Slitherine

Jagger2002 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:35 am I have never liked the identification of units by numbers. You have Triari units #1 through #4. So I would like each unit to have a commanders name for identification. For example, instead of Triari unit #1-#4, we would have Bianchi's Triari, Romano's Triari, Moretti's Triari and Du Lucci's Triari.

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

And the ability to name them if you want. I can't stress enough how much immersion a simple personal name adds to a battle (in any wargame).

Mord.

Mord wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:38 am

Jagger2002 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:35 am I have never liked the identification of units by numbers. You have Triari units #1 through #4. So I would like each unit to have a commanders name for identification. For example, instead of Triari unit #1-#4, we would have Bianchi's Triari, Romano's Triari, Moretti's Triari and Du Lucci's Triari.

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

And the ability to name them if you want. I can't stress enough how much immersion a simple personal name adds to a battle (in any wargame).

Mord.

Triari (1), Triari (2)... is international and simple. It is much more immersive than the English possessive case for those who don't know what 'Du Lucci's something' means or those who wonder what is immersive in English syntax when speaking of Romans, Greeks, etc.

What is immersive for me is the name of unit in the native langage as often as possible.

The name could be separate from the term "Triarii".

ROMAN TRIARII
Leader: Athos
Type: Heavy Foot
Quality: Superior
Armour: Some Armour
Capabilities: Impact Foot, Swordsmen

That solves both.

Mord.

Mord wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 12:00 pm The name could be separate from the term "Triari".

ROMAN TRIARII
Leader: Athos
Type: Heavy Foot
Quality: Superior
Armour: Some Armour
Capabilities: Impact Foot, Swordsmen

That solves both.

Mord.

Very nice, elegant solution.

desicat wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 12:04 pm Very nice, elegant solution.

Thanks. If it were up to me I'd even go one further.

HEAVY ASSYRIAN STYLE CHARIOTS (2)
Leader: Akhquar "The Bold"
Company/Formation Name/Whatever: The Brave Companions
Type: Heavy Chariots, Unmaneuverable
Quality: Superior
Capabilities: Bow

I don't care about the number designation I'd just like to be able to give the units some personality.

RBS is against adding name changing to the QBs so the only time I can use the renaming we have now is to play a campaign. And even then you only change the main heading, you can't edit the general/sub general's actual name.

Mord.

Back in the early 2000s, the original Combat Mission switched from numbered squads to commander names for each squad. And if I remember correctly, volunteers provided the names for each nationality. Worked out very nicely.

Jagger2002 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:21 pm Back in the early 2000s, the original Combat Mission switched from numbered squads to commander names for each squad. And if I remember correctly, volunteers provided the names for each nationality. Worked out very nicely.

Do you mean during the beta because as far as I remember, I thought every unit had names. Then again it was 20 years ago so I could have a faulty memory. I joined the forum and bought CMBO in October of 2000. Coincidentally enough I felt the same way about FoG II as I did when I got CM. The only two games that completely floored me after I dismissed them on first glance. Love them both.

One thing I didn't like in CM1 was that a commander was always the last guy to die in a unit. With CMx2, you can split a squad down to 3 teams and each one will have a name and if the leader is killed in a squad or team the next highest ranked member takes over bringing his leadership modifier to bear. I am not asking for anything that involved in Field of Glory of course, just thought it was a cool bit of nuance worth mentioning.

Mord.

it would be nice if the unit categories were sorted in alphabetical order in the Editor (for all the in-game langages), if it were possible (unless there is a way to do it in game that I don't know of). It is sometimes a bit tedious to find the wanted category.

Do you mean during the beta because as far as I remember, I thought every unit had names. Then again it was 20 years ago so I could have a faulty memory. I joined the forum and bought CMBO in October of 2000. Coincidentally enough I felt the same way about FoG II as I did when I got CM. The only two games that completely floored me after I dismissed them on first glance. Love them both.

No the addition was after release and had been out for quite some time, if I remember correctly. And I agree about the comparison between original Combat Mission and FOG2. For me, probably 2 of the best games in the last couple decades. Unfortunately CM lost me with their advanced 3d supercool CM2 version. Still play the original CM from time to time but been awhile.

Mord wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:26 am
One thing I didn't like in CM1 was that a commander was always the last guy to die in a unit.

Now it feels like the commander is the first to die. Unless I'm playing the Germans, in which case the guy with the MG42 catches the first bullet. The commander comes next.

Jagger2002 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:28 pm Unfortunately CM lost me with their advanced 3d supercool CM2 version. Still play the original CM from time to time but been awhile.

I am the exact opposite, can't play the old game anymore.

Byron01 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:09 am Now it feels like the commander is the first to die. Unless I'm playing the Germans, in which case the guy with the MG42 catches the first bullet. The commander comes next.

That your thread over there at BF? LOL.


Mord.

Mord wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:49 am That your thread over there at BF? LOL.

No, but I think I've seen the thread you're talking about.

A hotkey in the Scenario generator that allows for units set in woods to start the game hidden. There are other way to do this but it should be easier as this is a common function (units in woods staring hidden at the beginning of a scenario).

Kind of a long shot, but more game mechanics that simulate limited command and control, and the fog and friction of war. Right now it plays like every unit got a perfectly functioning radio, map and GPS. This leads to near-perfect command and control and favors swarm armies of low-quality units in multiplayer.

a button to switch from the Scenario editor to the battlefield (and vice versa) to quickly play and edit a scenario one is making.
(certainly not a priority, of course)

Jagger2002 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:28 pm No the addition was after release and had been out for quite some time, if I remember correctly. And I agree about the comparison between original Combat Mission and FOG2. For me, probably 2 of the best games in the last couple decades. Unfortunately CM lost me with their advanced 3d supercool CM2 version. Still play the original CM from time to time but been awhile.

I totally agree with this, CMx1 and FOG2 was a huge impact. I also agree that CMx2 became just too much involved with the ultra realistic email playing experts. All the tools that made CM a joy to play, scaling units, line of sight, ease of identifying forces with colored bases, etc, all taken away to make "as realistic as possible", which it is not, just harder to play. Looks pretty, but not as much fun at all, unless, again, email bouts. FOG2 brings that ease of play back. We love the art, we love the 3D presentation, but we also love ease of use. CMx2 has gone down the road where scenarios for Single Player are hard to find and too difficult to create. Oh well, good luck with that.

I still play all three CMx1 games (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK) and it's great that they run on Windows 10, though for me fog is missing, but not smoke! I'm also playing a lot of FOG2 and Panzer Corps 2. All outstanding games.

Now why are FOG2 DLCs so slow in coming!!! I want more, more, more! We need the FOG1 armies and time eras covered, and there is a lot not touched.