Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series



Message

MrLongleg -> Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/24/2011 7:37:42 PM)

I think everybody agrees that feeding reinforcements to your units can become quite tedious, especially if you have hundreds of counters on the map. Somebody already proposed a TOE (table of equipment) system, which would also allow to automate this process.

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Or Armored Div

2 Light tank
1 Medium tank
10 Rifle

etc.

It should be possible to update/modify those templates later anytime, e.g. change the number of sf's or change the type (from rifle to rifle II etc)

If a new unit is created the user can decide to use template (it is not a must, just an option)

The unit is created and will immediately request its sub-formations from its HQ. The HQ honors the request, but the unit may only get filled partially, depending of availability of sub-formations in the HQ.

Now a unit with a template can have three modes:

- refit (high priority reinforcement)
- auto reinforce (lower priority reinforcements - default)
- don't reinforce (don't send reinforcements)

In the supply phase each unit calculates the number of missing sub-formations compared to its template

Then all units in refit send their request to the HQ. For each sub-formation now units are transferred from the HQ if the HQ has the transport cap to reach the formation or the sub-formation can reach it with its own power. For each sub-formation, first the units with the biggest gap gets one - and so on in a round robin way.

Then the same algorithm is executed for the 'auto-reinforce' units.

At the end there probably will be a gap between the requests and the available units, which should translate into requests to the next higher HQ, which again will distribute units in the same way according to the priority settings of the HQ.

A sub-formation can only travel from one HQ link to the next per turn.

At the end there might still be a gap on each HQ and it should be possible to request automatic production adjustment for this HQ. In the production screen it should be possible to see how much of the production is needed to fulfill those reinforcement requests.

Another thing that needs to be revisited is the readiness loss when transferring sub-formation between HQ's. I think a new sub-formation should always start with a readiness of 75 (and low experience, like modeled correctly in the game) which would not be affected by transfer between HQ.

Another thing I'd like to see changed is the big readiness drop when you change the HQ of a formation. I don't really think that this is justified. It would be better to model that with the expenditure of PP's proportional to the power-points of the sub-formation.

Those changes would improve the game a great deal and relieve the player from a lot of un-neccessary micro management. Since it could be included in the supply distribution it should not be too difficult to implement.

Anyway - I think this is already a great game and I enjoy it (as PBEM, a little less against the AI)

Feedback is welcome



Arditi -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/24/2011 9:27:52 PM)

    Hi Haudrauf,
I don't believe that it is tedious and I think that it would severely maul the game and it's uniqueness if the reinforcement were made automatic and if there was a fixed TOE.  There is a certain art to making up your own units, for certain situations,  that I enjoy.  I respect your opinion, but I hope it does not come to pass.  Perhaps as an option only?
Respectfully, Arditi[:)]



SSFSX17 -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/24/2011 9:39:02 PM)

I strongly support this system. Of course it would not be mandatory: players can always choose to simply not define any standard units, thus no automatic unit creation or reinforcement.



Casus_Belli -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 12:44:10 AM)

I also strongly support this idea , even though I don't know how hard it would be to implement.

Haudrau did say "(it is not a must, just an option)" and perhaps the default setting could be 'don't reinforce' (should be 'replacements' rather than 'reinforcements' - just like it should be 'strategic operations' not 'tactics', but anyway...). There's nothing to stop players from micromanaging their units if that's what they want to do. Anyway, players can make their own templates; this would be essential, as I would not use anything like the ones sggested here.



DakaSha -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 1:08:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arditi

    Hi Haudrauf,
I don't believe that it is tedious and I think that it would severely maul the game and it's uniqueness if the reinforcement were made automatic and if there was a fixed TOE.  There is a certain art to making up your own units, for certain situations,  that I enjoy.  I respect your opinion, but I hope it does not come to pass.  Perhaps as an option only?
Respectfully, Arditi[:)]


I don't understand how the proposal changes anything other then making stuff less tedius. you are still designing your own units



jomni -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 3:40:53 AM)

+1.  The manual reinforcement is my biggest problem with the game. I can't play the game for a very long time because it becomes very tiring.



tweber -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 8:08:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

I think everybody agrees that feeding reinforcements to your units can become quite tedious, especially if you have hundreds of counters on the map. Somebody already proposed a TOE (table of equipment) system, which would also allow to automate this process.

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Or Armored Div

2 Light tank
1 Medium tank
10 Rifle

etc.




The easiest way to do this is to define a few new SF Types. The first could be "Infantry division unit" and represent 1 part rifle, 3/40th parts MG, 3/40th parts Mortar, 1/40th part AT Gun and 1/40th part horse. In reality, this would be a rifle that is slightly more expensive, slightly better on the attack and slightly better on the defense.

You could do the same think for the tank mix you decribe. It would be a light medium tank though more light than medium.

I think the actual difference between these blended units and the original units is pretty slight. If you are trying to always maintain the mixes you are describing, you are doing it more for aesthetics than for combat effectiveness. It would be even simplier to replace the above mixes with:

60 Rifle

and

4 Light Tank



JJKettunen -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 10:32:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber
The easiest way to do this is to define a few new SF Types. The first could be "Infantry division unit" and represent 1 part rifle, 3/40th parts MG, 3/40th parts Mortar, 1/40th part AT Gun and 1/40th part horse. In reality, this would be a rifle that is slightly more expensive, slightly better on the attack and slightly better on the defense.

You could do the same think for the tank mix you decribe. It would be a light medium tank though more light than medium.

I think the actual difference between these blended units and the original units is pretty slight. If you are trying to always maintain the mixes you are describing, you are doing it more for aesthetics than for combat effectiveness. It would be even simplier to replace the above mixes with:

60 Rifle

and

4 Light Tank


I fully agree, and is something I have planned to do with my scens (once I get that far).

Scaling would be so that 1 rifle would represent a divisional slice of 100 men, and 1 tank would represent 10 of them (scaled down obviously).



Josh -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 10:39:28 AM)

I don't know about a template.... I mean it *can*, it *might* be usefull in very large scenarios... on the other hand many units I create are different than my fighting core units. Say 20 rifles here, maybe two Machineguns and Mortars attached, one or two Armoured cars for defensive purposes only. Maybe half, probably even less, of my units are fully equiped. The rest is substandard, defending a shoreline, oilwells, cities.
So yes while I agree that manually reinforcing/creating new core units can be a bit tedious sometimes, I wouldn't want it to be fully automatized because of the many different units I create. As an optional rule... maybe, but I bet that would be a lot of work for Vic to implement. Say you have an unit you would like to be automatically reinforced, only this unit is under a different HQ and on an island hopping affair somewhere far away across the ocean... how would the program handle this?

One thing is certain though, this manual creating/reinforcing is only for those who enjoy a hardcore wargame. If the user interface could be overhauled, while maintaining the AT feel, maybe made a bit more automated with the help of user created unittemplates, then maybe it would draw the attention of a larger playergroup. More streamlined I say, not made simpler.
But in the end it all seems a lot of work to me to implement this all... and I'm not even sure the game will get better in the end... [&:]



MrLongleg -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 12:30:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arditi

    Hi Haudrauf,
I don't believe that it is tedious and I think that it would severely maul the game and it's uniqueness if the reinforcement were made automatic and if there was a fixed TOE.  There is a certain art to making up your own units, for certain situations,  that I enjoy.  I respect your opinion, but I hope it does not come to pass.  Perhaps as an option only?
Respectfully, Arditi[:)]


Since the usage of templates is completely optional it would not affect you at all, if you prefer not to use them...



tweber -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 12:36:34 PM)

I was playing around with this mix for an infantry division:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse



Here is how it would compare to a group of 75 Rifle:

Cost - same
Number of attacks - 69 vs 75
Total hits it can take - 4,850 vs 7,500
Total attack power vs infantry - 1,190 vs 975
Total defense power vs infantry - 2900 vs 1950

If you defined a "Standard Infantry Division Unit" to be equivalent to your mix above, you would want to have:

- 69 per division
- Cost of 101 in production points
- 1 attack
- Attack power vs infantry of 17 and a defense power vs infantry of 42

I did not bother to figure out the numbers vs armor. There is also other things to consider like supply efficiency and raw efficiency. However from a performance vs pure Rifle, this mix does look to be better, especially on the defense.



MrLongleg -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 1:58:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

I was playing around with this mix for an infantry division:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse



Here is how it would compare to a group of 75 Rifle:

Cost - same
Number of attacks - 69 vs 75
Total hits it can take - 4,850 vs 7,500
Total attack power vs infantry - 1,190 vs 975
Total defense power vs infantry - 2900 vs 1950

If you defined a "Standard Infantry Division Unit" to be equivalent to your mix above, you would want to have:

- 69 per division
- Cost of 101 in production points
- 1 attack
- Attack power vs infantry of 17 and a defense power vs infantry of 42

I did not bother to figure out the numbers vs armor. There is also other things to consider like supply efficiency and raw efficiency. However from a performance vs pure Rifle, this mix does look to be better, especially on the defense.


Just to clarify one thing - the mix I used in my example was just an example. In no way I tried to say that tis is how an infantry division should look like. The idea is that you can create an arbitrary number of templates and give them arbitrary names. So you could have "Mobile Infantry", "Attack Infantry" etc, each with their own player defined mix of units. Of course every player would probably have slightly different ideas about the right mix of sub-formations.



tweber -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 2:21:01 PM)

Your mix is pretty decent for infantry divisions. 

The point is that you could define these new units and you would now have the ratios of TOE enforced.  It is easy to do for any arbitrary grouping of units.  All you need is a little familiarity with modding and you can do this with the current game.



MrLongleg -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 3:20:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

Your mix is pretty decent for infantry divisions. 

The point is that you could define these new units and you would now have the ratios of TOE enforced.  It is easy to do for any arbitrary grouping of units.  All you need is a little familiarity with modding and you can do this with the current game.


Yes, that would be doable by modding - but this is not very convenient, especially if you mostly do PBEM. For every new template I want to have I would have to startup the editor.



SSFSX17 -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 6:37:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber
The point is that you could define these new units and you would now have the ratios of TOE enforced.  It is easy to do for any arbitrary grouping of units.  All you need is a little familiarity with modding and you can do this with the current game.


The key is to be able to auto-reinforce / auto-fill units after a game has begun, and without needing action cards or scripting.



TPM -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 7:16:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962
Another thing I'd like to see changed is the big readiness drop when you change the HQ of a formation. I don't really think that this is justified. It would be better to model that with the expenditure of PP's proportional to the power-points of the sub-formation.


Great post, I might have other comments, but just want to quickly comment that I totally agree with this...the readiness drop for change of HQ is way, way too high. There just shouldn't be that big of a penalty...I don't know anything about the historical aspects of this (I could be wrong, maybe it's justified historically), but for game playing it doesn't make sense...I shouldn't be penalize because I want to organize troops under a certain command, even it's temporary...



TPM -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 7:22:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SSFSX17

I strongly support this system. Of course it would not be mandatory: players can always choose to simply not define any standard units, thus no automatic unit creation or reinforcement.


It seems that every time this comes up, the first reaction is "But I like the way it is now..", etc. No one is suggesting that the templates would be mandatory; the beauty of AT is its flexibility...the templates would be a tool for those people who want a certain uniformity to their units, and would like the computer to take over the often mundane task of reinforcing every unit to a certain level.

This is not a statement against those who like to micromanage!



TPM -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 7:28:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber


quote:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

I think everybody agrees that feeding reinforcements to your units can become quite tedious, especially if you have hundreds of counters on the map. Somebody already proposed a TOE (table of equipment) system, which would also allow to automate this process.

Here is the idea. Users can create formation templates, e.g.

Infantry div:

40 Rifle
3 Machinegun
3 Mortars
1 AT GUN
1 horse

Or Armored Div

2 Light tank
1 Medium tank
10 Rifle

etc.




The easiest way to do this is to define a few new SF Types. The first could be "Infantry division unit" and represent 1 part rifle, 3/40th parts MG, 3/40th parts Mortar, 1/40th part AT Gun and 1/40th part horse. In reality, this would be a rifle that is slightly more expensive, slightly better on the attack and slightly better on the defense.

You could do the same think for the tank mix you decribe. It would be a light medium tank though more light than medium.

I think the actual difference between these blended units and the original units is pretty slight. If you are trying to always maintain the mixes you are describing, you are doing it more for aesthetics than for combat effectiveness. It would be even simplier to replace the above mixes with:

60 Rifle

and

4 Light Tank


With all due respect tweber, this missed one of the main points...the point of the template isn't ONLY to have an interesting mix of units (and I agree that alot of this is about aesthetics)...the point is to have a set number so that the computer could instantly do the replacements. If I have a set template of 40 Rifle = a division, I want the computer to find my divisions and send replacements up to 40 Rifle...I don't want to check all my units, see which ones need replacing, etc., etc....I want the computer to do it. This is true for units with only 1 SFType and units 8 SFTypes...



TPM -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 7:35:24 PM)

quote:



Just to clarify one thing - the mix I used in my example was just an example. In no way I tried to say that tis is how an infantry division should look like. The idea is that you can create an arbitrary number of templates and give them arbitrary names. So you could have "Mobile Infantry", "Attack Infantry" etc, each with their own player defined mix of units. Of course every player would probably have slightly different ideas about the right mix of sub-formations.


I was going to point this out...this thread isn't about unit composition, etc. I want this system even if one of my templates is as simple as Infantry Divsion = 20 Rifle. If I have 15 of these in the line, and I know for certain that I want to send replacements to all of them, right off the bat, I want to click a button and have it done. Then, if I want to add other units to specific ones, I could do it...

The only obstacle for this system is how hard it would be to program, etc. It would DO NOTHING to ruin the flow of the game, or the elegant simplicity that is this game. You could totally ignore it...



Great_Ajax -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/25/2011 10:13:29 PM)

I would also like to add that it would also be nice when you select your templated unit to build, that the game would automatically use your naming provisions numerically. So, if I created three templates for units and we'll call them "Infantry Division", "Armored Division", and "Cavalry Division." When I click on the add new formation, the game gives me the option to create one of three templates that I created. The game then automatically renames them using my templates name. If I create a new armored division from my template, it automatically names the unit "x Armored Division".

These templates should be completely optional and players could fully ignore them if they choose.

Trey



papajack -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 2:01:22 AM)

How the system going to determine which div to reinforce when source are limited ?

Those trap in north or those dying at the south ..eventually you have to go  through manual reinforcement .....

you may even have  to turn on and off those auto refit every turn to avoid sending to the wrong div ..in battle things change rapidly ..that will be more tedious 

what about experience points , you might want to avoid mix with green unit send by the system...

what if suddenly that div need extra fire power that different from the initial template ? you can manual transfer let say bazooka but how the system going to do auto refit ?




ernieschwitz -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 2:12:24 AM)

I agree with papajack.

I don´t want templates. Much as i hate building up units from the ground, templates would ruin the ability to do special things. It would standardize things too much.



jomni -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 2:58:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: papajack

How the system going to determine which div to reinforce when source are limited ?

Those trap in north or those dying at the south ..eventually you have to go  through manual reinforcement .....

you may even have  to turn on and off those auto refit every turn to avoid sending to the wrong div ..in battle things change rapidly ..that will be more tedious 

what about experience points , you might want to avoid mix with green unit send by the system...

what if suddenly that div need extra fire power that different from the initial template ? you can manual transfer let say bazooka but how the system going to do auto refit ?




Some switches on reinforcement priority will do the trick. For TOE template tweaks, you just create a new enhanced TOE template and assign to that div. The units will then just flow to the div automatically if available.

Why fear change in these aspect when it will make your life easier? Flexibility will still be retained.



TPM -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 4:25:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

I agree with papajack.

I don´t want templates. Much as i hate building up units from the ground, templates would ruin the ability to do special things. It would standardize things too much.


You might have missed this earlier in the thread, but those of us who want templates want them to be OPTIONAL. Having them would not ruin anything, and they would only standardize things if you wanted them to.




TPM -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 4:45:28 AM)

I'm going to delve into this a bit more 'cause I'm totally into it.

First of all, as far as templates are concerned, we're talking about two different concepts:
1. Creating units from a template.
2. Sending replacements to those units that are somehow flagged as being from a certain template.

My quick ideas for both:

For creating units from a template, I believe this could be done with the current system in place by creating an action card within the game. There would be a card that says "Create template", and then you would be taken to a screen where you create and name the template. This would then turn up in the Action Card screen as a unit that you could build (similar to tweber's scenarios). It would cost PP, etc. (the "etc." means I haven't quite worked that part out yet).

For sending replacements, well this probably would require a new process in the current system. I'm imagining that certain units would be "tagged" with a formation template. Say, 3rd Division has a "Infantry Divsion #1" template tag. There would be two ways of sending replacements:

1. There would be some buttons in the unit screen like "Auto-Replace?", "Don't take replacements", and the most important--"Replacements Now". When you press the "Replace Now" button, your unit immediately gets reinforced up to the template level from its parent HQ. If there aren't enough units in the parent HQ, or if there isn't enough transport, guess what happens? You get what the HQ can send you and that's it. Again, this WOULD BE OPTIONAL. If you wanted, you could totally ignore the template tag and put WHATEVER YOU WANT INTO THE UNIT. The presence of the template tag WOULD NOT STOP YOU FROM PLAYING THE GAME THE OLD WAY. But using this alone would get rid of alot of clicking...instead of clicking a unit and picking infantry, blah, blah, you just pick the unit, press "Replacements Now" and bam, you're done, move on.

2. Auto replacements from the HQ. This one is more complicated, I haven't totally worked it out. Basically, I'm thinking you'll just press a "Auto Replace" button in the HQ and the HQ would send out whatever it could...in what order? I haven't worked that out yet...there might be optios for this.

Yes it's complicated to some degree, but it would also be freaking awesome. Gotta spend some more time on it...



papajack -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 6:29:49 AM)

i am all for creating template , as it does make life easier

But auto reinforcement it is a different ball game , it might create more tedious management beside the complex programming  as it need to take in a lot of variables but I am no expert on that

One might argue that it will be an OPTIONAL but from what I see , it is quite complex and to implement it . some changes has to be made to the game engine which so far has made AT / ATG so damn fun to play

I am not totally against this but I feel Vic's limited time can be better use somewhere. addressing much urgent features/bug

Perhaps in near future like AT 3 ?? 

p/s I do enjoy doing manual reinforcement , I always has few DIV that are my favorite , I name them Imperial Guard ...always give them the best units [:)] That something I have been looking forward to do each turn [:)]









[:)]



Josh -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 8:30:27 AM)

@ TPM "...Yes it's complicated to some degree, but it would also be freaking awesome. Gotta spend some more time on it..."

Well it sure is complicated, not only to implement it in the gameengine and the programming, but more important... how can you improve the game without making it *more* complicated and clickheavy? The Germans have a great word for this: "verschlimmbesserung" meaning one tries to make something better, only it gets worse and worse [:)] We've seen a few instances of this, devteams working for a year or more to improve a game, only to find out the gamingcommunity hates it when it finally gets released.
I'm playing a island game right now, it would be hell for the "AI template routine" to reinforce units two HQ's, a few ports and lots of contested seahexes away.
Gotta spend some more time on it for sure, well there's always AT2 ofcourse in the far future, say 1,5 year from now.



sIg3b -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 7:05:53 PM)

Err, I hope this is not a stupid question: Is there at least a copy button, or x2, x5 buttons, to create a couple of identical units at once, without typing in the same info 30x, if you want to create 30 identical units?

If not, this would be my highest priority wish. (I don´t have the game, yet.)

Edit: It would also be nice to copy an EXISTING unit, so you don´t need to type the info even once, if you want to create exact duplicates of unit you already have.

This would save me a lot of time, since I like to create an 'industry standard', rather than individualized units.



Barthheart -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 7:11:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

...
The Germans have a great word for this: "verschlimmbesserung" meaning one tries to make something better, only it gets worse and worse [:)]
....


That's interesting... in engineering we say "Better is the enemy of good". Only the Germans would have come up for a single word for it! [:D]



Westheim -> RE: Proposal for formation templates - reducing micro management (4/26/2011 11:07:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

...
The Germans have a great word for this: "verschlimmbesserung" meaning one tries to make something better, only it gets worse and worse [:)]
....


That's interesting... in engineering we say "Better is the enemy of good". Only the Germans would have come up for a single word for it! [:D]


These Germans have indeed totally awesome words, like Gewerbesteuerzerlegungserklärung. There's one lying on my desk in the office, and I don't want to think about it.

But on topic. People seem to ignore the inherent problems with auto reinforce systems. There ought to be two different types of these imaginable:

A) When selecting a unit, the options panel shows a button "auto-reinforce" to bring it back to full template strength.
B) Each round, HQs reinforce subordinate units automatically to full template strength.

B can be discarded right away under Advanced Tactics, since reinforcing a unit ends that units turn automatically. This will hurt the player in about nine of ten cases. If something's under attack and suffered casualties it might be a better idea to do something about it rather than to send more sheep into the hail of gunfire. It would also kill XPs in a veteran unit and cause many more issues.

A would give you the option to reinforce a unit which has suffered under the enemy's attack on the interturn back to full template strength. So, if it would have been a unit designed for defense against infantry, the template would call for 30 infantry and 5 machineguns in the unit, plus 5 horses for mobility. The evil enemy has attacked and there were some losses: now only 20 infantry, 2 machineguns and 3 horses are left. The player hits auto-reinforce now, the lowest HQ in the chain of command would be called for to send down 10 infantry, 3 machineguns, and 2 horses.

But too bad, only 5 infantry and 2 horses are available. The enemy has attacked elsewhere and has taken one of the towns producing for the HQ. So, no more reinforcements for now.

Let's say the next higher HQ has a reserve of 30 infantry and 20 horses. But the infantry is of the wrong type (rifle instead of SMG or whatever), and even worse: sending down reinforcements from here right into the wounded unit would cause disruption again, killing readiness and so on. So should be this second HQ in the chain of command be called at all? Well, maybe you could define this over an additional button or box to check in the formation template.

But should be the "wrong" infantry type be sent down as reinforcements? Wait, let's define it over an additional button or box to check in the formation template. But of course there are different situations all the time, so better add an additional box to check for the HQ in question which overrides the template box. Or shouldn't it? Add another box to check here, too.

Oh, waitwaitwait! The top level HQ has 215 of the "right" infantry type in reserve! Should those be sent down, causing disruption, consuming tons of landcap and so on? Add a few more buttons and another box there. Of course, there are other fronts as well that need reinforcements, so maybe we'd need another option to disable this and that ...

Of course these template editors, 20 additional buttons and 60 boxes to check flowing all over the screen would be entirely optional and could easily be turned off with this button there in the far left bottom corner of the screen.

Terrible system, thoroughly terrible. This will never end, as soon as you run out of reinforcements to possibly cover all things and casualties that can happen to you between turns. Don't tell me you're too lazy to look after your units after the AI's turn is finished. You would still have to even with this terrible system. The current system of manual reinforcements is working well enough (I don't say it's perfect, what then again life in itself sucks and is far from being even remotely enjoyable, let alone perfect), and I'd suggest to keep it this way, not as an option, but mandatorily.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625