After Semper Fi - Proposal for a new Add-on

[Jazumir]

Id like an easy way to cancel orders for air units. Such as when selecting several wings each unit that has orders gets a bar under it on the left side of the screen. The bar shows its current mission with a little cross next to it to cancel.

Because at the moment it is a pain having to go through each unit to see if it has an order and if it is still relevant.

if the (multiple-)unit selection was scrollable, the unit-panels could be expanded vertically a bit, allowing a third row, for what you suggested. It would also open enough room right to those panels, for a ´goto´(or ´details´)-button, beneath the ´select´ button, which takes its function. The ´select´-button gets a new funtion. It selects the unit, without closing the selection list. It´s a toggle button, meaning it switches to ´deselect´ when the unit is selected and you can select several, so you get a selection of the selection, without closing the first selection, or parts of it. You can then give this 2nd-order-selection orders - again, without closing the first selection. Should ease up your air-force management alot (edit: if none is selected, orders are still applicable to all of the first order slection). EDIT2: I´ll call this idea ´2nd order selection´.

We are brain-storming, right. I am playing right now and note here what comes to mind, while playing... so: what was it (before i saw your post)? Ahh, i forgot... well...

Ah, here is a related one: Can we please rename units from within a selection?

 

[Chromos]

Id like an easy way to cancel orders for air units. Such as when selecting several wings each unit that has orders gets a bar under it on the left side of the screen. The bar shows its current mission with a little cross next to it to cancel.

Because at the moment it is a pain having to go through each unit to see if it has an order and if it is still relevant.

Nice Idea!
And HQ's for naval and air units.
Then we would be able to quit missions also from HQ's...

Kind regards,
Chromos

 

[Pj Fallon]

Nice Idea!
And HQ's for naval and air units.
Then we would be able to quit missions also from HQ's...

Kind regards,
Chromos

I already do this i may of had to create HQs from inf but just detact them and attach the planes to the new HQ.

 

[Jazumir]

Still more on the UI: The tech-tab.

When you click ´go to´ after a tech finished, it should take you to the according field of research (e.g. ´armor´ after some armor tech).

Then, i find it hard to ´browse´ the list of techs i am currently researching. If i want to check their progress, for example, i have to scroll through a list of almost identical items. The progress with finishing dates should be displayed, at least in the bottom-panel after selecting the tech, but preferably directly in the tech-selection panel, if it can be made fit.

Some sort of color coding might be good for the techs as well. But it shouldnt end up looking like a bad LSD-trip. Maybe one color for ground-unit techs, naval techs, airplane techs, industry&theory and doctrines each. It´s sufficient to color them in the tab-holders on top of the tech-selection panel and in the selected tech list - it´s not needed to color them in the selection panel itself - so maybe use color to reflect their progress, maybe?

 

[Pj Fallon]

Still more on the UI: The tech-tab.

When you click ´go to´ after a tech finished, it should take you to the according field of research (e.g. ´armor´ after some armor tech).

Then, i find it hard to ´browse´ the list of techs i am currently researching. If i want to check their progress, for example, i have to scroll through a list of almost identical items. The progress with finishing dates should be displayed, at least in the bottom-panel after selecting the tech, but preferably directly in the tech-selection panel, if it can be made fit.

Some sort of color coding might be good for the techs as well. But it shouldnt end up looking like a bad LSD-trip. Maybe one color for ground-unit techs, naval techs, airplane techs, industry&theory and doctrines each. It´s sufficient to color them in the tab-holders on top of the tech-selection panel and in the selected tech list - it´s not needed to color them in the selection panel itself - so maybe use color to reflect their progress, maybe?

I agree with the colour coding the list of currently researching techs is a pain to navigate as its all just a mess of text.

 

[Jazumir]

When a trade-deal is offered, somehow show (icon or color or whatnot) if this deal would require my trade partner (say, yellow convoy-icon) or me (say, red red convoy icon) to have convoys free for it. Preferably display how many, too.

 

[Cybvep]

Yes, those are good suggestions. There are parts of UI that definitely need to be improved.

 

[Baltasar]

How about giving the sue for peace button a function? Right now, it is basically useless, although there is no indication at all that every single country would fight on regardless of it's losses and regardless of how many provinces have been captured. The VP provinces / national unity thingie isn't really an adequate solution here and not allowing surrenders if you are in a faction doesn't help either.

I'd second the idea of prioritizing certain divisions / corps / armies for offensives. This was possible in HoI2 and it is entirely realistic. Thinking about it, I'd like to be able to set up supply depots, too. One way to achieve this would be the introduction of a new building type and have it constructed like other buildings. This should be costly but the effect would be that units would get their supplies from the nearest depot instead of just having to transport everything from the capital / nearest harbour. The costs should be too high to make it a really viable option for eg Fall Gelb as Germany but it should be an option for Barbarossa or for Japan in China or the UK in India... There could also be a minimum Infrastructure requirement, too, as this would be entirely logical to have eg Inf 5 as a minimum if you want to have vast ammounts of supplies being dumped into one place.

 

[Pj Fallon]

How about war goals like in victoria 2.

 

[Nieldo]

Some good suggestions in this thread, I would like to remind the devs that the naval war and pacific war still need a bit of work.

Fleet Ping Pong:
After you have engaged another fleet in combat, you decide its not going your way so you order the retreat. The enemy fleet follows you and engages you a second time, you retreat, but as you don't have any control over which direction you retreat to your fleet chooses to jump into a second enemy fleet.

This continues until your fleet is destroyed. We need a way to influence which direction or sea province your fleets retreat into, of course our options could be limited due to what happens in a battle (such as the enemy blocking our path to one sea zone), but we still need the options there for us. This ability to control our retreat direction wont completely fix it though, but it would need a fine balance because fleets should be chase-able, but at the moment it always turns into fleet ping pong and is madly frustrating.

SeaPlane vs LandPlane stacking penalties
If interceptors engage your CAGs (happens a lot in the Pacific) your CAGs suffer the land based air unit stacking penalty and get completely obliterated. We need a way of controlling which of your CAGs will launch against interceptors, a simple check box added to the mission menu will be a start, that way you can have 3-4 of your CAG units assigned to 'CAG Duty + Intercept Duty', while the rest will only be on CAG duty. This would work but an overhaul of the air stacking penalty system would probably be better.

 

[No idea]

I think your number 1 and 4 proposals (about weather and supply needs) are the most needed for a more realistic (and I think better) game. Attrtion should be fr more important than it´s now. In some places like New Guinea, for example (basically in tropical places) the worst enemy was not the enemy, but attrition. Apart from that, it´s crystal clear that a fighting unit should consume far more supplies than one out of combat.

 

[Pj Fallon]

I think your number 1 and 4 proposals (about weather and supply needs) are the most needed for a more realistic (and I think better) game. Attrtion should be fr more important than it´s now. In some places like New Guinea, for example (basically in tropical places) the worst enemy was not the enemy, but attrition. Apart from that, it´s crystal clear that a fighting unit should consume far more supplies than one out of combat.

Actually this would be class. You could even create a med brigade which reduces attrition. Or special jungle warfare units.

 

[unmerged(106255)]

I don't know if any of these are in SF, but if we're going on about the UI, :

- I'd like to be able to select two divisions out of a whole stack of divisions without have to de-select the many I don't want.

- There should be one button for prioritizations of subordinate units, so I don't have to click on every unit in the army group to prioritize upgrades for example.

- The general's assignment screen needs a trait filter at the top. Press on the "log wizard" icon to show only log wizards. Then click on the "panzer" icon to show generals with both traits. Etc.

- Start the game without generals assigned.

 

[Cybvep]

- Start the game without generals assigned.

This should be an option tickable in the menu screen

 

[Pj Fallon]

This should be an option tickable in the menu screen

Or maybe fix the AI so they dont assign panzer leaders to infantry.

 

[Cybvep]

That rarely happens AFAIK. The AI knows that it's best to assign panzer leaders to divs with CA bonus. It's probably the only good part about its choices regarding the leaders

 

[unmerged(106255)]

This should be an option tickable in the menu screen

I'll get SF one of these days. . .

Or maybe fix the AI so they dont assign panzer leaders to infantry.

Perhaps leaders could have a secondary prioritization for skill. Skill 5 leaders get assigned to army group HQ and mechanized units and other high value units, and skill 1 leaders get assigned to garrisons.

 

[DanSez]

Ok, I'll bite. Maybe the powers that be read these things. I've seen a dozen or so float down the board and what I consider "Duh" fixes like the above mentioned "Do Not Assign Leaders for <PLAYER>" option is never mentioned by the dev team.

While I'm dreaming...

1. The Supply system should consider Theatre HQs (their physical locations) when calculating supply paths. ESPECIALLY ports for supply. I would like that supply would be stockpiled in the provence of Theatre HQs and those units subordinate would draw from that stock pile. If a more distant HQ needs supply and is not getting enough direct transfer, then attempt to borrow supply from the nearest Theatre HQ stockpile (with a caveate that local Theatre HQ supply exceeds 600% of needed monthly supply or somesuch - ie have 6 months reserve supply). The second part of this dream would require much recoding so its probably an HoI4+ level project, but the base routing for where to send overseas supply should consider the port city the Theatre HQ is nearest to for routing putposed. That should not take 10,000 line of code.

2. Weather - already cussed and discussed by the worthies above in good detail. I just add my vote to making it a priority for simulating the war and its effects.

3. Theatre/Army Command - include supply prioritization levels (maybe a 3 point scale: Reserve/Defense/Offensive) and the possibility to mobilize/demobilize by group (Corps/Army/Theatre). This would dovetail well into the rewriting of the supply/ chain of command the way it should have been done from the beginning (frowny face - wagging finger). Yes, I know HoI4+ territory (sigh)

4. Trigger levels of attrition/org level drops which will stop Offensive Action - both ground/sea/air units would stop offensive level activity at certain points. These could be Moddable (in my wildest dreams) and certainly change due to National Composition/War Attrition/Unity/Supply (what else).
National Composition - Italian troops would fold at 20% org while German troops would fold at 10% org (given all the same factors). Japanese troops would not fold without outside factors.
War Attrition - each month/year of war would add a small percentage to increase the trigger level. Also could include some base line ratio manpower level to reflect getting to the bottom of the manpower pool.
Unity - obvious as the country becomes convinced the war is lost, more soldiers would just pack it in.
Supply - you don't eat, you don't fight.

 

[DanSez]

continuing ..

4. continuing ...
this Offensive Level trigger would apply to air and sea units to return to base once org falls below this value and not start new missions until level is recovered or mission is changed to a less demanding one

5. Some more diplo options (like coups, but not marriages - that is so last century ahahhah). FIX the stuff that is already there and make it more effective for Majors/less effective for Minors. Why should Liberia be inflitering spies into Nazi Germany and if so, wouldn't they kind of stand out???? Come on, some common sense here.

 

[Pj Fallon]

4. continuing ...
this Offensive Level trigger would apply to air and sea units to return to base once org falls below this value and not start new missions until level is recovered or mission is changed to a less demanding one

5. Some more diplo options (like coups, but not marriages - that is so last century ahahhah). FIX the stuff that is already there and make it more effective for Majors/less effective for Minors. Why should Liberia be inflitering spies into Nazi Germany and if so, wouldn't they kind of stand out???? Come on, some common sense here.

Speaking of Diplomacy how about being able to give resources to nations for free as long as they were in your faction.