Game Suggestions:

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

In my last post I only suggested UI-related stuff, here go a few suggestions regarding game mechanics:

• Ready/Unready status - Units now qualify for Ready status if the average of TOE and morale is or exceeds 100. Non-motorized units should qualify for ready status if the average of TOE, morale and supply exceeds 100. For motorized units, fuel should be also taken into account.
• FOW - Highly accurate access to type and ID of enemy units should be only possible during tactical combat and even then the info gathered should be somewhat unreliable. When enemy units move elsewhere, this info should be lost.
• Terrain modifiers - It's unclear to me to what degree "CV enhancing" due to terrain depends on unit elements experience and HHQ leader mech or inf rating. Are these factors taken into account? If not, they certainly should.

Ready - I don't see a problem with the way it is currently modeled

FoW - This is exactly what happens. There are 10 detection levels. Air recon can only provide up to level 4. Moving adjacent to the unit will raise it above that with varying degrees of info provided. Once the units seperate, info can and is usually lost.

CV - There are so many factors involved with determining cv, you could right a book about it. Experience levels are figured in but as far as I know, not the higher Hq, Pavel would be the one to best explain this, but he is a mighty busy fellow.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: morvael

1. Ability to see if units are in contact with the enemy in commander's report (useful for new rules about refit) - for example "Rft-" would mean unit is in contact with enemy and will not benefit from Refit rules.

2. Ability to lock specific support units for given HQ, instead of locking entire HQ (and the chain with it as well), while the rest could be transferred freely by the AI. That would be something for people with less love for micromanagement, who still would like to attach critical units (heavy tank battalions, siege artillery) to specific HQs or combat units and be sure they would stick.

1. - I'll add that to the list, it might prove useful

2. - This definitely would require some major work so i wouldn't expect it to get implemented. The current system seems adequate. Maybe in future games of the series a more detailed support system can be used.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: davbaker

Would it be possible to add an originating "AirBase" Column to the "Pick Air Units for Mission" screen you get when you Shift Click for Air Missons?

I would find it a little easier to determine where I'm getting my airsupport from.

Thanks

I'll add that to my list.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

How about allowing assignment of air assets to support particular divisions/corps?  A recon staffel would increase a division's clear hex detection levels allowing it to see further as it moves, and an increase in artillery effectiveness for any arty elements present to account for aerial spotting?  This would make Storches relevent. 

Interesting idea, I'll add it to the list, but I wouldn't expect something like this anytime soon.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

I really don't see this happening. That would take any disadvantages that the German may face away in the summer but leave the advantages that may occur for him during mud or winter. That would be a pretty lop-sided change. If I was a Soviet player, i would never play someone using a capability like that. If you don't like random weather, you can turn it off.

Frankly I completely disagree. Most players, even many Sovs, don't like it when there is mud in the summer of 1941, it just skews the game too much for the German.

The point of random weather should be that neither side knows exactly when the mud and blizzard will start and end in the fall and winter respectively, not that the Germans may get two mud turns in the first summer, which just screws the game.

I think it is fair to say that in its current form, random weather is very unpopular. Another related request--could we please simply call historical weather just that, instead of "non-random" weather?

[Manstein63]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

[

I really don't see this happening. That would take any disadvantages that the German may face away in the summer but leave the advantages that may occur for him during mud or winter. That would be a pretty lop-sided change. If I was a Soviet player, i would never play someone using a capability like that. If you don't like random weather, you can turn it off.

As I said I would be happy to play using random weather as I think it makes for a better game, but it seems that the majority of people would disagree which is why I suggested tweaking the weather. If as you said that there is no chance of mud happening in the first 3 turns ( I assume due to hard coding) then it seems to me that it would be relitively easy to extend it further & if you feel that the end of September is too lop-sided then just extend the clear weather to the end of August instead. However if it doesn't happen well I can live with that as well.

[lycortas]

I agree that it would be best if we had a light mud effect. I actually feel that the mud effect is too severe as it is.

But, in general i like random weather as it adds uncertainty; I am seeing too many axis commanders having the first 14 turns or so planned out to the Nth degree, with satellite scans and 100% knowledge of what was where. I find that this skews the game too much. I am surprised so many of you complain about the weather but think 100% knowledge of Soviet positions and pre planning all of your moves, with computer testing, is 'fair'.

I will continue to use random weather, but again, i would not mind a light mud. Really, from September 1st you could get enough rain to have decent mud.

Michael

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

I really don't see this happening. That would take any disadvantages that the German may face away in the summer but leave the advantages that may occur for him during mud or winter. That would be a pretty lop-sided change. If I was a Soviet player, i would never play someone using a capability like that. If you don't like random weather, you can turn it off.

Frankly I completely disagree. Most players, even many Sovs, don't like it when there is mud in the summer of 1941, it just skews the game too much for the German.

The point of random weather should be that neither side knows exactly when the mud and blizzard will start and end in the fall and winter respectively, not that the Germans may get two mud turns in the first summer, which just screws the game.

I think it is fair to say that in its current form, random weather is very unpopular. Another related request--could we please simply call historical weather just that, instead of "non-random" weather?

Well the thing is non-random weather is not historical, so no reason to call it that. The intermittant rain showers the Germans encountered did cause grief to them on occasion. So actually random is closer to historical than non-random.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

[

I really don't see this happening. That would take any disadvantages that the German may face away in the summer but leave the advantages that may occur for him during mud or winter. That would be a pretty lop-sided change. If I was a Soviet player, i would never play someone using a capability like that. If you don't like random weather, you can turn it off.

As I said I would be happy to play using random weather as I think it makes for a better game, but it seems that the majority of people would disagree which is why I suggested tweaking the weather. If as you said that there is no chance of mud happening in the first 3 turns ( I assume due to hard coding) then it seems to me that it would be relitively easy to extend it further & if you feel that the end of September is too lop-sided then just extend the clear weather to the end of August instead. However if it doesn't happen well I can live with that as well.

I indicated it can't happen in turn 1 or 2. Since turn 3 is on 3 July, it can occur then. Just not in June of 41. Any changes to this would be up to Gary, and considering the testers hotly discussed this long ago, I can tell you that it won't change any time soon.

[Sabre21]

Duplicate message

[Sabre21]

I indicated it can't happen in turn 1 or 2. Since turn 3 is on 3 July, it can occur then. Just not in June of 41. Any changes to this would be up to Gary, and considering the testers hotly discussed this long ago, I can tell you that it won't change any time soon.

[Manstein63]

Fair enough thanks for the quick response
Manstein63

[76mm]

Many of the German players are swearing off the current random weather, so, as requested in one of my first posts, why not introduce random-lite, which doesn't provide for mud during the summer?

[Georgy Zhukov]

add the historical division simbols of all units is good for a excellent historical inmersion.

for example:
17 panzer division:



historical simbol division:




other simbols divisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ge ... rld_War_II

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Georgy Zhukov

add the historical division simbols of all units is good for a excellent historical inmersion.

for example:
17 panzer division:



historical simbol division:




other simbols divisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ge ... rld_War_II

Interesting idea but something like this will probably be done as a mod by someone outside the dev group. I just don't see them spending the time to do this.

[Pawlock]

I would like to see Hq lock mean lock ALL units into said hq. Im forever frustrated at allocating construction brigades to Army hqs for them all to eventually migrate to Front hq's and then having to spend Aps again to put them back.

I dont know or can see the reasoning behind the current set up, but atm as it is ,is very frustating.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

I would like to see Hq lock mean lock ALL units into said hq. Im forever frustrated at allocating construction brigades to Army hqs for them all to eventually migrate to Front hq's and then having to spend Aps again to put them back.

I dont know or can see the reasoning behind the current set up, but atm as it is ,is very frustating.

I think it is a bug and is being looked at.

[PyleDriver]

Yep I agree. I just used them in the winter of 41, and the were moving everywhere after I spent a couple AP's to get the there...Joel, Pavel? This does need a change.

[Schmart]

How about adding some form of greater control over AFV upgrades? Some ideas (pros/cons) have been discussed here: tm.asp?m=2723560&mpage=1&key=&#2723560

I'm sure it's not an easy prgramming thing to do, but I've never quite understood why aircraft upgrades can be controlled manually, but not AFVs. Just seems weird. I know some people don't want a repeat of WIR AFV bugs, but surely it's not an all or nothing situation, and surely limitations can easily be placed so that we can't load up 4 Bns of Tigers in a Pz Div?

Anyways, my suggestion is, if nothing else to have a two option toggle button, allowing the player to select HIGH or LOW priority for AFV upgrading. Units of LOW priority will only upgrade to the next AFV if all units with HIGH priority have been upgraded and are above a certain percentage of AFV TOE (say 66%). Default would be LOW priority, and in that case all units will upgrade randomly, as is the case currently.

Ultimately though, I think having an option to manually control AFV upgrades would be nice, after all we have that option for aircraft.

[neuromancer]

It was suggested elsewhere, and might have been suggested here, but I think its a good idea so I want to repeat it.
Have a 'randomize' optional feature at the start of the scenarios for some of the units. Basically a unit can be set in the editor to be 'randomly' placed at the beginning of the scenario. Not way off in the middle of no where, but a few hexes from where it is (not in water, not in neutral or hostile territory, not over stacked). Most front line and important defensive units would not be set to random - and some scenarios would have everything fixed for either or both sides (the June 22 '41 scenarios would all have the Axis start locations fixed). But all the back field stuff should be shuffling around.

The theory being that after a while, even with FOW, you know where everything is at the start which may make the start a little too effective. A little uncertainty would be a good thing.

I know this would probably take a bit of work so not a quick thing to add, but I think it would be a nice feature.