What I'm interested in more is what are called 'interesting decisions.' If there are certain things that people do all the time, they should be automated. Rounds add a couple of things. One thing that they add is that it breaks up a large turn into several smaller turns, and forces you to make decisions about what size force you'll attack with, and whether it's worth risking the attack when it might fail and cause you to lose part of the turn. As the defender, you can also decide if you want to try to defend stiffly and cause him to use up part of his turn, or flexibly and keep your units in better shape. Right now, defending stiffly seems to be largely the better choice.ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
You might even have some influence on the design evolution, by arguing your points in a public forum such as this. Such appeals to "realism", "playability", "feel", "simulation", "balance" and all the other intangibles that make a great GAME are what make such an active exhange of ideas a worthwhile endeavor.
It's only when you get into the large scenarios that the whole thing doesn't always act right.
One other thing going on is that we need to see the consequences of some of the changes that have been made already. I saw one post that the limited number of rounds may have hurt the consequences of limited cooperation. We're going to have to look into those and see what is different.
TOAW is very complicated, and since I wasn't the original programmer, it's very difficult to make changes that don't have unintended consequences.
I definitely like to see a lively dialog, it helps to define the problem, and to see what the actually issue is from many sides.
The answer may be something completely oddball, like complex scenarios with multiple maps, and being able to resolve combat on each map independently.
Ralph
