Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
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  17 18 19 20 [21]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/1/2013 11:00:55 AM   
Radagy


Posts: 177
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
It would be nice if on the Multiplayer Server Open Challenge Window, the developers oould add a column reporting the game version installed on the PC of people looking for a game.
This way people that upgraded to a beta patch could easily match other players who did the same.


(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 601
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/6/2013 9:51:12 AM   
chuckles

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
Hi
Id like to suggest some tactical rules regarding assaults.

The current assault modelling appears relatively simple. As I understand it the two sides line up and march forward all weapons firing. This results in way too many specialist weapons and indirect fire weapons being damaged/destroyed.

my suggestion for how to run an assault in game.

1. Air Attacks.

2. Artillery duel.

3. Assaulting Artillery barrage on ememy positions.

4. Infantry advances.

5. Advancing infantry shelled by defending Artillery.

6. Advancing infantry comes under fire from enemy direct fire weapons, Advancing support weapons return fire.

7. Advancing infantry closes.

8. Armour exploits.


Currently the divisional and higher artillery is treated as though it was emplaced in the front line. Divisional artillery and Higher(Corps artillery) are long range indirect fire weapons. In practice sensible emplacement of this type of artillery is at its maximum range from the position to be shelled or supported.
So the Divisional and Corps guns need to be treated differently to the rest of the equipment. Basically they need to be removed from taking casualties as they are in fact removed from the battle. With some provisos, see below.

Those steps again in detail

1. Air Attacks.

Air attacks unchanged they can engage anything, the bigger the target the more likely it is to be engaged.

2. Artillery duel.

Only Heavy Guns batteries (corps artillery) engage in the artillery duel(excluding Rocket batteries) and then only those with very long ranges. The probability of qualifying Artillery firing couterbattery should be very low. And vary with nationality and equipment range.
The bigger the guns(batteries) range the more likely it will fire counterbattery.
Each battery conducting counterbattery results in one of the enemy (Divisional guns or Corps) batteries not firing. (ie they cancell each other out).
The countered battery only takes disruption, no guns are damaged.

3. Assaulting Artillery barrage on ememy positions.

The Effect should be mainly to disrupt "squad" category and 'soft' equipment from the equipment tab.
The ratio of casualties between feild pieces, squads, HMGs, Mortars etc should be the same as the ratio of these equipments to each other in the formation being bombarded. Artillery is an -area- weapon.
Anything with armour in unaffected. (Armour defeats schrapnell and chance of a direct hit is tiny.)
Neither sides Artillery (Divisional and Corps) receive any disruption or casualties.

4. Infantry advances.

Only squads(infantry, engineer, cavalry etc), assault guns, CS tanks and Flame tanks advance. Everyone else stays put.
So only these categories in the assaulting force recieve casualties.

5. Advancing infantry shelled by defending Artillery.

Indirect fire Defending Artillery fires on only advancing assault force as defined in step 4.
Defending artillery is all indirect fire guns mortars and Rockets.
The shorter range and hence later engagement time of the smaller mortars is balanced by their high rate of fire one employed. Again this is Area fire.
Result neglible on armour (direct hit extremely unlikely). "Squads" are moving and so suffering high damage/disruption.
Armour emerges unscathed
For Armoured infantry no efect.

6. Advancing infantry comes under fire from enemy direct fire weapons, Advancing support weapons return fire.

For the Attacker only the advancing assault force as defined in step 4. take casualties.
The Attackers Mortars and Infantry guns take no casualties.
Assaulting Assault guns, CS tanks, Flame tanks, fire as range permits.

Defending AT returns fire as range permits. (assuming the gunners know at what range they can penetrate the oncomming armour)
Run a subroutine here between Assaulting armour and defending AT until one or the other has 100 percent disruption/casualties.
Defending AT engages -only- Armour.
Defending "heavy squad weapons" and "squad weapons" and "man weapons" fire as the range permits.

7. Advancing infantry closes.

Now Attacking squads can fire as Range permits. Attacking casualties are still restricted to the advancing assault force.

I base the following "defenderr casualty" routine on the premise that the various formations are deployed to be mutually supporting and sited in depth, to mean that the infantry screen is placed forward and their support weapons are emplaced in depth.

Defender casualties reflect Divisional deployment, This varies but generally the formations exist in 3's so for example,

In a platoon the 3 squads will be forward, the platoon HMG sited in depth so you need to nuetralise 1 squad ( or one third of the platoons squads) before you can engage the platoons HMG. In a coy 3 platoons would be forward and the company HMGs and mortars placed behind, so you have to destroy one platoon before you can engage the -coy- mortars and HMgs. One -coy- (or its equivelent) needs to be nuetralised before you engage the battalions heavy mortars. one battalion needs to be nuetralised before you can destroy the regimental infantry guns. and so on.

When I say 'engage' there should be a probability here, ie nuetralise one coy before you can engage the battalions heavy mortars reads nuetralise one coy (or equivelent) to get a 50 per cent chance of engageing the battalions heavy mortars, nuetralise all 3 coys give you 100 per cent chance of engageing battalions heavy mortars

8. Armour exploits.

For an armoured division steps 1-7 are run as described, using the corresponding elemants in the armoured division. ie the infantry element of the armoured division is deployed first. -then- the armour is committed. Once the one third of squads within the defending division has been damaged/disrupted armour is free to engage all enemy categories of equipment(exploit).

conditions

Flak should not be employed by the Attacker at all. In the defence it is employed rarely. (as is the current case I believe)

Currently the AI commits AT and flak support units to attacks this should I think be discontinued as AT is a defensive (support) weapon, even when tracked. Tanks are for the attack.

On the defence AT weapons are only allowed to fire at armoured vehices otherwise they are not committed, (ie dont suffer any casualties) Defenders AT weapons fire as range permits.
Attackers AT weapons are not employed at all and so the Attackers AT suffer no casualties in any event. note this should include "tracked tank destroyers"


To implement this we would need more categories for ground elements. We can then differentiate between identical Coy, battalion, regimental and divisional ground elements. ie "HMG company" and "HMG battalion".

Equipment page would need to diffentiate between howitzers (indirect fire divisional guns and better) and direct fire infantry guns, currently they are all "guns" the howitzers need a new category maybe howitzer, light med and heavy. So they can then be 'abstacted' for the barrages.

Basically indirect fire artillery and AT engagements are removed from the general assault. (ie if there isnt any armour to shoot at the AT guns limber up and fight another day)


Implementation (based loosely on a german inf division)

you need as set of tables for each division

ie for example a Division might contain
3 regiments
9 battalions
27 companies
81 platoons
243 squads

and in terms of MGs
81 HMG:Platoon
27 HMG:Coy

for indirect fire weapons it might be
81 Mortar:Platoon (50mm)
54 Mortar:Coy (81mm) (two per coy)
18 Inf gun:Regiment (75mm) (6 per regiment)


calculate the ratios between the different formations supporting weapons (another table)

3 squads for each HMG:platoon.
13.5 round up 14 squads per Inf gun:regiment.

Keep a tally on how many "squads" you have destroyed (and then HMGs etc)

Then you need a set of rules to force the assaulting elements to work up the divisional heirarchy
like so.

Start engage squads only

When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons (referencing the tables) then
engage HMG:Platoon[probability 50%]
When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage Mortar:Platoon[probability 50%]


When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage HMG:Platoon[probability 100%]
When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage Mortar:Platoon[probability 100%]


When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of battalions then
engage Inf gun:Regiment[probability 50%]
a sliding scale or similar in here.
When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of regiments then
engage Inf gun:Regiment[probability 100%]


For all these calculations if you fail the probabliity test engage another squad.


Obvioulsy pages and pages of such 'rules' are possible, and I think desirable.


I think this or something similar would give you a more historically accurate casualty spread. Less AT, Flak, artillery, more infantry.


There is obviously a lot of room for modifications and refinements(subroutines) here, I put this forward as a starting point only.


Unfortuneately Ive sort of losing momentum on this suggestion at the moment and might possibly futurely produce something similar for calculating attackers casualties more specifically.

Best Regards Chuck.


(in reply to Radagy)
Post #: 602
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/11/2013 2:20:58 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Playability suggestion (2nd iteration.) The withdrawing/arriving info report should show current turn units. Would save a lot of searching for these units for those who play at a sedate pace, like me. Forgetting what was exposed in prior turn.

Along same line of easing the infrequent gamer's chores, showing all those inactive Axis allies' units is distracting. Especially in short scenarios.

(in reply to chuckles)
Post #: 603
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/11/2013 3:28:42 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 743
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

Maybe this has been mentioned before, but an option to create multiple of a type of support unit at once would be very helpful. So much effort in '42 and '43 goes into building support units to fill out Soviet Corps, so being able to create 15 Sapper Regiments at once (for 15 APs) would be a big improvement over having to go through the motions 15 times...

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 604
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/11/2013 3:56:17 PM   
morvael


Posts: 4508
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
There is a checkbox "build new" and when you click it, a new option shows up "build num". I believe you can set it to max 10. Then, when you click on sapper regiment it will build the number you wanted in one go (though it takes time, you must wait as the messages about newly created units display one after the other).

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 605
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/11/2013 4:14:06 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 743
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

Thanks - had a suspicion that (as usual) I was missing something. Big help.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 606
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/23/2013 12:21:58 PM   
mannerheim4

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 9/16/2013
Status: offline
Well, I mentioned that airpower is sadly underrated in this game, which adversely effects the Germans. It appears universal that no one bothers with airfield bombing after turn 1. Why is that? As a result, the German player is in a defensive position starting with turn 2 in the airwar. They cannot "take it to the Russians". All they can do is hope that the Russians intercept ground support or air interdiction missions - and counter intercept them. This is not a proactive means of maintaining air superiority. The problem appears to be simple combat resolution after turn one. Training/morale should play a MUCH larger role in individual air battles.

Secondly, one of the most vital missions at the operational level has little bearing in this game - the destruction of command control and signaling at the Corp/Army level. Before offenses were begun, the Germans (and soviets later) would bomb certain communication centers/rail yards in cities behind the lines AND corp/army level HQ's. There is no need to do this in the game. This would add some much needed chrome. Given that the game rates all of the leaders and has a variety of leader checks, it would not be difficult to assign a negative modifer to these "rolls" if an HQ or city was bombed. This reduction of the ability of the defending player would place the player in the seat of the general at the front, as he loses some control and ability to react with his units. Lower level units do not have the overall picture, so a lack of signal/comm with the lower units should result in a lack of movement points of some units, a lack of dedication of SU units from higher HQ, and a lowering of initiative/administration levels of leaders.

And finally, a card system similar to Decisive Battles would be great, it would add some "face" to the faceless leaders in the game. Ordinarily, I could care less who my leaders at Corp/Army are, nor do I know them on the opponent side. Having a card system such as Decisive Battles Case Blue, even at only the Army level (not too many of them...) would add more chrome to this game and would set the leaders apart from each other in a visible manner - since you could plan your advances/defenses based upon the leader abilities.

Regards

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 607
RE: Game Suggestions: - 10/23/2013 10:23:36 PM   
mannerheim4

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 9/16/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


Maybe this has been mentioned before, but an option to create multiple of a type of support unit at once would be very helpful. So much effort in '42 and '43 goes into building support units to fill out Soviet Corps, so being able to create 15 Sapper Regiments at once (for 15 APs) would be a big improvement over having to go through the motions 15 times...


I believe you can already do that. Just to the right of "Build new unit", you can place a check mark and then click on the number "1" and change it to how many you want.

Regards

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 608
RE: Game Suggestions: - 1/2/2014 4:11:02 AM   
vsek

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 11/1/2003
Status: offline
I would like to see..
1. A way to highlight several units at once and get some sort of pup up summary of how many soldiers, tanks art etc thats contained in the selection. Also an "approximate" option too. This way if I do an encirclement I kind of know how many troops I got. Or how many I stand too loose etc.

2. An alternative earlier start date option to June 22'nd. Representing Musolini not attacking Greece. Also the extra air units would be nice, Plus the unit withdraws would have to be factored in later in the game to represent a possible British incursion on through Greece maybe.

3. Several games I have played as German I am well in 1944 and have several large Russian citys like Lenningrad and Moscow etc and am in an endless slug match. It would be nice to factor in an aggressive withdraw of german units to counter the western allies at this time. Specially after the Italian withdrawl.

(in reply to mannerheim4)
Post #: 609
RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color defi... - 1/10/2014 1:27:52 AM   
HOTEC

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 11/23/2013
Status: offline
a. use pattern or hatching;
b. use shape; and
b. color for supply info, Commander Report etc, to be edited;

(in reply to vsek)
Post #: 610
RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color defi... - 6/8/2014 11:05:37 PM   
jamesm

 

Posts: 771
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Cairns, Australia
Status: online
I am not sure if this has been mentioned before. I wonder if an extra option can be added to the Commander's Report air group tab an option to change between primary mission types for fighter bombers i.e. fighter to bomber and visa versa?

(in reply to HOTEC)
Post #: 611
RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color defi... - 7/11/2014 2:19:04 PM   
Rodimstev

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/16/2012
Status: offline
hi all,

it is possible to change by a patch, the direction about the retreat of units after a combat that lose?

in effect, i observed that when a unit lose a combat, the unit retraet toward the hexagone that has not unit...or the less possible and very often it is near the ennemi line....in this case, this unit has a big chance to be encercled..and destroyed...

in reality a unit choose always to retreat toward friends units...

kinds regards
rodim

_____________________________

"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.

(in reply to jamesm)
Post #: 612
RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color defi... - 8/19/2014 4:33:32 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Suggestion for v2.0, or current, and especially WitW:

Provide capability to annotate any unit's display with a brief message for the players' use. Example would be objectives, other intentions, cautions to usage,...

(in reply to Rodimstev)
Post #: 613
RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color defi... - 10/10/2014 12:26:45 AM   
willteachforfood

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/23/2014
From: Hollywood
Status: online
Here's one: put commas in large numbers in the various reports.

E.g., instead of "Men Captured 1432691" make it "1,432,691"

Much easier to read that way.

_____________________________

"Everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost."
--Leonard Cohen

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 614
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 19 20 [21]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 20 [21]
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

0.135