Dogs Of War Vu
Network of Friends => Schwerpunkt => World War II Europe 1939-1945 => Topic started by: Asid on June 11, 2016, 03:53:05 AM
-
Use this thread for things you would like to see implemented.
-
In game sounds.
I think that some in game sounds would add a lot of immersion. Explosions for example. Maybe a bugle call to signify end of turn? There could also be battle sounds. These could be generic. How about bombers flying overhead?
Just a thought.
-
Hi.
It would be nice if we could have, as an option, the "Highlight OOB" button ON or OFF by default.
Specially in larger scenarios it is very handy to see at aglance subordinate divisions of an HQ, and is tedious to always have to click on this button for every HQ.
(PS: a way of highliting the ZOC hexes of a selected unit would also be very helpful...)
Regards
-
Hope you don't mind me piggy backing on your thread rather than open another one. Can the report windows stay persistent until closed, the combat report window closes when you scroll the map and you have to reopen it every time you scroll and when you click on the battle links in the list of battles it closes, like it to stay open as i go through all the battles.
-
It would be nice if we could have, as an option, the "Highlight OOB" button ON or OFF by default.
I agree. I've been asking for this forever. With default ON, players should be able to see all parent/sibling/child OOB relationships highlighted whenever they select a unit.
It would also be nice to have unit highlights for OOS and broken command links so you can see them clearly when reviewing the map. Having reports is OK but always better to have the visual too.
-
Keep the suggestions coming :)
-
Hope this is the right section. Just started learning the game, going through the options and buttons. I like the turn setups with the different phases, gives you a lot of options..nice. It's early but the UI defiantly needs work, things seems more complicated than they have to be. As an example, regarding the reports menu, click report, click air-to air, exit that, click report again, air to ground and rinse and repeat, i believe its the same for all reports. What about 3 headings when you click report, Air, Ground, Navel, or even 1 button for reports thats open up 1 window with tabs that you can tab through to see all reports without going back and forth, also be nice if you could resize the window.
-
more hot keys and having the hotkeys go on/off with same key, instead of hitting cancel in the CP. Hit W once for weather on, hit it again for weather off. for starters i'd like hotkeys for show units, i.e. show only ground units, show only air units, ect. Ability to turn hex grid off. Better mouse map scrolling, seems hit or miss right now especially in the up direction, right now i find using the keys better. During AI resolutions the map always zooms out , can it stay on the level you set it at.
-
Hopeful the ship counters will get the two letter designations (BB, CA, CL) for ease of spotting on the map. Are the UK Monitors
included in the OOB? Also trying to see info on heavy fortifications (Atlantic Wall type) in game that have non-movable artillery.
Edit (7-11-16). Would it be possible to have the AI from the East Front game be used in the full WW2 game to allow a human
player to command the Western Alliance (US/UK) and still have the German AI run by itself. It would seem a bit of a dodge to play
both Western and Soviet in concert as you could easily coordinate really well and smash the Axis early. Having a separate USSR AI
would provide the best of all possibilities.
-
I would like to see HQ's have an effective range.
I'd also like to see the AI defend or attack as required.
Another company had the great idea of assigning a value to a city for the AI.
It seems simple? Scenario specific for sure..... but a great idea.
Change cities by script?
-
I have said this before on the old Wargamer forum ( http://old.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=590776 ) but I'll say it again here:
I think it would be nice if the AI was able to choose other attack options like the "Capture hex" attack option (I don't know whether it ever chooses the holding attack option but my guess is no...). Right now the fact that it does not, particularly when attacking with high odds like at 5 to 1, can be exploited against the AI to cause high casualties with minimal danger of receiving high casualties in return (only a die roll of 12 would be bad at 5 to 1 odds...). I understand that a lot of improvements have already been made to the AI and this is great! I also understand that getting the AI to choose attack options other than only the normal attack one, would require some logic/algorithm that may not be that easy to encode...but I believe it may be something that Ron has put on the table for a future further enhancement to the AI...
C
-
I have said this before on the old Wargamer forum ( http://old.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=590776 ) but I'll say it again here:
I think it would be nice if the AI was able to choose other attack options like the "Capture hex" attack option (I don't know whether it ever chooses the holding attack option but my guess is no...). Right now the fact that it does not, particularly when attacking with high odds like at 5 to 1, can be exploited against the AI to cause high casualties with minimal danger of receiving high casualties in return (only a die roll of 12 would be bad at 5 to 1 odds...). I understand that a lot of improvements have already been made to the AI and this is great! I also understand that getting the AI to choose attack options other than only the normal attack one, would require some logic/algorithm that may not be that easy to encode...but I believe it may be something that Ron has put on the table for a future further enhancement to the AI...
C
Agree.
But I would like to see the AI defend as well.
In five games of the (49)Crimea break-in, the AI (Russia) does not defend Sevastopol at all.
In fact it leaves it totally undefended.
All units as of 1.08 are all concentrated and head for Yarylgach?
-
Some PBEM protection.
Like option for -no file save- during turn, ala some Tiller games have this (Panzer Campaigns).
Password to open file.
-
Hi All,
At the risk of getting boring this is a long wish list and also a list of enhancements...
My wish list with some features I really enjoyed from AGW. Also along with some explanations why I think they are worth to be considered:
1) Advanced defence: hold, normal, give ground. If attack can be graded so should be defence. That would give defenders the option of an elastic defence or defend to death some key cities or positions (
2) Air interdiction: some kind of air interdiction aimed at paralyzing enemy´s communications and railroads. I still do not know if air tactical bombing does that kind of effect. Historically allied air forces
committed many resources to limit Axis railway and road movement and in the East Front there were some occasions this was used as well. Otherwise German units move unhindered in their way to Normandy or any other Allied landing
3) Replacements pools in all scenarios seem to be too limited. They are the same as in AGW but units are larger or have more defence and attack factors.
3.1 Some scenarios have no replacement points at all
3.2 Minor Axis powers: Romania, Hungary, Finland have no replacement points at all in all scenarios I have checked.
4) Atlantic Wall (1): Scenarios from 33 to 39 (both included) should have German units fortified in ports and entrenched on beach coast hexes. This is to reflect the Atlantic Wall fortifications along the French and Dutch coast.
5) Atlantic Wall (2): We are missing many German coastal artillery regiments defending the Atlantic Wall in Scenarios from 33 to 39 (both included) Some of them –but not all- show up in Scenario 37 but not in the rest. If they are included they should be fortified. Alternatively there might be an optional rule destroying them if they are forced to retreat reflecting their immobile nature.
6) Air tactical attack:
6.1 Losses in air units: Why air units never suffer losses in air attacks ? How is the flak / antiaircraft defence of the ground units reflected ?
6.2 Air bombing seems to be disproportionately effective in some scenarios like France 1944. Testing some scenarios it turned out that Germans were suffering more losses from just air bombing than historically from ground combat and air bombing combined.
6.3 Give a little more protection to units fortified or entrenched: the rate 10 to 30% is too low.
7 ) Terrain effect: bocage, forest and cities seem to have too little effect in combat. Higher defence factors whilst defenders are placed in those hexes ?
8 ) Movement of unsupplied units:
8.1 Mechanized units should not move as they do when they are out of supply. Historically whenever supply was unavailable they stopped on their tracks. No petrol no movement... Some little movement could be allowed in direction to the nearest supply source. In my play testing German mechanized units were advancing into the void in several East Front scenarios what was ahistorical.
8.2 Cavalry units out of supply: cavalry units should be affected by the same out of supply constrains. In order to be effective cavalry units needed ammunition, fodder and fuel supply as they also had some vehicles.
8.3 Air supply: seems to be too powerful and limitless. Instead of providing the bare margin for an isolated unit to survive, it gives full power and movement to drive all the way either to Moscow or Berlin !
9) Limitation of attacks: There are too many attacks fixed in various scenarios that lead to an unrealistic bloodbath. I would suggest the following values to fit better the historical results as well as reflecting some logistical constrains. Note: this is based in my own playing with the game checking historical and game results.
- Scenario 22 (Allied 6 – Axis 4)
- Scenario 25 (Allied 8 – Axis 4)
- Scenario 35 (Allied 5 – Axis 2)
- Scenario 36 (Allied 5 – Axis 2)
- Scenario 37 (Allied 5 – Axis 3)
- Scenario 50 (Allied 3 – Axis 2)
- Scenario 53 (Allied 4 – Axis 3)
- Scenario 54 (Allied 8 – Axis 5)
- Scenario 55 (Allied 6 – Axis 5)
- Scenario 58 (Allied 8 – Axis 8 )
- Scenario 59 (Allied 8 – Axis 12)
- Scenario 60 (Allied 4 – Axis 6)
- Scenario 61 (Allied 6 – Axis 8 )
- Scenario 65 (Allied 8 – Axis 5)
- Scenario 73 (Allied 8 – Axis 10)
- Scenario 91 (Allied 12 – Axis 5)
11) Optional rules and units:
11.1 Artillery units: Any artillery unit should be destroyed if forced to retreat exactly as the German artillery units in the Atlantic Wall or the Super Heavy German artillery unit: Explanation is that these units were more vulnerable to be overrun as they could not easily evacuate their guns. Historically Soviet artillery corps were very powerful but it took them a long time to set up, preplan their fire, correct range, etc. Also they could not occupy enemy ground as they were rather inmobile. This can better reflect the fluctuating nature of a battlefield that has been pounded by Soviet artillery but has to be occupied by infantry or tanks being thereby more vulnerable to German mobile counterattacks.
11.2 Optional German Super Heavy Artillery unit: historically the Germans assembled some huge guns that helped to break into Sebastopol and that were supposed to be used to assault Leningrad. As the Atlantic Wall artillery units this unit should be destroyed if forced to retreat.
11.3 German V weapons: although their tactical effect was negligible, Allied air forces were forced to divert many fighter units as well as antiaircraft regiments to defend Great Britain and the port of Antwerp. That could be factored with less Allied fighter support from July 1944 on.
11.4 Electro uboats: if they had been operational less warships would have been available to the Allies and sea trade limited. Perhaps that could be modelled with less Allied warships, less Allied replacements.
11.5 Optional artillery units:
a) Kronstadt island around Leningrad had sizeable artillery assets that helped to hold the Oranienbaum bridgehead for years.
b) Sicily had some Italian artillery defenses. No idea if they were important or are already embedded in the infantry coastal divisions.
c) Norway had some impressive German defenses from 1942 to 1944. A lot of artillery was there.
d) Southern France had in the 1944 summer some artillery units as well -many of them taken over to the Italians-, yet were far less powerful than the ones at the Atlantic Wall.
12) Railway conversion in the USSR: I know the game takes care of this but historically Germans had not the engineering capacity to regauge all the captured Soviet track. That was a RGW feature I loved as German player had to take hard decissions what track had the priority to be converted. It would also take away the unlikely event of transporting a German unit by rail just the week after it has been captured some track all the way deep into the Soviet Union. That would also make supply lanes more clear and would not allow go through enemy cities or ZOC. That would also stop rail movement deep into the enemy area as it is happening sometimes.
Schwerpunkt Valencia
-
A few suggestions to improve the games usability seen as how the UI is frankly awful. :'(
The map scrolling annoying as hell with the second pause before scrolling and the weird hit and miss scroll behaviour caused by the toolbar icons at the top of the screen.
Don't know if you have played Command Ops from Matrix games(the new version is over on Lock n Load Publishing and has a free download so you can try out a few scenarios to better understand what i am saying) but the arrow keys are used to navigate through your units and it works really well and would be a godsend if added to this.
Example being the left/right arrows navigate between the subordinate units under your current commander, while the up key would take you up a level in the command structure and down going down a level in the command structure, each jumping the map to the selected unit.
If you have a divisional commander selected for example and you want to quickly see the other divisional commanders and there position on the map simply pressing left/right arrow keys jumps you to and selects each of them in turn, then if you want to see that commanders subordinate fighting units a quick arrow down and then left/right to cycle between his subordinate figting units.
If you want to find out where on the map your big cheese is hiding just tap the Up key a few times. Super simple but super effective imho.
Also i got to say that this games OOB screen is somewhere between bad and awful as well, why is there no way to better cycle between your OOB units within the OOB screen???
For example i select a divisional HQ on the map, select the OOB button, the OOB opens up with my HQ at the top of the tree and his subordinates underneath.
Where are all the other Divisional HQ at his level, why can't i go up a level to view the selected Divisional HQ's superior in the command structure? I should be able to cycle about within the OOB screen to get a good overveiw of my complete OOB surely, as is its like pulling bloody teeth.
I Picked this up last Christmas as it was supposed to be completed iirc about then and after a few hours play it got shelved because the UI is just bad. Got the latest patch a day or so ago and thought it must have come a long way by now almost 12 months on. Nope.
Saying all that this is not a rant but genuine criticism that i hope may be taken on board cause the UI needs some love.
I think the board game feel is great, it really does feel like playing an old Hex and Counter cardboard wargame which is what i wanted when i bought the game. I couldn't really give two hoots that the graphics are from the DOS era because the game play and feel is definitely there, its just hiding shamefully behind the C64/ZXSPECTRUM era UI.
Really hope this gets some attention because attempting anything other than the smallest scenarios is horrendous as is.
-
I just spotted this thread, so I'm pasting in a few points I made to Budd in the MODS thread:
My thoughts so far (bearing in mind the fact that I'm an old RGW and AGW player):
- The UI is a bit clicky, I agree. It feels as though I always need to make one click more than I'd expect. A couple of ideas for streamlining:
1. When I decide to attack a hex, maybe all available attacking units should be selected by default, with the attack type automatically set as 'Normal' (since that's presumably, um... normal). Then before committing, I can deselect units as needed and change the attack type if I wish. That would cut out about half my clicks for the phase.
2. Instead of clicking a hex during the Move phase and then selecting the unit, perhaps a single click should auto-select the top unit in the stack and a double-click should select the whole stack. Given the mouse-over feature (which is great) the only reason for clicking the hex is to select the units, so why click twice?
3. When I select a unit for move to exploit, all possible moves should be shown from the outset, rather than just those available in part one of the move. It would reduce the number of clicks and also prevent me from having to guess about what moves I might be able to make.
- Air units. I would like to be able to EITHER target a hex OR target an area; for interdiction for example. Targeting a hex could have an immediate effect in the Deploy phase, as now, while targeting an area would affect the CRT during the combat phase. Just a thought, given that close air support is generally called in after contact is made and not before.
- Naval units. As above; target a hex immediately or provide support operations along a section of coast during the combat phase.
- The map.
1. I really hope the mod described here gets made. If I understand it correctly, every BMP image will need to be redrawn individually. I might give this a try at some point if nobody else does, but right now I'm very busy with work. In any case, my standard of artwork isn't as good as the samples shown here...
2. I'd really love a shaded hex option to show which hexes are still enemy controlled, as in WitE. It's hard to judge what risks I'm taking at present, as shown in the image. How strong is my ZOC by the way? I've yet to find out.
- The AI.
1. I played the tutorials and the Poland 1939 scenario. The AI seems quite good and it certainly doesn't just flee to the far side of the map like some I could name!
2. I have seen a couple of examples of AI units retreating away from friendly lines and into the rear of attacking units, which is disconcerting. I wonder if the code can be adjusted so that AI units either retreat towards their supply source or higher HQ, or stand still/surrender when defeated?
-
Request for next patch.
Hex Coordinates on: remains on until toggled off.
When I review reports and the map jumps or references the hex co-ords, it would be great if I did not have to toggle them back on every time I change zoom or the map jumps.
Should be an easy code tweak to check toggle status when refreshing a map.
please!
-
So many great suggestions in this thread. At this time I'll just chime in on the 'clickfest' UI. Any reduction of clicking should be implemented, such as the suggestions by Redmarkus4. Adding to what he said, for locked operations such as 'dig-in,' clicking on a hex with left button should do the dig-in for the top unit, right click to cycle the units in the hex to get to the one for dig-in.
- The UI is a bit clicky, I agree. It feels as though I always need to make one click more than I'd expect. A couple of ideas for streamlining:
1. When I decide to attack a hex, maybe all available attacking units should be selected by default, with the attack type automatically set as 'Normal' (since that's presumably, um... normal). Then before committing, I can deselect units as needed and change the attack type if I wish. That would cut out about half my clicks for the phase.
2. Instead of clicking a hex during the Move phase and then selecting the unit, perhaps a single click should auto-select the top unit in the stack and a double-click should select the whole stack. Given the mouse-over feature (which is great) the only reason for clicking the hex is to select the units, so why click twice?
3. When I select a unit for move to exploit, all possible moves should be shown from the outset, rather than just those available in part one of the move. It would reduce the number of clicks and also prevent me from having to guess about what moves I might be able to make.
-
My wish list items:
1) I would like to see artillery units afforded a more important roll befitting an operational level war game.
If anyone is interested in my perspective re artillery, see my post (and related posts/discussions that can be found in it) here: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/topic,3089.msg12079.html#msg12079
My general feeling is that artillery is somewhat underrated in terms of what could otherwise be an interesting added value effect in the context of combined arms...
2) I would like to see the ability of the AI to choose different attack modes. If this is too difficult to implement, then perhaps a change to the combat results table, together with getting rid of the different attack mode choices, as a simple solution, could be implemented to circumvent the issue.
I have to also say that I haven't given up on this great game...but I have put it on hold while I wait to see what Ron will come up with to improve it in terms of artillery effects and the ability of the AI to choose different attack modes. If you are interested on my perspective on this, see: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=193
Cheers,
C
-
Appreciate all of the suggestions. Obvious that I can't include all of them in v1.0.11, but will study and pick some of them for this version. I want to get v1.0.11 out for Christmas.
Thanks,
Ron
-
Zovs (Donald’s) Wish List for future consideration (part one initial observations)
Wish
1. Larger fonts/bold fonts/optional icons
At the low map (zoomed in all the way) level it’s hard to read all the values on the counters (this counters the old traditional style that was implemented successfully by Redmond Simonson in the 1970s while he was at SPI and set the standard for board war games and overflowed into computer war games). Essentially a bolder font on the counters to make the combat, movement and other factors stand out more would help and at least in my case squinting to read the values.
Also some modern computer war games (The Operational Art of War and Gary Grigsbys War in The East come to mind) use icons to display information like supply status, losses, and TEM using things like small squares filled in with various colors that represent various states or small triangle on the top right or left that is colored in based on certain values and situations. Once the placement and colors are know then the player can tell at a glance with the help of a visual aid what the status or condition for that unit is instead of reading black numbers and recalling the placement at the top of the counter.
2. Variable Initiative
This would be the ability for the initiative to switch, some ideas are from the board game from AH called Third Reich (and Advanced Third Reich). And from the computer war game The Operational Art of War.
Essentially this would be most effective in larger scenarios or campaigns where the initiative switched from one side or the other with the ability for the side that gained the initiative to move first and can sea-saw back and forth throughout that campaign.
Another play on this is to also adjust up/down the number of attacks each side would receive.
Another one of my favorite board games which was never popular it it had some great game mechanics but the player with the initiative could determine who did the turn first.
I’ll add more later as I gain more experience with this system.
The game will need a basic political system probably similar to SPIs War in Europe (which is also an operational level game).
-
I added the bold font to my wish list. The game already allows the initiative to shift from one player to another. I also added the political system idea to my wish list.
I have been making progress on the #102 file, but it is going slower than desired. I hope to pick up the pace this month and still deliver a file to everyone so we can get a good list of rules to be added for this scenario. I may just deliver the file for gamers to download, rather than making it an official release (that will save time).
Ron
-
I did not see the initiative switch in the rules maybe I missed it. Can you provide a reference or give a explanation on it?
Sounds good on #102.
Will some of the other missing 15% scenarios also be included?
-
I'd wish for being able to scroll through the various pages in reports. Page Down doesn't seem to work in windows 10. Also, a double check of all of the units to make sure they are already attached to their hq units because in some scenarios there are so many hq units nearby the appropriate hq unit will not appear in the screen of hq units to attach to.