Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What's Your Opinion on Renamed Units?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> What's Your Opinion on Renamed Units? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What's Your Opinion on Renamed Units? - 4/10/2001 10:39:00 PM   
Paul Lewis

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 1/3/2001
From: Fort Erie, ON CANADA
Status: offline 		Which format do you guys prefer? For example: "US Rifle Sq" (Generic Default) or "229th A/2Pn/3Sq" (Historic) Some players don't like the historic naming because it doesn't tell them what the unit is. Others like the historic references, and don't mind right-clicking to see what the unit consists of. Do you guys find that the historic renaming of units interferes with your gameplay? Please respond!

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 4/10/2001 10:52:00 PM   
dox44

 

Posts: 668
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: the woodlands, texas
Status: offline 		generic...

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 2
- 4/10/2001 10:56:00 PM   
Christian Blex

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Muenster, Germany
Status: offline 		I prefer the historic naming. It underlines the feeling of replaying/rewriting history.

_____________________________

"Kotzen und kleckern!!!"

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 3
- 4/10/2001 11:01:00 PM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline 		It is nice to be historic but when it comes to naming units I like generic. You start naming all the units then you don't no what kind of units you shooting with was it a 50 or 37 ect.. Then you have to look at the unit screen all the time or renaming everything makes for very slow play. Tankhead

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 4
- 4/10/2001 11:07:00 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2963
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I like the "historic" idea, but prefer the "generic". It´s simply more playable. ____________ RockinHarry

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 5
- 4/10/2001 11:12:00 PM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		The historic is more realistic, but Generics are more playable. In Campaigns (Generated Campaigns) I like to name certain units in the Kampfgruppe style, with the number of the Company commander. It's fun.

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 6
- 4/10/2001 11:38:00 PM   
ruxius

 

Posts: 909
Joined: 5/5/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline 		As usual truth is in the middle...I like it very much to have historical names..it gives much more importance to what units represent .. on the other hand you have to know what to do with that unit..so it's not easy to decide.. untill we will not have a longer size field for names I try to do half and half... So I named some units as "Dubat inf" to make clear it is infantry,while Dubat is some less generic indication about them.. Other times I wrote "Ras Tafan" only trusting in the icon showing a group of infantry... This is a careful question...but finally I vote for historical...IMHO if one wants anonymous and fast play any on-line battle or any campaign generator could be the right alternative.. a scenario as it required creativity is worthy of a little "HQ-studying/inspecting" about..

_____________________________

Italian Soldier,German Discipline!

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 7
- 4/10/2001 11:53:00 PM   
Alexandra


Posts: 546
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		Well, I fall in the middle here. I love to rename units. But I don't really like the way it's done in the example because it relies on the player understanding what all the subparts mean, and not everyone does. For that matter, not all armies name thier subunits the same way. I always rename my units in campaigns, using a formula. The A0 gets renamed to HQ . Infantry units gets renamed with the type, and what platoon and squad they are, for example Rifle 1-1. . Armor stays generic, until the vehicle gets 5 kills, then it gets renamed after the vehicle commander. This allows me to find my best tankers quickly when I need them! I don't believe, however, that the gerneric labels are any more playable than renamed units. After all, if you know that country and time period, then you know what the units have and what they can do, regardless of the names. And if you don't, you'll need to refer to the unit stats often in any case. And, the combat messages are the same if a unit is renamed. If I have a Lt Zieger in a Mk IIIh, and I'm using the generic name, I'll see a combat message like: PzIII-h fires 50mm gun at Stuart 1a with 35 percent chance to hit. If I've renamed it, I'd see the same message except with Lt. Ziegler where PzIII-h would be. I can see it being an issue, perhaps, in head to head play if you rename units while playing a nation that your foe doesn't know, but that can also be a sort of fog of war. After all, the first time the Germans saw T-34s, or the Russians saw Panthers, thier AT gunners couldn't right click to see what they were called and armed with :) Alex

_____________________________

"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 8
- 4/11/2001 12:03:00 AM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Lewis: Which format do you guys prefer? For example: "US Rifle Sq" (Generic Default) or "229th A/2Pn/3Sq" (Historic) Some players don't like the historic naming because it doesn't tell them what the unit is. Others like the historic references, and don't mind right-clicking to see what the unit consists of. Do you guys find that the historic renaming of units interferes with your gameplay? Please respond!
Problem, when you upgrade the name changes back to the generic. So you have to rename them everytime you upgrade. It would help if you could print out a list of your units. Then you could note what type of unit it is.

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 9
- 4/11/2001 12:25:00 AM   
O de B

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: France, Paris
Status: offline 		If it's for a historical scenario design, I vote for : "229th A/2Pn/3 Rifle Sq" Or if too long : "229 A/2/3 Rifle" Therefore i can see the type of unit and have also historical info.

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 10
- 4/11/2001 12:25:00 AM   
Redleg


Posts: 1805
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline 		When units are named in Finnish, German, Czech, etc formats, I just ignore them. I can take it or leave it but when they get too cute, I would rather leave it. :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 11
- 4/11/2001 12:42:00 AM   
USMCGrunt

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 1/17/2001
From: Yarmouth, ME, US
Status: offline 		My preference is the generic names. I like playing beach assaults and with swarms of infantry running around, I hate have to right click through 20+ units looking for the engineers or assault squad to attack a bunker.

_____________________________

USMCGrunt Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll! -Rudyard Kipling-

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 12
- 4/11/2001 12:56:00 AM   
Fabs

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline 		I am a historic names fanatic, so much so that if I am developing a fictitious scenario I will invent a fictitious unit to give it a historic designation. I do this for units that are evident, for instance a 6th Green Howards squad would be called 6GH, A,1,2 for 6th Green Howards, ACoy. 1st Platoon 2nd Squad. If they are Engineers I would call them 6GH Sappers. Sometimes you need to adapt.

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 13
- 4/11/2001 1:14:00 AM   
lnp4668

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I ususally name mine by unit type/status (elite, veteran, etc) That way I know which units needs some kills :)

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 14
- 4/11/2001 1:33:00 AM   
DoubleDeuce


Posts: 1247
Joined: 6/23/2000
From: Crossville, TN
Status: offline 		I use both. Just depends on the situation. If I was designing a scenario I would want to use the historic/military type abbreviations to make it easier for the player to get into the whole scene. If I was playing PBEM or online I would not worry about it due to the time involved in doing the naming. Besides it only makes it easier for your opponent to target your leaders :(

_____________________________

My Combat Campaigns Blog

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 15
- 4/11/2001 1:58:00 AM   
Christian Blex

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Muenster, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

originally written by redleg When units are named in Finnish, German, Czech, etc formats, I just ignore them
In fact, I realy love the German namings. :D

_____________________________

"Kotzen und kleckern!!!"

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 16
- 4/11/2001 6:26:00 AM   
troopie

 

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline 		I rename units in small scenarios, or special forces, (e.g SASgrp Ackroyd) or give them call signs (HZ1-rifle). In large scenarios or campaigns, I use the generic. troopie

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 17
- 4/11/2001 6:45:00 AM   
victorhauser

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline 		I prefer generic with the option to rename units of my choice.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 18
- 4/11/2001 6:52:00 AM   
Don Doom


Posts: 2446
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Lost somewhere in the upper backwoods of Michigan!
Status: offline 		I like both. I have learn to just name the A0,B0 or C0 of the groups with names. That way you can still see what the group is. :D

_____________________________

Doom
Vet of the Russian General Winter
For death is only the begining

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 19
- 4/11/2001 9:40:00 AM   
Flashfyre

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: Waynesboro, PA, USA
Status: offline 		In most cases, I prefer "historical" or unit-style IDs for my troops. I find it easier to keep platoons/companies together. Example: US Rifle company (B0) ABLE Co HQ (C0) ABLE 1/1stPltn (C1) ABLE 2/1stPltn (C2) ABLE 3/1stPltn (D0) ABLE 1/2ndPltn (D1) ABLE 2/2ndPltn (D2) ABLE 3/2ndPltn (E0) ABLE 1/3rdPltn (E1) ABLE 2/3rdPltn (E2) ABLE 3/3rdPltn (F0) ABLE ScoutLdr (F1) ABLE Scout1 (F2) ABLE Scout2 (G0) ABLE 60mm Mtr (G1) ABLE MMG1 (G2) ABLE MMG2 (G3) ABLE MMG3 I hate looking thru 30+ "US Rifle Squad"s to find all the members of the 3rd Platoon. Especially after some of them rout and blend in with the reserves. :mad: In some cases (historical scenarios), I use the actual names, i.e. 2/17 A/1/1P for the 1st squad, 1st platoon of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment. :D And, of course, in campaigns I always rename my A0 leader as myself. :p

_____________________________

The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@onemain.com[/email]

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 20
- 4/11/2001 9:50:00 AM   
McGib

 

Posts: 395
Joined: 6/26/2000
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Don Doom: I like both. I have learn to just name the A0,B0 or C0 of the groups with names. That way you can still see what the group is. :D
This is my preference. Rename the unit commander's and leave the rest as is.

_____________________________

Ready Aye Ready

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 21
- 4/11/2001 10:39:00 AM   
Paul Lewis

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 1/3/2001
From: Fort Erie, ON CANADA
Status: offline 		Wow! Thanks very much for the responses! It looks like so far, 9 like Generic, 6 like Historical, and a couple are in between. Interesting note here (and I can say this because I'm Canadian and love you all equally :D ) that it seems the European players have more tolerance for the complicated historical names than the Americans. We could do a case study on that! Anyway, I asked you all this because my scenario "The Reduction of Calais" is included in the next SP:WAW release. It showcases the new city graphics I created for the game (that's me blowing my bugle there) and I have opted to go halfway on the unit naming. Therefore a section of the "Royal Winnipeg Rifles" (yes, it's a Canadian scenario!) will appear as only "RWR Rifle Sec". You can't please everyone, I guess! As Redleg says...Guns Up!

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 22
- 4/11/2001 11:51:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		You can strike a happy medium in most cases. That is what I strive for. Example: InfSqd 1P/CoA Or: MkVI 1P/Co2/1B As long as I can squeeze in enough to let you know it is a leg unit, artillery or armor, that works for me. So mine would be a dukes mixture so to speak. If we can give it a little historical flavor, fine, but keep it playable and easy to understand. I took it a step further in the Betio scenario where I knew the names of the American tanks that made it to shore, Chicago, China Gal, etc.... Not everyone has the knowledge historically to really understand these hieroglythics anyway, just like I don't know how to spell hieroglythics :D Some good examples of units named can be found in the various D-Day scenarios I have done. Maps were done by that master mapmaker, Drake. I think you all have a point and it is a very good topic, Paul. Beautiful graphics too, may I add, Guns!

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 23
- 4/12/2001 8:13:00 AM   
BruceAZ


Posts: 608
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: California
Status: offline 		I prefer generic but always rename key commanders. Bruce Semper Fi

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 24
- 4/12/2001 10:00:00 AM   
Warrior


Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		You know what my choie is, Paul. But for the guy looking through all the troops to find 3rd Platoon members... if you click on the platoon leader doesn't it highlight all platoon members?? Or was that in an earlier version of the game?

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.



(in reply to Paul Lewis)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> What's Your Opinion on Renamed Units? Page: [1]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141