Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket

Isn't there a problem with artillery in infantry units, regarding the infantry designation prohibiting firing at range?  Would this kind of problem exist with other force combinations that combining units might create? 

If an artillery unit is attached to an infantry unit it sould work just like an artillery equipment added to an infantry unit - there is no undirect fire.

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket
Would this present problems with scenario design, as the player could produce ahistorical units that thwart the designers intent?

It does look like an interesting option, but from a design standpoint, is it opening up a big can of worms?

Using the option isn't much more complicated and troblesome then standard OOB and TO&E designer's decision. I've found a lot of scenarios with OOB and TO&E producing ahistorical usage of unit (army HQs as fast recon troops, motorized AA artillery as a exploitation/penetration of breakouts etc). I don't see special reason why composite units could produce ADDITIONAL problems. I've found proposed regulations and limits very intuitive. Of course - this is really powerful tool - something like BioEd. There are really few examples when BioEd produces revolutionary modifications. But even if it's used to such modification, they are less troublesome than standard scenario editor in a beginner's hands. Who decided for a revolution must be experienced enough to predict results of his approach.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
This is a feature request that adds nothing to scenarios not written to take advantage of it

Yep..

It's called expanding one's horizons.

While there are lots of great "old" scenarios (99.9% I would say), shouldn't the team be looking at what can be done to enhance the game and provide new features which excite new players into creating new scenarios?

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
This is a feature request that adds nothing to scenarios not written to take advantage of it (all those written so far) and only limited utility to those that would be written for it, beyond what the engine already allows one to do.

There is no problem to set default values this way, that the featrue can add a lot of possibilites to existing scenarios - try to think about all these unnecessary clicks used by players to move ant units, too.
Proposed default limits of attachements:
- main battle units (infantry, tanks, mechanized, cavalry) =2
- secondary units (recon, engineers, heavy weapons, garrisons) =1
- HQs and supporting units (artillery, AA, AT, MP) =0
- air and naval units = 0

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Yet, it would require a lot of programming, testing, and graphics changes to implement properly.

Really? It's so close to present divide/recombine procedures. Anyway - I'm a volunteer for testing .
I could check some of the most popular scenarios to show possibilities and search for problems cause by proposed default values, too.