Units naming and grouping in teams

[adrianoku]

There will be a possibility to identify units with names?
And more ... there will be a possibility to make "teams" of unit, to simulate battalions, squads, etc. only for an immersive rpg gaming without any interference with the dynamics of the gameplay ?

[pipfromslitherine]

Are the battles really long enough to get to know your newly named units? It might be something fun in a carryover campaign, but carryover doesn't seem to be all that popular a mechanic (unless I am wrong!).

Cheers

Pip

[rf900]

Carryover is for me a very good mechanic to get the feel of the campaign instead of just separate scenarios. In Panzer Corps I think it is even an essential part of the game, I hope you don't loose this option in BA2. It is harder to balance campaigns and may make less sense if the scenarios are "spread" out instead of telling a sort of sequential events, but it is a powerful way to take care of units and add some narrative to the gameplay.

For the balancing I came up with a simple mechanic that takes care of it quite well. At the start of the campaign you select a difficulty, based on that you will get green replacements for lost units, so if you loose some units the following missions will not be as hard but still rewards players that can keep the first ones alive. Depending on the difficulty you will get more or less replacements.

[pipfromslitherine]

But then worse players still end up with worse units, leading to worse results, etc etc. It's a tough one. You don't want to end up in a position where you need to stop, go back 3 missions, and try again because the cumulative effect has gotten too much.

Or perhaps people accept that as an aspect of carryover mechanics.

Cheers

Pip

[rf900]

Yes, you are right. I would not mind having to go back because of that reason, still some people may do. In Panzer Corps I think this is always the case and the campaigns are pretty long there and still people seem to like it a lot.

The idea would be to balance the campaign in such a way that the low difficulty level will give enough green units to the player to have a chance in the campaign even if he looses a lot of units. In hard mode you will receive less so keeping them alive would be required, you leave it a bit on the hands of the player but I think it increases the replayability of campaigns also.

[LandMarine47]

In my opinion, Carryover should be an option to the player, but balancing would take too much time and energy

[SirGarnet]

In Panzer General being able to name units and get battle honors/stats for units was a great chrome addition that added to the immersion and also has practical advantages in tasking units with different attributes or intended roles in a large, long battle or especially a campaign or even carryover series of MP or SP skirmishes. This is one of the attractions of PG (&PC) and of Close Combat campaigns/ops as well (though typing the names was somewhat awkward).

It is more interesting to go into a fresh game with forces you relate to than generic troops only.

Balancing matches (which is overrated, in my opinion - would take some energy, but rather than having a fixed rule there might be a couple setting sliders/options that the player(s) could choose (with some "at your own risk" suggested defaults). E.g., extent of any experience decay between battles or for damage taken, the multipliers applied in valuing experienced units of different types, limits on carryover forces or percentages, points adjustment for unbalanced forces etc., or terrain advantages/settings for the disadvantaged side (which, if weak, naturally seeks a strong position to compensate).

===
P.S. Having formations (companies, battalions, battlegroups etc.) is something I generally like for morale/leadership/movement/tactical coordination but since the player fights every unit in the game individually (no delegation to AI) and creates ad hoc cooperation between units I understand it would not have a real substantive effect and would be a lot of work and more "stuff" for players to deal with (though being able to delegate or plot movement to reduce the behind-the-lines load of movement orders would be nice.

[berndN]

But then worse players still end up with worse units, leading to worse results, etc etc. It's a tough one. You don't want to end up in a position where you need to stop, go back 3 missions, and try again because the cumulative effect has gotten too much.

Or perhaps people accept that as an aspect of carryover mechanics.

Cheers

Pip

The player should be able to decide if he wants only medal and "dead" stats so nothing changes or to use medals and experience. And maybe some way to change in between missions. At least from a single player point the game should make "fun"

For online this would be only interesting for longer missions. A simple switch at the beginning ? Same as for single player but not available later during the game.

Just my ideas

[pipfromslitherine]

All good ideas. Even things which don't make the cut for the initial release often stay on our wishlist and get folded into updates. So keep those thoughts coming

Cheers

Pip