RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition

RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire

Message

Jdane -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/10/2020 10:38:00 AM)
You are right in that in Advanced Tactics Gold, defining a new TOE did not cost any resource. But in Shadow Empire, the Staff Council could stay and be needed to invest BPs in new units composition research. But instead of randomly discovering one from a pool of combinations, it would then give the player the opportunity to decide what to put in a unit and in which proportion. I'm not convinced by the extent of randomness as for research (economic and military) and OOBs are concerned. I think giving the player more agency (let us target a specific tech, or define the TOE ourselves), while still needing to use the councils, would constitute an improvement.

Vhalor -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/10/2020 10:52:37 AM)
I agree more direct control when it comes to the composition would be a welcomed change. Now about the randomness, this game is highly random in most aspects, so reducing it somewhat in a few areas like this one should be no issue at all.

kosmoface -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/11/2020 7:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smidlee I don't mind OOB and don't see it a big deal. I can still attached two units of my choice to my brigades. It doesn't take much time to discovery the mixed of units I want. I second this. Some features of Paradox games I actually liked very much - until some "pro" players complained and they took the feature out. I don't like this situation very much, because I don't have any reason to complain, yet I believe me being silent is interpreted as agreeing with what other players say. It is not. In the end I think player input is important, but the developer or developers should stay true to their vision.

Fizbun -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/11/2020 9:13:14 AM)
I'd really like if it would be possible to design your own OOB's/Brigade templates and choose what type of units go into my batallions, like it is possible in Hearts of Iron 4. It is casual but doesnt feel as dumb and restricted. One way to get the units I want is to make a battlegroup and build my unit that way but then I can't reinforce them with the equipment they lost. It's also a hassle to do compile evety unit one by one.

Saarud -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/11/2020 2:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kosmoface quote: ORIGINAL: Smidlee I don't mind OOB and don't see it a big deal. I can still attached two units of my choice to my brigades. It doesn't take much time to discovery the mixed of units I want. I second this. Some features of Paradox games I actually liked very much - until some "pro" players complained and they took the feature out. I don't like this situation very much, because I don't have any reason to complain, yet I believe me being silent is interpreted as agreeing with what other players say. It is not. In the end I think player input is important, but the developer or developers should stay true to their vision. I totally agree with this. I think the developer really has put all the part of the game together in a great way and the unit compositions is one part of that design. I really hope that he stays true to his vision.

Vhalor -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/11/2020 3:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fizbun I'd really like if it would be possible to design your own OOB's/Brigade templates and choose what type of units go into my batallions, like it is possible in Hearts of Iron 4. It is casual but doesnt feel as dumb and restricted. More towards t he Hearts of Iron 4 style could be good, I agree. It's has a clear cost attached as well, so it would align with the Staff Council generating it from BP.

Fizbun -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/11/2020 4:22:32 PM)
I think it should stay similiar as to, you design a brigade template and then the model design team starts cracking at it.

TomFrame -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/16/2020 1:18:08 AM)
When I was about to purchase this game, not being able to fully design my own units actually gave me pause and I considered NOT buying it. It was literally the single most pressing issue I wanted altered. I purchased the game and now it's still the most pressing issue for me (well that and mod support). In my personal opinion, ATG is superior and I consider SE a downgrade in this specific area. I'm not spending a very large amount of time inside the ToE designer anymore, and that makes me both happy and sad, but mostly sad. Just my 2 cents, I still love the game (disclaimer I guess) and will play it like crazy for quite a while to come.

jwarrenw13 -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/16/2020 1:36:22 AM)
Playing this game brought me back to ATG to take a look at the TOE designer, which I had never really played. I had played ATG a lot, but a long time ago. I found a quick lesson on creating a TOE and found that the TOE system in ATG is just brilliant. If it could be integrated into SE that would be even more brilliant. I am thrilled with SE as it is, but a longterm goal of a TOE generator would be great. Also great would be the ability to create your own formations perhaps by bringing five independent units of your choice together in a city, creating an OHQ for them, and you have a new custom task force.

Sieppo -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/16/2020 11:00:28 AM)
The first thing that caused me major wonder after I started playing was that after I researched RPG's, my infantry were not outfitted with them, as usually happens. I had to separately research a unit that could wield them totally separate of the infantry. Militia also had them from the start, which is weird. I think now of them as crude tank killing improvisations to keep it sensible, the Finnish army had them in the winter war called "kasapanos" or somekind of charge you carry, with which they destroyed hundreds of Russian tanks relying basically on the courage of the individual soldier to run up to the tank. The other thing they invented was the Molotow Cocktail, which basically was a bottle filled with gasoline and a fabric lit on fire. I think there should be some option to include new tech in old formations to increase for example hard defense. Maybe as an attachment like many games use. Of course in larger games this could become quite tedious.

TC2712 -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/16/2020 11:41:44 AM)
Also the fact that militia start with articulated combined arms formations and the actual state organised army cant do this is nuts. Like most people I would prefer the full TOE editor from ATG perhaps with the staff council generating 'design points' that allow you to create new formations. Failing that as a short term fix unlocking the mixed RIGLE/RPG/MG infantry unit upon the discovery and development of RPGs would stop this part of the game feeling so absurd.

Sieppo -> RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition (7/16/2020 11:50:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TC2712 Also the fact that militia start with articulated combined arms formations and the actual state organised army cant do this is nuts. Like most people I would prefer the full TOE editor from ATG perhaps with the staff council generating 'design points' that allow you to create new formations. Failing that as a short term fix unlocking the mixed RIGLE/RPG/MG infantry unit upon the discovery and development of RPGs would stop this part of the game feeling so absurd. Yes I feel the game is a bit unfinished until this happens.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625