Mechanized abandonnned?

[Atlantikwall]

Hello,

in the FAQ; I read about "mechanized", but in the screenshot I can`t see it. Was this "abandonned" as a own unit? If yes, why?

[Atlantikwall]

I think I got it: There are no tanks! I.e. mech and tanks are the same!

[solops]

If we had military-style unit icons instead of toys, you'd know exactly what was there.

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: solops

If we had military-style unit icons instead of toys, you'd know exactly what was there.

The difficulty you would have is that the units in the game do not correspond to division or corps precisely. So you couldn't just say "that's a mechanized division" or "that's an armored division" or such.

The decision to have units named "armor" instead of "mechanized" was made very early on for accessibility reasons. The game is aiming at a very broad audience, and I argued for this change (so blame me, mechanized fans . My argument is that the player buying the "tank" will assume they are buying something with a higher concentration of tanks than the "infantry" unit. Therefore, the name should reflect that.

[solops]

Sorry to hear that. I don't much like the sound of any of that answer.

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: solops

Sorry to hear that. I don't much like the sound of any of that answer.

Very difficult to respond to this post. I probably should've just stayed away from the topic, but I felt that the original post deserved an answer.

In any event, the game is simple to learn, but very deep and rewarding. It is visually very pleasing to watch, something this genre very much needs.

Joel or Maurice will probably correct me on the scale, so take my answer for just one tester's viewpoint on that. My sense is that I'm moving the Soviet-style "army" and thus I tend to think of my armor units as being like 1st Guards Tank Army - a combined arms formation with more tanks than a formation without the "Tank" designation. I'm probably way off. [:D]

Anyway, if you enjoy a deep grand strategy game with realistic strategies, great replayability, and great visual presentation on top of that, you will enjoy W@W. If, instead, you want esoteric symbols, poor graphics, complex rules that need side sheets of paper to track....you may not enjoy it.

solops, if there are specific questions you would like to ask, I'd be happy to try to answer them. If your fundamental disappointment is that you want to have NATO symbols corresponding to their appropriate counterpart units on the board, however, I don't know if there's anything to say to help you out.

EDIT: I thought I'd seen this complaint before from the same person. This appears to be the third thread since August (see: fb.asp?m=697597) that you've raised this unit icon issue. Don't mean to insult, but what is the point of continuing to complain about an issue that you know has been decided?

[solops]

ORIGINAL: Becket

EDIT: I thought I'd seen this complaint before from the same person. This appears to be the third thread since August (see: fb.asp?m=697597) that you've raised this unit icon issue. Don't mean to insult, but what is the point of continuing to complain about an issue that you know has been decided?

I am an optimist.

And I believe that designers are working in a vacuum without feedback.

And I believe that designers are always thinking about how the NEXT game might be done.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Solops, in all good will, this game does NOT need NATO symbols, it works prefectly with "little toys" as you put it.

Yes, I know NATO symbols is perhaps the highest on the peeve list for people who NEVER played the game. We beta testers never even talk about it.

I am ready to bet - once this game is out, those who will buy it and play it, will simply STOP complaining about NATO symbols and little toy soldiers, once they realise this is a non issue.

Really.

O.