RE: Couple of criticisms

RE: Couple of criticisms (Full Version)

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

Message

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 12:16:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: ParaB quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso I think that if you advance 3 hexes westward each turn, and your rail network extends 3 hexes westward each turn, your units can be supplied more or less adequately (or even adequately) by rail supply. The HQ supply role (their depots) become (more) relevant when your unit is not so near of your rail grid. I suppose you still have the HQ leader role in function, but you will not have their support unit function, and their support squad function. Please note that I am not giving an opinion about if that should be considered OK, but a possible explanation for your observations. That would make sense. But advancing at the rate of the railroad repair teams is sooo WW1...[;)] Funnily enough I feel more like Haig than Zhukov in my game. you take one hex in every push. Why dont you try deep envelopments?. It seems funnier, and you will see what happens when you have german Division between your units and your railgrid... And you perhaps will arrive to Berlin sooner quote: Why dont you try deep envelopments?. It seems funnier, and you will see what happens when you have german Division between your units and your railgrid... And you perhaps will arrive to Berlin sooner The AI seems to be operating a checker board defense which he just spams, I have destroyed 30 or so divisions in this offensive and forced Roumania to surrender and he still has 150 in the line. This offensive ended up more a test than actual play . In the Winter offensive up North I'll go for a master stroke.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 12:34:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Smirfy, try a 43 scenario in PBEM. I think you might just be getting a little jaded on the AI. It plays an adequate defensive game. But it's not von Manstein. A game against a human is far more gripping and free wheeling (on both sides.) All my playtesting efforts at present are in this late war period, btw, I've got a second 43 campaign going with Bob and some new late war scenarios. I am sure a human opponent would be interesting and I'm sure you would have to be more careful of CV and expect serious and upredictable counter attacks but presently I'm happy to go at my own pace. I am sure you testers are not oblivious to what might be improved and I'm sure you understand alot of people like these big campaign games because of the the sand box aspect. So you know people like the sand box to have a believable enviroment. So I have faith that you guys will raise a few points and we will see a marked improvement to a premium product. If things dont get improved in the east the west which beyond a shadow of a doubt will be a harder enviroment to model will end up a pigs breakfast. Just think of trying to attempt with what is in place now to model France 44. You guys had a Christmas release I've done beta before I know about deadlines but now you have time and a customer base.

Rosseau -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 1:06:12 AM)
+1 And it's a darn good AI still. I just can't commit the time to PBEM, so any improvements are always appreciated. Also, I am a generally poor strategist, so am blessed in that regard!

jomni -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 2:05:57 AM)
Gamplay-wise, supply is not such a problem for the Soviets in the Winter 41 offensive since railheads are pretty close to all units because of the retreat in the prior months. Distance to HQ's may not be as important as stated by the OP. But HQ still provide support units right? Another thing is that I always put my Army HQ's 5 hexes away from all the units so it really doesn't give the Soviet's any supply woes in 41. But I'm now in March 42 and my general offensive has seen some slowdown... requiring me to rest and refit armies and alternate frontline units. I see a lot of red rail hexes now.

Pawsy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:31:31 AM)
+1 I dont like the checker board defence either it stifles the game. Something needs to be done. We want depth in defence but this is just crazy.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:30:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starbuck310 +1 I dont like the checker board defence either it stifles the game. Something needs to be done. We want depth in defence but this is just crazy. Thats why we need better mechanics, right now the game has no gravity so the AI (and player) just spams units. If we had proper mechanics would stifle such practice. The old V4V series had a very simple yet elegant supply and HQ range system that penaliased the player for not maintaining C+C. Right now in game a player can string units anywhere without penalty making huge and in depth frontages possible. This just was not possible in reality. You should be getting a distance from HQ penalty after 3 hexs and it should get worse with distance. The penalties for overloading HQ's should be more severe. There should be a better distinction between HQs with penalties for moving the different types. This also means when an HQ gets displanced by a unit moving next to it, it actually effects something Right now the only brake on the game is units which is hardly elegant.

jomni -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:48:10 AM)
Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough? Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned... If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz. Maybe each side should have their own formula.

EisenHammer -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 10:26:25 AM)
I guess that would be nice if the German player would like there HQ performance downgraded as the years go by and the Russians player upgraded. The Russian HQ at the beginning of the war is about 2 or 3 hexes and the Germans about 6 or 7 hexes. And as the war goes on it moves too 5 hexes at 43-44 for both sides. And then at 45 the Russian are at 6 and the Germans are at 4 or 3 hexes. With the closer to your HQ your units are the more morale, supplies, and fuel you get. And also maybe cut HQ MPs in half to make up for the extended range of the HQs.

timmyab -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 12:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough? Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned... If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz. Maybe each side should have their own formula. I don't see why this should matter if C&C was properly simulated from the ground up.If it was a problem for the Germans in real life, (as it surely must have been), then it would be a problem in the game.One to be overcome with skill. I often feel that C&C is very much an afterthought in wargame design when in fact it should be the foundation on which everything else is built.

MengJiao -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 4:42:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ParaB Have you perhaps massively increased your logistics level in the settings? Or have lowered your enemy's morale and logistics? I ask because what you report is so much different from what I see in my current game with the Axis that I can't really believe it. Some screenshots would be apreciated. I agree. I'm fighting the AXIS normal AI in late 1942 and I find keeping in supply is a major problem for the Russians. To run an offensive I have to check the chain of command, check the railroads and make sure I'm close to my HQs.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 5:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: ParaB Have you perhaps massively increased your logistics level in the settings? Or have lowered your enemy's morale and logistics? I ask because what you report is so much different from what I see in my current game with the Axis that I can't really believe it. Some screenshots would be apreciated. I agree. I'm fighting the AXIS normal AI in late 1942 and I find keeping in supply is a major problem for the Russians. To run an offensive I have to check the chain of command, check the railroads and make sure I'm close to my HQs. The only thing that stopped me in 42 was my roleplaying in 43 I even forgot to repair rail lines for a while and was not effected too bad

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 5:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough? Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned... If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz. Maybe each side should have their own formula. Existant penalties are practically non existant. Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats 150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim. Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner. I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given.

alfonso -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 6:34:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Existant penalties are practically non existant. How have been you able to quantify the loss of effectivity compared to the situation with the unit being in HQ range? For instance, I see that your unit has 412 support and needs 905. How do you know that this deficiency has no effects? How do you know that the loss of succesful leader checks due to distance has no effects? Have you a "control" Tank Division to compare with?

MengJiao -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:38:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough? Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned... If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz. Maybe each side should have their own formula. Existant penalties are practically non existant. Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats 150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim. Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner. I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given. It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:41:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Existant penalties are practically non existant. How have been you able to quantify the loss of effectivity compared to the situation with the unit being in HQ range? For instance, I see that your unit has 412 support and needs 905. How do you know that this deficiency has no effects? How do you know that the loss of succesful leader checks due to distance has no effects? Have you a "control" Tank Division to compare with? I know because nothing has stopped them, they have attacked every turn since May and fought 300 miles. Lets explore whats happening to explain that this game has a hollow feel. I had a tank army (6th) behind the lines in reserve ready to take the place of the 3rd when it expended all its energy in this offensive but as we have seen the duracell 3rd went on and on so the 6th was at a loose end. Abandoning role play because things were getting way too shallow for a premium game I decided to test a couple of things with the 6th. I threw it in pretty much isolated from other units and it was out on a limb so noticing I had Stavka units and other units nearby (100 miles away :D) not attached to that front I moved them to fill the gaps. These are units reporting to headquarters not even attached to a front or units directly attached to Stavka and they function just like a unit with an HQ in the hex beside it sitting in a proper chain of command. What is the point of AP's commanders, HQ's etc etc if they have no bearing on the game. Seriously just forget about HQ's and run the thing from Stavka. Surely what should happen is The Unit coming 100 miles down to support my 6th tank army should have the choice either suffer a huge penalty and losing its ZOC as well for operating so far from its administrative and supply base plus or join with a HQ nearer the action AP dependant plus having to endure a saving roll versus the new HQ's commander to decide what shape it will now be in. That would be an imaginative use for commanders and help simulate German superiority in flexible staff work.

KenchiSulla -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:46:28 PM)
I think part of the issue is the fact that he basicly annihilated the Axis normal AI in a 41/42 winter offensives. The axis cant cope with losses as well as the russians and the units he is fighting are probably pushovers....

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:47:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough? Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned... If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz. Maybe each side should have their own formula. Existant penalties are practically non existant. Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats 150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim. Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner. I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given. It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down. I have not bothered with support units in ages stopped even moving my artillery all I need is the "Duracell third" and my 70 CV rifle stacks . If the Germans do breakthrough sure I can march units 150 miles to block them and exercise a ZOC.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Existant penalties are practically non existant. How have been you able to quantify the loss of effectivity compared to the situation with the unit being in HQ range? For instance, I see that your unit has 412 support and needs 905. How do you know that this deficiency has no effects? How do you know that the loss of succesful leader checks due to distance has no effects? Have you a "control" Tank Division to compare with? I know because nothing has stopped them, they have attacked every turn since May and fought 300 miles. Lets explore whats happening to explain that this game has a hollow feel. I had a tank army (6th) behind the lines in reserve ready to take the place of the 3rd when it expended all its energy in this offensive but as we have seen the duracell 3rd went on and on so the 6th was at a loose end. Abandoning role play because things were getting way too shallow for a premium game I decided to test a couple of things with the 6th. I threw it in pretty much isolated from other units and it was out on a limb so noticing I had Stavka units and other units nearby (100 miles away :D) not attached to that front I moved them to fill the gaps. These are units reporting to headquarters not even attached to a front or units directly attached to Stavka and they function just like a unit with an HQ in the hex beside it sitting in a proper chain of command. What is the point of AP's commanders, HQ's etc etc if they have no bearing on the game. Seriously just forget about HQ's and run the thing from Stavka. Surely what should happen is The Unit coming 100 miles down to support my 6th tank army should have the choice either suffer a huge penalty and losing its ZOC as well for operating so far from its administrative and supply base plus or join with a HQ nearer the action AP dependant plus having to endure a saving roll versus the new HQ's commander to decide what shape it will now be in. That would be an imaginative use for commanders and help simulate German superiority in flexible staff work. quote: It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down.

MengJiao -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: MengJiao quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Existing distance to HQ penalties not enough? Just a comment regarding the changes you mentioned... If they were to be implemented (more penalties), it will make it very hard to for Axis perform their blitz. Maybe each side should have their own formula. Existant penalties are practically non existant. Lets examine what is happening, Units, ie divisions or Russian Corps can be deployed by rail or by tac movement on top of any advance. These units exist without C+C being a problem. Infantry units can march 150 miles thats 150 miles! on foot and suffer a minimal loss of effectiveness in one turn. Seriously a division can traveres that distance and not have to worry about which HQ it is drawing its supply from because the HQ's are irrevelant and be an effective fighting force at the end. Where is the planning in that if "Foot Cavalry" can lie down under the tracks of tanks and form its checkbooard defence no problem. Just start to think the staff work and preperation to have an infantry unit arrive 150 miles distant on a whim. Proper C+C would get the player to actually spend AP transfering units between headquarters like proper staff work entails to function in a reliable manner. I dont see it too hard for the Axis to maintain its advance because Russian units will be out of C+C and supply and more esily pocketed if proper parameters are implemented. If the Axis need help, help can always be given. It's like you are playing a totally different game from the one I'm playing. In the game I'm playing, an infantry unit cannot walk 150 miles and attack at all, nor will it be entrenched at all. If its not attached to an HQ, its not going to get sappers to help it dig in and no support units. Plus, if its not able to get supplies, its CV is going to go down. I have not bothered with support units in ages stopped even moving my artillery all I need is the "Duracell third" and my 70 CV rifle stacks . If the Germans do breakthrough sure I can march units 150 miles to block them and exercise a ZOC. Again, I'm not seeing anything like this at all.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 7:57:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder I think part of the issue is the fact that he basicly annihilated the Axis normal AI in a 41/42 winter offensives. The axis cant cope with losses as well as the russians and the units he is fighting are probably pushovers.... Even if this was true and for arguements sake lets say it was even if there was no Germans at all it is still nonsense that I am able to perform in such a way. It is still nonsense that a premium game can be so devoid of mechanics. I love the depth of the data base, I love the map but show me the game. No wonder the checker board defense is prevelant all there is to this is units units and more units. I'm minded just to run a game from stavka to show how pointless every thing is, I'm minded not to build one support unit outside railway construction to prove this baby is hollow.

bwheatley -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:03:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder What kind of german opposition are you facing? And are support units being committed to battle? How does the supply picture look (drawn in and expended). Where is your railhead? How many trucks are you loosing? I now understand what you are saying but it doesnt really say anything without additional information..... Panzer divisions and defence in depth, nope but sure who cares the way Im going through the Germans it aint important. The additional imformation is largely irrevelant Im 18 hexs from HQ. I have 30% supply 50% fuel and 100% ammo and my railhead is about 6 hexes away. I have plenty of combat numbers You just cant get your head round this HQ's are a redundant feature their effect on the game is so marginal they are just clutter. The only gravity is the huge number of German units to plough through. This game need some serious mechanics inserted. Well you want HQ's for support units at least since you can't attach them to russian divisions directly.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder What kind of german opposition are you facing? And are support units being committed to battle? How does the supply picture look (drawn in and expended). Where is your railhead? How many trucks are you loosing? I now understand what you are saying but it doesnt really say anything without additional information..... Panzer divisions and defence in depth, nope but sure who cares the way Im going through the Germans it aint important. The additional imformation is largely irrevelant Im 18 hexs from HQ. I have 30% supply 50% fuel and 100% ammo and my railhead is about 6 hexes away. I have plenty of combat numbers You just cant get your head round this HQ's are a redundant feature their effect on the game is so marginal they are just clutter. The only gravity is the huge number of German units to plough through. This game need some serious mechanics inserted. Well you want HQ's for support units at least since you can't attach them to russian divisions directly. quote: Well you want HQ's for support units at least since you can't attach them to russian divisions directly. Yup and I love the support unit concept, revolutionary stuff and a feature that should always looked to be enhanced the further we go down the line but the nub of the problem is all that time sorting out your units, transfering thing around is really unimportant in game HQ's just dont function as an administravive and supply hub for units. Divisions are operating 100's of miles from their HQ without consequence. Units are able to move 100's of miles a turn without consequence. You can go through the game without support units. If the enemy breakthroughs all you need to do is move units in his path from 100's of miles away.

cookie monster -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:26:16 PM)
While all of what you say may be true, I find sloppy play versus the AI pointless. All of the micromanagement issues are there for tight games/battles. I think sloppy play in a PBEM would lead to unnecessary casualties and the higher likelihood of a defeat/draw.

bwheatley -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:27:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: bwheatley quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder What kind of german opposition are you facing? And are support units being committed to battle? How does the supply picture look (drawn in and expended). Where is your railhead? How many trucks are you loosing? I now understand what you are saying but it doesnt really say anything without additional information..... Panzer divisions and defence in depth, nope but sure who cares the way Im going through the Germans it aint important. The additional imformation is largely irrevelant Im 18 hexs from HQ. I have 30% supply 50% fuel and 100% ammo and my railhead is about 6 hexes away. I have plenty of combat numbers You just cant get your head round this HQ's are a redundant feature their effect on the game is so marginal they are just clutter. The only gravity is the huge number of German units to plough through. This game need some serious mechanics inserted. Well you want HQ's for support units at least since you can't attach them to russian divisions directly. quote: Well you want HQ's for support units at least since you can't attach them to russian divisions directly. Yup and I love the support unit concept, revolutionary stuff and a feature that should always looked to be enhanced the further we go down the line but the nub of the problem is all that time sorting out your units, transfering thing around is really unimportant in game HQ's just dont function as an administravive and supply hub for units. Divisions are operating 100's of miles from their HQ without consequence. Units are able to move 100's of miles a turn without consequence. You can go through the game without support units. If the enemy breakthroughs all you need to do is move units in his path from 100's of miles away. Very weird i don't see that in any of my games. I see myself losing CV when my boys are over fatigued and or under supplied. That's with the boys being in range of an HQ. I've never had my units operate far away from my HQ's so i am not sure how much differently it works.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cookie monster While all of what you say may be true, I find sloppy play versus the AI pointless. All of the micromanagement issues are there for tight games/battles. I think sloppy play in a PBEM would lead to unnecessary casualties and the higher likelihood of a defeat/draw. The ability to set up a checker board defence because there is zero command and control mechanics I believe effects PBEM games as well, the abilty to move units hundred of miles without penalty also effects PBEM games I imagine.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 9:40:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy quote: ORIGINAL: cookie monster While all of what you say may be true, I find sloppy play versus the AI pointless. All of the micromanagement issues are there for tight games/battles. I think sloppy play in a PBEM would lead to unnecessary casualties and the higher likelihood of a defeat/draw. The ability to set up a checker board defence because there is zero command and control mechanics I believe effects PBEM games as well, the abilty to move units hundred of miles without penalty also effects PBEM games I imagine. quote: Very weird i don't see that in any of my games. I see myself losing CV when my boys are over fatigued and or under supplied. That's with the boys being in range of an HQ. I've never had my units operate far away from my HQ's so i am not sure how much differently it works. Trust me it has little or know effect provided you keep repairing railroads

karonagames -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 10:15:55 PM)
Hi Smirfy, Were you one of the guys that posted a screen shot of a Soviet capture of Berlin in 1943? If so what date did you capture Berlin, and what date did you get the decisive victory? Have you seen any difference when playing at Challenging and/or Hard level?

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 11:07:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak Hi Smirfy, Were you one of the guys that posted a screen shot of a Soviet capture of Berlin in 1943? If so what date did you capture Berlin, and what date did you get the decisive victory? Have you seen any difference when playing at Challenging and/or Hard level? Nope and I'm trying to stay away from the Russian/German arguement thing. The challenge is not that important for me right now the mechanics are more important. I'm not trying to be cheeky but if you increase the challenge will the AI spam even more foot cavalry infront of you. Perhaps it is a design decision not to worry about distance from HQ and effective command and control because it is felt the AI would not be able to cope? Whatever the case is it leads to an unbelievable enviroment especially being able to use infantry like 48 pz korps everytime there is a breakthrough quite apart from what are HQ's actually there for problem. In War Between States C+C was such an important feature I'm sort of at a loss that it ended up so loose in this game especially since there are so many eastern front experts and accomplished gamers on board. So many units with no parameters ends up a boring counter shove. Like I said I have faith that you guys will try some stuff to improve things.

wodin -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 11:20:45 PM)
Sometimes I think games try to do to much. I imagine a game this size, to do it justice, would require military grade software.

Smirfy -> RE: Couple of criticisms (1/24/2011 11:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Sometimes I think games try to do to much. I imagine a game this size, to do it justice, would require military grade software. Yup its hard to cover all the bases and think of everything but things like having units other than fronts/army groups attached to OKH and Stavka at a real low combat value to simulate they are basically training,resting and all over the place in billets is simple to implement.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328125