question
 

Do you think it would be worthwhile information to have while building a scenario .... the actual number of combat troops on each side?

XXX points vs ZZZ points is the traditional method but it doesn't reflect how may actual rifles each side has and in a battle where one side is mech infantry hvy the points can add up fast for those transports and what you think may be 3:1 odds isn't the case when the other side is all on foot and I feel it would be useful to know at a glance how many infantry UC types you have on both sides along with the exact number of armoured vehicles, tubes of arty etc

Thoughts?

Re: question
 

It might occasionally be handy but unit costs vary so much based on factors that are rarely terribly relevant to a scenario (radio % and vision in particular) or the quality of units (M1A1 vs T-55) weapon/armor ratios are basically meaningless.

IMHO

Re: question
 

but if you are trying to set up a scenario where troop strength...actual PBI with boots on the ground is balanced, the only way to check that right now is pen and paper and a lot of unit counting

Re: question
 

Yes. Any and all info possible can never hurt.

Re: question
 

Seconded.

Re: question
 

I would say it would be very useful. I find myself building and playing around more with foot infantry type units on smaller maps, but there can still be big point differences between countries, so a head count would help.

Steves308

Re: question
 

I would find that information useful. As well as force values on each side. On second thought, actual boots maybe too much intel to give up, if I understand the question. And, would that number include crews are no?

Thinking about this some more, the designer could insert each side's force values in the scenario text. Not as eloquent as getting it from the game, but it could work (for now).

<Br>

Re: question
 

No, just combat troops

Re: question
 

Thanks.

Interesting. So, in the Editor this information would be made available to the designer, right?

I was thinking it would be neat to add this kind of information in the game play itself. When a player selects Scenario Info, he or she would be presented with scen slot number, scen title, force values each side, along with the existing information already in the Scenario Info window.
<br>

Re: question
 

ATM I'm just considering the idea for scenario design work but it could be expanded, one step at a time, we have to get the basics first. MY PRIMARY purpose is to give the designer the combat troops strength....that's the hardest one to figure out on anything but a small scenario. Counting tanks is easy in comparison but *IF* we do go ahead with this we will consider what else would be worthwhile

Re: question
 

If you're going ahead with this certain weapon types might be good to know:

ATGMs/AT-Guns
SAMs/AA-Guns

Re: question
 

As I said the PRIMARY purpose is to give an accurate count of combat troops....guns and SAMS etc. can be easily counted in the HQ menu as can tanks

Re: question
 

Not always.
You occasionally run into unit names that may make perfect sense in their native language, but if you don't happen to know that language you wind up asking yourself ... What the heck is that?

Re: question
 

We haven't even seriously started to consider how to implement this and already I'm regretting it....there are only one AT gun, SAM, Tank per unit. You buy them......ok maybe if you're a newbie to that OOB you might ask that question, especially in SPWW2, not so much in MBT but when they are lined up for deployment you can count the number easily and if you bought three companies doing the math is simple .......YES, if it's a large scenario it makes getting a quick number more difficult but it's the actual number of ground troops that's impossible to know without pen a paper and that is why I am mainly focused on that, yes PERHAPS other types could be listed but again...the MAIN focus is giving an accurate count of the number of combat troops per side and *IF* we do go ahead with this THAT will be the first thing that's done.

Don

Re: question
 

I say great yes to this idea. I am always the one who believes access to broader statistical data is best ;)