Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (Full Version)

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



Message

Pashahlis -> Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/1/2019 7:24:21 PM)

It is annoying how the construction/pioneer SUs don't work the same way as other SUs and are hard set at 2 each for every HQ. I would like for them to be affected by the support level like all the other SUs.



Telemecus -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/1/2019 7:35:13 PM)

+1

This is especially true for the pioneer units.

To some extent you can get by with the construction units as they get locked into higher HQs when they go "on map" - but to transfer a group of engineers that almost always are at corps level to some particular focus point needs multi turn planning, conflicts with how you want to manage the other combat SUs and is just a pain aside from the points spent. I really cannot see why they are treated any differently from other SUs?



juv95hrn -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/1/2019 9:07:40 PM)

+1



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/1/2019 9:15:06 PM)

+1
Please please please change this. Probably my most hated single game rule.



xhoel -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/1/2019 11:02:40 PM)

+1

This is one of the 2 features that I can think of that makes life harder for the player instead of making it easier. It is an absolute pain to move engineers around and there is literally no benefit from having such a mechanism in the game. Not to mention that you need to spend a ****ton of APs to do so and also to click so many times. Please please change it.

And while you are at it, make it so that arriving HQs come with SU settings set to Locked instead of Support Level 3. This is also a completely useless setting as the arriving HQ simply sucks in all SUs that are in the High Command for no reason whatsoever. These HQs won't see combat in 2-3 weeks since they need to reach the front first and those SUs are precious and can be utilized elsewhere. Set it to locked so the player can decide what to do with it.



tomeck48 -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/2/2019 2:25:57 AM)

I'm in full agreement with all of the above. Is there anyone who can say why the engineers are treated the way they are?



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/2/2019 8:09:02 AM)

Sadism.



Telemecus -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/2/2019 11:45:55 AM)

I hear evil laughter as we write. [:D]



joelmar -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/2/2019 7:42:48 PM)

+1



Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/2/2019 10:24:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

+1

This is especially true for the pioneer units.

To some extent you can get by with the construction units as they get locked into higher HQs when they go "on map" - but to transfer a group of engineers that almost always are at corps level to some particular focus point needs multi turn planning, conflicts with how you want to manage the other combat SUs and is just a pain aside from the points spent. I really cannot see why they are treated any differently from other SUs?


I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here and say -1 :o

In an ideal world surely almost all of the stuff in bold is a good thing for a strategy game? You certainly want to reward people for planning ahead and making good decisions in terms of juggling competing priorities? The AP issue is maybe more arguable but I would argue that it is consistent with an overall game design that holds that making changes has a cost - discouraging (or at least adding a cost to) a pure turn by turn 'min/max' approach.

That leaves the complaint that dealing with it is 'a pain'. I'll be completely honest and say that this complaint strikes me as being a little disingenuous - in other areas of the game (the air war in particular) it seems that players are happy to spend large amounts of time and 'clicks' micromanaging things to gain an advantage.

I'm not a huge fan of the way that SUs move in general to be honest. If it was me writing the rules I would have SUs moving in two ways - up and down the command chain step by step (so no direct assignments from OKH/STAVKA to the other side of the map) without any AP cost or by rail to any HQ in rail movement range, with that movement counting towards the rail cap. The exception would be turn 1 where I would allow both sides (or at the very least the axis side) to make unlimited cost free adjustments to their SU distribution.



Telemecus -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/2/2019 10:44:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here and say -1 :o


uh oh
[image]local://upfiles/53894/06EB382C5BB04EC49C40373CFA615797.jpg[/image]
[:D]



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/2/2019 11:08:49 PM)

Hang him.



xhoel -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/3/2019 12:02:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here and say -1 :o

In an ideal world surely almost all of the stuff in bold is a good thing for a strategy game? You certainly want to reward people for planning ahead and making good decisions in terms of juggling competing priorities? The AP issue is maybe more arguable but I would argue that it is consistent with an overall game design that holds that making changes has a cost - discouraging (or at least adding a cost to) a pure turn by turn 'min/max' approach.



Yes, you do want to reward people for planning ahead but there is no indication that the system was designed to "encourage planning". Even if we assume that this is the case, why doesn't this rule apply to all other SUs? And why does it apply to Construction battalions which add so very little to the game?

Changes that the player does to improve his situation (changing leaders, changing unit HQs, transferring Armies from their Army Groups etc) should carry a cost, no one is disputing that.

Planning means: I want X Corp belonging to the 4th Army to have 4 Pioneer Battalions in 2 weeks. I gather those assets, put them in the 4th Army HQ (where they will stay) and then assign them to the Corps next week. Easy. Don't have to jump 100 hoops. Don't have to lock every HQ so that I can move 4 Pioneer Battalions around. Don't have to worry about the AI assigning these battalions to a random Corps HQ. The Battalions stay where I put them and I don't have any headaches.

The current system has nothing to do with planning. Its only purpose is to give every Corps HQ 2 Pioneer and 2 Construction Battalions (for whatever reason). It does not encourage anything, it simply forces you to have these numbers of Pioneer and construction units whether you want/need them or not. You are reading too much into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

That leaves the complaint that dealing with it is 'a pain'. I'll be completely honest and say that this complaint strikes me as being a little disingenuous - in other areas of the game (the air war in particular) it seems that players are happy to spend large amounts of time and 'clicks' micromanaging things to gain an advantage.



It is not disingenuous at all and I have expressed the reasons why I don't like it in the post above. It is a pain for me, since I need to jump through 100 hoops to get a Pioneer Battalion where I need them and I cannot do so without it affecting so many other units since I need to put all HQs on locked (thus leaving all other SUs locked to said HQs, offering me 0 flexibility), transfer the Pioneer Battalion to the OKH and then next turn transfer it to the HQ/unit just to prevent the stupid AI from moving said Pioneer Battalions.

And please do not equate players micromanaging the airforce with us wanting to change a system that is broken and serves no purpose whatsoever. I am happy to spend time managing the air force because I do a better job than the AI does and can save myself from silly mistakes. I actually enjoy learning about the air war, I like the system both in WitE and in WitW and have spent many hours experimenting on it. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't do it.

If you haven't noticed: this is a WARGAME, the intention of it is to win the war and have fun doing so. If a player is not into "micromanaging" the air force, that is that players problem and you cannot accuse his opponent for trying to get an advantage. You can play against an opponent who is not fond of micromanaging the airforce.

And since you went there, there are players here who are either not interested or not bothered to manage many other aspects of the game (HQ placement for better supply, improving the chain of command, keeping HQs under their limits, garrisons, planning ahead for upcoming operations, keeping track of losses and industry etc). The fact that they don't do that, doesn't mean that their opponent "is trying to get an advantage". It means that if you are not willing to put in the effort and time to master the game, you will be beaten by a better player.

Seems quite a simple thing to me. Player A put more effort and work into achieving their goal (winning the game), player B doesn't like to put that much effort and spend that much time so he is at a disadvantage. Just like in life.

When did it become a bad thing to be better than others by putting in hard work and actually working on something???




Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/3/2019 7:50:36 AM)

quote:


If you haven't noticed: this is a WARGAME, the intention of it is to win the war and have fun doing so. If a player is not into "micromanaging" the air force, that is that players problem and you cannot accuse his opponent for trying to get an advantage. You can play against an opponent who is not fond of micromanaging the airforce.

And since you went there, there are players here who are either not interested or not bothered to manage many other aspects of the game (HQ placement for better supply, improving the chain of command, keeping HQs under their limits, garrisons, planning ahead for upcoming operations, keeping track of losses and industry etc). The fact that they don't do that, doesn't mean that their opponent "is trying to get an advantage". It means that if you are not willing to put in the effort and time to master the game, you will be beaten by a better player.

Seems quite a simple thing to me. Player A put more effort and work into achieving their goal (winning the game), player B doesn't like to put that much effort and spend that much time so he is at a disadvantage. Just like in life.

When did it become a bad thing to be better than others by putting in hard work and actually working on something???


Just to be clear I didn't intend "trying to get an advantage" to have a connotation of something negative or underhand and agree with the above and the bit in bold in particular.

I probably should have put my general dislike of the current SU movement system at the outset of my post as that might have made it clearer the angle I was coming from.



Telemecus -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/3/2019 10:44:07 AM)

While I am very much part of the +1 lynch mob I do have some sympathy with the contrary view and thought it might be worth distinguishing two questions.

i) Given that all other SUs are treated in one way now, should not pioneers (and construction?) be treated the same way
ii) Should all SUs be treated a different way.

My sense is the +1s above are answering to i) whereas Sammy5IsAlive may be answering ii) ?

In WitE2 reassigning SUs has an impact on rail and also the the SU is temporarily made less capable after being reassigned.

I am probably more guilty than others in publishing the ways you can optimise aspects of the air war to the utmost. I agree that a game that confers a big advantage to one person just from having a higher boredom threshold rather than a mind is not fun. This is why I think it is so important to design out this possibility.



xhoel -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/3/2019 1:47:43 PM)

@Sammy5IsAlive: It sure came across as having a negative connotation to me. The whole disingenuous thing comes across as an argument made in bad faith, but ok, if that is how you feel, you can ignore the whole paragraph you quoted.

quote:

I probably should have put my general dislike of the current SU movement system at the outset of my post as that might have made it clearer the angle I was coming from.


Considering that you argued against my points in why this setting should be changed and also added your arguments in why it should remain the way it is, I don't understand why you are against this mechanism being changed?

I do not think that the SU system is perfect, nor am I saying it is 100% realistic but just like many other things in the game, the system has been abstracted and simplified. And since it is an abstracted system, all we are asking for is that Pioneer and Construction SUs get treated the way all other SUs are treated since currently they are treated differently (for no reason).

So basically we are in a situation where the SU system is a) not 100% realistic and abstract and b) makes it harder to move certain assets around just because it was designed to follow a certain "rule", a rule that does not help the player, does not help the game, does not encourage planning and does not bring more realism to the table.

All that is being asked in this post is to get rid of b). Considering that the last patch was launched 14 months ago and that bugs and problems that were found from the beginning haven't been fixed yet (we are still playing the same old buggy version), I want to see this small change implemented so that we are not stuck with a broken system because from the way I see it, the upcoming patch may as well be the last one for WitE (if we ever get it that is).

So we are asking for b) to be removed while you are asking for both a) and b) to be removed and substituted with c) A fully realistic system of how SUs work. If I am being realistic, I don't see that happening for many reasons.

Help me understand why you are against this change and for maintaining the status quo.

@Telemecus: I have never seen a lynch mob start a discussion and use logical arguments to prove their point. [;)]

Question 2 was not the topic of this thread though and as I have made it clear above, things are not looking great with the patches, it has been more than 1 year since the last patch dropped and I personally feel like at the stage we are in, WitE does not need any major overhauls, it needs to fix bugs and things that are off (like this awful rule about Pioneers and Construction SUs). In short, it doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, just needs stability as a game.

Any major changes are bound to create more problems and bugs that will need to be fixed etc just like it always happens when something completely new is added/changed. I would rather have this abstract system than have to wait 1+ year for bug fixes.




EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/3/2019 3:29:02 PM)

quote:

I have never seen a lynch mob start a discussion and use logical arguments to prove their point. [;)]


I am very disappointed by the course the lynch mob has taken. We set out to hang someone and now we discuss. What a waste of time, I am going home. First lynch, then talk I say.



Telemecus -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/3/2019 3:49:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

quote:

I have never seen a lynch mob start a discussion and use logical arguments to prove their point. [;)]


I am very disappointed by the course the lynch mob has taken. We set out to hang someone and now we discuss. What a waste of time, I am going home. First lynch, then talk I say.


We could compromise by handing out some protest leaflets. And then start a serious, and I mean serious, public petition campaign?



xhoel -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/4/2019 3:02:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

quote:

I have never seen a lynch mob start a discussion and use logical arguments to prove their point. [;)]


I am very disappointed by the course the lynch mob has taken. We set out to hang someone and now we discuss. What a waste of time, I am going home. First lynch, then talk I say.


This is gold [:D][:D][:D]



56ajax -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/4/2019 8:26:01 AM)

+1

Unfortunately creating new functionality is much sexier than fixing bugs or defects, and I suspect thats where the next patch may be at. The game needs incremental improvement, not a big bang.



xhoel -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/4/2019 1:03:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Unfortunately creating new functionality is much sexier than fixing bugs or defects, and I suspect thats where the next patch may be at.


This is understandable, however the playerbase should have gotten a bug fix by now. A version 1.11.4 that just fixed the bugs (which have already been fixed) would solve so many problems. After getting that done, the team could have continued experimenting on new functionality. No one would complain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax The game needs incremental improvement, not a big bang.


+1



No idea -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/4/2019 5:46:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

+1

This is one of the 2 features that I can think of that makes life harder for the player instead of making it easier. It is an absolute pain to move engineers around and there is literally no benefit from having such a mechanism in the game. Not to mention that you need to spend a ****ton of APs to do so and also to click so many times. Please please change it.

And while you are at it, make it so that arriving HQs come with SU settings set to Locked instead of Support Level 3. This is also a completely useless setting as the arriving HQ simply sucks in all SUs that are in the High Command for no reason whatsoever. These HQs won't see combat in 2-3 weeks since they need to reach the front first and those SUs are precious and can be utilized elsewhere. Set it to locked so the player can decide what to do with it.


+1 to BOTH ideas



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/18/2019 8:12:31 PM)

Bumpbump



Ledov -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/19/2019 8:41:10 PM)

+1



Nekronion -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/23/2019 1:16:20 PM)

+1



Jericoh -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (8/27/2019 2:00:56 PM)

I agree with this



Beria -> RE: Construction/Pioneer SUs should be affected by the support level setting as well! (9/6/2019 5:30:06 PM)

+1



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.361328