Game Suggestions:

[56ajax]

Is it possible to have displaced HQs and Airbases reported on via the Show battle Sites function?

and i dont think that a displaced Airbase should be used as a fwding airbase in the turn it is displaced

thxs

[fiva55]

Is there any way to highlight unready units? With the new refit rules it would come in handy.

[Helpless]

Is there any way to highlight unready units?

You can select them in Commander's Report.

[JamesM]

When assigning air groups could there be extra column showing current morale of the the air unit in reserve.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

How about adding some form of greater control over AFV upgrades? Some ideas (pros/cons) have been discussed here: tm.asp?m=2723560&mpage=1&key=?

I'm sure it's not an easy prgramming thing to do, but I've never quite understood why aircraft upgrades can be controlled manually, but not AFVs. Just seems weird. I know some people don't want a repeat of WIR AFV bugs, but surely it's not an all or nothing situation, and surely limitations can easily be placed so that we can't load up 4 Bns of Tigers in a Pz Div?

Anyways, my suggestion is, if nothing else to have a two option toggle button, allowing the player to select HIGH or LOW priority for AFV upgrading. Units of LOW priority will only upgrade to the next AFV if all units with HIGH priority have been upgraded and are above a certain percentage of AFV TOE (say 66%). Default would be LOW priority, and in that case all units will upgrade randomly, as is the case currently.

Ultimately though, I think having an option to manually control AFV upgrades would be nice, after all we have that option for aircraft.

I would like more control over production and upgrades myself but changing over the vehicles (or production) would be a huge task. There is a limit on how many air units can be upgraded based on factory output. Whether the system does it or the player, there can only be so many units with a given type.

Units using afv's follow an upgrade path based on when new afv types are produced and become available in sufficient quantities. The difference here is that the human player was taken out of the loop on which units to upgrade first. I know there is more flexibility in the air units in that you can change out aircraft to one of several other types within the same general class and afv units pretty much stick to a specific afv upgrade path.

Maybe down the road we can get something similar for afv's where the player can decide which afv unit upgrades first with possibly some variation to choose from as we do now with aircraft, but i wouldn't expect that anytime soon.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Not sure if this has been raised before, and not sure how difficult it would be, but it drives me crazy that I need to set a uniform air doctrine for the entire front, from the Baltic to the Black Sea! It would be much much better if each air HQ could set its own air doctrine, so you could have different doctrines on differnents parts of the front.

How difficult would this be?

+1 & the ability to change your aircraft types & other settings in the National Reserve screen would be helpfull as well.

Also would it be possible to tweak the weather in random mode so that the Axis player could have guaranteed clear weather until the end of September of 1941 before the possibility of mud or worse. I would prefer to play with random weather because it gives you that uncertainty
but fully understand the frustrations of an Axis Player who has had all their good work on the first turn destroyed by mud on turns 2 & 3

Manstein63

I missed that on my earlier response, this is definitely one of those i would like to see too and putting it on my list.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

It was suggested elsewhere, and might have been suggested here, but I think its a good idea so I want to repeat it.
Have a 'randomize' optional feature at the start of the scenarios for some of the units. Basically a unit can be set in the editor to be 'randomly' placed at the beginning of the scenario. Not way off in the middle of no where, but a few hexes from where it is (not in water, not in neutral or hostile territory, not over stacked). Most front line and important defensive units would not be set to random - and some scenarios would have everything fixed for either or both sides (the June 22 '41 scenarios would all have the Axis start locations fixed). But all the back field stuff should be shuffling around.

The theory being that after a while, even with FOW, you know where everything is at the start which may make the start a little too effective. A little uncertainty would be a good thing.

I know this would probably take a bit of work so not a quick thing to add, but I think it would be a nice feature.

That would really take a huge expenditure in time and testing in order to get something like a random unit location feature in place. Honestly i don't see the devs taking the time for this when an editor is available that will allow for all kinds of set-ups. I know this isn't quite the same, but it is what we have.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

Is it possible to have displaced HQs and Airbases reported on via the Show battle Sites function?

and i dont think that a displaced Airbase should be used as a fwding airbase in the turn it is displaced

thxs

I'll ask about this one.

[lazydawg]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

When assigning air groups could there be extra column showing current morale of the the air unit in reserve.

I second this request !

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: fiva55

Is there any way to highlight unready units? With the new refit rules it would come in handy.

We're pretty much out of hot keys. If we want to add one we will need to delete one to free up the hotkey. This might be one of those that warrant such a trade-off though. We'll see.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

When assigning air groups could there be extra column showing current morale of the the air unit in reserve.

I'll add that to the list.

[morvael]

ZOC ability should depend on unit strength, not type (division, regiment). I think it's not ok when a Soviet mauled division with 2000 men and CV of 1 has ZOC, while a fresh regiment of SS mechanized division with 6000 men and 60 tanks and CV of 8, has none. I guess this should be based on defensive CV where with 2 or more you would get a ZOC ability for unit.

[cpt flam]

sorry to disagree but with your offer
the majority of the soviet force for 1941 and part of 42 would not have any ZOC in this case [&:]
seems a bit too much

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ZOC ability should depend on unit strength, not type (division, regiment). I think it's not ok when a Soviet mauled division with 2000 men and CV of 1 has ZOC, while a fresh regiment of SS mechanized division with 6000 men and 60 tanks and CV of 8, has none. I guess this should be based on defensive CV where with 2 or more you would get a ZOC ability for unit.

That was a design decision. This kind of issue was brought up by us testers but as Cpt Flam indicates, it would put the Soviets in the 41 campaign in a situation where they couldn't do much at all against the Germans. By the way, brigades and regiments still exert a zone of control around the hex they are in, they just don't convert it to their side.

[morvael]

So what about a compromise: all units of division size as above have full ZOC as well as smaller units (regiments, brigades) but only if their offensive CV is 2 or more? Since you say all units have ZOC, but smaller ones don't convert hexes I switched to offensive CV in my proposition, since it's better connected to capturing terrain.

[Tarhunnas]

Divisions currently convert hexes not in enemy ZOC when they move into a new hex. But if a unit contacts an enemy unit and then by attacking the enemy unit forces that enemy away from the hex it occupied, the attacked hex will be converted, but not other hexes adjacent to the attacking unit even if they are now not in any enemy ZOC. I think it should be considered if a "hex control update" should be done after each combat as well as after moving to a new hex.

[morvael]

One could think the division was busy fighting and not taking control of terrain. This rules was surprising for me at the beginning (no other games work like this) but I started to like it.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: morvael

One could think the division was busy fighting and not taking control of terrain. This rules was surprising for me at the beginning (no other games work like this) but I started to like it.

Yes, I am not sure if I like it or not, but I've gotten used to it too. I just thought it should be considered. As you say, it can be rationalized as the division concentrating to attack the enemy, but then anything can be rationalized in a wargame... Perhaps there should be a difference if say a division was attacking a regiment and forced it to retreat, compared to when it was fighting another division, or perhaps a rout result could lead to a hex control update, simulating that the enemy was easily swept aside.

[morvael]

Such simple thing as weather forecast is badly needed. It was in V for Victory, even with variable efficiency for both sides of the conflict (allies > germans > soviets), because of weather usually moving from west to east. It's extremely frustrating to launch an offensive stopped dead when there is mud next turn. Surely at least 1 week forecast is a minimum required, especially with random weather on. Just "roll die" for weather a turn earlier and show it somewhere to the player.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Such simple thing as weather forecast is badly needed. It was in V for Victory, even with variable efficiency for both sides of the conflict (allies > germans > soviets), because of weather usually moving from west to east. It's extremely frustrating to launch an offensive stopped dead when there is mud next turn. Surely at least 1 week forecast is a minimum required, especially with random weather on. Just "roll die" for weather a turn earlier and show it somewhere to the player.

Good suggestion, but OTOH, the Germans seem to have been taken by surprise by both mud and winter in Russia, if not so much by it occuring as to the severity of its effects.