Changes you would like to see

[Strela]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for directly answering my questions. Being in the software industry myself I understand you can please some of the people some of the time....

This is a good thread to get community thoughts as these are the people who probably have most miles with the games.

At the very least it throws some more ideas out on the table for the design team to consider.

I think your point is well made here though - you can split these request into two camps - those who want MORE control and those who want LESS. I for one want to simulate the challenges a leader has - little idea about his opponent and less influencel over the friendly forces he doesn't directly control. All a nice idea, but something that has to be considered in the light of the impact on previous released games and scenarios.

David

[Glenn Saunders]

For me, the engine itself is quite robust and realistic already and although adding complexity is good in some instances, it might be to the detriment of the overall balance of the game. But there is quite a few interesting suggestions made though, especially a more dynamic VP system to attribute points.

Very Good pont and it is a balencing act to add stuff and yet not make the game too complex.

I also agree with Hank regarding resizable boxes.

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

For example, there should be a way to assign our own keyboard shortcuts to functions.

sound s to me like adding complexuty to me

As an example, one of the most used functions for me is the "Used Movement Points" highlighting. It's a must if you want to insure you haven't forgotten to move some units during your turn. Curiously, there is no keyboard shorcut for this very important one.

we have a button for that - never seen a request for a hotkey for it

Regarding the replay feature,

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.

[Glenn Saunders]

I'd like to see victory point hexes be able to change in value. This would reward a good delaying action or an extremey rapid advance.
Also VP hexes should be required to trace supply like a unit in order to count. If they are isolated then no points.

but what about Bastoge? I can think of any number of places whewre isolated positions held and help count to victory

[Glenn Saunders]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for directly answering my questions. Being in the software industry myself I understand you can please some of the people some of the time....

indeed it is a very fine balance and not a huge community either.

This is a good thread to get community thoughts as these are the people who probably have most miles with the games.

Agreed - in fact i spoke to Dog soldier this week about doing sucha thread before the next tillercon.

At the very least it throws some more ideas out on the table for the design team to consider.

Exactly and I sent John a link to this thread so he could look himself. So were on the same page here.

I think your point is well made here though - you can split these request into two camps - those who want MORE control and those who want LESS. I for one want to simulate the challenges a leader has - little idea about his opponent and less influencel over the friendly forces he doesn't directly control. All a nice idea, but something that has to be considered in the light of the impact on previous released games and scenarios.

I too would like less control and certainties in the actions of units but John has never been kean on this as it offends the other side - those that want more control - that and it leads to players becoming suspicious of things which look funny in their minds.

...and with the small gaming community we have, it is important for us to make changes that make sense, don't add too much complexity and those that the game engine controls instead of game rule knowledge

So w like to focus on things we need to make the game engine consider as many conditions of the battle that we can without bogging down the play.

[Glenn Saunders]

I like realism in my games, so I welcome all kinds of friction chaos and loss of control. The random movement element is brilliant.

ditto

Anyone who has ever moved with a unit know that sh!t happens and you don't always get as far as you want. Unit get lost, but never on our board game where you can see every unit on your side and every road, interction itself.

Unfortunately we're in the minority.

Most players want to pile every possible arty shot on a single hex and when they move a unit they want 100% certainty it makes it to the destinations, often with remaining MPs to switch out of T mode and maybe even get in a shot. THey compain when they use drop and drag and watch in horror as a unit enters a hex with a "friendly Minefiled" as if the senior commander knowing where the mines are should prevent every unit from ever moving it a place where it shouldn't go.

Glenn

[Glenn Saunders]

A common issue raised from this very useful Thread is the PBEM replay.

At this point I am not sure I can extract a common consensus with what we can do if indeed John could do anything. So perhaps some interested parties could do some off line brain storming. Maybe get some ideas together and take it back to the club.

Who knows what might come of it.

Good thread though guys.

Glenn

[Elxaime]

I suppose the most realistic wargames might not ever get played, so a medium must be struck.

A realistic Napoleonic battle game, for example, would be akin to reading Tolstoi's account of the Battle of Borodino, which is a recounting of chaos layered over with the pretensions of the supreme commanders that they actually had control of things once the balloon went up. There is a reason that, once the Battle of Wilderness started, Ulysses S. Grant went off and sat on a log and whittled.

I for one would love to see operational level games with the same system of AI control you see in the better tactical simulations. In other words, you give a set of commands to Division X and an objective or objectives. Then the division carries out the orders according to the historical doctrine of the time, including friction, accidents, mistakes, etc.

AGEOD's games get the closest I have seen so far. I would love to see HPS and AGEOD collaborate on a WW2 title adapting the AGEOD system to a battle like Kursk or Normandy.

[Liebchen]

Select your HQ and Press H or the the Highlight Org button to see all the units in that formation.

Or you can highlight any unit. If an organization is currently selected and you hold down the Alt key when invoking this function, then the next higher organization is selected.

I think that you mean the 'O' key, Glenn. The 'H' hotkey shows firing range.

[Glenn Saunders]

Select your HQ and Press H or the the Highlight Org button to see all the units in that formation.

Or you can highlight any unit. If an organization is currently selected and you hold down the Alt key when invoking this function, then the next higher organization is selected.

I think that you mean the 'O' key, Glenn. The 'H' hotkey shows firing range.

Yes - I stand corrected. Truth be told I wrote this in a dar room, laying down with the dog on my chest on a 13 inch screen toggling between windows.:)

Glenn

[P.Ako]

About the possibility for engineers to build bunkers... wouldn't it bee too unrealistic?
I mean, how much average time takes to build a bunker? You have to modify the terrain , gather the resources..etc so i say that if the engineers work really hard all day and night long... one week.. how many turns is a week in game terms? 100? are you going to have an unit there for such long time?
And what about the scale? if we assume that each hexagon is a square mile, then the amount of bunkers necessary to build to protect such area would be... quite big.

And that if there are not any setbacks during the construction...

Perhaps in MC would be more feasible because you know... construction techniques tend to advance and makes less time to build a bunker