Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game Suggestions:

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/23/2015 8:47:44 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		I doubt this will be done for WitE 1 unless there's a sufficiently high feedback regarding this. But I expect future WitE 2 to be shipped with an optional deluxe hardcover manual.

(in reply to Majick)
Post #: 631
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/23/2015 10:01:30 PM   
Majick

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 1/7/2010
Status: offline 		WITE 2? Even better :)

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 632
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/23/2015 11:55:13 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		Will be based on WitW engine, hopefully with some improvements done for WitE 1.08. But still a long time to see this.

< Message edited by Denniss -- 4/24/2015 12:55:34 AM >

(in reply to Majick)
Post #: 633
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/24/2015 12:01:06 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		My suggestions would be.

If you do a War in Europe type situation you need to remove all the auto removal of factories and units that happens. As most of this tied to historical events that may not happen if the player is running the entire scenario.

Also many units withdrawn were because they were burned out and needed to refit until the Late late war when they were re-purposed to the western front. If you do a remake of only eastern front the player should be allowed to choose what unit withdraws To many times Ive had units in key positions be on the withdraw list when in a real life situation that would never happen.

Also allow the Germans some freedom on production in factories/units. If for some reason you suddenly do better than historical you can end up with stuff just sitting in pools waiting for you to take losses.

Also more accurate casualty model....for one week turns battles should be more lethal. Tired of seeing division sized+ engagements with a couple hundred losses per side and corps+ sized engagements with only 1-2k losses. If for a week an assault is carried out by 150k determined attackers vs 30-50k dug-in and determined defenders the losses should be staggering for both sides not ohh comrade stalin we lost a regiment and called off the attack...which is bull hockey if you read how bloody alot of this fighting really was.

Also historically the Soviet were super low on manpower at the end and sending in old men and boys drug out of occuppied zones to their units....dont think the game really shows a soviet manpower shortage in the late war due to the bad casualty model.

(in reply to Majick)
Post #: 634
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/24/2015 12:09:30 AM   
uw06670


Posts: 221
Joined: 3/12/2015
Status: offline
quote:

To many times Ive had units in key positions be on the withdraw list when in a real life situation that would never happen


Actually having read a lot about how battles went down on the East Front lately, units removed were often key to their sector and sometimes it forced the end of an offensive. Hitler wanted the super units moved to other Fronts and of course they weren't sitting around idle, ever.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 635
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/24/2015 12:46:19 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Im not talking just super units. If an infantry division is removed because most likely historically it was burned out it might actually be in a good spot in the line why couldnt the player just pull a different infantry division.

I understand all the SS divisions moving around....but even then they were pulled out in 1942 to rebuild mainly esp 3rd SS as it took a real beating in the winter of 1941/42. If the division hadnt been mostly chewed up would it have been withdrawn is then a question no?

6th panzer is another one...it lost virtually all its tanks and was pulled out to rebuild...so if in your game it doesnt get smashed why would it get pulled out to rebuild? Those are the things I have issue with.

(in reply to uw06670)
Post #: 636
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/24/2015 8:21:01 PM   
uw06670


Posts: 221
Joined: 3/12/2015
Status: offline 		Ah, yes that makes complete sense. As we can send units out for Refit on our own if they get hammered, then yeah seems unnecessary to remove units if that was the historical reason for doing so.

There were specific instances where strong units were sent to France or Italy to bolster defenses. Those are the most important ones to enforce in game as long as the Western and other fronts are just being simulated.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 637
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/24/2015 9:09:28 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		yes from 1943 on if a unit was withdrawn specifically to defend Italy/France then so be it. If it was withdrawn because it was mostly destroyed and needed to be rebuilt then it shouldnt be an auto withdrawl. In all honesty what should happen is either the player gets to choose a beat up unit to send for rebuild or the historical replacement totals used to rebuild those units in france needs to be added as replacements to the eastern front so you as the play can pull units out of the line and refit them.

(in reply to uw06670)
Post #: 638
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/24/2015 9:31:21 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		A Disband-withdraw is what you are looking for. Instead of disappearing all equipment is flushed to the pools.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 639
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/29/2015 7:56:02 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		One way to increase casualties in specific situations for WitE 2 would be to add to the various unit stances, such as "refit" and "reserve." Defenders could choose between levels of desired defensive tenacity, actual tenacity depending upon the morale/experience of the units. Choices might be "delay," "normal" and "last bullet." The tougher the defensive stance, the higher potential for defending reserve commitment, casualties on both sides, also routing in the event of defeat. Also, troops given a tenacity beyond their morale, experience and fatigue levels might risk shattering of at least rout.

Attacks might likewise pay a premium in casualties for lowering the odds at which they succeed or making break off less likely.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 640
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/29/2015 8:15:39 PM   
uw06670


Posts: 221
Joined: 3/12/2015
Status: offline 		I like that idea, except for the extra work it will be for me each turn. Then there should be a master switch to set the default/current defensive stance of units. And the Soviet player might have to fight against his own AI Stalin that keeps setting it to "last bullet" :-) Then perhaps you as player can only change this for one corps per Front or something.

on a related note. Has the WitE team considered (to add realism) putting in objectives/doctrine that is out of the player's control? (optional of course) Such as the above no retreat rule or giving an Army Group a minimum objective to reach (taking Kiev by Turn X) that comes from an AI Hitler/Stalin? Failure to reach it could remove commanders (rather than just winning or losing battles). Success could give some benefit (extra supplies, a token unit).

Some of that might just be frustrating for most players and they would never turn it on, but curious what people think. For versus AI games especially, it would give you an additional challenge having to take orders from "that Amateur Corporal!"

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 641
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/10/2015 2:33:25 PM   
kipanderson

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 8/27/2001
From: U.K.
Status: offline 		Turn length and units, hex scale out of sync.. Option shorter turn length.

Hi,

Apologies if this is an option or has already been requested and turned down.

The issue that has always stopped me from buying this series of games is the turn length of one week. At 10km per hex and divisional manoeuvre units 24 hours should be turn length. In my very prejudice view ;).

As with many here I have read hundreds of military histories and with divisions and even brigades as the manoeuvre units the “in scale..” turn length when the commander should be able to adjust matters is 24 hours.

The unit size and hex scale are in sync, but the turn length is wildly too long.

One week is true, upper limit strategic stuff. 50km hex scale.

I confess I mainly, only currently play CM and the operational games with battalions as the standard manoeuvre units. But this scale would interest me, looks like a fantastic game, detail I love, but turn length needs to come all the way down to 24 hours.

No doubt will not happen,
But still great game I am sure for those who like it as it is,
All the best,
Kip.

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 642
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/10/2015 4:17:02 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Think 2 turns per week would be a good compromise, but yes, shorter turns would kill off a lot of gamey manoeuvres.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to kipanderson)
Post #: 643
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/11/2015 7:16:02 PM   
uw06670


Posts: 221
Joined: 3/12/2015
Status: offline 		Perhaps to more easily achieve the compromise of having 2 turns per week, you could have the second turn be move and shoot only. So Week X Turn 1 you do logistics and such, and then get roughly half of your MPs. Then in Week X Turn 2 you get the remaining MPs to move and shoot again. Not perfect, but perhaps attainable without needing to adjust every other aspect of the game.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 644
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/11/2015 10:12:31 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Not sure such a division would work. In WitW the strategic air war is dysfunctional in part because of the weekly turns. You can't, with the current air directive options, create a realistic interceptor defence. One option would be to add designated interception zones in which various interceptor types would attempt to co ordinate their efforts intercepting attacks within that zone. Another would simply be to increase game turns per week in strategic/production areas of game, thus reducing the rock, paper, scissors effect of the current system. Both avenues together, would deliver the best results IMO.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to uw06670)
Post #: 645
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/25/2015 12:25:13 PM   
lhmg


Posts: 37
Joined: 4/27/2014
Status: offline 		Great game but needs:

1) colors for the Corps level (red dot on all 2nd Corps units, white on 10th Corps, etc, etc for each Army color)

2) Video or youtube instructions, quicky 5 min on this is how you make RR repair units work, etc, etc

3) Different background music, marching songs, 40's era music, that one clip is too redundant and pretty harsh

Thanks for listeneing

_____________________________

..."And to the Republic, for which it stands."

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 646
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/25/2015 12:32:15 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		You can set custom colors for corps. YOu can try to use various shades of base army color to keep them aligned.

(in reply to lhmg)
Post #: 647
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/25/2015 4:14:27 PM   
budd


Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline 		Don't know if this has been mentioned as i didn't read all the pages but its worth mentioning again. I've always had trouble with large operational games, i'm fine small to mid scenario's. I'm having fun with the road to scenario's and i must say the UI makes it easy to at least jump in and start pushing counters.Maybe someday i'll be able to work myself up to the full campaign. I start a scenario and i like to finish in one sitting, of course the larger, multi-year campaigns this isn't possible. What would help me and maybe other new players is some kind of commanders logbook, where you could type as you go. Sometimes real life gets in the way of your operational plans and it could be a awhile until you can get back into the game so having an ongoing log you could refer to when you get back to playing would be helpful. I've always wondered why this feature hasn't been implemented yet in your larger games. Probably be helpful for AAR's also.

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 648
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/25/2015 9:24:03 PM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		@**budd**

Agree, some way of annotating HQs with terse remarks to remind one of one's intentions.

"Commanders' logbooks" is an appealing feature.

(in reply to budd)
Post #: 649
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/25/2015 10:26:36 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		aye. agree. So easy to forget what you were up to and why that division was heading in that direction.

With the Soviets I've started to use the different rear military districts as a rough and ready reminder. You don't usually need to use any of them to control armies in 1941 (on the assumption your opponent is busily shredding you to pieces), so what I do:

a) the good siberian arrivals I give to the Moscow MD (these are the units that arrive in 1941 at full strength);
b) if the unit is worth committing straight to combat (ie has ok morale and ok experience), I give to Volga MD;
c) if the unit is really rubbish and you don't want it anywhere near the Germans (and you get some <10 experience) ... Urals MD;
d) with the greater demands on your rail points, some units I just leave where they arrive (those weak tank divisions for example) till I have spare rail cap (usually the Nov mud turns) ... South Urals MD

Its not perfect, but it does help a bit to keep my rear area organised and if there is a gap in turns, at least I can sort of remember what I was up to. Remember that to move a unit from the MDs to a combat army costs no admin pts.

By late 1941, I do a big shuffle as by then, I often want Moscow and Volga MDs to hold combat armies.

_____________________________


(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 650
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/9/2015 9:27:58 PM   
mikelisby


Posts: 10
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

You can set custom colors for corps. YOu can try to use various shades of base army color to keep them aligned.


That's a great idea, Morvael. Hadn't thought of that, to be honest. Problem is, I don't speak "RGB", so coming up with a shade of a color that looks like but isn't quite the same as the Army HQ is next to impossible for me without a preview function.

(Mostly I just use the Shift-Z hotkey so I can see at a glance who "belongs together", and that works fine. If only it would carry over from turn to turn, but that's really, really minor).

< Message edited by mikelisby -- 8/9/2015 10:29:38 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 651
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/9/2015 9:39:40 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		There is a lot of color pickers online. Play with them in your browser and then note down R, G and B components (each a value between 0 and 255).

(in reply to mikelisby)
Post #: 652
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/9/2015 11:57:26 PM   
mikelisby


Posts: 10
Joined: 8/1/2015
Status: offline 		Thanks, Morvael. Will do. Yet another cool feature of this game that I didn't know of until now

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 653
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/10/2015 10:11:52 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline 		Hey,

Change: include intercept / mobile intercept unit stance

In my opinion the easiest change to tackle the long turns / small scale of the hex would be to include a stance of the unit like 'intercept / intercept mobile'. That would mean that as long as there is enemy movement within the range of the unit mp from previous turn, there is a check (based e.g. on initiative of the leader) that the unit will move into the hex next to the moving enemy unit / mobile enemy unit (that is motorized / tank division). The hex should correspond to the direction the unit is coming from. For example, when the Axis tank division is moving eastwards, the unit from the north would end up in the hex NE or E to the unit, the unit from the south in the hex SE or E to the moving unit, the unit from the east in the hex east to the moving unit) The chance of the intercept would be the higher the closer the unit is. One may also think about failed intercepts (that is a unit which tries to move, but moved too late to intercept), but perhaps that is too much.

Adding such a change would be a major change and perhaps something to think about in the future games. It would greatly fix the issues arising from the turn length giving the game which is manageable in time, yet more realistic.

Kind regards
T.

quote:

ORIGINAL: uw06670

Perhaps to more easily achieve the compromise of having 2 turns per week, you could have the second turn be move and shoot only. So Week X Turn 1 you do logistics and such, and then get roughly half of your MPs. Then in Week X Turn 2 you get the remaining MPs to move and shoot again. Not perfect, but perhaps attainable without needing to adjust every other aspect of the game.


(in reply to uw06670)
Post #: 654
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/10/2015 10:27:09 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Some players would be afraid to give AI more control of their forces. They already say AI is sometimes choosing bad hexes to retreat to.

Then, there is also a question whether this couldn't be exploited by attacker drawing "interceptor" units by some weak attack, to open up alternate routes for a stronger push coming second. IRL those two attacks would happen mostly in parallel (with attacker's reserve units poised to exploit where the gap would be wider) and defenders would be able to assess which threat is greater.

Board games have those kinds of intercepts (or opposite - triggered withdrawals if enemy comes near), but they have the luxury to have both players available, even though in general they might be IGOYOUGO. Impossible in computer IGOYOUGO.

One of my simpler ideas, that do not involve automated movement, was to have a sticky ZOC to extend from such "interceptor" unit, based on unspent MP, that would in turn increase movement costs for units moving in such sticky ZOC zone, slowing them down (and preventing critically deep penetrations).

Of course WitE will not change its mechanics is such drastic way at this point.

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 655
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/10/2015 10:43:50 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline 		Hey Morvael,

Thanks for the comment - and I agree that for every solution there may be an exploit. Indeed, the parallel attacks would be a potential issue. The standard solution would be to divide the mps into batches, such that each player would have to use the first batch first, press continue, use the second batch etc. But that leads to a very different game to WitE.

However, setting limited number of units to the intercept stance, with most just staying as it is currently (stand & fight stance), would certainly change the game. The player would decide whether to set the unit to intercept or not - and what kind of units to intercept. So, of course, ai may make mistakes (same as the real guys on the field, war is chaos), but it would be up to the player to choose whether to intercept or not. A bit like in real life - you set the orders, but the reality verify how the orders are followed on the battlefield.

Myself, I would certainly set some of the more mobile units in the back to intercept, leaving most in the current no-intercept stance.

I believe that having an option to set the units in the intercept stance would have an effect of limiting deep penetrations if set up right by the player. Surely, you may disagree.

Anyway, keep on doing the good job for the game!

T.

PS. I consider it a skill to attack in such a way that the units withdraw into positions convenient for me - and that is also something happening in reality. If unit withdraws and thinks the enemy is behind, the unit will withdraw into direction where hopefully no enemy is (yet)... Sure, it may be wrong when one is able to see the big picture, but such a big picture is rarely available even on the modern battlefield (maybe the best armies can do it now, but battle is still unpredictable and I would not count on fresh recruits to execute strategy too well) not to mention historical battlefield of WWII.

T.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 656
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/10/2015 10:52:49 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		People would also cry for the option to customize, just like air missions in WitW - you can go with just selecting targets and the AI will do the rest, but then you may want to set who files, what loadout is used, what altitude and the actual path to target. The same would be required of intercepts - trigger only on units entering manually selected hexes, trigger only on specific units (motorized), etc.

If I would be willing to give AI more control of my units, I'd prefer to fully go the WEGO way, which solves TONS of problems that IGOYOUGO games have, starting with parallel actions, simulating confusion on the battlefield, and sub-optimal actions of lower level of command). I'd certainly want to play WEGO version of WitE.

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 657
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/10/2015 11:54:39 AM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		Anticipating next update (.05?) surely, but mostly 2.0.

Most useful (& possibly simple) improvements from my perspective:

Some variability "surprises" for initial set-ups, both sides.
Commanders' Logbooks.
Alternative map & icon "looks," see forum mods thread for authors & possibilities.
HQ aggregate CV valuation for attached units & support assignments.
Navigate from "unit" identifier in HQ lists to the map location.
Greater costs & time delays for support unit assignments, especially between GHQ, AGs, & Armies. In general, game seems to not respect GHQ, AG, & Army command & control "difficulties."
Ability to clean up PBEM games list (abandoned games awaiting opponent's move, really old challenges.)




(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 658
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/10/2015 2:05:27 PM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

If I would be willing to give AI more control of my units, I'd prefer to fully go the WEGO way, which solves TONS of problems that IGOYOUGO games have, starting with parallel actions, simulating confusion on the battlefield, and sub-optimal actions of lower level of command). I'd certainly want to play WEGO version of WitE.


Hey,

I was thinking that WEGO would be the best way for a long time. However, now I think that designing WitE as WEGO would be very very tough. It would require all the sophisticated AI of IGOYOUGO with all the bells and whistles (reaction to enemy just being one of these), and than much more.

WEGO in a sense is like real time strategy which is paused now and than (and the time between pauses would be rather long in case of WitE) - where you can give orders only during the pauses. I cannot really think about any RTS which would be able to work like that without major hiccups. Even the Paradox games using the Clausewitz engine would come short - even though they are not really an RTS. There are reasons why WEGO games are very niche, even compared to turn based hex based strategy games - designing an RTS is so much easier as all the shortcomings of the AI can be corrected by the player in quasi real time (and the shortcomings are usually plenty which is why the actions per minute are so important in the RTS).

Of course, to make WEGO work, we can shorten the time between the orders. So, having WEGO in WitE with a day-long period between the orders is probably doable without any major design problems, but in such case current design would also work very well. The whole wonder of WitE design is that it allows to play through the whole war in the east in full detail with a real opponent without spending few years exchanging emails. Achieving that in WEGO way would be very tough. However, if you can do it... go for it

Apologies for slight off-topic.

Regards,
T.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 659
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/24/2015 1:14:56 PM   
imberbe


Posts: 71
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline 		I just have a Historical suggestion: Put in later Scenarios in Army Group North (axis) the Narwa Army!!!!

_____________________________

"We have come to bring freedom and democracy, but if someone moves without my permission, we will execute him!"

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.938