Heliodorus04 mentions the term 'historically plausible' in his closer. I like it! The changes implemented so far seem to get the Axis to a point where they are no worse off than they were historically, but historically they were terrible over extended. It is historically plausible that this did not have to be.
It is historically plausible that the original OKH plan could have been implemented, with modifications with respect to the fact that OKH was not aware of the massive forces in Ukraine.
It is historically plausible (and factual) that the SU counter-attack with available forces for the first two weeks of Barbarossa. This is precisely how the Mechanized Corps were squandered historically. There should be trigger for this in the A/I. House rules, perhaps, for other cases.
It is historically plausible that, following the reduction of the various pockets formed and the seizure of bridgeheads over the Dnepr, that PG 3 (Hoth) would move north to assist in the attack on Leningrad.
At the same point in time, it is historically plausible (and factual) that PG 2 (Guderian) might move south to pocket soviet forces in the Kiev area.
It is historically plausible that AGC, without the two panzer gruppe would continue limited offensives until slowed by the rains, where they would fortify for the winter.
Now any of the above can be implemented by any Axis player. However, what cannot be done is the last historical plausibility.
It is historically plausible that, without the very heavy munitions and fuel use historically required by AGC, equipment and clothing required for severe climate conditions could be moved to the front. In this situation, attrition and shock of German forces would be substantially reduced, much more so than currently implemented.
The Red Army would still have many winter advantages, not all of which are represented in the game. Russian tank brigades should be more mobile than the Axis forces, because their tracks were wide enough to move through heavy snow and, I assume, lubricants and oils were suitable for severe winter conditions. Similarly, the Red Air Force should be much more active than the Luftwaffe, as they were operating from real air fields with heated hangars.
I would like to see these possibilities implemented in the game.
Game Suggestions:
Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3
RE: Game Suggestions:
1) I would like to see HQS have a CV dependent on the SUs that are present in the HQ. It could be halved or quartered because they are SUs non supporting units but it really makes no sense to me that an HQ with what could be 15 or more CV worth of Pioneers, Stugs and flak guns can be displaced buy a tank brigade of 20 tanks.
2) Something needs to be addressed in the area of air GS for the defender. I know it has been mentioned the air system is out of whack but it would be nice to know what issues are being looked at and what potential solutions are being put forth. I would like to be able and assign defensive air support to individual units or hexes.
3) Level 3 4, and 5 forts need to be have some sort of commodity (aps) spent to build them and then be placed on the map as a unit that doesnt count towards stacking purposes. Level 1 and 2 forts need to be destroyed when its creator leaves the hex they were built in.
Just a few items to open up for discussion.
2) Something needs to be addressed in the area of air GS for the defender. I know it has been mentioned the air system is out of whack but it would be nice to know what issues are being looked at and what potential solutions are being put forth. I would like to be able and assign defensive air support to individual units or hexes.
3) Level 3 4, and 5 forts need to be have some sort of commodity (aps) spent to build them and then be placed on the map as a unit that doesnt count towards stacking purposes. Level 1 and 2 forts need to be destroyed when its creator leaves the hex they were built in.
Just a few items to open up for discussion.
RE: Game Suggestions:
ORIGINAL: HHI
The Red Army would still have many winter advantages, not all of which are represented in the game. Russian tank brigades should be more mobile than the Axis forces, because their tracks were wide enough to move through heavy snow and, I assume, lubricants and oils were suitable for severe winter conditions. Similarly, the Red Air Force should be much more active than the Luftwaffe, as they were operating from real air fields with heated hangars.
I would like to see these possibilities implemented in the game.
The game already has an adjustment where German air units have a higher chance of aborting a mission in blizzard conditions, compared to Finnish and Soviet units.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Can we have colouration to distinguish between different corp? Corp colours would be more useful than army colours and would save a lot of time. I note in previous discussions in this thread that there aren't enough colours available, so there might be some duplication. But it would surely be better to be able to distinguish most corps than the situation we have now where we can't distinguish most corps.
Three colouring options [ol][*]Use split colouration as you have for the LW airbase backgrouns but in the symbol area where the army colours are currently. This would allow both army and corp colours to be shown.
[*]Keep the existing army colours but use a coloured dot or bar in the symbol to denote the corp.
[*]Use single colours but use more shades and give more thought to how they are distributed. For instance 6th army uses shades of blue for it's corps, 17th army uses shades of red and 11th army uses shades of yellow etc. With some careful thought most corps could be distinguishable. And allow colouration to be changed if a clash does occur. [/ol]
Other stuff I love the idea of the event log but I think there is scope for improvement. For instance I see in my current game that the “255th infantry division withdraws”, but where from? Which corp/army/AG is it part of and where is it on the map? Can we have a hot link that jumps from the text in the event log directly to the unit on the map? Then you would have a clearer idea of the consequences of the move (BTW does anybody know where 255th is?)
I would join with others in asking for:
Ability to freely choose placement of units in in a set up move prior to the first turn without the editor.
Ability to pay AP's for changes to withdrawal schedule. Must be some room for manoeuvre here. Perhaps some historical withdrawals could be delayed by AP payment?
Ability to create new German units / have increased control of production.
Some way to prevent the HQ accidental relocation problem.
I understand that these issues have already been discussed, but please consider this as a vote for these items in any new game / version. On the debate about historical accuracy I don't think that you can claim that anything is historically accurate as most of the play options /movements / combats will be ahistoric otherwise it would be a reconstruction not a game.
Thanks for creating such a great game nonetheless.
Three colouring options [ol][*]Use split colouration as you have for the LW airbase backgrouns but in the symbol area where the army colours are currently. This would allow both army and corp colours to be shown.
[*]Keep the existing army colours but use a coloured dot or bar in the symbol to denote the corp.
[*]Use single colours but use more shades and give more thought to how they are distributed. For instance 6th army uses shades of blue for it's corps, 17th army uses shades of red and 11th army uses shades of yellow etc. With some careful thought most corps could be distinguishable. And allow colouration to be changed if a clash does occur. [/ol]
Other stuff I love the idea of the event log but I think there is scope for improvement. For instance I see in my current game that the “255th infantry division withdraws”, but where from? Which corp/army/AG is it part of and where is it on the map? Can we have a hot link that jumps from the text in the event log directly to the unit on the map? Then you would have a clearer idea of the consequences of the move (BTW does anybody know where 255th is?)
I would join with others in asking for:
Ability to freely choose placement of units in in a set up move prior to the first turn without the editor.
Ability to pay AP's for changes to withdrawal schedule. Must be some room for manoeuvre here. Perhaps some historical withdrawals could be delayed by AP payment?
Ability to create new German units / have increased control of production.
Some way to prevent the HQ accidental relocation problem.
I understand that these issues have already been discussed, but please consider this as a vote for these items in any new game / version. On the debate about historical accuracy I don't think that you can claim that anything is historically accurate as most of the play options /movements / combats will be ahistoric otherwise it would be a reconstruction not a game.
Thanks for creating such a great game nonetheless.
RE: Game Suggestions:
If I may one interface suggestion:
Colour outlining of direct subordinate units is of course helpful in visualising command structure but I find it still not clear enough. Battlefield is still one mess in which it is hard to orient in times. Especially if I want to get idea of overall command structure.
My suggestion is to replace or supplement colour outlining with simple lines connecting subordinate units down in tree like structure. Perhaps with colour coding of lines according to level of command. There might be restriction of how much down this visualisation should go to prevent it connecting all units on map while viewing high command unit (STAVKA, OKH). Say it would be limited to Corps or Armies HQs when displaying command structure on this global level. Or link it in to the zoom so larger the zoom, more levels of command are displayed.
Perhaps line to parent command HQ from selected unit as well.
It would make easier to determine position of subordinate units along with their position (even without unit being on map, line would give direction in which unit is in relation to it's subordinates or commanding unit)
This can be optional mode, say activated by icon.
Something like this:
Colour outlining of direct subordinate units is of course helpful in visualising command structure but I find it still not clear enough. Battlefield is still one mess in which it is hard to orient in times. Especially if I want to get idea of overall command structure.
My suggestion is to replace or supplement colour outlining with simple lines connecting subordinate units down in tree like structure. Perhaps with colour coding of lines according to level of command. There might be restriction of how much down this visualisation should go to prevent it connecting all units on map while viewing high command unit (STAVKA, OKH). Say it would be limited to Corps or Armies HQs when displaying command structure on this global level. Or link it in to the zoom so larger the zoom, more levels of command are displayed.
Perhaps line to parent command HQ from selected unit as well.
It would make easier to determine position of subordinate units along with their position (even without unit being on map, line would give direction in which unit is in relation to it's subordinates or commanding unit)
This can be optional mode, say activated by icon.
Something like this:
RE: Game Suggestions:
My suggestion is to replace or supplement colour outlining with simple lines connecting subordinate units down in tree like structure...Perhaps line to parent command HQ from selected unit as well.
+1
RE: Game Suggestions:
Here are a few UI suggestions in case nobody's already suggested similar-
1. Remove air unit selection screen from national reserve. Select direct from commanders report.
2. Right click HQ to bring up box showing its supply, leader stats, support units and their TOE %, number of CUs available. This also leaves subordinates highlighted blue. Clicking on other units will place them under command, APs permitting.
3. Introduce multi unit selection and drag and drop in commanders report for status changes and air unit allocation.
4. Enable transfer of SUs to any HQ on map by opening a transfer box in which you type the name of the destination HQ.
1. Remove air unit selection screen from national reserve. Select direct from commanders report.
2. Right click HQ to bring up box showing its supply, leader stats, support units and their TOE %, number of CUs available. This also leaves subordinates highlighted blue. Clicking on other units will place them under command, APs permitting.
3. Introduce multi unit selection and drag and drop in commanders report for status changes and air unit allocation.
4. Enable transfer of SUs to any HQ on map by opening a transfer box in which you type the name of the destination HQ.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
-Leon Trotsky
RE: Game Suggestions:
UI suggestion: include captured city control percentage in commanders report under Locations tab.
RE: Game Suggestions:
I've got another suggestion: Don't bother to show the Modified CV on the battle results screen. Since no one has any idea how it is calculate, I don't see what purpose it serves, it is just confusing.
-
von Beanie
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 8:57 pm
- Location: Oak Hills, S. California
RE: Game Suggestions:
I have no idea if this has been discussed in the previous pages...
My main concern is with the continuous full frontal offensives that seem to be commonplace, especially by the Soviets. There's no incentive to sit still the first winter, or anytime else during the game with the possible exception of mud turns. The actual war was characterized by weeks of inactivity, such as before the Battle of Kursk. This never happens right now.
The way I'd correct this is create two supply states for the Russian side: static and combat. Combat supply is what already exists. Static supply would be significantly reduced.
Then, in 1941 I'd give the Soviet side 1 attack supply point (kind of similar to AP) each turn. They could be saved. Each attack supply point would be capable of activating a front for offensive combat operations for two turns (i.e., combat supply on offense).
A wise player would slowly accumulate these points until they had enough to launch a major offensive. Many of these offensives would occur after the mud turns since that is when there would likely be a reserve of the points. That is when many of the historical Russian offensives started. As the war progresses, such as in mid-1942, the Russians could get two points per turn to support a larger offensive, and then eventually three or more points per turn.
Units attacking without having attack supply would be greatly reduced in offensive effectiveness, thereby encouraging them to sit still. This would significantly reduce German losses from what happens currently, and so their replacement rates might have to be readjusted. But this would prevent the full frontal Russian offensives in late 1941 and early 1942 that are commonplace now.
My main concern is with the continuous full frontal offensives that seem to be commonplace, especially by the Soviets. There's no incentive to sit still the first winter, or anytime else during the game with the possible exception of mud turns. The actual war was characterized by weeks of inactivity, such as before the Battle of Kursk. This never happens right now.
The way I'd correct this is create two supply states for the Russian side: static and combat. Combat supply is what already exists. Static supply would be significantly reduced.
Then, in 1941 I'd give the Soviet side 1 attack supply point (kind of similar to AP) each turn. They could be saved. Each attack supply point would be capable of activating a front for offensive combat operations for two turns (i.e., combat supply on offense).
A wise player would slowly accumulate these points until they had enough to launch a major offensive. Many of these offensives would occur after the mud turns since that is when there would likely be a reserve of the points. That is when many of the historical Russian offensives started. As the war progresses, such as in mid-1942, the Russians could get two points per turn to support a larger offensive, and then eventually three or more points per turn.
Units attacking without having attack supply would be greatly reduced in offensive effectiveness, thereby encouraging them to sit still. This would significantly reduce German losses from what happens currently, and so their replacement rates might have to be readjusted. But this would prevent the full frontal Russian offensives in late 1941 and early 1942 that are commonplace now.
"Military operations are drastically affected by many considerations, one of the most important of which is the geography of the area" Dwight D. Eisenhower
RE: Game Suggestions:
A supply stockpile system for offensives would be great- for both sides.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
-Leon Trotsky
-
JocMeister
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Game Suggestions:
I would like a more detailed battle report without having to watch the whole battle play out on high resolution! 40 AFVs destroyed. Tigers or PzII? Makes a big difference 
Atleast let us see the actual losses per battle! A bonus would be a report on the whole battle as it can be seen on higher battleresolutions. But acessible as text. Would save me perhaps 1-2 hours per turn! Would make a huge difference!
Atleast let us see the actual losses per battle! A bonus would be a report on the whole battle as it can be seen on higher battleresolutions. But acessible as text. Would save me perhaps 1-2 hours per turn! Would make a huge difference! 
RE: Game Suggestions:
What making random weather truely random? Who says the blizzard has to occur in 41? Was it pre-ordained by the gods, and did the Germans and Russians start the campaign knowing that in December the Russians will get a major offensive boost? Maybe it happens in 42 after the Germans capture Stalingrad. Maybe it catches the Russians by surprise while sitting on the Vistula in 44. I think it could mix things up a bit from all the (IMO not fun) pre-blizzard planning that goes on now which isn't historical, and maybe adds a bit to re-playability.
Make it so that one '41 blizzard' season is guaranteed to occur at some point in a 41-45 CG game, and the players will get no warning. There could be 3 weather options: Historical Weather, Minor Random Weather (current), Major Random Weather (proposed).
Make it so that one '41 blizzard' season is guaranteed to occur at some point in a 41-45 CG game, and the players will get no warning. There could be 3 weather options: Historical Weather, Minor Random Weather (current), Major Random Weather (proposed).
RE: Game Suggestions:
What about making random weather truely random? Who says the blizzard has to occur in 41? Was it pre-ordained by the gods, and did the Germans and Russians start the campaign knowing that in December the Russians will get a major offensive boost? Maybe it happens in 42 after the Germans capture Stalingrad. Maybe it catches the Russians by surprise while sitting on the Vistula in 44. I think it could mix things up a bit from all the (IMO not fun) pre-blizzard planning that goes on now which isn't historical, and maybe adds a bit to re-playability.
Make it so that one '41 blizzard' season is guaranteed to occur at some point in a 41-45 CG game, and the players will get no warning. There could be 3 weather options: Historical Weather, Minor Random Weather (current), Major Random Weather (proposed).
Make it so that one '41 blizzard' season is guaranteed to occur at some point in a 41-45 CG game, and the players will get no warning. There could be 3 weather options: Historical Weather, Minor Random Weather (current), Major Random Weather (proposed).
RE: Game Suggestions:
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
A bonus would be a report on the whole battle as it can be seen on higher battleresolutions. But acessible as text. Would save me perhaps 1-2 hours per turn! Would make a huge difference!
This please. Three hours into an attempt to notate a battle and my hand cramped just as the German ground forces began to fire. Alternatively, being able to pause and restart (currently it's 'pause and then you have to quit watching') would be useful. Beer has a terrible effect on my bladder...
RE: Game Suggestions:
When a HQ is selected highlight the railhead hex it's getting supply from.
-
sillyflower
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
- Location: Back in Blighty
RE: Game Suggestions:
ORIGINAL: arras
If I may one interface suggestion:
Colour outlining of direct subordinate units is of course helpful in visualising command structure but I find it still not clear enough. Battlefield is still one mess in which it is hard to orient in times. Especially if I want to get idea of overall command structure.
My suggestion is to replace or supplement colour outlining with simple lines connecting subordinate units down in tree like structure. Perhaps with colour coding of lines according to level of command. There might be restriction of how much down this visualisation should go to prevent it connecting all units on map while viewing high command unit (STAVKA, OKH). Say it would be limited to Corps or Armies HQs when displaying command structure on this global level. Or link it in to the zoom so larger the zoom, more levels of command are displayed.
Perhaps line to parent command HQ from selected unit as well.
It would make easier to determine position of subordinate units along with their position (even without unit being on map, line would give direction in which unit is in relation to it's subordinates or commanding unit)
This can be optional mode, say activated by icon.
Something like this:
Excellent idea especially as we have been told that's it's not possible to give corps different colours
web exchange
Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi
Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi
Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
RE: Game Suggestions:
I second this idea with lines also! Presently I play the Germans, but shudder at the thought of playing the Russians.
Present system does give all information needed, but gives it in a way that needs constant memorizing. It's a little like being in a house with a lot of lights, but where you have to press and hold the light switches in order for the lamps to work. Thus you have to press the switch, watch was is around you, and them move to the next switch in the dark.
Game in general is superb!
Present system does give all information needed, but gives it in a way that needs constant memorizing. It's a little like being in a house with a lot of lights, but where you have to press and hold the light switches in order for the lamps to work. Thus you have to press the switch, watch was is around you, and them move to the next switch in the dark.
Game in general is superb!
RE: Game Suggestions:
Can we have it so that the unit that captures supplies or fuel etc directly recieves a portion eg 10%? with the rest going to the HQ as per current functionality; historically I suspect that a bone dry unit may have topped up before marching on....I make it say 10% because the turns are weekly but the capture event would probably take eg a day....
Molotov : This we did not deserve.
Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.
C'est la guerre aérienne
Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.
C'est la guerre aérienne
RE: Game Suggestions:
Good point, and who's to say they'd even inform higher HQs of a lot of booty, dry or not? Armoured divisions always liked to keep invisible fuel stocks.ORIGINAL: johntoml56
Can we have it so that the unit that captures supplies or fuel etc directly recieves a portion eg 10%? with the rest going to the HQ as per current functionality; historically I suspect that a bone dry unit may have topped up before marching on....I make it say 10% because the turns are weekly but the capture event would probably take eg a day....
Same applies to captured equipment which is woefully under stated. I posted a while back, links to evidence that most Russian equipment captured in '41 by Germans never made it to the central pools but was in stead just given German markings and thrown into line. In this way even Infantry divisions often acquired an armoured element.
All the same, that both German and Rumanian factories were turned over to producing ammo for captured Russian ordnance points to the vast numbers of guns and tanks that did make it to central pools, but this just doesn't happen in game. Surely this is not such a task to put right?
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
-Leon Trotsky