NATO counters

[Lukas]

A quick preview of the NATO unit counters (work in progress).

[SeaMonkey]

Invariably, it seems, most counters display an over abundance of foundation and actually intrude upon the terrain aspects of the map, which are important in tactical and operational decisions.

Why not design with more transparency? Most information could be contained within the NATO icon itself, dispensing with the counter "base" for the most part. There is always the mouse over unit display for players demanding more information.

Another feature where the players could add a customized designation(name), an abbreviation would suffice, to the unit symbol would also be desirable, in my humble opinion of course.[;)]

[Lukas]

You have a point about covering up the terrain below. But they can't be that much smaller or the unit (type) name will become too small to read. A name which can be customised by the way.

[SeaMonkey]

I understand, but the NATO designation tells the observer what the type is, ie. X = infantry and the color initiates the US ownership, so really all that is needed is the grade level "41".

The armored unit likewise, do we really need "Stuart"? How about just "M3" or "Lt" for light tanks? For efficient use of the counter space there'll need to be some assumption of user knowledge and dispensing of redundant information. Like I said, there is always the "mouse over" activation for additional unit info. Allow a delay, perhaps 2 seconds, for info popup so as to suppress unwanted info while scrolling the map.

[SwampYankee68]

Having an option to clear the map of counters is always helpful.

[Rosseau]

Anything to differentiate the game from Panzer Corps is good. I have enough content to last a lifetime, so would not want a Pacific War clone. The in-game editor sounded great if that is still in the picture. I guess I could comb the forums, but I'd rather be playing. So what else differentiates this good-looking game from Panzer Corps? Thanks again.

[Lukas]

So what else differentiates this good-looking game from Panzer Corps?

One of the main differences is that it has more detailed territory-based supply system. Units capture hexes as they move through them. Cities and supply depots provide supply within continuous regions of friendly hexes. Units without a connection to sufficient supply suffer various penalties. This means that rather than having to grind through a strong enemy army dug in around a victory point you to break through weaker flanks instead and cut off the main defense. This will starve them from supply and make a consecutive assault much easier. It basically means maintaining a solid frontline and keeping map control are more important factors than in PzC.

Another important addition is that several unit types have special abilities. For example engineers can destroy and build bridges, as well as clear and lay minefields. Destroyers, subs and torpedo bombers can fire torpedoes, Japanese aircraft can change their loadout to kamikaze mode, amphibious vehicles can enter shallow water, strategic bombers can lay naval minefields, destroyers can use Sonar to detect hidden submarines, etc

Naval and air combat mechanics are also quite a bit more detailed, with distinction between "small" and "large" targets in combat calculations and various special rules and mechanics. It's all a bit much to explain in detail, but the game manual is currently in layout so perhaps it will be made available publically soon. It explains all the key gameplay mechanics quite extensively.

[SwampYankee68]

The game description page @ Matrix says that the base unit size is corps. After looking at the AAR that doesn't seem correct. Is it?

[Lukas]

The game is not very strict in terms of unit scales because it's very hard to keep all the main battles on exactly the same scale. For example the scale of Guadal Canal will be slightly lower than a much bigger campaign on Okinawa. And then it all has to be mixed with air & naval units as well.

But something like this should be fairly accurate:
Infantry: Brigade (~3000 men)
Aircraft: Wing (~30 aircraft)
Ships: Individual (Altho the smaller types rather represent small groups from a combat POV).

[SwampYankee68]

Much smaller than corps! I'm fine with the idea of adjusting unit size & even map scale & time per turn from scenario to scenario. Just please specify the sizes & scales in the scenario briefings.

[Rosseau]

Good point. The strength #'s (1-15?) are a necessary evil, I guess. It does take away from immersion though, and I never felt like I was playing historical battles with PzC. Especially with the defensive-oriented AI.

With your supply model, it will be tough to design an AI that's sensitive to flanking, etc. Head-to-head should be great though. Looking forward to release.

[X.ray]

Are there any update on the NATO counters? The design on the top level here seems lack of a lot of elements, e.g. unit size, strength / defense / movement / morale (I presume the number below must be one of these). Practically, you just can't look at the counters and fight a war given the very limited info on the counter (compared to what it should have). Understand most of players today are thrilled by the 3D animations, but sometimes I do find simple 2D conventional look is more low-end PC friendly and runs much faster in most of machines.

[Lukas]

The standard 3D visuals have taken so much time we didn't manage to complete the NATO counters and animations with an equal level of polish. The system is mostly functional though (as these early screenshots already showed) so this display mode should be available in a first patch, shortly after release.

Note: The boardgame style map visuals ARE available in the upcoming release, in combination with 3D unit models. It's just the NATO counters which are disabled at the moment.

[X.ray]

Thanks Lukas. It also appeared to me that the unit info only displays its type (i.e. Japanese Infantry '42), but no unit name (e.g. 21th Division etc). Did I miss it somewhere or it is intended to be so? To me (and I'm sure many others as well), being able to command the actual units in a historical battle would be much more interesting than to just command a bunch of standardized checkers. Hope this can be improved in the next patch (if it's not something I missed).

[Lukas]

You can rename your own units by clicking on their name box in the bottom UI bar.

In a few scenarios we have given historical names to enemy units (Java Sea for example) but it's not something we plan to apply across the board. Given the nature of the game where AT and AA guns etc are seperate units it would be very difficult to assign historically accurate names to each of them.

[Dr. Foo]

Are NATO Counters not an option with the game? I much prefer NATO over sprites.

[gunnergoz]

What's with the Greek Temple unit icon?

[Lukas]

"Structure" class. Better ideas are welcome [;)]

[Dr. Foo]

I would go with a standard NATO fortified icon or fixed artillery.

[SwampYankee68]

Seconded. Wargame style counters using NATO symbology and also transmitting some unit data (strength, morale, supply) would be welcome over the cutsie sprites...