Change GAR Symbol in Large Unit Icon

[amcdonel]

I find that I do not use the large icon in my game play for pretty much one reason. The INF and GAR symbol are too similar (different sizes - but not that big a difference) If I am not careful - I will assume that a GAR is a standard INF unit. I know - I know - my job to be careful, buy, I am a very visually oriented person. So this type of display "looks" wrong to me.

From Wikipedia: "'Theorist Linda Kreger Silverman suggests that less than 30% of the population strongly uses visual/spatial thinking, another 45% uses both visual/spatial thinking and thinking in the form of words, and 25% thinks exclusively in words. According to Kreger Silverman, of the 30% of the general population who use visual/spatial thinking, only a small percentage would use this style over and above all other forms of thinking, and can be said to be 'true' picture thinkers like a certain Albert Einstein."

Could we consider changing the symbol for GAR unit to make it visually different from the standard INF symbol? For example:

Used the NATO HQ icon

+---------+
| |
+---------+
| |
| |
| |
+---------+

Or just user "GAR" in a small box

+---------+
| |
| GAR |
| |
+---------+


Or use the US Army Corps of Engineer "Caslte/Fortress Icon symbol. See: http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/history/corps_castle.htm

Any other ideas on possible symbols?

Thoughts???

[rkr1958]

Alec,

Are you talking about Victor's large counters?

Otherwise I have no problem telling the difference. However; I see what you're saying with the large counters.

[amcdonel]

Ronnie,

Yes, I meant Victors large icons...

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I agree with Alec here and it's also my main reason for not using the large counters. I also have problems seeing which units are garrisons and which are infantry corps. I think Victor made this change because he wanted the garrisons to be division sized infantry units (therefore the same base symbol).

In GS the garrisons have movement 2 instead of 4 so they'are actually more like static units. I think there are 2 possibilities for showing garrison units. One is to have just the square without the cross (symbol used for static units in many games). Another is to use the square and type a G in the center of the counter. The problem with the latter is that we now use the letter P for partisans so people could then confuse garrisons with partisans, but it's less of a problem than having garrisons using a smaller version of the infantry corps symbol.

So I hope Victor will comment on this and make a suggestion for us.

[gerones]

One thing that should definitely help for distinguishing between garrison units and corps units is to look at the different combat values showed in the respective units. So 4-3-1 are showed for corps units an 2-3-0 for garrison units. If we don´t look to combat factors recently added in the respective counters then for what we added them? People only has to get used to look at those combat factors because they were added for better planning actions and not for aesthetic reasons (as a mod posted by a guy years ago in which combat factors had only an aesthetic function). Combat factors numbers have the same size that strength of the unit factor so nobody should argue visibility problems of the combat factors.

Furthermore, I am against using letters as "G" or "GAR" for garrison units in large counters because I am also against using the term garrison in the game for referring to territorial corps units. Territorial corps units were corps sized units (formed by several division units) whilst garrisons were mainly brigade or regiment units sized units defending a city or a port.

[amcdonel]

One thing that should definitely help for distinguishing between garrison units and corps units is to look at the different combat values showed in the respective units. So 4-3-1 are showed for corps units an 2-3-0 for garrison units. If we don´t look to combat factors recently added in the respective counters then for what we added them? People only has to get used to look at those combat factors because they were added for better planning actions and not for aesthetic reasons (as a mod posted by a guy years ago in which combat factors had only an aesthetic function). Combat factors numbers have the same size that strength of the unit factor so nobody should argue visibility problems of the combat factors.

Furthermore, I am against using letters as "G" or "GAR" for garrison units in large counters because I am also against using the term garrison in the game for referring to territorial corps units. Territorial corps units were corps sized units (formed by several division units) whilst garrisons were mainly brigade or regiment units sized units defending a city or a port.

That is my point. For those of us that gather information best in a visual manner - numbers are not the best format.. I know the numbers are there. But seeing a meaningful set of different symbols helps me and does not detract. Changing the graphic symbol in the full icon still allows the number to remain. Win - Win !!

Whether or not Garrison is the correct term is another matter

[gerones]

IMO if combat factors in the counters do not really give you useful info then may be you should use default counters. Goal with the last large counters update was to include useful data in the counters about the corresponding unit so if you don´t pay attention to numbers in the unit then what would be the use of having included them?. Regarding large counters you just have to get used to look at combat factors, then you will quickly check which are garrison units and which are corps units.

In large counters, I believe that we should keep using the infantry symbol in a smaller box for garrison units. This is accurate because territorial units were mainly infantry units so a smaller infantry symbol would represent less powerful and equipped infantry thing that you will be able to confirm looking at the combat factors of the unit. You can easily find "G" symbol in counters of wargames at a regimental or brigade level but IMO that symbol should not be used in wargames that only use corps units like CEAW GS. Furthermore, we all know that the role of garrison units in CEAW is more than territorial (e.g. minor scale or auxiliary landings) then including the "G" will not be accurate at all but it will be much more accurate to include a smaller infantry symbol that would represent territorial-static units but also less powerful infantry corps ( e.g. garrison units deployed in the second line of the front or sent for minor scale landings). In the future we could be have a consensus about the term to use for referring to these units instead of the current "garrison".

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You can easily use the static symbol (a square with nothing inside). I think the garrison units in GS are more like static units that infantry units. Remember that many tech upgrades that infantry units benefit from won't apply to garrison units. So they're more than weak infantry corps. They have less equipment as well. So they're unsuited for offensive operations (except against partisans or other garrison units).

As long as we have movement 2 for garrisons and movement 4 for infantry corps I think the garrison units are more like static units than infantry units. Therefore we can use different unit symbols.

[Blathergut]

Guys,

I asked this in another thread but no one answered: Why are all the large counters in my game blank other than the inf/arm symbols?

[amcdonel]

IMO if combat factors in the counters do not really give you useful info then may be you should use default counters. Goal with the last large counters update was to include useful data in the counters about the corresponding unit so if you don´t pay attention to numbers in the unit then what would be the use of having included them?. Regarding large counters you just have to get used to look at combat factors, then you will quickly check which are garrison units and which are corps units.

In large counters, I believe that we should keep using the infantry symbol in a smaller box for garrison units. This is accurate because territorial units were mainly infantry units so a smaller infantry symbol would represent less powerful and equipped infantry thing that you will be able to confirm looking at the combat factors of the unit. You can easily find "G" symbol in counters of wargames at a regimental or brigade level but IMO that symbol should not be used in wargames that only use corps units like CEAW GS. Furthermore, we all know that the role of garrison units in CEAW is more than territorial (e.g. minor scale or auxiliary landings) then including the "G" will not be accurate at all but it will be much more accurate to include a smaller infantry symbol that would represent territorial-static units but also less powerful infantry corps ( e.g. garrison units deployed in the second line of the front or sent for minor scale landings). In the future we could be have a consensus about the term to use for referring to these units instead of the current "garrison".

Respectfully, you are missing my entire point. For those people, 30-60% of the population, we get/understand data more quickly and usefully in a visual context. I know all the numbers are there and will use them. However, when I first take a look at the larger battle area - it is very informative to me to see the relative location of the type of units that I have - ARM, MECH and INF. The smaller GAR - is not that much smaller and is visually - a confusing clue. If we were being correct - we would have to put "XXX" and "XX" on top of the counters.

[rkr1958]

Guys,

I asked this in another thread but no one answered: Why are all the large counters in my game blank other than the inf/arm symbols?

I'd recommend reinstalling ... it sounds like you might not have gotten all the files copied over.

[gerones]

It takes me a lot of job to edit current large counters because of the many times they have to be revised before including them in the update. You have to believe me: this was a hard job that takes me many hours to complete. So I believe that it is not worth to edit current large counters and for the reasons pointed in the posts above: numbers should be enough for distinguishing garrisons from corps. If people pay more attention to symbols than combat factors numbers then switch to default counters: it sounds like a much simpler solution instead of having to edit all the large counters again.

I also used to consider garrison units in CEAW GS as static units but seeing how garrisons are used in the game I definitely have changed my mind. Let´s think that garrisons are used for many other purposes than garrisoning e.g. when they are used for diversionary landings or as second line units in the front. When we use them for these last mentioned roles we are definitely missing the concept of static units, don´t you think? So may be this discussion could result in a revision of the entire concept of garrison units in CEAW GS. From my point of view garrison units are something like "non-core" infantry units so they can be used for territorial roles, as auxiliary units, as support units, as defensive units, as commando units, etc. Keeping in mind this then to use infantry symbol for the roles mentioned would be much more accurate that to use the static unit symbol or the "G" symbol which are much more specific. So IMHO using a much more wider concept than "garrison" could result less confussing for people new to the game. I mean that a person who knows about military concepts may find weird that a corps sized units wargame uses the term garrison.

[rkr1958]

So IMHO using a much more wider concept than "garrison" could result less confussing for people new to the game. I mean that a person who knows about military concepts may find weird that a corps sized units wargame uses the term garrison.

The garrison unit is really an abstraction and is used for many things in GS. I believe in the original design it was meant to represent a less capable (firepower and speed) infantry corps. While that's probably its main application in GS it is also used for a HQ unit (the size of which one could argue), airborne divisions and commando units. When they're HQ and airborne divisions these units have a different symbol. When used as "commando units" they don't. It would be nice to have different slots for these different units but we don't. The use of garrisons as commando units is an abstraction and, while it's not unusual, I would say it's rare (probably < 1%, in general). In fact, I would argue that when use as commando unit the garrison abstractly would represent a small unit battalion to division size or so with exceptional firepower). But again, that's an abstraction.

Anyway, I think what Alec and others are asking, which is to use an empty box (i.e., minus the infantry "X") to represent garrisons is reasonable and would make these units quickly recognizably visually. With that said, I don't have a dog in this fight because I use unit icons. I've tried counters before but I go back to the unit icons because of the reason Alec made this request. I can visually and quickly survey the map and get a high level understanding of the current situation. This quick and high level survey basically includes unit type, strength, effectiveness (by color) and entrenchment (by color too). I get the rest of unit details when I click on them when I'm planning my moves for the turn.

[amcdonel]

I agree with Ronnie. Indeed, if one looks at the regular icons - the GAR is just a plain box.

[gerones]

The fact is that garrison and inf corps icons have the same type of image with the difference in the number of soldiers shown:

• 

Looking at the images of above you can check that soldiers icons are the same in both with the difference that in garrison units you have 3 soldiers and in corps unit you have 5 soldiers. There´s NO other element that distinguish both kind of units but the number of soldiers shown. It seems that original designers of vanilla image icons considered both garrison and corps units as INFANTRY units. It seems that a static unit would have needed a specific icon image so you can conclude that the corresponding unit would have ONLY static roles. But as Ronnie has pointed garrison units have different uses more than the static-territorial use. We use garrisons as:

• 1. Territorial-static corps
  2. HQ units
  3. Airborne divisions
  4. Commando units
  5. Second line front units
  6. Landing units

If we look at these different types of roles that garrisons play in CEAW GS we would have to conclude that an infantry symbol is much more accurate than a garrison or static corps symbol. A garrison symbol would exclude the use of the unit e.g. as a landing or a commando unit whilst an infantry symbol would exclude armoured or mechanized units but would not exclude none of the included in the list above.

Now let´s take a look at the difference between large counters garrisons and corps units:

• 

We see both infantry symbols the same way that in image icons we see both infantry soldiers images. In large counters the difference is in the size of the infantry symbol AND in combat values showed below. So the same way that image icons use infantry soldiers images for both types of units, large counters use infantry symbol for both types of units.

[amcdonel]

Again, respectfully - I have seen all that and for me it seems to all be the same.

Anyway - I have edited the icons myself for all the GAR units to make them only blank squares. I will play test myself for a while. If anyone else wants to play with large icon set where GAR units are a simple smaller rectangle without the "X" infantry symbol in the center -- send me a note or email amcdonel@gmail.com.

Later