First impressions
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:50 pm
I’ve only played the demo, but so far this looks like a great game. Hopefully someone one from Slitherine will answer my email as to why I can’t order from their site soon.
The game engine seems really good and I think there is lots of potential for this game. Just for the sake of hearing my own voice I’d like to make some suggestions.
The attachment of leaders to units is a good feature, but why not improve this by allowing air and navel units to have leaders as well? Also, in a Corps level game such as this, you are always limited in the types of units you can have. Why not allow for the purchase of ‘attachments’? Attachments could allow for more customization of units and more flexibility for units. For example, you could have; artillery, AT, AA and engineer attachments. These units can’t be represented at the scale of the current game but could give the player some interesting options. The bonuses for these units would be such as +1 shock for Artillery, GA+1 for engineers etc. These attachments would be somewhat cheaper than leaders as they have no readiness bonus.
Road and Rail is not shown on the map and its inclusion would make for some interesting strategic options. For example, road would increase movement of units, while rail movement would only be possible between connected cities. Not all cities in Africa and Europe were connected by rail, in fact (correct me if I’m wrong) most of Africa was unconnected. Some supply affect could also be included?
Paratroopers. I’ve seen some discussion regarding the inclusion of these units and the pros and cons. I feel that their inclusion is a must in any WWII game as much as advanced tanks, radar or aircraft carriers. These specialist elite units were almost a secret a weapon (despite the miss-drops). A good example was the invasion of Crete, the German Army lacked the resources to launch an amphibious invasion, but they had a secret weapon, the Luftwaffe. Although it can be argued that the casualties were horrendous, it should be remembered that these troops, without tank and the support of heavy equipment were able to defeat an enemy of superior (numerical) strength. The numbers of troops involved in this and other airborne operations, while although significantly lower than the corps sized engagements of the game, can be represented by cost and relative strength of the unit. Of course with such units there are some game exploits. If a particular player wants to leave all of his capitals un-garrisoned and his opponent wanted to spend all his production on airborne troops and drop them in, then chances are someone will lose a lot of cities. On the other hand if the cities are garrisoned and these troops are landed unsupplied and unrelieved into enemy territory I’m pretty sure it would be a paratrooper slaughter. The other option is to limit their numbers, although I’m not sure if the game mechanics can do this?
Fortifications is something that is also missing. At present only the fortresses that existed at the start of the war are there. Where is Hitler’s fortress Europe?
Anyway, enough of me going on, keep up the good work.
The game engine seems really good and I think there is lots of potential for this game. Just for the sake of hearing my own voice I’d like to make some suggestions.
The attachment of leaders to units is a good feature, but why not improve this by allowing air and navel units to have leaders as well? Also, in a Corps level game such as this, you are always limited in the types of units you can have. Why not allow for the purchase of ‘attachments’? Attachments could allow for more customization of units and more flexibility for units. For example, you could have; artillery, AT, AA and engineer attachments. These units can’t be represented at the scale of the current game but could give the player some interesting options. The bonuses for these units would be such as +1 shock for Artillery, GA+1 for engineers etc. These attachments would be somewhat cheaper than leaders as they have no readiness bonus.
Road and Rail is not shown on the map and its inclusion would make for some interesting strategic options. For example, road would increase movement of units, while rail movement would only be possible between connected cities. Not all cities in Africa and Europe were connected by rail, in fact (correct me if I’m wrong) most of Africa was unconnected. Some supply affect could also be included?
Paratroopers. I’ve seen some discussion regarding the inclusion of these units and the pros and cons. I feel that their inclusion is a must in any WWII game as much as advanced tanks, radar or aircraft carriers. These specialist elite units were almost a secret a weapon (despite the miss-drops). A good example was the invasion of Crete, the German Army lacked the resources to launch an amphibious invasion, but they had a secret weapon, the Luftwaffe. Although it can be argued that the casualties were horrendous, it should be remembered that these troops, without tank and the support of heavy equipment were able to defeat an enemy of superior (numerical) strength. The numbers of troops involved in this and other airborne operations, while although significantly lower than the corps sized engagements of the game, can be represented by cost and relative strength of the unit. Of course with such units there are some game exploits. If a particular player wants to leave all of his capitals un-garrisoned and his opponent wanted to spend all his production on airborne troops and drop them in, then chances are someone will lose a lot of cities. On the other hand if the cities are garrisoned and these troops are landed unsupplied and unrelieved into enemy territory I’m pretty sure it would be a paratrooper slaughter. The other option is to limit their numbers, although I’m not sure if the game mechanics can do this?
Fortifications is something that is also missing. At present only the fortresses that existed at the start of the war are there. Where is Hitler’s fortress Europe?
Anyway, enough of me going on, keep up the good work.
