Slitherine

Hello all,

first of all i hope you will excuse my english but i´am from Germany and so i don´t have to use my limited english skills every day


I really like this game, since the old days of Panzer General i always dreamed about a grand strategy game like this.

And as a fan i´ll offer you some suggestions wich may improve the gameplay.


My first idea is the possibility to attach brigades. Yes, it´s inspired by Hearts of iron, but i like the idea to specialize troops for upcoming battles. It would work like the attachment of generals used to. So you can improve units with engineers, mighty Artillery (big guns which were used in the Battle of Sevastopol for example) or AA units.

You may also equip Air-Units with different bomb types, against fortresses, tanks, torpedos against ships and so on.

----------------

Second idea is the implementation of rail tracks on the map. This would allow Bombers to destroy them, so that enemy movement is hinderd (it could also affect supply lines).

----------------

I think it is necessary to allow players to build fortress lines, bunkers and so on. The "Atlantikwall" and the "Westwall" were vital for the german defence, so it should be simulated in this game.

----------------

I have alot of ideas (submarine bunkers, moveable supply-dumps, units should gain experience...) but for now it´s enough

Canton, your english is fine. American colleges are full of people whose grasp of the english language is markedly inferior to yours. Sadly, many of them graduate without significantly improving their skills

Mmmm, I know I've been stridently opposing 99% of the new ideas for additions here, but I must admit the idea of attached Brigades/Battalions has a sweetly seductive allure.

For one thing, it would allow CEAW to have true heavy armor units. As we have discussed elsewhere, Corps or even Division sized heavy armor units never existed; the heavy armor was usually as attached bde/bn-sized units.

Sadly, this idea would probably add too much complexity to be workable, but it's still a sweet suggestion.

Actually the attaching of assets was first devised in the boardgame "Red Storm Rising". I still have that game and coupled with the "Hunt for Red October" provided for a decent WW3 experience.

This is a feature that would be useful for naval task forces also, probably air units too. You could actually custom produce your units like in the original TOAW editor.

Research would actually provide for doctrinal advantages for certain combined arms as well as for new equipment types.

Granted this would add to the micromanagement of the production queue, but maybe worth the effort as long as the rest of the game is user friendly.

seamonkey wrote:Actually the attaching of assets was first devised in the boardgame "Red Storm Rising". I still have that game and coupled with the "Hunt for Red October" provided for a decent WW3 experience.

No, no, no. I first saw the attaching of units in an old SPI game called Kursk, circa 1973. Larry Whatsisnose didn't publish the book Red Storm Rising until 1987, let alone the game.

"Bond"........James....uhhh.... no Larry.....shaken not stirred.

Never had the pleasure of "Kursk", had plenty.....still have plenty of SPIs....faves PArmee Afrika and PG Guderian.

I stand corrected.

Yes, most of my ideas will add more micromanagement.

For example: Refueling ships by tankers on the sea, like the Germans did to keep their submarines longer in duty, but yes, that would maybe lead into much micromanagement. But is would maybe a good idea that ships can only load a limited amount of fuel/supply/ammunition so that they have to return to a friendly port within a couple of turns.


There is another idea, uprading cities/mines/oilfields/ports with AA guns, this would be simple

Or spending Production points to enlarge rail capacity and factories.


I accept the aspect that some of my ideas didn´t fit into the scale of the game, but i think most of the people playing strategy games a dreaming of the perfect game; this dream is the source of my weird thoughts

"There is another idea, uprading cities/mines/oilfields/ports with AA guns, this would be simple"

Already in SC. You know canton, your a perfect candidate for SC.

To attach reserve units to combat corps you could use a variant of the commander code. All we need is a special type of commander that has no influence on units recovery of effectiveness etc but only gives increases to the combat value of the unit to which it is attached.

davetheroad wrote:To attach reserve units to combat corps you could use a variant of the commander code. All we need is a special type of commander that has no influence on units recovery of effectiveness etc but only gives increases to the combat value of the unit to which it is attached.

Ohhh, clever idea!

By using the 'commander' code you can also limit the number of such units, give them a image etc. I was thinking of honorifics such as 'Guards' for the russians and maybe 'SS' for the germans, so you can have your SS panzer corps!. There a a large number of commanders available and I would think that a few could be attachments.

Thinks - we can do this now? change a commanders details so his radius effect is zero, give him attack/defend values, change his name and there you are. The little image would stay the same though as it is generic.

Dave

seamonkey wrote:
Already in SC. You know canton, your a perfect candidate for SC.

Yes, SC2 is a part of my wargame collection, still waiting for the expansion.


------------------

New day, new thoughts.

- What do you think about airfields? Actually you can base Airfleets almost everywhere, from the highest mountain to the deepest swamp.


- Carriers. In my opinion the way they work is a little bit to simple. If you command an air attack launched by a carrier there is no CAG which take losses it is the carrier. So the first step is introducing Carrier Air groups which have to be based on a carrier. This could easily done using the mechanics of Pacific General, which means that every carrier has a number of slots (depending on the type of carrier) which could be filled with those air groups.

A second thought would be to restrict the operations of CAG´s. Afaik CAG´s were used for reconnaissance, attacking enemy naval vessels an defendig their own fleet and not for strategic bombing of enemy cities or close air support.


I accept that on the european theater most actions are focused on land battles, so i still hope that we will see a revamp of naval warfare in a future addon

canton wrote:
A second thought would be to restrict the operations of CAG´s. Afaik CAG´s were used for reconnaissance, attacking enemy naval vessels an defendig their own fleet and not for strategic bombing of enemy cities or close air support.

Welllllll, in the Pacific, which is where 95% of the carrier warfare took place in WWII, carrier-based air most emphatically was used for close air support