RE: Game Suggestions: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


Sabre21 -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/13/2011 4:13:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

My suggestion.

The ability to use Admin Points to cancel Historical Withdrawal dates. Make it an option.
Those that want to play historical Reinforcement/Withdrawals should not be forced to use this.



That's been brought up already and unfortunately due to how involved the German reinforcement/withdraw schedule is, it would mess up a lot of things allowing for something like this. For this version of the game, the system is pretty much locked in stone when it comes to this. Hopefully when War in Europe ever comes around, we will see a much more player involved production system.




Sabre21 -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/13/2011 4:15:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
That would really take a huge expenditure in time and testing in order to get something like a random unit location feature in place. Honestly i don't see the devs taking the time for this when an editor is available that will allow for all kinds of set-ups. I know this isn't quite the same, but it is what we have.


Fair enough, it was just a thought for something that could be nice, but hardly a must have.


On a different token, what about Light Mud?

The spring and fall mud in Russia was notorious, and despite the complaints I have seen, the full mud rules are appropriate in those periods. Not a lot happened when the ground was like that.

BUT, that mud required the heavy run off of a large amount of melting snow, or the heavy rains of spring. Mud outside those periods (in random weather) shouldn't be that severe. Either because the ground is still mostly frozen and you just have a bit of a mid-winter thaw (what around here we call an 'Indian Summer' or a 'Chinook') - its a mess but not as bad as a full melt. Or for summer rains, the rain won't be severe enough for the ground to turn to complete soup.

And if feeling really complete, between winter and summer, or summer and fall there could be a period where the mud isn't as heavy (either when its starting to dry out, or the rains have only started to really set in). For that period though, I would only have a week of light mud between the full mud and clear weather.

Basically Light mud would have a moderate impact on movement (maybe half as severe as full mud), a small effect on air missions, and a very small effect on ground combat (if any at all).

Russia Beseiged used Light Mud as an intermediate point and I thought it a good feature.



I'm hoping to eventually see changes in the weather system, smaller zones for instance, but for now we have what we have.




Sabre21 -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/13/2011 4:19:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Similarly, how do you supply a pocket when there is no HQ? I think you have to drop supplies on each hex, which is a bit silly. Not sure how this would work, but it would be good if players could spawn a "pocket HQ" or something which could then serve as a supply hub for all of the units in the pocket.


I actually prefer to drop supplies to the unit itself rather than to an Hq, but that's an interesting idea, spawning an hq when isolated if one doesn't exist. A lot of pockets usually end up getting killed off within a turn and for those really large pockets, there's usually multiple Hq's available. None the less it might be something to consider, especially if the pocket survives more than a turn or 2.




WarHunter -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/13/2011 4:41:42 AM)

quote:

That's been brought up already and unfortunately due to how involved the German reinforcement/withdraw schedule is, it would mess up a lot of things allowing for something like this. For this version of the game, the system is pretty much locked in stone when it comes to this. Hopefully when War in Europe ever comes around, we will see a much more player involved production system.


Sabre21,

Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to a more player involved production system. [8D]




marcpennington -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/14/2011 7:51:13 PM)

One historical issue I have with the game after reading David Glantz' Barbarossa Derailed is how relatively restrictive the admin point cost is for reassigning units, especially corps and army Hq and particularly for the Axis side. For example, Glantz on 380-4 lists changes to Army Group Center's OOB for a few weeks in August (from abolishing Fourth "Panzer" Army to creating Armygruppeguderian and changes in seemingly every other infantry formation in between), which (with a little exaggeration) probably would cost a good six months worth of admin points in game terms. Glantz does cite here the "extreme flexibility" of the German command structure.

In game terms, I think the biggest ahistorical issue is that it costs too much to switch a corps HQ or an army HQ--- perhaps more historical might be having a nominal cost (as low as 1-3 admin points) on top of the cost of the subordinate units (which may be a bit too high as well). A good in-game example where I think problems with the admin costs is evident is the start of Case Blau scenario, where the Germans must spend the vast bulk of their admin points to clean out a very messy CnC structure based on the initial break through plans--- hardly the "extreme flexibility" Glantz argues, and nor a CnC issue that would seem to plague the Germans historically in 1942.

A wider problem (and one probably more for the "next game" in the series) is that I think it is problematic that admin points control both OOB and more supply orientated aspects such as HQ build up or the creation of Soviet units. I could see a strong case being made that the Axis should have the ability to switch around units nearly at will (and the Soviets perhaps a bit more than they can now), but with a much more limited ability to create supply build ups. Perhaps breaking admin points into two separate categories might be a good solution, and allow a bit more historical fine tuning of the two sides relative capabilities.




Sabre21 -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/14/2011 10:45:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

One historical issue I have with the game after reading David Glantz' Barbarossa Derailed is how relatively restrictive the admin point cost is for reassigning units, especially corps and army Hq and particularly for the Axis side. For example, Glantz on 380-4 lists changes to Army Group Center's OOB for a few weeks in August (from abolishing Fourth "Panzer" Army to creating Armygruppeguderian and changes in seemingly every other infantry formation in between), which (with a little exaggeration) probably would cost a good six months worth of admin points in game terms. Glantz does cite here the "extreme flexibility" of the German command structure.

In game terms, I think the biggest ahistorical issue is that it costs too much to switch a corps HQ or an army HQ--- perhaps more historical might be having a nominal cost (as low as 1-3 admin points) on top of the cost of the subordinate units (which may be a bit too high as well). A good in-game example where I think problems with the admin costs is evident is the start of Case Blau scenario, where the Germans must spend the vast bulk of their admin points to clean out a very messy CnC structure based on the initial break through plans--- hardly the "extreme flexibility" Glantz argues, and nor a CnC issue that would seem to plague the Germans historically in 1942.

A wider problem (and one probably more for the "next game" in the series) is that I think it is problematic that admin points control both OOB and more supply orientated aspects such as HQ build up or the creation of Soviet units. I could see a strong case being made that the Axis should have the ability to switch around units nearly at will (and the Soviets perhaps a bit more than they can now), but with a much more limited ability to create supply build ups. Perhaps breaking admin points into two separate categories might be a good solution, and allow a bit more historical fine tuning of the two sides relative capabilities.


This was brought up in testing multiple times. It used to cost a lot more ap's than it does, but they were reduced to where they are now. I know it isn't as flexible as some would like it, but it is what we have more for game balancing at this point.




randallw -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/15/2011 4:22:44 AM)

Can we have the weekly logistics report show the arrival of new leaders into the leader pool?




Tarhunnas -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/15/2011 7:28:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

One historical issue I have with the game after reading David Glantz' Barbarossa Derailed is how relatively restrictive the admin point cost is for reassigning units, especially corps and army Hq and particularly for the Axis side. For example, Glantz on 380-4 lists changes to Army Group Center's OOB for a few weeks in August (from abolishing Fourth "Panzer" Army to creating Armygruppeguderian and changes in seemingly every other infantry formation in between), which (with a little exaggeration) probably would cost a good six months worth of admin points in game terms. Glantz does cite here the "extreme flexibility" of the German command structure.

In game terms, I think the biggest ahistorical issue is that it costs too much to switch a corps HQ or an army HQ--- perhaps more historical might be having a nominal cost (as low as 1-3 admin points) on top of the cost of the subordinate units (which may be a bit too high as well). A good in-game example where I think problems with the admin costs is evident is the start of Case Blau scenario, where the Germans must spend the vast bulk of their admin points to clean out a very messy CnC structure based on the initial break through plans--- hardly the "extreme flexibility" Glantz argues, and nor a CnC issue that would seem to plague the Germans historically in 1942.

A wider problem (and one probably more for the "next game" in the series) is that I think it is problematic that admin points control both OOB and more supply orientated aspects such as HQ build up or the creation of Soviet units. I could see a strong case being made that the Axis should have the ability to switch around units nearly at will (and the Soviets perhaps a bit more than they can now), but with a much more limited ability to create supply build ups. Perhaps breaking admin points into two separate categories might be a good solution, and allow a bit more historical fine tuning of the two sides relative capabilities.


This was brought up in testing multiple times. It used to cost a lot more ap's than it does, but they were reduced to where they are now. I know it isn't as flexible as some would like it, but it is what we have more for game balancing at this point.


Good point brought up by Map66!

The Soviets are at present much more flexible than the Germans in command structure in the game. Reassigning a Soviet division rarely costs more than 1 AP, while reassigning a German division might cost 6 or 7 if you don't make the roll, and 3 if you do. And the Soviets usually have more APs (although the Soviets might have an AP pinch in 1942 due to the need to rebuild and recombine units). I don't think this feels entirely allright. Not that the Soviets weren't flexible, they were, but that it should cost 6 or 7 times more APs fo the Germans to reassign a division, that feels wrong!




marcpennington -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/15/2011 5:09:01 PM)

Thanks for the reply Sabre, and I understand why loosening up OOB issues might cause balance issues.

Still, I do think the slider might be moved a little bit further towards Axis flexibility, and agree with Tarhunnas it just doesn't feel right. To use a specific in-game example from the period of Glantz's Barbarossa Derailed, it just doesn't feel right in the Road to Smolensk scenario that one really needs to think ahead if one is going to switch that infantry corps out of Guderian's over-burdened Panzer Corps to, for example, von Weich's Second Army. Here, in my last game I needed to not allocate as many SUs as I would have liked in the previous turn to save up enough points to switch the corps in the following turn. To give a historical counter-example, per Glantz, the Germans "spur of the moment" during the Minsk encirclement divided up Army Group Center into two groups, Fourth "Panzer" Army with some infantry to keep going east and another group around Minsk to envelop the pocket. The OOB change would seem to be largely based on where units happened to be at the moment of the decision, and encompassed virtually all of AGC.

But again, I agree that changing the system too drastically probably would unbalance the game. Again, from my original post, maybe for the next game, dividing up admin points into "OOB points" and "supply points" for things like HQ build up might work to resolve the issue. For example, the Germans could have virtually unlimited OOB points but low supply points, while in the late war the Soviets might have a huge number of "supply points" to simulate build up for offensives but a relatively more restrictive OOB. I imagine this might also be a useful mechanism on the Western Front, given the even more decisive supply advantage of the Western Allies opposed by flexible ad-hoc German Kampfgruppes.

An alternative solution, that might be just possible to easily implement within the WITE engine without too much work (or not... :) ), would be to add in a "strategic reallocation" option. So, for a cost of say, 50 admin points, a player could cause all of Army Group Center's units to be assigned to OKH, allowing him then to regroup all his underlying armies/corps/divisions (kinda like what happens when Army Group A and B are formed). This might do a good job of simulating the German's ability to quickly modify their force structure for a change of strategic plan, while not making more admin points available for use of an ahistorical amount of HQ buildup and such.




fbs -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/16/2011 2:19:12 AM)

As for myself I'd like to see:

(a) A change in the stacking limit rule; the current rule just doesn't make sense - stacking 3 regiments gets you some 4,000 soldiers in an hex, while stacking 3 divisions gets some 45,000 soldiers in the same hex. It's absurd that both are equally full. Just exclude Rgt/Bde from the stacking limit, and it will be cool.

(b) Gimme an option of daily/half-week turns. This alone would make the game much more Grognardey. Just divide everything by 7 for daily turns and let's go.

(c) Add a counter for Aircrafts Lost in the Air Unit screen

Everything else is pretty cool.

Thanks,
fbs




HHI -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/16/2011 6:37:51 PM)

Heliodorus04 mentions the term 'historically plausible' in his closer. I like it! The changes implemented so far seem to get the Axis to a point where they are no worse off than they were historically, but historically they were terrible over extended. It is historically plausible that this did not have to be.

It is historically plausible that the original OKH plan could have been implemented, with modifications with respect to the fact that OKH was not aware of the massive forces in Ukraine.

It is historically plausible (and factual) that the SU counter-attack with available forces for the first two weeks of Barbarossa. This is precisely how the Mechanized Corps were squandered historically. There should be trigger for this in the A/I. House rules, perhaps, for other cases.

It is historically plausible that, following the reduction of the various pockets formed and the seizure of bridgeheads over the Dnepr, that PG 3 (Hoth) would move north to assist in the attack on Leningrad.

At the same point in time, it is historically plausible (and factual) that PG 2 (Guderian) might move south to pocket soviet forces in the Kiev area.

It is historically plausible that AGC, without the two panzer gruppe would continue limited offensives until slowed by the rains, where they would fortify for the winter.

Now any of the above can be implemented by any Axis player. However, what cannot be done is the last historical plausibility.

It is historically plausible that, without the very heavy munitions and fuel use historically required by AGC, equipment and clothing required for severe climate conditions could be moved to the front. In this situation, attrition and shock of German forces would be substantially reduced, much more so than currently implemented.

The Red Army would still have many winter advantages, not all of which are represented in the game. Russian tank brigades should be more mobile than the Axis forces, because their tracks were wide enough to move through heavy snow and, I assume, lubricants and oils were suitable for severe winter conditions. Similarly, the Red Air Force should be much more active than the Luftwaffe, as they were operating from real air fields with heated hangars.

I would like to see these possibilities implemented in the game.




Ketza -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/16/2011 6:45:57 PM)

1) I would like to see HQS have a CV dependent on the SUs that are present in the HQ. It could be halved or quartered because they are SUs non supporting units but it really makes no sense to me that an HQ with what could be 15 or more CV worth of Pioneers, Stugs and flak guns can be displaced buy a tank brigade of 20 tanks.

2) Something needs to be addressed in the area of air GS for the defender. I know it has been mentioned the air system is out of whack but it would be nice to know what issues are being looked at and what potential solutions are being put forth. I would like to be able and assign defensive air support to individual units or hexes.

3) Level 3 4, and 5 forts need to be have some sort of commodity (aps) spent to build them and then be placed on the map as a unit that doesnt count towards stacking purposes. Level 1 and 2 forts need to be destroyed when its creator leaves the hex they were built in.

Just a few items to open up for discussion.




randallw -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/16/2011 7:27:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HHI

The Red Army would still have many winter advantages, not all of which are represented in the game. Russian tank brigades should be more mobile than the Axis forces, because their tracks were wide enough to move through heavy snow and, I assume, lubricants and oils were suitable for severe winter conditions. Similarly, the Red Air Force should be much more active than the Luftwaffe, as they were operating from real air fields with heated hangars.

I would like to see these possibilities implemented in the game.



The game already has an adjustment where German air units have a higher chance of aborting a mission in blizzard conditions, compared to Finnish and Soviet units.




Slarty -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/16/2011 8:47:29 PM)

Can we have colouration to distinguish between different corp? Corp colours would be more useful than army colours and would save a lot of time. I note in previous discussions in this thread that there aren't enough colours available, so there might be some duplication. But it would surely be better to be able to distinguish most corps than the situation we have now where we can't distinguish most corps.
Three colouring options
  1. Use split colouration as you have for the LW airbase backgrouns but in the symbol area where the army colours are currently. This would allow both army and corp colours to be shown.
  2. Keep the existing army colours but use a coloured dot or bar in the symbol to denote the corp.
  3. Use single colours but use more shades and give more thought to how they are distributed. For instance 6th army uses shades of blue for it's corps, 17th army uses shades of red and 11th army uses shades of yellow etc. With some careful thought most corps could be distinguishable. And allow colouration to be changed if a clash does occur.

Other stuff I love the idea of the event log but I think there is scope for improvement. For instance I see in my current game that the “255th infantry division withdraws”, but where from? Which corp/army/AG is it part of and where is it on the map? Can we have a hot link that jumps from the text in the event log directly to the unit on the map? Then you would have a clearer idea of the consequences of the move (BTW does anybody know where 255th is?)
I would join with others in asking for:
Ability to freely choose placement of units in in a set up move prior to the first turn without the editor.
Ability to pay AP's for changes to withdrawal schedule. Must be some room for manoeuvre here. Perhaps some historical withdrawals could be delayed by AP payment?
Ability to create new German units / have increased control of production.
Some way to prevent the HQ accidental relocation problem.

I understand that these issues have already been discussed, but please consider this as a vote for these items in any new game / version. On the debate about historical accuracy I don't think that you can claim that anything is historically accurate as most of the play options /movements / combats will be ahistoric otherwise it would be a reconstruction not a game.
Thanks for creating such a great game nonetheless.




arras -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/18/2011 11:22:18 AM)

If I may one interface suggestion:

Colour outlining of direct subordinate units is of course helpful in visualising command structure but I find it still not clear enough. Battlefield is still one mess in which it is hard to orient in times. Especially if I want to get idea of overall command structure.

My suggestion is to replace or supplement colour outlining with simple lines connecting subordinate units down in tree like structure. Perhaps with colour coding of lines according to level of command. There might be restriction of how much down this visualisation should go to prevent it connecting all units on map while viewing high command unit (STAVKA, OKH). Say it would be limited to Corps or Armies HQs when displaying command structure on this global level. Or link it in to the zoom so larger the zoom, more levels of command are displayed.

Perhaps line to parent command HQ from selected unit as well.

It would make easier to determine position of subordinate units along with their position (even without unit being on map, line would give direction in which unit is in relation to it's subordinates or commanding unit)

This can be optional mode, say activated by icon.

Something like this:

[image]http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/9324/witeccstruct.jpg[/image]




76mm -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/18/2011 11:30:26 AM)

quote:

My suggestion is to replace or supplement colour outlining with simple lines connecting subordinate units down in tree like structure...Perhaps line to parent command HQ from selected unit as well.


+1




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/18/2011 12:19:44 PM)

Here are a few UI suggestions in case nobody's already suggested similar-

1. Remove air unit selection screen from national reserve. Select direct from commanders report.

2. Right click HQ to bring up box showing its supply, leader stats, support units and their TOE %, number of CUs available. This also leaves subordinates highlighted blue. Clicking on other units will place them under command, APs permitting.

3. Introduce multi unit selection and drag and drop in commanders report for status changes and air unit allocation.

4. Enable transfer of SUs to any HQ on map by opening a transfer box in which you type the name of the destination HQ.




morvael -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/18/2011 2:21:54 PM)

UI suggestion: include captured city control percentage in commanders report under Locations tab.




76mm -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/19/2011 4:46:35 AM)

I've got another suggestion: Don't bother to show the Modified CV on the battle results screen. Since no one has any idea how it is calculate, I don't see what purpose it serves, it is just confusing.




von Beanie -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/19/2011 8:20:55 AM)

I have no idea if this has been discussed in the previous pages...

My main concern is with the continuous full frontal offensives that seem to be commonplace, especially by the Soviets. There's no incentive to sit still the first winter, or anytime else during the game with the possible exception of mud turns. The actual war was characterized by weeks of inactivity, such as before the Battle of Kursk. This never happens right now.

The way I'd correct this is create two supply states for the Russian side: static and combat. Combat supply is what already exists. Static supply would be significantly reduced.
Then, in 1941 I'd give the Soviet side 1 attack supply point (kind of similar to AP) each turn. They could be saved. Each attack supply point would be capable of activating a front for offensive combat operations for two turns (i.e., combat supply on offense).

A wise player would slowly accumulate these points until they had enough to launch a major offensive. Many of these offensives would occur after the mud turns since that is when there would likely be a reserve of the points. That is when many of the historical Russian offensives started. As the war progresses, such as in mid-1942, the Russians could get two points per turn to support a larger offensive, and then eventually three or more points per turn. 

Units attacking without having attack supply would be greatly reduced in offensive effectiveness, thereby encouraging them to sit still. This would significantly reduce German losses from what happens currently, and so their replacement rates might have to be readjusted. But this would prevent the full frontal Russian offensives in late 1941 and early 1942 that are commonplace now.




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/19/2011 9:48:37 AM)

A supply stockpile system for offensives would be great- for both sides.




JocMeister -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/19/2011 6:18:01 PM)

I would like a more detailed battle report without having to watch the whole battle play out on high resolution! 40 AFVs destroyed. Tigers or PzII? Makes a big difference :) Atleast let us see the actual losses per battle! A bonus would be a report on the whole battle as it can be seen on higher battleresolutions. But acessible as text. Would save me perhaps 1-2 hours per turn! Would make a huge difference!





Schmart -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/19/2011 6:26:11 PM)

What making random weather truely random? Who says the blizzard has to occur in 41? Was it pre-ordained by the gods, and did the Germans and Russians start the campaign knowing that in December the Russians will get a major offensive boost? Maybe it happens in 42 after the Germans capture Stalingrad. Maybe it catches the Russians by surprise while sitting on the Vistula in 44. I think it could mix things up a bit from all the (IMO not fun) pre-blizzard planning that goes on now which isn't historical, and maybe adds a bit to re-playability.

Make it so that one '41 blizzard' season is guaranteed to occur at some point in a 41-45 CG game, and the players will get no warning. There could be 3 weather options: Historical Weather, Minor Random Weather (current), Major Random Weather (proposed).




Schmart -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/19/2011 6:26:29 PM)

What about making random weather truely random? Who says the blizzard has to occur in 41? Was it pre-ordained by the gods, and did the Germans and Russians start the campaign knowing that in December the Russians will get a major offensive boost? Maybe it happens in 42 after the Germans capture Stalingrad. Maybe it catches the Russians by surprise while sitting on the Vistula in 44. I think it could mix things up a bit from all the (IMO not fun) pre-blizzard planning that goes on now which isn't historical, and maybe adds a bit to re-playability.

Make it so that one '41 blizzard' season is guaranteed to occur at some point in a 41-45 CG game, and the players will get no warning. There could be 3 weather options: Historical Weather, Minor Random Weather (current), Major Random Weather (proposed).




Zebedee -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/20/2011 12:13:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
A bonus would be a report on the whole battle as it can be seen on higher battleresolutions. But acessible as text. Would save me perhaps 1-2 hours per turn! Would make a huge difference!



This please. Three hours into an attempt to notate a battle and my hand cramped just as the German ground forces began to fire. Alternatively, being able to pause and restart (currently it's 'pause and then you have to quit watching') would be useful. Beer has a terrible effect on my bladder...




davbaker -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/22/2011 5:29:04 AM)

When a HQ is selected highlight the railhead hex it's getting supply from.




sillyflower -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/22/2011 12:40:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: arras

If I may one interface suggestion:

Colour outlining of direct subordinate units is of course helpful in visualising command structure but I find it still not clear enough. Battlefield is still one mess in which it is hard to orient in times. Especially if I want to get idea of overall command structure.

My suggestion is to replace or supplement colour outlining with simple lines connecting subordinate units down in tree like structure. Perhaps with colour coding of lines according to level of command. There might be restriction of how much down this visualisation should go to prevent it connecting all units on map while viewing high command unit (STAVKA, OKH). Say it would be limited to Corps or Armies HQs when displaying command structure on this global level. Or link it in to the zoom so larger the zoom, more levels of command are displayed.

Perhaps line to parent command HQ from selected unit as well.

It would make easier to determine position of subordinate units along with their position (even without unit being on map, line would give direction in which unit is in relation to it's subordinates or commanding unit)

This can be optional mode, say activated by icon.

Something like this:

[image]http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/9324/witeccstruct.jpg[/image]


Excellent idea especially as we have been told that's it's not possible to give corps different colours




Uxbridge -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/23/2011 5:53:10 AM)

I second this idea with lines also! Presently I play the Germans, but shudder at the thought of playing the Russians.

Present system does give all information needed, but gives it in a way that needs constant memorizing. It's a little like being in a house with a lot of lights, but where you have to press and hold the light switches in order for the lamps to work. Thus you have to press the switch, watch was is around you, and them move to the next switch in the dark.

Game in general is superb!




56ajax -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/23/2011 9:14:55 AM)

Can we have it so that the unit that captures supplies or fuel etc directly recieves a portion eg 10%? with the rest going to the HQ as per current functionality; historically I suspect that a bone dry unit may have topped up before marching on....I make it say 10% because the turns are weekly but the capture event would probably take eg a day....




Mehring -> RE: Game Suggestions: (5/23/2011 12:10:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

Can we have it so that the unit that captures supplies or fuel etc directly recieves a portion eg 10%? with the rest going to the HQ as per current functionality; historically I suspect that a bone dry unit may have topped up before marching on....I make it say 10% because the turns are weekly but the capture event would probably take eg a day....

Good point, and who's to say they'd even inform higher HQs of a lot of booty, dry or not? Armoured divisions always liked to keep invisible fuel stocks.

Same applies to captured equipment which is woefully under stated. I posted a while back, links to evidence that most Russian equipment captured in '41 by Germans never made it to the central pools but was in stead just given German markings and thrown into line. In this way even Infantry divisions often acquired an armoured element.

All the same, that both German and Rumanian factories were turned over to producing ammo for captured Russian ordnance points to the vast numbers of guns and tanks that did make it to central pools, but this just doesn't happen in game. Surely this is not such a task to put right?




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0703125