RE: Game Suggestions: new features (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


rrbill -> RE: Game Suggestions: new features (10/17/2012 9:44:15 PM)

@ mrchuck: To assign air units to other air bases put the air unit into "reserve," wait a turn, and then that unit is available to be assigned to any air base. Not the way the manual is written, but does reflect temporary removal from available status that a long distance relocation might entail.




mrchuck -> RE: Game Suggestions: new features (10/18/2012 8:58:22 AM)

I played around with air unit transfer and finally got it to work. Apparently the trick is to hit the invisible box on the left hand side otherwise it just shows the air unit detail.
Slight UI fail perhaps--might it be a good idea to shade the invisible box?

mrchuck




timmyab -> RE: Game Suggestions: new features (10/18/2012 11:29:11 AM)

Wow, you learn something new every day.Thanks for that.
This isn't made very clear in the manual.




rrbill -> RE: Game Suggestions: new features (10/18/2012 12:55:20 PM)

The invisible box on the left hand side of what? Trying it but not finding it.




timmyab -> RE: Game Suggestions: new features (10/18/2012 1:10:57 PM)

It's not very intuitive.
You need to be in air transfer mode (f10)
click on an air base and then click on the left side of the groups that appear on the right of the screen.




rrbill -> RE: Game Suggestions: new features (10/19/2012 12:12:29 AM)

OMG (*), timmytab's nailed it for me. Of course, should be in air transfer mode. What was I doing? Thanks so much, now to wipe the egg off my face.

(*) think Brits might say I was "gobsmacked!"




mrchuck -> RE: Game Suggestions: A Critical Concern (10/24/2012 6:43:18 AM)

(reply to comment about handled/unhandled units on previous page--forgot to quote!)

Good point this is something that the 'battleground' series (gettysburg, shiloh etc) had 15 years ago.

Not tricky you would think.




Schmart -> RE: Game Suggestions: A Critical Concern (11/8/2012 11:29:53 PM)

Probably a WitE 2.0 thing: It'd be nice to have included with the detail of a destroyed Support Unit what the parent unit or HQ was. For the Russians especially, I find it difficult to figure out where my SU losses originate from. A note that 183rd RVGK Artillery Regiment was destroyed, doesn't give me much to go on. I basically have to cycle through most Army HQs to figure out where I THINK I'm down a few SUs, but I still don't really know: "I think I had 4 Art Regts in 23rd Army, but I can't remember exactly..." or "Which or my 103 Rifle Corps lost that Sapper Regt?..."

Solution: Add (in brackets) which HQ (or unit attachment) that the SU was in when destroyed. The destroyed list would look something like this:
183rd RVGK Artillery Regiment (23rd Army)
107th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment (3rd Guards Cavalry Corps)
13th Sapper Regiment (27th Rifle Corps)




carlkay58 -> RE: Game Suggestions: A Critical Concern (11/10/2012 1:10:12 AM)

Actually that would do nicely with any unit - give the commanding unit. This helps with brigades and divisions also.




randallw -> RE: Game Suggestions: A Critical Concern (11/14/2012 6:08:58 AM)

Why do supply dumps have an experience rating, and does it mean anything?




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: A Critical Concern (1/12/2013 9:30:36 AM)

In case nobody mentioned it, perhaps one for WitE 2-

Replace the 1941 destroyed unit resurection with increased and more realistic unit production mechanism. I don't blame players for making use of what the game offers them but it's terrible gamey and open to a most unfortunate exploit- German hold bagged Russian units until after the 'destroyed before' date. That way they never come back to bite you.

Unit resurrection is one of the last remaining WitE fudges I recall spoiling a game, that I haven't seen dealt with in the up coming WitW. I would hope that 2 by 3 might take the re-release, whenever it happens, as an opportunity to review things they did in a rush for the original WitE. Maybe the entire Admin point system is too abstract, representing capabilities that are not related and should not therefore be represented generically. Should a player have to choose between building new units and attaching SUs to existing ones, for example?




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: A Critical Concern (1/26/2013 11:58:19 AM)

ToOE changes. Don't know if this was ever mentioned or changed, as I remember, if a unit has delayed one ToOE update until a second arrives, it will still eventually update to the first change instead of jumping straight to the second. Illogical, Captain.




HectorD72 -> RE: Game Suggestions: (1/27/2013 5:06:50 PM)

Hello everyone,

I am new in the forum and this is my first post.
I just wanted to add a little bit of information regarding mostly air units utilized in the game in the wrong manner in the hope that they might come right one day, so please bear with me:

1. German SKG(ShnellKampfGeswader), Sch.G. & SG (SchlachtGeswader) are fast bomber the first and ground attack units the second despite the fact that they are usually equipped with fighter bomber (as per the game engine) types (BF110, BF109E4B, FW190s). They were trained as bombers and they should be used and allowed to re-equip as such while in the game appearing trained as fighter units. The ZG (ZerstorerGeswader) is an exception to the above as they were equipped with BF110s mostly operating in the long range fighter role so they appear correctly in the game.
2. German Fighter types (BF109 and FW190) had all of them the ability to re-equip interchangeably with bombs or dropping fuel tanks and be used as fighter bombers instead. So in essence they were fighter bombers as per the game engine. There should be no problem in upgrading a BF109E4b unit to BF109E7s or another type and maintain the role of the unit as fighter bombers.
3. The BF110 was a heavy long range fighter bomber with much greater range than the BF109 or FW190. In the game it has a range of 183 the same or even less than a BF109 while in reality it should be more like 300-380 as Me210 has.
4. There are a lot of soviet units which are presented as trained like fighter units just by the fact that they fly fighter bomber types (I-153, I-16 etc) while in fact they are ground attack (Shap) or Recon (Rap)regiments.
In the original stages of the conflict the soviets would equip their regiments with whatever they had left available but this was not changing the role of the air regiment. These units should appear as bomber trained the Shap and reckon the Rap. Same appears also with some bomber types in Rap regiments.
5. The JU88 bomber, the mainstay of the German bomber force, it appears as carrying 2x1000kg bombs. This is wrong cause while in fact it had the capability for this loading option it was more normally equipped with or 4x250kg or 4x500Kg bombs externally and 20x50kg in the bomb bay.
6. The Lysander in Finish service is certainly NOT a fighter bomber. The Lysander was a utility plane and a light bomber and it was operating as such. The unit flying it should appeared trained as a bomber unit. Same applies also for the Fokker C.X in Finish service. This was also a utility plane that could and was used interchangeably in the light bomber and reckon role like the Lysander. The Fokker could carry 4x100kg bombs. These units should appearing as bomber trained light bombers.
On another note for Finish aircraft the I-153 in Finish service is a fighter and not a reckon while the unit operating them was used in a dual role over the Baltic sea.
Finally for the Finish air Force if you play the 1941-1945 senario LeLV34 which came into action in March 1943 as an elite unit manned by the best Finish fighter pilots and equipped with German BF109Gs first coming into finish service doesn't appearing at all.

In general maybe it should be a better idea to define a units training or specialty not by the type of aircraft they fly but by the units designation e.g. JG=fighters, ZG=long range fighter, SKG=fast bomber, KG=bomber, SG=ground attack bomber etc and same for the soviet side. And even better aside from that to have a selector in any unit to change between the 3 primary roles e.g. fighter, bomber and reckon. as in reality in the war most aircraft were multipurpose machines and were being used for various missions according to the changing demands and needs of the frontline. It was a very common practise during the war in the east for German or Soviet fighter units to undertake bombing and reckon missions depending on the needs.

Hope to see some of this corrections in the near future so to add some extra historical detail to an otherwise excellent game.

Best regards




Djouk -> RE: Game Suggestions: (2/28/2013 8:54:32 AM)

I play occasionnaly this game vs IA or players only in 41-45 campaign but i have got some expérience, good basis etc.. That s why i dont permit me to give many opinions on what should be exactly done. I only see that every time i play axis this is an impossible challenge for me at mid42 and when i play soviets this is really easy even vs Challenging Axis IA at same date (and i have to admit that Axis human players dont finish their games). Yes i hear some players win vs Challenging Soviets IA but i don't think they are occasional players... In each campaign Axis ia or human is absolutely unable to launch a new major campaign toward Caucasus even if playing with no mistakes.
I have a better defensive style but that's certainly not the main reason. Ok i can increase difficulty for fun but this is with acceptance that game is not realist on basis that i globally think. May be it's too easy for soviets to get huge amounts of infantry or tanks CORPS units,i will tend toward this because balance is changing immediatly when their enter in action in number. So axis can concentrate max 3 divisions on an hex and soviets 9 with 3 corps this is awfull and look like disavantaging axis schwerpunk theory ! And too easy for soviets to displace their industry. Now i see the most difficult thing on this game is to correctly balance it... And have to mention to conclude that for one Time for this kind of game underbalance don t come from a poor IA, it doing well with means it got. This game has great potentiel but still néed some improvements.




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (3/8/2013 9:14:25 AM)

This may apply to other aspects of the game but it stands out sharply in the Air war. I know this aspect of the game is due for a major overhaul but I don't know if the following is in anybody's scopes.

The Russian air force is hard coded to be useless at virtually anything until it magically gains a degree of combat competence in autumn 1941. So a smart player will probably withdraw all their bombers, particularly, to reserve. These, having missed out on any combat experience over the summer and the empirical lessons that might have been learned, will magically return in the autumn a useful and massive force.

To keep Russian air on the front over the summer, how about making the 'autumn upgrade' dependent upon previous missions flown, losses taken, or some other measure or collection of measures of experience? A die roll might be made when that experience is gained, until the benefits are activated.




rrbill -> RE: Game Suggestions: (3/8/2013 12:36:35 PM)

My first wishes are for a simpler, more transparent, combat engine that operates faster. Oh, and also faster save/restore. Easy to understand the latter, but former is worth explaining.

I see the great details of equipment definition and the variety of types of units, force details, TOEs as eye candy. Nice to see and I value it-makes play interesting. But trying to get and prove historical realism in outcomes of individual battles, bullet by shell by bayonet, seems impossible. Many posts suggest this (recent post disputed coded effects of sub-machine guns units vs. mixed arms units, etc. ) Sorry, it might matter if ever perfected, but at some point it becomes moot. And the trade-off is game performance.

How about working paint schemes into the game. Did camo paint for air, ground, or fortifications matter? Gee, lets model that, provide opportunities for gaming choices and argue about it. Sorry for the mild sarcasm.

Understand that the development team does do simulation work for military professional instruction and compliment them for that, but hope that they could make a smoother operating game that retains realism and effective combat simulation. Simulation should not require bullet-by-bullet coding.

Great game, though.




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (3/10/2013 2:09:01 AM)

Possible solutions to the over use of bombers for supply missions might include

-making such a mission dependant on passing a morale check, modified by the condition of the recipient, ie isolated, out of supply etc, and loss of travel allowance for failure of check

-barring bombers from supplying non isolated units





bclemans -> RE: Game Suggestions: (3/21/2013 12:04:37 AM)

Hi, I am not sure if this has been discussed before.

Changing Victory Condition

I proposed that player must capture all permanent supply sources to declare victory (at least as alternative victory conditions for playing against AI)
The reasons as follows:
1. To increase playability: It is my desire as a German player to capture the Urals and the Caucasus (or all major cities). In the games I played, I would have captured enough points before I can reach Baku and Chelyabinsk.
2. Make more sense: With a German victory, the Soviets still have much of its arm forces intact and supply center secured. E.g. I won my last game against Soviet AI on turn 64 (Sep, 42). At that time, the Soviets still have 4.4 million soldiers, over 5,000 tanks and over 9,000 planes. Why would anyone surrender (espeically Stalin or his counterpart Hitler) with such forces? Also the "permanent supply sources" are still under Soviet's control to supply the troops?




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (3/29/2013 11:42:59 PM)

Air Drop Planning

I'm using para drops to great effect, cutting retreat paths and sealing pockets left open by the ground battle as it develops. True, I make sure air capable units are on or near an air base and transports available, but I doubt that drop zones could really be decided on the same week they occurred. What about selecting drop zones and assigning units to them the turn before they happen? You might cancel, but changing drop zone should incur a penalty or require an initiative check modified by distance from original objective. Land on a unit? Fight it out.

You could make a case for planning to apply to all units, and personally I'd love to see a turn's movement/combat restricted to pre-planned corps objectives, deviation from which would require an initiative check and unit disruption. But in the case of para drops I think there's just too much flexibility.




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (3/31/2013 3:37:52 PM)

Manganese Production

The significance of this resource is somewhat overlooked, mostly because the Nazi regime collapsed militarily before its economy completely seized up. Had it not been overrun, it's highly probable that the loss of Russian manganese ore from the Ukraine would be cited as the reason Hitler's regime fell.

I believe the critical area was around Nikopol which doesn't even rate in game as a resource centre. A. Tooze (Wages of Destruction)quotes a source estimating manganese stocks would have lasted at most 18 months from the fall of Nikopol. If so, there should be a time limit for Germany to take and repair Nikopol before its stainless steel production and war economy ceases to function. Likewise, when it loses this production the clock should start ticking again. Maybe die rolls every week after 12 months with no supplies, with increasing chances of 'success' would represent the chances of exhausting manganese stocks.

Such constraints on the Axis will also shape a more historical strategy.




gradenko_2000 -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/1/2013 1:54:42 AM)

I think it'd be useful to have a hotkey to scroll through units in order, and then supplement this with a button that scrolls through all unmoved units, then finally a button that lets you designate a unit as already moved, so that you don't have to scroll through a unit that you want to just stay put and defend.




Simbelmude -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/1/2013 9:57:21 AM)

I'd love a additional unit description screen (a bit like the supply details) giving info about the losses the units has suffered last turn and the replacements it received, and possibly fatigue/morale/experience gain or loss. It would be very useful to have a better idea of replacement distribution, and also useful to gain better understanding of unit evolution in terms of fatigue, moral, experience.

Also, I would very much like to know which commanders failed (or succeeed) their main rolls in battle, a bit like the pop up informing of successful admin roll when reallocating units. It would make it clearer why combat results are what they are, and who ****ed up. It would give combat more depth.




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/10/2013 11:07:33 PM)

I was thinking this over but resolution of the recently discovered morale gain bug might make it more pressing. Russian players can run east in 1941 without looking over their shoulder and not lose significant industry. Rapidly rising morale of fresh units may make the eventual defences of the better players all but unassailable. What about linking Russian national morale to the fall of various cities within a certain time frame? Lose a city too quick and your NM drops for a certain period. Coupled with more curbs on axis logistic excess, players still have a choice but it might make historical behaviour more likely.




Michael T -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/11/2013 12:15:02 AM)

This morale bug/issue is going to have some big ripple effects. I really think 2by3 need to think about this and the big picture before implementing it in full. The game has bascially been balanced and tweaked with the missing rule not being implemented from day one I suspect. To suddenly bring it on line.... ????




The Guru -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/12/2013 8:57:50 PM)

quote:

Rapidly rising morale of fresh units may make the eventual defences of the better players all but unassailable. What about linking Russian national morale to the fall of various cities within a certain time frame? Lose a city too quick and your NM drops for a certain period. Coupled with more curbs on axis logistic excess, players still have a choice but it might make historical behaviour more likely


I've been crying for something like that




rmonical -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/12/2013 9:49:01 PM)

I wonder if the missing feature had an impact on this rule change? Before this change, Soviet National morale was 40 in 1941.

v1.05.18 - September 6, 2011
Soviet National Morale has been changed to 50 in June 1941. One point is subtracted each month after this in 1941 (so it is 44 in Dec 41). In
1942 it is set to 40, with one point being added each month starting in September 1942 (so 44 in Dec 42). This continues in 1943 and 1944
until the Soviet National Morale reaches its maximum of 60 in April 1944.




delatbabel -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/13/2013 12:26:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Guru

quote:

Rapidly rising morale of fresh units may make the eventual defences of the better players all but unassailable. What about linking Russian national morale to the fall of various cities within a certain time frame? Lose a city too quick and your NM drops for a certain period. Coupled with more curbs on axis logistic excess, players still have a choice but it might make historical behaviour more likely


I've been crying for something like that


And I'm glad it's never been implemented because it's the worst suggestion ever. It builds a feedback loop into the game where the better Soviet players have their NM increasing over time making them unbeatable, and the players who aren't as competent having their NM falling making them fall further behind. It unbalances the game dramatically in the worst possible way.




rrbill -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/13/2013 2:25:22 PM)

Something is needed to encourage SOV players to defend key cities & regions as they did in the events. Believe the purpose of "balance" is not to make a strong player more like other players, but to support play that matches history. And, likewise for Axis in defense. Makes the political leadership of both sides count.

Recent games showing the SOV runaway & hide or the Axis retreat & turtle strategies aren't fun, even though they challenge good players and might be defeated. Not the way things should go.

Ahh... V2.0 will have all the solutions. Right...




carlkay58 -> RE: Game Suggestions: (4/13/2013 5:36:37 PM)

The best possible solution would be for an expanded Victory Points (i.e. more than 10 Victory Locations / scenario) system that would give VPs in the campaign game with possible sudden death dates or a specific ratio which could end the game in a Major Victory for one side or the other.




peter333 -> RE: Game Suggestions: new features (4/15/2013 8:53:06 PM)

Why is this game so expensive? $80 USD? Its way out of line with other games. I would like to give the game a try but not until it comes down in price.




Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625