suggestion for the distant future
 

Any chance of having the same calculations that occur when an engineer unit enters a minefield for removing mines tweaked so that there's a chance that the same units could slightly improve fords or cratered terrain for movement? I'm sure this has been brought up before but I'm just curious if it's feasible with the current code. Too many times I've had units get stuck in a ford even when I try to go slowly and it would be great to have the engineers make some improvements so the odds of getting mired go down.

Thanks in advance

Steve

Re: suggestion for the distant future
 

Here's a suggestion for everyone who feels that getting stuck is such a big deal as all the suggestions to "fix" this "problem" add up to the same thing.... you don't want to get stuck so you want something added to the game to prevent that

Turn "breakdowns" off in preferences. You'll be much happier

Neither Andy nor I think the breakdown/stuck/immobilization rate we have in the game now is a problem. If anything we are more generous than we should be.

Don

Re: suggestion for the distant future
 

Breakdowns and getting bogged down by unsuitable terrain are great ways to throw in some randomness to the game. I'm as frustrated as anyone else when a tank ace sinks up to his hull in mud, but it does cause some re-thinking on the battlefield. I've had to change almost my entire attack plans on occasion because of units becoming stuck at the worst possible times. In my opinion, breakdowns are one of the key features that allow some scenarios to be replayed over and over again and still be interesting.

By the way, I've also won a battle handily only to discover at the end of the battle that multiple KV-1's were wallowing behind the lines and couldn't join the fight. Oh happy day!

Re: suggestion for the distant future
 

Don wrote:

>Here's a suggestion for everyone who feels that getting >stuck is such a big deal as all the suggestions to "fix" >this "problem" add up to the same thing.... you don't >want to get stuck so you want something added to the game >to prevent that

>Turn "breakdowns" off in preferences. You'll be much >happier

>Neither Andy nor I think the >breakdown/stuck/immobilization rate we have in the game >now is a problem. If anything we are more generous than >we should be.

>Don

Thanks Don. I just thought I'd ask and I'll just have be a little more patient when using a ford...

Rubberneck wrote:

>Breakdowns and getting bogged down by unsuitable terrain >are great ways to throw in some randomness to the game. >I'm as frustrated as anyone else when a tank ace sinks up >to his hull in mud, but it does cause some re-thinking on >the battlefield. I've had to change almost my entire >attack plans on occasion because of units becoming stuck >at the worst possible times. In my opinion, breakdowns >are one of the key features that allow some scenarios to >be replayed over and over again and still be interesting.

>By the way, I've also won a battle handily only to >discover at the end of the battle that multiple KV-1's >were wallowing behind the lines and couldn't join the >fight. Oh happy day!

Definately a nice surprise when it's 1941 and Panthers and Tigers are still found only at the circus... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: suggestion for the distant future
 

Breakdowns and Engineer capability and terrain effects are fine as is.

Sinking your panzer or your Sherman throwing tracks or your T34 blowing a tranny (Transmission) all come under "Sh*t happens" in the big book of Generaling.

I always liked those options, after years of play I even had tanks get hung up wire, surprise, P*ss'd off you bet, realistic oh yeah!!

SP Rules

Re: suggestion for the distant future
 

Wire will foul running gear. Canadian tankers avoided vinyards in Italy for that reason.

Don