ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym Additional Equipment types, or equipment options. Radar. Signal: Maintenance: Decrease Breakdown value Vehicles/Guns ARV: Decrease some losses in vehicles Medical: Decrease men losses. Chemical/NBC: Decrease NBC losses EW: FIST/MFC/FDC: Increase the effective of firesupport from Mortars, Artillery, planes, helicopters, ships AA/Sams In the AA value is now also included the Guidance/Fire Control. Made this like the AT Targeting. Say optica, IR, Radar, Microwave, Laser. SAMS/ATGW/Missiles etc Speed of the Missile I'd dread seeing a lot of these as units. Particularly ones like 'medical.' It reminds me of the little guys in the various 'Age of Empires' games who restore health. You move your 'medical unit' to the battered battalion and the condition light turns green again? No thanks. Really, a lot of these functions you describe -- Signal, Maintenance, ARV, Medical, Chemical/NBC -- are performed by units whose personnel are dispersed all over the map. They're not in one place, nor should they be represented as being in such. Their role seems best reflected in such elements as supply proficiency, replacement levels, supply stockpile, etc. I suppose one could have panzer repair workshops and hospitals -- but how would they work in detail, and would we really get a net improvement this way? I suppose some monumentally complex formula for adjusting certain types of replacements could get worked out so that players would (a) have these units, and (b) be motivated to put them in some location that was reasonably secure and reasonably near rails and other infrastructure and yet reasonably close to the front. But why? Where's the great benefit that will justify all the work? Radar I was thinking about in connection with Seelowe. Hard to see how it would work, though. I dunno about modern stuff -- but did radar matter in WW2 when it came to tactical air support and the other roles OPART is concerned with? In general, if these things were to be added, I'd want to see them done right -- which would call for a lot of work that I'd argue should go elsewhere. However, it would be worse if we just got them thrown in with some sort of slap-dash effect that didn't represent the way they functioned at all. Take MP units and the way they work in the game now. Well, it's not a big deal -- but is that unit hopping along one hex ahead of the panzer division to cut the density penalties really all that realistic? Do we want more of that sort of thing?
< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/11/2007 11:08:50 PM >
_____________________________
I am not Charlie Hebdo
|