Combined arms

[Wild]

Jeff,

It is only your opinion that you have paid $100 for a game that is only 80% right. I may feel the game to be 95% right. Others less. The point is that your observation is subjective.
I personally love the game. I can only suggest that people that don't move on to something else. But complaining about design decisions such as 1 week turns, or no roads makes no sense. These decisions have already been made and it's highly doubtful that they will be or even can be changed.
This is the game we have. Enjoy it!

[Chuske]

I think this blog post on the "Kerbal Space Program" game forum explains a lot about the ideal way of making suggestions to developers or debating game issues. Even though it is for a different game it is a general description of how to communicate criticism effectively. It really can help to approach your communication in the right way and increase the chances of your ideas being listened to.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/ent ... -criticism

In the end though a game is not the property of the players but the developers, it is an artform and form of entertainment, meaning they don't have to change anything if they don't want. Good developers like 2by3 listen to their customers but always stay true to their vision and what is achievable.


By all means make suggestions and discuss ideas to help the devs improve the game but please remember to be constructive and clear, that way you are more likely to get listened to. The devs are human beings too who have worked really hard.


"Not everybody can be bothered to sit down and write copious notes and spout data about what the find dubious."

Smirfy and JeffK both of you make a lot of good points, but if you can just write enough so we know exactly what you are talking about and in a constructive manner you'll have much better response.

As Wild says some design decisions like turn length cannot be changed as they would need a whole re-design. If you want 1 day turn game you'll have to look elsewhere or go back to WITP:AE or make it yourself [;)]. I personally find 1 week turns suit me as I can actually finish a campaign in a few weeks rather than years. I like WITP:AE but never have time to finish a campaign.

Your other suggestions on prepping, stacking and reserves and also on armour in mountains are interesting thoughts. I'm not sure there a huge amount that can be done about the stacking, but maybe ZOC and the combat delay can be tweaked? I too find it odd that successful attacks can't occupy a hex of a battle they won and feel that it would help if the combat delay only applied to units that didn't fight for that hex. I guess this is harder to do in code though.

Prepping seems reasonable to me as you can launch a second invasion only a few turns after a previous one. It's cases like this where you do need to be more specific and cite examples so we can understand why you think that is ahistorical. If you remember to use a big port you can get 1 division per amphib HQ invasion prepped pretty quick.

Anyway do keep suggesting ideas but do be constructive and realistic. [:D]

[cmunson]

jonboym

Excellent, a well stated, well reasoned post. We could not expect any less from our cultured English cousins.

[RedLancer]

Good phraseology always helps.....'when things are broke'.....assuming they are of course and it's not just some other factor in play.

(For the record I don't have Stockholm Syndrome as I'm not a hostage and I haven't been intimidated, harassed or abused by 2by3 - although my experience of PBEM Games against Joel does come close [;)].)

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

Priceless... I think I have a new signature...

[KWG]

"I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game (WitW) are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome."

well at least they unchained me, and gave me tv privileges.

[KWG]

"Combined arms..."

in EVERY battle, especially lopsided ones, not everyone who goes to the party dances.

every battalion commander is not Hannibal.

the way the elephants were used at Krusk was a major bug.

in WITE i put both battalions of elephants in the 98sturm division and their defense power is up there with, or greater than, the Grossdeutschland,


The Dieppe Raid...had Churchills amongst other support .


maybe more... distinction... between deliberate attacks and hasty attacks

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: KWG

every battalion commander is not Hannibal.

the way the elephants were used at Krusk was a major bug.

Sorry, which Consul was he fighting at Kursk? [:)]

[gmsitton]

With one day turns, infantry units would have movement allowances of two?

[HMSWarspite]

And the number of attacks making 10 miles in a day is remarkably few... other than breakouts, attacks would be very difficult to model.

[Smirfy]

Kursk is an interesting example especially with regards all arms. An infantry and artillery inferiority coupled with no sustainable logistics and a definite schedule dictated how the battle would be fought. Air supremacy that might have offset those hurdles just was not there. The defences could therefore not be suppressed and an immature design (and freak) in the Elephant was left to fend for itself. Contrast with British & CW at Alamein.


I agree with KWG that there should be more grading of attacks and defences

[LiquidSky]

The battle of Aachen is a prime example of how combined arms can take a built up objective. A smaller force of Americans defeats a much larger force of Germans..fortified in a city, by using tanks paired with infantry.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The battle of Aachen is a prime example of how combined arms can take a built up objective. A smaller force of Americans defeats a much larger force of Germans..fortified in a city, by using tanks paired with infantry.

But combined arms is a tactical concept. Pairing infantry and armoured formations doesn't guarantee that a tactical combined arms assault is implemented. The current model seems fine to me, because if you want to truly model combined arms, then you need a whole new set of rules. Attached SUs should have more chance of being effective if they have been attached to the same parent unit for a while, for instance. National differences would also have to be modelled. The British had mixed results integrating infantry and armour. The highpoint was probably Bluecoat, but there were lots of lows and modelling that in a game would lead to more frustration than anything else.

The only combined arms that really matters for the allies is the infantry / air / artillery set up.

Regards,
ID

[PaulWRoberts]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.

That's all well and good--it just means that the player's turn represents several rounds of OKH working by the day.

What matters for scale isn't whether Eisenhower used a calendar or a stopwatch--what matters is whether the player can accomplish in a couple of turns what Eisenhower might have accomplished in a couple of weeks.

[Smirfy]

What matters is if the game plays well and as I and other have said weekly turns dont really cut it *but* like I said (post 36) I'm not tilting at windmills with 10 mile hexes, weekly turns, victory points. The tilt in this thread is COMBINED ARMS benefits for game play as opposed to the present humongous stack attacks. If you want to debate the benefits of weekly turns sure be my guest start another thread.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The battle of Aachen is a prime example of how combined arms can take a built up objective. A smaller force of Americans defeats a much larger force of Germans..fortified in a city, by using tanks paired with infantry.

But combined arms is a tactical concept. Pairing infantry and armoured formations doesn't guarantee that a tactical combined arms assault is implemented. The current model seems fine to me, because if you want to truly model combined arms, then you need a whole new set of rules. Attached SUs should have more chance of being effective if they have been attached to the same parent unit for a while, for instance. National differences would also have to be modelled. The British had mixed results integrating infantry and armour. The highpoint was probably Bluecoat, but there were lots of lows and modelling that in a game would lead to more frustration than anything else.

The only combined arms that really matters for the allies is the infantry / air / artillery set up.

Regards,
ID

I think its an operational concept given the basic unit in game is a divsion and we have got attachemnt .Nope it does not, but I would strongly disagree the that the present system is representing in combat anything that happened in Europe 1943-45. If they are releasing new modules there is every opportunity to change the combat system. The first British Infantry Tank units did not get to Normandy till 26th June. The armoured divisions wernt good at close infantry co-operation. British armour infantry coperation worked fine in Italy and After Normandy the tank divisions improved dramatically when it became apparent Panzerfausts etc were now the tanks most deadly enemy. The storming of the Channel Ports, clearing the Scheldt, Reichwald and even getting XXX Corps along the road to Arnhem tells you even through a cursory study the present system needs refined down the all arms route rather than attack of the uber stack.

I include Artillery in combined arms, presently its not working niether is air outside interdiction in support of ground operations.