Slitherine

If we're just talking about a way to organise your list of troops I'm fine with that. If there were gameplay effects then I think this would be a step too far. Then is just becomes a task on the wish list waiting for some time to implement it

iainmcneil wrote:If we're just talking about a way to organise your list of troops I'm fine with that. If there were gameplay effects then I think this would be a step too far. Then is just becomes a task on the wish list waiting for some time to implement it

Exactly.

And expanding on what I ended with on my last post… Some of the other ideas – although awesome ideas and would be neat to have – I think would take the game in a completely different direction.
But honestly – a hot key to sort I think would satisfy most of us that want to group our units. You just need to rename them with the “group” that they are a part of in the first part of the new name.

And sorry about my first post – it wasn’t too clear. Mostly because I was still thinking it out after I posted it. (I tend to do that that a lot)

In PG , AG, PG2, users could name their units, I still don't understand, why that should be a problem in Panzer Corps ?

konzev wrote:In PG , AG, PG2, users could name their units, I still don't understand, why that should be a problem in Panzer Corps ?

You can rename them in Panzer Corps (Alt-N)

We are looking for a way to better group multiple units together.

Xerkis wrote:

konzev wrote:In PG , AG, PG2, users could name their units, I still don't understand, why that should be a problem in Panzer Corps ?

You can rename them in Panzer Corps (Alt-N)

We are looking for a way to better group multiple units together.

THANKS !!!

iainmcneil wrote:If we're just talking about a way to organise your list of troops I'm fine with that. If there were gameplay effects then I think this would be a step too far. Then is just becomes a task on the wish list waiting for some time to implement it

I agree if we are talkin only about organizations of units (grouping units of the same division with color or any other symbol), and if there is not any effects on the gameplay.

I have not been convinced of any benefit of a structure.

You don't need any of that to reach and capture objectives.

It has to do with how people organize things mentally.

Well then if we want to go that way…

What does the ability to rename your units - or the unit icons facing left or facing right – or the combat animation – or the extended briefings (with voice none the less) – or awesome graphics - or many other things have to do with what you “need” to reach and capture your objectives?

Not a thing – not one thing at all.
But it makes the game have more of an enjoyable and realistic feel to it.

If a player doesn’t care to use or pay attention to any of these things that are not “needed” to win the game, then don’t use them. Other players love these kinds of things and this is exactly what gets some to buy a game that might not have done so without them.

Xerkis wrote:If a player doesn’t care to use or pay attention to any of these things that are not “needed” to win the game, then don’t use them. Other players love these kinds of things and this is exactly what gets some to buy a game that might not have done so without them.

Yes, that's true.

Glad Xerkis got what I was talking about

Johninja wrote:Glad Xerkis got what I was talking about

Yes - but I'm not the one you have to sell on the idea.

iainmcneil wrote:If we could add these power user features without impacting the core game at all it might be nice but they are tending to push the game in a more complex direction and there are other games that already do this such as War in the East, Decisive campaigns etc. I prefer to sopend time refining what we have and adding more content than adding complexity.

+1