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  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/28/2011 9:36:05 AM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

One thing is starting to drive me crazy: let's say I attack an enemy unit and force it to retreat. I then want to move a stack of three units into the newly-vacated hex, and the units have different CVs (lets say 14, 12, 10).

Very very very often, I cannot simply move the stack into the hex: I have to move the unit with 14 MP first. It's presence then allows the unit with 12 MPs to move into the hex, but not the unit with 10 MPs. Once the units with 14 and 12 MPs have both moved into the hex, then the unit with 10 MPs can also move in. So I can move the whole stack, but only one at a time, but takes a long time. Why not just allow the stack to move in from the beginning?


Good point! I am annoyed about this too. I have a suspicion it might have to do with the units having different morale and thus paying different costs for entering a hex previously in enemy control. Still, as all units have the MPs to enter the hex, they ought to be able to do it as a stack.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 361
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/28/2011 2:08:55 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
Something in the game I think works quite well, but I think it could be made better in the future is "Recon". As it stands now the maximum DL that can be achieved for non air units away from the frontline is 4. Perhaps make a facility where you could do 2 types of Recon, ie normal and low level. Normal as it is now, but low level gives a better chance of detecting and say raising the DL to 7 at perhaps a cost of highter interception and AA loss rates.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 362
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/28/2011 4:20:39 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4306
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: online
I find recon rather problematic for several reasons:

1) Why is it that only recon planes can fly recon missions? While I understand that you don't want to allow entire air fleets to fly recon missions, it seems odd that all fo the other thousands of aircraft can't see anything. As Soviet player, I've had many turns where I've gotten ZERO recon flights in particular areas, and I have no idea why.

2) Again, as Sov player I'm rather surprised how often I have virtually no idea where entire panzer armies are, despite doing as much recon as I possibly can. You would think that reporting the locations of panzer and mechanized units would be a rather high priority taks for partisans, so maybe such units within a few hexes of a partisan unit should be detected. This would also give greater incentive to develop (for Sovs) and squash (for Germsns) partisan forces.

(in reply to Pawlock)
Post #: 363
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/28/2011 5:04:07 PM   
marcpennington

 

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I find recon rather problematic for several reasons:

1) Why is it that only recon planes can fly recon missions? While I understand that you don't want to allow entire air fleets to fly recon missions, it seems odd that all fo the other thousands of aircraft can't see anything. As Soviet player, I've had many turns where I've gotten ZERO recon flights in particular areas, and I have no idea why.

2) Again, as Sov player I'm rather surprised how often I have virtually no idea where entire panzer armies are, despite doing as much recon as I possibly can. You would think that reporting the locations of panzer and mechanized units would be a rather high priority taks for partisans, so maybe such units within a few hexes of a partisan unit should be detected. This would also give greater incentive to develop (for Sovs) and squash (for Germsns) partisan forces.


I agree with the problems on recon. One additional issue I have is that recon seems far too strong for behind the front lines, particularly as far as the Germans go. Historically throughout the war (but particularly in 1941), the Germans rarely had an idea when and where (or for that matter that they even existed) the Soviet reserve formations would appear--- Glantz's Barborossa Derailed has good examples of this. My sense is that recon is far too strong for anything 3-4 hexes beyond the front line, giving the Germans an ahistorical strategic advantage in 1941---- you may not be able to tell exactly which specific divisions are there, but one can tell by the mass of counters where the Soviet armies are and where their next line of defense is going to be, leading to little chance of unwelcome surprises for one's panzers.

I think the Soviets should get an advantage in long range recon, particularly after 1941, tied to both partisans and far better strategic level intelligence then the Germans ever had (Gehlen's apologias aside). Even in 1941, it's striking how detailed the Soviet knowledge of the German OOB was, as evidenced again in the summarized daily reports in Glantz's Battle of Smolensk book, which repeatedly show fairly accurate information down to a divisional level or below, and a good and timely sense of the movement of German reserves.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 364
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/28/2011 5:36:05 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
Ability to put all Fortified Regions on bottom of stacks...

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to marcpennington)
Post #: 365
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/29/2011 5:03:50 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
Purely chrome - would like to be able to rename Fronts.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 366
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/30/2011 12:29:21 AM   
dasboot1960


Posts: 372
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: St Augustine, Florida
Status: offline
umm. look at opart iii for inspiration? shade the relevant hexes or ring them? My toe is just now wet with this game...

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 367
RE: Game Suggestions: - 7/31/2011 11:50:22 PM   
Der Lwe


Posts: 15
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
I would like some kind of "winterezition" rule. If you can motorize your units temporarily, why cant you train some of the German units to be prepared for winter. It has to be costly unless the germans will all wear furs for the winter. Maybee if you use the Mountain troops as "trainers" and cadre for this it would not be to widespead. So here goues. Removing a mountain unit would give you a winter training pool and cadre, for example one division would bring 9 units a brigade 3 or four. each of these batalion cadres could be used as support units. Every division that has such an SU attached would be better off from the first winter rules. How much would need to be tested. Beeing suport units the cadres could only be attached to the same nationality.

EDIT
Next, as I understand the german Jager division was trained for warfare in "rough" terain. Would some kind of momement cost adjustment for svamp, heawy woods and maybe rough be apropriate?

< Message edited by Der Löwe -- 7/31/2011 11:53:55 PM >

(in reply to dasboot1960)
Post #: 368
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/1/2011 12:54:26 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4402
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
This is the only divisional game that I have seen where the light divisions don't have some kind of movement increase or bonus over regular foot troops. Isn't this why they were made 'light' in the first place?

_____________________________


(in reply to Der Lwe)
Post #: 369
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/1/2011 8:18:54 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3188
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This is the only divisional game that I have seen where the light divisions don't have some kind of movement increase or bonus over regular foot troops. Isn't this why they were made 'light' in the first place?


I think there should be a rule reducing all Michael T's units' MPs by 10% as he's too good already

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 370
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/1/2011 3:17:32 PM   
morganbj


Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline
Add in a few levels of bad weather with different effects than what you have now.

I would suggest a "thunderstorm" event that occurrs only in the summer. (No more mud turns in Summer). This level would reduce the motorized units movement, but much less so leg units. Some effects on supply.

Then add a light mud. This level would have about half of the effect of the current mud turns. I see this as a way to slowly increase the effects of mud in the fall, then slowly return them to normal in the spring.

The same thing for snow. Add "flurries," and "light snow" to the game. Have a turn or two of these leading up to a full snow turn. Have blizzard turns randomly, but not consistently, in the winter. Say a 40% probablility. (Perhaps 60%, or something, the first winter.) The snow effects can slowly go away as spring approaches.

Then, carefully craft probabilities of when all the events will begin and end, but in a much more realistic way than we see now. If this is done correctly, the the 'historical" weather option would not be necessary. The problem is that in the variable weather, events are sudden and seemingly sometimes out of place, in my opinion.


_____________________________

Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 371
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/7/2011 7:45:39 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2053
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The computer's troubles with selecting a proper HQ for on-map units ( such as deciding to give German divisions a Hungarian Corps HQ instead of a German HQ ) is distracting, and probably inefficient.

(in reply to morganbj)
Post #: 372
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/7/2011 1:46:26 PM   
Shupov


Posts: 254
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

One thing is starting to drive me crazy: let's say I attack an enemy unit and force it to retreat. I then want to move a stack of three units into the newly-vacated hex, and the units have different CVs (lets say 14, 12, 10).

Very very very often, I cannot simply move the stack into the hex: I have to move the unit with 14 MP first. It's presence then allows the unit with 12 MPs to move into the hex, but not the unit with 10 MPs. Once the units with 14 and 12 MPs have both moved into the hex, then the unit with 10 MPs can also move in. So I can move the whole stack, but only one at a time, but takes a long time. Why not just allow the stack to move in from the beginning?


Good point! I am annoyed about this too. I have a suspicion it might have to do with the units having different morale and thus paying different costs for entering a hex previously in enemy control. Still, as all units have the MPs to enter the hex, they ought to be able to do it as a stack.


I raised this issue in the Tech Support forum here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2826497

It's a known issue and the workaround is to move units one at a time.

_____________________________

Two broken Tigers on fire in the night,
Flicker their souls to the wind...

Al Stewart, "Roads to Moscow"

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 373
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/7/2011 5:45:43 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4306
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shupov

It's a known issue and the workaround is to move units one at a time.


I realize that's the work around, I describe it in my post. The thing is that I don't want to have to move units one at a time.

[EDIT] And actually, the thread you link to refers to a different issue, just that the MP display is incorrect under certain circumstances. The issue I am referring to is not the MP display, but the actual MP.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 8/7/2011 5:48:38 PM >

(in reply to Shupov)
Post #: 374
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/9/2011 1:07:59 PM   
Djouk

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline
I like this game more and more and with practice i saw that when you active fortified icons (f hotkey) these icons are just in front of soft factor data (not a problem of zoom). Please just put fortify icons righter on counters. There is also certainly a rule with air lift support that is not explained in manuel. Using shift key sometimes some squadrons are ready for this rather than others after picking an other nationality or army group (not due to the range) when air transport mode is active. No where in manual i saw a rule about that, i discovered this at practice.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 375
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/9/2011 9:20:39 PM   
kvolk


Posts: 50
Joined: 5/26/2011
Status: offline
Put a turns until withdrawing in the commaders report. That way when you filter for withdrawing units it not only shows you that unit but it tells you what turn in is withdrawing on up to 10 turns out from current.

_____________________________

Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it.
Omar N. Bradley

(in reply to Djouk)
Post #: 376
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/11/2011 1:15:40 AM   
Rom3l

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 1/20/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

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.




+1 please

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 377
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/11/2011 1:55:58 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2136
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I would like to see a feature added to HQ units that allows them to go into refit mode as well. Without this feature the problem is that Soviet manpower and replacements only get added to the soviet ground units that are in refit mode and the HQs get very little. As a consequence all those new Army HQs assigned to STAVKA seem to take forever to get up to strength. Not a big deal, but I don't see why a player shouldn't be able to set an HQ to refit mode as well.

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 378
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/14/2011 10:14:29 AM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4685
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
By way of Lannister at www.puntadelanza.es, a couple requests/suggestions:

1. Something that would add some chrome to Wite would be the ability to add their historical badges to Axis units. This could be achieved by having some "generic" badges (country flags) somewhere in Dat/Art/Units which would be loaded if there wasn't present in that folder a file with a specific filename. For instance, if the file "logo814.tga" was present, then Unit 814 - 11 PzDiv - would have its generic badge replaced. Here's a mockup of what I have in mind:



2. Something that would probably help to better navigate the command structure would be that when the unit info panel is invoked by clicking on a combat unit ID appearing on the ATTACHED UNITS list in HQ unit info panel, a link that brought you to the location of the unit appeared (very much like as you can do from the Command Report).

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 8/14/2011 10:15:02 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 379
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/14/2011 12:03:17 PM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

By way of Lannister at www.puntadelanza.es, a couple requests/suggestions:

1. Something that would add some chrome to Wite would be the ability to add their historical badges to Axis units.



That's cute! I like version 2 better.

But why restrict it to Axis units? Admittedly Soviet badges would be either Guards or not I suppose, but still. Or were the Soviet branches of service badges used already during WW2?

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 380
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/14/2011 3:20:30 PM   
Der Lwe


Posts: 15
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
You should ad the possibility to "attack" empty hexes. If an inf have two or motorized have tree movement points left, it can take controll of an adjecent hex by attacking the enemy in that hex. It should be even easier to take possesion of an empty hex by "attacking" it using two or tree movement points.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 381
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/15/2011 8:25:47 PM   
Attack

 

Posts: 102
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
I wrote this in another post, about the 1.05, but I can´t find it.

First: this is the best wargame I´ve never played in the last 30 years (before the computer age).

Sugestions to do it still better:

-The home rules means that a program fails. In a perfect game, there are not home rules. So, if possible, insert the consensus home rules in the program (Riga gambit, bomb airports and cities after turn one, disembarks in the south, static units in 1941...)

-The fall of Moscow should have some penalitation for the Soviets. I.E. some sort of moral and AP damage until reconquered.

-The rout units should not to cross converted hexes when they flee.

-The factories should take some time to be moved. I.e: 2-3 weeks after the order to be "packed" in trains, if  in this time the rail is cut or the city falls, then the factorie can´t travel. A factory can´t be dismanteled and packed in a single week. This way, the factory movement will be more challenging (and more historic). And the Russians will be weak in 1942.

-It will be good to can supply the partisans (but without marks for the Germans) manually. This way, the Russian player can priorize the supply work.

-As said before in others post, it will be good to see all the units of a pile, changing order.

-The isolated units should be penaliced only when supply and/or ammo leves are low.

-And my letter to Santa Claus: To have defensive stands. "Normal" defensive stand. "Delaying" defensive stand: the unit will retreat when attacked, without fight, with half losses than usually. "No step back": the unit will not retreat, it will fight till the end in a place, and it will shatter or be destroyed (if isolated) if defeated. This will give flexibility to defense, but I don´t know if there is too much change in the program.

(in reply to Der Lwe)
Post #: 382
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/15/2011 9:40:18 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4685
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
By way of Lannister at www.puntadelanza.es, a couple requests/suggestions:

1. Something that would add some chrome to Wite would be the ability to add their historical badges to Axis units.



That's cute! I like version 2 better.

But why restrict it to Axis units? Admittedly Soviet badges would be either Guards or not I suppose, but still. Or were the Soviet branches of service badges used already during WW2?


I'm not an expert on WW2 Soviet memorabilia, but I think Red Army formations didn't had anything like distinctive badges, common on Western Armies. Given the nature of the Soviet state, symbols of "esprits de corps" such as badges, I think such things would be frowned upon (or worse). What I actually think they had were banners, in the tradition of the 1918-1920 Civil War.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 383
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/15/2011 10:03:34 PM   
chasman

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/5/2010
Status: offline
It would be nice if the historical enmity between Hungary and Romania were enforced, preventing this for example:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 384
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/16/2011 12:37:23 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:




quote:

4. Do not let the Finns attack south of the no attack line. This would still let the finns move south if the Germans clear the way for them, which I think is generous when considering the historical situation. Historically, I think it would have been extremely doubtful if one single finn would have stepped over that line even if the Germans had captured Leningrad three times over and made it into a parking lot.


I was exchanging email with a Finn some years back who felt that their only goal in the Continuation War was to regain what they lost in the Winter War, and nothing more. He felt that they wouldn't have moved one inch further than they did, no matter how well the Germans did. This is reinforced by the general disgust the Finns felt for what the Nazis were doing in the captured territories.

Of course, if there was a chance to gain territory and wealth, perhaps the Finns might have been lured out anyway. Hard to say. The Germans likely would have had to do MUCH better than they did historically before they would risk angering the Soviet Union (because they didn't take anything more, or doing anything nasty, the Soviets were willing to let the Finns quietly exit the war - unlike the Germans who they were going to kick until it wasn't fun any more, and then do it a while longer anyway).

Most games have the Finnish front as an "its there" type thing, but little more - you have to keep enough forces there to keep the Finns in check, but that is it. Although most games also feel that if the Germans captured Leningrad, the Finns would have moved further out.



Armies don't generally march on something just because its there. There is a reason to take it. It may be strategic (a cross road, a fortification, a good location to secure the flank from), it may be industrial (the real goal of war is not to shoot the other guy's troops, it is to destroy his ability to make war against you, his troops want to do that to you, and stop you from doing it to him), it may be resources (that was why the Japanese invaded in the Pacific, and the Germans looted as many resources as they could - inefficiently, but they did it), it could be wealth (the Germans looted billions from the conquered territories to help pay for the war), or it could simply be on the way to one of the above, but there is a reason.


That's the Finnish story and they're sticking to it, but it turns out not to be the case - though I'm sure it's what your friend was taught by his parents and school. Look at Finland's War of Choice by Henrik Lunde.

Maintaining this story was very important to Finnish independence during the Cold War.

North of Lake Lagoda, the Finns advanced to the 1939 border with light losses, destroying 2 Soviet divisions - the 54th and 27th as well as a NKVD regiment. Then in September, while the Germans were approaching Leningrad, they engaged in fierce battles involving heavy casualties to penetrate the 1939 line north of Lake Lagoda to take Petrozavodsk and the Murmansk-Volkov line, destroying the Soviet 3d division and another divisional equivalent (marine brigade and 2 regiments). Thereafter in November and December they drove northwest to the northern end of Lake Onega and the town of Medvezhyegorsk taking and inflicting further heavy losses. The also drove across the Svir taking bridgeheads, including one 100 kilometers by 20 km.

In this early 1941 phase of the war the Finns suffered 25,000 killed out of total casualties of 75,000, a few more than in the Winter War and half of their losses in the Continuation. In the Continuation War, the Finns estimate that the Soviets lost 270,000 killed and 550,000 wounded.

The Finns had their own divisions about the Continuation War, the Social Democrats mostly felt they should stop at the 1939 borders, while there were substantial portions of the military and political leadership which saw the attractions of a "Greater Finland" to include Soviet Karelia (which though ethnically related had never been part of the Duchy of Finland) and to achieve lasting security by the breakup of their historic adversary. President Ryti stated in a note to the Germans that he wanted the entire Kola Penisula for Finland though later he had second thoughts if it involved a common border with a Russian or Soviet state. Mannerheim's General orders early in the war, one broadcast over Finnish radio called for the liberation of Karelia and freedom for a greater Finland that included Karelia.

It does seem that Mannerheim made a conscious decision not to help bring about a conquest of Leningrad - that front went quiet at the beginning of September and the Soviets were able to transfer 2 of their 6 divisions to the German front. In terms of further offensives northeast of Lagoda, however, the Finnish offensive went on as we have seen and stopped as much due to logistics and manpower issues as anything - the Finns initially put 16% of their population into the army and like the Brits in late 1944 were overcommitted in manpower - they needed to and planned on reducing the size of their army, and demobilized a divsion for replacements. And when pressed for offensive action by the Germans, Mannerheim promised to renew the offensive on the Svir line as soon as Leningrad fell - hence the rule in WITE.

Actually, on the Finnish front, the WITE rule is too kind to the Soviets. To somewhat mimic their situation, the 23rd army should have its own no-move line to not pass the Narva or Volkov in 1941 and the 7th should freeze after it crosses the no attack line until the end of the year. Even that doesn't duplicate the reasoning that led the Soviets to sacrifice numerous forces north of the no attack line.

I don't want to sound too harsh to the Finns. They were caught between the sword and the wall. They explicitly sought Soviet approval of annexation by Sweeden with the 1940 boundaries and a commitment to neutrality and the Swedes were willing, provided the Finns promised no new war with Stalin, but Stalin blocked it by threatenting attack. A big mistake by Stalin as it turned out. They also needed someone to allow importation of grain - which had to be the Germans or the Soviets, and the Soviets weren't interested in an accomodation with the Finns before July 1941. But they didn't fight a defensive war or confine themselves to the 1939 border either - which the UK and US told them was what they needed for continued support diplomatically vis-a-vis the Russians.

Finally, in terms of quietly exiting the war, initially Stalin was willing to return to the 1939 boundaries, an for some concessions if they simply stopped at the 1939 lines but didn't exit the war. After their late 1941 offensive, that went out, but right up until the end of 1943 Stalin was prepared to let them out on the final peace terms, essentially, maybe a little better. Then as he prepared the 1944 offensive, those terms came off the table. The Finns somehow were caught totally unprepared for the 1944 offensive and lost heavily in the early stages and Stalin seemed to reconsider annexing Finland. But then the resistance stiffened and the Soviets got bogged down, taking heavy casualties, so Stalin decided he didn't want to delay rolling into East Europe trying to finish the Finns, so he went back essentially to his pre-offensive peace terms. If the Finns were that hesitant to tee off the Soviets they wouldn't have gone past the 1939 borders at very heavy cost to both them and the Soviets.

< Message edited by wpurdom -- 8/16/2011 12:50:23 AM >

(in reply to chasman)
Post #: 385
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/16/2011 8:31:51 AM   
Tarhunnas


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

That's the Finnish story and they're sticking to it, but it turns out not to be the case - though I'm sure it's what your friend was taught by his parents and school. Look at Finland's War of Choice by Henrik Lunde.

Maintaining this story was very important to Finnish independence during the Cold War.

North of Lake Lagoda, the Finns advanced to the 1939 border with light losses, destroying 2 Soviet divisions (snip)


Good and informative post! But please, it should be Ladoga.

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 386
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/17/2011 9:00:48 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2053
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
I hope something is done about the 27k aircraft limit for the Soviets.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 387
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/17/2011 1:38:50 PM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Löwe

You should ad the possibility to "attack" empty hexes. If an inf have two or motorized have tree movement points left, it can take controll of an adjecent hex by attacking the enemy in that hex. It should be even easier to take possesion of an empty hex by "attacking" it using two or tree movement points.


I have wanted this rule since playing War In Europe on an 8' by 8' table with Mike and Brian back in High School.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Der Lwe)
Post #: 388
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/17/2011 11:56:13 PM   
HCDawson

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Löwe

You should ad the possibility to "attack" empty hexes. If an inf have two or motorized have tree movement points left, it can take controll of an adjecent hex by attacking the enemy in that hex. It should be even easier to take possesion of an empty hex by "attacking" it using two or tree movement points.


I have wanted this rule since playing War In Europe on an 8' by 8' table with Mike and Brian back in High School.


Such a rule would well represent clearing too small to represent screening forces or pounding 'suspected' enemy positions that would make it easier for other forces to advance.

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 389
RE: Game Suggestions: - 8/22/2011 9:02:21 PM   
Djouk

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 7/25/2009
Status: offline
There 's a lack of realism in the fact that a city may only be destroyed when enemy units are in or with using air force. Historically, at many occasions Axis destroyed cities when they had not really totally occupied them (The best examples are Leningrad and above all Stalingrad). In one game i m playing, Axis other player is just leeching Moscow and even dont try to attack because city is well defended and fortified, and all industries are still intacts: not even a factory has been destroyed. That's not that i want to loose but in reality Axis had at last used some artillery to siege the city and to destroy some areas making rumbles. I would then agree that theses rumbles could at least increase defensive abilities like a counterpart of the actual rule if axis would like to attack after this (rumbles of stalingrad are often described like a cimetery for axe and leading a rats war).

As a consequence a player who intend to capture a city should have the choice of only using artillery with no attacking making only damages in the city... or at the opposite trying to capture a city without using artillery for example if this city i not well defended making easier capture of factories but may be increasing looses for attacker.
(But I wouldn't like a rule that allow to destroy all factories just with an enemy unit in ZOC of the city and then making no interest to enter in the city !)
In fact i dont see all theses historical mechanisms that had their importance.

When playing big scenarios where i have to put in reserve many units i find fastidious to click on small box (click.. click... click...), it would help if there was a touch for reserve mode, ready and refit mode for a single unit choosen.

< Message edited by Djouk -- 9/13/2011 8:57:41 PM >

(in reply to HCDawson)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Game Suggestions: Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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

0.180