My first wishes are for a simpler, more transparent, combat engine that operates faster. Oh, and also faster save/restore. Easy to understand the latter, but former is worth explaining.
I see the great details of equipment definition and the variety of types of units, force details, TOEs as eye candy. Nice to see and I value it-makes play interesting. But trying to get and prove historical realism in outcomes of individual battles, bullet by shell by bayonet, seems impossible. Many posts suggest this (recent post disputed coded effects of sub-machine guns units vs. mixed arms units, etc. ) Sorry, it might matter if ever perfected, but at some point it becomes moot. And the trade-off is game performance.
How about working paint schemes into the game. Did camo paint for air, ground, or fortifications matter? Gee, lets model that, provide opportunities for gaming choices and argue about it. Sorry for the mild sarcasm.
Understand that the development team does do simulation work for military professional instruction and compliment them for that, but hope that they could make a smoother operating game that retains realism and effective combat simulation. Simulation should not require bullet-by-bullet coding.
Great game, though.
< Message edited by rrbill -- 3/8/2013 12:39:14 PM >