Page 29 of 42
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:54 pm
by gradenko2k
I think it'd be useful to have a hotkey to scroll through units in order, and then supplement this with a button that scrolls through all unmoved units, then finally a button that lets you designate a unit as already moved, so that you don't have to scroll through a unit that you want to just stay put and defend.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:57 am
by Simbelmude
I'd love a additional unit description screen (a bit like the supply details) giving info about the losses the units has suffered last turn and the replacements it received, and possibly fatigue/morale/experience gain or loss. It would be very useful to have a better idea of replacement distribution, and also useful to gain better understanding of unit evolution in terms of fatigue, moral, experience.
Also, I would very much like to know which commanders failed (or succeeed) their main rolls in battle, a bit like the pop up informing of successful admin roll when reallocating units. It would make it clearer why combat results are what they are, and who fucked up. It would give combat more depth.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:07 pm
by Mehring
I was thinking this over but resolution of the recently discovered morale gain bug might make it more pressing. Russian players can run east in 1941 without looking over their shoulder and not lose significant industry. Rapidly rising morale of fresh units may make the eventual defences of the better players all but unassailable. What about linking Russian national morale to the fall of various cities within a certain time frame? Lose a city too quick and your NM drops for a certain period. Coupled with more curbs on axis logistic excess, players still have a choice but it might make historical behaviour more likely.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:15 pm
by Michael T
This morale bug/issue is going to have some big ripple effects. I really think 2by3 need to think about this and the big picture before implementing it in full. The game has bascially been balanced and tweaked with the missing rule not being implemented from day one I suspect. To suddenly bring it on line.... ????
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:57 pm
by The Guru
Rapidly rising morale of fresh units may make the eventual defences of the better players all but unassailable. What about linking Russian national morale to the fall of various cities within a certain time frame? Lose a city too quick and your NM drops for a certain period. Coupled with more curbs on axis logistic excess, players still have a choice but it might make historical behaviour more likely
I've been crying for something like that
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:49 pm
by rmonical
I wonder if the missing feature had an impact on this rule change? Before this change, Soviet National morale was 40 in 1941.
v1.05.18 - September 6, 2011
Soviet National Morale has been changed to 50 in June 1941. One point is subtracted each month after this in 1941 (so it is 44 in Dec 41). In
1942 it is set to 40, with one point being added each month starting in September 1942 (so 44 in Dec 42). This continues in 1943 and 1944
until the Soviet National Morale reaches its maximum of 60 in April 1944.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:26 pm
by delatbabel
ORIGINAL: The Guru
Rapidly rising morale of fresh units may make the eventual defences of the better players all but unassailable. What about linking Russian national morale to the fall of various cities within a certain time frame? Lose a city too quick and your NM drops for a certain period. Coupled with more curbs on axis logistic excess, players still have a choice but it might make historical behaviour more likely
I've been crying for something like that
And I'm glad it's never been implemented because it's the worst suggestion ever. It builds a feedback loop into the game where the better Soviet players have their NM increasing over time making them unbeatable, and the players who aren't as competent having their NM falling making them fall further behind. It unbalances the game dramatically in the worst possible way.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:25 am
by swkuh
Something is needed to encourage SOV players to defend key cities & regions as they did in the events. Believe the purpose of "balance" is not to make a strong player more like other players, but to support play that matches history. And, likewise for Axis in defense. Makes the political leadership of both sides count.
Recent games showing the SOV runaway & hide or the Axis retreat & turtle strategies aren't fun, even though they challenge good players and might be defeated. Not the way things should go.
Ahh... V2.0 will have all the solutions. Right...
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:36 pm
by carlkay58
The best possible solution would be for an expanded Victory Points (i.e. more than 10 Victory Locations / scenario) system that would give VPs in the campaign game with possible sudden death dates or a specific ratio which could end the game in a Major Victory for one side or the other.
RE: Game Suggestions: new features
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:53 pm
by peter333
Why is this game so expensive? $80 USD? Its way out of line with other games. I would like to give the game a try but not until it comes down in price.
RE: Game Suggestions: new features
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:21 pm
by Michael T
The price tag keeps away the riff raff.
RE: Game Suggestions: new features
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:35 pm
by peter333
well it appears not to be working
RE: Game Suggestions: new features
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:16 pm
by Michael T
True, they need to charge more......
RE: Game Suggestions: new features
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:22 pm
by carlkay58
When you average the cost down to a per hour of playtime, you find that it is less than a penny an hour after a year or two of good playing. My son paid $49 for a video game that he beat with less than 20 hours of play time. So he paid about $2.50/hour. That is not even a single campaign game vs the AI in WitE.
RE: Game Suggestions: new features
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:05 pm
by peter333
i get the same thing with Civ 5 and its half the price of this game. I had the original game back in the days and it did not cost that much then. There is no question that it is a good game but its simply overpriced. If they sold it for $50 it would sell twice or three times as much and get younger people into these types of games.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:57 pm
by The Guru
I (too) have a problem with the omnipresence of 1-Combat value units. I guess that CV is always rounded up to 1, so anything from 0.1 to 0.9 shown as CV 1. The problem is that, if dealing with higher numbers you - and the opponent - can see the difference betwenn a force and another force twice as strong, evreything under 1 Cv is levelled, so as 0.1 and a 0.9 will show 1, even if the second's CV is 900% (!!!)of the first. There is absolutely no reason why, under the arbitrary threshold of 1-CV, intelligence about your forces and about enemy forces becomes that nebulous. Regarding your own forces, you can always go through the tedious process of examining each unit's TOE, experience, morale to try and guess its real CV. But you can't do it for enemy forces. Yet, that is fundamental. When your Cv is really low, attacking an enemy with a CV of 1 or with a CV of 0.1 is very different.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:55 pm
by swkuh
I'm lucky I bot early at those price lines, else I'd be sleeping with all the riff-raff.
BTW, think there is too much enemy info displayed before contact/combat. Don't mind knowing stuff, but not just from exposing the tokens. And there does seem to be game code that masks CV values, etc.
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:36 pm
by Simbelmude
I'd love a "are you sure?" button when about to move a multi-unit stack. I have ruined many a turn on server games accidently moving all units sacked in the same hex, when only intending to move one, as more often than not it is not possile to cancel the movement....
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:37 pm
by Simbelmude
I (too) have a problem with the omnipresence of 1-Combat value units. I guess that CV is always rounded up to 1, so anything from 0.1 to 0.9 shown as CV 1. The problem is that, if dealing with higher numbers you - and the opponent - can see the difference betwenn a force and another force twice as strong, evreything under 1 Cv is levelled, so as 0.1 and a 0.9 will show 1, even if the second's CV is 900% (!!!)of the first. There is absolutely no reason why, under the arbitrary threshold of 1-CV, intelligence about your forces and about enemy forces becomes that nebulous. Regarding your own forces, you can always go through the tedious process of examining each unit's TOE, experience, morale to try and guess its real CV. But you can't do it for enemy forces. Yet, that is fundamental. When your Cv is really low, attacking an enemy with a CV of 1 or with a CV of 0.1 is very different.
+1 !!!!
RE: Game Suggestions:
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:16 pm
by Rom3l
ORIGINAL: Simbelmude
I (too) have a problem with the omnipresence of 1-Combat value units. I guess that CV is always rounded up to 1, so anything from 0.1 to 0.9 shown as CV 1. The problem is that, if dealing with higher numbers you - and the opponent - can see the difference betwenn a force and another force twice as strong, evreything under 1 Cv is levelled, so as 0.1 and a 0.9 will show 1, even if the second's CV is 900% (!!!)of the first. There is absolutely no reason why, under the arbitrary threshold of 1-CV, intelligence about your forces and about enemy forces becomes that nebulous. Regarding your own forces, you can always go through the tedious process of examining each unit's TOE, experience, morale to try and guess its real CV. But you can't do it for enemy forces. Yet, that is fundamental. When your Cv is really low, attacking an enemy with a CV of 1 or with a CV of 0.1 is very different.
+1 !!!!
+1