Matrix Games Forums

The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game Suggestions: new features

 
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: new features Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 [20] 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 4/15/2013 10:21:17 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The price tag keeps away the riff raff.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to peter333)
Post #: 571
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 4/15/2013 10:35:25 PM   
peter333

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/21/2012
Status: offline
well it appears not to be working

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 572
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 4/15/2013 11:16:44 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
True, they need to charge more......

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to peter333)
Post #: 573
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 4/16/2013 12:22:09 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2311
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
When you average the cost down to a per hour of playtime, you find that it is less than a penny an hour after a year or two of good playing. My son paid $49 for a video game that he beat with less than 20 hours of play time. So he paid about $2.50/hour. That is not even a single campaign game vs the AI in WitE.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 574
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 4/16/2013 7:05:27 PM   
peter333

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/21/2012
Status: offline
i get the same thing with Civ 5 and its half the price of this game. I had the original game back in the days and it did not cost that much then. There is no question that it is a good game but its simply overpriced. If they sold it for $50 it would sell twice or three times as much and get younger people into these types of games.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 575
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/17/2013 6:57:55 PM   
The Guru

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
I (too) have a problem with the omnipresence of 1-Combat value units. I guess that CV is always rounded up to 1, so anything from 0.1 to 0.9 shown as CV 1. The problem is that, if dealing with higher numbers you - and the opponent - can see the difference betwenn a force and another force twice as strong, evreything under 1 Cv is levelled, so as 0.1 and a 0.9 will show 1, even if the second's CV is 900% (!!!)of the first. There is absolutely no reason why, under the arbitrary threshold of 1-CV, intelligence about your forces and about enemy forces becomes that nebulous. Regarding your own forces, you can always go through the tedious process of examining each unit's TOE, experience, morale to try and guess its real CV. But you can't do it for enemy forces. Yet, that is fundamental. When your Cv is really low, attacking an enemy with a CV of 1 or with a CV of 0.1 is very different.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 576
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/17/2013 10:55:45 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
I'm lucky I bot early at those price lines, else I'd be sleeping with all the riff-raff.

BTW, think there is too much enemy info displayed before contact/combat. Don't mind knowing stuff, but not just from exposing the tokens. And there does seem to be game code that masks CV values, etc.


(in reply to The Guru)
Post #: 577
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/27/2013 12:36:12 AM   
Simbelmude

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 2/24/2013
Status: offline
I'd love a "are you sure?" button when about to move a multi-unit stack. I have ruined many a turn on server games accidently moving all units sacked in the same hex, when only intending to move one, as more often than not it is not possile to cancel the movement....

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 578
RE: Game Suggestions: - 4/27/2013 12:37:13 AM   
Simbelmude

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 2/24/2013
Status: offline
quote:

I (too) have a problem with the omnipresence of 1-Combat value units. I guess that CV is always rounded up to 1, so anything from 0.1 to 0.9 shown as CV 1. The problem is that, if dealing with higher numbers you - and the opponent - can see the difference betwenn a force and another force twice as strong, evreything under 1 Cv is levelled, so as 0.1 and a 0.9 will show 1, even if the second's CV is 900% (!!!)of the first. There is absolutely no reason why, under the arbitrary threshold of 1-CV, intelligence about your forces and about enemy forces becomes that nebulous. Regarding your own forces, you can always go through the tedious process of examining each unit's TOE, experience, morale to try and guess its real CV. But you can't do it for enemy forces. Yet, that is fundamental. When your Cv is really low, attacking an enemy with a CV of 1 or with a CV of 0.1 is very different.


+1 !!!!

(in reply to Simbelmude)
Post #: 579
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/6/2013 10:16:29 PM   
Rom3l

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Simbelmude

quote:

I (too) have a problem with the omnipresence of 1-Combat value units. I guess that CV is always rounded up to 1, so anything from 0.1 to 0.9 shown as CV 1. The problem is that, if dealing with higher numbers you - and the opponent - can see the difference betwenn a force and another force twice as strong, evreything under 1 Cv is levelled, so as 0.1 and a 0.9 will show 1, even if the second's CV is 900% (!!!)of the first. There is absolutely no reason why, under the arbitrary threshold of 1-CV, intelligence about your forces and about enemy forces becomes that nebulous. Regarding your own forces, you can always go through the tedious process of examining each unit's TOE, experience, morale to try and guess its real CV. But you can't do it for enemy forces. Yet, that is fundamental. When your Cv is really low, attacking an enemy with a CV of 1 or with a CV of 0.1 is very different.


+1 !!!!



+1

(in reply to Simbelmude)
Post #: 580
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/7/2013 1:05:07 PM   
Lictuel

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 4/18/2013
Status: offline
Isn't the exact cv shown when you hover your mouse of the stack? It is being shown to me for friendly units. So no need to guess, but you have to check stack by stack ofc.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Rom3l)
Post #: 581
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/9/2013 3:55:46 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
Not sure if this has been suggested. But breakdowns for the allied security divisions. Or deploy them as regiments (which has the charm of being a scenario design fix). Does anyone really believe these units operated in a 10 KM area?

(in reply to Lictuel)
Post #: 582
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/6/2013 4:52:04 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
in re deployment of security... believe any units behind fronts should be distributed more widely than even 10km...

Speaks for using a multiple hex "area" garrison concept rather than a hex occupation idea... like loading cities to meet game's requirement, but applying to more hexes. Might be difficult to specify, though. Good luck with that game designers!

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 583
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 7/6/2013 5:05:17 PM   
matt.buttsworth

 

Posts: 846
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Weimar, Germany
Status: offline
I have put forward this idea before but with little support.

I would love to see a scenario based on the Zhukov/Timenshenko May 15 1941 plan to attack first and "to at all costs forestall the Germans from seizing the initative."

People may argue to the cows come home about whether stalin wanted to attack first or not, but this plan, with all its detail about which army was attacking where with what strength, would certainly be a very interesting and very different scenario to play for both sides.


Dr Matthew Buttsworth

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 584
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 7/6/2013 5:55:46 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2311
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
The problem with the scenario is the date. The current game engine only allows dates from June 22, 1941 and on. I think it would be a good "what if" scenario and would highlight the problems the Soviets would have had with the army they start with. But they could probably have done some damage and limited the majority of the fighting to the frontier areas and out of pre-1939 Soviet Union.

(in reply to matt.buttsworth)
Post #: 585
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 7/7/2013 5:48:35 AM   
matt.buttsworth

 

Posts: 846
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Weimar, Germany
Status: offline
Start it at June 29 or August 3rd.
Otherwise on June 22nd.

All it needs is for the Russians to attack first iwth their troops organized to attack according to the Zhukov/Timenshenko May 15 plan
One possible date suggested was august 6 but any later than that the attack and counterattack season before winter would be too short

MN

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 586
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 8/14/2013 11:00:51 PM   
tuffgong

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 10/3/2001
From: here
Status: offline
A couple thoughts on the discussion regarding the state of the game and historical plausibility from an old grognard who has followed this forum since before release, and whose history in gaming goes back to Avalon Hill and the glory days of SPI:

One factor in early game is that the German's don't get command skill advantages to the extent that they should. A lot of effort presumably went into rating commanders in terms of various characteristics, based on some evaluation of their performance throughout the war. This is not information that was available to supreme command a priori, and allows players to immediately assign the best commanders to what they deem critical areas and dump those who eventually proved to be duds, long before it would have become evident that one general was a "4" and another a "7". A mechanic that would better reflect reality and present the Soviet player in particular with more realistic challenges would be to hide commander's ability ratings, gradually revealing them over time as subordinate units experience combat and the leader's performance becomes evident. Ideally, a range would be presented for each numerical rating, with that range gradually narrowing over time. Since the overall set of leader ratings reflects the available talent pool, it would be reasonable to keep the set of ratings, but either randomize to whom they are assigned (so that players don't immediately know to replace, say, Popov with Konev because players already know their ratings) or, alternatively, hide the names of each general until their ratings become known, and randomly assign the generals at the start of the game. This could better reflect early-war command problems, present players with more "realistic" challenges, and make each campaign unique. Note that the Germans have the advantage of better average leaders, and should reasonably have better knowledge of many leaders' capabilities based on previous campaigns.

A problem causing the "unrealistic" advances in the game is not just the I-go, U-go weekly mechanic, but that individual units move sequentially through each week, rather than simultaneously. Combined with hex-control movement costs, this allows completely unrealistic movement. Consider an example where three units begin stacked, and the first moves through 14 enemy held hexes, converting them to friendly control. The unit thus moves two hexes per day through the contested territory. The second unit of the stack now traverses the now-friendly hexes at lower movement costs, and passes the first unit to convert additional hexes. The third unit gets the advantages of both sets of conversions and moves further still. This is absurd. When the first unit stops, the week is over. Following units shouldn't get what are effectively additional days of movement capacity for trailing it its wake. Michael T has elsewhere noted the confusion of fuel and time in the
movement mechanics, and this represents another confusion of movement cost and time.

The same mechanic causes "unrealistic" results in performing and exploiting breakthroughs. If a number of units expend, say, 90% of their weekly MP allotment (time) in moving into position, preparing, and executing a deliberate attack, thus displacing a defender, then 90% of the week has gone by at the time that defender has retreated. A nearby mechanized unit, sitting and waiting with full fuel tanks would "really" have only 10% of the week left, and 10% of its MP, to drive through the hole and exploit. It would not have a full week of movement to romp in the enemy rear.

There are various ways to fix these problems so that the game becomes something closer to a simulation of events, but most would impact the design beyond the scope of likely implementation for WitE and can only be hoped for in a more major redesign. The best "likely" fix would be to simply change things such that changes of hex control takes place at the end of each player's movement phase, rather than during each unit's movement. This wouldn't be "completely correct", but would be somewhat better than the mechanized advances seen, and would probably change the early game considerably. (An "improved kludge" might be to make all motorized units pay start-of-turn hex costs, but allow the slower infantry units, generally following in the wake of faster moving units, to take advantage of hex conversions by motorized units, but that seems likely to be beyond the scope of possible changes at this point).

A couple ideas to consider for the future, ignore, or argue about as the urge strikes one.

(in reply to matt.buttsworth)
Post #: 587
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 8/14/2013 11:22:17 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1009
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tuffgong
The best "likely" fix would be to simply change things such that changes of hex control takes place at the end of each player's movement phase, rather than during each unit's movement.

This already applies.A lot of your other points are spot on.

(in reply to tuffgong)
Post #: 588
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 8/15/2013 12:20:40 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I loved the old AH PC game "Stalingrad". It was ahead of its time.

Both sides plotted their move. Then execution (like WITP). You could select move in tactical mode or Admin mode. You could Attack in IRCC 3 modes, All out assualt, normal and probe (really a holding attack that made it very difficult to break contact and withdraw). Defender had hold at all costs, normal and retreat. It worked so well.

What made it work really well was that the time steps (turns) were short enough that it still all made sense and wasn't too laborious and yet long enough so the game wasn't too long.

It so much fun to smash thru a line and hit a road that was full of units in Admin mode, carnage :)

Also when trying to pocket an enemy you could probe the enemy front and pin them down while the mobile units swept around to the rear. Pretty sure there was a reserve mode as well.

Anyway the point is there were no time and space problems. It was sweet.

Almost forgot. There was another game called 'Crusader', North Africa 1941. It was a blast as well. Wish I still had those games and they would run on todays PC's.


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 589
RE: Game Suggestions: new features - 8/16/2013 1:18:06 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3067
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
AH only published them in some countries. The V4V/WaW series was made by Atomic Games.

http://www.atomicgames.com/games.html

One could look here:

http://www.classic-pc-games.com/pc/strategy/index.html


Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/16/2013 1:20:09 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 590
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/16/2013 9:37:55 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 657
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

in re deployment of security... believe any units behind fronts should be distributed more widely than even 10km...

Speaks for using a multiple hex "area" garrison concept rather than a hex occupation idea... like loading cities to meet game's requirement, but applying to more hexes. Might be difficult to specify, though. Good luck with that game designers!


I think WitW is supposed to have an 'area' garrison requirement, defined by geographical boundaries rather than single cities. X value of CV in the area (numerous hexes) has Y garrison effect in said area...

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 591
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/21/2013 3:41:23 AM   
Taipan

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/8/2004
Status: offline
I've very recently taken up the game again after a long time away. I now remember what originally made the game so difficult for me. I suffer from red/green colour-blindness and sometimes for me the colour boarders around armies is difficult to distinguish. I'm pretty well sure you can't modify the existing colours, so the ability to modify the army boader colours would be appreciate in future versions.


(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 592
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/31/2013 12:20:29 PM   
katukov


Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: Spain
Status: offline
I would like to see an introducion of a hotkey that would show the strike range of the air units.

Also, it would be great to have a hotkey higlighting the units that have arrived at the beginning of the current turn as reinforcements.

I think that the German Panzer divisions should divide into three kampfgruppen, not into three "panzer regiments".

(in reply to Taipan)
Post #: 593
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/31/2013 2:58:47 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1338
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov

I would like to see an introducion of a hotkey that would show the strike range of the air units.

Also, it would be great to have a hotkey higlighting the units that have arrived at the beginning of the current turn as reinforcements.

I think that the German Panzer divisions should divide into three kampfgruppen, not into three "panzer regiments".

In fact, all divided units more or less divide into KG. The equipment is equally (if applicable) divided. The icon doesn't change though.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to katukov)
Post #: 594
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/31/2013 3:12:10 PM   
katukov


Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: Spain
Status: offline
Yes, I was suggesting just to change the designation from regiments ( the III symbol ) to Kampfgruppen ( the KG symbol ).

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 595
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/1/2013 1:20:33 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Be nice if the "arrivals/withdrawals" report would show action for current turn as well as futures (in re seeing current arrivals.)

(in reply to katukov)
Post #: 596
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/30/2013 10:16:27 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1661
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
The CV% reduction for multiple HQ attacks does not work where base CVs are relatively low and HQs are replete with SUs. This results in cheese every bit as bad as bombers flying petrol.

I suggest making SU commitment to a battle by subordinate HQs proportional to the number of units, or perhaps the percentage of a battle's CV, it commits to a combat.

_____________________________

“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 rrbill)
Post #: 597
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/30/2013 12:33:10 PM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
Be nice if the Soviet summary screen showed the weather.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 598
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/30/2013 12:34:22 PM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

I suggest making SU commitment to a battle by subordinate HQs proportional to the number of units, or perhaps the percentage of a battle's CV, it commits to a combat.


Not sure I agree. If Henrici sends a division to support another corps, I think he can send as many SUs to support that division as he thinks appropriate.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 599
RE: Game Suggestions: - 9/30/2013 7:32:51 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1661
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

quote:

I suggest making SU commitment to a battle by subordinate HQs proportional to the number of units, or perhaps the percentage of a battle's CV, it commits to a combat.


Not sure I agree. If Henrici sends a division to support another corps, I think he can send as many SUs to support that division as he thinks appropriate.

Sure, and when he has another two or three divisions and their frontage to think about, he's not going to give priority to one division or crumby regiment. The game SU allotment mechanism makes him give them such priority.

I do it myself to some extent in my game with you, because you can, but it's cheese and it particularly favours the Russians who can cram every HQ with sappers and rocket regiments. In a two hex attack I can involve up to six different armies and their SUs. Say I just use three, that's maybe nine sappers from HQ plus any attached to combat corps and three HQs worth of arty and rockets. It's one of the reasons you didn't get very far last summer.

_____________________________

“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 rmonical)
Post #: 600
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 19 [20] 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: new features Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 [20] 21   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

2.758