Whats next?

[paulus103_MatrixForum]

Personally I'd like the Kursk campaign
Follows on from the recapture of Kharkov in one of the scenorios so it seems a logical step

Lots of different units - attack vrs defense for both sides

My two cents anyway [8D]

[SeaMonkey]

Actually paulus that may be the way to go. Exploring how this game engine handles fortifications, defense in depth, and a battering ram thesis of attack could help round out any idiosyncrasies that would arise for further additions. There are plenty of "set piece" battles in the annals of WW2 history that will need to be addressed as this new genre evolves.

[SeaMonkey]

How about a more extensive command and control feature with the use of army HQs. Already I've seen some posts about specialist attachments and possibly a little more flexibility of the supply structure could be coordinated by a command doctrine. This way a pre OOB could be set up before entering into the scenario with the appropriate attachments made by the players. Obviously there is room to enhance attack and defense parameters as well as unit attributes(morale, effectiveness) through such a system, not to mention an unknown factor for units suddenly becoming "out of communications" a kind of FoW feature.

[Toby42]

A lot of these suggestions sound great, but don't make it into a complicated Grigsby game!!!

[Kipper]

+1

The glory of this design is what's left out. It focuses on operational art, to the exclusion of everything else.

The one thing I admire most about the designers of this game is their clear vision of their design concept and the self-discipline to leave out what doesn't contribute to it.

Much easier to decide to add things to the pot than take them out!

[Alan Sharif]

Excellent well made point Kipper.

[SeaMonkey]

No doubt the immersion level needs to carefully balanced, over complication IMO is a needless disadvantage to the AI for one, not to mention the hindrance to gameplay. I've watched SC slowly integrate more player involvement to the point where any additions could very well be detrimental. I agree, we already have enough designs out there for indulging micro-managing commanders. What I like to see are features that don't require a lot of player interaction, things that run in the background and are accessible to the player at his option so that the degree of complication is managed by the player's discretion, yet a game that takes advantage of the enormous computing power of today's processors.

[cherryfunk]

I just figured out what's bugging me about this game -- too much unit shuffling with no penalty.  Since only one unit at a time can attack (unless I'm missing something) you're forced to constantly shuffle units around to get multiple attacks on a specific part of the line.  You can't combine several units' attacks, so you have to hit with one, pull him back, push another in, attack, pull him back, push another in etc.  It results, for me, in less of a war game feel and more of a checkers or Go feel.

I love how War in the East handles this: a single unit can launch a 'hasty' attack, but to bring in adjacent units you need a more costly 'deliberate' attack, so you have to carefully plan your positioning and maneuver for advantage.  Unity seems to be missing that feel of positional warfare and combined offensives...
 

[paulus103_MatrixForum]

Mr Kipper [:)]

Great point. You've Put your finger on it -- that is what I like about this game

If i'm honest didn't have that much expectations from the game but its actually a very polished game
Doesn't over complicate and is fun to play

[stormbringer3]

Keke,
What game is your signature icon from?
Thanks.