spww2 warzone (ideas for the nextgen)

[Souljah]

Hi everyone reading this! I'm a big fan of this game, and I'm thinking about things, what could improve the gameplay. I'm not try to tell what the guys at C.W should do... but maybe they think them through. At the begining of a battle, there should be an option. We could change the game scale from big(frontline for example) to small(knockout the AA for example). I think there should be no big work with that, but the veterans at C.W. know this more than I.

1. - Speacial Ops

The game could simulate infiltration, longreckon etc.. For example: The german Brandenburg commandos or the British SAS. At the deployment screen the player could decide where he wants this units to start behind enemy lines.

2. - Special orders

Irregular units (like engineering units, commandos etc.) should have some ability at their disposal. Like destroying bulidings, bridges etc. I think this feature would add some nem aspect to the game. There could be small scale missions like "destroy the targetbuilding" or "Knock out the AAguns" or something like that. This gamemode would be played with a smaller army (like paratroops, marines etc.)

3. - Control the air space

The game could simulate the airspace at the battlescene. At the start of a battle, the player could change, who controls the airspace. This means, who got more airpower and whos airstrike will arrive more chance.

I hope you will understand what I try to say, but my grammer is not so good:D

[Imp]

1) More suited to scenerio design or PBEM as huge amount of work vs AI. Every nation would need another pick list well 2 actually depending on whether its the target or infiltrator.

2) Bridges in this game> firstly all can support heavy armour so if any change most tanks should not be able to use wooden ones which we shall assume are "light bridges" not wooden. Satchel charges can already destroy them though its a bit hit & miss but it should be its a specialist job. Bridges really require charges to be placed carefully on the structure to take it down, a job which takes considerable time before retiring to a safe distance & pressing the plunger.
The AI would not know the diffrence between destroy & capture for buildings etc. For PBEM set building or whatever as objective turn off your units satchel charges so he does not use them & use against the building on a turn you start stationary to it, easy enough for other player to verify can have a rule 2 used in a hex is destroyed even if isnt. If know the other player can do better with rule where by eng retires to 4 hexes away after visiting & blows.

3) Already done if set to XXX for both sides only diffrence it simulated it before arrive over the battle so thats the air you can have. Again can have own rules as in use as normal or if that side has air supperiority has flights on call rather than assigned to you. These want a quick turn around to rearm & go out so can only be used for 2 passes which must happen within 4 turns of each other

[Souljah]

The mission type games would be directed in a new system.

I guess abilitys would improve the game in a positive way. The battlefield cries out for Speacial Ops! Units like Skorzenys commando were a big threat at the battlefield (the player should be able, to disguise his commandos, which would be interesting in PBEM games)

Aircombat:

I was thinking about the idea I had sometime ago. When a player buys bombers, his/hers enemy could buy fighter planes to dogfight (they would be like offmap artilery) I know the game concentrates on groundfighting, but it would be awesome, to be able to organize the airoffensive

PreCombat intelligence:

The players could get some reports (its accuracy will be decided as the players sets the value) before the battle, about enemy positions

I almost forgot... COMMANDING UNITS! Like commandcars, commanders etc. This would give the player the ability, to create his own companys (specialy good for people, who wants to have an irregular army)

I don't understand the picklist:( what do you mean by that? I think the list which is currently in the game is perfect. The player should decide which units suits the job he been assigned to.

If I generate a campaign, it should make a random decision about the missiontype. I only started with meeting engagements. A randomizer should be implented

[PatG]

1) Special Ops

Already dealt with in the Scenario Editor. VP values for hexes and units can be adjusted to simulate all kinds of interesting missions. I believe the Bruneval Raid is in one scenario and an SAS airfiled raid would be simple to set up.

2) Special Orders

See above. Take your flak guns and increase their point value so high so that destroying them determines the out come of the game. Buildings and bridges are a little more abstract but again put a stack of very high value VP hexes on the target and controlling it becomes the focus of the game.

3) Sorry but no. If I want to play an air game then that is what I will do.

Pre-Combat Intelligence.

You already have this. Meeting engagement - both forces about equal. Assault - assaulter 3x more units but defender dug in. As for more detailed intelligence, player experience and the encyclopedia come into it. Fighting the early war Japanese you are going to be faced with lots of tough to kill infantry with crap tanks so leave your AT guns at home and stock up on arty.

[Souljah]

1) Special Ops

Already dealt with in the Scenario Editor. VP values for hexes and units can be adjusted to simulate all kinds of interesting missions. I believe the Bruneval Raid is in one scenario and an SAS airfiled raid would be simple to set up.

2) Special Orders

See above. Take your flak guns and increase their point value so high so that destroying them determines the out come of the game. Buildings and bridges are a little more abstract but again put a stack of very high value VP hexes on the target and controlling it becomes the focus of the game.

3) Sorry but no. If I want to play an air game then that is what I will do.

Pre-Combat Intelligence.

You already have this. Meeting engagement - both forces about equal. Assault - assaulter 3x more units but defender dug in. As for more detailed intelligence, player experience and the encyclopedia come into it. Fighting the early war Japanese you are going to be faced with lots of tough to kill infantry with crap tanks so leave your AT guns at home and stock up on arty.

I guess the pilots should eject when they get shot down (at least they can try)

[Imp]

I guess the pilots should eject when they get shot down (at least they can try)

Think about the effect on the game, helos very very rare anyone survives a landing & is able to walk away. Plane assume he has a good eject & landing you now have 1 man with a pistol whats he going to do. At least normal crews have a few men for you to try & save & in a campaign sort of important but you cant have planes in your core.

I understand your desire for Spec Ops & the game designers are introducing new stuff that will be useful for but still realy need to do in PBEM or setup in the editor.

[PatG]

I guess the pilots should eject when they get shot down (at least they can try)

Think about the effect on the game, helos very very rare anyone survives a landing & is able to walk away. Plane assume he has a good eject & landing you now have 1 man with a pistol whats he going to do. At least normal crews have a few men for you to try & save & in a campaign sort of important but you cant have planes in your core.

I understand your desire for Spec Ops & the game designers are introducing new stuff that will be useful for but still realy need to do in PBEM or setup in the editor.

The problem with spec ops is they really have to be setup in the editor. As for the ejecting pilot scenario, I can see setting up a Bridges at Toko Ri type game fairly easily but it would be in the context of just those few men fighting. I can't see the AI being able to do that in a larger game.

[Marek_Tucan]

Plane assume he has a good eject & landing you now have 1 man with a pistol whats he going to do.

What's he going to do? Put his hands up in the air :)

Besides he lands God-only-knows-where, as his first reaction is usually to try to hold the plane in the air and try to get back behind his lines, and even if it's not possible, plane shot down at altitude can crash-land mayn kilometers away and the same applies for the parachuting pilot. Sometimes it may take hours and hundreds of kilometers for the plane to be abandoned. Moreover even if it is a low-level strike, the plane flies a while, if possible - because pilot wants to gain some altitude to bail out.

If there was anything I would change in the air strike section, it would be "attack profile" - to be similar to Helo ops, IE you can choose between a high-level (relatively) approach (better spotting, targeting etc. - or rather to say, current level) and low-level approach where the aircraft can be partially hidden from AAA by terrain, but OTOH there would be worse spoting, targeting and maybe a chance of crash, plus say more opportunities for light AAA. But this would be mostly useful in MBT, as it would be a way to avoid SAMs, and anyway would be too much coding for too little gain so not gonna happen :)

(oops... seems I have a literary streak this evening :) So many words...)

[Souljah]

What about the engenieers ability to remove obstacles? Could we make to be able to decide to remove something or not? It's really annoying, that my man is sitting in a trenchline, before them lays a big field of mines, and my soldier clears a way for the attacker:D I wish this would be fixed

And for the air... I think controlling the airspace is vital for the ground units... So I think development of the airfight is necessary. And for the bailing out... bombers don't run with only one pilot... they are also a crew.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be smarter than any of you. I just want to make this game as real as it can get

[Imp]

Agree clearing your own stuff is a problem but this is a very old game, pretty sure if it could be fixed it would have been. The AI on occasion clears its own stuff but you know to leave a one hex space so they dont so not realy a problem for you. Mines & wire are better placed a few hexes away from your troops so they are dealing with when you open up. Alternativly stager a bit with gaps & place your units to engage just after pass through. Now routing units run into them great fun.

Most people do not use bombers very often okay you could argue Stukas Sturmovicks etc 2 men but as said whats the point adds nothing to game play they would try & hide till can make ther way back or surrender.

This is a ground combat game as said previosly air is dealt with abstractly when set to XXX or by you if set number allowed, the games flexible like that its your call.
You want it to be real how often do you think air is intercepted over the battlefield?
WW1 no radar & yes can happen but WW2 they get engaged on the way to or from there strike most times dictated by best intercept vector or shot at by ground units at the target area, thats exactly what the game models which is far more realistic than your idea.

[DRG]

There is NO "ours and "theirs" / "yours" and "mine" in regards to mines, wire DT's etc They treat both sides equally. If this is an issue for you it's because you are continually placing engineer units too close to them while defending so the solution is simple.......... DO NOT place engineers directly adjacent to your own mines/ DT's/wire when defending . When you stop doing that your "problems" will go away.

Don

[Souljah]

Agree clearing your own stuff is a problem but this is a very old game, pretty sure if it could be fixed it would have been. The AI on occasion clears its own stuff but you know to leave a one hex space so they dont so not realy a problem for you. Mines & wire are better placed a few hexes away from your troops so they are dealing with when you open up. Alternativly stager a bit with gaps & place your units to engage just after pass through. Now routing units run into them great fun.

Most people do not use bombers very often okay you could argue Stukas Sturmovicks etc 2 men but as said whats the point adds nothing to game play they would try & hide till can make ther way back or surrender.

This is a ground combat game as said previosly air is dealt with abstractly when set to XXX or by you if set number allowed, the games flexible like that its your call.
You want it to be real how often do you think air is intercepted over the battlefield?
WW1 no radar & yes can happen but WW2 they get engaged on the way to or from there strike most times dictated by best intercept vector or shot at by ground units at the target area, thats exactly what the game models which is far more realistic than your idea.

I see... when I said realaistic... I meant the whole game. I think this game has potential to simulate reallike ww2 battles, and modern engagements(MBT). I'm thinkig about to improve the unitselection screen. I had an idea to put another step between the buying and deployment phase. It could be called organizing screen or something liket that. There the player could decide wich units should be commanded by what unit, the motorized units could board their transport vehicle (trucks, airplanes, gliders). For PBEM games, the commander could give objectives which will be represented by a flag (idea is great in the rivalgame)

About unit informations... its poor. How could we improve? We should make a research thread so all player could copy in his informations about units.

What about buyable commanders?

It would be great to be able to buy just a commandunit. We could decide we want an armor commander or an infantry.

[Imp]

I'm thinkig about to improve the unitselection screen. I had an idea to put another step between the buying and deployment phase. It could be called organizing screen or something liket that. There the player could decide wich units should be commanded by what unit etc

??? You already have this in the deployment phase cross attachment in HQ screen, assign units to new formations button & you load people here why yet another screen?I suggest reading the guide.

For PBEM games, the commander could give objectives which will be represented by a flag (idea is great in the rivalgame)
And how often do you use it playing with C&C on in that game is a nightmare really badly done, besides you already have in units screen set waypoints & turn computer control on. Again read the guide but never known anyone use in PBEM ever.

About unit informations... its poor. How could we improve? We should make a research thread so all player could copy in his informations about units.

More background ability on units would be nice like some have with info button but there are 1000s of them & helps you know how to use them not capabilities.
Capabilities in this game are nice & clear unless a scenerio designer has modified the unit it does exactly what the details list. Unlike rival game more detail & if it says has special ammo etc it does.
Yet again read the guide all the info is at your fingertips


It would be great to be able to buy just a commandunit. We could decide we want an armor commander or an infantry.
Goes against the nature of the game C&C is abstracted by global exp settings & in some cases adjusting formations so have more or less leaders. Russian tank Company with 1 leader for instance. If you were going to do this should buy all leaders by nation as Russians always had less than say allies or Germans but of course varies over time to.

This is my last post unless you think first as yet again you have suggested stuff it already does or makes the game a more of a game less of a sim, & it does all of them better IMHO than said rival.
Go read the guide then if you have an idea think about how it impacts the game trust me the designers have, the more I understand the game the more I realise everything is just so for a reason. Its this that despite a very limited set of parameters imparts the correct feel to the game & thats what your ideas need to do.
1) How will it effect gameplay
2) Why does it work the way it does already.
3) Is it real life or a gamey idea
Sorry in my view suggestion are good they may spark an idea but think them through a bit before you post & read the guide so you know what it actually does already.

Edit okay reread bit about unit info think you were talking just about info not unit details/capabilities.
So start one but bear in mind designers have to check before they will add it to the game, yet more work so list sources for them.
Not sure how practical it is though as OOB editor does not seem to tag these so any changes & they migrate to the wrong unit, talking green text in info screen here.