I'll try the quoting thing, too (blue).
Are you a developper? Do the developpers read this?
Wow, there is a lot of stuff here! But that's good. Let me see if I can respond or add to any of it. Look for red bold.
OoB is great, I really like it. So far I played Boot Camp, Morning Sun, Rising Sun and Blitzkrieg. Right now I am in the middle of Panzerkrieg.
You should try the custom stuff too. Some of it is really quite good, particularly that by Erik. You have access to all of it because you own at least one purchased DLC.
Would those make me even more addicted? I am already spending a lot of time on the game. My wife is not amused.
Still I think there is room for improvement.
• Bug: Clicking on the symbol to toggle between air and land view when there is a unit beneath the symbol will activate the unit instead of toggeling.
True. Try zooming in or out a bit to alleviate that problem.
• Objectives are sometimes unclear, so you don’t know what exactly the victory criterion is. For example, in one scenario in “Rising sun” it was something like “Cripple the US Navy or Airforce”. It is unclear when that objective is accomplished. There are more examples like that, also in other campaigns, but I don’t remember them.
True again. Much depends on the diligence and skill of the designer. I have a suggestion for this too: If you get to know how the scenario editor works, you can take a peek at the workings to see what a blurb means. The scenario has to be copied to the custom scenarios folder in C:\Users\[your name]\Documents\My Games\Order of Battle - WW2 to be accessible to the editor.
• In the German versions of all campaigns I played there are mistakes in the scenario objectives (whereas the English versions seem to be ok): Names of cities to be captured sometimes are wrong, e. g. in Panzerkrieg, Kursk South, not Lomowo, but Werchni Olschanets must be captured, sometimes the wrong number of turns when an objective must be accomplished is wrong. All the objectives in German language in all campaigns and scenarios should be doublechecked.
Hmmm. My only response to this is that they try to update the DLC when such stuff is reported. I say unofficially that the best chance of it being noticed is if it's reported in Tech Support over in the Slitherine/OOB forum.
I reported some of these cases when I found them, and they were corrected, but there are more. And they are not translation mistakes, but false names and numbers. Should be easy to check for the developpers.
• When stepping unexpectedly into a minefield you only lose 1 or 2 units, but when you deliberately walk in you lose 3 or more units. That doesn’t seem to be logical.
I beg to differ. The first soldier in triggers a mine and the cry goes up "Mines! Back the way we came!" Whereas, to deliberately send soldiers (not engineers, mind you) into a minefield to clumsily clear it will result in more casualties.
OK, I'll admit that.
• Why can’t mine fields be attacked with airplanes or ranged weapons? In reality they can.
IRL, would this really happen? To use expensive ordnance to clear mines when specialty units could do so much more effectively and cheaply?
On the other hand, wouldn't IRL clearing a minefield by engineers take much longer? And I personally don't have many engineer units, so in most cases they are far away from the minefield I would like to clear. I simply would like to have the choice how to do it.
• Mechanized units will not use their vehicles on short distances. I would like to be able to decide that myself.
I believe the thinking here is that up to a certain distance, mechanized infantry would remain afoot and combat ready whereas beyond that distance, they would need their vehicles (and be more vulnerable to enemy attack).
For infantry that might be true in most cases, but what about AA or AT guns and the like? Their vehicles (if armed) sometimes fight better. And again, shouldn't it be my choice?
• Mechanized units should be able to be reinforced while mounted.
Again, while units are in transit, they are not as efficiently reinforced as when they are stationery. That's the idea behind it.
I understand, but I can reinforce tanks after they have moved, and also infantry afoot is in transit. Why make a difference between different kind of units?
• Artillery is much too expensive, compared to its impact and compared to other weapons costs.
Keep in mind one thing, and this I remember the developers saying when they tweaked it: Artillery is most effective as disrupters, not destroyers. It's their effect on enemy efficiency that is important, not their killing strength. Proper use of artillery (and bombers) is often overlooked in this regard.
Hmm, could be true. For example, I don't employ strategic bombers, because they are expensive and weak destroyers. Maybe I should try it (but this will reduce my credits even more, see my comment below on not having enough credits).
• The AI in some cases doesn’t act as efficiently or effectively as it could:
- It doesn’t always use ranged weapons before attacking at close range.
- It often doesn’t retreat heavily damaged units, but leaves them where they are or even attacks with them. In some cases that makes sense to slow you down, but mostly it looks like the AI doesn’t “know” better.
- Sometimes the AI uses airplanes to attack certain targets, although better targets are in range, e. g. a hard-to-destroy bunker instead of a weak bomber or artillery.
- Or it attacks units protected by anti-aircraft guns, although unprotected units are available.
I don't have any cogent response to this other than to agree with you in general, point out that sometimes the AI has "something else in mind," and say that video game companies often talk about "Improved AI!" in their updates.
• On the highest difficulty level you don’t have enough credits. The level is of course supposed to be hard, but it simply is no fun if you can, for example, grade up only very few units or can’t afford enough artillery.
Then don't play on highest difficulty! I'm not being snide; I'm serious. I believe middle difficulty in this game is the "sweet spot" and when I design scenarios, that's the gameplay balancing point that I look for. I'm always suspicious of guys who make a point of saying "I always play on max difficulty" like it's a badge of superiority - there are cheat codes available, you know.
Yes, I know about the cheats, and I used them a few times when it got too frustrating, but I did feel a bit guilty.
• It should be possible to save more than 2 files per turn.
This has me confused but I'll take a guess. It is possible to go to the saved games folder and rename the files if you want to save at certain points and go back to them. The game will merely create new auto-save files. I do this as I progress through a campaign because I don't want the campaign to end if I merely lose a scenario.
Good idea, never thought of renaming files.
• You should be able to reinforce units with as few reinforcements as you like. For example, you have to add at least 2 strength points (unless the unit has got already 9) even if you have got only enough credits for 1 point. Units that haven’t moved must sometimes be given 5 strength points, unless you move them. But maybe I don’t want to move them and I want to give them only 3 points.
Well, this is a design suggestion because that's the way it has always worked and it's not bugged. So, you are asking the designers to program more granularity and that takes time, effort, and resources. Also best requested in the Slitherine/OOB forum.
• Destroying a bridge costs 20 credits, building one only 10. Should be the other way around.
Take another look at this. I just ran a quick test in the scenario editor and it was -10 for both. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong in your observation; there could be another extenuating circumstance of which I am not aware. (Also note that the "Lay a minefield / Effect -20" button is right next to "Use Explosives" and perhaps you were looking at the wrong one?)
I will check that.
• To win a scenario in less than the maximum number of turns has got no advantages (unless there is an objective stating that explicitely). So to earn more credits you have to delay your victory until the last possible turn. If you are quicker you should get the credits you would have earned if you won in the last turn.
I can be more definite here. This is not so. See my next post for details.
• It should be made visually clearer which units have already moved or fought.
Yes, I agree with this one. The status emblem on a unit does change but the difference is rather subtle.
• German SS were elite troops (only talking about their combat value, not their sick ideology). They should have higher combat values than regular Wehrmacht units.
Another good suggestion. As it is currently done, Waffen SS and Wehrmacht are two factions that share many of the same units and there is no differentiation. However, a good designer will add experience points to Waffen SS units to produce the same effect.
Great comments overall. I hope I was not too negative. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Not negative at all. Thanks for your feedback.