Rob
Member
Hi all,
Just some things I'd like to see:
1/ A more realistic routine for mounting/dismounting. I know the current process is only a temp. routine but greatly look forward to something a little more robust.
2/ A separate movement type/class for tracked equipment. The current 2 classes (foot and motorized) do not (IMO) accurately reflect the differences between a tank and a truck in varying terrain and ground conditions. Unless there is already something under the hood that is not discernible to the user??
3/ The ability to create forces and make attachments etc. from the OOB lists. Control clicking off the map in unit congested areas can be an adventure in fat fingers for some of us.
4/ The ability to capture and use at least some basics and fuel from surrendered or destroyed enemy units. Especially enemy bases. Not ammo for obvious reasons. also allow the player to manually reassign units to non-organic bases - even if bases are only of the same type eg. inf to inf and armour to armour.
5/ The ability for units within the same force -- at the lowest level ( i.e. companies and platoons within the same CURRENT battalion or company level force structure) -- to be able to share basics/fuel/ammo between themselves when in very close proximity to each other and no spotted enemy units are around. This could be a manual process initiated by the lasso technique followed by an order to rebalance supplies within the force.
6/ The ability to ascertain whether reinforcements are foot or motorized (and hopefully mechanized if #2 above sees the light of day).
7/ Reinforcements more than 24 hours away should not always be visible on the list to the player as there were often occasions when formations only became available at the proverbial last minute. A dynamic reinforcement list. Sort of a friendly fog of war.
8/ In line with #7 above we should not have as much precise info on reinforcements that are hours or days out of the battle. Their actual strength etc. should only become truly apparent at the time of entry. More friendly fog of war......
9/ Routing units should be losing/abandoning way more of their heavy equipment than is the case if they are truly disorganized and fleeing for their very lives. Maybe rout less and retreat more?? Or perhaps a new condition somewhere between what we currently call routing and retreating??
10/ More fog of war when it comes to things like always knowing whether a particular enemy held bridge is primed or not. Also applies to new features like mines. Ooops, unit "X" just plowed into a minefield and sustained "Y" per cent losses. Only then does the new minefield terrain graphic become apparent. Sometimes we know ahead of time and sometimes we don't........
11/ A way to target those pesky enemy remnants that haunt your rear areas, trash your supply columns, and call in incessant artillery strikes. I really don't think it's the role of the Divisional or Corps commander to personally supervise their pursuit and destruction, but if you don't you're entirely at the mercy of the sixteen most dangerous enemy troops on the map.
12/ How about a dedicated counter battery mission/task option button for artillery units? The AI sometimes does a decent job of this when on call but often has other priorities that occasionally mystify me. I would like to be able to at least make it the priority fire mission for a designated battery or so.
13/ The ability to have each player (or the AI) play at different Orders delay levels. Newer players or the AI could play at realistic (as an example) while the more experienced player plays the match at painfully realistic. Just another way to find play balance without always resorting to more or less supply/reinforcements.
14/ Something I think would be kind of cool (and is therefore sure to be a programming nightmare) is the capability to obtain in-scenario optional but necessarily conditional reinforcements during play. Kind of like what SSG's latest offerings allow for in using "alert" units.
These would only be offered to the player to help stave off imminent disaster or to reward collapsing the enemy front and facilitating subsequent exploitation. Naturally they would cost a hefty number of VP's if chosen but not so many as to nullify their usefulness.
Those are my top picks and do not include or supersede Arjuna's previously announced list of enhacements such as a cross river assault process, amphibeous assaults, off map artillery, sequential tasking, triggers ......... all of which I would also like to see!!!!!!
Thanks for listening! Comments are always welcome!
Rob.
Just some things I'd like to see:
1/ A more realistic routine for mounting/dismounting. I know the current process is only a temp. routine but greatly look forward to something a little more robust.
2/ A separate movement type/class for tracked equipment. The current 2 classes (foot and motorized) do not (IMO) accurately reflect the differences between a tank and a truck in varying terrain and ground conditions. Unless there is already something under the hood that is not discernible to the user??
3/ The ability to create forces and make attachments etc. from the OOB lists. Control clicking off the map in unit congested areas can be an adventure in fat fingers for some of us.
4/ The ability to capture and use at least some basics and fuel from surrendered or destroyed enemy units. Especially enemy bases. Not ammo for obvious reasons. also allow the player to manually reassign units to non-organic bases - even if bases are only of the same type eg. inf to inf and armour to armour.
5/ The ability for units within the same force -- at the lowest level ( i.e. companies and platoons within the same CURRENT battalion or company level force structure) -- to be able to share basics/fuel/ammo between themselves when in very close proximity to each other and no spotted enemy units are around. This could be a manual process initiated by the lasso technique followed by an order to rebalance supplies within the force.
6/ The ability to ascertain whether reinforcements are foot or motorized (and hopefully mechanized if #2 above sees the light of day).
7/ Reinforcements more than 24 hours away should not always be visible on the list to the player as there were often occasions when formations only became available at the proverbial last minute. A dynamic reinforcement list. Sort of a friendly fog of war.
8/ In line with #7 above we should not have as much precise info on reinforcements that are hours or days out of the battle. Their actual strength etc. should only become truly apparent at the time of entry. More friendly fog of war......
9/ Routing units should be losing/abandoning way more of their heavy equipment than is the case if they are truly disorganized and fleeing for their very lives. Maybe rout less and retreat more?? Or perhaps a new condition somewhere between what we currently call routing and retreating??
10/ More fog of war when it comes to things like always knowing whether a particular enemy held bridge is primed or not. Also applies to new features like mines. Ooops, unit "X" just plowed into a minefield and sustained "Y" per cent losses. Only then does the new minefield terrain graphic become apparent. Sometimes we know ahead of time and sometimes we don't........
11/ A way to target those pesky enemy remnants that haunt your rear areas, trash your supply columns, and call in incessant artillery strikes. I really don't think it's the role of the Divisional or Corps commander to personally supervise their pursuit and destruction, but if you don't you're entirely at the mercy of the sixteen most dangerous enemy troops on the map.
12/ How about a dedicated counter battery mission/task option button for artillery units? The AI sometimes does a decent job of this when on call but often has other priorities that occasionally mystify me. I would like to be able to at least make it the priority fire mission for a designated battery or so.
13/ The ability to have each player (or the AI) play at different Orders delay levels. Newer players or the AI could play at realistic (as an example) while the more experienced player plays the match at painfully realistic. Just another way to find play balance without always resorting to more or less supply/reinforcements.
14/ Something I think would be kind of cool (and is therefore sure to be a programming nightmare) is the capability to obtain in-scenario optional but necessarily conditional reinforcements during play. Kind of like what SSG's latest offerings allow for in using "alert" units.
These would only be offered to the player to help stave off imminent disaster or to reward collapsing the enemy front and facilitating subsequent exploitation. Naturally they would cost a hefty number of VP's if chosen but not so many as to nullify their usefulness.
Those are my top picks and do not include or supersede Arjuna's previously announced list of enhacements such as a cross river assault process, amphibeous assaults, off map artillery, sequential tasking, triggers ......... all of which I would also like to see!!!!!!
Thanks for listening! Comments are always welcome!
Rob.
