Limit battle radius

[Santini]

As I understand if you have limited radius game give more forces to attacking side.

Yes, and better play to normal limits as default.
In this case attacker can control and concentrate forces to attack.

Squares that are empty in the battle, but have units on the strat map, should not be playable

[andrey12345]

The other problem is that your combat has effect on other battles as well.

I won battle A and battle B got cancled

Yes, you have to choose, it's part of the gameplay not problem.

[andrey12345]

Squares that are empty in the battle, but have units on the strat map, should not be playable

Yes, it would be strange if the restrictions (limits) were, but nothing would change in the troops.

[Santini]

Reiterating idea:

Limited:


Moderate:


The attacker gets to chose how the battlefield is oriented. Limited radius plays on 2x2, moderate on 2x3, and unlimited on 3x3.

Every square included has all units on the battlemap.

[Dane49]

I have a feeling going to more realistic troop levels per square kilometer is going to be a problem and maybe end up ruining this game for me in the long run.

While I like the idea of large battles being represented for this game,the management aspect is getting to be a real chore.
I don't buy any of these DLCs for the large campaigns.
I buy them for the large maps and new content to use in my Quick Battles.

There are too many units to manage in a 3x3 Km battle area now for campaigns!
Even with limited battle radius I find the battles hard to manage.
I also would like to see a way to break these battles down to smaller and more managable proportions.

I'd rather have 20 smaller battles per turn than 7 or 8.
When we have to start scrolling right or left to cycle through all the units under your control during a battle-That is too many!

I don't like putting anything under AI management except the individual soldiers in the squad.
Otherwise I like being every platoon/company/battalion leader in a battle and giving orders to the individual squads myself without pausing every minute to do so.

This is one of the other reasons I don't play the larger campaigns much with this game anymore and if I do I very rarely finish them.
I'm not a fan of any battles involving more than a company to manage.

The campaigns are getting to be a major draw back for me in this game and I'm starting to get frustrated with the way the game is morphing to adjust to the ever increasing unit density on the battlefield area now and how it's starting to effect the way I normally use to play Quick Battles.

I'm not looking for a WW2 version of Wargame:Air Land Battle.
The Shilovo map(One of my favorite maps so far) has become strictly a QB DLC for me and I never finished any of the campaigns because of all the units to manage for each battle.

Most the people I've noticed who ask for all these units in a battle for the campaigns make a couple stabs at the campaigns then put the game aside and wait till the next campaign DLC comes out.
I play this game regularly(almost daily) but not for the campaigns and  larger battles.

I prefer keeping my camera at ground level as much as possible.
With the larger forces I'm moving the camera higher and higher into the sky and the immersiveness fades after that.
I don't want to be a regimental or battalion commander in this game.
I like being the company or platoon commander,which is why I mainly play quick battles.

I will usually try the campaigns once but after that 90% of my replay time for this game is strictly for QBs and the immersiveness that only managing company or platoon sized units offers.
It's a shame to have all this detail at ground level and have to keep your camera in the clouds and not be able to experience it during gameplay.

This game shines the most at ground level for me and I'm afraid I will lose interest in the newer version of this game if it strays too far from what we have now.I hope GTOS isn't going to be the only game from Graviteam I spend all my time playing in the future.

I welcome the addition of a QB editor to share missions with other players and intend to use it but not for making large battles involving anything more than a company for the player to manage.

[Santini]

... is that a vote for the improved battle radius settings?

[andrey12345]

I have a feeling going to more realistic troop levels per square kilometer is going to be a problem and maybe end up ruining this game for me in the long run.

FB_AGA says that "more realistic troop levels" is battalion or even regiment in one cell  

There are too many units to manage in a 3x3 Km battle area now for campaigns!

I absolutely agree with you. I will quote your words.

In GTMF management issues especially in op phase will be reduced.

I'd rather have 20 smaller battles per turn than 7 or 8.
When we have to start scrolling right or left to cycle through all the units under your control during a battle-That is too many!

Scroll starts at 10+ platoons (more than battalion) level under our control.

I don't like putting anything under AI management except the individual soldiers in the squad.
Otherwise I like being every platoon/company/battalion leader in a battle and giving orders to the individual squads myself without pausing every minute to do so.

Pause is not good. I almost never do not use it, well, except when debugging. Firstly it's not fair to the AI in the second unrealistic. Buy, I rely on allied AI where possible.

I welcome the addition of a QB editor to share missions with other players and intend to use it but not for making large battles involving anything more than a company for the player to manage.

Missions mechanics potentially give the opportunity to make small combats in the future, maybe even with some light plot.

Density of troops will not grow higher than what we have now, but I hope that Mius will run faster than GTOS at all things being equal.

[andrey12345]

... is that a vote for the improved battle radius settings?

Battle radius remains the same. No need to change it to upredicted incomprehensible way.
Now is a simple predicted scheme with some user control. Non symmetrical rotations of battlefield add to more complexity and restict battlefield area w/o any reasons. In sum, we obtain: "edge map tactics" is coming back (absolutely worse thing), limited maneuvers, complex and unpredictable that will be in combat.

[Dane49]

... is that a vote for the improved battle radius settings?

It's a vote to find a way to scale down the amount of units in a battle to more easier to manage levels.
I haven't thought this idea through yet.
I'm not sure if your solution is viable yet either.

I was imagining something like selecting which of your units in range would attack a 1x1 Km battlefield area during 1 hour turns and only those enemy units in that square and the units you select to participate in that battle show during it.But you could still stray 250 meters into the surrounding squares during the battle.

I haven't thought this out completely but right now that's what I'm thinking.

[Santini]

... is that a vote for the improved battle radius settings?

Battle radius remains the same. No need to change it to upredicted incomprehensible way.
Now is a simple predicted scheme with some user control. Non symmetrical rotations of battlefield add to more complexity and restict battlefield area w/o any reasons. In sum, we obtain: "edge map tactics" is coming back (absolutely worse thing), limited maneuvers, complex and unpredictable that will be in combat.

The current system is all about the edge map tactics.

You attack in as many places as possible, then fiddle with the battle radius settings to find the best one to pick.

[andrey12345]

The current system is all about the edge map tactics.

No, tactical polygon don't have thin edge. You cant use edge map tactics or hope that no one will come on the flanks only because there is a polygon edge.

You attack in as many places as possible, then fiddle with the battle radius settings to find the best one to pick.

This is not tactical level, but operation phase at first. Secondly, it is not necessary to do so weird, enough to attack from the most distant unit. You can choose what you want - to move quickly, or is guaranteed to push the enemy defenses (but slower). It's part of the game mechanics.

Yes, you can accidentally make a lot of potential battles, and then choose the best, but it is a robot way not human . And it is unclear why should to do.
In GTMF we kill this strange way to choose battle.

[Santini]

No, tactical polygon don't have thin edge. You cant use edge map tactics or hope that no one will come on the flanks only because there is a polygon edge.

... yes it does. Nothing can come in from outside the 3x3

[andrey12345]

No, tactical polygon don't have thin edge. You cant use edge map tactics or hope that no one will come on the flanks only because there is a polygon edge.

... yes it does. Nothing can come in from outside the 3x3

Why?

You (as player) dont click _order's end point_ outside 3x3, its all limits.
Any units can be placed or moved outside this area and use all 6x6 area to move. Its rare case but absolutely real.

[Flashburn]

I agree as well that number of units is getting quite high.  And it does detract from the game....sometimes.  But i like the fact that you can do some stupid large fight, but I do not think it should be the norm.  I would STILL prefer an option for larger cells for more vehicle based campaigns.  Particularly if in modern and in open areas.  I personally like platoon sized single units on the OP map.  Not so thrilled with the company sized ones.  But I do like the larger platoons with added support units containing a few heavy weapons units.

A battalion in 1 square KM seems insane.    I am SURE it happened, but it also means forget movement. 

[Santini]

Well, I think any playable square on the tactical map should include all units present on the strat map. Otherwise the play just rotates through the battle radius settings to find the one most advantages to themselves.

It is too easily gamed, and causes really weird results.

[Santini]

@Flashburn: Having no man's land represented would go a long ways towards enhancing the maneuver aspect - a 1000-500 meter strip between the forces were noone can deploy

[Santini]

Having some degree of control over what units are deployed would be nice.

Playing the taranokov scenario, and the AI attacks with tanks into an area containing 2 anti tank platoons, a bunch of infantry and supply.

Limited radius = I get some infantry, and supply units. No anti tank. What the fuck

And then in my counter attack, I threw some SS units at the enemy, and again. I get supply units, and infantry.

[Fritz]

limited battle radius it's a good idea, but bad realisation, as already Santini told in most time game give bad force pool.

[Santini]

I agree as well that number of units is getting quite high.  And it does detract from the game....sometimes.  But i like the fact that you can do some stupid large fight, but I do not think it should be the norm.  I would STILL prefer an option for larger cells for more vehicle based campaigns.  Particularly if in modern and in open areas.  I personally like platoon sized single units on the OP map.  Not so thrilled with the company sized ones.  But I do like the larger platoons with added support units containing a few heavy weapons units.

A battalion in 1 square KM seems insane.    I am SURE it happened, but it also means forget movement. 

It would would be cool to have infantry company units, with a slot for an attached platoon... Then limit to one unit per grid

[Santini]

Battlefield restriction, 2x3, occurring at the edge of the map. Moderate radius should result in a map like this