Improvement suggestions

[neonlicht]

I don't agree that 2 and 6 are that straightforward, but agree that the effects Gary outlined are there --- it would apply everywhere on the map.

You can apply some effects that abstract those ideas - and Gary pretty much nailed the impacts in detail. 

#4 can be accomplished but not without use of a map editor - I know Nick Bell has created some maps with no roads/trails running through towns. He did that because (as I recall him telling me), that having visited towns/cities of a size during his time in the Army over in Germany, that it was clear that these places were not suitable for army movement.  Also armies didn't use movement through cities/towns in the course of battles- but rather avoided them ... and I think largely for the reason that you are looking to add that sort of effect ... right now with roads running through towns - you just march right in -and form a line and there is no disruption.

#5 - well I'm all for them releasing a Map editor in public -I imagine at some future point they do that - but who knows... it always tied to how much they plan on expanding a series in the future. It's always been that way with that publisher. As mentioned previously, there are no OOB/PDT editors -they aren't held in secret -they simply don't exist. Not always a bad thing either, as if you take the scenario editor - when adding in the extra sides used per scenario in the Musket and Pike engine --- some coding was missed - with the result that the new amount of total sides were not working in the engine. Programming said they were -- so I had to go in and do some text editing, adding VP flags and sides  -and they showed in the saved scenario ... but you could never access the expanded amount in the editor.

It was fixed prior to release --- but that's more to my point -- OOB/PDT- by being the raw plain text coding- that actually is a bit of safety net.

#7  - I guess this means the strategic choice option found in Panzer Campaigns/First World War Campaigns/Modern Campaigns --- the complication with this one, is when presenting a business case with an engine change proposal it has to be tied to a game -not existing games, but games in development... and it really helps if you can also demonstrate how it could be applied to previous titles... although future ones' impact are way more important.  

The complication that the idea would run into -is you'd have to find someone to argue how they are going to use it within their current project; plus if it is a lot of coding to make work in the engine (and it might well be, because PzC/FWWC/MC are really not that similar to the grand tactical series  -it is not likely to go ahead. That's more the general rule.

#8 - might happen - I think Mr Osterlund added that to the Civil War series, and I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up happening, but it would only happen if a similar situation to CWB/PzC/PzB were to happen ... could, but I was told it wasn't ... multiple times (otoh, that doesn't mean it couldn't change).

Many thanks for this detailed reply--very useful info, and helps me gain an insight into this system. Appreciated. :-)