Improvements?

[Saint Ruth]

So, if you could have 1 or 2 improvements/changes, what would they be?

So far, it seems most people would like more smaller scale scenarios. Rat'n'Rams or Battle Of Sollum scale, and fewer scenarios with 100+ units on each side.

[jack54]

I 'think' I would like waypoints and multi-turn moves. I say 'think' because I do enjoy dragging the arrow around for single turn moves.

[Okayrun3254]

I would like to see more refined graphics. The graphics are good, but I would like more sharpness, and maybe some smoother corners.

I also thought having a "reserve" feature would be nice. A way that each side could give reserve commands during the planning stage that take effect during the turn.

One more thing that would be interesting to me is if the aircraft were tied to a specific airfield.

[countrboy]

There seems to be very many units on screen that are not actively involved in the fighting. I often struggle to get my combat units near the front as they're often stuck behind arty, HQs, AA etc. This might be realistic but it also adds to the click fatigue, especially when they're only support units. Perhaps some of this could be abstracted? The AA units in particular are a pain.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I am a fan but there is one area where I think you did drop ball I have mentioned elsewhere but to help I think you wish for all such comments to be posted here.
Shock effect.
I don’t think it is historically accurate and even trying to watch out for it breaks the all-important immersion and natural flow of the game. There seems to be confusion between “operational movement….” and the conduct of the contact battle itself.
Lorried, trucked infantry didn’t manoeuvre in their transport while in close contact with the enemy. They would unload out of harms way, unless something went wrong, and then manoeuvre and fight alongside the tanks in a similar way to pure foot infantry. It is true that if infantry were accustomed to working with armour, typically with the same units married up, they worked far more effectively together. However, this does not mean that the combat power of a tank battalion was “decreased…” by the presents of infantry, even infantry unfamiliar with armour, in the same battalion task force to use more modern jargon.
From all I have read if say a Commonwealth tank battalion and an infantry battalion from an infantry division found themselves teamed up to attack the German line it would happen something like this.
The armoured squadrons/companies and the infantry companies would manoeuvre forward largely independently with the infantry no doubt nervous of avoiding a “blue on blue..” incident. But the armour would still use the infantry to try and identify the detail of the enemy positions by their fire and manoeuvre and the armour would still try to suppress the enemy positions while the many greater eyes of the infantry in turn tried to spot and suppress enemy AT guns. If the units were familiar with each other all this would work far more effectively.
At this scale I have always thought the most effective way to model the interdependence of armour and infantry is to make armour having its full, greater combat power being dependant on having the required amount of infantry working alongside them given the terrain the combat is taking place in.
Examples.
Open desert terrain. For an armour battalion to have its full combat power requires no infantry accompanying it. But if infantry of any sort is involved with it there is no decrease in its combat power.

Light farmland, whatever that is..[:)]. For armour to have its full combat power it must attack with at least one infantry squad for every three tanks or platoon of infantry for a company of armour.

Town. For an armour unit to have its full combat power it must attack with equal numbers/squads/companies of infantry.

In very heavy terrain armoured units combat power would decease even with accompanying infantry.
Anyway.. enough if that. Maybe some sort of optional rule that prevents armoured units from taking a decrease in power from the presents of infantry?
You guys are veterans of this stuff so will understand what I am trying to get at even if you don’t agree.
All the best,
Kip.
PS. Changing the combat power of the armoured units given the infantry they are with, given the terrain over which they fight, better then the brutality of shifting odds.. In my very prejudiced view..[;)]

[Duck Doc]

From Yogi the Great's post on Why didn't you buy?: "You might want to consider finding ways of streamlining so to speak the system and amount of time and detail it takes to do a turn. Thinking of what it takes to do a small scenario it is really hard to think of a large one. Player potentially takes a look at a large scenario and says, yeah maybe some day I'll try it, but not today."

So, not really a suggestion for improvement in the system but taking the comments above in a different direction I would really like to see a number of smaller battles or battle chunks or pieces. Without the lure of a campaign, I'm probably not going to invest in tackling a large scenario. They could even be hypothetical. Likelihood of my playing smaller and more manageable ones is great. The reason is the complexity or granularity of the game system. It is really a grognard game engine. Playing the tutorial then the introductory scenario to learn the system has already morphed into a major effort for me. Managing large numbers of counters is going to be way too tedious and challenging and I am liable to lose interest or be easily wooed away. Might try my hand at designing some if I can summon up the time and energy.

Got to tell you I love the game engine though.

Hope you understand.

[FredSanford3]

Maybe the larger scenarios would be easier to play if you could order entire formations to move together. Say clicking just on the Bde HQ and moving it, and the subunits all move in formation without needing to move them individually. Sort of like Command Ops for those familiar with that game.

(Note: I posted this suggestion in the 'why didn't you buy?' thread, but it is probably better suited to here)

[MrLongleg]

Ambushes should not be possible i f a unit moves into a hex that is already occupied by a friendly unit. I saw this happening on top of the escarpment when the AI shifted units along they were ambushed by my Brits sitting on the bottom of the escarpment.

[Saint Ruth]

ORIGINAL: MrLongleg

Ambushes should not be possible i f a unit moves into a hex that is already occupied by a friendly unit. I saw this happening on top of the escarpment when the AI shifted units along they were ambushed by my Brits sitting on the bottom of the escarpment.

Not too sure about that. Road Movement is moving in trucks etc in the open. I don't think units should be allowed to move in trucks right up to the front line without being penalized.
Thanks,
Brian

[MrLongleg]

Well, in that case the Brits were sitting on the bottom of the escarpment, the Italians on the top - no movement possible over the hex-side. So these Brits must have some super powers to pull that off. I would understand it when there would not be the escarpment cliff in between.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
I also thought having a "reserve" feature would be nice. A way that each side could give reserve commands during the planning stage that take effect during the turn.

Interesting idea. How do you see this working in the Desert War WEGO environment? What would happen during the planning phase? What would happen during the film phase? IOW, how does the player do reserve and then see its results?

[Okayrun3254]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
I also thought having a "reserve" feature would be nice. A way that each side could give reserve commands during the planning stage that take effect during the turn.

Interesting idea. How do you see this working in the Desert War WEGO environment? What would happen during the planning phase? What would happen during the film phase? IOW, how does the player do reserve and then see its results?

I was thinking a unit could be set to reserve in the planning phase. This would be a unit that is maybe behind a defensive line of friendly units, and would move to support a unit that is attacked in the execution phase. I recall this being a feature available in another game I liked to play.

[PzKw43]

What I don't like.

Too many counters for the map scale.

Can't resize the game window.

Info panel should be on the left side of the screen. Humans look at the upper left-hand corner of a screen first. That's where the info box and buttons belong. I shouldn't be going from one side of the screen to the other.
Why can't game designers follow Window's interface guidelines? Every game has a different interface.

[giffin]

More smaller scale scenarios.More Scenarios you can play in a short sitting. More Scenarios to play.

[Saint Ruth]

ORIGINAL: PzKw43

What I don't like.

Too many counters for the map scale.

Can't resize the game window.

Info panel should be on the left side of the screen. Humans look at the upper left-hand corner of a screen first. That's where the info box and buttons belong. I shouldn't be going from one side of the screen to the other.
Why can't game designers follow Window's interface guidelines? Every game has a different interface.

It's on the right as the buttons on are on the left, so they'd have to shift when the details pane was added / removed, which I didn't think would be good either...