 |
|
Changes you would like to see - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Changes you would like to see (/showthread.php?tid=54228) |
RE: Changes you would like to see - Dog Soldier - 01-10-2010 One would not want to have bunker creation be too easy. One complaint long ago was that HQs could create TRENCHES. As the number of HQs increased when regiment HQs were added, players found the defenders were able to build too many fortified lines. Thus HQ units lost the capacity to dig in. One of the problems I can see is in Kursk where there are extensive lines of TRENCHES. A Russian player could then move all their engineer units regardless of organization to work on converting these at start TRENCHES into bunkers I do not think once the battle began the Russians did any significant improvements to their already extensive defensive network. Does this mean the Russian command did not think it practical to try to continue creating static defenses once a sector of the front (Kursk bulge) was engaged in battle? We will have to think about such unintended effects. Dog Soldier RE: Changes you would like to see - Strela - 01-10-2010 Many of these suggestions (such as Bunker construction) could be optional rules thereby getting around the unintended consequences issue.... It also leaves all existing scenarios intact and moves the decision back into the hands of the players. David RE: Changes you would like to see - FLG - 01-10-2010 The creation of bunkers could maybe be limited by the type of engineer which is capable of doing so. We have bridging engineers at the moment who are the only type of engineers who can build bridges. If a new engineering type were created, say for example heavy engineers, it would mean that existing scenarios would remain balanced as this engineering type would not be in any existing games. It would then be up to to scenario designers to add them and ensure the scenarios they create are balanced. Personally I think that the only game that really needs the ability to create bunkers is the Stalingrad main campaign, so I am unsure that the addition of bunker creation would improve the game RE: Changes you would like to see - Xaver - 01-10-2010 Thanks for the reply Glenn, clear and without fog hehehe. Well, in the air part of the game i know that change it need another engine, but the title of the post is "like to see" and the air war in the game is not the best part ot the 2 series, you talk about advance airfields (potato fields hehehe) and you are right but only for short tacticals like P-47, medium/heavy cant use improvised airfields (need more logistic support) and here is the point, think in an important airfield not only for victory points, if you lost it you lost... 120 support planes (B-26, Pe-2 etc etc) you can move units to another airfields (congestion in the airfields) or create a new airfield but you need time to do it and take supplies (2-5 days) is more a tactical/strategic situation than a simply points question and of course, you can lose planes in the ground now only you can wait to the AA fire... where are the fighters??? only abort the attack with 0 casualties???. Isolation, i allways do the same, cut enemy, force him shoot and its ready for dead because loose one level by isolation and another for low ammo, sorry but if in the point isnt a supply point the unit loose 2 morale levels in one turn and if you disrupted it HO HO HO. I see some changes like define a number or turns by unit (or nacionality) needed to be low of ammo and the same for isolation, one thing is have a B german unit in a village and another a rumanian unit or a soviet unit, you can play with 2 factors, supplies and combat moral. Surrender is only for a points question, sometimes you end and game with enemy cut in pieces but you dont receive points for it. Arty, well, i refer to add a 2nd option in the use, not only in direct fire, can use it as bonus in an assault. The AI in the fire battle is bad, i use a tactic that i call "show the bunny", if the enemy dont have AT units, move an armor unit to the infantry enemy, they shoot allways and expend fire rounds then move your infantry units same for AT units but using infantry. HQ regeneration yes and no, HQ units are allways in the batte but destroy one dont give to you many advantages, for example i use regimental HQ units in a game to save a defensive line because loose it isnt an important problem, or we have HQ or we have combat HQ where HQ can dig in and shoot or better, a mixture of then. A good idea is the extreme fog of war play with combat reports where your troops kills a mule and they say Tiger is out hehehe ooo talking about reports, a good add to the game is increase the turn report adding last turn casualties. I like the games but in some parts the engine is a little old. RE: Changes you would like to see - Mike Bowen - 01-10-2010 Just had a thought on mine laying - or rather two. 1 Have a limit on the number of mines you can lay (as in MC for artillery mines) this is needed due to idea 2 2 Have a modifier for laying mines in different terrain - My thinking is that in wooded terrain with a road a few mines will suffice to mine the hex. It is accepted that clearing a hex is just clearing a lane through the hex so why not make mining a hex the inverse based upon terrain? I can see that this may create balance issues but as an optional rule its a thought. RE: Changes you would like to see - Gordons HQ - 01-10-2010 Thanks Glenn and Foul for the replies about T mode, I do realise what it's all about but also sometimes find it a bit tedious. I guess I wouldn't change it for PBEM games but might change the PDT values for a game against the AI. Often the AI litters the map with units left in T mode and these become so vunerable then. From my understanding of your reply if I set the values the same as in deployed mode it won't make any difference and these units will still defend as in deployed mode. Will units still be able to cross bridges and other things if I do the above. Also I guess I'll have to save a seperate named game file for editing to do the above. I'd appreciate your reply on this Cheers,  Gordon RE: Changes you would like to see - SuperIke - 01-11-2010 Thanks a lot Glenn for your answers. Reading all replies, I do agree it is hard to extract some kind of clear and meaningful consensus. Some want more complexity on very specific points, others like me are more concerned about interface improvements. Nobody is raising the same points over and over again, and to me this shows that overall the game is very solid and has no glaring weaknesses that anybody having played a few games can immediately point at. In fact, although some of the suggestions made are interesting, it sounds to me that they would also modify the current scope of the game: from an operational type of game, it would move to a very tactical level at one end, or to a strategic level at the other end. This could mess up a product that, although not perfect, is currently very balanced at what it does. Glenn Saunders Wrote:Me too - I've asked about it a number of times and while I can't tell you why this is not easy to do I can inly suggest if a gialog is too small let me know and I can see about having the size adjusted - best I can do I'm afraid Understood. Well, in my experience I feel the Strength and Scheduled reinforcements dialogs are probably the boxes that could use more real estate space...With large scenarios, you can scroll quite a lot in those dialog boxes. Glenn Saunders Wrote:Replay is a simply record and play back which unfotunately gets complicated when players stop and start the balle file many times in a turn. problems with replay in the files caused by factors beyond the game is the most common topic of email I get. I am afraid showing some things and skipping others might be harder to do, request and display than you may think. I'm no programmer so I can't judge. If the replay is currently only a simple payback feature, I can understand offering to show only assaults would require new coding. What I have in my mind is the same setup as the SSG games have (the Decisive Battles series or also Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets). Upon starting playback, you can choose if you wish to see all actions, or just assaults. It would be a really nice option especially for PzC games where on Campaigns scenarios the playback can last well over 10 minutes or more, and there is only 1 or 2 minutes really meaningful for the player. RE: Changes you would like to see - Glenn Saunders - 01-11-2010 P.Ako Wrote:About the possibility for engineers to build bunkers... wouldn't it bee too unrealistic? Seems to be popular so I expect wecan look into this. I agree that it is not likely too hard to do, it is just beyond what the game designers(Tiller and Smith) wanted, likely because what it might to to the campaigns. That is defense lines didn't get built in say something like France 40 because ... well, you get the idea. ANyway - I am sure we can look into this one further. And if allowed for all Engs, then it ould be allowed for even Airborne Engs too? Anyway - Let me see what the boss says. Glenn RE: Changes you would like to see - Glenn Saunders - 01-11-2010 Dog Soldier Wrote:One would not want to have bunker creation be too easy. One complaint long ago was that HQs could create TRENCHES. As the number of HQs increased when regiment HQs were added, players found the defenders were able to build too many fortified lines. Thus HQ units lost the capacity to dig in. That is EXACTLY the danger that John and Sturm were trying o avoid with this idea. The game engine is designed around fluid battles and doesn't shine in stand up slug matches which is why there is no PzC Casino, PzC Metz, PzC the Gothic Line. Glenn RE: Changes you would like to see - Glenn Saunders - 01-11-2010 Strela Wrote:Many of these suggestions (such as Bunker construction) could be optional rules thereby getting around the unintended consequences issue.... Ya - but there is a limit to the number of Optional Rules you you can have too - John uses Prime numbers for that and ....well it gets combersome and confusing fo new players when they wonder what rules they should use. So I am not sure optional is the wayto go here - but I thought of it. |
){kind=link}