale gets too low).

1. Go in to the Commanders Report
2. Select say all MIG's in Reserve.
3. Note down by hand the units with a suitablely high morale for service in the front.
4. Go back to the airfield.
5. Hit assign.
6. Search through the list looking for eg 156 IAP or whatever.
It's a royal pain!

If I could simply see morale listed next to RDY and EXP then it would save soooo much time.

Maybe I am missing an easier way? If so please enlighten me. When assigning an air unit to an airfield via the map I like to know a units ready aircraft, its exp and morale.

I suspect I might be missing something because surely this would be an issue with other players.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 278

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 12:37:07 AM

neuromancer

Posts: 627
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
We've discussed this in length on the tester forum at one time or another. Ap cost was one possible solution but nothing definitive has yet been decided. Other issues have taken precedence so far.

One thought is that - as you likely know - most board games don't allow for unlimited entrenchment. Usually you aren't allowed to entrench unless the unit is relatively close to the enemy, or perhaps an important location. Simply digging a bunch of trenches in the middle of nowhere because the enemy MIGHT make it this far is apparently not approved of in war time (better things to do).

Actually, if you are entrenching far behind the lines, you are sending the message you expect to need to fight this far back. Which would be bad for morale, and a "defeatist mentality" which could result in a trip to a Gulag. So there is a political reason that may have been a significant limitation on unlimited entrenchment (although some preparations were made, again at key places).

Also it should be remembered that building these fortifications wouldn't exactly be easy work. Units entrenching - or at least working hard at entrenching as opposed to regular position preparation a unit might make anywhere it camps - could well keep fatigue up, lead to attrition losses through injury and accident, and consume supplies at a higher rate than regular garrison duty (a person working hard needs more calories than someone who is just doing light duty and maybe patrols).

Perhaps a unit will only dig to fort level 1 on its own (much like what security detachments seem to do)? But to entrench further requires them to be in actual entrench mode, whereupon all sorts of effects could be activated (only works within X hexes of an enemy unit or Y hexes of a city hex, and the previously mentioned fatigue/ supply/ attrition issues). And of course then the unit couldn't be refitting or a reserve unit if its entrenching.

And further, it could be argued that to reach level four entrenchment requires a level of equipment not typically found in a military unit. That could be considered beyond just digging holes and trenches, but significant fortification, so a combat unit must have a construction unit attached (at least available to their immediate HQ).

Not sure if any or even all of these ideas would fix the problem entirely, but might be a step towards correcting it - sadly it also includes another level of actions a player has to keep track of.

That's my thoughts on the subject. Hope some of it helps.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 279

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 10:03:41 PM

saintsup

Posts: 133
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

I second the statement. I made a very good 41 against a PBEM noob (Leningrad + 4,5 M losses) and I'm facing a Kursk like front in summer 42 that I cannot break, including massing 4 Pz armies, all aerial support, all pioneers, ...

Not very sure about the solutions though ...

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 280

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 10:39:21 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

Now I am a bit fed up with the casualty counter resetting at random times. It can be virtually impossible to get a picture of what your losses were during the enemy turn. I also suspect that the counter can reset if you save the game in the middle of a turn and then reload. Really, how hard can it be? Sorry, that didn't sound too constructive... But how about skipping that thing with showing losses during the enemy turn first and just have it like this? (The numbers are identical because I copied the columns, but they would of course be different in reality).

The non-combat loss values seem almost random, so those can be removed to save space.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to saintsup)

Post #: 281

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 10:50:21 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: saintsup

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

I second the statement. I made a very good 41 against a PBEM noob (Leningrad + 4,5 M losses) and I'm facing a Kursk like front in summer 42 that I cannot break, including massing 4 Pz armies, all aerial support, all pioneers, ...

Not very sure about the solutions though ...

What version was this game played with? 1.04 has lower fort building and many other changes.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to saintsup)

Post #: 282

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 11:01:40 PM

saintsup

Posts: 133
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: saintsup

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

I second the statement. I made a very good 41 against a PBEM noob (Leningrad + 4,5 M losses) and I'm facing a Kursk like front in summer 42 that I cannot break, including massing 4 Pz armies, all aerial support, all pioneers, ...

Not very sure about the solutions though ...

What version was this game played with? 1.04 has lower fort building and many other changes.

It was 1.04 all along, upgrading as beta patches came out

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 283

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 11:03:21 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: saintsup

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC. (snip...)

What version was this game played with? 1.04 has lower fort building and many other changes.

Started with 1.04, continously upgraded to latest beta, now on 1.04.24.
AAR: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2792361&go=last

You can see the same tendency in 76mm and Ketzas AAR, but that was started under 1.03 I think.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 6/10/2011 11:06:11 PM >

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 284

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 11:31:54 PM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

The problem here is that the commander of the Autotransportabile Corps is Gen. Francesco Zingales. This is the same guy who commands the XXXV Ital. Corps that arrives as a reinforcement in June 1942 in Southern Russia. I can't have this guy assigned to two different commands.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I don`t know where to post this problem there for I post it her. In tech forum it seems the wrong froum because nobody reacted.

GC 1941-1945 the Italian "Autotransportabile IT Corps" don�t have a leader assign. Therefore never a leader can be assgigne to this corps...3 solutions:

- delete this corps from the GC 1941-1945 or
- assign a leader even if it not historically the right one or
- change the code. If this happen it should be possible to change the leader for free

Here are some pictures and a save where you see the problem:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2832703

Omat

I'll get it noted over on the tester forum.

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 285

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/10/2011 11:38:15 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1823
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

Surely better to make one up (with a suitable notation) rather than have no possibility of a commander? Assuming that no commander is a bad thing on average?

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 286

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/11/2011 2:35:57 AM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

The Autotrans. Corps should almost never be activated anyways and even if it does, the player should be able to assign one easily enough.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Surely better to make one up (with a suitable notation) rather than have no possibility of a commander? Assuming that no commander is a bad thing on average?

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 287

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/11/2011 2:52:40 AM

Lieste

Posts: 1823
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

I might have misunderstood, but Omat appears to say that the player cannot assign a commander, because it doesn't have a slot to fill???

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 288

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/11/2011 3:42:06 PM

Omat

Posts: 2414
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline

Hello

It seems to be a problem with this game only.. I have managed to activated the Italien army again in a new game on turn 3 and here I can change now the corps leader....but with this game witch is attached here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2832703 (you can load it or simply look at the sreeshots), it is not possible...so may be a bug which not in every game occur.

An other topic is why I managed know 3 times to activated the whole italien army...but I haven`t a save game before this happend..sadly

Omat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I might have misunderstood, but Omat appears to say that the player cannot assign a commander, because it doesn't have a slot to fill???

< Message edited by Omat -- 6/11/2011 3:57:25 PM >

_____________________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 289

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/12/2011 11:11:13 AM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Now I am a bit fed up with the casualty counter resetting at random times. It can be virtually impossible to get a picture of what your losses were during the enemy turn. I also suspect that the counter can reset if you save the game in the middle of a turn and then reload. Really, how hard can it be? Sorry, that didn't sound too constructive... But how about skipping that thing with showing losses during the enemy turn first and just have it like this? (The numbers are identical because I copied the columns, but they would of course be different in reality).

The non-combat loss values seem almost random, so those can be removed to save space.

Absolutely +1.

This screen is a joke. Surely adding up a bunch of numbers correctly is not beyond this game.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 290

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/15/2011 5:02:20 PM

sven6345789

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline

this regards buildable soviet units
a) if you built a support unit in a HQ (like STAVKA), you can view the TOE of the unit before building it, thus knowing what you will get before you built it.
b) if you built a soviet unit on map via shift b (next to moscow, for example), you get the admin cost but you have no idea of the TOE of the unit before you built it unless you check similar units on map or use the editor;

suggestion: make it possible to view the TOE for on-map buildable soviet units so that you know what, for example, a breakthrough-artillery-division looks like before you built it.

regards,

Sven

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 291

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/18/2011 3:55:11 AM

traemyn

Posts: 135
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

A lot of weather suggestions that I agree with including some variations on the random weather or something like a forecast feature.

However I would like to add a separate, somewhat smaller request hopefully, that at least the First Winter Rule apply to any Blizzard turns in random weather. Currently a Soviet player can have a blizzard turn in Oct and Nov 1941 and yet get no bonus from the rule and it just doesn't make any sense to the player honestly.

(in reply to neuromancer)

Post #: 292

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/18/2011 4:40:14 AM

cpt flam

Posts: 2352
Joined: 1/16/2011
From: caen - France
Status: offline

this could be hurting as even with random weather from december to february only blizzard will occur

_____________________________

(in reply to traemyn)

Post #: 293

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/19/2011 2:30:02 AM

wpurdom

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline

Having ZOC's control vast swathes of territory regardless of the size, quality or mobility of the attcaker and the defender seems a problem Of course, any adjustment would tend to tip things toward the Axis whereas in the present build the Axis seems too strong, if anything.
If a weak, poor-morale, small force is against a strong, mobile, high morale force there should be a good possibility of the ZOC failing, especially on the scale of the east front map.

(in reply to cpt flam)

Post #: 294

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/19/2011 3:29:01 PM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) � Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule. It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode. Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail. Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 295

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/19/2011 4:34:17 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) � Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.� It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.� Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.� Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.

_____________________________

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 296

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/19/2011 5:16:23 PM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) � Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.� It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.� Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.� Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.

When they get kicked out of static mode for free do they get trucks for free as well? I have had Soviet mech units knocked out of static and I have put them back into static and they reap trucks and APs all over again. Is this WAD?

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 297

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/19/2011 6:05:13 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) � Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.� It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.� Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.� Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.

When they get kicked out of static mode for free do they get trucks for free as well? I have had Soviet mech units knocked out of static and I have put them back into static and they reap trucks and APs all over again. Is this WAD?

I'm not sure about whether or not the trucks are pulled from the pool (I'm sure they are) but getting trucks back and more ap's does occur and yes, that is by design. I am hoping that will change in the future.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 298

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/19/2011 6:36:09 PM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

Thanks for the quick reply.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 299

RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/20/2011 4:49:00 AM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

I'd like to suggest a new column in the production screen listing current total numbers for each equipment type in units. For example, how many PzIIIh's do I have in all my units? Well, the new column would tell me.

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 300