• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Changes you would like to see
01-11-2010, 05:02 AM,
#51
RE: Changes you would like to see
FLG Wrote: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, ....

Really - that isn't gong to happen. There won't be a third flag so if we do this it will be either ALL Engineers or Mine clearing Eng or Bridge Only Engs - but not a third type.

If it is ALL or Mine Engs, then Airborne Eng in Normandy and Sicly could make Bunkers and we know they didn't have the equipment. But those same Eng case clear rubble with teir bare hands - not something we wanted to do but we caved to pressure.

Making it Bridge Only Eng would reduce the number of Eng which could do his but I am not sure how cool an idea this would be or how much people would complain if it was only Bridge Engs.

And if anything is done we want to do it once only - not once and then fix what is done.

Glenn
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 05:13 AM,
#52
RE: Changes you would like to see
Xaver Wrote:Thanks for the reply Glenn, clear and without fog hehehe.

This long and multi topic thread is why I hate commenting on things like this. Things get lost and it is difficult to understand what is being requested.

Stating the obvious first - don't expect the air game to be redegined with the existing engine.

I think I somhow missed your point on Isolation

Surrender is in the game already - and there is optional RUle for it. At the end of a scn we can't judge which units are cut to pieces and which are not.

Arty, well, I guess I don't understand what you want

"The AI in the fire battle is bad," and I said I would refer any specific situation you send t me or HPS Support in BTL format. If you want to submit one, two or a few examples of your show the bunny tactic but right now I have nothing.

On HQs - I don't understand what more people think we can or should do - but regeneration will be here to stay. If you have an example where this is an issue than I suggest you submit a btl file and we can look at it.

Glenn
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 05:17 AM,
#53
RE: Changes you would like to see
Gordons HQ Wrote:I guess I wouldn't change it for PBEM games but might change the PDT values for a game against the AI.

If you do - make a new PDT open the Scn in a text editor to poin the scn at a new PDT and savewith a different name - that will keep it separate.

Quote: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.

No - units in T mode will defend is T mode. It will just remove any restriction or clogging of the roads espeically around bridges.
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 05:43 AM,
#54
RE: Changes you would like to see
Czar Wrote: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.

One of the problems when viewing dialogs with fixed size is what you want for your system might not work on a lessor system.

Sure - the answer some will say is to allow the dialogs to be resized. But understand that changing the foundation code is not easy and in my copy of Microsoft Office you can't resize the FONT Dialog - because you can't.

Anyway - if you want to send in an example to HPS Support showing the problem, illustrsating he game and our system setting then we can see what can be done.

Keep in mind in WSF - the las release we wored on I asked John to increase the size of a dialog - I requested something about 4 times larger than I got and I didn't ask for aything more than I thought I could use.

SO please understand me guys when I tell you I know what your taklking about on the dialog sizes. But I also understand Joh has to consider all customers and systems when he makes changes like this. He didn't make the DIalog I wanted bigger - much bigger to be the new size to be an SOB to what I wanted. :)

...and I've learned that there is other considerations.

On the replay issue and any possiblechanges hre, I think I'll leave this and see if a group of interested and serious parties wish to take this up as a side discussion.

I can't promise anything other tan a serious look at it.

I recently worked with KRAK for a number of weeks hammering out changes to the WSF engine which have been agreed upon in priinciple and will likely come out with a new Title of the series. SO whilke nothing has happened yet - it was a worthwhile process.

Glenn
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 05:56 AM,
#55
RE: Changes you would like to see
I think that adding extra optional rules for defensive capabilities would be nice. In addition to bunkers I would like to see the option, especially for the Soviets, to build faster minefields. From what I read at Kursk the best Soviet AT unit was their mobile minefield detachments that could create really heavy minefields very quickly.
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 01:54 PM,
#56
RE: Changes you would like to see
Glenn Saunders Wrote:
James Ward Wrote: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

At the end of the game if Bastogne is isolated what good is it and why should you get any vp's for it, either side? Any units there might as well be POW's!
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 02:15 PM, (This post was last modified: 01-11-2010, 02:16 PM by Liebchen.)
#57
RE: Changes you would like to see
James Ward Wrote:At the end of the game if Bastogne is isolated what good is it and why should you get any vp's for it, either side? Any units there might as well be POW's!

In the words of Brigadier General McAuliffe: NUTS!

I think that delaying the German offensive by holding on to a strategically important road nexus has a great deal of value, especially when you consider that the war doesn't end just because the game does...

And in game terms, can you think of a better motivation for holding on for dear life in the face of being surrounded?
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 02:42 PM,
#58
RE: Changes you would like to see
Lets be clear here guys - there is not likley to be changes to exclude Vic points counted in hexes that are surrounded, so lets not keep going down this path.

I am walking a fine line here guys - I want you all to carry on talking about things you don't like and in fact I encourage it. When we see something that has some support from a number of people, which isn't too complex and can make the game better without upsetting the balance in previous games, then we can get some srious discussion going on it.

Excluding Vic points from the count from surronded units is not one of these ideas.

Glenn
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 03:21 PM,
#59
RE: Changes you would like to see
What i would really like to see is a whole new updated game engine and a new series using this engine.

Aaron
Rangers Lead the Way
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2010, 03:27 PM,
#60
RE: Changes you would like to see
tazaaron Wrote:What i would really like to see is a whole new updated game engine and a new series using this engine.

Aaron

Right and good luck with that.

Next
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 14 Guest(s)