What's Your Opinion on Renamed Units? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Paul Lewis -> What's Your Opinion on Renamed Units? (4/10/2001 10:39:00 PM)

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!



dox44 -> (4/10/2001 10:52:00 PM)

generic...



Christian Blex -> (4/10/2001 10:56:00 PM)

I prefer the historic naming. It underlines the feeling of replaying/rewriting history.



Tankhead -> (4/10/2001 11:01:00 PM)

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



RockinHarry -> (4/10/2001 11:07:00 PM)

I like the "historic" idea, but prefer the "generic". Itīs simply more playable. ____________ RockinHarry



Mikimoto -> (4/10/2001 11:12:00 PM)

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.



ruxius -> (4/10/2001 11:38:00 PM)

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..



Alexandra -> (4/10/2001 11:53:00 PM)

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



panda124c -> (4/11/2001 12:03:00 AM)

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.



O de B -> (4/11/2001 12:25:00 AM)

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.



Redleg -> (4/11/2001 12:25:00 AM)

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. :)



USMCGrunt -> (4/11/2001 12:42:00 AM)

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.



Fabs -> (4/11/2001 12:56:00 AM)

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.



lnp4668 -> (4/11/2001 1:14:00 AM)

I ususally name mine by unit type/status (elite, veteran, etc) That way I know which units needs some kills :)



DoubleDeuce -> (4/11/2001 1:33:00 AM)

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 :(



Christian Blex -> (4/11/2001 1:58:00 AM)

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



troopie -> (4/11/2001 6:26:00 AM)

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



victorhauser -> (4/11/2001 6:45:00 AM)

I prefer generic with the option to rename units of my choice.



Don Doom -> (4/11/2001 6:52:00 AM)

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



Flashfyre -> (4/11/2001 9:40:00 AM)

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



McGib -> (4/11/2001 9:50:00 AM)

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.



Paul Lewis -> (4/11/2001 10:39:00 AM)

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!



Wild Bill -> (4/11/2001 11:51:00 AM)

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!



BruceAZ -> (4/12/2001 8:13:00 AM)

I prefer generic but always rename key commanders. Bruce Semper Fi



Warrior -> (4/12/2001 10:00:00 AM)

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?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875