Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Two Issues for Me

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Two Issues for Me Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 3:59:07 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3251
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
I bought the original and the new ATG and there are two issues for me that are really barriers to enjoying this game. If I could get past these two issues, I know I would enjoy this game as I love the randomized maps and the empire feel but these two issues get my mind spinning.

1. Standardizing TO&Es. I find that I spend a good majority of my turn just building units and sending replacements manually by element. Why not cut this process down by allowing the player to build custom unit TO&E templates and then when you create a formation, you can select from a list of your pre-made TO&Es? I find the process of building every single new unit by scratch tedious. Additionally, you could have a simple refit button for the unit where the unit will automatically draw replacements based on its TO&E template. Transferring individual replacements for every single unit is also tedious.

2. I have a problem with figuring out how to make units because the scale is so abstracted. What is a 'Rifle'? Is it a squad, platoon, company? I want to build my units dress right dress and adhere to some realistic fashion but I get stumped on trying to figure out the scale. The fact that units aren't broken down into the usual conventions of divisions, brigades, regiments, etc. is all very distracting to me. I can't figure out the best way to build my force. Are my 'divisions' too powerful or too small? There is no scale to go off of and comparing Power Points between units is just not intuitive to old school wargamers in lieu of comparing divisions to brigades.

Trey



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis
Post #: 1
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 5:27:22 PM   
runnersan

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 6/11/2008
Status: offline
Yes, sending replacment is frustrating. Standard TO&E can help me, to like this game more:)

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 2
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 6:56:58 PM   
Keke


Posts: 3517
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
Could the game engine be refined in the future to lessen TOE micromanagement, and to standardize TOEs in one way or another? If the answer is yes, I'll buy this game right away.

_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn


(in reply to runnersan)
Post #: 3
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 7:05:51 PM   
JMass


Posts: 2197
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Italy
Status: offline
These are issues to me too, as well as the fact of the TO&Es that tend to become ahistorical, so I am waiting the next Decisive Campaigns game hoping for more little and medium size scenarios (and a editor... ).

_____________________________

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!"Generaloberst Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

(in reply to Keke)
Post #: 4
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 7:43:46 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
The TOE can be somewhat standardized. In the editor there is something called predefined units. A predefined unit can be almost anything. I have something like 200 predefined units in one of my scenarios. Anything from a finnish rifle regiment to a romanian marine brigade. Instead of cities producing SFTs you can have then have editor give you standard units such as rifle or tank divisions either as pre set reinforcements or let the player purchase them via actioncards and place them somewhere (which also can be designed). This has been done partly in a lot of scenarios and fully in for example Twebers American Civil War scenario where i think it has totally replaced normal production.

As for changing the TOE of already inplace units there is the possibility to disable the possibility to transfer SFTs between units if you feel like it. That way no units in place can be altered.

As for replacements. There probably is a way in the editor to handle that via an event, but to be honest i have never bothered to try because i like the system the way it is.

What i dont think that you can do is have newly produced SFTs filter down as automatic replacements further down than to HQs. But as noted you can let them filter down to HQs automaticly.

There are probably more ways to do this, but this is a cursory glance of some of the possibilities.

Jmass. I dont think DC will ever come with an editor. My guess, but its Vics own Grognard game.

< Message edited by Grymme -- 4/17/2011 7:44:18 PM >


_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to JMass)
Post #: 5
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 8:23:26 PM   
Josh

 

Posts: 2414
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline
@El Hefe, concerning question 2;

Well the way I do it is I create units that suit the rules of the game best. That is, no "divisions" or "regiments" such as in WitE, but units that follow the basic ATG rule that allows you to attack from one or two hexes with 100 strength points.
100 that's the key concept. So you build units that are max 100, or even better IMHO, 50. (100 = 100 Inf men, or 10 tanks, 50 = 50 Inf men, or 5 tanks). Creating and attacking with units that are much bigger than 100 gives you a severe battle penalty. (that was created so to prevent a killer stack). Two units of 50 points is more flexible than one unit of 100, and attacking from two hexes with two units already gives you a bonus.
So an Inf. unit would in my game be: 30-40 Inf men, 5 mortars, 5 machine guns, 1-2 AT guns, some bazookas and sometimes some Inf guns. Almost never more than 50 because of the rule mentioned above. That way I can stack two units in one hex without a stacking or attacking penalty.
An armoured unit would something like this be: 2-3 light tanks, 2-3 medium tanks, 1 heavy tank. They are the Inf killers, but vulnerable in forests and cities. Again no more than 50 points per counter.
Armoured recon unit: 4 armoured cars, one light tank, some Inf, Mortars, AT guns and halftracks.

I've been thinking about your point number one too, as I quite often make the same units, hauling reinforcements can be a bit tedious sometimes. So click on a standard TOE, click on the number you want (say 5 new Inf units) and providing your HQ has them they are created. But the problem arises when your HQ doesn't have the needed amount of troops... what then? I don't know, Vic is a skilled and talented programmer... maybe he can think of something.
Maybe the way we work now with sliders and so on should be discarded for a more graphic interface. A sort of windows where all the troops you have are displayed in one window, and you click and drag them to another window that is your new unit. 

(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 6
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 8:29:29 PM   
Max 86


Posts: 570
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline
These division templates would also make it easier for the AI to field a combined arms division with the appropriate amount of transport.  Each template type (infantry div, armored div, mech inf div) should have a preset number of SFTs that make up the division.  Then the AI only has to refill empty slots instead of creating a division from scratch.

_____________________________

No problem Chief!

(in reply to Josh)
Post #: 7
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/17/2011 10:01:22 PM   
Haudrauf1962

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline
And then add the ability to put those units on automatic refit, so that they draw reinforcements from their HQ (if available) that would be perfect. But nevertheless I think this game is a blast. I love the random scenarios...

_____________________________

Haudrauf

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)

(in reply to Max 86)
Post #: 8
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 12:41:55 AM   
henri51


Posts: 1115
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline
Josh's recommendations are close to what I do. My standard unit has 30-50 infantry (50 for infantry-only). If possible you would like an attacking unit to have 5 mortars, which greatly enhances their attack; if they are going to defend against infantry, add 5-10 machineguns.If they are going to attack cities, either replace some of the infantry with SMG or add 5-10 SMG to an infantry unit, and if they are expected to defend against tanks, add a couple of ATs. Some units should have AA, which can defend against aircraft in a one-hex radius. Armored unit should have a bit of infantry in case they are attacked by infantry or anti-tank units. It is often a good idea to place the AA with artillery, since they are often the preferred target of aircraft.

Avoid making the mistakes that I have made, and never put artillery in infantry units: after the artillery fires, your kickass combined forces unit has used up all its movement points and cannot attack. Always put engineers in trucks, because they have to move fast and often, and avoid sending engineers into combat.use them to upgrade mines and to build factories. (You CAN use them to help attack a city, but make sure you have a huge advantage if you do it). Avoid attacking enemies without first softening them up with air and artillery - attacking with 2:1 odds can whittle down your killer stack to almost nothing while barely scratching the paint on the enemy.

BEWARE of building a mechanized army; to my dismay, my 15,000 fuel surplus disappeared in a single move in a recent game when I launched an attack with air, artillery and a bit of armor, and moved a bunch of cargo ships around to ferry troops behind enemy lines. The only mechanized armies in WW2 were the US and the Soviets (after 1942), the Germans had more horses than tanks.

To make a long answer short, a battle group should consist of mostly infantry with horses, supported by artillery and some armor and air power. I found it not possible to support every front with air power, or even artillery.

Henri

(in reply to Haudrauf1962)
Post #: 9
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 2:27:59 AM   
DakaSha

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 4/13/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

1. Standardizing TO&Es. I find that I spend a good majority of my turn just building units and sending replacements manually by element. Why not cut this process down by allowing the player to build custom unit TO&E templates and then when you create a formation, you can select from a list of your pre-made TO&Es? I find the process of building every single new unit by scratch tedious. Additionally, you could have a simple refit button for the unit where the unit will automatically draw replacements based on its TO&E template. Transferring individual replacements for every single unit is also tedious.



Also something that 'should have been' in this 'new' game. :-/
I avoid large maps for the sole reason of having to do so much tedious micro management that could be simplified by such a system.

Great game - Lacks polish


< Message edited by DakaSha -- 4/18/2011 2:28:30 AM >

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 10
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 3:50:08 PM   
phatkarp


Posts: 130
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
This is a great idea and should be implemented. 

(in reply to DakaSha)
Post #: 11
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 4:54:25 PM   
GrumpyMel

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
I tend to try to make "standardized" units in most of the scenerio's I play as well. Note that because many scenerio's use different SFT types the my TO&E for each of my standards varies by scenerio.

Now, what happens during the course of play is very cool, and very close to how things often played out in historical conflicts. As units get into battle and take losses, they start to deviate from the standard. They often are understrength as there aren't enough replacements of the specific type availble.... sometimes other types are substituted to make up the difference, if the unit needs to be pressed back into the action quickly. Often cases, other SFT types may get "attached" to these units as they are needed for specific circumstances....or simply the case of needing to throw together whatever odds and ends are availble from shattered units when things are getting tense. At some point later these units may get rebuilt/reformed back to thier standard TO&E....or they may just remain a mixed Kampfgruppe for an extended time.

I honestly love the flexibilty of AT and how it models this aspect of operations, although it can make for alot of micro-managment (which I really don't mind).

I do think the template idea is a good feature for those who want to use it...and one which has been discused before. I wouldn't be surprised to see it make it into some future version.

(in reply to phatkarp)
Post #: 12
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 5:26:11 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3251
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
This is the part that ruins immersion for me. I want to move around regiments and divisions, not blocks of 100 strength points. I think all this game needs (for me at least) is to allow for a player selectable scale. The player could select a scale 1.5 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 25 miles, etc. Once this is selected, production and unit size would be scaled accordingly. So at the 1.5 mile scale, your 100PP unit would be a battalion and your production output would be in terms of infantry squads and individual vehicles. At 10 miles, your 100PP unit would be a division and your production would be in terms of companies and so on.

With the custom templates, if you didn't have enough units in your pool, then the unit created would just be short of those units.

Also, I would absolutely love to see the Warsaw to Paris terrain and unit graphics in ATG.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

@El Hefe, concerning question 2;

Well the way I do it is I create units that suit the rules of the game best. That is, no "divisions" or "regiments" such as in WitE, but units that follow the basic ATG rule that allows you to attack from one or two hexes with 100 strength points.
100 that's the key concept. So you build units that are max 100, or even better IMHO, 50. (100 = 100 Inf men, or 10 tanks, 50 = 50 Inf men, or 5 tanks). Creating and attacking with units that are much bigger than 100 gives you a severe battle penalty. (that was created so to prevent a killer stack). Two units of 50 points is more flexible than one unit of 100, and attacking from two hexes with two units already gives you a bonus.
So an Inf. unit would in my game be: 30-40 Inf men, 5 mortars, 5 machine guns, 1-2 AT guns, some bazookas and sometimes some Inf guns. Almost never more than 50 because of the rule mentioned above. That way I can stack two units in one hex without a stacking or attacking penalty.
An armoured unit would something like this be: 2-3 light tanks, 2-3 medium tanks, 1 heavy tank. They are the Inf killers, but vulnerable in forests and cities. Again no more than 50 points per counter.
Armoured recon unit: 4 armoured cars, one light tank, some Inf, Mortars, AT guns and halftracks.

I've been thinking about your point number one too, as I quite often make the same units, hauling reinforcements can be a bit tedious sometimes. So click on a standard TOE, click on the number you want (say 5 new Inf units) and providing your HQ has them they are created. But the problem arises when your HQ doesn't have the needed amount of troops... what then? I don't know, Vic is a skilled and talented programmer... maybe he can think of something.
Maybe the way we work now with sliders and so on should be discarded for a more graphic interface. A sort of windows where all the troops you have are displayed in one window, and you click and drag them to another window that is your new unit. 



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Josh)
Post #: 13
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 5:35:45 PM   
Barthheart


Posts: 3107
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

This is the part that ruins immersion for me. I want to move around regiments and divisions, not blocks of 100 strength points. I think all this game needs (for me at least) is to allow for a player selectable scale. The player could select a scale 1.5 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 25 miles, etc. Once this is selected, production and unit size would be scaled accordingly. So at the 1.5 mile scale, your 100PP unit would be a battalion and your production output would be in terms of infantry squads and individual vehicles. At 10 miles, your 100PP unit would be a division and your production would be in terms of companies and so on.

With the custom templates, if you didn't have enough units in your pool, then the unit created would just be short of those units.

Also, I would absolutely love to see the Warsaw to Paris terrain and unit graphics in ATG.

Trey


All this can be done with the editor for custom scenarios. You would just change the production system to something like tweber's new WaW sceanrio but have men, tanks, trucks pools as well. THen you would use the card system to purchase an "Infnatry Battalion" and use up resoureces required. A new unit with all the right stuff would appear on the board at your production center. Actually not a lot of work to do it this way.

AT:G was never designed to be a "unit centric" game. This is something the Vic keeps explaining and it took me time to come around to this way of thinking. So teh base game is setup the way Vic wanted it to work but he also included such a strong editor that you can do almost anyting....


_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 14
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 7:15:13 PM   
Josh

 

Posts: 2414
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline
Trey, you've been playing WitE too much
I do understand where you're coming from though, I love WitE as much as you do, but ATG is different. I do like your idea of a selectable scale as well, it would have to implemented as an extra layer in the ATG game engine. So for a random game you'd have to choose a mapsize *and* a scale size. WitE and TOAW have every unit that ever existed in the game, whereas ATG "only" has Inf (and the variations Mercenaries, Guerillas and so on) Machineguns, Mortars, so yeah much more generic. But for me it certainly doesn't ruin immersion. Matter of fact it adds gameplay *fun* for me, no WitE historical withdrawals or reinforcements, but I can decide which new units go where. Furthermore I decide how those new units look like, I decide to go early for Medium Panzer III and so I'm not confined to the historical boundaries of the real things there were around at the time. More fun, less historical in my humble opinion.

(in reply to Barthheart)
Post #: 15
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 8:14:54 PM   
Webizen


Posts: 1459
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline
+1 my sentiments exactly (but each of us is different)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

...WitE and TOAW have every unit that ever existed in the game, whereas ATG "only" has Inf (and the variations Mercenaries, Guerillas and so on) Machineguns, Mortars, so yeah much more generic. But for me it certainly doesn't ruin immersion. Matter of fact it adds gameplay *fun* for me, no WitE historical withdrawals or reinforcements, but I can decide which new units go where. Furthermore I decide how those new units look like, I decide to go early for Medium Panzer III and so I'm not confined to the historical boundaries of the real things there were around at the time. More fun, less historical in my humble opinion.



_____________________________

Tac2i

(in reply to Josh)
Post #: 16
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 9:45:10 PM   
Keke


Posts: 3517
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
So is it impossible to combine grognard features of Decisive Campaigns with the powerful editor of ATG?

_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn


(in reply to Webizen)
Post #: 17
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/18/2011 10:50:38 PM   
papajack

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 2/11/2010
Status: offline
ATG is not a wargame ...it is strategy game ...

We have been playing traditionally wargames and to truly enjoy ATG , we have to see things differently

I love CIV type of games where you start with 1 small town then conquer the world , the ATG random games fit me 100 % ..oh boy I will never stop playing them  




< Message edited by papajack -- 4/18/2011 10:51:52 PM >

(in reply to Keke)
Post #: 18
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 2:18:09 AM   
Casus_Belli

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 11/20/2005
Status: offline
I would fully support al hefe's point no. 1, and the recommendations of having standardized units you can create providing you have the available materiel and men.

"I've been thinking about your point number one too, as I quite often make the same units, hauling reinforcements can be a bit tedious sometimes. So click on a standard TOE, click on the number you want (say 5 new Inf units) and providing your HQ has them they are created. But the problem arises when your HQ doesn't have the needed amount of troops... what then? "

A big thumbs up for the second sentence here. If they're not available in the approriate HQ, you just can't do it; should be simpe. So you have to build the soldiers and equipment in the HQ, and then arranging them in units of your own design would be a two-click, instead of a twenty-click operation; simple rather than the tedious and time-consuming operation it is now.
Automatic replacements, again if available, to some standard TOE (there is a word for this, but it escapes me for the moment: complement?) would also be a very useful feature, especially if it could be turned on or off in particular HQs.
Saying it can all be done in the editor is all very fine, but that's a huge operation in itself, especially for those of us who unfamiliar with, or not particularly interested in, using the editor.

My contribution to suggestions for improving an already fabulous, and really quite amazing game, although I do agree with some of DakaShas points regarding polish in his other thread. But I think these are fine-tuning improvements being suggested. Overall the game is remarkable and fantasitc fun, and credit to its creators.


< Message edited by Casus_Belli -- 4/19/2011 2:22:22 AM >


_____________________________

Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 19
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 2:29:25 AM   
DakaSha

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 4/13/2011
Status: offline
I do not support the idea of eliminating the way things are done now. its cool.

I just wish there were custom division templates (and they should be savable/loadable from multiple paying sessions as long as you are using the same at2 file)

(in reply to Casus_Belli)
Post #: 20
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 2:41:31 AM   
Casus_Belli

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 11/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DakaSha

I do not support the idea of eliminating the way things are done now. its cool.


Neither do I. Many people no doubt prefer it that way. I do in some circumstances. It's a question of expanding the range of options.

_____________________________

Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.

(in reply to DakaSha)
Post #: 21
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 4:51:21 AM   
TPM

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I bought the original and the new ATG and there are two issues for me that are really barriers to enjoying this game. If I could get past these two issues, I know I would enjoy this game as I love the randomized maps and the empire feel but these two issues get my mind spinning.

1. Standardizing TO&Es. I find that I spend a good majority of my turn just building units and sending replacements manually by element. Why not cut this process down by allowing the player to build custom unit TO&E templates and then when you create a formation, you can select from a list of your pre-made TO&Es? I find the process of building every single new unit by scratch tedious. Additionally, you could have a simple refit button for the unit where the unit will automatically draw replacements based on its TO&E template. Transferring individual replacements for every single unit is also tedious.

2. I have a problem with figuring out how to make units because the scale is so abstracted. What is a 'Rifle'? Is it a squad, platoon, company? I want to build my units dress right dress and adhere to some realistic fashion but I get stumped on trying to figure out the scale. The fact that units aren't broken down into the usual conventions of divisions, brigades, regiments, etc. is all very distracting to me. I can't figure out the best way to build my force. Are my 'divisions' too powerful or too small? There is no scale to go off of and comparing Power Points between units is just not intuitive to old school wargamers in lieu of comparing divisions to brigades.

Trey




Great to see someone else post this...about a year ago, I posted the exact same points. This game is so freaking awesome, but it is on the verge of being MIND-BLOWING if we could addres the first point at least (the second point I think could be easily taken care of if a scale is just applied to a scenario the creator could say something like "for this scenario, the scale is 40-60 rifle equals an infantry division, 1 tank is roughly an armoured battalion", etc.) As far as your first point, this is what I was thinking:

1. There is no need to get rid of the system that is in place...you can micromanage all you want, make whatever combinatinon of units you want.
2. BUT, if you've set up a "standard" unit that you like to use, and you want your units on the front line to be kept at that standard, and you don't want to click a million times to reinforce or create that unit, you would have a template (as you said) for that "standard" unit...say, Mech Unit #1, which would be 30 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 truck (or whatever).
3. To create the unit, you would be given the option "Create from template", the computer would automatically fill in those slots...if you didn't have enough for it, then it would do its best.
4. To reinforce in the field, you could press a reinforce button, then a template button, then pick the units you want reinforced.

It could be a lot more complicated than what I've described, but man, if there was a way to cut down on the clicking that would be awesome.

Anyway, great post, I am with you 100% on this.


(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 22
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 5:22:36 AM   
TPM

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

Trey, you've been playing WitE too much
I do understand where you're coming from though, I love WitE as much as you do, but ATG is different. I do like your idea of a selectable scale as well, it would have to implemented as an extra layer in the ATG game engine. So for a random game you'd have to choose a mapsize *and* a scale size. WitE and TOAW have every unit that ever existed in the game, whereas ATG "only" has Inf (and the variations Mercenaries, Guerillas and so on) Machineguns, Mortars, so yeah much more generic. But for me it certainly doesn't ruin immersion. Matter of fact it adds gameplay *fun* for me, no WitE historical withdrawals or reinforcements, but I can decide which new units go where. Furthermore I decide how those new units look like, I decide to go early for Medium Panzer III and so I'm not confined to the historical boundaries of the real things there were around at the time. More fun, less historical in my humble opinion.


Just want to jump in and say that I don't think the OP was talking about having everything be "historical", and I don't think he wants more unit types...I think what he's talking about is the idea that since we are playing a wargame, and the pieces are representing real life items such as men, tanks, planes, etc., it would be nice to have some idea as to what these things are in relation to each other. I LOVE the fact that AT doesn't have a million different units, I don't need that...but I would like to know, for a particular scenario, what the relationship is between 1 Rifle and 1 Tank. This doesn't have to be a set relationship for the entire engine...but it would be great for a particular scenario.

For example, I think it would have been cool if tweber's East Front scenario in AT (can't remember the name of it), had a statement that said "10 Rifle is roughly equal to one Infantry division for the Germans", or something like that. This way, if you had a unit with 5 Rifle guarding a city, you could say to your opponent, or in your AAR--"The 11th Infantry division had the task of holding Kiev, but it was down to half strength!", as opposed to "it was down to 5 Rifle!"...5 Rifle what?

Again, this is NOT a push for the game to be more like TOAW, in fact, it's not even a push for more history...it's a push for scale, for at least some idea of what these things are in relation to each other...what is 1 plane? What is 1 artillery? If you don't care, that's fine, no problem there, but for some of us, it's really annoying!

I mean c'mon, what sounds better: "The Russians attacked the battered German panzer division with 1 Cavalry division, and 2 Infantry divisions" or "The Russians attacked the German unit (10 Rifle and 1 Infantry gun), with a Cavalry unit (20 Cavalry, 2 Artillery) and an Mechanized unit (30 Rifle, 5 Mortars, and 4 Trucks)"?

See?

< Message edited by TPM -- 4/19/2011 5:23:07 AM >

(in reply to Josh)
Post #: 23
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 5:29:15 AM   
TPM

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

This is the part that ruins immersion for me. I want to move around regiments and divisions, not blocks of 100 strength points. I think all this game needs (for me at least) is to allow for a player selectable scale. The player could select a scale 1.5 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 25 miles, etc. Once this is selected, production and unit size would be scaled accordingly. So at the 1.5 mile scale, your 100PP unit would be a battalion and your production output would be in terms of infantry squads and individual vehicles. At 10 miles, your 100PP unit would be a division and your production would be in terms of companies and so on.

With the custom templates, if you didn't have enough units in your pool, then the unit created would just be short of those units.

Also, I would absolutely love to see the Warsaw to Paris terrain and unit graphics in ATG.

Trey


All this can be done with the editor for custom scenarios. You would just change the production system to something like tweber's new WaW sceanrio but have men, tanks, trucks pools as well. THen you would use the card system to purchase an "Infnatry Battalion" and use up resoureces required. A new unit with all the right stuff would appear on the board at your production center. Actually not a lot of work to do it this way.

AT:G was never designed to be a "unit centric" game. This is something the Vic keeps explaining and it took me time to come around to this way of thinking. So teh base game is setup the way Vic wanted it to work but he also included such a strong editor that you can do almost anyting....



Yes this is cool about the game, and I have played games where you can "buy" set unit types. This makes the game alot more enjoyable to me...what would be awesome is if you could create that template IN the game, and then it would become a playable card. Man, that's the ticket, that would be great. At any point in the game, you could create a unit size, and it would become a card that you could play! Damn, I wish I could program...

(in reply to Barthheart)
Post #: 24
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 5:41:48 AM   
DakaSha

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 4/13/2011
Status: offline
learn how its not as hard as you may think

(in reply to TPM)
Post #: 25
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 2:37:07 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3251
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
You nailed it TPM. I'm not looking to recreate World War Two, just need some sense of scale to organize my units in a realistic fashion. I really like the Empire-style randomized games.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: TPM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

Trey, you've been playing WitE too much
I do understand where you're coming from though, I love WitE as much as you do, but ATG is different. I do like your idea of a selectable scale as well, it would have to implemented as an extra layer in the ATG game engine. So for a random game you'd have to choose a mapsize *and* a scale size. WitE and TOAW have every unit that ever existed in the game, whereas ATG "only" has Inf (and the variations Mercenaries, Guerillas and so on) Machineguns, Mortars, so yeah much more generic. But for me it certainly doesn't ruin immersion. Matter of fact it adds gameplay *fun* for me, no WitE historical withdrawals or reinforcements, but I can decide which new units go where. Furthermore I decide how those new units look like, I decide to go early for Medium Panzer III and so I'm not confined to the historical boundaries of the real things there were around at the time. More fun, less historical in my humble opinion.


Just want to jump in and say that I don't think the OP was talking about having everything be "historical", and I don't think he wants more unit types...I think what he's talking about is the idea that since we are playing a wargame, and the pieces are representing real life items such as men, tanks, planes, etc., it would be nice to have some idea as to what these things are in relation to each other. I LOVE the fact that AT doesn't have a million different units, I don't need that...but I would like to know, for a particular scenario, what the relationship is between 1 Rifle and 1 Tank. This doesn't have to be a set relationship for the entire engine...but it would be great for a particular scenario.

For example, I think it would have been cool if tweber's East Front scenario in AT (can't remember the name of it), had a statement that said "10 Rifle is roughly equal to one Infantry division for the Germans", or something like that. This way, if you had a unit with 5 Rifle guarding a city, you could say to your opponent, or in your AAR--"The 11th Infantry division had the task of holding Kiev, but it was down to half strength!", as opposed to "it was down to 5 Rifle!"...5 Rifle what?

Again, this is NOT a push for the game to be more like TOAW, in fact, it's not even a push for more history...it's a push for scale, for at least some idea of what these things are in relation to each other...what is 1 plane? What is 1 artillery? If you don't care, that's fine, no problem there, but for some of us, it's really annoying!

I mean c'mon, what sounds better: "The Russians attacked the battered German panzer division with 1 Cavalry division, and 2 Infantry divisions" or "The Russians attacked the German unit (10 Rifle and 1 Infantry gun), with a Cavalry unit (20 Cavalry, 2 Artillery) and an Mechanized unit (30 Rifle, 5 Mortars, and 4 Trucks)"?

See?



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to TPM)
Post #: 26
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/19/2011 3:45:43 PM   
Keunert


Posts: 880
Joined: 9/9/2010
Status: offline
el hefe's point one proposal would be an enormous help in the huge scenarios. it can be a lot of work to distribute the squads to the different units. this would be a fantastic feature.

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 27
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/20/2011 8:19:28 PM   
GrumpyMel

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TPM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

Trey, you've been playing WitE too much
I do understand where you're coming from though, I love WitE as much as you do, but ATG is different. I do like your idea of a selectable scale as well, it would have to implemented as an extra layer in the ATG game engine. So for a random game you'd have to choose a mapsize *and* a scale size. WitE and TOAW have every unit that ever existed in the game, whereas ATG "only" has Inf (and the variations Mercenaries, Guerillas and so on) Machineguns, Mortars, so yeah much more generic. But for me it certainly doesn't ruin immersion. Matter of fact it adds gameplay *fun* for me, no WitE historical withdrawals or reinforcements, but I can decide which new units go where. Furthermore I decide how those new units look like, I decide to go early for Medium Panzer III and so I'm not confined to the historical boundaries of the real things there were around at the time. More fun, less historical in my humble opinion.


Just want to jump in and say that I don't think the OP was talking about having everything be "historical", and I don't think he wants more unit types...I think what he's talking about is the idea that since we are playing a wargame, and the pieces are representing real life items such as men, tanks, planes, etc., it would be nice to have some idea as to what these things are in relation to each other. I LOVE the fact that AT doesn't have a million different units, I don't need that...but I would like to know, for a particular scenario, what the relationship is between 1 Rifle and 1 Tank. This doesn't have to be a set relationship for the entire engine...but it would be great for a particular scenario.

For example, I think it would have been cool if tweber's East Front scenario in AT (can't remember the name of it), had a statement that said "10 Rifle is roughly equal to one Infantry division for the Germans", or something like that. This way, if you had a unit with 5 Rifle guarding a city, you could say to your opponent, or in your AAR--"The 11th Infantry division had the task of holding Kiev, but it was down to half strength!", as opposed to "it was down to 5 Rifle!"...5 Rifle what?

Again, this is NOT a push for the game to be more like TOAW, in fact, it's not even a push for more history...it's a push for scale, for at least some idea of what these things are in relation to each other...what is 1 plane? What is 1 artillery? If you don't care, that's fine, no problem there, but for some of us, it's really annoying!

I mean c'mon, what sounds better: "The Russians attacked the battered German panzer division with 1 Cavalry division, and 2 Infantry divisions" or "The Russians attacked the German unit (10 Rifle and 1 Infantry gun), with a Cavalry unit (20 Cavalry, 2 Artillery) and an Mechanized unit (30 Rifle, 5 Mortars, and 4 Trucks)"?

See?


A fair number of the more historical scenerio's do have some mention of scale in the design notes. Upto the designer if he wants to put something in there. Also the scenerio designer can customize the appelation that newly created units use as part of the design as well (i.e. he can switch it from the default "division" to regiment, battalion, company, legion, etc.

So that's pretty easy to do for a designer already. The way things are setup, as a designer you can scale things to any level you like...rather then have
presets that you have to use....which I think is good.

The build template thing as an option would be pretty cool to be able to support (IMO).... as long as it was (in general) optional as to whether the player wanted to use it or not.



(in reply to TPM)
Post #: 28
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/20/2011 10:19:36 PM   
rich12545

 

Posts: 1702
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline
Imo knowing scale is not necessary.  You can get a rough idea by looking at the map and the units.  Same with Empire.  You know five rifles is 5x more than one rifle.  The ratio between a rifle and a tank should always be roughly the same whether it's a platoon or a division.

(in reply to GrumpyMel)
Post #: 29
RE: Two Issues for Me - 4/20/2011 10:50:55 PM   
phatkarp


Posts: 130
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
To put in my .02 regarding El Hefe's point 1 (The Template Suggestion), I would suggest:

1)  A template creator button on the button line.
2)  A change template button on the button line (to change a unit's existing template)
3)  An Auto Reinforce button on the button line, which would pull reinforcements from superior HQ's to fill out the template.
4)  A "select template" radio button on Create Unit screen (the one with "Formation" and "HQ" radio buttons)
5)  An Auto Reinforce button on the OOB screen, alongside Auto Upgrade.

I wouldn't let the game automatically reinforce my units, as I wouldn't want to amplify the readiness hit for a frontline unit.  I *would* want the option to do a mass reinforce at the HQ-level for when I pull an entire army out of the line.  And I would want a one-touch button to reinforce specific units that are out of the line. 

(in reply to rich12545)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Two Issues for Me Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121