How to design a better game

[madmickey]

I support Tristanjohn and if people want to attack me, I do not care.

[rtrapasso]

Getting back to what (at least i think) should be in a new improved WITP (let's call it WITP2 for brevity). This is probably pie in the sky, but here goes:

1. A switch for game playability/balance vs. historical - throwing said switch changes the parameters to make the game more evenly balanced on one option, vs. an historical model. Such a switch would broaden the appeal of the game immensely (i think).

2. Logistics - i think most people agree it needs to be slowed up (at least for the historical option). So:
A. Ports - ports are limited to number of ships that can be loaded at one time by port size (or maybe port size x 2). Any Ships up to port size x 3 can be unloaded using port facilities. Above that, ships can still unload, but rate would be limited to "over the beach" rates. Maybe this could be simplified by using OPS points for port facilities, with larger ports having more OPS points.
B. Rail lines - rolling stock implemented. No rolling stock = no rail movement of units, no supply movement. Also stops the strange ability of IJ to rapidly overrun India, China as we have seen in some AAR threads (again slowing the pace of the game).
C. Ability to turn off repairs to runway, port facilities. Why would you want to turn over nice pristine air base to the enemy, forgoing building fortifications to allow the enemy to occupy the newly repaired runway which you used up your supplies for?
D. Ability to destroy additional base facilities, supplies using PPs. Why leave 250000 tons of fuel for the enemy to capture when one road flare can prevent it?

3. Special ops - you can allocate supplies, troops, money for special ops (mini-sub attacks, canoe attacks, speed boat attacks, etc.) Results on random table - and if using historical model option, most likely to fail.


Just a few thoughts for discussion (or not)...[;)]

[hexgod]

Who wants to take bets that this thread will be among the "DELETED" soon?

[rtrapasso]

Adding to my prior post under 2. Logistics

E. Add ability for base to accept supplies/oil/raw materials or not, or even more optimal, if allowed, allow limit on said supplies. There seems to be a glitch that affects SOME games (maybe not all) where this stuff flows to where it is not needed or wanted, thus depriving other locations of what they need.


New category:
4. More slots for different weapons types.
5. More slots for different ships (lots of ships in the war not in WITP)
6. Black box model of Japanese civilian economy. This could work something like - Japanese economy needs X million tons shipping per year, so need to allocate X/12 million tons shipping into the black box. Ships would be lost as a percentage of non-allocated AKs lost in regular combat. So, if you allocated (numbers off top of head, not necessarily accurate) 250,000 tons shipping to civilian economy and you had 750,000 tons of AKs, and lost 50,000 tons of AKs in combat, you would lose say 80% of ratio civilian shipping - so in this case would have to replace 50000 t x 1/3 (ratio of civilian to non-civilian AKs) x .80 = 13333.33 tons to keep economy going. Failure to do so would reduce factory output by percentage of shortfall.

This last option might more accurately reflect the Japanese situation in WW2.

You might do something similar for the Allies also, although, generally the overall loses the Allied had in civilian shipping would not mirror combat losses in the Pacific, i think. Also, the US at least was less dependent on ships to move cargo internally than was Japan.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Getting back to what (at least i think) should be in a new improved WITP (let's call it WITP2 for brevity). This is probably pie in the sky, but here goes:

1. A switch for game playability/balance vs. historical - throwing said switch changes the parameters to make the game more evenly balanced on one option, vs. an historical model. Such a switch would broaden the appeal of the game immensely (i think).

2. Logistics - i think most people agree it needs to be slowed up (at least for the historical option). So:
A. Ports - ports are limited to number of ships that can be loaded at one time by port size (or maybe port size x 2). Any Ships up to port size x 3 can be unloaded using port facilities. Above that, ships can still unload, but rate would be limited to "over the beach" rates. Maybe this could be simplified by using OPS points for port facilities, with larger ports having more OPS points.
B. Rail lines - rolling stock implemented. No rolling stock = no rail movement of units, no supply movement. Also stops the strange ability of IJ to rapidly overrun India, China as we have seen in some AAR threads (again slowing the pace of the game).
C. Ability to turn off repairs to runway, port facilities. Why would you want to turn over nice pristine air base to the enemy, forgoing building fortifications to allow the enemy to occupy the newly repaired runway which you used up your supplies for?
D. Ability to destroy additional base facilities, supplies using PPs. Why leave 250000 tons of fuel for the enemy to capture when one road flare can prevent it?

3. Special ops - you can allocate supplies, troops, money for special ops (mini-sub attacks, canoe attacks, speed boat attacks, etc.) Results on random table - and if using historical model option, most likely to fail.


Just a few thoughts for discussion (or not)...[;)]

One shouldn't have to consume PPs to waste military stores and fuel. That confuses the purpose of PPs.

Were supply divided into two separate entities, though, Organic Supply, which is basically food and clothing, and Military Supply, ammo and whatnot, then it might be reasonable to limit "free" destruction to Military Supply stockpiles. A rule should then be required to always maintain a certain level of OS to keep the local population fed and clothed and happy. If this stockpile falls below that arbitrary level, then the local population would certainly "revolt" and cause the necessity of higher garrison levels and perhaps the expenditure of PPs as well.

Garrisons would be for the Japanese. The Americans needed garrisons, too, but the guarding of their facilities was of a different nature--call it more "casual" guarding. Destroying OS would not be a good thing, though. Leaving innocent civilians without food and clothing would cause an uproar back in the States and Great Britain and Australia, so maybe this should cost the Allies five- or six-times the PPs it would cost the Japanese.

These are suggestions to make supply something useful, necessary, valuable, to make supply difficult to obtain, slow to ship in and costly to get rid of.

I'd think fuel stocks would go up like a ruptured duck, but these should still cost some Military Supply to destroy. It should probably require greater amounts of Military Supply to destroy Military Supply itself, but maybe that's getting too detailed. It would, however, require time. Everything in a simulation which models supply should require 1) supply to do everything and 2) time to affect these activities. Otherwise, why model supply in the first place? Why model the system on what essentially are 8-hour phases?

It would be good to publish a formula that states:

     [a engineer units + b supply] * [c time] = [x fuel/supply] or [y airbase/port facilities] or [z HI/Oil/Resource/Manpower] destroyed

In such a manner players could reasonably plan for these activities, bring in extra engineers for the job if necessary, etc. The way the game handles this now is almost mystic, with no thought at all to the destruction of anything other than HI/Oil/Resource/Manpower.

If the present port sizes/construction schedule remain the same (1-9) then a port probably shouldn't be able to offload more ships than its own size (i.e. ships that could find dock space), with 2x the dock-rate number of ships off-loading at the beach rate. (So, a level-0 port could only offload 1 ship at the beach rate, a level-1 port could offload 1 ship at a dock and 2 ships at the beach rate, etc.) After you get a port up to, say, level-6, then allow 2x port-level number of ships to offload at docks, with the rest at the beach rate. After a port reaches level-9, throw in a multiplier such as 4 or 5 for the number of ships which could find dock space and worker availability for fast off-loading, the rest (2x dock rate) using the beach rate. This system would require a hard and reasonable cap on the levels of ports in any given hex. Lunga, for example, would have a cap of 0 (that's zero). There was no "port" there, there is still no port there today. There is fast-shoaling beach in front of Lunga. With dangerous mosquitoes. That's all for Lunga. Over in Tulagi there was a small sheltered area suitable for a small-sized port. So Tulagi might be given a hard cap of 3. And so on.

For anyone unaware: the beach rate I mention above refers to the use of lighters (barges, whale boats) to load and offload cargo. It is hard and slow labor. The present beach rate in the game for the disembarkation of troops is probably okay, at least in the ballpark; it is too high for cargo. Drop the latter to 100 points per turn, maybe even to 50. Now we're cooking with gas.

There also needs to be distinction drawn between Japanese capabilities in this area and American capabilities. The Japanese didn't have the tools or savvy to move a lot of cargo in backwater areas, whereas the Americans had the wherewithal and know-how to do so as the war ground on. So, let's say that beginning in 1943 the Allies will have twice the offload capability of the Japanese at beach rates, in 1944 four times the capability, in 1945 six times that capability. Or something similar.

The expenditure of Operation Points for the use of airbases and ports might be doable; however, I have previously recommended changing the spread of port sizes to 1-100, which would be the easiest and probably most elegant solution. This change would:

     1. more reasonably delineate between large (San Francisco) and minuscule (Noumea) ports

     2. enable ports to unload ships based on size (100-level port unloads 100 ships at a time)

     3. preclude a less intuitive system with OPs use or 1-10 port sizes with port build-rates based on a diminishing-returns formula.

For the case is construction in the game, especially port construction, is too fast along with everything else. Airbases, yes, the Allies built those almost overnight--assuming level solid ground. It took the Allies longer, probably three or four times as long, to fill in unsuitable land, but they were capable of doing so when the occasion demanded. The Japanese has no such capability anywhere except in the home islands.

The problem is twofold:

     Engineers in the game are generic (with no fundamental difference between a Japanese engineer battalion and a Seabees unit)

     Engineers can build ports at the same rate as airbases

This issue is compounded by a very poor map study. Sites such as Lunga, where no port was possible, are given unbelievable port potentials. It's similar with locations like Noumea, though at least at Noumea there was a cove to work with. So, a new map is needed, and this map needs to be drawn conservatively. A good place to start in that search would be with Andrew Brown, who has done remarkable work for the CHS project. His present map stands head and shoulders above the stock version, and the only thing holding it back seems to be the rather odd method chosen of making changes to it--that is, a sort of consensus is required of project workers for changes to be affected.

Well, I've said this before and it needs saying again: a consensus sounds like a good deal, but decision by committee is not the way to go with certain work. Some people simply don't have the capacity for such work, others don't care, still more entertain strange agendas, and like that. Cartography is both an art and a science. It is specialized work and suitable only to disciplined minds.

Anyway, what's needed is a cap on ultimate sizes of ports in any given hex, then make ports five- or six-times more difficult to build than airfields--and more costly to build, too, so it would take five- or six-times as much time and supply to construct a port as it would to an airfield. Then we'd be headed in the right direction with regard to the current abuses of the system (e.g. 60-ship convoys off-loading at Noumea in December of 1941 or January of 1942 or whenever it is).

That should give you an idea of where I stand conceptually. The game system runs too fast and it is not difficult to see why it runs too fast. And the game doesn't just run two-times or three-times too fast, but many times too fast.

There's a lot more to look at, of course. What I've offered above is a mere outline of ideas which would at least begin to address the worst problems with only the logistic model in mind. But other areas also need change. For instance, the air model doesn't function well in some respects, and one reason for this is because no intelligent use is presently made of airbases vis-a-vis their support roles in maintaining aircraft. Mike Scholl's idea of basing aircraft support on the number of engines makes good sense, for instance.

Ports don't have good game functionality. Loading up Bombardment TFs in backwater sites is a joke. Loading them up overnight is another joke.

Stacking in general needs to addressed. Does anyone believe it would be possible to put three full divisions on Tarawa in defense? And why is there no rule for hex-density to affect the outcome of artillery barrages? For that matter why are artillery barrages so weak?

If one wants to model the historical "tunneling in" or "spider hole" mentality of the Japanese, fine, but don't allow the Japanese to build these defenses at the same rate as airfields and ports. Ports take a long time to build, airfields much less time to build. I don't know exactly how long it takes to build a complex of spider holes, much less the cave complexes found on Iwo Jima after the battle, but it would take awhile and consume no few supplies. Men can only work so many hours per day, men get hungry, men get sick, and whatnot.

There's no reason in the world not to model the true function of rail roads in at least a rudimentary manner. Hell, Gary already had the formulas for this from his Second Front game. Also, there ought to be a build capability for these rail lines. Why isn't there? All this "detail" is provided but then there is no connecting of the detail dots. Why not? With the bad result that the game moves too fast.

Something needs to be done about garrisons. Garrisons are required everywhere. The Americans moved forward and did push their combat units to the front as time wore on, but their rear areas were not forgotten. For the Japanese, it was necessary to strongly garrison everything they took. Sure, there was unrest in India at the time, and the Dutch were not exactly loved in the East Indies, but the fact remains that the Japanese made enemies everywhere they went. The Japanese were cruel, the Japanese exploited everyone, and so the Japanese needed to garrison their new holdings. Without garrisons, these new holdings would have dried up, just that fast.

[rtrapasso]

This is quite a reply! I will have to digest it to reply in detail.

However, the reason i thought you might want to use PPs in destroying bases is i do not think a national government is going to be amenable to the thought of destroying an asset (if it is not in immediate danger) unless political pressure is brought to bear. For instance, in Gulf War I (1991)- can you imagine the Saudi's blowing up oil tanks just because they thought the Iraqis might be coming? They might have done it if the Iraqi tanks were entering a town, but it would have taken a lot of pressure to do it before that. I don't know the mindset of the Dutch (for example) in 1941, but i get the idea they thought they could defend the DEI, otherwise, they would have blown up the oil fields and bases long before the IJN could bring in an invasion force.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
A good place to start in that search would be with Andrew Brown, who has done remarkable work for the CHS project. His present map stands head and shoulders above the stock version, and the only thing holding it back seems to be the rather odd method chosen of making changes to it--that is, a sort of consensus is required of project workers for changes to be affected.

Regarding my map and the scenarios converted/made for it. Remember that there are two separate parts: the map itself, and the scenarios converted or made for it.

Firstly, regarding the scenarios: It is true that I do often look for consenses when suggesting changes to port/airfield values for my scenarios, but not exclusively. With the CHS scenario, base data is largely determined by those most involved with the project, but we are happy to accept the opinions/suggestions of anyone.

As for the map itself, I am always interested in the opinions of other players, especially those who do some research into specific aspects of the map - indeed the map would not be in its present form without such contributions from others. I am happy to accept the suggestions of any player, whether they are involved in the CHS project or not. But as it is my map I have the final say on it.

Also keep in mind that I created the map long before CHS was started. The only part of the map designed for CHS is the special extension (Panama/Mid East), and that could be used for other scenarios if the authors wished.

So, please feel free to make suggestions for my map, as well as the scenarios (including CHS) that use it. All such input is very welcome.

Andrew

[rtrapasso]

I agree with many of your points, however this one causes a problem if implemented in this manner:

If the present port sizes/construction schedule remain the same (1-9) then a port probably shouldn't be able to offload more ships than its own size (i.e. ships that could find dock space), with 2x the dock-rate number of ships off-loading at the beach rate. (So, a level-0 port could only offload 1 ship at the beach rate, a level-1 port could offload 1 ship at a dock and 2 ships at the beach rate, etc.)

This would mean that if you are invading over the beach (at a non-port) enemy hex you could only unload one ship at a time - and your forces would be slaughtered if they have any significant opposition. If this doesn't apply in attacking enemy bases, then you have the logical oddity that you can unload faster when opposed than when there is no opposition - ("ok men - set loose the POWs and give them guns so that we can get these ships unloaded!"[:D])

[Yamato hugger]

Many years ago, I began work on a computer Pacific game (actually quit working on it when the original Pacwar came out). As a side note, my map looked very simular to Andys.

The way I had planned to handle logistics was based on distance from the commanding HQ. I assumed ALL ammo, replacements, spare parts ect would "trickle down" from higher HQs to the front line HQs.

Want 16" ammo? You need to be very close to a command HQ, you wont find it in a front line base. Need replacement A/C? They traditionally held at operational HQs, and flown in as units need them (but I maintained a count of A/C and pilots available at each HQ). 5" ammo or 105mm artillery ammo? Tactical HQs. Further away from the HQ, the less is available. I didnt design in the supply trucks carrying the supplies to the front. I dont see a need for that. Player should determine the supply levels he wants to maintain at the operational bases, and the computer should handle getting the supplies to the command, and probably the operational HQs. Getting the supplies from there to the tactical HQs however falls into the players realm.

Now, I suppose if you really wanted to get silly, you could track every shell, every man, every cup of coffee sent out, but why? To make a more realistic game? Did Tojo oversee what freighters were going where? Did Nimitz order the sun-tan lotion for the 1st Marines? Of course not.

IMHO, you make a game with the player commanding a given force, and you put that player into THAT role. You dont make him supply sergant, mechanic, and pilot all rolled into one. You give him the units to command, and you let the player command. You dont make the game in such a way that the player HAS to micro-manage the units and supplys. Now granted, some people like doing that. Anything less than that to them is "not historic". Its a game. Have to draw lines. Not everyone will be happy with where the lines are drawn. Play the game or dont. Simple.

[eMonticello]

I like the idea of differentiating between Quartermaster Supplies (aka Organic Supplies) and Ordinance (aka Military Supplies), which includes munitions, equipment, and unit replacements. However, I suspect if it would add a layer of complexity with few benefits unless the hierarchical nature of the military is reinforced.

In other words, HQ units (LCU, air, and naval) are the only units that can "convert" Ordinance to meet the needs of an LCU/Air Group/Ship. When the combat unit requires munitions/equipment/replacements, the lowest-level HQ that the combat unit is attached will push "converted" Ordinance to the combat unit after it "pays" using its Quartermaster Supplies. The difference between my suggestion and the current model is the Ordinance would need to flow through the combat units' HQ instead of being drop-shipped from the factory.

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
This would mean that if you are invading over the beach (at a non-port) enemy hex you could only unload one ship at a time - and your forces would be slaughtered if they have any significant opposition. If this doesn't apply in attacking enemy bases, then you have the logical oddity that you can unload faster when opposed than when there is no opposition - ("ok men - set loose the POWs and give them guns so that we can get these ships unloaded!"[:D])

That's why ships in an invasion fleet are loaded differently than ships carrying bulk goods. Combat loads take up a great deal of space (stowage space is high) but can be unloaded quickly (takes longer to load it properly, however). Bulk loads reduce stowage space to a minimum but take considerably longer to load or unload, since you're squeezing as much stuff on board ship as possible AND you need to keep track of the stuff as you're unloading it. Combat loads are designed to provide the fighting unit with enough supplies to last 14 to 30 days in combat. There's a section about the different loads in one of the Army Green Books.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I agree with many of your points, however this one causes a problem if implemented in this manner:

If the present port sizes/construction schedule remain the same (1-9) then a port probably shouldn't be able to offload more ships than its own size (i.e. ships that could find dock space), with 2x the dock-rate number of ships off-loading at the beach rate. (So, a level-0 port could only offload 1 ship at the beach rate, a level-1 port could offload 1 ship at a dock and 2 ships at the beach rate, etc.)

This would mean that if you are invading over the beach (at a non-port) enemy hex you could only unload one ship at a time - and your forces would be slaughtered if they have any significant opposition. If this doesn't apply in attacking enemy bases, then you have the logical oddity that you can unload faster when opposed than when there is no opposition - ("ok men - set loose the POWs and give them guns so that we can get these ships unloaded!"[:D])

Well, none of this is chisled in stone, in fact I'd be amzed if any of my ideas were implemented anywhere. We're just shooting the breeze here.

But as long as we are shooting the breeze . . . off-loading ships with small boats takes time. It dosn't happen right away. Troops going ashore are combat loaded with so many missions, enough to fight a couple or three days in theory. If there's so much opposition that the ships you bring with you can't off-load supplies fast enough after those two or three days then you've invaded the wrong beach hex. Next time do better reconnaissance.

I'll say it again. The game moves too fast. In all respects. There is virtually nothing about this game system which is true to history, and the logistics model is one of the worst, if not the worst, transgressors.

Bases would be a different issue. One might casually assume at this scale that bases might represent areas where more ships could find reasonable beach space, but they sure wouldn't be using the docks! Where would these ships be? Out on the water, just like at any other invasion hex. After all, the enemy still occupies that base.

In this game no one has any business invading a strongly-defended "base" before 1943. The Americans couldn't have before then and they were light years ahead of the rest of the world when it came to amphibious operations. By 1943 the ability of Americans to off-load supplies will be greater, double what it was in 1942. And that should suffice. But maybe my original figure is too low if one considers the new tools the Americans then had for moving supplies. We'd have to think about that. When they hit Bougainville they did move lots of supply fast.

Anyway, for 1942 my suggestion seems about right. If not, it could be revised upward--but conservatively so. Remember, we're trying to slow the game down.

How much supply does a division require (in the game) to fight one day? That's about how much the off-load capability of AKs/APs would need to be in 1942. And if you want to know I'm not convinced the Japanese even had that rudimentary ability. The Americans barely had that capability at Guadacanal, and when the transports left (literally stranded) the Marines there the first time it was bigtime dicey . . . because there wasn't much supply on the beach. Had that invasion been opposed, things might well have been different. I dare say things would have been different.

By the way, that's another bug that's never been addressed. APs do not want to off-load their supplies, or at least not when they get down to a certain amount. I have APs all over the board with 36 and 63 and 17 and 24 supply points on them. If anyone wants a screeshot of that I'll be more than happy to post it.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

I like the idea of differentiating between Quartermaster Supplies (aka Organic Supplies) and Ordinance (aka Military Supplies), which includes munitions, equipment, and unit replacements. However, I suspect if it would add a layer of complexity with few benefits unless the hierarchical nature of the military is reinforced.

In other words, HQ units (LCU, air, and naval) are the only units that can "convert" Ordinance to meet the needs of an LCU/Air Group/Ship. When the combat unit requires munitions/equipment/replacements, the lowest-level HQ that the combat unit is attached will push "converted" Ordinance to the combat unit after it "pays" using its Quartermaster Supplies. The difference between my suggestion and the current model is the Ordinance would need to flow through the combat units' HQ instead of being drop-shipped from the factory.

That's an idea. How about more detail?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
This would mean that if you are invading over the beach (at a non-port) enemy hex you could only unload one ship at a time - and your forces would be slaughtered if they have any significant opposition. If this doesn't apply in attacking enemy bases, then you have the logical oddity that you can unload faster when opposed than when there is no opposition - ("ok men - set loose the POWs and give them guns so that we can get these ships unloaded!"[:D])

That's why ships in an invasion fleet are loaded differently than ships carrying bulk goods. Combat loads take up a great deal of space (stowage space is high) but can be unloaded quickly (takes longer to load it properly, however). Bulk loads reduce stowage space to a minimum but take considerably longer to load or unload, since you're squeezing as much stuff on board ship as possible AND you need to keep track of the stuff as you're unloading it. Combat loads are designed to provide the fighting unit with enough supplies to last 14 to 30 days in combat. There's a section about the different loads in one of the Army Green Books.

This is true, but you still don't off-load a combat-loaded transport overnight, or even over several nights, with small boats. The only way to get stuff to a beach fast is to have the proper equipment. That's why we invented LST's and such. That was the proper equipment. And even then it usually took a more than a day to get everything ashore, with not enough beach space to accomodate all the LSTs at once, and then let's not forget the little detail of how impossibly crowded those beaches became (even later in the war, with much improved beach discipline, this vexed the Americans) with a jumble of off-loaded cargo, which would do nobody any good until the mess was straightened out.

And we're talking 1943 and on here. In 1942 all this was a wet dream. In 1942 Guadacanal is our model, and the cargo moved slow off Lunga point.

[Rainerle]

Hi,
IMO only one new resource would be needed. Call it military supply or manufactured supply or what. This would come out of the HI centers while the generic 'organic' supply would still be produced by the resource centers. All units would require both to operate although to a different degree. Infantry units would rely more on the organic nature and less on the military/manufactured one (more beans than bullets) while artillery units/CD/BB/CV/aircraft etc. would require more of the manufactured stuff which would include avgas.
As for capturing supply: What we need is a feature to destroy supply/fuel/oil/resources on purpose. But this has to be done prior to the capturing i.e. while I'm still in control of the base. If I lose control the stuff is taken by the new owner.
As for pace of events:
LCU should be in a non-combat ready state after moving fast on the map. The movement into combat i.e. enemy-occupied hex should always be at walking speed.

Finally I'm not sure if we need a complete new game.

[juliet7bravo]

Supply...I'd reccomend anyone interested read "IJN Merchant Marine in WW2" by Mark Parillo. Very, very good book on the subject which will anwser alot of the questions debated here. To be blunt, it'll go along way toward showing where they went wrong here.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
IMO only one new resource would be needed. Call it military supply or manufactured supply or what. This would come out of the HI centers while the generic 'organic' supply would still be produced by the resource centers. All units would require both to operate although to a different degree. Infantry units would rely more on the organic nature and less on the military/manufactured one (more beans than bullets) while artillery units/CD/BB/CV/aircraft etc. would require more of the manufactured stuff which would include avgas.
As for capturing supply: What we need is a feature to destroy supply/fuel/oil/resources on purpose. But this has to be done prior to the capturing i.e. while I'm still in control of the base. If I lose control the stuff is taken by the new owner.
As for pace of events:
LCU should be in a non-combat ready state after moving fast on the map. The movement into combat i.e. enemy-occupied hex should always be at walking speed.

Finally I'm not sure if we need a complete new game.

I don't think we need a COMPLETELY NEW game, but it would be substantially different, enough to warrant a "2" or "II" at the end of the title. I would like a COMPLETELY NEW land combat system, though. The current one is just so amazingly strange and (imo) dysfunctional. Sorry if i offend anyone in expressing this opinion (about the land combat system).

[Smiffus64]

I agree on the lcu combat, even if only some sort of initiative die roll was implemented I would be very happy.

On the other hand I shudder at the thought of adding another supply type and having to manage it, I'm not a beancounter by nature.

[Raverdave]

Yeah there are one or two things that could be fixed, but for the most part I REALLY enjoy playing this game, and it sure as hell beats anything else that is out there at this point in time for scope and value for money.

What else are you gonna do? Play the old PACWAR and UV ?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Yeah there are one or two things that could be fixed, but for the most part I REALLY enjoy playing this game, and it sure as hell beats anything else that is out there at this point in time for scope and value for money.

What else are you gonna do? Play the old PACWAR and UV ?

I dunno - i like this game, maybe love it, but i get frustrated at dealing the bugs, glitches, undocumented features, peculiar interface, etc., etc. I might actually decide to go do something productive instead, (write a book) or at least something as enjoyable (whack my head into the wall while listening to good music).