Matrix Games Forums

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!Ageod takes you back to the Civil War Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AARConflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!Pandora Beta Playthrough VideosGermany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!Matrix Games / Slitherine / AGEOD are recruiting AGAIN!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nato symbols

 
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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue >> The War Room >> Nato symbols Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nato symbols - 7/22/2012 1:41:52 PM   
Schattensand

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 11/9/2011
Status: offline 		If you use nato symbols on counters please do it in a more professional way. You set up the game with broken down divisions of mostly regimental size.
The right marking for the size of those units are three III on the top of the case and not two XX. That this units are part ot a bigger formation already shows the designation at the top of the counter.
Some units like arty and flak have no size designation at all.
Divisional arty looks like infantry, only corps arty have the right artillery symbol.

The way you use the symbols gives one information two times and one information, the important one, of how big the unit really is, not at all or simply wrong.

I = Company
II = Battalion
III = Regiment
X = Brigade, rarely used independent formation, at least in german WWII army.
XX = Division
XXX = Corps
XXXX = Army

You know all this, so why do you repeat that mistake from game to game?
Post #: 1
RE: Nato symbols - 7/22/2012 2:33:51 PM   
Arinvald


Posts: 1766
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		Yeah it is taking me some time to get comfortable with this. It is so counter-intuitive and I really don't know what supposed advantages there are by going against wargame convention. When I glance at a HUGE Infantry symbol on a counter I should be able to instantly recognize that unit as and Infantry Regiment and not have to scan for little symbols that in fact identify it as an Artillery Regiment. I hope someone either mods them correctly or an option is made available in an update.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Schattensand)
Post #: 2
RE: Nato symbols - 7/22/2012 2:36:13 PM   
Arinvald


Posts: 1766
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		Forum gremlin messing with me.

< Message edited by Arinvald -- 7/23/2012 7:24:28 PM >

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Schattensand)
Post #: 3
RE: Nato symbols - 7/23/2012 7:03:37 PM   
Vic


Posts: 3438
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		Thank you for voicing your opinion and giving some criticisms. Its always appreciated.

I already gave a reply in a different thread on the same subject.

Basically i do not consider this a mistake but it is my preference as a designer to do it this way. The fact that a division is divided over several counters does in my eyes not make it less of a division. Even if it breaks some traditions.

The bottomline is i want the counters first of all to help me to keep the division together (in the same hex or in hexes next to eachother) and only secondly to remind the players what troops are in each unit.

I am sorry to hear its not your cup of tea. But as of yet I am not yet swayed.

Best regards,
Vic


< Message edited by Vic -- 7/23/2012 7:04:25 PM >

_____________________________

Victor Reijkersz Designs
www.vrdesigns.nl

(in reply to Arinvald)
Post #: 4
RE: Nato symbols - 7/23/2012 7:23:40 PM   
Arinvald


Posts: 1766
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		Fair enough Vic. I don't consider it a big mistake or huge problem but more of a personal preference on my part and just what I am use to seeing. As you have stated, it can be modded to personal preference. The game is excellent and I don't fault you for not making everyone completely happy with every design choice.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 5
RE: Nato symbols - 7/24/2012 12:07:24 AM   
Schattensand

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 11/9/2011
Status: offline 		You name the unit at the top as part of lets say 27th or 27thPD or if you say it in English 27thTD.

That already gives you oversight of the unit.

And then at the next line the size of the unit has to be shown by named symbols.

You have for sure the freedom to design anything what you want in your games. So if you want to be taken somehow valuable or serious you are not free to make mistakes, obvious mistakes.

Giving the same information twice and holding back a valuable other information is bad style and is like creating a sentence consisting of substantives only without a verb.

And if the issue was brought to your attention before, dear Sir and you knew it, it is simply unhealable ignorance.

(in reply to Arinvald)
Post #: 6
Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 12:04:43 PM   
Templer


Posts: 754
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Nürnberg, Germany
Status: offline 		The words of Schattensand might be a little rough, but many players agreed with him!

It is, it was the decision of the designer. We must accept this.
But many players, including myself, prefer the traditional counter style, the more realistic representation of NATO symbols.

(in reply to Schattensand)
Post #: 7
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 12:51:15 PM   
Keunert


Posts: 876
Joined: 9/9/2010
Status: offline 		absolutely no need to come across like an arrogant school teacher...
with the editor available there will soon be mods that will label units differently.

(in reply to Templer)
Post #: 8
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 1:03:46 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 284
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline 		Oh, c'mon boys! It's not a mistake, it's a design decision! And it is a design decision that I can live with, even if it's contrary to what is the standard. The designer simply decided to represent the number, size and symbol of the parent unit and not of the regiment. There's no ignorance involved in this.

Saying that it is ignorance is like saying that the Waffenfarbe of the Schuetzen attached to a Panzerdivision was pink (instead of white) because the tailor did not know the difference between tanks and infantry (or that the collar tabs of riflemen attached to tank units in the Red Army was not the raspberry red of the infantry but the black of the armoured troops becasue they didn't know what they were doing).

(in reply to Templer)
Post #: 9
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 4:15:39 PM   
EisenHammer


Posts: 409
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline
I don't know… But finding regiments that have the armor NATO symbol on them but the elements inside are ART or INF is somewhat confusing they should have the symbol for ART or Mot/PzG INF on them, just because they are part of an Armor Division doesn't mean they should have an armor NATO symbol on them. I'm finding it hard too determine the unit type accurately at a quick glance. I have to click on all the armor symbol on the map to find that armor unit by looking at all of the elements in the unit.

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 10
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 4:42:13 PM   
EisenHammer


Posts: 409
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline 		never mind


< Message edited by EisenHammer -- 7/24/2012 4:46:37 PM >

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 11
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 4:49:05 PM   
Templer


Posts: 754
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Nürnberg, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


I don't know… But finding regiments that have the armor NATO symbol on them but the elements inside are ART or INF is somewhat confusing they should have the symbol for ART or Mot/PzG INF on them, just because they are part of an Armor Division doesn't mean they should have an armor NATO symbol on them. I'm finding it hard too determine the unit type accurately at a quick glance. I have to click on all the armor symbol on the map to find that armor unit by looking at all of the elements in the unit.

There is a sign right beside the Nato symbol.
With this sign you can identify your ART, your TANK and your I, II, III Regiment of the Division.
It's a small sign! A very small sign!! To small for old eyes!!!

< Message edited by Templer -- 7/24/2012 5:03:29 PM >

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 12
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 4:52:21 PM   
Arinvald


Posts: 1766
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		I just have not heard a strong reason for going against the convention. The current system is obviously unintuitive and requires a bit of eye-strain but I could more easily accept it if I were given a solid reason for the current system. It seems that Vic did it this way simply because he finds it easier to have situational awareness for his Divisions but I and apparently othere are having problems with situational awareness because of this. At this level the Division's component units will/should be either stacked or adjacent/very close to each other so I just don't see the problem. The large Divisional number on the units makes it very easy to see which Regiments belong to the same Division. It is almost impossible to see the tiny "A" on an SS unit and the Stockpile green line easily gets lost in all the other symbols on the counter unless I make an extra effort. This should not be necessary imo.

I do play at a very high resolution and this may be part of the problem but it is my monitor's native reolution and works fine for me otherwise. I would at least like for an option to be available without having to dig into files and mod. I am not a moder and don't like to have to rely on others to supply what seems like such a basic concept. I really hope Vic reconsiders this decision because other than this the UI and game mechanics are very intuitive.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 13
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 4:53:52 PM   
EisenHammer


Posts: 409
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline 		Yes... The sign is to small.

(in reply to Templer)
Post #: 14
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 5:07:14 PM   
EisenHammer


Posts: 409
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline
I guess it he has it that way because what if you had the 16th Mot Div and the 16th Pz Div in the same corps. It may get even more confusing. Especially in trying to keep Div integrity.

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 15
Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 5:22:21 PM   
Templer


Posts: 754
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Nürnberg, Germany
Status: offline 		You know what's weird?

If Victor had used the authentic NATO symbols for its Decicive Campaigns series, like most of us would expect for a war / strategy game, no one would have moan - this thread would not exist. Most of us be happy.

Therefore the language is sometimes almost rude.

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 16
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 5:42:22 PM   
EisenHammer


Posts: 409
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline
It's because of frustration.

(in reply to Templer)
Post #: 17
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 6:13:56 PM   
Arinvald


Posts: 1766
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


I guess it he has it that way because what if you had the 16th Mot Div and the 16th Pz Div in the same corps. It may get even more confusing. Especially in trying to keep Div integrity.




Possibly but those rare occaisions hardly warrant making it a constant problem as it is now. I bet Vic is usng a smaller resolution and it is much less of a problem for him.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 18
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/24/2012 7:23:30 PM   
map66

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline 		It is serious eye strain trying to pick out the tiny "art" or "pz" at least on 1920-1200 resolution. Although I would prefer standard NATO/wargame conventions in marking regiments by their appropriate symbol, another alternative might be too switch the tiny text of "art" and "pz" into either a symbol or silhouette that might be more visible at a glance, or to color code the text in such a way that it jumps out a lot more from the counter. As it is, the eye strain causes headaches...

< Message edited by map66 -- 7/24/2012 7:55:32 PM >

(in reply to Arinvald)
Post #: 19
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/25/2012 10:40:25 AM   
Vic


Posts: 3438
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

It is serious eye strain trying to pick out the tiny "art" or "pz" at least on 1920-1200 resolution. Although I would prefer standard NATO/wargame conventions in marking regiments by their appropriate symbol, another alternative might be too switch the tiny text of "art" and "pz" into either a symbol or silhouette that might be more visible at a glance, or to color code the text in such a way that it jumps out a lot more from the counter. As it is, the eye strain causes headaches...


I think some sort of color code here might be an idea. I'll look into it.


_____________________________

Victor Reijkersz Designs
www.vrdesigns.nl

(in reply to map66)
Post #: 20
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 7/25/2012 7:14:41 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 834
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Its a pretty easy fix...all I did was put a big white dot in the middle of the graphic with the little 'A' and all my divisional artillery looks like artillery. Redmarkas did something similar, he put the big white dot where the 'a' is. I also put a PZ in the middle of the panzer graphic that says 'pz' for a similar effect. As for having the XX for all the units that belong to the XX, I have no problem with it. I mostly keep my divisions in one hex, or at least next to each other.

And since all division units are treated equally, there is no confusion as there would be if you could combine the divisonal units into one counter.

_____________________________

To the right General Patton, to the left the British Army, to the rear our own artillery, and besides all that its raining. And the only good thing to say about the weather: it keeps our air corps from blowing us all to Hell because its too lousy to fly.

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 21
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 1/4/2013 4:18:35 AM   
heyhellowhatsnew


Posts: 194
Joined: 4/19/2012
From: New York
Status: offline 		Make it an option for a future patch?

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 22
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 1/4/2013 6:05:02 PM   
wallas

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline 		nato did not exist in 1942 so why would we use there symbols. For me historical accuracy is my choice of direction.

(in reply to heyhellowhatsnew)
Post #: 23
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 1/15/2013 3:07:33 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wallas

nato did not exist in 1942 so why would we use there symbols. For me historical accuracy is my choice of direction.


Hmmm... Except that I didn't exist in 1942 either. I learned the NATO system (like most players) and it's much easier to play with that than to learn the 1942 system as well.

_____________________________

Managers read statistics and tune processes. Leaders interpret statistics and determine strategy.

(in reply to wallas)
Post #: 24
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 2/17/2013 12:39:40 PM   
Grognerd

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline 		I kind of like what Vic did on the counters. They show fighting groups instead of the standard symbols. The Germans always created Kampf groups to actually fight. Everything else was just for paper TO&E's. They are a bit hard to read I will admit, but I think I like the designers decision in this one.

The Germans symbols are allot of fun to mess with too, they show more info then NATO symbols (I may try a Mod someday if I have time, anyone remember Avalon Hill's Longest Day?)

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 25
RE: Vote for realistic representation of NATO symbols - 2/22/2013 6:24:56 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 834
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

That was my first exposure to the German system. Actually, when you get used to it, the german system gives you a wealth of knowledge all at once. It gives calibre of wpns, type, formation size, numbers, transport type....all in a nice compact format.

I am a bit surprised that the computer world doesn't adopt it for that reason.



_____________________________

To the right General Patton, to the left the British Army, to the rear our own artillery, and besides all that its raining. And the only good thing to say about the weather: it keeps our air corps from blowing us all to Hell because its too lousy to fly.

(in reply to Grognerd)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue >> The War Room >> Nato symbols Page: [1]
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

0.086