Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Conflict of Heroes Series



Message


PKH -> Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/6/2012 2:42:34 PM)

- Showing line of sight of a unit by clicking on it
- Being able to change facing on any placed unit
- Being able to move or remove any placed unit

Also, why are there no stug iii's in the game ?




junk2drive -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 2:11:07 AM)

You can undo after placing a unit but that doesn't help with your request. I agree with your request. At least as an option.




Ratzki -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 5:13:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PKH

...
Also, why are there no stug iii's in the game ?



Good question, but I am sure that they will make an appearance 1st Quarter 2013.




oivind22 -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 1:34:19 PM)

There were no Stug III in the board game, but there were some in the Storms of Steel expansion, so Ratzki is almost certainly right when he says they will make an appearance next year (with the expansion). By the way, I checked Wikipedia, and the first Stug III that was produced in large numbers was Stug IIIg, which is the one included in Storms of Steel. According to Wikipedia, this was not produced before December 1942, so it is outside the scope of Awakening of the Bear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III




Ratzki -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 4:18:01 PM)

There were some 300+/- StuG IIIb models produced by May 1941, and an early model type A was used in France. I think that in these numbers they could have been represented. I know that the board game version does not have these unit types included, but the updated board game edition of AtBear that is being worked on has quite a few extra units included, and I am sure that I saw a StuG in the mix. It would have been nice to have gotten the computer version to include the units that will be released with the updated board game release units. I hope that SoSteel will include all these early war units when we see it in the spring.




oivind22 -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 5:42:14 PM)

In the computer game it would of course be much easier to include any unit, for use in user-made scenarios. But the game (and the scenarios) is based on the board game (with some rules changes), and in the board game it is expensive to include more units (more counter sheets). 300+ units produced means that the Stug IIIb was not really representative. And do you even know that they were used against the Soviet Union, and not in Africa? The production was stopped in may 1941, a month before Barbarossa. To me, that indicates that the Stug wasn't important to the german army in operation Barbarossa. I don't have orders of battle/tables of equipment for Barbarossa, but I'm guessing that Uwe Eickert (who designed the board game) has, and that the game is based on real OOB/TOE. I'm just guessing here, it might be that the Stug IIIb actually was important in Barbarossa, and maybe you know more of this than me. This kind of detailed information isn't easy to find on Google. :)

BTW, I checked the rules for the new edition (it can be downloaded at Academy Games' website), and I can't find any Stugs in the new edtion either.




Jamm -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 7:29:09 PM)

Another well researched game, ASL uses StuG IIIb's well into the Stalingrad scenarios.
I think unit selection is sometimes limited to keep things simpler for the game producer and some players.
Because variations and choices for an OOB can be endless.




PKH -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 7:51:21 PM)

There is a documentary on youtube which says about 108 stugs were assigned at the start of operation Barbarossa. (search for 'german war files stug iii'. There are also for several others in this series). It says they were involved in heavy fighting from the start, and were successful as both infantry support and as anti-tank even vs t-34's.
Anyway, it should be easy to patch into the game if the developers want to. I saw the rules for 'price of honor', and that only has the stug iiig, not the earlier versions.




PKH -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 8:07:01 PM)

Another thing which would be cool and add realism (used in steel panthers f.ex.) to the rules, is that consecutive shots on the same target gets increased accuracy to account for adjusting the aim between each shot.




oivind22 -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 9:50:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jamm

Another well researched game, ASL uses StuG IIIb's well into the Stalingrad scenarios.
I think unit selection is sometimes limited to keep things simpler for the game producer and some players.
Because variations and choices for an OOB can be endless.



I haven't played ASL, but I think ASL, with all modules, has scenarios for just about anything from WWII. In Conflict of Heroes I guess the designer had to make some choices. The pieces are quite big and thick compared to ASL, and the game is quite expensive as it is, so making more counter sheets could make it prohibitively expensive. That is a problem for the board game of course, but that's where the computer game came from, and that's almost certainly the real reason we don't have Stug IIIb. The scenarios are just a selection anyway, and with so few Stug IIIs in 1941-1942 there were plenty of engagements that didn't have them.




oivind22 -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 10:13:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PKH

There is a documentary on youtube which says about 108 stugs were assigned at the start of operation Barbarossa. (search for 'german war files stug iii'. There are also for several others in this series). It says they were involved in heavy fighting from the start, and were successful as both infantry support and as anti-tank even vs t-34's.
Anyway, it should be easy to patch into the game if the developers want to. I saw the rules for 'price of honor', and that only has the stug iiig, not the earlier versions.


The counter list in Price of Honor includes the counters from Awakening of the Bear and Storms of Steel, so the Stugs are actually from Storms of Steel. But making other units, like Stug IIIb, is probably very easy, if someone makes up stats for them, and that someone should probably be the designer of the board game, Uwe Eickert. I know there is some research behind the stats, and new units should be researched in the same way, if they're to be an official part of the game. This research will probably only be done if he were to make scenarios with those units. That's why I think this is best left to the modding community, as mods are unofficial.




oivind22 -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/7/2012 10:21:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PKH

Another thing which would be cool and add realism (used in steel panthers f.ex.) to the rules, is that consecutive shots on the same target gets increased accuracy to account for adjusting the aim between each shot.


I might be in the minority (although I'm not alone), but I want the computer game to be as faithful to the board game as possible, so that I can use it to practice my skills in the board game. I guess that's also why I'm not that interested in the Stug IIIb or other units that are not in the board game. :)

Nothing wrong with having this increased accuracy rule as an option, though.




junk2drive -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/8/2012 3:38:45 AM)

Tonight I noticed in MP that I could see my opponent's blue zone for his reinforcements at the start of turn two. He saw mine as well. Not good for a FOW battle.




Ratzki -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/8/2012 6:19:06 AM)

After a little research in "The Completet History of German Armoured Fighting Vehicles 1926-1945" -- FM von Senger und Etterlin 1969, I found interesting that there were only 531 PzIV's in total stock on July 1st 1941. The StuG III numbers for the same date are 416. By April there were some 623 StuG's on the battlefield while the total number of PzIV's decreased.




oivind22 -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/8/2012 11:20:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

After a little research in "The Completet History of German Armoured Fighting Vehicles 1926-1945" -- FM von Senger und Etterlin 1969, I found interesting that there were only 531 PzIV's in total stock on July 1st 1941. The StuG III numbers for the same date are 416. By April there were some 623 StuG's on the battlefield while the total number of PzIV's decreased.


That sounds like a good source. Did it say anything about the different theaters? How many were used in Barbarossa, how many were used in Africa?

Anyway, there aren't that many Panzer IVs in the game either. The 2nd edition rules lists 2 Panzer IVe-pieces (it was Panzer IVd in the 1st edition), and 1 Panzer IVf2-piece. There are more in Storms of Steel, though (the most common is Panzer IVh, with 4 pieces). In 1941, the Panzer IV was not the workhorse it would later become (the same can be said of StuG III).

Again, there is no reason the StuGs couldn't be included in the computer game, even though it didn't make it onto Uwe Eickerts list when he made the board game. But someone must do the research on the early StuGs.




Ratzki -> RE: Improvements to unit placement I'd like to see (11/10/2012 5:46:57 PM)

No, it does not get into distribution at all but deals exclusively with production numbers and vaiants as well as component manufacturers.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375