Matrix Games Forums

Hi Guys,
Wondering what visualization you prefer for combat units on game strategy map? More traditional unit Icons or NATO counters? Maybe option to switch between both is the best?

I almost always prefer the stylized units and like it when given a choice. For some games, like Naval, I prefer NATO icons. In that case it "feels" more like what you would see in the CIC.

ORIGINAL: NikiAlex

Hi Guys,
Wondering what visualization you prefer for combat units on game strategy map? More traditional unit Icons or NATO counters? Maybe option to switch between both is the best?

warspite1

NATO icons. WIF is the best example of the ideal counters:

Land units = NATO counters
Aircraft and Ships = full colour camouflage picture of individual aircraft type / ship

Absolute genius. [&o][&o][&o]

Land units = NATO counters
Aircraft and Ships = full colour camouflage picture of individual aircraft type / ship

This could be quite nice combination. Still seeking a more detailed image of plane/heli/ship could be potentially very large for the purpose of strategic map placement.

Another good option what I was thinking is icon to be the zoom level dependant. When far display NATOs, zooming-in turn them in stylized unit icon. What do you think?

unit Icons, as i'm too thick still to understand Nato ones[:D][;)]

Depends on the game and the mood I'm in. For Panzer Corps I like the unit graphics. For something like Advanced Tactics I prefer Nato counters. Depends on the mood I'm in whether I want to play a game with NATO counters or play one with graphic unit icons.

Yeah, it depends entirely on the context of the game which is more informative. Example off the top of my head: in Flashpoint Campaigns a Soviet 'tank company' could be anything from T55s to T80s. It's therefore way more effective to represent those counters on the face with a unit silhouette rather than putting a NATO oval on all of them and making me click through to see the detail.

In War in the East/West, a tank division is a tank division and it's more important on that scale to be able to differentiate between different kinds of division clearly than see minor TOE differences between them.

Well I do like choice, so I would go with both with 3D being my favorite. Something that looks like a real tiger on the map only minaturized of course.

But, the one thing I really hate in all these new wargames is this factor of "10" representing ALL the units on the map. I prefer schwerpunks method or Avalon Hills with first number being attack, middle number being defense and last number being movement if you're going to use nato counters at all. (4-4-4) ahhh the memories.

Generally NATO symbols, but I'm flexible, and not in every game, and I agree that options should be available in games whenever possible.

NATO symbols for anything after 1870. Unit icons for everything else.

Strategic level - NATO

Operational level - NATO

Tactical Level - Unit Icons (e.g Heroes of Stalingrad or Conflict of Heroes (counter view)) or top down images (e.g. Close Combat)

If it is a war game being played on a map (ideally with hexes) I generally hate 3D images.

Hate is a strong word.....relax, hug somebody today. Kick yah shoes off. Yall come back now. [:D]

A lot depends on the quality of the graphic icons and, as others have stated, the context of the game. At tactical levels icons seem to work best while at operational level NATO counters do. At a strategic level icons can also work to signify the type of unit, but again it comes down to the quality of art if so.

NATO icons. WIF is the best example of the ideal counters:

Land units = NATO counters
Aircraft and Ships = full colour camouflage picture of individual aircraft type / ship

Absolute genius.

Yes, WiF has it best.

Give me NATO for Operational and above but at tactical scale I prefer a unit icon showing a side on profile and black not coloured. I've just created over 300 unit symbols\counters for a certain game that will come out in a new patch and also be in a new game.

That's because they are all Panzer General clones.

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Well I do like choice, so I would go with both with 3D being my favorite. Something that looks like a real tiger on the map only minaturized of course.

But, the one thing I really hate in all these new wargames is this factor of "10" representing ALL the units on the map. I prefer schwerpunks method or Avalon Hills with first number being attack, middle number being defense and last number being movement if you're going to use nato counters at all. (4-4-4) ahhh the memories.

ORIGINAL: wodin

That's because they are all Panzer General clones.

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Well I do like choice, so I would go with both with 3D being my favorite. Something that looks like a real tiger on the map only minaturized of course.

But, the one thing I really hate in all these new wargames is this factor of "10" representing ALL the units on the map. I prefer schwerpunks method or Avalon Hills with first number being attack, middle number being defense and last number being movement if you're going to use nato counters at all. (4-4-4) ahhh the memories.

So I noticed. I don't like them either. The horror if the new Steel Tigers uses this kind of system?

I very much doubt it..but if it does then it certainly isn't a new Steel Panthers game..

I like the NATO counters myself. I feel it gives a real war room feel to a grand strategy game.