Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
For Stalingrad (presumably company scale?), you will need some further granularity on urban structures and, most of all, on the types of movement available and LOS / ZOC / detection routines. Also, never saw any weather model with winter / extreme weather in the game, so not sure how that will operate (in terms of ground and air combat and also movement, impact on troop numbers, etc).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
For DBP, you will need some of the above, but also some more granularity in troop types since there was a huge difference, even amongst the elite troops, also, command will need to be reviewed since (actually in both of these games) most troops operated reasonably effectively even when cut from their superior commands , but this was heavily dependent on their quality (ie, 6 BCP could operate even if alone on mars, some of the colonial troops would collapse if they felt isolated).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
In both of the above, the current air and naval models are probably just right. The naval model is not even needed. The only question on the air model is air supply, which would apply to both cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
In short, I think it depends on where you are going. IMO, for example, if you now went crazy and developed an ubber naval model whilst working on titles for Stalingrad and DBP, then your work would be wasted for the time being... so there's little point in even discussing it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
Hope the above makes sense, even if probably not helpful at all...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Freedom205
...As far as casualties,I think they are within reason and close enough. I do question the ease of killing units off after they have been surrounded and isolated. I agree that their fighting power should diminish every turn they are isolated and out of supply, but I don't agree with how quickly it diminishes. Most units had enough supply for at least a day or two of fighting, if not 3 or 4. Movement should be limited, but I think it should take repeated attacks to lower the defensive strength of a unit. Not just repeated turns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Freedom205
I also think it would be nice if ground units had an attack and defense value for both soft and hard targets. As an example the 2 pounder was a good anti tank gun, but useless against troops because of the lack of a HE round. The Panzer IIIJ was far superior to the IIIG against armor, but they were equal against troops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Freedom205
As far as air assets, I have thought that perhaps their fighting ability should factor into how they effect the game. As an example, a fighter unit should have an air to air rating rather than just being added as one more unit on CAP. If you had a unit of 109Fs (maybe rated a 5) and a Fiat G50 unit (rated a 3) than your total Counter Air would be an 8. (instead of 2, like it currently is) I understand it would take a lot of added programming, and once you factor in bombers it could get very complicated. In a nutshell I don't like to see 1 Gladiator unit on Counter Air have the same effect as a Spitfire unit. I certainly can live with it the way it is though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Freedom205
I hope enough interest is generated to keep the wego system alive. I really enjoy playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superhans

WEGO system is excellent but...ground casualties are a bid odd...So far I've been wiped out 436 men to 0, 291 men to 0 casualties and so on. Both sides would naturally take casualties, even if it was a decisive victory...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

What do you think about the "Desert War" WEGO game system?

* In your opinion, are the ground casualties suffered in the game low/high/or about right? What are your questions/concerns about ground unit casualties?

I have been playing Salerno, which has been a tense and fun scenario, and in some of the battles, there have been high casualties. The battles that have high casualties seem to be when a unit is surrounded, attacked with high concentration of offshore bombardment, artillery, command ratings, or a combination of the two. I have seen units that were caught out in the open ground completely destroyed by a superior force. I have also seen elite paratrooper unit withstand a attack, and survive, which seems historically correct to me. Most of the time when I lose one of my units is completely destroyed, its because I left that unit vulnerable, out in the open, no flank protection, etc. This has been a lesson for me, and now I respect the range of the offshore bombardment, open ground defenses, and I am learning to find better terrain for defensive positions, and protecting my flanks from being surrounded. When I see a unit that has been destroyed, I wonder if that is all casualties, or are part of the list of casualties represent prisoners taken. I think historically, if a unit is destroyed, there will be a mix of casualties and prisoners.


* In your opinion, is the air asset concept good, bad or are you indifferent? How would you improve it?

The more I understand the system, the better I like it. To me, it is a system that is abstracted in some ways, but is also very direct in how the air units can be assigned by the player for specific missions, which have a very key effect on the game.


* In your opinion, is the ground asset concept good, bad or are you indifferent? How would you improve it?

The ground assets are a nice way to get an advantage at a key point in the game by assigning them to a battle. I like that the player has a way to possibly tip the scale in a specific battle of the player choice. It is a powerful asset, and in some scenarios I think the number of command assets may need to be adjusted.

* In your opinion, is the naval asset concept good, bad or are you indifferent? How would you improve it?

In a game like Salerno, the naval asset is historically a key factor in the battle. I think it works well to represent the Allies advantage in naval power, and the Axis's vulnerability to this asset.

I am not sure, but can the Axis airpower attack the Allies naval assets?

* What questions do you have about the WEGO system that you would like to have answered?

Does airpower have an effect when units are moving, or caught in a meeting engagement? Do any of the assigned assets come into play when units run into each other in a meeting engagement?

* In what directions would you like to see the Desert War WEGO system proceed?

I would like to keep seeing new game enhancements similar to the addition of troops, AFVs and guns to the unit information. I am very interested in how smaller, maybe company sized units play out in an urban environment like Stalingrad. Maybe some new fortifications types would be interesting. Bridge building and destruction for engineer units. Paratroop landings. The game graphics is also one of the most import feature in a game for me. I like the looks of the Salerno map, and hope to keep seeing further improvement to map and counter graphics.

Thanks in advance for your input!

Thanks for the opportunity to give input.

Frank

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
Does airpower have an effect when units are moving, or caught in a meeting engagement? Do any of the assigned assets come into play when units run into each other in a meeting engagement?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
...I am very interested in how smaller, maybe company sized units play out in an urban environment like Stalingrad. Maybe some new fortifications types would be interesting. Bridge building and destruction for engineer units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
Paratroop landings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
The game graphics is also one of the most import feature in a game for me. I like the looks of the Salerno map, and hope to keep seeing further improvement to map and counter graphics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
...When I see a unit that has been destroyed, I wonder if that is all casualties, or are part of the list of casualties represent prisoners taken. I think historically, if a unit is destroyed, there will be a mix of casualties and prisoners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

Thanks for the opportunity to give input.

Frank

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Sorry for delay in responding...haven't had a chance to play in a while, so I wanted to review some features in the manual before responding. I don't actually have responses to your specific questions, but a few random, minor comments:
1) DW remains one of the most innovative games to come out in recent years; I didn't play it as much as I'd hoped, mainly because I'm not very interested in the theater, and the dense stacks were a bit of a turn off for me. Looking forward to Stalingrad!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
2) IIRC there are no night turns in DW--will this be remedied in Stalingrad? I would expect that recon values and non-road movement costs would be affected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
3) Frankly I've never really understood why I had to select a special supply mode to use road movement...I think road movement (at least in Russia) would typically consume less fuel than cross-country, not more fuel? And why not be able to use road movement for part of my move, then deploy for offense or defense (at some MP cost)? Seems like this happened all the time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
4) My main graphical wish would be to give the counters a little "depth" by shading the edges to more closely resemble a cardboard counter; a minor thing perhaps, but IMHO it would really improve the game's look.

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

I know a full game at division level is not in the cards but as the developers like having side projects ...let me tempt you...

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

Say...I once suggested how one could use 'points' at scenario deployment to make the opponent life more difficult (I take a 10VP points cut but then my opponent gets a third less fuel). A larger scale scenario would help the player understand those events... as in 'I have been tasked to take Voronezh but then AGS had trouble in taking Sevastopol and my air support had to be delayed'...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WABAC

Since you asked.

The AI is woefully ignorant. I was beginning to have some doubts after a few games. So I ran Alam Halfa AI vs AI. The Axis ran right around the ridge to take Al Hammam. Then stopped. They could have taken Alexandria and the eastern victory hex had they wanted to.

They could have done almost anything they wanted to because the 8th Army simply didn't respond at all. Units that were unlocked didn't move to respond to the threat in their rear. Units that were locked to start with stayed locked. XXX Corps HQ sat in place and was overrun. OTOH, ME Command advanced towards the action unsupported.

I am left with the impression that I could have pulled the unlocked units entirely off the line without fear of the AI reacting.

And it wasn't a matter of supply that stopped the Axis advance. They had more fuel and ammo at the end of the scenario than they did in the middle. So Allied interdiction wasn't having any effect. Maybe it was a designer's choice. The Allies did not enjoy the overwhelming air superiority they had in the actual event. The German's alone have three wings and five squadrons of Messerschmidts.

As long as I'm here . . . Looking under the hood. There's nothing more to see than a chit management system. I was wondering why XXX Corps couldn't get out of the way of the advancing Axis forces. It has simply been assigned a "move cost" of 6. Most units are assigned an 8 move cost.

This is decidedly not the sort of game that lets you fiddle with the number of motorcycles, jeeps, lorries, and Sten guns on hand. Aircraft and ships are handled in a similar manner. You simply assign numerical values that suit you to the unit you are designing. The only thing that says its a Messerschmidt or an L Class destroyer is the .png you attach.

One odd book-keeping note . . . You can look at your expected reinforcements entering at such and such a square. But you can't actually find the square labeled anywhere, even with a mouse-over.

As far as WEGO? I can't say that it has much influence on my opinion of the game. It feels sort of clunky. Things move a little bit. Then there are big graphics straight out of 60's TV Batman. And then you have to read a sub-screen to see what happened.

I think I'll see if I can get Highway to the Reich up and running for some real-time movement. And I can count the trucks in XXX Corps's TAC HQ to boot.

This is my first negative review on a Matrix game. I have bought some games that didn't suit me. But this is the only one where the price seems out of keeping with the quality of the product.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

The game has two options for counters, either a military graphic, or NATO type. I would really like to see another option for a smaller NATO symbol and military graphic, and maybe more information on the counter with the extra room. Along with the newer cardboard counter look this would go a long way IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

I would like to see some improvements in the HQ Hierarchy screen. I noticed that it shows that a unit is destroyed, but I was unable to determine the type of unit destroyed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
It would be incredible to be able to click a Non-HQ unit and get its unit information screen. The would be very helpful as an overall planning tool, especially whey there are multiple divisions in the scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

The game has two options for counters, either a military graphic, or NATO type. I would really like to see another option for a smaller NATO symbol and military graphic, and maybe more information on the counter with the extra room. Along with the newer cardboard counter look this would go a long way IMO.

Interesting. What additional information would you like to see on the counter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

I would like to see some improvements in the HQ Hierarchy screen. I noticed that it shows that a unit is destroyed, but I was unable to determine the type of unit destroyed.

Good point. Good idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
It would be incredible to be able to click a Non-HQ unit and get its unit information screen. The would be very helpful as an overall planning tool, especially whey there are multiple divisions in the scenario.

"Unit information screen"...what do you mean? Is it showing the non-HQ unit's HQ and sister units? I'm not following.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

OK. I think I understand. Check me. If you have the HQ Hierarchy screen open and you click on a unit icon on the HQ Hierarchy screen--then you will see the unit information pop-up you would normally see if you right clicked on a unit icon while in-game. Correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

The game has two options for counters, either a military graphic, or NATO type. I would really like to see another option for a smaller NATO symbol and military graphic, and maybe more information on the counter with the extra room. Along with the newer cardboard counter look this would go a long way IMO.

Interesting. What additional information would you like to see on the counter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254

quote:

ORIGINAL: bcgames

OK. I think I understand. Check me. If you have the HQ Hierarchy screen open and you click on a unit icon on the HQ Hierarchy screen--then you will see the unit information pop-up you would normally see if you right clicked on a unit icon while in-game. Correct?

Yes, exactly. It would also be great to see a regular sized icons for each of the Non-HQ units in the HQ Hierarchy screen view.