Game Suggestions:

[Helpless]

1) Re-evaluate the NKVD Border Regiments. They should never get any replacements (to make them shatter eventually if attacked) and should have a disband date like the Tank XX's. They are a-historically useful now.

They are disbanding automatically already. Probability is 20%.

[DTurtle]

The losses breakdown in the logistics screen doesn't seem to properly distinguish between combat, attrition, and surrender. It treats surrenders because of combat (eliminating isolated units) as combat losses. The only way to get surrenders in that screen seems to be automatic surrenders.

[Shupov]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shupov


I suggest a third toggle on the 'z' hotkey that shows the unmodified CV. It could display as X+Y where X is the unmodified CV and Y is the movement points remaining. In the example shown the Panzer division might show as 15+23 and the Hungarian calvary as 2+7.


Good point, but I would suggest showing the un-modded CVs in the right panel.

That would work for me just as well.

[Shupov]

** Deleted **

[carnifex]

1) I'd like to be able to sort the ASSIGN PLANES window. The current interface is cumbersome. I have to click plane type for the detailed selection window to come up and it's pre-checked for all. Now I have to click deselect all then click the type of plane I want then another mouseclick to get the main list to display. I just want to sort the main list by plane type, then click to add from there. Super easy.

2) Another vote to get rid of the super-annoying "select all units" functionality. I move my FBD 1 hex, repair line. Click on other unit in hex. Click on other unit in hex. Move FBD 1 hex, click to repair. Click on other unit in hex. Click on other unit in hex. Etc. I don't know how else people play this game, but I NEVER EVER move whole stacks or even groups of units. One at a time, always. So much extra clicking.

3) I'd like to be able to load up an AI game and switch sides.

4) When the system asks you for a choice and you don't make one, it shouldn't make it for you. Example: I have 44 Corps, all at various Support Level settings. I click the SUPPORT LEVEL link, a window opens up, I change my mind and click X, oh noes all my Corps Support Levels are now zero. Same for AC CHANGE MODE, which defaults to AUTO. Click the link, click X, now they're all on MANUAL. Clicking X means NO CHANGE please.

[Q-Ball]

1. Greater ability for high-morale isolated units to hold-out, particularly ones that receive air supply.

2. Turn-Based VPs in the GC scenario, which would reward taking/holding territory more

3. Greater color difference between 3rd and 4th Romanian Armies (difficult to tell sometimes!. I realize colors are short, but a little green shading should do the trick

4. Rationalized Amphib landing rules. Soviets have too much ability to land troops over long distances in Black Sea. Several divisions landed over a few hexes is OK, but all the way in Romania....no. Plus, getting guys ashore is one thing, supplying them is another.

You also shouldn't be able to do any amphib landings in areas you don't have air superiority. Amphib vessels make easy targets.

[morvael]

Option to turn off all AI cheats that it currently enjoys, especially the major ones (unlimited rail capacity, no AP limit). The manual says some of these depend on difficulty settings but not all. I hate to see when I have closed the pocket minus one hex in zoc, but still 80% of units vanish from it next turn.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

1. Greater ability for high-morale isolated units to hold-out, particularly ones that receive air supply.

2. Turn-Based VPs in the GC scenario, which would reward taking/holding territory more

3. Greater color difference between 3rd and 4th Romanian Armies (difficult to tell sometimes!. I realize colors are short, but a little green shading should do the trick

4. Rationalized Amphib landing rules. Soviets have too much ability to land troops over long distances in Black Sea. Several divisions landed over a few hexes is OK, but all the way in Romania....no. Plus, getting guys ashore is one thing, supplying them is another.

You also shouldn't be able to do any amphib landings in areas you don't have air superiority. Amphib vessels make easy targets.

I second all of those, they are good suggestions and would improve the game a lot IMHO. (except maybe the color thing, I don't have any problem with the colors as they are)

[Wild]

Just to restate, i would very much like the ability to change the colors of Armys. Maybe not add new ones, but change the ones we have now around. Mind you, i realize there are more important matters to work on, but if there is time it would be appreciated.

[Aurelian]

The ability to set airbases to "no fly".

Hard to build a force of IL-4s to bomb Ploesti if they keep flying and get shot up.

[56ajax]

From the Production screen, when you click on an aircraft to see the factories etc could it also display the type eg fighter bomber of the aircraft; most are self evident but nice to have...

and i have already ementioned but in the Logistics report, for isolated units can it please display the map refs as a mimimum, link would be nice but perhaps over kill...

(and build a utility that penalises a user 40 admin points every time they spell morale as moral)

[alaric318]

best greetings, i apologize if this have been said before, but a feature i will really like is to allow the assign/form on parent headquarters, in example, sending support units from an Army HQ or Panzer Armee HQ to a subordinate Hq, and then, to the front line unit, i dont know the extra work needed to do that and if some bug may arise from my request, but it can really save time and help to control the support units that come as reinforcements, (aside the lock Hq feature that works well for that matter, if you use it, that is)
 
best regards and have good gaming all,
 
Alarick.

[Manstein63]

Would it be possible for the Barbarossa scenario to be extended through to April 1942 .With automatic victory for the Germans if they hold all citys from Lenningrad  to Moscow and Rostov as well as Sevastopol  but also have weekly victory points awarded to the Soviet Player for holding onto Minsk Kiev Dneperpetrovosk & other major cities. It would alow newer players the chance to experience all weather conditions as well as attack & defense & would give the more experienced players a chance to play quicker game & to test how new upgrages are working without having to commit to a full GC.
Manstein63

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The ability to set airbases to "no fly".

Hard to build a force of IL-4s to bomb Ploesti if they keep flying and get shot up.

Agreed, and I've lost count of how many times I've bitched about this. The two workarounds that I've come up with for this are:

1. Send all the heavy bombers you can to the National Reserve, and move your empty airbases and their HQs to the Crimea. Then, on a single turn select all the fresh air groups you can to load up those air bases. Next turn, hit Ploesti/Bucharest.

2. Instead, set the bombers to fly night missions. Then they should not get shot to pieces so much and instead be around to dedicate to some refinery runs. Just remember to turn them all off from night missions before you fly the strike.

Of course, this tedious micromanagement would be avoided if the air bases and/or air groups could just be assigned a mission type of "rest" so that they do not fly at all, except for interceptions against air base strikes on their own base.

[Q-Ball]

Right now, it is too easy to game the combat results in a PBEM, simply by closing out. You can run a combat over and over and over until you get a result that you want. While I don't think an opponent has done this to me in a PBEM (I trust mine), I can see the potential for abuse. The result is that you can do combats over and over, roll "all 6s", and there is nothing your opponent can do about that.

To counter that, I propose one of the following changes:

1. Inability to take back moves in a PBEM. The excellent Battlefield series had this ability; once you moved something, you were stuck. Occasionally you made a legit mistake and kind of screwed yourself, but otherwise it worked well.

This probably would be a major coding change, so understand if that's not possible.

OR

2. Some sort of indication on how lady luck has gone in combats; a "die-roll" history. A few turns it should get to a large enough sample size that almost all games will be in the 45%-55% range. If I was playing a game in turn 18, and my opponent was having 75% luck on die rolls, I would be very suspicious. The game would probably end at that point. Anyone abusing this will stop if they know they are being watched.

#2 would go a long way to keeping a lid on outsized combat results

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
2. Some sort of indication on how lady luck has gone in combats; a "die-roll" history. A few turns it should get to a large enough sample size that almost all games will be in the 45%-55% range. If I was playing a game in turn 18, and my opponent was having 75% luck on die rolls, I would be very suspicious. The game would probably end at that point. Anyone abusing this will stop if they know they are being watched.

I don't see how this would work given how complicated the combat model is. Moreover, no one seems to understand how the combat model works.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

2. Some sort of indication on how lady luck has gone in combats; a "die-roll" history. A few turns it should get to a large enough sample size that almost all games will be in the 45%-55% range. If I was playing a game in turn 18, and my opponent was having 75% luck on die rolls, I would be very suspicious. The game would probably end at that point. Anyone abusing this will stop if they know they are being watched.

Q-Ball:
Love the idea. Just a one liner in the status report with cum distribution index and last turn distribution index would do it.

OTOH, the thought of testing the change that makes me shudder. Find every RV call, add a percentage calc, a game cum calc and a turn cum calc. Now test it to verify that you have found every one of the calls and that the three calcs are correct. Ouch[X(] And buried bugs here could ruin many a promising PBEM relationship.

However couldn't you get much the same result with a count of restarts between end-turn processing (implimentation: attach the running count to the save game just loaded)?

[Manstein63]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

changes:

1. Inability to take back moves in a PBEM. The excellent Battlefield series had this ability; once you moved something, you were stuck. Occasionally you made a legit mistake and kind of screwed yourself, but otherwise it worked well.

Why not play with the auto save function on. that would limit the scope for unfair play or maybe have Auto save locked into PBEM as a default setting
Manstein63

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

Why not play with the auto save function on. that would limit the scope for unfair play or maybe have Auto save locked into PBEM as a default setting
Manstein63

Well, the trouble with that is I would much prefer to trust my opponent in order to retain the ability to do intermediate saves as insurance against a power failure (or Bill Gates seizing my computer and killing the game in order to update a Windows function I don't use)

[Manstein63]

ORIGINAL: pompack
Well, the trouble with that is I would much prefer to trust my opponent in order to retain the ability to do intermediate saves as insurance against a power failure (or Bill Gates seizing my computer and killing the game in order to update a Windows function I don't use)

I agree (apart from the Bill Gates Thing) you should always assume your opponent is honest. It was mearly a suggestion for the more cynical among us.
Manstein63