I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition

[lloydster4]

ORIGINAL: Smidlee
I don't like to mixed tanks with infantry OOB since tanks uses a lot of fuel ... thus use up a lot of logistics

AFAIK, transporting fuel doesn't use up any logistics points. As long as you have at least 1 LiS available along the entire route, you could transport unlimited fuel.

[OldSarge]

ORIGINAL: Smidlee

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

I don't find the OOB system to be particularly rewarding. I usually field a bunch of mostly generic brigades and swap auxiliaries in/out as the situation demands.

I don't like to mixed tanks with infantry OOB since tanks uses a lot of fuel ... thus use up a lot of logistics. There is only a few OOB I used. There are times I want to move my infantry up in defense positions leaving logistics to refuel and reload my front line tanks.

If you do some research on the linear tech 'Fuel Efficiency' you can realize some nice improvements in fuel usage, depending on how far you extend the research.

I usually attach a Lt Armor BN and an Assault Gun BN to my Mech Inf Brigades. Gives them a little extra punch when they need to make a hole. [8D]

If you go crazy with mobile forces too early you can find yourself in a rut, so before I develop really efficient armor (or a robust fuel inventory) I will keep them in penny packets as independent battalions.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Covski

Thus I don't really mind the OOB development systems as such, though I'd like the ability to change the OOB of an existing formation as I mentioned before. Maybe a BP discount for OOBs based on how many you've developed previously would make sense too? (ie if you've previously operationalised a OOB containing RPGs, it would be easier to research other OOBs with RPGs)

You already can change teh OOB of existing units:

1. (Optional) Downgrade to the pure basetype of the formation (pure Infantry, tanks, etc) to have the full overview of possibilities.
2. Upgrade to the proper OOB of the same size.

I.E., a MG Brigade would go:
MG Brigade -> Downgrade: Light Infantry Brigade
Light Infantry Brigade -> Upgrade: Motorized light Infantry Brigade

[Covski]

[X(]

Once again, this forum has informed me of a feature that I had totally missed, thanks! This time I can't even blame the UI

[TC2712]

I think a simple quick fix would be to unlock the mixed rifle/MG/RPG infantry brigades as soon as the corresponding weapon is developed.

EG I develop RPG I can then create a mixed infantry brigade with RPGS and heavy machine guns integrated into them - I think this is presently called the 'Grenadier' brigade and its locked up for many many turns behind staff council discovery rolls after you develop the RPG.

I would argue the same for artillery though I am less bothered by the fact that I cant integrate it directly at battalion level.


I have no problem with motorised, armour and mechanised formations being something that needs to be discovered.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I agree, specially since you can easily win with "light infantry brigades" + independent regiment/ battalions

at the very least you should have a greater chance of getting OOB discoveries on techs you have

[Vhalor]

The current Staff Council and OOB system is certainly one of the weaker points of this game. Way too much investment necessary for mostly questionable returns on top. Which is unfortunate, because this area could be a lot of fun, if it would be changed to something more meaningful and engaging.

[Covski]

I'd like to see a compromise here: Maybe OOBs should be automatically discovered when you develop the technologies for new unit types? I still like that the work to operationalize an OOB requires investment, since working out the logistics and tactics for a certain type of formation should require some effort, given the abstraction level of the game.

[SSFSX17]

This is one area where Advanced Tactics is absolutely better - the ability to modify your OOBs

[Infierno]

I think comparing this game to ATG is inherently a bit unfair. This is a game where your civilization is discovering the concept of putting people who treat wounds and the patients they're treating into a big building together and calling it a "hospital." I think it makes sense that you need to separately develop OOBs/TOEs to effectively use new technology. It shouldn't be as simple as "Hey we have tanks now, let's go form Panzer divisions!" if we're rolling with the idea that this society is rebuilding itself from scratch.

[Jdane]

You are right in that in Advanced Tactics Gold, defining a new TOE did not cost any resource.

But in Shadow Empire, the Staff Council could stay and be needed to invest BPs in new units composition research. But instead of randomly discovering one from a pool of combinations, it would then give the player the opportunity to decide what to put in a unit and in which proportion.

I'm not convinced by the extent of randomness as for research (economic and military) and OOBs are concerned. I think giving the player more agency (let us target a specific tech, or define the TOE ourselves), while still needing to use the councils, would constitute an improvement.

[Vhalor]

I agree more direct control when it comes to the composition would be a welcomed change.

Now about the randomness, this game is highly random in most aspects, so reducing it somewhat in a few areas like this one should be no issue at all.

[kosmoface]

ORIGINAL: Smidlee

I don't mind OOB and don't see it a big deal. I can still attached two units of my choice to my brigades.
It doesn't take much time to discovery the mixed of units I want.

I second this.

Some features of Paradox games I actually liked very much - until some "pro" players complained and they took the feature out. I don't like this situation very much, because I don't have any reason to complain, yet I believe me being silent is interpreted as agreeing with what other players say. It is not.

In the end I think player input is important, but the developer or developers should stay true to their vision.

[Fizbun]

I'd really like if it would be possible to design your own OOB's/Brigade templates and choose what type of units go into my batallions, like it is possible in Hearts of Iron 4. It is casual but doesnt feel as dumb and restricted.

One way to get the units I want is to make a battlegroup and build my unit that way but then I can't reinforce them with the equipment they lost. It's also a hassle to do compile evety unit one by one.

[Saarud]

ORIGINAL: kosmoface

ORIGINAL: Smidlee

I don't mind OOB and don't see it a big deal. I can still attached two units of my choice to my brigades.
It doesn't take much time to discovery the mixed of units I want.

I second this.

Some features of Paradox games I actually liked very much - until some "pro" players complained and they took the feature out. I don't like this situation very much, because I don't have any reason to complain, yet I believe me being silent is interpreted as agreeing with what other players say. It is not.

In the end I think player input is important, but the developer or developers should stay true to their vision.

I totally agree with this. I think the developer really has put all the part of the game together in a great way and the unit compositions is one part of that design. I really hope that he stays true to his vision.

[Vhalor]

ORIGINAL: Fizbun

I'd really like if it would be possible to design your own OOB's/Brigade templates and choose what type of units go into my batallions, like it is possible in Hearts of Iron 4. It is casual but doesnt feel as dumb and restricted.

More towards t he Hearts of Iron 4 style could be good, I agree. It's has a clear cost attached as well, so it would align with the Staff Council generating it from BP.

[Fizbun]

I think it should stay similiar as to, you design a brigade template and then the model design team starts cracking at it.

[TomFrame]

When I was about to purchase this game, not being able to fully design my own units actually gave me pause and I considered NOT buying it. It was literally the single most pressing issue I wanted altered. I purchased the game and now it's still the most pressing issue for me (well that and mod support).

In my personal opinion, ATG is superior and I consider SE a downgrade in this specific area. I'm not spending a very large amount of time inside the ToE designer anymore, and that makes me both happy and sad, but mostly sad.

Just my 2 cents, I still love the game (disclaimer I guess) and will play it like crazy for quite a while to come.

[JWW]

Playing this game brought me back to ATG to take a look at the TOE designer, which I had never really played. I had played ATG a lot, but a long time ago. I found a quick lesson on creating a TOE and found that the TOE system in ATG is just brilliant. If it could be integrated into SE that would be even more brilliant. I am thrilled with SE as it is, but a longterm goal of a TOE generator would be great.

Also great would be the ability to create your own formations perhaps by bringing five independent units of your choice together in a city, creating an OHQ for them, and you have a new custom task force.

[Sieppo]

The first thing that caused me major wonder after I started playing was that after I researched RPG's, my infantry were not outfitted with them, as usually happens. I had to separately research a unit that could wield them totally separate of the infantry. Militia also had them from the start, which is weird. I think now of them as crude tank killing improvisations to keep it sensible, the Finnish army had them in the winter war called "kasapanos" or somekind of charge you carry, with which they destroyed hundreds of Russian tanks relying basically on the courage of the individual soldier to run up to the tank. The other thing they invented was the Molotow Cocktail, which basically was a bottle filled with gasoline and a fabric lit on fire.

I think there should be some option to include new tech in old formations to increase for example hard defense. Maybe as an attachment like many games use. Of course in larger games this could become quite tedious.