Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game Suggestions:

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/23/2011 10:39:05 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1242
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I think one thing that does need adjusting is the victory conditions. There's a huge gap between the VPs required for a Soviet victory and the VPs required for a German victory.

The whinging of many aside, the game is reasonably historically accurate in portraying the industrial war between the Soviets and their lend-lease allies and the Germans; and it's getting closer over time. Given that situation, any result less than the capture of Berlin by the Soviets before May 1945 should be a German victory.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Djouk)
Post #: 391
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/23/2011 2:20:55 PM   
Captain B


Posts: 362
Joined: 8/30/2009
From: Knoxville, Tennessee
Status: offline
I too would like to see some different weather conditions. bjmorgan had some good ideas. And I thought that the reason for the 4 weather zones was to allow different weather conditions in each zone...so say that the north soviet zone gets mud first, then the central soviet next turn, then the south soviet next turn and finally the European zone....have them clear up in the opposite order.

Also, the crimean peninsula should not have a blizzard that lasts as long as the rest of the soviet union. I would much rather be down there on the black sea than up near the baltic...certainly the temperature is typically warmer there than elsewhere.

Along with clear, maybe Hot/Humid/Drought...slow down the foot soldiers and speed up the motorized units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Add in a few levels of bad weather with different effects than what you have now.

I would suggest a "thunderstorm" event that occurrs only in the summer. (No more mud turns in Summer). This level would reduce the motorized units movement, but much less so leg units. Some effects on supply.

Then add a light mud. This level would have about half of the effect of the current mud turns. I see this as a way to slowly increase the effects of mud in the fall, then slowly return them to normal in the spring.

The same thing for snow. Add "flurries," and "light snow" to the game. Have a turn or two of these leading up to a full snow turn. Have blizzard turns randomly, but not consistently, in the winter. Say a 40% probablility. (Perhaps 60%, or something, the first winter.) The snow effects can slowly go away as spring approaches.

Then, carefully craft probabilities of when all the events will begin and end, but in a much more realistic way than we see now. If this is done correctly, the the 'historical" weather option would not be necessary. The problem is that in the variable weather, events are sudden and seemingly sometimes out of place, in my opinion.




_____________________________

There is no problem too big that can't be solved with the proper use of high explosives

WITE Scenario Tester
WITW Beta Tester

(in reply to bjmorgan)
Post #: 392
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/28/2011 1:46:43 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
Perhaps these suggestions have already been posted before but if not, maybe this can be added at some point in the future:
1. When in recon mode, display the hexes already been reconned as currently is the case when F11 (show battle sites is selected). This makes it a lot easier to keep track of where you have flown recon. I have a bad memeory
2. Display total contruction value for a stack of units when hovering with the mouse over a friendly stack. Nice to know when setting up forts.
3. A key combination to only highlight units outside HQ range (ie. 6+)
4. And easier way to re-attach units to an HQ.
Perhpas the following could be considered:
Select HQ to re-attach too.
Hold ctrl or alt.
Select unit and a re-attach button appears top left in the unit window. (not detailed window) which can be clicked to re-attach.
5. Display win/Loss ratio in the detailed window of units/HQ's so you do not have to go to the commanders report to find this info.
6. For SU's, in the overview of Corps/Armies/etc... a default button next to SU's to re-assign the SU to Stavka/OKH without having to manually select and then re-assign said SU. This would save a lot of time if you want to micro manage a bit. Sort of simular to SU's attached to Divs to send them back to Corps/Armies.
7. Same as above for air groups but then for moving to reserve. Now you have to open each air group individually and move to reserve. If this could be done on the airbase overview that would save many clicks.


< Message edited by glvaca -- 8/28/2011 10:02:37 AM >

(in reply to Captain B)
Post #: 393
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/29/2011 10:22:42 AM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

A key combination to only highlight units outside HQ range (ie. 6+)

This would be excellent. Also, a combination to highlight units that will be withdrawn soon would be useful.

Also, in the event log, you should be able to click on a newly arrived unit and be taken right to it.


< Message edited by cherryfunk -- 8/29/2011 10:23:29 AM >

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 394
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/31/2011 12:51:12 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
I don't seem to have the disband option for air units when they are in the national reserve.  Can this be changed?

(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 395
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/31/2011 1:16:22 AM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The Axis withdrawal/reinforcement is too scripted and rigidly historical in that always the same units will be withdrawn at the same time, completely disregarding their current situation and overall situation on the front. The same with reinforcements - they come when Axis fared badly on the front in reality (like SS divisions to rescue AG "A" in early 1943 used so well by Manstein) and not when the player has big trouble. Soviets have quite flexible play with the ability to buy units as they like. I propose that:
1) withdrawals be re-made in such a way so when OKW needs some divisions moved to other fronts they will ask "we want 2 infantry divisions" and the player will have the option to specify which divisions (sometimes those scripted to withdraw are in the most important parts of the front, while others that could be easily withdrawn are not called by high command)
2) allow to use AP to postpone withdrawals (20-30AP for 2-3 turns for a single unit, so the player would be unable to delay many units, but some in the most critical times)
3) allow to use AP to request reinforcements, with random chance if and what will come (up to the historical limits or with rising cost with each successful request).

That would offer more ways to use AP (currently they are used mainly for HQ buildup) which would be good and make the Axis play less scripted.


Apparently this suggestion has already been shot down, but it is an excellent one. The current system, by being too rigidly historical, is actually highly ahistorical -- that is, OKH would not pull out a division holding a key defensive position from the Russian Front to reinforce Sicily, for example. The basic idea that units would be pulled is sound, but by totally divorcing this mechanic from the history of the unfolding game you actually diminish the experience and pull the player out of the game's alternative world.

The designers should really should rethink this, and consider something along the lines of what morvael proposes above.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 396
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/1/2011 1:17:29 AM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline
In addition to my above point, the current 'historical' weather is in fact ensuring ahistorical play, since both sides know exactly when the weather will turn.  So again, the design is doing the exact opposite of its intention.  Simply adding a +/- 1 or 2 turn variance to when each weather type occurs would mitigate this enormously.

And a simple (hopefully) UI change -- it should be possible to toggle Ground Support on/off by clicking directly on the 'GS ON'/'GS OFF' indicator on the menu bar, rather than having to remember that 'X' is the hotkey and switching focus to the keyboard.  The more stuff in the UI that can be clicked, the better.


(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 397
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/3/2011 5:11:35 PM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline
Another tweak that I'd love to see -- to get the unit details box to come up, rather than left clicking the stack on the map, then moving the mouse across my monitor to the unit box and right clicking on the unit, then mousing back to center to interact with the unit details info, it would be much simpler if simply right-clicking a unit directly on the map brought up the details box. 


(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 398
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/9/2011 9:50:47 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1855
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Add "supply interdiction" to the game. During axis logistics phase soviet planes with milage left have a chance to interdict truck movement resulting in damaged and destroyed vehicles, and less supply and fuel delivered.

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 399
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/10/2011 12:05:30 AM   
lastdingo

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
How about allowing the Axis player at least the re-creation of destroyed formations?

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 400
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/11/2011 7:51:53 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 753
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
I would like to suggest being able to select which unit appears at the top of a stack.

(in reply to lastdingo)
Post #: 401
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/12/2011 2:24:34 AM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

I would like to suggest being able to select which unit appears at the top of a stack.



This has been asked for many times, but i think it might involve to much work to be changed now. But for what it's worth i completely agree with you that this would be great.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 402
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/12/2011 6:32:09 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
I'd like to see the mention of Axis surrenders on the logistics page.

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 403
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/20/2011 1:11:47 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1957
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Add "supply interdiction" to the game. During axis logistics phase soviet planes with milage left have a chance to interdict truck movement resulting in damaged and destroyed vehicles, and less supply and fuel delivered.



This is an excellent suggestion +1

But for both sides surely?

For my two ha'penny worth, and its probably been mentioned many times, a list of all captured/destroyed Industry Screen, giving both sides at a glance their gains/losses etc. Its such a pain loading up a new campaign to compare it to the current campaign you are playing against your opponent.

< Message edited by Empire101 -- 9/20/2011 1:18:12 PM >


_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.
- Michael Burleigh


(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 404
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/20/2011 3:26:12 PM   
coolts


Posts: 231
Joined: 2/1/2011
From: Auf Wiedersehen, Pet
Status: offline
Two changes I would like. One maybe easy, the other not so much.

Easy one.
A hotkey for manual RR repair. Having to click every time is a needless chore. In the future I would like this automated. (rt-click “rail repair to…” and off they go)

Not so easy one
A “%TOE” map view option. Either an overlay like fort levels or a counter view or a soft factor addition. Your choice. Either way, it would let me see at a glance, who needed what the most. It’s easy on German divs where the CV number is a good indication but on axis minors, it’s not so easy at a glance.

Cheers


_____________________________

"Gauls! We have nothing to fear; except perhaps that the sky may fall on our heads tomorrow. But as we all know, tomorrow never comes!!" - Chief Vitalstatistix

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 405
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/24/2011 5:08:08 AM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
Make cities more important.

Create a reason for the Germans to want to attack deeper into Russia by making Oil and Resources have more (or any) impact on the game. This would make for a much more interesting game. Not that i don't think the game is great as is, but still...


I would also suggest having a cap on how many factories can be moved so there is still at least some industry in cities to make it worthwhile to fight over and defend.

Also it would be good to have FOW in cities so an opponent doesn't know if industry has been moved or not.

< Message edited by Wild -- 9/24/2011 8:40:07 AM >

(in reply to coolts)
Post #: 406
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/24/2011 8:24:25 AM   
Magnum88

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
Forgive me if some of these suggestions have been made inprevious pages but I chose not to read all 14 pages to see. As an inveterate Axis player I see the basic conundrum being the fact that giving the player freedom to move his armies without political considerations and with perfect C&C probably helps the Soviet player far more in the early war than the Axis and this advantage results in a far stronger Red Army that inflicts more casuaulties for the rest of the game and far outweighs and the advantage the Wehrmacht gets later. How to balance the game without the use of gamey rules? Perhaps I am a wuss but I do not look forward to a game that is 1 campaign season of martial glory followed by 2-4 years of constant retreat/defeat to an inevitable major/decisive defeat. Even if it would be historic plausable it would be simply not be enjoyable, especially considering the huge commitment of time to play.

1. Tie historic changes to actual events in game. For example, if the Soviets have contained the Axis advances and are pushing back in '42 would they necessary start large scale changes to the Red Army doctrine/structure. In Stalin's eyes, why fix something that is not broke. So a Soviet player that does much better than historic may not get Mech/Tank/Cav/Inf corps or Artillery divisions. I am sure some well-read experts can correct me but were these changes already in place before the war or a required change because, in real life, what they were using was not working.

2. In the same vein, if the Soviets are doing better than historically, would the Allies be as generous with Lend-Lease? They were not friends before the war and weren't after. It was a marriage of convenience and Lend-Lease was enacted to help them stay in the war when they appeared to be on the ropes. If the Red Army is starting to push back well ahead of historic timeline, would the Allies still help them as much so they could take most of western Europe or would they draw down the assistance?

3. A little variability in factory evacuations. Have factory evacuations be scheduled a turn in advance and have a chance that they may be delayed due to unforseen circumstances (random roll with some input due to weather). The Soviet player would have to allow more time to evacuate factories, requiring more forward defences with the possibility that things can and will go wrong. If an evacuation is delayed or its evacuation is cut off by Axis action the rail points are freed up for troop movements.

4. Large structural change. Have a mechanic that allows units to do a combat supply that uses rail points. Basic supply would be assumed but would only allow for a normal CV for defense but a reduction for attacks. In order to have the normal CV for attack combat supplies would be drawn from the supply system as long as rail capacity was available. This would prevent large scale offenses along the entire front, unless enough rail capacity was available.

4. Big ahistoric option but for a more playable game for both sides. Have an option for the Axis to be benificent occupiers of the Baltic, western Poland, Ukraine (still be tyrants in Russia proper to staisfy the hardcore Nazi party members--try to maintain some historic realism). I understand this is not what the Nazis were but it is also not what Stalin was to let the Red Army withdraw from its westerm territories at the start of the war but the player is allowed to and that inbalance the games greatly. Very unplausable, I know, but perhaps an option to make more competitive games. Little to no partisan activity and huge increases in Hiwis and perhaps formation of Sec and Infantry units over time.

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 407
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/28/2011 5:12:32 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4489
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Give the Soviet player the ability to create airbases. I don´t know why this was left to automatic routines? Should be easy to do and shouldn´t effect gameplay at all. Not unless I completly missed something.

(in reply to Magnum88)
Post #: 408
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/29/2011 10:26:19 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
I: industry changes

I know it is not fully historical, but I think it would make the game more interesting:

a) USSR can evacuate only up to maybe 60%-70% of industry in each town (of each kind)
b) The generic industry remaining in Soviet town should be not totally destroyed but down to 0% when town is taken. Initiating the rebuilding would cost some action points and a hefty amount of supplies. Afterwards, the industry would produce as normal for the player. Possibly some amount of hiwis would be employed at such factories. The AP fee would correspond to redirecting effort to understand the factory, whereas supplies would cover rebuilding the industry. Rebuilding would start at 0% and current size of the factory. Captured (i.e. opposing nation) factories would work at lower efficiency (maybe efficiency for Germans would depend on number of hiwis available). The amount of supplies required to make the factory to work should be maybe 25% of the cost of building a new factory (see c).
The non-generic factories could not be used, but could be restarted if retaken by the USSR (again for a fee in AP and supplies).
c) The player also should be able to set up new industry in any town, for much bigger amount of AP and supplies. Such industry could be both generic and non-generic, producing specific equipment. New factory would start at size 1 and 0% and be repaired over time. Expansion of factories would be possible (cost supplies+AP). Expansion should be very slightly cheaper than building a new generic factory of the same kind, but much cheaper for equipment.
d) the manpower points should also be used to create hiwis, but at a rather low rate (everywhere were guys willing to help nazi for a pay, not that many, but maybe 5-10% of the manpower would). Again, those hiwis would work in factories.

Such changes would make the cities much more valuable than now; now cities are sort of valuable almost only for the USSR; for Germany, the value is just in denying them to the USSR. After the changes the cities would become valuable for both players, and keeping the city would be of high importance.

Additionally, the heavy industry would become important, as I guess the limiting factor should be the supplies, not the AP. Finally, those would give the player some chance to adjust the equipment (if that is too risky and may lead to 'playing the system', make it only available for heavy industry/ armaments/ vehicles, but I think it would be ok).

II: Supply network changes. Here, the goal here is to make the game actually more historical. I guess those were is some shape already proposed...

a) Allow the troops to fight, as long as they have enough ammunition to fight. No matter whether they are on the supply network or not. Note that when unit is fully surrounded, and has no way to escape, it may fight harder than when it has hope to escape (as in Sun Tzu: To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape);
b) Make the supply network to the HQ reaching maximum 10 hexes / 20MP from the hex which was an allied hex before movement in the next turn. So, if there is a large tank exploitation, the HQ will most likely be out of supply the next turn, which will have bad effects on the tanks. The units would be allowed to fight, as in a). The same applies for mud etc.

c) Make the amount of supplies which can be transferred through the hex limited. This could depend on terrain too and . Single hex should not be enough to support whole army; maybe an amount corresponding to 3 panzer divisions/corps would be maximum what a single hex could send supplies for; Tanks would need fuel too, and a single hex should only allow for full supply of a single tank corps/ panzer division. The road network would just not allow for transferring much larger amount of goods through a hex, especially in the USSR (might in Germany, but only for Germans).
d) Consider transferring supplies through the hexes which are adjacent to enemy hexes much more limited. Transferring through hexes which are adjacent to 2-3 enemy hexes should be even more limited. Transferring through hexes adjacent to 4 enemy hexes should be almost impossible. Probably the simplest method to achieve that is to make an algorithm which links the amount of supplies transferred through the hexes to the mp spend.

Rules about routing/shattering/surrendering are IMHO good and should remain unchanged.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 409
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/29/2011 2:11:15 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1242
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

I: industry changes



Oh please no. We're now talking about not creating a historical simulation, or even a playable wargame, just a fish-shooting match that one player wins all of the time. You're going to end up with a situation where the German production is so high by the end of 1941 that they will out-produce the Soviets throughout the war.

Show me some historical basis to prove that the Axis were able to recruit large numbers of troops from captured Soviet cities (remember that "manpower" is also a factory type), or put significant amounts of Soviet industry to use in producing German armaments for the front line. How many Panthers were produced in Kiev?


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 410
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/29/2011 2:54:46 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6299
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Give the Soviet player the ability to create airbases. I don´t know why this was left to automatic routines? Should be easy to do and shouldn´t effect gameplay at all. Not unless I completly missed something.


I love this idea, btw.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 411
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/29/2011 3:09:55 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
1. Tie historic changes to actual events in game. For example, if the Soviets have contained the Axis advances and are pushing back in '42 would they necessary start large scale changes to the Red Army doctrine/structure. In Stalin's eyes, why fix something that is not broke. So a Soviet player that does much better than historic may not get Mech/Tank/Cav/Inf corps or Artillery divisions. I am sure some well-read experts can correct me but were these changes already in place before the war or a required change because, in real life, what they were using was not working.


Nice idea! But probably hard to implement. Game benefits might not be worth the effort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
2. In the same vein, if the Soviets are doing better than historically, would the Allies be as generous with Lend-Lease? They were not friends before the war and weren't after. It was a marriage of convenience and Lend-Lease was enacted to help them stay in the war when they appeared to be on the ropes. If the Red Army is starting to push back well ahead of historic timeline, would the Allies still help them as much so they could take most of western Europe or would they draw down the assistance?


I like this one too! This has the added benefit of working as a kind of auto-balancer of the game, so would be beneficial from a playability and play balance perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
3. A little variability in factory evacuations. Have factory evacuations be scheduled a turn in advance and have a chance that they may be delayed due to unforseen circumstances (random roll with some input due to weather). The Soviet player would have to allow more time to evacuate factories, requiring more forward defences with the possibility that things can and will go wrong. If an evacuation is delayed or its evacuation is cut off by Axis action the rail points are freed up for troop movements.


Also a good idea, but the variability would have to be kept within limits or apply to only parts of an evacuation. As factory evacuations are really the crucial war (or game)-deciding thing, you would not want to lose the game to a bad evacuation roll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88
4. Large structural change. Have a mechanic that allows units to do a combat supply that uses rail points. Basic supply would be assumed but would only allow for a normal CV for defense but a reduction for attacks. In order to have the normal CV for attack combat supplies would be drawn from the supply system as long as rail capacity was available. This would prevent large scale offenses along the entire front, unless enough rail capacity was available.


Yes, attack supply could have been better handled. There have been a number of suggestions on this.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 9/29/2011 3:11:11 PM >

(in reply to Magnum88)
Post #: 412
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/29/2011 4:04:41 PM   
Archangel85

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/15/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

I: industry changes



Oh please no. We're now talking about not creating a historical simulation, or even a playable wargame, just a fish-shooting match that one player wins all of the time. You're going to end up with a situation where the German production is so high by the end of 1941 that they will out-produce the Soviets throughout the war.

Show me some historical basis to prove that the Axis were able to recruit large numbers of troops from captured Soviet cities (remember that "manpower" is also a factory type), or put significant amounts of Soviet industry to use in producing German armaments for the front line. How many Panthers were produced in Kiev?



Well, the Germans did keep the lines for the 76mm AT gun running to equip the Marders.

At least the production in Axis cities should be able to be changed and expanded.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 413
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/30/2011 5:16:31 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Oh please no. We're now talking about not creating a historical simulation, or even a playable wargame, just a fish-shooting match that one player wins all of the time. You're going to end up with a situation where the German production is so high by the end of 1941 that they will out-produce the Soviets throughout the war.

Show me some historical basis to prove that the Axis were able to recruit large numbers of troops from captured Soviet cities (remember that "manpower" is also a factory type), or put significant amounts of Soviet industry to use in producing German armaments for the front line. How many Panthers were produced in Kiev?



Nobody is talking about recruiting troops, but about putting workers into factories.

As for historical simulation, I understand your concerns... but the trouble is that historically the SU was badly commanded not only tactically but also strategically for quite some time and won nevertheless. On the other hand, German strategic command was at least decent.

This is reflected in the game - once can commanded SU as you like, you will win, unless you made horrible mistakes (or in other words the German commander is really much better than you). And not letting the SU player to do what he/she wants is not fun (i.e. no, you cannot move those units which are going to be surrounded because Stalin told no).

I believe for a game to be fun, there must be more or less equal chance for either side to win. As it is now, it is not (the few true Germans wins are mostly because Russian quit a bit too easily). I believe that the industry change would make the game more fun, and give some reason for the Germans to 'fight the war' and SU to defend and fight for towns. At the moment, even a relatively inexperienced player like me can bounce back pretty well when playing as a SU.

Additionally see, that what I propose means that you need to keep the city for some half a year to benefit from some of the production. This is a long time and gives chance for SU to attack; Also, most of the production is concentrated in the cities which are within reach of good 41 blizzard offensive - as such Germans would need to fight much harder.

As for the historical accuracy, well. Do you think that a conserves produced in Minsk could not be sold in Germany at any point? Do you think that Soviet vehicles were not used to transport any goods in Russia by the Germans, even when contracted by a Russian company? All those relieves strain on the German production - so it can be counted as production towards Germany.

This is also why not all the production cannot be evacuated (see the quote beneath too)... Please check that I did not suggest that Tigers should be coming out of Kharkov... just the generics... and not that much, just to balance the game a bit more. As playing a balanced game is fun, whereas playing unbalanced game is not that much fun.

Also, a quote from Time magazine does show that running the factories by the Germans were taken as a possibility:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,773369,00.html [Monday, Aug 03 1942]

'Air Power. Not planes in operation but plane-production figures win future battles. Now British and German plane production are believed about equal, U.S. production 50% higher than Germany's, Russia's somewhat lower. If the Germans could get captured Russian aircraft factories into operation, the scales would tip ominously closer to parity. Total destruction of such plants so that they will not fall into enemy hands is a tough job, for which the Russians have little time as they fall back.'

As such, not as unhistorical as you suggest, that is my opinion. Giving more strategic options - I like it. And, if done correctly, balancing the game, which, I think, is important...

Thanks for your input!

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 414
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/30/2011 10:33:38 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
Labour productivity in occupied territory is generally appallingly low. The German efforts to produce planes in western european factories are an example of that. Producing planes in captured Russian factories would have been a waste of precious resources.

What is completely under utilised in this game is the standing mechanism for employing captured equipment. This was a vast resource for all the Axis countries and certainly both Germany and Romania did tool numerous factories both to modify various tanks and guns for their own use and also to produce improved ammunition for them. Surely all it would take is a tweek at the % captured equipment employed to make this strange and currently useless appendix to the game work in an historical way.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 415
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/1/2011 4:23:03 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Labour productivity in occupied territory is generally appallingly low. The German efforts to produce planes in western european factories are an example of that. Producing planes in captured Russian factories would have been a waste of precious resources.

What is completely under utilised in this game is the standing mechanism for employing captured equipment. This was a vast resource for all the Axis countries and certainly both Germany and Romania did tool numerous factories both to modify various tanks and guns for their own use and also to produce improved ammunition for them. Surely all it would take is a tweek at the % captured equipment employed to make this strange and currently useless appendix to the game work in an historical way.


I kind of agree with low productivity outside Germany. Still, I like the mechanism I proposed (and I think that I put the low productivity into it pretty well). As for the captured equipment I do not think it would have a significant influence on the game.

My goal in proposing the changes was to make the fight a bit more meaningful and give a reason for each player to fight for cities etc. However, you seem to suggest a different mechanism - make the resources in USSR really meaningful for the Germans, so they need them to keep their production going, whereas the Russian need manpower from the cities. I think, actually, that that mechanism would be complementary to what I proposed, regarding industry. In short, if Germany have enough resources to run their factories in homeland (which is generally the case in the game), they can think about restarting the factories in Russia, as every bit of production helps...

Thanks for your response!

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 416
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/5/2011 10:02:02 PM   
Rom3l

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 1/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

By way of Lannister at www.puntadelanza.es, a couple requests/suggestions:

1. Something that would add some chrome to Wite would be the ability to add their historical badges to Axis units. This could be achieved by having some "generic" badges (country flags) somewhere in Dat/Art/Units which would be loaded if there wasn't present in that folder a file with a specific filename. For instance, if the file "logo814.tga" was present, then Unit 814 - 11 PzDiv - would have its generic badge replaced. Here's a mockup of what I have in mind:



2. Something that would probably help to better navigate the command structure would be that when the unit info panel is invoked by clicking on a combat unit ID appearing on the ATTACHED UNITS list in HQ unit info panel, a link that brought you to the location of the unit appeared (very much like as you can do from the Command Report).



+1

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 417
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/6/2011 9:54:08 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The game allows for leaders to be killed, but what about injury?  Was that skipped?

(in reply to Rom3l)
Post #: 418
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/21/2011 11:03:51 AM   
Djouk

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline
And i wonder How some leaders may be killed. I m not loosing some leaders with hq just near the front but that s not the case for leaders far from front. Enemy didn t launched air raid on such hq far from front too so i wonder why... May be partisans ? Auto kill suicide ? ... Just a little explanation needed.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 419
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/21/2011 5:09:46 PM   
Franklin Nimitz

 

Posts: 541
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline
How about a link or list in the Equipment tab of the CR that lists the OOB's (including future OOBs) that use a particular equipment item?

(in reply to Djouk)
Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   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

0.126