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

A military-oriented and sci-fi wargame, set on procedural planets with customizable factions and endless choices.

Moderator: Vic

TC2712
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:51 am

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

Post by TC2712 »

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?

TC2712
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:51 am

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

Post by TC2712 »

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.
zgrssd
Posts: 4219
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:02 pm

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

Post by zgrssd »

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
DW2 Poll:
"Should the Civil and non-Combat Ships loose all or most of their weapon slots?"
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=382690
demiare
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:21 pm

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

Post by demiare »

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 [:D]
Covski
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:03 pm

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

Post by Covski »

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.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4695
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

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

Post by 76mm »

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.
JWW
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Louisiana, USA

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

Post by JWW »

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.
User avatar
Malevolence
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:12 am

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

Post by Malevolence »

For reference, Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's
ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Clearly my suggestion to modify OOB's was not a hit. [:D]

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.
Foxador
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:20 pm

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

Post by Foxador »

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.
Smidlee
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:37 am

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

Post by Smidlee »

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.
DTurtle
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:05 pm

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

Post by DTurtle »

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.
Smidlee
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:37 am

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

Post by Smidlee »

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.
Saarud
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:47 am

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

Post by 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.
User avatar
Malevolence
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:12 am

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

Post by Malevolence »

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.
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.
Covski
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:03 pm

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

Post by Covski »

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)
Saarud
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:47 am

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

Post by 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.
PyrrhicDefeat
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:19 pm

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

Post by PyrrhicDefeat »

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.
lloydster4
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 8:13 pm

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

Post by 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.
User avatar
Malevolence
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:12 am

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

Post by Malevolence »

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.
Smidlee
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:37 am

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

Post by Smidlee »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Shadow Empire”