Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
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] >> Shadow Empire >> I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit comp... - 7/8/2020 1:43:42 PM   
TC2712

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/24/2010
Status: offline
I am a massive fan of the game and indeed have become somewhat obsessed with it...

I understand Vic doesn't want us min/maxing our military and making new formation types something that needs to be researched adds to the game but the current rigid OOB system is IMO a step back from Advanced Tactics Gold.

If I invent RPGs I should be able to equip my existing battalions with them.

But instead I have to build an entire fresh brigade of 'RPG infantry' that do not have machine guns or other weapons and are completely green. It makes no sense inside or outside the game universe.

Secondly another feature of ATG was that the player could define HQ levels and make their own OObs - but now I am stuck with fixed brigades that can expand to become Corps or Armys but bizarrely can only support the same amount of sub units.

Surely having the Staff council produce 'Staff points' that allow me to edit existing formations and create new ones would be better? Maybe these staff points could be used to increase the number of sub units an HQ could command?

Post #: 1
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 1:48:45 PM   
TC2712

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/24/2010
Status: offline
Ok having just read other parts of this forum I can see the kind of mixed units I want do become available later in the OOB tech tree.

I am in turn 100 of my current game and still have fairly basic OOBs so will be cranking up BPs allocation to the Staff council when I load the game up again.

(in reply to TC2712)
Post #: 2
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 1:57:07 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
I agree.
And think for future proofing, the whole system should be replaced with something a bit more scaleable:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4838731

(in reply to TC2712)
Post #: 3
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 2:24:14 PM   
demiare

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline
I'm agree there is need to do something with it. Currently it's super annoying - casino for getting tech discoveries, double-casino for developing models (well, at least idea of structural design rolls is super hot - it's describe very well real-life situations happened with nazies and post-WW2 USA when tanks designed with all possible techs but aren't fitting mobile warfare doctrine so show quite weak performance in real fights)... and now AGAIN casino for discover OOB?

My suggestions:
1) Auto-discovery of all OOB that you able to use now (developed models). So you need to pick your toys & develop them.
2) If not at least merge all mechanized/motorized variations combined with no support/RPG/MG/RPG+MG. This will reduce amount of techs to discover to more sensible levels.

P.S. Especially now OOB system highlighting AI superiority as it's capable to buy anything he want directly with BP instead of playing casino like us. Very fun when AI is still a bit ahead of me in military techs & a lot in models&OOB while I'm have 6 bureaucratic offices and he have 1. But maybe it's because of slower technology development being applied to only player - still unsure if it's working for AI too

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 4
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 2:42:25 PM   
Covski

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
If anything, I'd like to see a system for upgrading/changing an OOB to include new unit types as they are available. There's already a system for OHQs to return unwanted units to the SHQ and request new ones, so it seems like it shouldn't bee too hard to implement? I find myself underutilising things like RPGs, since I often feel like I have a lot of my regiments already formed when they become active. If I could retrofit them them into an existing formation, this would solve a lot of those problems.

(in reply to demiare)
Post #: 5
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 2:54:10 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4165
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
Agreed, the current OOB system is a big turn off for me. I only ever use a few different types of brigades, and don't need the twenty flavors of infantry brigades. On the other had, we should have more flexibility in creating our own types of units.

(in reply to Covski)
Post #: 6
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 5:02:51 PM   
jwarrenw13

 

Posts: 1569
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Monroe, LA, USA
Status: offline
I agree in general with the thoughts on more flexibility. I would imagine anything like that would have to follow the completion of the log system revisions.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 7
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 7:01:41 PM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
For reference, Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Clearly my suggestion to modify OOB's was not a hit.

Eliminate or modify the Assault Infantry Formation

The new suggestion: make the model requirements for formation OOB's less restrictive of model types.

Examples...

Infantry can be Infantry, MG Infantry, RPG Infantry

Transport can be Truck, APC, IFV

Artillery can be towed-artillery, self-propelled artillery

Tanks can be Light, Medium, Heavy, etc.

etc.

With respect to formations, I keep thinking all the different model types (i.e. dimensions) are causing unnecessary complexity. It's a combinatorial explosion. Each model type adds an exponential increase of possible OOB's. As the potential for new models becomes a reality, I think it's important to consider the implications.

In the current WW2 models, we had a certain amount of history as a guide. With science fiction, we have historical, post-apocalyptic, modern, post-modern, and future models to consider and perhaps suggest.

Since we can already pick multiple models in the Raise Formation dialog window, allow players to choose any model in keeping with it's super-type.

With the current OOB design pattern, the players are left to negotiate and lobby for their method to be included as a hard coded design. This change, however, puts the responsibility on the player and not the OOB design. If you want a specific model equipped in a formation, the onus is on the player to provide the technology and the resources. If someone else wants something different, the onus is on them to provide it.

This also allows the game developers to retain their control and vision for the strengths and weakness of each super-type and type. MG Infantry are good in the defense, etc.



_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 8
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 7:10:37 PM   
Foxador

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 7/5/2020
Status: offline
I don't like the whole OOB thing because it REALLY limits what you can field because somehow your guys aren't smart enough to know how to use a corp of tanks or whatever. Plus it's a huge pain in the ass when you find a better OOB or the one you really want but you can't turn your current units into those but have to start over. The only way around that is to disband your troops, wait the few turns for that, then remake a new OOB just to equip a few RPG's using the troops in your base but you LOSE all the attachments that you spent. It makes me just horde all the rare attachments because why use them when I'm just wasting them.

Considering that you need to form a whole new council just to sit down and come up with these designs is annoying because there's other things that you tend to need more. Plus when you're researching them most of the time I have no idea what I'm committing too. When it tells me to pick a new OOB and I have 40 freaking things to choose from all with small variations on their name with no explanation it leads to annoyance. I just want to turn my trucks into mechanized but nope can't do that unless you randomly get that OOB out of the 500+ ones and then research it and then reform a new unit losing everything. Options that are just sidegrades should be able to change between eachother, like motorized to mechanized.

Here's a thought, you already made all the OOB's that we can use in the game already, just let us be able to change the ones we have off the list you already made. That way you can't "min/max" it and just change simple things.

It just takes too much time to learn the OOB's and there's wayyyyyyy to many combo's that trying to find what you actually want sucks when you need to flip through 10-15 pages and looking for it.

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 9
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 7:15:09 PM   
Smidlee

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/24/2014
Status: offline
I don't mind OOB and don't see it a big deal. I can still attached two units of my choice to my brigades.
It doesn't take much time to discovery the mixed of units I want.

(in reply to Foxador)
Post #: 10
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 7:15:44 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 309
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline
Personally, I think what is missing is a proper OOB tree. I did make a post with all 85 Order of Battles in the War Room.

However right now it is too difficult to find out exactly what is needed in order to discover the OOB I am interested in.

I would expand that post with the tech/discovery tree, but that would be a LOT of hard work.

With an OOB tree in game, it would simply be another thing you have to plan and aim for. Since it is so opaque at the moment, everybody (me included) is flailing about in the dark - and that isn't fun.

Here is the thread with all Order of Battles.

< Message edited by DTurtle -- 7/8/2020 7:17:13 PM >

(in reply to jwarrenw13)
Post #: 11
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 7:22:33 PM   
Smidlee

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/24/2014
Status: offline
I thought it already work that way. As soon as I design a new model I start getting OOB for the new design. For example as soon as I design Armor I get OOB including armor. I discovery a lot more OOB than I unlocked so I choose to unlock only the ones I'll use.

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 12
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 7:58:11 PM   
Saarud

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/10/2016
Status: offline
Since most here seems to dislike the current system I would just like to say that I really like it. In my view it really fits the game perfectly.

(in reply to Smidlee)
Post #: 13
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 8:23:13 PM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Saarud

Since most here seems to dislike the current system I would just like to say that I really like it. In my view it really fits the game perfectly.


OOB is definitely a point wargamers like to argue about. In some games, whole complex point systems revolve around armies for play.

By any chance, are you typically a historical wargamer? Not a waragmer at all? etc. I only ask for my own curiosity.

... and I don't think you are the minority; only one part of a silent majority.


< Message edited by Malevolence -- 7/8/2020 8:26:55 PM >


_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to Saarud)
Post #: 14
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 8:45:17 PM   
Covski

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
Again, with the level of abstraction the game is working on the OOB research should be interpreted as the command staff "realising that you can put 20% RPG troops with your infantry", but "developing the logistics and training methods necessary for incorporating this new weaponry in the current doctrine". Thus I don't really mind the OOB development systems as such, though I'd like the ability to change the OOB of an existing formation as I mentioned before. Maybe a BP discount for OOBs based on how many you've developed previously would make sense too? (ie if you've previously operationalised a OOB containing RPGs, it would be easier to research other OOBs with RPGs)

(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 15
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 8:47:57 PM   
Saarud

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/10/2016
Status: offline
I am a wargamer since the 80's. Boardgames at first (GDW games were my favs but AH games were ok) and computer games since the 90's. Played many different kind of strategy games and I really like the art of designing games. And this one is a pearl.

In my mind the different game systems work great together and it really fit the theme of the game. If I want my Light Armor brigades I better have a great staff council the quickly can research new formations and ofcourse alot of luck.

< Message edited by Saarud -- 7/8/2020 8:49:18 PM >

(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 16
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 9:11:50 PM   
PyrrhicDefeat

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/24/2020
Status: offline
Totally agree. This should be a TOE issue not OOB. When bazookas/panzerschrecks were developed in WW2 the US and Germany didn't create "RPG battalions" much less "RPG Corps" or "RPG Armies". The new weapons were integrated into existing formations according to the doctrine developed for their use. The game would be better with research unlocking the ability to integrate new models into units and the player having more freedom to design the composition of large units instead of being stuck with an endless array of single weapon system based OOBs.

On a side note, it seems unnecessary to me for people to preface their comments with how much they like the game. Presumably if we bought it and are playing and posting on these forums we all like the game, it doesn't make constructive criticism any more or less valid, and suggesting improvements doesn't mean you don't appreciate the game or the work that has gone into making it.

(in reply to Saarud)
Post #: 17
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 9:35:51 PM   
lloydster4

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline
I don't find the OOB system to be particularly rewarding. I usually field a bunch of mostly generic brigades and swap auxiliaries in/out as the situation demands.

(in reply to Malevolence)
Post #: 18
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 9:51:27 PM   
Malevolence


Posts: 1764
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saarud

I am a wargamer since the 80's. Boardgames at first (GDW games were my favs but AH games were ok) and computer games since the 90's. Played many different kind of strategy games and I really like the art of designing games. And this one is a pearl.

In my mind the different game systems work great together and it really fit the theme of the game. If I want my Light Armor brigades I better have a great staff council the quickly can research new formations and ofcourse alot of luck.


Nice. Thanks for sharing. I assumed you had a long-term background given your comment.

_____________________________

Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

(in reply to Saarud)
Post #: 19
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 10:15:33 PM   
Smidlee

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/24/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

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

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

(in reply to lloydster4)
Post #: 20
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 10:29:25 PM   
lloydster4

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline

quote:

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


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

(in reply to Smidlee)
Post #: 21
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 10:47:18 PM   
OldSarge


Posts: 441
Joined: 11/25/2010
From: Albuquerque, NM
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smidlee


quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

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

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


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

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

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

< Message edited by OldSarge -- 7/8/2020 11:01:46 PM >


_____________________________

You and the rest, you forgot the first rule of the fanatic: When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.
Jeffrey Sinclair, "Infection", Babylon 5

(in reply to Smidlee)
Post #: 22
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/8/2020 11:04:23 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covski

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

You already can change teh OOB of existing units:

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

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

(in reply to Covski)
Post #: 23
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/9/2020 12:49:49 AM   
Covski

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline


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

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 24
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/9/2020 10:06:40 AM   
TC2712

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/24/2010
Status: offline
I think a simple quick fix would be to unlock the mixed rifle/MG/RPG infantry brigades as soon as the corresponding weapon is developed.

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

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


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

(in reply to Covski)
Post #: 25
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/9/2020 12:55:35 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4228
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
I agree, specially since you can easily win with "light infantry brigades" + independent regiment/ battalions

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

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 7/9/2020 3:39:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to TC2712)
Post #: 26
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/9/2020 3:06:37 PM   
Vhalor


Posts: 80
Joined: 6/11/2020
Status: offline
The current Staff Council and OOB system is certainly one of the weaker points of this game. Way too much investment necessary for mostly questionable returns on top. Which is unfortunate, because this area could be a lot of fun, if it would be changed to something more meaningful and engaging.

_____________________________

"Pull and obtain wisdom. Push and invite ruin." ― Cult of LIS

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 27
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/9/2020 6:05:52 PM   
Covski

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/4/2020
Status: offline
I'd like to see a compromise here: Maybe OOBs should be automatically discovered when you develop the technologies for new unit types? I still like that the work to operationalize an OOB requires investment, since working out the logistics and tactics for a certain type of formation should require some effort, given the abstraction level of the game.

(in reply to Vhalor)
Post #: 28
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/9/2020 7:25:38 PM   
SSFSX17

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 10/14/2001
From: California
Status: offline
This is one area where Advanced Tactics is absolutely better - the ability to modify your OOBs

(in reply to Covski)
Post #: 29
RE: I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit ... - 7/10/2020 1:46:40 AM   
Infierno


Posts: 99
Joined: 4/30/2017
Status: offline
I think comparing this game to ATG is inherently a bit unfair. This is a game where your civilization is discovering the concept of putting people who treat wounds and the patients they're treating into a big building together and calling it a "hospital." I think it makes sense that you need to separately develop OOBs/TOEs to effectively use new technology. It shouldn't be as simple as "Hey we have tanks now, let's go form Panzer divisions!" if we're rolling with the idea that this society is rebuilding itself from scratch.

< Message edited by Infierno -- 7/10/2020 1:49:30 AM >


_____________________________

If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

(in reply to SSFSX17)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition Page: [1] 2   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

0.156