Some more suggestions and feedback

[Atros]

I love the game, except for the UI, which is quite messy. Here are few suggestions and input for making the game better.

Map Generation:
- Way to set parameters in the world creation (Star type, Planet radius, Tilt, Spin time, Gravity, Temperature, Planet age, Planet distance, Atmosphere density, Rainfall, Wind speed, Ratio for water/plains/mountains, Geological activity, Human Hazard, Xeno Hazard, Terran Farming Efficiency, Xeno Farming Efficiency, Alien Tissue Nutrition, Vegetation Level, Evolution level, Top Lifeform, Types of Fauna on planet, Colonization economy levels, Populated zone number, Approximate Survivor number, Scavenger/Hunter/Raider/Farmer ratio).
-> Currently it takes too long to roll maps when you want specific type of world.
- Add button for map generation on each map parameter rolling step AFTER you have rolled the parameters, so it takes less time for each roll, as the engine doesn't need to calculate effects for each step on rolls that doesn't have the statistics you are aiming for.
- Way to re-roll also the last step of map generation, where it divides the freemen percentages etc.
- Possibility to choose your starting city spot.
-> Preferably with ability to choose if you want to choose spot before or after the computer places AI regimes.
- Way to force the game to make planets with more sea coverage but less actual seas, the ones generated being larger and more concentrated.
-> Maybe by choosing number of oceans, seas and reservoirs (one hex seas) created.
-> Personally I would like to play more in desert planets that have few agricultural flashpoints concentrated around few seas, where every local regime concentrates to fight for arable land and the few larger water reserves (think about the situation in Kashmir and around Indus-river for example).

Game Start:
- Way to choose your own avatar picture.
- Capitals should have level 1 Light Industry, so you will always have some Industrial Capacity generation.
-> My first game I got stuck for a long time when I didn't notice to use my first IC to build Industry on turn 1, but built recon units instead.
- Perhaps even a chance to choose your own initial leaders from few choices and at the very least choose who sits initially on which chair to avoid the turn 1 reshuffle.

Armies:
- More control for designing your own unit formations.
-> Decide separately defending units for the OHQ and the fighting field formations.
-> Also way to customize your independent formations.
- More control for dividing the local militia units into formations.
- Possibility to either divide them to weaker guarding formation or stronger custom 20 strength fist-formations. The game can still decide randomly the individual unit types that are divided into the formations.
- More control for deciding which unit gets the unit feats.
-> Perhaps a chance to move those elite snipers from that guarding militia to a fighting unit.
- When you rename unit and press cancel, the whole name of the unit disappears for some reason. Preferably should simply cancel the renaming instead.
- Monster armies shouldn't be able to conquer territory, only to block logistical traffic, destroy villages and cities or attack your own armies.
- Armies shouldn't forget enemy armies in adjacent hexes, nor their types. Also they shouldn't forget the existence of armies they just forced to retreat, nor their type. Nor should the enemy type be forgotten when they move adjacent to a new army in the same front.
- Way to donate your obsolete materiel to the militia or sell them to the civilians to get some resources (or money) back and remove the clutter form your SHQ.
- Way to mark units obsolete so they won't show in the lists.
- Way to create your own recon OHQ-formations for more clear OOB.
- Way to assign OHQ-commander to take command of the militia units under SHQ.
- Way to separate differently named specialized model line from already researched base model-line instead of it named just "[base modelname] II".
- Naming of follow-up models "mk1", "mk2", "mk3" etc. instead of "II", "III" etc.
- A choice to voluntarily retreat own army once when previously unknown doomstack suddenly appears to steamroll your army during the turn change.
- Separate choice for the survival equipment from armor.
-> Better armor costs x-resources, where the separated temperature gear costs +1 IC, air filters costs +2 IC and full environmental/HazMat suite costs +3 IC.
- The unit designing should show a summary about the units stats before you accept to put it into into designing and also give estimate how long will the designing take with current invested BPs.
-> I really hate when I notice after few turns of designing a clear flaw in my design (like scout-unit having too small engine power compared to total weight) or that the designing will take forever with current BPs and you will need to start designing more critical new design before it is completed.

Cities:
- When you nationalize city asset and pay for it, the money should go into the local city's private funds.
- Way to privatize assets and decide (within reason) how much (or little) from the city's private funds you want for it.
- Change "Population" into "Citizens" or "Inhabitants" and "Populace" into "Population", so they are easier to be perceived.
- When city's private industry wants to invest into hex where isn't a village yet, they should ask for permission.
-> Currently the game has tendency to screw-up your farm scores by placing new farms inside your existing farms bonus-field area or by putting those new farms into undefendable zones, where the monsters or enemy armies will destroy them next turn change wasting the private economy money.
- Way to rename the minor villages and assets around cities.
- City-name centered under the city hex.
- Possibility to make one-hex minor cities as near as two or three moves away from the cities instead of the usual five moves between cities.
-> They could have very limited private economy (or not one at all), just a mayor instead of governor and more limited city-building options for to be used as defensible/logistical points when cities are too near to build another city or the situation doesn't warrant actual city. Might count as quarter-point (or less) for territory-number calculations and perhaps have just three city levels, which would also limit the maximum building level to three, except in the cases where even villages/outposts could build more.
- Way to move your capital to another city.
- Way to give command to abandon city and move the population to another city, perhaps within the time of multiple turns depending on the size of the city being abandoned.

Leaders:
- Way to give monetary gifts without strategems to singular governor or leader so you don't need to ruin your whole economy by raising wages across the board just because your governor in the capital city is a jerk.
- Each generated leader should have constant one point minimum allocated to Administration, Operational Command and Leadership, so they all would get calculated TR, CR and IR. Currently it seems some leaders never get some of those ratings regardless how much they use the skills when they don't initially have any score in TR, CR or IR.
- Compare-tab under the leaders should also show the selected leader in the list for actually being able to compare him and his ratings to the others.
- Way to rename leaders.
- When you use new leader strategems or the party leaders try to force you one, perhaps give a choice of one from two or three suggested leaders to get less completely useless ones or ones that know very much about a topic you won't be needing.
-> At the very least let us see the offered leader BEFORE we accept the demand to hire a leader from certain party.

Other:
- Quick Save
- Quick Load
-> You may not like save-scumming, but I do, as I really hate the RNG AND the RNG really hates me.
- Esc-button should always be able to open options, regardless of in which menu you happen to be or exit the menu and when exited everything, finally open options menu.
- There is something weird going on with the trade. Some times the sell-price keeps dropping until you can't sell anymore, while simultaneously the purchase price keeps rising.
- Preferably the fate-strategem packages should always hold 4 cards with one of them being extra fate-points.
- More pop-up hints for less need to read the manual.
- When you are dealed new strategem-cards during turn change, way to see their stats by pointing at them like you were on the Strat.-menu pointing at them.
- Way to rename your regime later in the game.
- Way to rename the parties, cults etc.
- Possibility to undo your accidental moves inside your own territory and perhaps even outside when the unit wasn't ambushed.


If some of the suggestions are already implemented in the beta or they are against some concept of the game, simply ignore them. These are suggestions after all (besides the few bug/oddity reports in the middle).

[Atros]

Also as a note:

Panzer/Tank is a multipurpose vehicle that acts in battlefield on multiple roles of firesupport, battling other tanks, movable infantry cover and movable field fortress.

Assault gun is basically a howizer that is armored to be able to give close cannon-fire support for infantry and some tactical mobility like cover, instead of being a battery of cannons in the rear that needs separate spotters, instead of being a cheap mans tank. If you use assault guns as tanks you use them wrong.

And

Tank Destroyer is a purpose-built tank-killer vehicle and it is neither a cheaper tank. TDs actually can have a turret/cupola, like the modern Italian-built Tank Destroyer Centauro.
The reasons why WWII TD:s didn't have turret/cupola are:
- TD is cheaper and easier/faster to build when it doesn't have a moving turret and its motor.
- No turret reduces weight allowing more armor and/or larger gun instead.
- Removing turret gives the vehicle smaller silhouette making it harder for opposing tanks to hit and giving better sloped-profile, making more hits to ricochet instead of penerating.
- Without turret there is one vulnerable seam less, making the armor itself sturdier.
- Without rotating turret the vehicle is more forced to keep the strongest forward armor towards the enemy.
- Even without the turret the cannon in many TD's could be aimed few degrees to sides, which is usually enough when you are supposed to keep the fromt towards the enemy anyways.
If you use Tank Destroyer as tank, you are using it wrong or the commander is in a situation where there is no choice of using tanks instead.

Thus I would really like to see Assault Gun to be an heavily armored SPG working similar cannon battery instead of a cheap tank and TD as purpose built tank-killer, which could go on par against one category larger tanks and expect to come out on top, but suck (more than GP tanks) against infantry and fast-moving lighter vehicles. I don't like to use cheaper underpowered units that lose in peer combat, but I do like to use purpose-built units that have specific role.

[rwbrown]

This is a really good list

[MatthewVilter]

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

This is a really good list

Yes it is.

ORIGINAL: Atros

- Way to re-roll also the last step of map generation, where it divides the freemen percentages etc.

YES please!

...
Assault gun is basically a howizer that is armored to be able to give close cannon-fire support for infantry and some tactical mobility like cover, instead of being a battery of cannons in the rear that needs separate spotters, instead of being a cheap mans tank.
...

Good point.

[Munashe]

I like almost all of these suggestions. I personally find it a bit off that the tank destroyers take a big penalty to attack for not having a turret, when it seems like they should be good at doing on the attack to hunt down other tanks. Maybe someone could explain why my impression is wrong.

[Axeking]

Turretless tank destroyers were used primarily on the defensive. They didn't have gyrostabilizers (or anything similar) so moving greatly reduced their ability to hit.

Their advantage is as stated above - smaller target, bigger gun, better armor.

Biggest disadvantage was that they had to point their front at their target - meaning that on an offensive role, they would have to tend to stay back enough that they didn't expose their sides/rear. In a duel between a turreted tank and a TD discovering each other side by side, the TD is at a very serious disadvantage - it takes longer to turn the vehicle, and simply turning makes it less accurate.

The situation requiring rapid tagetting to areas not in front happens much more often when attacking then when defending. Thus TDs work great for defense, and only so-so for offense.

[zgrssd]

Basically the Turretless Tank Destroyer is a ambush-predator. And ambushes are simply not a offensive tactic.
If they even get flanked, they are basically dead.
Their main advantage in the game, is being cheaper.

A Tank with turret could do stuff like "only poking his turret over a hille". Wich is a rather usefull onffesive tactic.

[Atros]

ORIGINAL: Axeking

Turretless tank destroyers were used primarily on the defensive. They didn't have gyrostabilizers (or anything similar) so moving greatly reduced their ability to hit.

Their advantage is as stated above - smaller target, bigger gun, better armor.

Biggest disadvantage was that they had to point their front at their target - meaning that on an offensive role, they would have to tend to stay back enough that they didn't expose their sides/rear. In a duel between a turreted tank and a TD discovering each other side by side, the TD is at a very serious disadvantage - it takes longer to turn the vehicle, and simply turning makes it less accurate.

The situation requiring rapid tagetting to areas not in front happens much more often when attacking then when defending. Thus TDs work great for defense, and only so-so for offense.

As their job is to fight tanks, you probably have already confirmed the existence and approximate position when you send TD's forward. Leading a spearhead on offensive has never been job for a TD, that is basically the purpose of existence for regular tanks. Thus needing to face the adversary with your strongest armor and smallest silhouette isn't really a disadvantage in my books.

The only cases where I know certainly that WWII TD's were used was in heavily forested areas where limited roads were the only ways tanks could advance in the first place, so practically the only threat of side-fire was from camouflaged AT-guns or infantry and thus the TD's performed exceptionally well against tanks.

As a side note, the gyro-stabilizers weren't very common even in tanks before '44, so lacking them wouldn't obviously be a huge disadvantage before then and after that the US equipped Hellcat TD's with gyros and if the Germans couldn't retrofit their TD's with one, it probably was one of their smallest problems at that point.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Atros

ORIGINAL: Axeking

Turretless tank destroyers were used primarily on the defensive. They didn't have gyrostabilizers (or anything similar) so moving greatly reduced their ability to hit.

Their advantage is as stated above - smaller target, bigger gun, better armor.

Biggest disadvantage was that they had to point their front at their target - meaning that on an offensive role, they would have to tend to stay back enough that they didn't expose their sides/rear. In a duel between a turreted tank and a TD discovering each other side by side, the TD is at a very serious disadvantage - it takes longer to turn the vehicle, and simply turning makes it less accurate.

The situation requiring rapid tagetting to areas not in front happens much more often when attacking then when defending. Thus TDs work great for defense, and only so-so for offense.

As their job is to fight tanks, you probably have already confirmed the existence and approximate position when you send TD's forward. Leading a spearhead on offensive has never been job for a TD, that is basically the purpose of existence for regular tanks. Thus needing to face the adversary with your strongest armor and smallest silhouette isn't really a disadvantage in my books.

The only cases where I know certainly that WWII TD's were used was in heavily forested areas where limited roads were the only ways tanks could advance in the first place, so practically the only threat of side-fire was from camouflaged AT-guns or infantry and thus the TD's performed exceptionally well against tanks.

As a side note, the gyro-stabilizers weren't very common even in tanks before '44, so lacking them wouldn't obviously be a huge disadvantage before then and after that the US equipped Hellcat TD's with gyros and if the Germans couldn't retrofit their TD's with one, it probably was one of their smallest problems at that point.

The Shadow Empires TD are clearly entirely without turret or cupola.
All the "Hellcats" I know off had a Turret. So they are clearly not meant!