Matrix Games Forums

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  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/17/2012 7:13:36 AM   

Posts: 15426
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: online
Afaik, Slitherine tracks amount of reloads/saves (don't know much about the details). Providing it from the server game wouldn't be too difficult if such tracking exists. To implement it in classical PBEM in efficient way would be much more difficult.


Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 451
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/17/2012 8:59:32 AM   


Posts: 2054
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The Russian People's Militia divisions begin with an experience level at about 30, the same as any other freshly built rifle divisions.  I thought the PM personnel were just part of the basic populace taken from the local big city.  Does this mean the other rifle divisions are drawing from just the basic populace, with no training before going into the units?

It also seems weird that some units deployed in the field before the invasion would have an experience level under 30.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 452
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/17/2012 11:02:48 AM   

Posts: 15426
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: online

I thought the PM personnel were just part of the basic populace taken from the local big city. Does this mean the other rifle divisions are drawing from just the basic populace, with no training before going into the units?

I some cases PM units were even more experienced and in fact they were not much different from the "normal" divisions as all officer stuff were taken from cadre army. Later they all have been converted to usual army units.

Random Soviet morale levels in June 1941 is different issue.


Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 453
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/17/2012 12:54:52 PM   


Posts: 21
Joined: 10/13/2011
Status: offline

I think the problem with the strategic side of the game is that the German can squeeze 20% improvement (over historical distance covered and losses Germany suffers) out of the freedom enabled by the game in 1941, whereas the Soviet Side can squeeze about 50% improvement (speaking to losses, saved industry, and army/air force organizational efficiency improvements) out of the freedom in 1941.

Thus, to me, WitE hands Germany a net 30% disadvantage over history in 1941, and that will be leveraged into further disadvantage in subsequent years. It is a recipe for me for an unenjoyable game, and for now at least, I've started my last game. I won't play Soviet because it's still too easy. I won't play Germany again because it's just not worth the time investment for the frustrating impotence you are handcuffed with, forced to deal with watching the Soviet scurry eastward just fast enough that you can't do anything meaningful (like damage factories or capture manpower) about it.

(sorry for the poor english I'm not a native english-speaker)
I couldn't agree more: I have identified precisely the same problem

However, although I am no "german fanboy" or anything like that, I believe the "margin of improvement" to be of a very different nature for Germans and Russians. If, for the Wehrmacht, the improvement lies in strategic and operational issues, ultimately a question of decisions, for the Red Army the improvement actually implies a radically different doctrine : in other words, if playing better, as the German, consists in making better strategic and operational decisions, which is not historically implausible, and therefore fits in a simulation model, playing better as the Russian consists in mastering the principle of elastic and in-depth defence from the very beginning of the campaign, which is, according to me, historically implausible to say the least.
Indeed, the Red Army was conceived as an offensive army. Its physiognomy was determined by its offensive doctrine, that had been honed since its birth
back in the early days of the Revolution, and had know significant theoretical developemnt in the early 30's. This offensive doctrine impregnated the training of every officer, from the General Staff downwards to the platoon commander.
So I believe that the offensive disposition of the Red Army, and therefore its incapacity to implement the sort of optimum strategy that WITE players favour, is a sort of in-built, inherent, characteristic. And in the same way WITE as a simulation respects the material characteristics of the equipment and all - Sturmgeschützen don't fly - the Red Army should not be allowed to do something it was intrinsically incapable of doing: it took one full-year of experiencing disastrous counter-attacks, forced retreats and routs, and being bashed to bits before the Red Army started to integrate the principle and value of retreat as a deliberate element of its operational doctrine.
Now, all this could be splitting hairs, but I think this could provide us with a consistent reason to narrow this "margin of improvemnt" of the Red Army, that, obviously, hurts the game a little.
Indeed, I believe, and this is the only reason why I mention this, that if the German could inflict closer to reality 1941 casualties, probably by creating the large historical pockets such as are never seen in a game with a half-competent Russian player, the game would be a lot more tense, including , and maybe especially in 1942.
Now, how to constrain the strategic and operational freedom of the Red Army in game-terms?
Some have suggested fewer movemnt points (preferably a randomized reduction) and that isn't a bad idea, but it wouldn't invite to much counter-attacking anyway.
What I thought of is something like, randomly assigning (maybe modified by the pol rating of the leader) some sectors/HQ's/a mixture of both to the AI at the very beginning of the Russian turn (with the AI set on "aggressive mode"). This would account for the silly counter-attack and no-retreat orders, whose implementation, and ensuing failure, were a necessary step in the maturation of the Red Army. This would still create interesting dilemmas, such as abandoning the units that counter-attacked to their fate, or somehow try and protect them from being encircled, at the risk of suffering more. We could also include a "disobedience" sub-game, where the leader rolls his political rating in order to be freed from the obligation (failure would implie removal/execution). This, of course, could be applicable to the Germans later in the war (how else would precious leaders such as Guderian and Manstein be disposed of in a normal WITE game?)
Obviously, this "overtaking by the AI" would gradually diminish with time. But I think that allowing some premature wasting of Soviet offensive potential à la Kharkov offensive would also be beneficial to the game and to how long it can remain a tense and interesting challenge. Indeed, that fact that it seems more or less admitted (am I right?) that the best Soviet strategy is the general withdrawal without ever initiating combat, and then hoarding forces until in a position to launch an unstoppable juggernaut poses a real problem in terms of intensity and interactivity, and leads to justified comments and loss of interest such as the one I quoted
Anyway, that was just brainstorming, awaiting for the enlightened judgement of the Community...

< Message edited by Guru -- 1/17/2012 12:57:35 PM >

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 454
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/18/2012 3:38:34 PM   


Posts: 42
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline
Is this threat will be used by conceptors of this game ?
Why not apply soft factor on fourth corners of counters in applying what i said about fortitication marker.
A soft factor with fatigue may be usefull.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 455
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/24/2012 10:31:01 PM   


Posts: 245
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the only thing I'd like to see is more element slots for the combat units.

Panzer Divisions in particular can easily get filled to the max in the early game...and it only gets worse from their. Many pieces of equipment are not included at all.

Double or even triple the amount would be awesome.

(in reply to Djouk)
Post #: 456
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/25/2012 6:11:09 AM   


Posts: 19
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
I'd like to see an Early Barbarossa Scenario, starting about 22 May 1941.  As of now, the editor will not allow the start date of Barbarossa to be changed to a date prior to 22 June 1941. 

This scenario would assume the anti-Axis coup in Yugoslavia in March 1941 never took place.  The coup forced the Germans to divert several important divisions to put down the coup during March-April 1941, thus delaying the start of Barbarossa.  

(in reply to TAIL_GUNNER)
Post #: 457
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/26/2012 12:01:09 AM   

Posts: 1251
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline


Indeed, I believe, and this is the only reason why I mention this, that if the German could inflict closer to reality 1941 casualties, probably by creating the large historical pockets such as are never seen in a game with a half-competent Russian player, the game would be a lot more tense, including , and maybe especially in 1942.

I think you are perhaps playing an older version of the game.

In the current 1.05.53 version 1942 is already very hard for the Russians. Any competent German player can take Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov, and seriously threaten Stalingrad and beyond. Already in the AARs we are seeing massive gains by German players in 1942, and any attempt to stop these just results in huge encirclements, from which the Russian players can't recover even into 1944 and 1945.

I think if you want to make it even easier for the Germans in 1942, say make it that most German players can push the Russians back to the Urals and Baku by the end of 1942, then you have a less interesting game.

To reply to another earlier message, are the developers still reading this thread or is best to post elsewhere?



(in reply to Guru)
Post #: 458
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/26/2012 2:07:03 AM   


Posts: 45
Joined: 1/6/2012
Status: offline
Ditto on what Tail_Gunner said. Certain units can not be edited with accuracy because the space is not available.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 459
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/26/2012 2:29:25 AM   


Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline
I would like to see more effects of politics on the overall decisions that the commander has to manage. Simply put I could envision a popup choice with ie, defend a certain city, counterattack with units in a certain area etc.

The reprecussions of not doing the political choice fully would result in loss of the leader(s) near the area concern. That leader will not be available to the player for x period of time and the replacement leader will be a political leader that can't be removed for x number of turns.

Something like this could be used for both sides.

(in reply to Tentpeg)
Post #: 460
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/30/2012 12:44:11 AM   

Posts: 216
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
Please make Air and Ground HQ's look different from each other.  I suggest adding the "sideways" figure 8 to the Air HQ's symbol.


Two broken Tigers on fire in the night,
Flicker their souls to the wind...

Al Stewart, "Roads to Moscow"

(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 461
% TOE Filter - 2/5/2012 6:50:05 PM   

Posts: 216
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
The Commanders Report for Air Group display has a Pct Ready function that allows selection of a range of ready aircraft in an air group.

I like to set ground units with less than 50% TOE to Refit mode. It would be helpful if there was a Pct TOE filter on the Commanders Report Units display that allowed selecting a TOE range. Then I could select a range from 0 to 49 % TOE and change all the units to Refit mode at once.

Once the units had attained 50% TOE I could then select a range from 50 to 100% TOE and change all the units back to Ready mode.

< Message edited by Shupov -- 2/5/2012 6:54:04 PM >


Two broken Tigers on fire in the night,
Flicker their souls to the wind...

Al Stewart, "Roads to Moscow"

(in reply to Shupov)
Post #: 462
RE: Game Suggestions: - 2/6/2012 8:46:20 AM   

Posts: 433
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
I think territory should mean something. I don't support putting in rules not allowing the German to retreat, or forcing the Soviet to counter-attack, but why not give points per turn that objectives are held, similar to what the scenarios have? That way, its not a no-brainer on whether the Soviets run to the east at the start, they need to factor in holding territory (a little bit), and likewise, its not a no-brainer for the German to retreat to the west before blizzard. You still might elect to do those things, but pay a small price on victory points.

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 463
RE: Game Suggestions: - 2/6/2012 12:14:35 PM   


Posts: 42
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline
Why not allow to carry on a game against ia when a player resigned ? Or to play vs ia a muliplayer game still in play ? i also recognize it s hard to be objective with this game, tentation is great to customize it as i would like and i try to respect some historical aspects. About german withdrawals conceptors have done a fabulous work but i wonder why some divisions are just here for just few turns or retired when they occupy vital areas. Italians are there then disapear they just got an invitation and go home. I suppose that historically all these withdrawals came with reserve units and or with global european strategy. Finally trying to absolutely respecting history give this strange aspect of the game because are we hold to follow Big strategy of this era even if in fact entire outcome of this war is here in russia ? It would be simple to let or no withdrawals with an option at start of a game. So with no withdrawals why not giving more or less forces to the axis but letting him develop its own global strategy just acting on reserve pool ? Yes i imagine conceptors are responding me just to wait an overall bigger game at all eureopean scale where you could also change all production... Go to Time of fury , ok but this game go far from realism and history !

< Message edited by Djouk -- 2/10/2012 10:33:17 AM >

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 464
RE: Game Suggestions: - 2/16/2012 4:20:36 AM   


Posts: 3156
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I got a suggestion concerning interdictions after noticing an issue that possibly could be used by the those inclined to do so.

While playing russian I many times have find my self in a situasion where I have low moral units that I need to move back 10+ hexes to get the refit moral bonus. I noticed how many times where near the end of that kinda move those units get interdicted. Its outside the range of the short legged german figthers. Not that many Me110 to go around. Meaning i have a field day killing the longer ranged unescorted level bombers.

Now if i was an evil man i'd take X number of units and run North/South out side the figther escort range of the intediction mission. Peppering that area with airbases/interceptors and i'd be killing lots of level bombers. Even if u not evil it still happens unintentionallyl, but the possibility for abuse excists.
Not much u can do about it as opponent. The only control u have over interdiction missions is whether to have em at all by percentages.
The missions em self are entirely computer controlled for obvious reasons.

What about making some adjustments. Things i could think off, off the bat. No idea the program'ability of em.

1. No interdiction outside escort range

2. A button on or off above suggestion.

3. Allowing players to set a max range for interdictions in hexes. Either from airbase or own controlled hexes, i guess.

4 Suggestion for other and better ideas appriciated.

Kind regards,


< Message edited by Walloc -- 2/16/2012 4:29:12 AM >

(in reply to Djouk)
Post #: 465
RE: Game Suggestions: - 2/20/2012 9:49:24 AM   


Posts: 6
Joined: 9/26/2005
From: Italy
Status: offline
some suggestions :

1) Maskirovka.  From mid 43 on Axis recon was often inable to spot russian units, army , fronts. Is this reflected in the game mechanics ? The Partisans also must be  able to increase the DL of axis units not only adiacent but also moving near.

2)  Partisans : in the game are essentially abstracted, why don't permit to the soviet player to launch partisans offensives (as historically happened  before kursk or Bagration) ? the soviet select an hex and, with an AP cost, for a turn all the partisans unit in a xy range may do greater damage in more hexes but then will convert to cadre.

3) Festung : the AI is unable to create fortified lines or cities, historically the axis created many fortified lines, and many cities were transofrmed in festung.  So why don't create them automatically ? when a russian unit move within 5 hexes of Kustrin,  Konigsberg , Memel and the other cities historically transformed in fortresses then will appear a fort 3 counter. The same per fortified lines like Panther.


(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 466
RE: Game Suggestions: - 2/24/2012 8:56:44 PM   


Posts: 27
Joined: 5/19/2011
Status: offline

Great product. some ideas that I have based on playing for a few months:

When a HQ is destroyed, instead of the total manpower and support units remaining in tact, just the commander and small staff has a chance of being flown out of the pocket. A chance relative to the distance between where they are destroyed and where they reappear. The way it is now, too many units survive for no apparent reason and cross great distances too.

Open cockpit, Ground attack and very old Soviet planes get stripped of their oxygen. This would result in low max altitudes and give the Germans the advantage they need, in the air, for the first few months of the war.

As far as balance in the GC, maybe we can try a combo of No Soviet Turn 1. Just 2 German turns in a row but only movement in the North and Center for the first turn. The lack of a Soviet turn 1 would emulate Stalins paralysis in the first few days and the lack of movement on the southern front would represent the lower quality of roads, compared to the North.

(in reply to Shane95)
Post #: 467
RE: Game Suggestions: - 3/30/2012 5:08:20 PM   


Posts: 46
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
I still think the GC victory conditions need improvement to place some importance to holding key locations during the campaign and not just at the end, like with the smaller scenarios. Keep the present conditions as the "official" victory conditions and add a per turn victory point accumulation that can be tracked over time. Additionally, have a bonus one-time score for taking certain cities by a certain turn. This could give both players an incentive to stand their ground. This would allow the player base to decide a good winning score in comparison to other games. As a side benefit it could give players hope if they perceive they have had a bad opening. On the website a chart of high, low, and average scores per turn could be posted, taken from server games, and allow players to compare their progress against others and and the resulting final score.

Another suggestion would be to have a minimum strategic movement cost based on a fixed percentage of unit maximum not current TOE. I have heard how cheap it is to move shell units around as the Soviet player because the bulk of the equipment and manpower for these reconstituted/newly organized units is moved as reinforcements and abstracted into the supply system so it is essentially free in strategic movement terms. This would put more stress on the Soviet player to balance troop movement with factory evacuation. Currently, it seems an experienced Soviet player has no problems evacuating all the important factories, except the lost causes at the start (i.e. Minsk).

Finally, pocketed territory should only slowly change control automatically. It seems absurd that the Axis closes the Pripyat Marsh pocket and the next week huge amounts of territory change control. Enemy hexes in encircled areas not occupied by or within the ZOC of an enemy unit and within 9 MPs of a friendly controlled hex would change control. Use a hypothetical 70 morale non-motorized unit for MP calculations (representing rear area security forces). This would mean up to 3 hexes along the edges of the pocket would change control.

< Message edited by Magnum88 -- 3/30/2012 5:21:38 PM >

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 468
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/2/2012 12:41:13 PM   


Posts: 42
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline
Look like nobody s talking about intelligence services. This is just an idea to add fun to this game. Belligerant got some good or bad informations about was doing other camp. I learned that Hitler didn t pay much attention to these informations and he paid moreover for that ... And you know that soviets with enigma decrypting knew when how and where and with who would be fought kursk battle. Each camp tried to confuse the other too, this is a war into the war. Dont need to do something complex, just inform players where some general are affected, where some big armies are massed etc... This being right or wrong because this may also be a ruse game ! This could be more complex giving for example points to players which at some moment will increase false informations as a diversion for major offensives. Many ideas may come with this approach. Historically i assume that allies had a great advantage but i plaid for a random or equilibre statut, it s a luck that enigma was analysed by allies and that axis didn t discovered this. I remember that moreover admiral canaris chief of an intelligence service was a traitor to axis cause but they got some good informations however.

< Message edited by Djouk -- 4/23/2012 12:14:41 PM >

(in reply to Magnum88)
Post #: 469
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/9/2012 7:21:40 AM   

Posts: 2733
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Things I would like to see:

Movement costs in the opposite direction of the front cost quadruple. Double in the NE(W) SE(W) direction, when a general "do not retreat" order is in effect (for either side)

Get rid of ownership of hexes. It is silly for these large pockets to auto convert control just because a couple divisions met somewhere miles away from the front. If you want to own it, put a unit on it.

Attacking a hex should add a movement cost penalty to it for future units to move in. Movement is time. If it takes full movement to take a hex, then other units will have to wait to enter it, since it took the whole week to take the hex.

Get rid of isolation effects. If a unit has combat supplies, it should be allowed to fight its way out if that is what it wants....but see the first thing I would like to see. ( costs more to move backwards) Most Russians wouldnt even know they were isolated and would probably still be attacking forward. It is also silly that my panzer divisions can ignore a pocket and drive forward. Wouldnt that mean that there is no pocket, and the Russians can just retreat back since there is nobody there holding them (ie the panzers are moving east?) Base surrender on level of supply.

For the first month (July), randomize the Russian morale of the front line units so that some may be strong enough to attack. (or defend). You can still track what it should be, and set it in August. There were many instances of a stubborn defence, or even a few counter attacks.

Get rid of the TOE percentage setting. Instead, allow the TOE of the divisions to be changed manually, but in a one way trip. Just put a minumum time inbetween changes. If you feel the need to change the TOE, you will have to live with it to the next one. Or if you want to get the better ones as the Russians, you will have to go through the worst ones first.


“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to Djouk)
Post #: 470
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/13/2012 4:51:24 PM   


Posts: 10
Joined: 1/27/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I would like to see the Division Sized unit represented like War in Russia, you know what Regiments were apart of it, and you can transfer regiments from Division to Division. I have War in the East, who knows maybe it's there and I missed it. It's a little generic to see Men / Tanks / Guns, but not have the ability to put select SS Units, or Guard Units into the Divisions to create elite Divisions etc.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 471
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/24/2012 2:35:18 PM   


Posts: 41
Joined: 3/24/2012
Status: offline
After playing so many hours I sometimes get a feeling "what am I doing here", just moving counters around a virtual map.

Why don't you put more flavour in the game? At a marginal cost and without technical problems you could make it more fun.

For example:

Show me some pictures! Human faces!

Why not name a few guys who got medals of honour (Red banner oder Ritterkreuz) after successful battles.
You could also promote these guys, a Major gets Colonel because he distinguished in combat. And then General Major, and after another promotion, to Generalleutnant (2-Stars-General) he arrives in the leader pool...

You could list the men in the divisional statistics who got medals of honour. This would show the experience of the unit in the number of medals.
Maybe you could even allow to manually transfer these guys to inexperienced units to train them faster.

Why not summarize important battles in a "newspaper style". Conquered so many factories, people, and so on...

I miss the messages about the civilian population.
How many are working to build my fortifications? How many are happy/unhappy with my presence.

I would like to be able to influence the populations moral:
If I do not take away all their food and transport, their moral and loyalty rises, if I take it away completely, it falls.
Even the amount of people going to partisan units or joining German side as Hiwis could be changed by my decisions.

Historically these were important issues. The German side could have much more supported a Ucrainian National Movement and also a white Russian movement (Wlassow). These may be political matters, but the Hiwis are already part of the game, so why not make it flexible and allow the player to make decisions

It would be nice if I could give parts of my front to the AI, and command only the parts of the front I want to. For example I can choose for each Army if I take control or the AI.
This would save time, precious time, for this game is a monster time killer.

A future pipe dream: I can take a look at the battlefield as a General in an egoshooter-3D-animation, for example in a breakthrough situation. Remember: Tank units offensives are to be led in a frontline HQ, not 50 miles backwards, was a German doctrine!
This would add a tactical level. You decide if and how to attack after taking a look through binoculars or watching the reconnaissance unit moving forward.

< Message edited by Tauroggen -- 4/24/2012 2:38:21 PM >

(in reply to orey22)
Post #: 472
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/25/2012 1:45:25 AM   


Posts: 20
Joined: 12/28/2010
Status: offline
A WOTIF section for scenario's.


1. Operation SeaLion had been a success and allowed the Germans to move all of their forces except some occupying forces to the East in time for the invasion of Russia?

2. The Germans decided to put more troops into North Africa resulting in the Germans and Italians successfully taking Cario/Alexandria and the middle east threatening Southern Russia.

3. DDay is a failure allowing the Germans to transfer 75% of the western fronts troops to the east in say early August 1944?

4. What if battle of Berlin; Hitler moved the 6th SS Panzer Army to Berlin rather than south to Budapest?

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 473
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/29/2012 4:19:08 AM   
Captain B

Posts: 361
Joined: 8/30/2009
From: Knoxville, Tennessee
Status: offline
Any thought to adding factories captured/destroyed to the casualty list? Or to a separate listing? Or to the commander's report? Would be handy to know how many Factories have been eliminated and won't be there to arm future units.


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 1jasonoz)
Post #: 474
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/7/2012 4:22:37 AM   


Posts: 6
Joined: 5/1/2012
Status: offline
As with previous posters, I apologize in advance for repetition. This is a magnificent game. I have been playing divisional level games since the original SPI War in the East. I had war in Europe set up in my bedroom for months in 1774-75 and I slept under the game table. The interaction of game design features goes a long way toward addressing time synchronization issues in games of this scale. The supply system is a work of art. The Ai is quite good. So far, I have only played Germans against the AI. Anyway, here are my suggestions:
- I would love to see a unit mode filter in the commanders screen - filter by refit, ready, reserve.
- The unit popup should contain the unit location. I run into this problem when deploying Corps HQ from north to south and lose track of an attached unit.
- When reassigning support units, always display all Army Group HQ.
- Export game to CSV file.
- Copy commanders screen to clipboard so I can paste it into a spreadsheet program. Otherwise I transcribe unit locations into notepad and find them when I close the commander screen.
- I would like to pop up unit detail screen from the commander's report.
- The one change to game mechanics that I would like to see is a mobile unit base moral kicker - maybe 5 points.
- In addition, a nice to have feature in which some Axis units obtain elite status over time in a similar manner as Russian Guards units would be cool. It should be slower than guards unit creation.
- Finally, I searched the most recent documentation for Transit Pool and found no mention. I would love to see a better description of the creation of automatic ground elements - especially those that are manpower dependent.

Thank you for realizing the potential of the PC in divisional level games.

< Message edited by rbm1954 -- 5/7/2012 5:15:34 AM >

(in reply to Captain B)
Post #: 475
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/8/2012 6:57:48 AM   


Posts: 62
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline
I really wish that the interface for selecting and deselecting units was more intuitive and consistent.

On the map you deselect units by right-clicking, but in the unit panel you deselect by left-clicking. Why oh why can't it be by right-clicking as well?

This would also be consistent with other games - Panzer Corps, Total War etc - and it feels right. One system of clicks for the map and another for the panel is a recipe for frustration.

It would be far more intuitive and logical if, in the unit panel, you deselected by right-clicking and brought up the unit details by left-clicking - the opposite of the present system.

No doubt it is too late to change this, but perhaps the developers would give more thought to such matters for future games.

(in reply to rbm1954)
Post #: 476
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/21/2012 3:19:36 PM   

Posts: 988
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Just a quick suggestion, maybe already told by others, to make the Soviet fight for important location.
Give a small national morale bonus for Germany and penality for Soviet if important victory location are taken.
For example, if Moscow fall, soviet get a -X to their national morale untill Moscow is liberated. Axis could get +X bonus if Leningrad or Rostov fall in 1941 etc.
In short, make national morale (a little) tied to territorial gain/loss.



(in reply to Jabba)
Post #: 477
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/21/2012 7:55:12 PM   
Rufus T. Firefly

Posts: 43
Joined: 4/28/2012
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
Not sure I've seen that particular suggestion before. I like it.


Rufus T. Firefly: Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What do you intend to do about it?
Chicolini: I've done it already. I've changed to the other side.
Firefly: What are you doing over here?
Chicolini: Well, the food is better

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 478
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/28/2012 6:48:48 PM   


Posts: 1938
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Yes, it's a good suggestion and it's been made before.

A couple of suggestions from me.
I'd like to see Soviet armored units with large numbers of T-34s or KV-1s given much more punch.At the moment the Axis player couldn't care less about them.They should fear them.
German units equipped with 88mm guns should be worth their weight in gold in 1941.You don't get any sense of this historical truth in the game.
I'd also like to see Soviet anti tank brigades play a more important role in the game.The German player should sweat just a little when his panzer divisions meet one of these units.

A blizzard scenario would be cool, (pun intended).

< Message edited by timmyab -- 5/28/2012 7:01:52 PM >

(in reply to Rufus T. Firefly)
Post #: 479
RE: Game Suggestions: - 5/28/2012 9:21:08 PM   

Posts: 3161
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
I am not sure individual equipment would show at the level of WITE. Anecdotes always tend to emphasize the most effective and/or scary type of equipment regardless of its actual prevalence. Americans were always attacked by Tiger tanks, all Germans in trouble on the Eastern front were always assailed by T-34s, and 88s broke up every allied offensive.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   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