I am impressed with unit artwork and detail.

[koopanique]

At first, I think I would've been mad about the unreliable trait. But I can live with it. And I'm fine with how OoB models a lot of things -- well, I love the game, after all.

However, there are details in OoB that, I think, don't fit the "operational strategy" nature of the game. Details such as ships moving not suffering as much as ships standing still when fired upon by enemy ships.
Or, my biggest pet peeve: artillery unit's efficiency going down as they fire. I mean, in a tactical game, it would make perfect sense; but here, in an operational strategy game where each turn basically represents one day, I find this detail to be needless and frustrating.

[bru888]

Well, my post was about admiring that something I read in a magazine as a detail accompanying the subject of the article had been faithfully reproduced in the game. Whether to do so, is another story. However, as you know from reading that post, I am a firm believer in historical accuracy so I am now in favor of the unreliable trait.

Your points are about whether to include such details in the game, especially since they may not be pleasant or to your liking. Take, for example, the experience that I related about stocking up on the KV-1 tank only to discover that I had hoodwinked myself due to ignorance. Now I know better, as I should have then. I can appreciate including the unreliable trait in the game, now that I've gotten over my whuppin'.

So, as to your other points. These are not unit details but let's take a moment to discuss them. You don't like the ship defensive maneuvering or the artillery cool-down requirement because they don't fit an operational strategy game. Yes, it can be frustrating (on the firing end of things; I do appreciate them on the receiving end ) but remember this: One of OOB's strengths is its scaleability. Depending on the design and player imagination, it can represent anything from corps to platoons and months to hours. If each turn is a week, then artillery cool-down is needless as well as frustrating, sure. If each turn is an hour, though, it means so much more.

Perhaps the developers could someday factor in time and scale when dealing with these traits and characteristics. They are not there yet, if they ever will be. I take the bad with the good: A moving ship should be harder to hit, and artillery does need time to cool down and replenish, on a tactical level. Much of OOB is on that level.

[Erik2]

About scale.
I have just completed (an as yet un-published) campaign that uses squad/platoon-level units and 250m hexes (I think).
Game-wise this works although artillery ranges are of course too short (but still workable).

[koopanique]

One of OOB's strengths is its scaleability. (...) If each turn is a week, then artillery cool-down is needless as well as frustrating, sure. If each turn is an hour, though, it means so much more.

Scaleability in OoB is a great thing, I agree; but in all the official campaigns I've played (those in the Pacific mainly), the number of scenario where one turn represented less than a day is tiny. So, if the official material of the game doesn't make use of the cool-down trait, or if the trait doesn't fit a large majority of the official scenarios, then I question the trait's purpose.

Again, I don't want to sound too whiny because this is a detail, it just irks me! But I can and do look over it.

[bru888]

I was looking at the A-26 Invader and wondering why one version is classified as a tactical bomber and the other as a strategic bomber. Wikipedia had the answer:

Image0158.jpg (427.14 KiB) Viewed 1101 times

Impressive!