Game Suggestions:

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3

User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by 76mm »

Actually I can't take credit for the server-save game idea, I think lots of people have asked for it.

I'm assuming that this wish list could apply to a Field Marshall edition, rather than just an average patch, so:

1) Fix the map east of Lgrad, make it more heavy woods/swamp (see seperate thread...);
2) Fix rail somehow so that cutting one track near Stalino doesn't render all of the track south of the Dnepr and in the Crimea "dead". Given all of the ports in this area, it seems rather unlikely that there would be NO rail in the entire Crimea for instance. This has important gameplay effects because it makes if very difficult to move troops through the Crimea and beyond. EDIT: Elsewhere I've suggesting leaving track "live" if it is connected to a port, or a certain level of port capacity (under the theory that where there are ports, there are trains).
3) One niggle, not sure if I'm the only one to notice it: in the Strategic Reserve, when you try to filter by type of plane, it is almost impossible to select/deselect fighter-bombers. Everything else is fine, but whenever I want to select FBs, I need to select everything and then deselect everything but FBs. Irritating.
4) Also, why can't we sort the National Reserve by type of plane (ie, Yak-1)?
5) Greatly reduce the AP cost of transferring empty armies/corps, etc. Why does it cost as much, or more, to re-assign an empty army, than to disband it and create a new one? Let's say an army has fifteen CPs. You decide to reassign these units to free up the army, and then would like to transfer it to a new front. You've already paid AP to transfer all of the units, why should I have to pay another massive chunk of AP to transfer an empty army?

That's all for now...
Varity
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:30 pm

A general purpose system that lets you flag units

Post by Varity »

It might be my particular play style, but right now I have huge problems keeping track which units I have already moved, which units I don't intend to move and which units I haven't even looked at or forgotten to reexamine after deferring their move initially. In consequence, I spend about 1/2 hour for every turn reexamining all my units both on the map and in the commanders report (sorted by MPs remaining) to figure out if I'm really, really done with the turn or if I've forgotten anything.

Therefore, it would be nice if every unit had a informative flag that you could set and clear at will that has no impact on the rest of the game and just serves as an organizing tool for players. With such a flag, I could mark units that I'm done with for the turn and quickly find those still waiting for orders.

You should be able to set and clear the flag for units that are selected on the main map, pressing the insert key might set the flag, the delete key might clear it. It should be visible in the unit bar and as a soft factor.

Pressing Ctrl-Insert should highlight all flagged units on the map, like f.e. Ctrl-9 now highlights rail repair units. Ctrl-Delete should highlight the non-flagged units.

The flag should be visible as an extra sortable and filterable column on the units tab of the commanders report screen. There should be a function to set or clear the flag for all selected units on the commanders report, like the refit/reserve, Max TOE% and support level functions.

User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Or could just set it up that you can browse in the save game window. Right now I think you can only save/load a game from there, not change folders or anything like that. While we are at it, would be nice to get the auto save to at least go to its own folder if you can work in a "change folders" interface on the save game window. 

Ok..I understand what you are asking for. Not a bad idea. I run into the same problem in testing multiple games. My save folder gets pretty large. Right now I make seperate folders and save the files manually, but it would be nice to have an in-game abilty to direct savegames to a specific folder. A "Save As" function would probably do the trick.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

One thing that would be nice on server games is that when the game is finished you can look at the other side & see exacltly what they had & where it was
Manstein63

Yep..that would be nice if we can't already do it. Another request to Slitherine.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

I'd like an option to be able to toggle off the Recon replays but still watch all other stuff when playing the AI.

As Pompack suggests, press your keyboard "0" (zero) so there is no message level while recon is occurring and it will go by quick, then once combat starts up, press any other number to start back up the combat messages.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: Zoetermeer

I've said it before so I don't want to be annoying about it, but an open savegame format would be great for those of us who are willing to write some really cool third-party tools.

I'm not sure I understand this one, I doubt anytime soon the code will be opened for others to work with if that's what you are suggesting. This engine will probably be around for sometime.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I would like to second Klydons suggestion! I have three AI games running atm with 10-92 saves per game. The ability to make folders in the savegame interface would be wonderful! :)

My own suggestion would be to completly overhaul the airsystem. I feel its way to abstracted atm.

Playing the soviets for the first time I found it even more unmanagable. Perhaps if you could form/divide groups and make divisions it would be more managable (forming larger groups). I also noted that I can´t sort groups alphabetically when picking groups for an airbase. Also the filter is reset everytime you leave the interface which is a bit annoying.
I know overhauling the whole system may be a bit off the scale but improving the interface would be a huge improvment! [&o] The sheer number of soviet groups is way too much for the interface. I find it very hard to keep track of everything. Its just a list with hundreds of units atm.

The air system is being worked on. Not sure if the interface is being looked at though. I know it can be a daunting task working with so many air groups.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Great with a wishlist [:)]

I would like configaurable settings for what happens when I move a unit into a hex containing other units. At present, all units in the hex become selected, but that is usually not what I want, most times I want to keep having just the unit I moved selected. I realize others might want it differently, so it would be nice with a selectable preference.

Also it would be nice with a way for the player to select which units are shown on top in a stack. For example "HQs on top" or "Strongest unit on top" or "Rail construction units on top".

The first request would be one of those nice to have functions, maybe down the road some once the higher priority type things get worked out. The current system isn't too bad though. The right panel appears when a stack is selected and you cn easily select or deselect the unit (s) you want to move.

Both requests were brought up by testers quite some time ago and on more than one occasion. But we have what we have as a result of a lot of discussion on them.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Are you sure we can't have giant German walkers, Sabre?

Maybe I do [:D]
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Alternate method of working with stacks would be good:
1) left click to select top unit
2) left click on the same hex again - rotate the stack (I would like to have HQ always on top instead of the unit that first moved into hex) and select new top unit
3) double click to select entire stack
4) do not select other units in new hex when moving via right clicks

Looks like more than one of you would like to see this type of functionality or something like it. Right now when you select a stack the right panel appears and the stacked units are displayed allowing for pretty easy selection or deselection of whichever unit you want. I really don't see a problem with the way it currently works.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Actually I can't take credit for the server-save game idea, I think lots of people have asked for it.

I'm assuming that this wish list could apply to a Field Marshall edition, rather than just an average patch, so:

1) Fix the map east of Lgrad, make it more heavy woods/swamp (see seperate thread...);
2) Fix rail somehow so that cutting one track near Stalino doesn't render all of the track south of the Dnepr and in the Crimea "dead". Given all of the ports in this area, it seems rather unlikely that there would be NO rail in the entire Crimea for instance. This has important gameplay effects because it makes if very difficult to move troops through the Crimea and beyond. EDIT: Elsewhere I've suggesting leaving track "live" if it is connected to a port, or a certain level of port capacity (under the theory that where there are ports, there are trains).
3) One niggle, not sure if I'm the only one to notice it: in the Strategic Reserve, when you try to filter by type of plane, it is almost impossible to select/deselect fighter-bombers. Everything else is fine, but whenever I want to select FBs, I need to select everything and then deselect everything but FBs. Irritating.
4) Also, why can't we sort the National Reserve by type of plane (ie, Yak-1)?
5) Greatly reduce the AP cost of transferring empty armies/corps, etc. Why does it cost as much, or more, to re-assign an empty army, than to disband it and create a new one? Let's say an army has fifteen CPs. You decide to reassign these units to free up the army, and then would like to transfer it to a new front. You've already paid AP to transfer all of the units, why should I have to pay another massive chunk of AP to transfer an empty army?

That's all for now...

1. That's going to be up to the map guys, I doubt we will see anything for WitE though. Maybe in a future product that will be addressed.

2. Yep I agree about the first part..I think though if you are connected to a port in supply, any rail there should be useable.

3. I'll look into that one

4. That sounds like an easy enough request, I'll ask about it.

5. Hq's are supposed to be cheaper to transfer with fewer units assigned. I just checked in my last game and a German Corps with 3 divisions cost 26 ap to transfer in its entirety to OKH. Removing 1 division cut the cost down to 24, losing another division cut the cost to 14, losing the 3rd division cut it down to 12. No idea why the big jump after the second division was reassigned, but it appears WAD.
Image
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: A general purpose system that lets you flag units

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: Varity

It might be my particular play style, but right now I have huge problems keeping track which units I have already moved, which units I don't intend to move and which units I haven't even looked at or forgotten to reexamine after deferring their move initially. In consequence, I spend about 1/2 hour for every turn reexamining all my units both on the map and in the commanders report (sorted by MPs remaining) to figure out if I'm really, really done with the turn or if I've forgotten anything.

Therefore, it would be nice if every unit had a informative flag that you could set and clear at will that has no impact on the rest of the game and just serves as an organizing tool for players. With such a flag, I could mark units that I'm done with for the turn and quickly find those still waiting for orders.

You should be able to set and clear the flag for units that are selected on the main map, pressing the insert key might set the flag, the delete key might clear it. It should be visible in the unit bar and as a soft factor.

Pressing Ctrl-Insert should highlight all flagged units on the map, like f.e. Ctrl-9 now highlights rail repair units. Ctrl-Delete should highlight the non-flagged units.

The flag should be visible as an extra sortable and filterable column on the units tab of the commanders report screen. There should be a function to set or clear the flag for all selected units on the commanders report, like the refit/reserve, Max TOE% and support level functions.

Tagging units sounds like a good idea, I'll see if this is doable. Might end up being another border color since that is used quite a bit in the game.
Image
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2902
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Looks like more than one of you would like to see this type of functionality or something like it. Right now when you select a stack the right panel appears and the stacked units are displayed allowing for pretty easy selection or deselection of whichever unit you want. I really don't see a problem with the way it currently works.

Not a problem, but there is a lot of unnecessary clicking which would be nice to get rid of. It's more of an ergonomics thing than a problem, it works fine now, it's just that some of us want to avoid mouse-arm or clicking-itis.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
5. Hq's are supposed to be cheaper to transfer with fewer units assigned. I just checked in my last game and a German Corps with 3 divisions cost 26 ap to transfer in its entirety to OKH. Removing 1 division cut the cost down to 24, losing another division cut the cost to 14, losing the 3rd division cut it down to 12. No idea why the big jump after the second division was reassigned, but it appears WAD.
Uh, maybe for the Germans, not for the Sovs. I just checked in my PBEM, and to reassign an army which has 4 command points, it will cost me at least 53 AP; for the same amount I could simply create 2 new HQ. Surely this can't be WAD?
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
5. Hq's are supposed to be cheaper to transfer with fewer units assigned. I just checked in my last game and a German Corps with 3 divisions cost 26 ap to transfer in its entirety to OKH. Removing 1 division cut the cost down to 24, losing another division cut the cost to 14, losing the 3rd division cut it down to 12. No idea why the big jump after the second division was reassigned, but it appears WAD.
Uh, maybe for the Germans, not for the Sovs. I just checked in my PBEM, and to reassign an army which has 4 command points, it will cost me at least 53 AP; for the same amount I could simply create 2 new HQ. Surely this can't be WAD?

Ok..corps level hq's vs army level hq's do vary a lot. Corps Hq's for both sides are the same. I just looked and a Soviet army with no units attached run around 27 ap's to transfer. I looked at several armies and this was about average. As they gain units the value jumps. With less than 6 cp's assigned it cost around 34 ap's to transfer. With 8 cp's it was 43 ap's, at 10 it was 52 and at 12 or more it was 55 ap's.

This will vary slightly based on your leader. Why it jumps the way it does I don't know.
Image
Zoetermeer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:56 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Zoetermeer »

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: Zoetermeer

I've said it before so I don't want to be annoying about it, but an open savegame format would be great for those of us who are willing to write some really cool third-party tools.

I'm not sure I understand this one, I doubt anytime soon the code will be opened for others to work with if that's what you are suggesting. This engine will probably be around for sometime.

No -- I didn't mean exposing the actual code to us, just making the actual format of savegame files human-readable (text-based) instead of binary, as it is currently. Making it text-based, or at least giving us a guide which explains to us how to parse it, would allow people to write third-party tools which can present game data in new and different ways to the player.
Zoetermeer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:56 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Zoetermeer »

One thing that would be nice would be to have a setting which allows us to limit the number of admin points the AI can have each turn. Currently, I think the AI has basically unlimited admin points, which allows the Soviet AI to build endless numbers of new units and create huge carpets very early in '41.
molchomor
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:21 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by molchomor »

- buildable SUs for axis (somewhere to put all that outdated equipment never used)
- introduction of the exact same system for units to change their tank types used as is already in place for flight squadrons to change their plane types (this woukld in turn solve alot of other "features" and complaints)
- editable start positions (especially in '41)
- make axis able to actually use their initial air superiority for something (like using your JU87G squadrons to hit those tank armies and actually do some damage)
- The automatic usage of captured tanks for axis is just annoying currently. Like having 50+ captured t34s and 2-3 PzD:s using that type, but they never seem to stock up with more than 3-4 tanks each. Same for the Finnish PzD. Either fix so that types can be swapped as per the earlier suggestion to avoid this or fix the "feature" that seemingly limits the number of captured tanks in units.
- and what is up with captured tanks btw ? The number seems very low. Like in my game, having killed some 50 tank corps and untold number of tank brigades and just a few tens of captured t34s ?
- A new button "Jump to next unit on rail". I find myself constantly scanning the entire bloody Russia for fear that I forgot to move some units that I am railing.
- Limiting some things the AI does on normal or introduce switches. I don't want teleportations or unlimited CPs for the AI, need an option for that.
- Possibility to streamline axis production (e.g. cancel Elefant production against some AP cost and start producting something else)
- add some graphics to indicate that a unit in the current stack is withdrawing within say the next 5 turns. Not something that sticks out much but enough so you can spot it while scanning the front. Firing up your round and seeing gaps in your line is not funny.
- Popup to warn that your HQ will be displaced if you carry out the move (just annoying if it happens, having to reload and replay)
- add some incentives for capturing cities. Morale bonus for Soviet units that cap a city, a chance of capping some armaments/resources/HI for axis ?
- Radar units for axis ? Radar was a big advantage not modeled  in the game.
- armored train units :) Would basically work as an FBD with some combat value, bound to use tracks.





Aurelian
Posts: 4073
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Would like seperate save game folders.

Unless they're there and I'm missing them.

Do you mean between ai vs pbem games?

Both.

I used to play multiple PBEM games of Ageod's American Civil War, and each had its own folder.

It did the same for single player also.
Building a new PC.
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Sabre21 »

ORIGINAL: Zoetermeer

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: Zoetermeer

I've said it before so I don't want to be annoying about it, but an open savegame format would be great for those of us who are willing to write some really cool third-party tools.

I'm not sure I understand this one, I doubt anytime soon the code will be opened for others to work with if that's what you are suggesting. This engine will probably be around for sometime.

No -- I didn't mean exposing the actual code to us, just making the actual format of savegame files human-readable (text-based) instead of binary, as it is currently. Making it text-based, or at least giving us a guide which explains to us how to parse it, would allow people to write third-party tools which can present game data in new and different ways to the player.

I'll have to run this by Pavel on the implications, but I kind of doubt that degree of flexibility is coming any time soon.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”