Please let us delegate one or more fronts/AGs to AI control...

[TC2712]

I love the game so far but even at divisional scale moving and fighting all across the front can be very time consuming and sometimes feels out of kilter with being an operational commander at this scale.

Is it possible a mechanism could be introduced whereby the player can delegate an AG to AI control for a number of turns - I find AGS with its vast frontage and high level of infantry units a bit tiresome to manage at some points and I would like to be able to tell von Rundstedt to get on with it on his own for a few turns.

This could even be worked into the meta game - if I took the example above perhaps it would arguably give me a relationship boost with von rundstedt at the expense of a possible detrimental affect elsewhere?

[demyansk]

I would like the ability to have all three and at times rule the entire structure.

[Vic]

Thanks for the suggestion. It is something that crossed our minds as well and it is on the list for potential new features in future products or patches. Problem is that its not exactly a small feature and implementing it will have consequences for lots of different parts of the system. Among others its only usefull imho to delegate movement and attack to army(groups) if you can also set targets, limits and modes of operation for them.

Best wishes,
Vic

[TC2712]

Thanks for the response - I hope you will consider it.

[wodin]

Would be cool but we'd be talking some serious work which would be way to much just for an expansion. This would have to be a feature in a new game altogether and in from the start of the design process.

Though as I said I'd love it too.

[zakblood]

if they build it, i'll test it[:D][;)]

or should i say, put me name down to test it[8|][:D][;)]

[Franciscus]

This would also seem also perfectly logical in this game, because to someone still in the fence like me, it seems a bit strange the mix of "command structure rpg" (i.e., our army generals in the field having opinions and a spectrum of relations towards you according to your decisions - I guess I am talking more about the German point of view) and the micromanagement of having to move and conduct all attacks of all units. At the same time you have subordinates that feel "personally" affected by your decisions but you have to do all their "jobs" regardless.

I would like to ask you guys that already have the game what do you feel about this apparent (to me) design mismatch ?

Regards

[zakblood]

if you want my opinion when i first saw it i thought it was a stupid idea and would never work, then again i'm not a fully brillant history buff so don't know the in's and outs of the campaign either, but half the battle for both side was won and lost for the commanders in fighting and poor choices made, this is where the game imo is different, as you get if you want to that is, make some of them choices better, or most of the time for me worse, as it goes both ways.

eg:

let the fins go over the boarder, good or bad call?

delay the start of the campaign to get more fuel? good or bad call?

delay while you support staff and troops alter rail lines and rest and they have been at it for far too long already?

each and everyone has good and bad points, some don't seem to do anything, until you run out of fuel and somebody tells you, you made the wrong choice [;)]

each has a possative and negative effect on not only the commanders but also on the troops in real time, delay attack, other side prepared more, so more dug in etc etc

i've played mostly with them all off, but also put many hours in with them on,

micromanagement for a east front game is bare minimum for size and scope.

relationships have a greater impact that most think, but again in options you can turn on and off, so plays either way, same as decisions, all can be turned off, so you can just fight, again mostly how i play it, but not always as i like the newer stuff as well, so have the option of both ways in options now...