Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Combined arms

 
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 West >> Combined arms Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Combined arms - 2/5/2015 6:47:39 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

Combined arms, its not working.
Post #: 1
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 7:03:06 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 378
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
I think you're gonna need to be a little more precise than that, and I think you know it

_____________________________


(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 2
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 7:03:42 PM   
nedcorleone1


Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Combined arms, its not working.



Did your keyboard die on you or was this a concerted effort to withhold everything that could be considered important?

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 3
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 7:33:30 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

Its like what I said combined arms aint working no value in attaching tanks, artillery or airsupport. Nothing they did is reflected in the mechanics. The only route is 80,000 v 5,000 which aint WWII

(in reply to nedcorleone1)
Post #: 4
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 7:35:05 PM   
nedcorleone1


Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline
Tech Support forum is this way ---> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1454

< Message edited by mr_flappypants -- 2/5/2015 8:35:21 PM >

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 5
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 7:50:50 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Fine here thanks, because I assume presently everything is WAD and was more wondering how "all arm combat" could be better reflected rather than throwing 300 bren carriers and 400 6pdrs at the Gothic line.

(in reply to nedcorleone1)
Post #: 6
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 7:54:33 PM   
nedcorleone1


Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Fine here thanks, because I assume presently everything is WAD and was more wondering how "all arm combat" could be better reflected rather than throwing 300 bren carriers and 400 6pdrs at the Gothic line.


Ah, some insightful information surfaces. I'll take "More Please" for $600 Alex.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 7
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 7:59:14 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15442
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Its like what I said combined arms aint working no value in attaching tanks, artillery or airsupport. Nothing they did is reflected in the mechanics.


Battle result depends on land control values of opposing sides at the end of the battle. Firepower it not directly related to it, so if you would like to win battles you need to combine then.
Ex.

Tanks/AFV - have moderate firepower, but one of the largest CV per squad.
Infantry - low firepower, moderate CV per squad.
Engineers - low firepower, moderate CV, fort reduction capability
Artillery - very high firepower, very low CV
Air - very high fire power, no CV.

So in order to be efficient, i.e. win with low cost, you need to combine. Many units in WITW already utilize most of elements, so you don't need to micromanage it a lot.

P.S. btw, CV values per squad are moddable in WITW.

< Message edited by Helpless -- 2/5/2015 8:59:48 PM >


_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 8
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 8:33:08 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Thank you Helpless usefull stuff there. Can win battles but not in an efficent way, just like the ineffiecient "Battle of Palermo" in another thread. IRL a division which I assume is the type of unit you are talking about would have had little difficulty there even less with some corps artillery helping out. Just not getting that in play.

For example in Italy everyone wanted a Churchill attachment and especially a 25th armoured engineering brigade attachment when that unit arrived (it had crocs and crabs as well) In game I feel its just better keeping them and the Churchills a unit were in reality when attached to infantry they were 1000% times more effective than the sum of its two parts.

< Message edited by Smirfy -- 2/5/2015 9:34:19 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 9
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 8:42:32 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1380
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Guys, do a search on Smirfy. You might find it illuminating.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 10
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 8:46:09 PM   
nedcorleone1


Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Guys, do a search on Smirfy. You might find it illuminating.


I've come close to toggling the 'little green button' to red. The AAR was pretty good though so I don't know.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 11
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 8:55:03 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Guys, do a search on Smirfy. You might find it illuminating.


Yup I found alot of "holes" in the game it is true excessive movement, teleports, cheating AI, ludicrous combat results, death star isolated units, excessive flak and operational losses, wrong OOB's probably a few Ive forgotten but yes its quite illuminating that I want to improve the product.


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 12
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 9:07:29 PM   
nedcorleone1


Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Yup I found alot of "holes" in the game it is true excessive movement, teleports, cheating AI, ludicrous combat results, death star isolated units, excessive flak and operational losses, wrong OOB's probably a few Ive forgotten but yes its quite illuminating that I want to improve the product.


We know smirfy but dat attitude...

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 13
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 9:10:34 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr_flappypants

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Guys, do a search on Smirfy. You might find it illuminating.


I've come close to toggling the 'little green button' to red. The AAR was pretty good though so I don't know.


Thank you and feel free. I was enjoying the game of my AAR very much and intended to continue on but got engrossed in the combat part and felt it needed expounded on given its relationship to so many features like attachments. The patch which improved transports and some of the gameplay I learnt from the helpful people on here meant it would have been pointless not starting afresh. I hope when the game settles down patch wise to produce another AAR.

(in reply to nedcorleone1)
Post #: 14
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 9:17:03 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr_flappypants

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Yup I found alot of "holes" in the game it is true excessive movement, teleports, cheating AI, ludicrous combat results, death star isolated units, excessive flak and operational losses, wrong OOB's probably a few Ive forgotten but yes its quite illuminating that I want to improve the product.


We know smirfy but dat attitude...


Yes I know and I can only apoligize for my lack of communication skills but when you dont have lots of time sometimes you have to cut to the chase. Again its purely my fault.

(in reply to nedcorleone1)
Post #: 15
RE: Combined arms - 2/5/2015 9:44:15 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 26607
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Just to expand on Pavel's comments, the airpower and artillery can be good at disrupting enemy units, which takes their CV out of play for retreat calculations. Allied artillery should get bonuses to come into battle more often in in larger quantities. Infantry has increased CV in dense terrain and AFVs less CV so it makes using the right units in the right terrain important.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 16
RE: Combined arms - 2/6/2015 6:03:24 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Thank you for expanding on Pavel's comments but I would respectively suggest that maybe some of that needs tweaking especially when this applies to attachments I would also suggest that would apply to direct tank, engineer tank, anti tank gun, assault gun and Jagd attachments whether those tweaks should apply in attack or defence. Its not quite getting that all arms feel.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 17
RE: Combined arms - 2/6/2015 7:20:32 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Smirfy, you are on the road to madness here. At some point you have to take the combat engine on faith and accept it for what it is. I'm not sure how closely the WITW version resembles the WITE version, but I do see things you're doing wrong in your combats based on the former. I keep wondering where your engineering support is, for example.

The engine tries to simulate tactical combat under the hood, which is not necessarily a huge improvement over old school CRTs and such.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 18
RE: Combined arms - 2/6/2015 8:35:52 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Thank you for your candid reply Flavius, In my case study battle as I explained the engineering support was there. I'll post a screen shot. That does not include 5 divisions with all their *intrinsic* engineers in the all arms units Helpless is talking about. The number of engineers was enormous and you can see them from the screens already there, they equated probably to the strength of the force I was actually attacking. So Im sorry lack of Engineers is certainly not the fault there. I never looked at WiTE's combat too closely and played it like your old CRT games. The Russian Front was usually overwhelming numbers so it did not seem too crtical to game play so long as your stack beat their stack. Provided you wernt to gamey it played rather well as that up until mid 42. On the Western Front however use of equipment and logistics was the major factor of Allied victory not so much the 70000 v 5000 to get the right odds so I was a bit more interested in the Combat engine, My apologies for that interest.

Its a shame that the games goes to such great lengths to represent the TOE of all the units and is basically in your opinion not a "huge improvement" on a D6 roll on a CRT.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 19
RE: Combined arms - 2/6/2015 10:34:28 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I think it is a mismatch in scale, personally. You cannot really micro the tactical stuff at this operational level. It becomes too opaque and esoteric with all sorts of unseen things going on. By trial and error you figure out what works best and adjust accordingly.

In the end, I'm just not sure this is better than saying the hell with it and abstracting things and throwing in a CRT. Simplify and cut to the chase. And that at least puts all the information in front of the player.

I predict that once you crack the particulars of the combat engine you will be able to play it with a high degree of predictability and get more or less historical results within a broad range, so long as you don't think too deeply about this. (This is where the road to madness lies.) But if it kills your sense of wonder and suspension of disbelief then that's a whole other problem.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/6/2015 11:42:15 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 20
RE: Combined arms - 2/6/2015 11:37:16 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
I actually agree at this scale it dont matter (to me anyway)the game does the strategy pretty well. As Ive said before the invasion mechanic is simple yet good. Its not Panzer Blitz or Squad leader nor can it be. I was simply working back from the strategy involved, my muse being the 25th Tank Brigade in Tunisia and Italy and how far removed attaching a Churchill unit was in game to the reality. The old V for victory games had an abstract system for armour and anti tank that worked on proportion and ratio so attaching armour or anti tank to the unit gave them a crt shift if it was not nulified by the defender having Armour and Anti tank. Quite simple and it got some all arms action going. Not your King Tigers and Me262's but it seemed to work. I am achieving a high degree of predictabilty already, that I would like to change.

< Message edited by Smirfy -- 2/7/2015 12:38:04 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 21
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 9:17:23 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1380
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Smirfy, I am having great difficulty in following your issues. I have done beta testing for games (not this one), and a lot of informal testing for WW2 games generally. If I may make a few suggestions, you will find a much quicker and wider take up of your ideas if you substantiate them. Ideally this should be in a numerate an controlled manner, but in a game such as WitW this is often impossible. In these cases, phrasing an initial comment as an observation and asking for other views rather than making poorly substantiated wild assertions often gets better results. You are dealing with people for whom the game is their 'baby'. They want it to be as good as possible and are usually desperate for data and other views of RL or the game. They are not likely to respond to unsubstantiated comments that can be read as 'the game is broken...' as this is an attack on their baby.

Can I suggest that, if in future you observe something that doest seem right, you phrase your initial post as just that 'has anyone else seen this? Is it right?'. Even better, cite (as specifically as possible) the RL experience that leads to your conclusion. A perfect example (unrelated to the game) is the old Hood vs Bismarck battle. If the game gives no chance of Hood exploding from a hit, it obviously counters real life. If the game is just a simulation of the battle of Denmark Strait, this is obviously a flaw. If the game gives 0.00001% chance of it happening, that is a game design decision that can be discussed but never 'solved'. My view might be that Hood blowing up was probably a once in 100 battles event, but that is just my opinion. Opinions that cannot be disproved cover at least an order of magnitude either way. That game would not be 'broken' in that case...

For the specifics in this thread: what is your issue with the Palermo battle from that thread? It is a null example for almost every mechanic. A huge attack by 4 Divs plus other assets completely overwhelmed a small force of about reinforced brigade size. I think the result shows that the attacking force was way larger than that required. So this battle shows that huge odds win. Thus showing rather little of use.

Your issue on combined arms is a mystery to me. You seem to say that you don't see a benefit from attaching armour to Infantry Divs. I do. We can either call each other names (no thanks), or we can have a numerate discussion. I have seen Cv for a div go up by 3 for an attachment. Thus something happens. But as to how that effects a combat, we will only know if it is tested (or a Dev explains more than I think they will about the combat mechanics).

Can I suggest that next time you find a battle with suitable forces, you save the game and then run the identical attack (at least ) 10 times. This will give the spread of results. Then run it a further 10 times removing the armour attachment. Then come and discuss it. If you have a RL historical engagement that is similar this is a huge bonus. Oh, and we need advice as to how the game deals with random number seeds, as we need to ensure the battle is not preordained by the time of the save...

As to what the difference in effect should be for a Tank Bde counter in a stack, as opposed to attached to a Div (or 3 divs), I have not got a clue what the difference should be as there is no real equivalent in RL. The best I can say is the Tank Bde (when attached) is under a Div commander and so in direct support. When as a counter, it probably has an attack role of its own (but a good Corps Commander would integrate it anyway). But what's the difference between a counter, and Corps having it attached and committing all 3 elements. I genuinely don't know.

However we can test the 'preset or not present' options. I have not seen enough testing to show me anything yet, and my (subjective) game play tells me I get acceptable results if I use them realistically, in line with the advice in the forum and rules.

Over to you.

Oh, and citing other games as primary references does not help.... A simple column shift for armour superiority does not allow command failures and incompetence. Try a 1940-41 desert game with that rule, and the British Army is not well simulated. They couldn't coordinate combined arms for anything - be careful what you wish for!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 22
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 11:20:55 AM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1056
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Warspite I have done Beta as well so the mysteries of computer game design and what is and what is not practical is not lost on me. I dont make "wild assertions" and I believe my breakdown of a battle in game in the AAR section is perfectly clear to anyone who wishes to read and examine issues. Some of those issues were obvious from my first "play" others had to be tested to make sure they were correct in a host of battles.

As for the battle of Palermo and battles in game in general I'm not sure there are many examples of 70,000 men attacking 5,000 in real life the general in charge would have a short career. You can read up on the Battles in Italy, The Storming of the beaches in Normandy, the taking of the Channel ports, the battles of the Riechswald it was all arms combinations that triumphed. That is my point we have all those lovely TOE's and its down to the size of your stack I can replicate this time after time after time. I'm not worried about detail as I said to Flavius what worries me is the "detail" is getting in the way of Strategy ie having to have huge stacks to get combat odds when a division some artillery support and some Churchills did the job in real life against a regiment (and larger formations)even in heavily fortified positions (excellent site online on the NIH telling how they broke the Hitler and Gothic line so there are plenty of examples in RL). Surely the TOE should work for us? So to repeat the "balance equipment and coordination" of the force involved was more important than raw numbers. If that cannot be replicated fine, thats the nature of the game but dont waste time then on the minutiae concentrate on improving gameplay, play balance and the interface (which is very good anyway)

The Hood is an interesting start point for looking at wargame design, there was a great computer Naval wargame way back in the day, highly detailed called "Action Stations" by an American team, had every warship in WWII had all there guns, ranges, pentrations etc etc based on US Navy fire control data used NASA AI routines. So because the Hood blew up every British warship had a percentage chance of blowing up, Americans will tell you today, Germans Too! British ships blew up at the drop of a hat in World War II. Yet when one studies the actual losses the US Navy and Kreigsmarine suffered more magazine explosions percentage wise of ships sunk than the Royal Navy. British ships burnt for days suffered more damage than any navy outside the IJN (The RN in Europe were hit by 1000lb bombs not prissy 250lb) and did not blow up but you have the Barham (unmodernized ship) on film and the Hood (unmodernized ship) in legend. So you get a game were RN ships blow up and the Arizona, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst never do. If you blow up in two feet of water or nobody discovers it until 40 years later it dont count obviously. Likewise if you knockout 25 AFV's you would never get ambushed yourself, wait a minute! or shoot down 200 Russian aircraft you can rack up simmilair scores with the big boys over Northwest Europe so obviously you need 70000 to beat 5000. Did I continue to play Action Stations? Yes I did played it to death because the rest of the game was amazing for the day.

I believe the game is 43-44 and I was talking about direct attachments the British developed an Infantry tank doctrine for co-operation with the grunts the "Danwey Doctrine" the NIH were so successful they never lost a single tank from November 1944 until the end of the war despite being involved in all the heaviest of the fighting, I was thinking column shifts might work better there and for Jagdpanzer, assault gun, anti tank etc *direct* attachments. Just my opinion actually having to think about attachments might be fun for the attacker and defender.

< Message edited by Smirfy -- 2/7/2015 12:33:15 PM >

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 23
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 2:42:13 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1380
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

...
As for the battle of Palermo and battles in game in general I'm not sure there are many examples of 70,000 men attacking 5,000 in real life the general in charge would have a short career.

...so obviously you need 70000 to beat 5000.




Again you are mixing your drinks. I would completely agree that the game was in error if you needed 70000 to beat 5000. However, where is your evidence? The Taking Palmero thread indeed has 70000 vs 5000 (actually 71k vs 6k, but who's counting). And the result is a total whitewash. The Italians lose 4778, and the allies lose ...9. Not 900, or 90. 9. And some aircraft. The final odds are 16.2:1. Thus there is no evidence in that battle that 70000 is needed to defeat that force. Simplifying it, you could argue that you needed one eighth of the attackers. I know it doesn't work this way, but 9000 (of the correct) men could have captured the town. It doesn't work that way because they wouldn't have inflicted the same losses, but thats not my point. I suggest that 1 of the 4 attacking divisions would probably do.

In order to understand the issue, we need examples where 70000 men have failed to defeat 6000 (thus proving that 71k is essential). Or other such battles that prove something. Also, even in the case we have, we need to know whether the result was a most likely, some sort of average, or a best/worst possible happening very rarely.

I agree the attack is way OTT. However, the game should allow the player to make the attack if they want to. There should be realistic effects (I think in this case there were) and realistic consequences... well, its up to the player to sack him/herself. The biggest consequence is more supplies used and a wasted opportunity to rest/refit probably 3 divs. But the Palermo battle tells us very little as is.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 24
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 3:48:01 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Leadership is the one part about the series combat engine that I really like and thinks does well. And about 50% of figuring out how it works is getting leadership and C&C generally right. Coordination penalties and blown leadership rolls will kill you and then, yeah, all of a sudden you need humongous numbers to make anything happen.

Unfortunately this part of the game is very mathy and unintuitive in terms of how it is displayed.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 25
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 5:32:06 PM   
chris.munson


Posts: 4306
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

At some point you have to take the combat engine on faith and accept it for what it is. Flaviusx


Agreed. Reluctant as I am to wade in here I was a WitW beta tester and there were many refinements to the combat engine. When results didn't look right they were posted and 9 out of 10 times the issue was us testers not grasping the way disruption or logistics impacted combat.

Per HMSWarspites excellent posts I agree it would be all so helpful to everyone Smirfy if you posted some screenshots with your observations. If you find a flaw Matrix and 2b3 will undoubtedly address it.

_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 26
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 5:51:10 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1380
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
To be fair, Smirfy has put a combat in the AARs, but I couldn't really draw conclusions from it, as he concentrates on the details and doesn't really cover the big picture. It appears he was bothered about the detail of what hit what, but missed the fact that a giant (5 div plus support) attack achieved an easy victory.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to chris.munson)
Post #: 27
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 8:59:27 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6291
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Planning the end of the world, well out to 2023!
Status: offline
I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I'm not one to go into the minutae like Smirfy but having 3-4 attempts at the DDay campaigns do not get the right "feel" out of the game.

IMVHO, the 7 day turn is wrong.

The air game lacks the control that you want, and you are forced to attack targets which rip out VP instead of you making the choice. Losses are too hign, Ive had the RAF with a majority of Hurricane IIC & the USAAF with stacks of P40 in early/mid 44.

Stacking is off, You can have 3 GS Engineer Rgts concentrated on rail line repair, or 2 US "Heavy" Armoured Divs, 1 British Infantry Div plus another 9 Battalions, at total of approx 50 Battalions, all in a 10 mile hex. But the these troops cant project enough force to inhibit movement through their ZOC (Or as an AI game is this WAD? An Amphib unit, hopefully with its LST's parked at sea, takes up stacking limits. If you want to control the size of invasion, limit the lift capability.

Reserve movement is wierd, Ive seen reserves coming in from 50 miles away. Of course they can travel this distance in a week, but as they dont move it doesnt affect their defensive position.

Prepping for an invasion takes too long, coming from WITPAE I;m used to it. However most invasions were planned by HQ, Combat units were not required until much later in the process, maybe a speeded Prep if stacked or adjaecent to your HQ.

Movement, I know this is feel only, but with no roads your troops "appear" to chose their own way. Feels odd.
Armoured units seem to be too effective in Mountains, maybe they should not be permitted at all or "cost double sttacking"?
Advance after combat, I assumed that my troops were fighting like the devil to evict the enemy from the hex they occupy, only to find that they stopped at the hex edge and let them flee!!! If the wanted to enter I had t pay again. Why not auto advance after combat with the ability to not advance if you wish, or make it really cheap to enter as you have already advances "halfway"

Theres lots more, but I dont keep notes. The game has so much potential but just falls short.

As for Smirfy, Ive lots of games out of the Gary Grigsby stables and while most introduce challenging system its been the players, modders & developers who have picked up the game and raised it to a higher plane. If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Devs & Modders, look closely, they may not be perfevt in their communication styles but regularly see things which are wrong or need tweaking.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 28
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 9:16:23 PM   
nedcorleone1


Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look.


You seem to misunderstand...

I support and admire those who take the time to understand the game in ways that someone like me doesn't have the time to do. I'm grateful that people like Smirfy take the time to report their findings in the quest to better improve a game enjoyed by many people. I just hope that the efforts of those that do this do not fall by the wayside simply because they are coming across as something less than pleasant.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 29
RE: Combined arms - 2/7/2015 10:00:41 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1380
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I'm not one to go into the minutae like Smirfy but having 3-4 attempts at the DDay campaigns do not get the right "feel" out of the game.

IMVHO, the 7 day turn is wrong.

Why? You want 1 day turns? 1 month turns?
quote:


The air game lacks the control that you want, and you are forced to attack targets which rip out VP instead of you making the choice. Losses are too hign, Ive had the RAF with a majority of Hurricane IIC & the USAAF with stacks of P40 in early/mid 44.

What control do you want then? You can control who flies, where and when. The only think you cant do is jump into the cockpit! Vastly better than WitE.
quote:


Stacking is off, You can have 3 GS Engineer Rgts concentrated on rail line repair, or 2 US "Heavy" Armoured Divs, 1 British Infantry Div plus another 9 Battalions, at total of approx 50 Battalions, all in a 10 mile hex. But the these troops cant project enough force to inhibit movement through their ZOC (Or as an AI game is this WAD? An Amphib unit, hopefully with its LST's parked at sea, takes up stacking limits. If you want to control the size of invasion, limit the lift capability.

Reserve movement is wierd, Ive seen reserves coming in from 50 miles away. Of course they can travel this distance in a week, but as they dont move it doesnt affect their defensive position.

Prepping for an invasion takes too long, coming from WITPAE I;m used to it. However most invasions were planned by HQ, Combat units were not required until much later in the process, maybe a speeded Prep if stacked or adjaecent to your HQ.

Movement, I know this is feel only, but with no roads your troops "appear" to chose their own way. Feels odd.

Have you any idea of how many roads, lanes, paths, bridges there are in W Europe (even in the 40's. I challenge you to find a single 10 mile circle without roads going pretty much everywhere. The scale is just way too big for roads to figure
quote:


Armoured units seem to be too effective in Mountains, maybe they should not be permitted at all or "cost double sttacking"?
Advance after combat, I assumed that my troops were fighting like the devil to evict the enemy from the hex they occupy, only to find that they stopped at the hex edge and let them flee!!! If the wanted to enter I had t pay again. Why not auto advance after combat with the ability to not advance if you wish, or make it really cheap to enter as you have already advances "halfway"

Not a bad idea... a 0 point move for units already in the successful attack.
quote:


Theres lots more, but I dont keep notes. The game has so much potential but just falls short.

As for Smirfy, Ive lots of games out of the Gary Grigsby stables and while most introduce challenging system its been the players, modders & developers who have picked up the game and raised it to a higher plane. If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Devs & Modders, look closely, they may not be perfevt in their communication styles but regularly see things which are wrong or need tweaking.


No one is saying that things are perfect. It is just that we should goon data and facts (not least facts about what the game does, and the ranges of possible outcomes) not gut feel and issues that are from 'bad play'

How on earth do you kill the AFs? You need to learn how to pace them and not attack continuously at full bore... AFs (in RL) are fragile. Rest them, avoid death traps, read the forum and rules. If it aint working, try something else.

< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 2/7/2015 11:03:10 PM >


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Combined arms Page: [1] 2   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

0.191