Features for ToaW 4

[SMK-at-work]

Just progressing my cunning plan for world domination here...[:D]

Some ideas for features that would be useful for ToaW 4 IMO

1/ The ability to vary anything in the replacements schedule by event - eg the pool for an item (I think that can be done already?), but also the timing (start & end turns) and the replacement rate - ie be able to do this for individual items. Imagine giving the Axis in FitE a theatre option to cease production of Pz-IV's and transfer it to Panthers...lose a few months production of P4's, and then see what happens....

2/ The ability to allocate and transfer units between formations

3/ Some ability to prioritise supply - I have lots of thoughts on that one but will hang onto them for a bit 'cos I wouldn't want to confuse y'all

4/ Some naval missions done in a similar manner to air missions - eg a "patrol" mission that gives some chance of intercepting enemy shiping within a certain range determined by how far the ships could move in the time frame and still get back home. So the units would be based at a port but would act at a distance.

5/ Split AS role into escort, intercept and patrol - intercept would not always be available as it would require some ground control system including early warning a la fighter Command in BoB. Escort would not intercept but would give more effort to fighting against interceptors. Patrol would either fight at reduced effectiveness (due only a few a/c in the air at any time) and/or result in increaed fatigue and unserviceability due use of aircraft for no great purpose.

this "system" might be switchable on/off depending on whether the designer wanted to add the level of complexity.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
3/ Some ability to prioritise supply - I have lots of thoughts on that one but will hang onto them for a bit 'cos I wouldn't want to confuse y'all

Good idea. Another might be to split up the various kinds of supply, say, ammo and food. If you're out of ammo, no shooting. If you're out of food, no moving. Or something. like that.

Also, a more user friendly editor would be a God-send. Say some tool-tip hints or something.

[m5000.2006]

6/ the ability to edit most things (e.g. terrain, units) from within the game editor

[8|] although i think that with a bit of effort, editable terrain could perhaps come with toaw 3...

[SMK-at-work]

Larry if you're going to split supply then there are 3 aspects to it - ammo, food, fuel. 
 
Ammo can also be usefully split into heavy and light - essentially artillery & small arms (up to say 20mm), but that's definitely optional.
 
As you say you can fight without fuel (even mech units, 'cos really 0 fuel means bugger-all fuel but not none), you can fight and move without food but not as well, and you can move without ammo.
 
This is definitely part of my schema!! [:)]

[freeboy]

can I add>
A. Interdiction..
Ability to limit the ranges of all flights including interdiction
Ability to interdict sea units by air

Ground reactive mobile troops..

Ability to assign replacement squads/equipment toggle on/off

[SMK-at-work]

What do yuo mean by "ground reactive mobile troops"?

Interdiction of naval reminds me that there should be specific anti-naval training for air units - this was not always the case, for example the LW had next-to-no such training in 1940 in the Channel convoy attacks.  And they would ahve been next to useless vs teh RN if Sea Lion had been launched - it also had no armour piercing bombs, and only 1 stafflen of experimental He-111 Torp bombers IIRC - they got their anti-naval training in part from the Italians, who had a very good torpedo arm. by 1941 these deficiencies ahd been addressed as witness Crete and the Malta convoys.

air units are not created equal for naval warfare but probably a simple switch would do - naval strike trained y/n - use 50% strength for naval strikes in open water if not trained. Cf also Argentine AF vs the RN at the Falklands - the Entenards would count as naval strike trained for their Exocets, but the A4's and Mirages using often faulty fused iron bombs would not.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

2/ The ability to allocate and transfer units between formations

... and at least two levels of formation

[fatehunter]

The ability to switch units in formations would be a awesome. It was done all the time in the real world and would be great here.

unit/formation supply priority too. (rebuild my para's!)

[shunwick]

I would quite like the ability to name the commanders of my various units - makes it more personal somehow. And the naval warfare model (what there is of it) needs an overhaul.

Best wishes,

[Boonierat]

ORIGINAL: fatehunter

The ability to switch units in formations would be a awesome. It was done all the time in the real world and would be great here.

unit/formation supply priority too. (rebuild my para's!)

Yep, what would be cool also is a pyramidal chain of command, where a formation could have several subordinate formations etc...

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Boonierat

ORIGINAL: fatehunter

The ability to switch units in formations would be a awesome. It was done all the time in the real world and would be great here.

unit/formation supply priority too. (rebuild my para's!)

Yep, what would be cool also is a pyramidal chain of command, where a formation could have several subordinate formations etc...

And that chain of command could then also be used for supply distribution.

[SMK-at-work]

Good point!
 
also the ability to set force co-operation levels for parts of formations - eg working with Buzz on his next FitE mod, I'd like to see German divisional artillery set to internal only - it was pretty much tied to its infantry regiments only and could not provide support to otehr divisions.  However that means the whole division would ahve to be on internal support, which would limit its ability to attack with other divisions, which would be wrong.....
 
So which is the greater evil - having German divisional artillery support all and sundry, or having cross-divisional attacks sometimes take longer?

[Legun]

You can change colour of artillery units (Do you remember my Forgotten Batlles? ). If you set all formations for Force Support you get such effect: all infantry regiments can cooperate without any limits, but artillery can support own infantry only.

[Zort]

So what I see you have done in your forgotten battles sce is make the HQ a different background color then the rest of the divisional units. In FITE all the german regular army units are grey, each div is it's own formation and is set on force support. The art is in the Div HQ. Does the HQ art support other divs set up like this? But in your sce the HQ are a different background color then the rest of the formation I don't see how they support anyone...still trying to understand the support concepts.

[Veers]

The different background colour means that those HQs will have limited coop with any other units that have a diff background colour, however, since they are in the same formation as the rest of their division, they support that division with full support. You can have very colour in the rainbow, as long as they are in the same formation, they will support each other just fine.

[Zort]

Great so that means I can change the HQ's to a different background color (the same background if I want) and I can then get the effect that SMK wants. Cool.

[m5000.2006]

* the ability to lay/clear mines wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO, especially for scenarios at company/batallion level

of course, those who don't like it, wouldn't use it, but it could generally offer scenario designers more choices...


but again, i don't understand why we have to wait for t4 to get that...

[Veers]

This thread was created by a player, not a designer, nor a beta tester. Thereofre, these features, many of which have already been dicussed, either here, or at TDG, or at GS, could be seen in TOAW III, or not at all.

[m5000.2006]

...and a new minimap - floating, capable of being scaled, movable, enabling quick hops from place to place

[8D]

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Veers
...these features, many of which have already been dicussed, either here, or at TDG, or at GS, could be seen in TOAW III, or not at all.

So um....some of the features that have already been discussed were considered by the beta testing team and were deemed game engine breakers. By that I mean that it ( they ) would have required a complete re-write of the game engine, and that was considered a no-no given that it was desired that T3 come out asap. So some of the features discussed WILL have to be defered to T4 or later. At least that's the understanding of this beta tester.