Slitherine

My top 10 feature requests in priority order. I know the designers are working on some so thank you!

(1) Medium vs. Heavy Tanks. Increase the power (ground defense, hard attack) of heavies to even higher levels, reduce their prestige cost to the same as their medium counter-parts BUT reduce the rate of fire to 6 or 7 or 8 (depending on just how heavy it is). This would mean mediums are your unit of choice for rapid domination, flanking moves against artillery, AA, etc whereas heavies are your front-line assaulters exposed only to air. The medium vs. heavy general strategy that would emerge could be fascinating.

(2) Anti tanks - give them higher initiative and very high hard attack. Bonus initiative if they are defending. Essentially they should be able to get their big guns to shoot before dying. Also, soft attack should be reduced to very low levels so that infantry can make short work of them.

(3) ROF could be the key to making the tiny units relevant. For instance, the smallest anti-tank units could have hard attack that can penetrate medium tanks decently but that wouldn't dent heavy tanks. They could then have increased ROF so that they are actually better against medium tanks than some huge (clumsey) anti-tank gun like say the "elefant". Could do a similar thing with AA where some AA is powerful and designed to kill heavy bombers (but lower ROF) whereas some AA is much better suited for the fighters.

(4) Stat tracking. Multiplayer would be very much more interesting if there was a ladder and a win/loss tracker.

(5) Replay for multiplayer. I'd love to be able to watch, without FOG, my multiplayer games after they finish.

(6) Add ROF to the basic STAT pull up on a unit

(7) Make more missions like "Huntress" mission in campaigns. The more interesting campaign scenarios like that, the less "slog it out for hexes", the more interesting the campaign would become.

(8) Strategic bombers are useful for the campaign but not quite useful for multiplayer. Very close though. Maybe they simply need small improvements to their ammo-destroying ability.

(9) 2v2 in multiplayer would be very cool (ie a german and italian army vs. a british and american army). OK its #9 for a reason, low priority... might be too many turns to be interesting...

(10) I'll just throw it out there but deep down I don't really care. Supply improvements could be made. I know the designers don't want to stray from the core game of simplicity, etc, so this would be tough to do but there must be ways to make it a little more interesting (such as distance from a supplied city coming into the calculation... Just throwing it out there.

I would like to see a multiplayer mode where two players team up to try to hold off ever-increasing hordes of AI units for as long as possible.
I do agree that anti-tank units and medium tanks do need improvement.

A lot from your list but I would add (or exchange) these:
*End of turn reports. Who did what and where.
*Be able to fire event triggers in scenario more than once per game.
*Sort by unit name in Unit List

*bites tongue*
It's getting harder and harder not to share secrets!

Share them! Share them all!

I can't believe I forgot to add "make the undo button optional for multiplayer games" That would be #2 or 3.

These are the sorts of items on my wish list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejzLuK6iSJo

Stronger audio/visual cues.

That is nice Kerensky. Like it a lot.

I wish there was some sort of multiplayer campaign where you take your core army to next senario.

ruskicanuk wrote:(1) Medium vs. Heavy Tanks. Increase the power (ground defense, hard attack) of heavies to even higher levels, reduce their prestige cost to the same as their medium counter-parts BUT reduce the rate of fire to 6 or 7 or 8 (depending on just how heavy it is). This would mean mediums are your unit of choice for rapid domination, flanking moves against artillery, AA, etc whereas heavies are your front-line assaulters exposed only to air. The medium vs. heavy general strategy that would emerge could be fascinating.

I like what you are trying to achieve. But i disagree with reducing the prestige cost of the heavies to be similar to the medium units. Prestige costs of the units should be based on their historic costs (time to build, amout of scarce raw material required, price) and tactical value.

ruskicanuk wrote:(2) Anti tanks - give them higher initiative and very high hard attack. Bonus initiative if they are defending. Essentially they should be able to get their big guns to shoot before dying. Also, soft attack should be reduced to very low levels so that infantry can make short work of them.

In my opinion unit statistics should be historical/technical correct, arbitrary modifying the statistics should be a no-no in any (sort of) historic game.
Nevertheless, if the initiative difference is not to big the ATs will fire at the tanks. Also the SA should not be too low as the PAKs were also equiped with Sprenggranaten (HE-Frag) against soft targets

ruskicanuk wrote:(3) ROF could be the key to making the tiny units relevant. For instance, the smallest anti-tank units could have hard attack that can penetrate medium tanks decently but that wouldn't dent heavy tanks. They could then have increased ROF so that they are actually better against medium tanks than some huge (clumsey) anti-tank gun like say the "elefant". Could do a similar thing with AA where some AA is powerful and designed to kill heavy bombers (but lower ROF) whereas some AA is much better suited for the fighters.

Very interesting idea. Even if tanks hadn't really a RoF statistic, the bigger the gun caliber, the bigger and heavier the shells. Due to missing autoloaders a heavier shell causes the assistant gunner (Ladeschütze) to fatigue faster, which than reduces the reload speed. But this would in reality only be relevant in an very target rich enviroment, or if multiple shots would be needed to destroy a target. Bigger shells also reduce the amount of ammo available in a tank.
I especially like the idea for the FLAK, as i simply can't imagine that a heavy 8.8 would be more effective against a nimble and low flying fighter-bomber than e.g. a 2cm Flakvierling

ruskicanuk wrote:(6) Add ROF to the basic STAT pull up on a unit

I agree

ruskicanuk wrote:(7) Make more missions like "Huntress" mission in campaigns. The more interesting campaign scenarios like that, the less "slog it out for hexes", the more interesting the campaign would become.

I agree (I think this is being addressed in the upcomming DLCs)

ruskicanuk wrote:(10) I'll just throw it out there but deep down I don't really care. Supply improvements could be made. I know the designers don't want to stray from the core game of simplicity, etc, so this would be tough to do but there must be ways to make it a little more interesting (such as distance from a supplied city coming into the calculation... Just throwing it out there.

Well, a new unit class 'Supply' could be interesting, sort of a mobile local ordnance (and fuel?) storage.
It wouldn't be able to attack, instead it would automatically resupply all units in its ZoC, with every ammo point supplied reducing its own ammo storage by one point. It would be replenished as all other ground units. With such a unit taking up a deployment slot, it could lead to interesting decisions: "Do i take a second Hummel, or better a 'Gepanzerter Munitionsschlepper VK302' ? "

my most importen wish is a top ten list... on the end of campaign

ruskicanuk wrote:I can't believe I forgot to add "make the undo button optional for multiplayer games" That would be #2 or 3.

Or one undo per turn. Accidents do happen.
I use undo in MP, but that is to see how much damage the different equipment will do.

I really like the idea of supply being slightly impacted the further away from friendly towns your forces are. This could really add another level of strategy to the supply feature

unit animation for all moves like fidget, wait, retreat, death, move, surrender, different attacks.
8 or better 16 directions for all units !
ingame videos for Campaigns and scenarios !

H.Balck

soldier wrote:I really like the idea of supply being slightly impacted the further away from friendly towns your forces are. This could really add another level of strategy to the supply feature

Yes, an excellent idea.

soldier wrote:I really like the idea of supply being slightly impacted the further away from friendly towns your forces are. This could really add another level of strategy to the supply feature

I like this idea but only if units close to friendly towns are supplied automatically every turn. I think the supply side of the game is too much. More of a time sink than what makes an enjoyable game. Maybe if the ammo was per day of combat? That would seem better to me too.

2) AI: there is a big bug in that the AI attacks a unit BEFORE the arty has done it's suppression attack. Makes game play easier but totally wrong.

Montagu wrote:

soldier wrote:I really like the idea of supply being slightly impacted the further away from friendly towns your forces are. This could really add another level of strategy to the supply feature

I like this idea but only if units close to friendly towns are supplied automatically every turn.

So basicly the same as with the airfields. This could be interesting, as it would make capturing non-victory cities more important. But it might be a good idea to handle it a bit different from airfields. The ZOC around a town should not start delivering supplies with the first turn after capturing, but with the same turn purchase of new equipment is possible. This would be more realistic, as in the case of an airfield supplies could be flown in as soon as the the airfield is captured, but in case of a town the supplies will arive by train/trucks. And its way faster to 'pacify' an airfield than a city.

With an implementation like this the issue of Blitzkrieg vs. supplies won't be removed (as it shouldn't), but moving of rear echelon units would be less annoying.

Montagu wrote:2) AI: there is a big bug in that the AI attacks a unit BEFORE the arty has done it's suppression attack. Makes game play easier but totally wrong.

This should indeed be fixed, even if its not simple.

[quote="Some1

Montagu wrote:2) AI: there is a big bug in that the AI attacks a unit BEFORE the arty has done it's suppression attack. Makes game play easier but totally wrong.

This should indeed be fixed, even if its not simple.[/quote]

I agree. The AI seems to follow a strict moving pattern, bombers move and attack before fighters, artillery moves before armor which moves before infantry etc. If this can't be fixed so the AI plans an attack at least set the order it move to help it get better results.
Also the AI will move its artillery right next to you after it fires, sometime in trucks! It should not do this.

Do AI units have the potential for being awarded heroes and special abilities?

Maybe put a small gold star on the corner of the unit to signify the enemy unit has gained something through the scenario combats?

Xerkis wrote:A lot from your list but I would add (or exchange) these:
*End of turn reports. Who did what and where.
*Be able to fire event triggers in scenario more than once per game.
*Sort by unit name in Unit List

I also miss End of turn report and also End of Scenario report.

I did buy a Bridgebuilder unit and have found no way of using it. What about having an written information about the use of each unit in the buy unit panel, not only stats?