Nato symbols

[Schattensand]

If you use nato symbols on counters please do it in a more professional way. You set up the game with broken down divisions of mostly regimental size.
The right marking for the size of those units are three III on the top of the case and not two XX. That this units are part ot a bigger formation already shows the designation at the top of the counter.
Some units like arty and flak have no size designation at all.
Divisional arty looks like infantry, only corps arty have the right artillery symbol.

The way you use the symbols gives one information two times and one information, the important one, of how big the unit really is, not at all or simply wrong.

I = Company
II = Battalion
III = Regiment
X = Brigade, rarely used independent formation, at least in german WWII army.
XX = Division
XXX = Corps
XXXX = Army

You know all this, so why do you repeat that mistake from game to game?

[sol_invictus]

Yeah it is taking me some time to get comfortable with this. It is so counter-intuitive and I really don't know what supposed advantages there are by going against wargame convention. When I glance at a HUGE Infantry symbol on a counter I should be able to instantly recognize that unit as and Infantry Regiment and not have to scan for little symbols that in fact identify it as an Artillery Regiment. I hope someone either mods them correctly or an option is made available in an update.

[sol_invictus]

Forum gremlin messing with me.

[Vic]

Thank you for voicing your opinion and giving some criticisms. Its always appreciated.

I already gave a reply in a different thread on the same subject.

Basically i do not consider this a mistake but it is my preference as a designer to do it this way. The fact that a division is divided over several counters does in my eyes not make it less of a division. Even if it breaks some traditions.

The bottomline is i want the counters first of all to help me to keep the division together (in the same hex or in hexes next to eachother) and only secondly to remind the players what troops are in each unit.

I am sorry to hear its not your cup of tea. But as of yet I am not yet swayed.

Best regards,
Vic

[sol_invictus]

Fair enough Vic. I don't consider it a big mistake or huge problem but more of a personal preference on my part and just what I am use to seeing. As you have stated, it can be modded to personal preference. The game is excellent and I don't fault you for not making everyone completely happy with every design choice.

[Schattensand]

You name the unit at the top as part of lets say 27th or 27thPD or if you say it in English 27thTD.

That already gives you oversight of the unit.

And then at the next line the size of the unit has to be shown by named symbols.

You have for sure the freedom to design anything what you want in your games. So if you want to be taken somehow valuable or serious you are not free to make mistakes, obvious mistakes.

Giving the same information twice and holding back a valuable other information is bad style and is like creating a sentence consisting of substantives only without a verb.

And if the issue was brought to your attention before, dear Sir and you knew it, it is simply unhealable ignorance.

[Templer_12]

The words of Schattensand might be a little rough, but many players agreed with him!

It is, it was the decision of the designer. We must accept this.
But many players, including myself, prefer the traditional counter style, the more realistic representation of NATO symbols.

[Keunert]

absolutely no need to come across like an arrogant school teacher...
with the editor available there will soon be mods that will label units differently.

[amatteucci]

Oh, c'mon boys! It's not a mistake, it's a design decision! And it is a design decision that I can live with, even if it's contrary to what is the standard. The designer simply decided to represent the number, size and symbol of the parent unit and not of the regiment. There's no ignorance involved in this.

Saying that it is ignorance is like saying that the Waffenfarbe of the Schuetzen attached to a Panzerdivision was pink (instead of white) because the tailor did not know the difference between tanks and infantry (or that the collar tabs of riflemen attached to tank units in the Red Army was not the raspberry red of the infantry but the black of the armoured troops becasue they didn't know what they were doing).

[EisenHammer]

I don't know… But finding regiments that have the armor NATO symbol on them but the elements inside are ART or INF is somewhat confusing they should have the symbol for ART or Mot/PzG INF on them, just because they are part of an Armor Division doesn't mean they should have an armor NATO symbol on them. I'm finding it hard too determine the unit type accurately at a quick glance. I have to click on all the armor symbol on the map to find that armor unit by looking at all of the elements in the unit.

[EisenHammer]

never mind

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


I don't know… But finding regiments that have the armor NATO symbol on them but the elements inside are ART or INF is somewhat confusing they should have the symbol for ART or Mot/PzG INF on them, just because they are part of an Armor Division doesn't mean they should have an armor NATO symbol on them. I'm finding it hard too determine the unit type accurately at a quick glance. I have to click on all the armor symbol on the map to find that armor unit by looking at all of the elements in the unit.

There is a sign right beside the Nato symbol.
With this sign you can identify your ART, your TANK and your I, II, III Regiment of the Division.
It's a small sign! A very small sign!! [:(] To small for old eyes!!!

[sol_invictus]

I just have not heard a strong reason for going against the convention. The current system is obviously unintuitive and requires a bit of eye-strain but I could more easily accept it if I were given a solid reason for the current system. It seems that Vic did it this way simply because he finds it easier to have situational awareness for his Divisions but I and apparently othere are having problems with situational awareness because of this. At this level the Division's component units will/should be either stacked or adjacent/very close to each other so I just don't see the problem. The large Divisional number on the units makes it very easy to see which Regiments belong to the same Division. It is almost impossible to see the tiny "A" on an SS unit and the Stockpile green line easily gets lost in all the other symbols on the counter unless I make an extra effort. This should not be necessary imo.

I do play at a very high resolution and this may be part of the problem but it is my monitor's native reolution and works fine for me otherwise. I would at least like for an option to be available without having to dig into files and mod. I am not a moder and don't like to have to rely on others to supply what seems like such a basic concept. I really hope Vic reconsiders this decision because other than this the UI and game mechanics are very intuitive.

[EisenHammer]

Yes... The sign is to small.[:(]

[EisenHammer]

I guess it he has it that way because what if you had the 16th Mot Div and the 16th Pz Div in the same corps. It may get even more confusing. Especially in trying to keep Div integrity.
 

[Templer_12]

You know what's weird?

If Victor had used the authentic NATO symbols for its Decicive Campaigns series, like most of us would expect for a war / strategy game, no one would have moan - this thread would not exist. Most of us be happy.

Therefore the language is sometimes almost rude.

[EisenHammer]

It's because of frustration.

[sol_invictus]

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


I guess it he has it that way because what if you had the 16th Mot Div and the 16th Pz Div in the same corps. It may get even more confusing. Especially in trying to keep Div integrity.

Possibly but those rare occaisions hardly warrant making it a constant problem as it is now.[&:] I bet Vic is usng a smaller resolution and it is much less of a problem for him.

[marcpennington]

It is serious eye strain trying to pick out the tiny "art" or "pz" at least on 1920-1200 resolution. Although I would prefer standard NATO/wargame conventions in marking regiments by their appropriate symbol, another alternative might be too switch the tiny text of "art" and "pz" into either a symbol or silhouette that might be more visible at a glance, or to color code the text in such a way that it jumps out a lot more from the counter. As it is, the eye strain causes headaches...

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: map66

It is serious eye strain trying to pick out the tiny "art" or "pz" at least on 1920-1200 resolution. Although I would prefer standard NATO/wargame conventions in marking regiments by their appropriate symbol, another alternative might be too switch the tiny text of "art" and "pz" into either a symbol or silhouette that might be more visible at a glance, or to color code the text in such a way that it jumps out a lot more from the counter. As it is, the eye strain causes headaches...

I think some sort of color code here might be an idea. I'll look into it.