Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game Suggestions:

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/20/2011 5:02:41 AM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

I'd like to suggest a new column in the production screen listing current total numbers for each equipment type in units. For example, how many PzIIIh's do I have in all my units? Well, the new column would tell me.


Click on the Amount in units Number in the production screen.

It will then open the commanders report with a listing of that type of AFV and the amount in your whole army.

The Axis have 296 Ready at the start of the Grand Campaign.

If you wanted that in the production screen then there would be a whole lot of calculations to be carried out before displaying it. My guess is it would make loading the production screen slower on min spec computers.

So it is in game, just not where you want it.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 301
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/20/2011 7:36:53 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) – Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.  It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.  Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.  Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?



Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.


The problem is that in the 1943 campaign the Soviets start with a bunch of mech and tank units that are in static mode, that are for all practical purposes impossible to reactivate. There are so many static rifle units that need to be reactivated to organise the front that there just aren't the available APs (70+ per corps) to activate them. If there was the ability to disband static units then it'd be cheaper to disband the existing ones and build new ones, which makes no sense. So now these units can't actually be railed anywhere either, not even to defend rear area cities, so why do they even exist?

In the 1942 campaign there are a bunch of static rifle divisions around Moscow. These are really needed on the Don river line and south of Tula where the German spearheads generally try to punch through. Without the ability to rail these into place, Stalingrad and in turn Moscow are basically doomed in that campaign now.

Unfortunately the rule change caught me in the middle of a game, where I had railed about half of the units that I needed into place. Now I can rail no more, and of course the units that I did manage to rail are about to be surrounded and surrender. Without being able to use static units to form a front line, there are no front lines for the Russians in 1942, it's game over before it starts. That's why I had to ask whether this was playtested. There is just such a huge difference between a unit being routed (or retreated) and it surrendering.

It wouldn't be necessary to put static units on the front line and have them attacked and reactivate for free if the AP cost to reactivate a unit was in any way reasonable. The fact that the AP cost to reactivate a unit is unreasonable is the underlying cause of this change, so why not fix that?

My last question -- does a rifle division really need its trucks to be able to be loaded onto a train? Last time I got onto a train I didn't drive my truck to the railway station. I took the train to work today and didn't see a lot of other people on the train carrying their trucks with them.

So I'll reluctantly go back to playing the 1941 campaign now. The 1942 and 1943 games are broken. Which is a pity because they were quite well balanced and playable before this change, but alas no longer.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 302
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/20/2011 10:12:54 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
I just noticed this, didn't think of it before. In all other places in the game, Soviet armored units are called tank corps, tank divisions, tank brigades, correctly according to Soviet parlance, except in this screen. I guess that is an oversight. My suggestion is that they are renamed in this screen.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 303
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/20/2011 10:22:21 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I just noticed this, didn't think of it before. In all other places in the game, Soviet armored units are called tank corps, tank divisions, tank brigades, correctly according to Soviet parlance, except in this screen. I guess that is an oversight. My suggestion is that they are renamed in this screen.





I tried to catch a lot of the standardization stuff before release, but something always slips by or gets changed. I also see infantry rather than rifle and engineer vs sapper.

I'll go thru that screen and make the appropriate recommendations, thanks for bringing it up.

Andy

_____________________________


(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 304
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/20/2011 10:30:50 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) – Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.  It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.  Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.  Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?



Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.


The problem is that in the 1943 campaign the Soviets start with a bunch of mech and tank units that are in static mode, that are for all practical purposes impossible to reactivate. There are so many static rifle units that need to be reactivated to organise the front that there just aren't the available APs (70+ per corps) to activate them. If there was the ability to disband static units then it'd be cheaper to disband the existing ones and build new ones, which makes no sense. So now these units can't actually be railed anywhere either, not even to defend rear area cities, so why do they even exist?

In the 1942 campaign there are a bunch of static rifle divisions around Moscow. These are really needed on the Don river line and south of Tula where the German spearheads generally try to punch through. Without the ability to rail these into place, Stalingrad and in turn Moscow are basically doomed in that campaign now.

Unfortunately the rule change caught me in the middle of a game, where I had railed about half of the units that I needed into place. Now I can rail no more, and of course the units that I did manage to rail are about to be surrounded and surrender. Without being able to use static units to form a front line, there are no front lines for the Russians in 1942, it's game over before it starts. That's why I had to ask whether this was playtested. There is just such a huge difference between a unit being routed (or retreated) and it surrendering.

It wouldn't be necessary to put static units on the front line and have them attacked and reactivate for free if the AP cost to reactivate a unit was in any way reasonable. The fact that the AP cost to reactivate a unit is unreasonable is the underlying cause of this change, so why not fix that?

My last question -- does a rifle division really need its trucks to be able to be loaded onto a train? Last time I got onto a train I didn't drive my truck to the railway station. I took the train to work today and didn't see a lot of other people on the train carrying their trucks with them.

So I'll reluctantly go back to playing the 1941 campaign now. The 1942 and 1943 games are broken. Which is a pity because they were quite well balanced and playable before this change, but alas no longer.



By ensuring that static units remain close to where they start, which was the design intent rather than railing them elsewhere, it puts a more historical constraint on the player by not being able to free up the entire army. You can save up ap's and activate those units that you can, but you won't be able to do them all. These scenarios are actually better now for it.

There is a remake of the 43 Campaign being worked on, but when that will be available i couldn't tell you.



_____________________________


(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 305
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/21/2011 5:22:32 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 709
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
I do like to see a separate editor exe file as witpae. Now must I start te game for the editor.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 306
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/21/2011 7:00:55 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

By ensuring that static units remain close to where they start, which was the design intent rather than railing them elsewhere, it puts a more historical constraint on the player by not being able to free up the entire army. You can save up ap's and activate those units that you can, but you won't be able to do them all. These scenarios are actually better now for it.

There is a remake of the 43 Campaign being worked on, but when that will be available i couldn't tell you.



Colour me unconvinced.

If the game balance trends towards having the Soviets end the 1943 campaign in the exact same position as they started the 1943 campaign, isn't that an Axis decisive victory?


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 307
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/22/2011 7:25:37 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I'm also finding the 1942 campaign extremely taxing as the Soviets in 1.04 and later compared to 1.03.

With 1.03 I was able to easily defeat an AI opponent, and found a local PBEM player reasonably easy to defend against. I couldn't get much of an offensive going in early 1943 but by late 1943 I was pushing forwards and winning battles.

Against the same local PBEM opponent in a 1.04 game it's early 1944 and I'm still on the retreat. Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad are all gone, although I've had him stopped on the Volga river line for a few months. In the summer of 1944 I should be able to push forwards a bit but I think it will be late 1944 before I retake Moscow and perhaps into 1945 before I liberate Stalingrad. Leningrad will be in Finnish hands until the end of the game. My truck pool is nearly zero, and so there's no latitude to build anything as fancy as a mech corps, even if I could find the APs.

I have started an on line game of the 1942 GC and I'm expecting much the same. Stalingrad went very quickly and Leningrad will probably only last into October 1942. I should hold Moscow until after the mud finishes and rail out most of the factories (I lost the Stalingrad tank factory, but I figured it was more important to keep my manpower up than produce tanks that I will never use). However I expect that the Axis offensives though the snow turns and early summer turns in 1943 will take Moscow and have me holding on back on the Volga again.

I think the biggest difference between these two campaigns and the 1941 GC as the Soviets is the inability of the Soviets to muster APs or trucks. Early in the 1941 GC you start railing tank and motorised divisions back to river lines, dig them in until they hit fort level 2, then static them to create massive pools of APs and trucks. They later turn into rifle divisions which can be activated quite cheaply. By mid 1942 you have tank brigades aplenty and a good reserve of APs to use for building units and SUs. You don't need to mess with the command structure very much because all of your reinforcements come on under Stavka and can be reassigned for free. You don't run into a shortage of trucks nearly as quickly as you do in the 1942 or 1943 starts, and by early 1943 you can be building tank and mech corps up to a reasonable limit.

With the number of static units in the 1942 campaign as well as the messed up command structure, shortage of trucks, etc, there are never enough APs or trucks to activate units or fix all of the command issues. Additionally, the Soviet player can expect to lose about 25% of his standing infantry strength to encirclements on the first turn, leaving a line held by AT brigades and other weak units. An intelligent German player is just going to sprint through those lines and encircle more static divisions, leading to a complete collapse in Soviet manpower levels by the end of 1942. From there it's all downhill. In 1.03 the fort levels came up faster, at least allowing the rear area units to form some kind of line, however in 1.04 it seems the Germans can tear off and destroy entire Soviet fronts at will.

In the 1943 campaign the German player has two options. One is to attack and encircle the Kursk salient (easily done on the first turn) but that leads to Soviet counter-attacks and counter-encirclements which will eventually grind the Germans down. The Soviets don't need to do much with their static units in active fronts, just leave them there to get hit and they will activate. Activating units in other fronts is more important, however fixing the command structure is impossible. In the two 1943 GCs I've played as the Soviets, one was an easy victory where the Germans attacked and pulled off a first turn encirclement but by turn 3 were surrounded, and the other is turning into a slow WWI style grind as the Germans are pushed back one hex at a time. Of course in both GCs I had masses of static units all advancing one hex at a time until they get lucky and get attacked, in neither game could I afford the APs to activate the majority of those units.

Just some data points.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 308
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/22/2011 9:24:39 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7503
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I quite agree that the static system as presently designed doesn't work especially well later on in the war. I too find the AP costs for reactivating in 42 and especially 43 staggering. 70 APs to get a single mech corps in the game is indefensible.

All that being said: the Soviet can squash the German like a bug in the stock 43 scenario. All you need do is utterly ignore command and control, spend everything on activations, and dogpile the weakest portion of the German line, by the Stalino area. Send 3+ tank armies there to exploit any hole and keep feeding reinforcements as they activate. You can cross the Dnepr bend as early as turn 12.


< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 6/22/2011 9:26:50 AM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 309
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/22/2011 10:57:08 AM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline
It is quite difficult to tell when what units can be built or combined as Soviets.

I would love it if some lines could be added in the logistics report that tells me when I can combine rifle brigades into divisions, cavalry divisions in to corps, etc - similar to the lines that currently tell me when the TOE of a unit is upgraded.

So something simple along the lines of: "Cavalry Corps can now be formed. Tank Corps can now be formed. Rifle Divisions can now be built." And so on.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 310
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/22/2011 7:15:01 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2053
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The combination rules are on two pages in the manual, slightly superceded by the brigade changed in the updates.

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 311
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 1:36:46 AM   
marcpennington

 

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline
One suggestion I have would be in the interface screen of the list of HQs that one can assign SUs too, always begin the list with the high command (OKH/Stavka) on the top (as long as one is in command range obviously), followed perhaps by the fronts/army groups. For example, this would cut out situations such as when one wants to assign a SU from a corps in AGC to a corps in AGN, but neither AGN or OKH are on the list of options, as the list gets filled by all the nearby armies/corps first. This can make it at times a royal headache to move SUs around.

In general, I think this alteration would make assigning SUs a bit more consistent, and one would almost always be able in two turns to fist assign the SU to the high command, then in the following turn one could "pull" the SU directly to whichever division/corps/army one desires it in. Further, it would cut down a bit on the eye strain of scanning up and down on the lists to locate a HQ name---- I mean as it stands, OKH for example could be anywhere on the interface screen, and the name doesn't necessarily jump out at you (especially when it's not there... :) ).

Hopefully it wouldn't be that difficult to implement, but would be a big help to micro-managment.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 312
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 3:10:41 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

One suggestion I have would be in the interface screen of the list of HQs that one can assign SUs too, always begin the list with the high command (OKH/Stavka) on the top (as long as one is in command range obviously), followed perhaps by the fronts/army groups. For example, this would cut out situations such as when one wants to assign a SU from a corps in AGC to a corps in AGN, but neither AGN or OKH are on the list of options, as the list gets filled by all the nearby armies/corps first. This can make it at times a royal headache to move SUs around.



Yes please.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to marcpennington)
Post #: 313
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 7:57:02 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Two quick suggestions:

* Reduce the attrition for static front line units. The AP cost to reactivate static units is too high (I think everyone agrees with this). Static units can't be placed in refit, they have to be reactivated and moved to rear area lines to refit. There is an advantage in making front line units static in that they get a fortification bonus, but this is more than outweighed by seeing them get chewed down to unready status in a couple of turns due to attrition.

* Reduce the rate at which isolated units lose CVs and surrender, especially in high fortification levels. There were many cases of units being isolated for some months before surrendering, just look at the 6th Army at Stalingrad. Sure, they should lose most of their attack ability but with sufficient ammo they should be able to live on their internal supplies for some time. It's a bit ahistorical seeing entire entrenched Soviet armies or German corps surrounded one turn and surrender the next almost without a fight.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 314
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 8:42:17 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Sorry, one more suggestion from me:

This rule change:

"9) Rule Change - Introduced the concept of a commanding HQ for each side for each combat. Generally this commanding HQ is selected because it has the most CVs directly reporting to it in the battle. Units not reporting directly to the commanding HQ will suffer command battle modifiers that will reduce their CV for the battle. The battle report now lists the units in the battle grouped under the name of the HQ they report to. If an HQ‟s units are suffering a command battle modifier, the amount of the CV reduction is shown next to the name of the HQ (for example XXIV Panzer Corps -36% indicates that each unit listed in this corps has had its CV reduced by 36%). The greater the number of HQ‟s that the unit must trace through to reach the commanding HQ, the greater the modifier. In addition, units that report directly to a high command HQ suffer an additional 20% modifier, and those that report directly to an Army Group or Front suffer an additional 10% modifier (these are shown as part of the total modifier percentage displayed)."

Reduce the command battle modifier for units that are attached directly to the same Front or Army group HQ that the commanding HQ is attached to. Eliminate the command battle modifier for units committed from reserve from that Front or Army group HQ.

e.g. If the commanding HQ is 40th army and 40th army is attached to the Western Front, then a unit that is attached to the Western Front that is part of the attack should have a reduced command battle modifier (and fight closer to full strength). Eliminate that command battle modifier (the unit fights at full strength) for a unit that is attached directly to the Western Front when it is committed from reserve.

Historically, large groups of supporting units were left directly reporting to their front HQs. This especially applies to loose mech corps and artillery. This must have been done for a reason. Also it adds a bit of flexibility when assigning reserves.


< Message edited by delatbabel -- 6/23/2011 1:42:07 PM >


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 315
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 8:45:56 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

The combination rules are on two pages in the manual, slightly superceded by the brigade changed in the updates.


This shows when units can be combined.

It doesn't show when units can be created. There is a bit of confusion about this, it's not mentioned in the manual or the game anywhere and it can't be deduced except from the scenario editor.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 316
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 1:43:23 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Two quick suggestions:

* Reduce the attrition for static front line units. The AP cost to reactivate static units is too high (I think everyone agrees with this). Static units can't be placed in refit, they have to be reactivated and moved to rear area lines to refit. There is an advantage in making front line units static in that they get a fortification bonus, but this is more than outweighed by seeing them get chewed down to unready status in a couple of turns due to attrition.

* Reduce the rate at which isolated units lose CVs and surrender, especially in high fortification levels. There were many cases of units being isolated for some months before surrendering, just look at the 6th Army at Stalingrad. Sure, they should lose most of their attack ability but with sufficient ammo they should be able to live on their internal supplies for some time. It's a bit ahistorical seeing entire entrenched Soviet armies or German corps surrounded one turn and surrender the next almost without a fight.



+ 1. Actually, level 2 or 3 forts will take a while to root out when isolated, but for small groups with adequate air supply and good morale, they should be able to hold out for months. Just think of Demyansk and Kholm. Demyansk was isolated for more than two months (10 turns). This will not happen in the game.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 317
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 1:54:13 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I will add this here from another thread:

A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.   Alternatively, greatly reduce the fortification numbers for non-static units after fort level 2 is reached (so that it takes an unreasonable amount of time for a non-static unit to create a level 3 fort).

Also:

* Reduce the AP bonus for going into static mode and the AP penalty for coming out of static mode. A player that creates a lot of static units to fortify won't be able to pull them out and run if it costs 2 bazillion APs to do that.

* Reduce or eliminate attrition losses for static units in level 1+ forts. Static units stacked next to enemy hexes eventually go into unready (and eventually depleted) mode because they suffer so many attrition losses and can't get the benefits of refit.

* Static units should be harder to retreat (higher odds level required), but if forced to retreat should have a higher chance to rout.


* Increase the damage done by artillery to forts.



_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 318
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/23/2011 9:25:15 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
Pure chrome - Let the player change the name of the fronts and army groups. (Probably not the static M.D. HQ's.)

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 319
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/24/2011 6:52:25 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Allow the ability to load save games from any location on the disk, and to remember the last 10 or so games saved/loaded.

This would help with people who use Dropbox or similar systems to exchange save files. I have started using Dropbox for exchanging PBEM save games and saves a lot of bandwidth compared to email exchanges.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 320
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/24/2011 8:47:01 AM   
56ajax


Posts: 1658
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline
Have morale shown on the Assign Air Unit window.....as this is what I typically use to determine which units to rest...

beef up German AI; on beta 30 I displaced 5 HQs RRs etc on turn 2.

but my biggest problem with the game is that it takes way to long to play - it takes me 4-5 hours per turn in GC 41....so anythiny that can be set as an option/preference would be appreciated eg have AXIS reinfs appear on maps edge vs close to the Army Group they were historically assigned to, have a set destination function, factory evacs manual vs historical timetable, etc...

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 321
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/24/2011 4:29:27 PM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline
I would like to have %TOE in the assign window for SU.

(in reply to 56ajax)
Post #: 322
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/28/2011 10:14:47 AM   
56ajax


Posts: 1658
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline
have the Event Log display non combat units that have been automatically disbanded eg Soviet Corps HQs

(in reply to saintsup)
Post #: 323
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/28/2011 5:45:01 PM   
Baelfiin


Posts: 2975
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

It is quite difficult to tell when what units can be built or combined as Soviets.

I would love it if some lines could be added in the logistics report that tells me when I can combine rifle brigades into divisions, cavalry divisions in to corps, etc - similar to the lines that currently tell me when the TOE of a unit is upgraded.

So something simple along the lines of: "Cavalry Corps can now be formed. Tank Corps can now be formed. Rifle Divisions can now be built." And so on.


I would like to see something like this as well, would be very nice.

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 324
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/29/2011 5:49:32 AM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1209
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
The ability to Click on a FBD unit and give it a path to repair. Instead of clicking on each and every hex. Each and every turn.

The ability to Toggle Rail damage for both Axis and Soviet rail nets.

The option to breakdown German air groups consisting of 40 aircraft  into 2 to groups of 20.


_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 325
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/29/2011 7:53:38 AM   
Chunnetter

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline
I think it should be simply zero APs to turn a unit to static mode (but you get the trucks back into your pool), and 1 AP to turn any unit of any size from static mode to active again.

That way players will actually use static mode. At the moment I won't put units into static mode because the cost to reactivate them is too high. I


_____________________________


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 326
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/29/2011 8:08:16 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2053
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
Another bot account to be deleted ( up there ).  Admins please take note.

(in reply to Chunnetter)
Post #: 327
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/29/2011 2:44:38 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
A function to highlight all units out of command range of their HQ. That would save a lot of time.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 328
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/29/2011 3:08:51 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

A function to highlight all units out of command range of their HQ. That would save a lot of time.

I use refit/reserve mode for a lot of stuff like this. First turn off refit for everyone, then filter the commander's report by whatever I want and set them to refit.

Makes it easy to have a quick on-map overview of that stuff.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 329
RE: Game Suggestions: - 6/29/2011 3:23:58 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

A function to highlight all units out of command range of their HQ. That would save a lot of time.

I use refit/reserve mode for a lot of stuff like this. First turn off refit for everyone, then filter the commander's report by whatever I want and set them to refit.

Makes it easy to have a quick on-map overview of that stuff.


I don't understand. How would that help me see units that are out of command range of their HQ?

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   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

0.253