Group movement

[Mr Grumpy]

b) unvoluntary things - or issues which people can't understand are often thought of as BUGs and reported to us or on public forums as problems.

Glenn

Yup i can imagine that that would happen.......

[larsonney]

a) they are apparently not popular with gamers who like to know "a unit can move from X to Y and still retain Z MPs so they can deploy, ir take a shot ect.

I wouldn't mind losing some control of units but that type of abstractness/randomness is not present in other parts of the game.

For example, the turn-based format...how many times have we won or lost a secanrio based on 1 victory hex won/kept on the last turn of a game? In the game, the scenario ends at a set point so the players make decisions based on that concrete fact.

I think you have to sacrifice some realism for the sake of the game??

[Ricky B]

I have to say when it comes to "loss of control" in the games, I am greatly enjoying the new hidden disruption optional rule, where you can't see the results of disruption from your fire in the current turn. It has made me much more aware of the situation and trying to guess whether the defender is disrupted or not. Sometimes I am sure I guess wrong but it feels so much more "right" although it took me a few turns to even realize the rule was on, I was unhappy that the defenders weren't disrupting, then realized the rule was causing the lack of information.

For me, the less control/cerntainty the better.

Rick

[Glenn Saunders]

For me, the less control/cerntainty the better.

Ya - and I am in this camp too - in fact I have twice taken a run at John to apply:

NON selective S|Os - these are Strategy Operations which you don't get to pick - they are more random events.

And I've also asked for consideration for variable MPs

Already there is variation in the MP assigned with a Quality Modifier - that is a A quality ground unit with an assigned Speed of 3 KM has 26 MPs and a lower Quality units also with a ground speed of 3 km\h may have 21 MPs

I proposed something like on first action - add or remove some MPs so every unit can't go exactly the same speed. Sturm always said, the real unit is that of the slowest Sergeant in the unit :)

I had yet another idea for WRONG unit picture displayed to the enemy - that is - say you are playing Normandy and the allies Spot a Tank, it is automatically marked as a TIGER TANK until more intel becomes available. Seem all my Normandy ready the Allies were always seeing Tigers and Panther, rarely lessor tanks for sure.

Anyway - all of these ideas have so far been regected as being open for interpretation as BUGs and loss of control.

Glenn

[Philippe]

The incorrect identification of units is a really good idea and a standard feature of Combat Mission. The first time you bump into Germans it seems that all they have is Tigers. Get a little closer (and manage to stay alive) and those Tigers start turning into Mark IV's.

[Al]

I hope maybe JT can re-visit those ideas Glenn because I think they have a lot of merit - especially "All panzers are Tigers". Perhaps a variation that may be easier to take/implement is enemy tank units showing up as generic armor units. For that matter, enemy infantry units would also show in in a generic way.

Just a thought.

[larsonney]

I like the idea of generic ID's...is there a way that you do this by morale quality? A green US infantry division would see all tigers...while a veteran division would get more intelligence from the contact. Same for German units...an A or B quality unit would have better intelligence of opposing units than a D quality volksgrenadeir div?

[Philippe]

And perhaps Recon units would get it right the first time.

Having said that, I have no idea if Recon units were any less likely to see Tigers than anyone else. The determining factor was probably the amount of combat experience, or, perhaps, unit quality.

[Glenn Saunders]

The incorrect identification of units is a really good idea and a standard feature of Combat Mission. The first time you bump into Germans it seems that all they have is Tigers. Get a little closer (and manage to stay alive) and those Tigers start turning into Mark IV's.

Never played Combat Mission, not sure if they picked up the idea from me, :) ...that is to say, I am not repeating an idea from another game, ... just that this idea I mentioned to John was forumated on my own from watching vets interviewed ... that and every Gun the Germans seems to every fired on the Allies are 88's. Never heard anyone say they were fired at by 105's or even a 75mm ATG for that matter.

[Dog Soldier]

I believe the V4Victory series of operational games by Atomic games had an excellent solution to this problem of unit identification. When unit make LOS on each other not much of anything is known except a generic type such as armor, guns, infantry. The size of the units eyeballing each other for the first time was "fudged" using an algorithm that used the unit morale instead of the quality of the unit to take into account battle fatigue.
The longer the units were in contact (in LOS) the more information was teased out and revealed on the counters each turn. To get he best possible picture of the enemy unit only took 2-3 turns if both units were fresh and of the same morale level. However, this "picture" was never 100% accurate, just as when in PzC you see a unit with XXX size you are not sure if it is 700 or 101.

Currently we receive accurate division or corps identification when we put LOS on the enemy. It is not to hard to remember in each title the few units that are elite or of sub-standard quality and single out those units accordingly in a PzC fight. I think that information should also be concealed to some extent at initial contact, only revealed later. Unfortunately some art packs are designed to give away such information merely by learning the art work. I am not sure what could ever be done about that.

Dog Soldier