Game Suggestions:

[fiva55]

Any way to see how much armaments you captured? Since it seems to play such an important role, it would be nice if you could somehow track it.

[Tarhunnas]

Hotkey for repairing rail if an FBD is selected. It is kind of un-ergonomic to mouse over to the right, then back to the unit to move it.

[Wild]

Would it be possible to take another look at Russian rail capacity? It still seems like they can move a bit to much.

[delatbabel]

I would like to see the AP cost for turning units to and from static mode revisited.

It costs about twice as many APs to turn a mech corps from static mode to active mode as it does to rebuild it from scratch. Seriously, is it really twice as much paperwork to send in trucks to a unit as it is to build a new unit?

I think it should be simply zero APs to turn a unit to static mode (but you get the trucks back into your pool), and 1 AP to turn any unit of any size from static mode to active again.

That way players will actually use static mode. At the moment I won't put units into static mode because the cost to reactivate them is too high. I also start doing gamey things like advancing static tank corps alone into a hex where a battle has taken place, in the hope that they will be attacked, retreated, and activated for free.

[Lieste]

It might not be a factor of rail capacity as such, as much as how much can use a single line.
While there is little doubt that the Soviet rail capacity exceeds the amount to entrain a single division, it will still take several days and many trains to entrain and detrain an entire division, so several using the same line will saturate it.
Similarly, while multiple cities can have their industry 'secured' in a single turn, the time taken to break-down the machinery, and load it onto each train may mean that the lapse between giving the order to evacuate and the completion of the planned move may exceed a single week. I have no definite information on the timings (except tables of loading times for rail transport of divisions for the German Army, and planning norms for how long it takes to entrain a unit), but it doesn't seem unreasonable to spend the rail-cap to move a factory*, but the completion to not occur for a turn or two... stops the 'always successful' last moment evacuations.
This could be a one-off cost, or a 'commitment' cost for the 2-3 turns required to entrain & shift the heavy machinery.

[delatbabel]

Does anyone from Matrix or 2by3 read this suggestion thread?

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Does anyone from Matrix or 2by3 read this suggestion thread?

I think Sabre21 moderates the thread and passes on any useful suggestions plus they have the developers forum.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

It might not be a factor of rail capacity as such, as much as how much can use a single line.
While there is little doubt that the Soviet rail capacity exceeds the amount to entrain a single division, it will still take several days and many trains to entrain and detrain an entire division, so several using the same line will saturate it.
Similarly, while multiple cities can have their industry 'secured' in a single turn, the time taken to break-down the machinery, and load it onto each train may mean that the lapse between giving the order to evacuate and the completion of the planned move may exceed a single week. I have no definite information on the timings (except tables of loading times for rail transport of divisions for the German Army, and planning norms for how long it takes to entrain a unit), but it doesn't seem unreasonable to spend the rail-cap to move a factory*, but the completion to not occur for a turn or two... stops the 'always successful' last moment evacuations.
This could be a one-off cost, or a 'commitment' cost for the 2-3 turns required to entrain & shift the heavy machinery.

One turn delay for factory evacuation is an excellent idea IMHO!

[Pawlock]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Does anyone from Matrix or 2by3 read this suggestion thread?

If you had just looked one page back you would realise they do indeed read this thread. A suggestion by Arras was implemented in the last patch.

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Does anyone from Matrix or 2by3 read this suggestion thread?

If you had just looked one page back you would realise they do indeed read this thread. A suggestion by Arras was implemented in the last patch.

Please enlighten me???

Or do you mean the Coloured chain of command links between HQ and attached units which was just patched into the game.

[Pawlock]

Yes indeed, the coloured links.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Does anyone from Matrix or 2by3 read this suggestion thread?

Many of the ideas are looked at, Pavel is the primary guy to code any changes but he is still pretty busy with the German conversion and bugs as well as working on the combat model. It was surprising he was able to implement the colored line function so quickly, there are others that have been mentioned in this thread that have been added in or will be too.

Like the ap cost for static and how that system works is an issue I posted on the tester forum several days ago and is something i would like to see changed.

Andy

[Tarhunnas]

Reposting this here as suggested by Apollo11.

I am among those who think that the game gets a somewhat unhistorical tilt by the fact that the most attractive target and the one most likely to have an effect on the balance of forces is Leningrad. It also happens to be the easiest big objective to take as the German. In reality, Leningrad had lower priority for the Germans than Moscow or the Ukraine.

In my wiew, something should be done to make other targets more attractive, or lower the benefits of capturing Leningrad. Some suggestions:

1. Morale loss for the Soviets when losing Moscow. A one time morale loss of 5 points for all Soviet units except guards. Or make it a random chance of 50% for all soviet units to suffer this morale loss.

2. Make the Soviets lose AP:s to simulate the loss of administrative facilities in Moscow. Lower the Soviet AP allocation per turn by 10 or 20 AP if Moscow is lost. Or alternatively, lower Soviet manpower by 5 or 10 percent if Moscow is lost, to simulate general dissillusionment in the population following the fall of Moscow.

3. Lower AP by 5 each for Kharkov, Sevastopol and Rostov lost.

4. Do not let the Finns attack south of the no attack line. This would still let the finns move south if the Germans clear the way for them, which I think is generous when considering the historical situation. Historically, I think it would have been extremely doubtful if one single finn would have stepped over that line even if the Germans had captured Leningrad three times over and made it into a parking lot.

5. Something more should be done to make the Crimea attractive to take. Both sides had historical reasons to fight for the Crimea, and in the game there are none. Oddly enough Sevastopol and Simferopol are not even cities in the game, even though they both had larger populations than for example Bryansk or Gomel, which are cities.

[Uxbridge]

Favorite views would be nice.

Chose some important front area, adjust prefered zoom level and where the map borders should begin and end. Then press Ctrl+Alt+1 as an example. The system then locks this view into memory. Next time the gamer press Alt+1 he will immediately be taken to this view. Option open for figures ranging from 1 to 9.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I am among those who think that the game gets a somewhat unhistorical tilt by the fact that the most attractive target and the one most likely to have an effect on the balance of forces is Leningrad. It also happens to be the easiest big objective to take as the German. In reality, Leningrad had lower priority for the Germans than Moscow or the Ukraine.

+1

2. Make the Soviets lose AP:s to simulate the loss of administrative facilities in Moscow. Lower the Soviet AP allocation per turn by 10 or 20 AP if Moscow is lost. Or alternatively, lower Soviet manpower by 5 or 10 percent if Moscow is lost, to simulate general dissillusionment in the population following the fall of Moscow.

AP loss would have been likely, 'all roads led to Moscow', more or less. It was the centre of the bureaucracy and the many buttons that it needed. I think a morale shift (bonus) should go to the Axis for taking Moscow though, it was a symbolic location for them, not sure how much so for the Russians. Perhaps the Soviets should lose morale the further East the Axis gets after a certain point, a small penalty for their continued inability to stop the fascist invaders.

4. Do not let the Finns attack south of the no attack line. This would still let the finns move south if the Germans clear the way for them, which I think is generous when considering the historical situation. Historically, I think it would have been extremely doubtful if one single finn would have stepped over that line even if the Germans had captured Leningrad three times over and made it into a parking lot.

I was exchanging email with a Finn some years back who felt that their only goal in the Continuation War was to regain what they lost in the Winter War, and nothing more. He felt that they wouldn't have moved one inch further than they did, no matter how well the Germans did. This is reinforced by the general disgust the Finns felt for what the Nazis were doing in the captured territories.

Of course, if there was a chance to gain territory and wealth, perhaps the Finns might have been lured out anyway. Hard to say. The Germans likely would have had to do MUCH better than they did historically before they would risk angering the Soviet Union (because they didn't take anything more, or doing anything nasty, the Soviets were willing to let the Finns quietly exit the war - unlike the Germans who they were going to kick until it wasn't fun any more, and then do it a while longer anyway).

Most games have the Finnish front as an "its there" type thing, but little more - you have to keep enough forces there to keep the Finns in check, but that is it. Although most games also feel that if the Germans captured Leningrad, the Finns would have moved further out.



Armies don't generally march on something just because its there. There is a reason to take it. It may be strategic (a cross road, a fortification, a good location to secure the flank from), it may be industrial (the real goal of war is not to shoot the other guy's troops, it is to destroy his ability to make war against you, his troops want to do that to you, and stop you from doing it to him), it may be resources (that was why the Japanese invaded in the Pacific, and the Germans looted as many resources as they could - inefficiently, but they did it), it could be wealth (the Germans looted billions from the conquered territories to help pay for the war), or it could simply be on the way to one of the above, but there is a reason.

Many games declare certain cities to be objective hexes - a way of saying "its important, but we aren't worrying about why exactly" which the scenarios do here, but it is much less tangible in the campaign. It would be nice to have that so we could set our own objectives rather than an arbitrary decision of "well, I guess we'll go that way..."

Hitler supposedly felt that the prime objectives were Leningrad, the Ukraine, and the oil in the Caucuses, Moscow was a symbol so was on the list, but lower than the Ukraine and Leningrad.

Of course Hitler also felt the British would simply surrender if he bombed them enough, and that the Soviet Union would collapse in upon itself simply because it was attacked. So what he thought important is to be taken with a lump of salt.

[tigercub]

The crazy cost of AP points to temporary Motorize a division then it still may not enter newly captured ground...i was thinking fuel was expensive these days!
 
 

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Like the ap cost for static and how that system works is an issue I posted on the tester forum several days ago and is something i would like to see changed.

Andy

What's the likely decision on that. I am starting to edit a 43 campaign scenario at the moment (starting in Jan 43) and I'd like to put static units in place but if they are going to be so expensive to mobilise then there's no point.

Most of the 43 campaign variants have done away with static units entirely, which I don't believe to be valid but with the over-inflated cost to mobilise them the campaign designers have no choice.

[henri51]

I don't know if this has been suggested here before, but I think that the weather is one of the big problems because 1) It was the worst winter in 50 years; 2) both players know in advance exactly what the weather will be.

A way to make the game more interesting wold be to use weather records for say the past 50 years, and to have the game choose at random among those years, but neither player would know which year was chosen. This would avoid players planning each Winter move exactly. Another possibility is to have the month (say January) chosen at random among say 50 January months, which would introduce even more uncertainty.

Imagine if a Russian player plans on a certain date for Blizzard conditions, but instead he gets mud conditions! This would make the game more interesting by 1)Forcing players to plan for contingencies; 2) Forcing players to adapt their game for unforeseen conditions.

The same idea could be applied to other "what-if" game variations, for example, no 1937 purge or a deeper purge that also killed Zhukov, Rokossovsky and Vatutin, or an earlier or a later lend-lease, or an earlier Blitzkrieg. Such variations could be chosen by the player or chosen at random by the computer.

Henri

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Like the ap cost for static and how that system works is an issue I posted on the tester forum several days ago and is something i would like to see changed.

Andy

What's the likely decision on that. I am starting to edit a 43 campaign scenario at the moment (starting in Jan 43) and I'd like to put static units in place but if they are going to be so expensive to mobilise then there's no point.

Most of the 43 campaign variants have done away with static units entirely, which I don't believe to be valid but with the over-inflated cost to mobilise them the campaign designers have no choice.

There hasn't been any decision one way or another on this. Right now it is in the discussion stage on the tester forum. I would like to see static units remain in static mode if forced to retreat or rout. This is too easily taken advantage of. Cutting costs in half for what you receive in ap's when placing a unit in static mode and then cutting the cost in half to reactivate it was my suggestion. Any changes will be after 1.04 becomes official due to other priorities.

[Uxbridge]

INTERDICTION.

I would like to see some kind of deliberate interdiction by air units. The phasing player would chose this form of attack and have his air units bomb certain hexes. If he succeeds, major road/rail/bridge damage is supposed to have been caused. In this hex is then placed a number based on the attack resolution, being the movement points lost by any ground unit (enemy or not) going through the hex for the duration of the enemy and next friendly turn after the bombing.

There should be limitations as where this interdiction is possible. I think rail junctions with a least 3 adjoining line could be one; the 2 hexes with rail line crossing a river (bridge) being another; larger urban areas (railway stations) could be a third.

I realise this would constitute a change of system so big that it is probably not practical.