Wish List

[Smirfy]

I would just keep it HE, sod the AT capability

[Rik81]

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

ORIGINAL: Rik81

Some one has bound to have suggested this in 5 pages, but just in case: I would like to see "Oilers" added to the Naval mix so that ships could be refueled at sea, instead of always having to find a port. 2nd item: A nice edition would be Minesweepers/Layers.

Rik81,
If you have an HQ stationed at a port with subformations of cargo ships in it, then all you have to do is transfer supplies out of your HQ to any fleets you may have at sea.
The more cargo ships you have the more supplies you can tranfer...make sur this HQ is getting plenty of supplies or you'll not have any to tranfer.
I very rarely ever send my ship to port.

I didn't know that, thanks. It does bring up a second question though. Getting supplies to HQ's, is that only done "automatically" if the factory turning out supplies (thus the city) has as its HQ that particular one, the one in the Port?

[maxfra]

I would improve a little engineers.
1) I'd like the chance to blow to be displayed.
2) The EP needed to build something (for ex a fortress or an airport) should be the sum of all EP staked in that hex, not the EP of the single units. So if u have 2 different engineering unit having each 90 EP, you should be able to build an airport.

[IRONCROM]

ORIGINAL: Rik81

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

ORIGINAL: Rik81

Some one has bound to have suggested this in 5 pages, but just in case: I would like to see "Oilers" added to the Naval mix so that ships could be refueled at sea, instead of always having to find a port. 2nd item: A nice edition would be Minesweepers/Layers.

Rik81,
If you have an HQ stationed at a port with subformations of cargo ships in it, then all you have to do is transfer supplies out of your HQ to any fleets you may have at sea.
The more cargo ships you have the more supplies you can tranfer...make sur this HQ is getting plenty of supplies or you'll not have any to tranfer.
I very rarely ever send my ship to port.

I didn't know that, thanks. It does bring up a second question though. Getting supplies to HQ's, is that only done "automatically" if the factory turning out supplies (thus the city) has as its HQ that particular one, the one in the Port?

That,s the best way...But you can transport supplies HQ to HQ over land as long as you have trucks.

[IRONCROM]

let me be more specific. supplies will move to an attached HQ on there own if requested without trucks...but if you have trucks you can move extra supplies from HQ to HQ the same way you move Subformations.

[rickier65]

Another item I'd like to see is the ability to set a draw in the editor. Perhaps as an argument to the ExecSetWinner function. following patttern of other Execs, perhaps a -1 would set a draw.

If it's already possible to set a Draw, maybe one of the experts could tell me how.

Thanks
Rick

[hazxan]

A nice usability enhancement: When you select enemy units, only enable the buttons for those attacks that are actually available. eg If you select an enemy unit and you have no aircraft in range, don't even enable the air strike button.

Probably depends on individual playing style, but especially for air strikes, I select an enemy, then click Airstrike, then All, only to find that actually an air strike isn't possible. This enhancement would save me a couple of minutes each turn on the large scenarios.

[tweber]

Another item I'd like to see is the ability to set a draw in the editor. Perhaps as an argument to the ExecSetWinner function. following patttern of other Execs, perhaps a -1 would set a draw.

If it's already possible to set a Draw, maybe one of the experts could tell me how.

You could have a dummy regime that is asleep and diplomatically blocked. If your draw conditions are met, award victory to the dummy regime. You could even call the regime 'It's a draw'.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: tweber

Another item I'd like to see is the ability to set a draw in the editor. Perhaps as an argument to the ExecSetWinner function. following patttern of other Execs, perhaps a -1 would set a draw.

If it's already possible to set a Draw, maybe one of the experts could tell me how.

You could have a dummy regime that is asleep and diplomatically blocked. If your draw conditions are met, award victory to the dummy regime. You could even call the regime 'It's a draw'.

Ah, yes that could work.

thanks
Rick

[Smirfy]

Along with the request for assault guns could I add one for infantry tank (as heavy tank is a bit overspeced for a Matilda or Valentine). Not wanting to spoil the generic nature but it is nice for scenario building to have a full spectrum of units to cose from. Another unit that would be good for early war scenarios is Tankette as again light tank is over speced.

[dazoline II]

Second designer name saved after exiting the editor. Currently it only saves it until then.

[Kipper]

1) Be able to step up default combat results, i.e. spreadsheet or diagram.
2) Turn history/plyback.

[serg3d1]

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv
Instead of predefined classes (which of cause remain if user don't want to mess with units) - light tank I, II, III etc
define units component - armor I, armor II, infantry cannon I, II,  close defence (MG) I, II, ATG I, II , chassis - light/heavy tracks, light/heavy wheels etc.
After that if user have all component - armor III, heavy tracks II, heavy infantry cannon III, MG I and sped additional pp on the  "design integration" - blam - IS-2 heavy tank

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.

The good thing that wouldn't require modification of tactical AI, and AI could steal/accumulate good design from player.

New strategic choises - if the enemy have haevy fortifications that require vehicles with infantry guns. If it have a lot of tanks - vehicles with ATG. If there is a good road network  - build wheeled vehicles.

So, what is community opinion ?

[seille]

ORIGINAL: serg3d1

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv
Instead of predefined classes (which of cause remain if user don't want to mess with units) - light tank I, II, III etc
define units component - armor I, armor II, infantry cannon I, II,  close defence (MG) I, II, ATG I, II , chassis - light/heavy tracks, light/heavy wheels etc.
After that if user have all component - armor III, heavy tracks II, heavy infantry cannon III, MG I and sped additional pp on the  "design integration" - blam - IS-2 heavy tank

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.

The good thing that wouldn't require modification of tactical AI, and AI could steal/accumulate good design from player.

New strategic choises - if the enemy have haevy fortifications that require vehicles with infantry guns. If it have a lot of tanks - vehicles with ATG. If there is a good road network  - build wheeled vehicles.

So, what is community opinion ?

From me you get a clear NO here. The game is already complex enough and i´m not willing to spend now two hours on a single turn
just because i have to create my own subunit types during the game. There is already more than enough to do and i would let the production as it is.
No delay and no unit components. Asking for these drastic changes for a finished game.....the game is not longer in development and i would wonder if Vic
starts now to turn it inside out.
engineers with body armor.....this is a ww2 strategic game and not phantasy. Sounds a bit like Frankenstein [;)]

[kafka]

ORIGINAL: serg3d1

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv
Instead of predefined classes (which of cause remain if user don't want to mess with units) - light tank I, II, III etc
define units component - armor I, armor II, infantry cannon I, II,  close defence (MG) I, II, ATG I, II , chassis - light/heavy tracks, light/heavy wheels etc.
After that if user have all component - armor III, heavy tracks II, heavy infantry cannon III, MG I and sped additional pp on the  "design integration" - blam - IS-2 heavy tank

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.

The good thing that wouldn't require modification of tactical AI, and AI could steal/accumulate good design from player.

New strategic choises - if the enemy have haevy fortifications that require vehicles with infantry guns. If it have a lot of tanks - vehicles with ATG. If there is a good road network  - build wheeled vehicles.

So, what is community opinion ?

 
a more flexible and deeper econimoc model would be fine, especially for the modder, introduce i.e. the option of increasing the production capabilities of cities, to gain additional production slots, to give a penalty for switching production or to lock specific slots for user-designed scenarios
 
to avoid too much micro-management for those unwilling to do it, just make it optional, no one has to play the scenarios which one feels there is too much micromangement in
 

this is a ww2 strategic game and not phantasy

 
the editor allows for much more than ww2 only, there is no reason to forbid anyone to use it for whatever era and scope (given the engine limitations) one likes to

[seille]

additional production slots ?
Do you see any space for more than the 4 slots ? I can´t....
In addition more slots will only bring more unfinished products/partial production.
 
And yes, the game allows fantasy of course, but the initial design is ww2 focussed, or ?
And i don´t think it´s necessary to be able to design own subunittypes here especially from lots of different parts/components.
Personally i think this would completely screw the game concept [:(]
 
How the AI should handle that ?? Yes, there are players who play the AI only.....
"Stealing" from human player ? How the hell ??
 
And how do you think you can keep the balance in the unit set here ?
 
(Small) penalty for switching production is the only thing here i would agree.
But only for switching from one class to another, so switching from rifle to staff = no penalty.
And it should be a small penalty and only as a option not as standard !

[serg3d1]

Ok, I concede the point. That is production distribution was kind of boring and I thought it would live it up a little.

ORIGINAL: seille
engineers with body armor.....this is a ww2 strategic game and not phantasy. Sounds a bit like Frankenstein [;)]

You know, WW2 history is a complex and difficult stuff. You should be careful with sarcastic comments.
It's not coincidence that I mentioned engineers with body armor.

Here they are - assault engineers of RKKA from Assault Engineer-Sapper Brigades (ShISBR) of WW2



Assault Engineer-Sapper Brigades were formed from 1943, and all personnel was equipped with body armor.
They were elite units for breaking through the heavy fortifications.

[seille]

Ok, but such equipment you´ll make available for research ??
So little details ?
So flak suits for bomber crew members will give them more hitpoints cause the crew is less vulnerable to flak fire ?
Please not....
 
I still think that kind of SFT creation is no good way.
If you need these special engineers in a scenario i´m sure the scenario designer will make them available
by action cards or just adding a special SFT.

[kafka]

Do you see any space for more than the 4 slots ? I can´t....

 
to gain space in a GUI software developers have invented something like scrollbars
 
after all, you do not seem to get my point
 
I'd just like to make the editor more flexible for modders, that is for the creation of user-designed scenarios not everyone is forced to play, no standard is meant here
 
why prevent others to use the engine the way they want to, given the fact it has such potentials

[seille]

As long as this doesn´t become standard Vic can add here as much as he want.
 
But Serg3D1 asked for comments and i posted my comment to that points.
I don´t think it´s possible to implement his part based unit construction that easy (and to handle for the AI)
and i don´t think adding production slots will bring any advantages.
A delay in drastic change of a slot from planes to lets say tanks is ok, but the penalty should be small.
If you say one month no production for that slot this could easily screw the balance of some existing scenario´s.
But, i forgot, we talk about possible NON STANDARD additional settings for the editor [:D]
 
Btw, the ski infantry idea i like. Would be a great addition to the russia 1941 scenario as a special russian infantry type.