Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Stupid are: elephants and such things (why you need ancient warfare here at all? LOL[:'(]

There's no accounting for taste.

Mount and Dismount - pure stupidity, TOAW is OPERATIONAL game - it is not tactical game a la STEEL PANTHERS!!!
Mobile status covers that.

Not if the defenders are foot units and in a badlands hex or dunes hex. Then your motorized infantry can only stare at them. Dismount/mount would have a lot of uses.

Find city option is also needed.

See 12.3

I have suggested DYNAMICAL ZOC's numerous times so that my division don't spend 8 or 6 mov. points if it is PINNED by mere COMPANY!!!!
So PC would DYNAMICALLY (SEE) calculate movement costs.

Alright. 7.5 was similar but not quite the same.

Like commanders who are giving bonueses or penalties to units under them!
That would make TOAW a lot more interesting.

See 4.12.1

Now we have pale, bland all same units, no attachments to them. This option would also give a plethora new options to HQ subordination.

For example you could adjust divisions that Paulus 6th Army get's. He started with 18 divisions and later his fat army ended at 22! I think, talking now just from my head.

So Zhukov would give this or that bonus. So you can make plans, what flanks you will attack and with which commander. That is oprational game. On one flank you must defend so you put Heinrici there or Jaenecke.
Etc!

See 4.2, 4.7, 4.9 etc.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Stupid are: elephants and such things (why you need ancient warfare here at all? LOL[:'(]

There's no accounting for taste.

Mount and Dismount - pure stupidity, TOAW is OPERATIONAL game - it is not tactical game a la STEEL PANTHERS!!!
Mobile status covers that.

Not if the defenders are foot units and in a badlands hex or dunes hex. Then your motorized infantry can only stare at them. Dismount/mount would have a lot of uses.

Find city option is also needed.

See 12.3

I have suggested DYNAMICAL ZOC's numerous times so that my division don't spend 8 or 6 mov. points if it is PINNED by mere COMPANY!!!!
So PC would DYNAMICALLY (SEE) calculate movement costs.

Alright. 7.5 was similar but not quite the same.

Like commanders who are giving bonueses or penalties to units under them!
That would make TOAW a lot more interesting.

See 4.12.1

Now we have pale, bland all same units, no attachments to them. This option would also give a plethora new options to HQ subordination.
For example you could adjust divisions that Paulus 6th Army get's. He started with 18 divisions and later his fat army ended at 22! I think, talking now just from my head.
So Zhukov would give this or that bonus. So you can make plans, what flanks you will attack and with which commander. That is oprational game. On one flank you must defend so you put Heinrici there or Jaenecke.
Etc!

See 4.2, 4.7, 4.9 etc.

Thanks, Bob.

[Monkeys Brain]

Somehow spirit of Ben Turner (Ben Hur?) have gotten into Curtis Lemay [:D]

If you think that everything is covered OK but still think that it's better to add substantial essentials [:D] than wooden palisades.

Production suggestions are good start however there shoudn't be so much micromanaging - example:

6.13 Interdiction.
6.13.1 Mineral resources, raw materials, finished equipment items, trained equipment items, etc. must all be transported from source to next required destination. Upon doing so they become subject to enemy interdiction. That includes bombing of transportation hubs and submarine warfare (assuming submarine warfare is simulated).

Is this Operational Art of Speer or War?[:'(]

Production ideas are OK for discussion but above thing is so hard to do properly and will go to SF pretty soon.
Player could have disrupted flow of manpower if system is abused or scenario allows that. In reality - never actually happened to a serious degree.


Mario

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
I think you meant this, right? "2.1.6 117 objectives per formation, 9 objective tracks per formation."

Ok, that plus 11.9: "11.9 Objective tracks can be changed for individual formations by event."

I see it now - thanks!

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

Somehow spirit of Ben Turner (Ben Hur?) have gotten into Curtis Lemay [:D]

If you think that everything is covered OK but still think that it's better to add substantial essentials [:D] than wooden palisades.

Production suggestions are good start however there shoudn't be so much micromanaging - example:

6.13 Interdiction.
6.13.1 Mineral resources, raw materials, finished equipment items, trained equipment items, etc. must all be transported from source to next required destination. Upon doing so they become subject to enemy interdiction. That includes bombing of transportation hubs and submarine warfare (assuming submarine warfare is simulated).

Is this Operational Art of Speer or War?[:'(]

Production ideas are OK for discussion but above thing is so hard to do properly and will go to SF pretty soon.
Player could have disrupted flow of manpower if system is abused or scenario allows that. In reality - never actually happened to a serious degree.

Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Somehow spirit of Ben Turner (Ben Hur?) have gotten into Curtis Lemay [:D]
If you think that everything is covered OK but still think that it's better to add substantial essentials [:D] than wooden palisades.
Production suggestions are good start however there shoudn't be so much micromanaging - example:
6.13 Interdiction.
6.13.1 Mineral resources, raw materials, finished equipment items, trained equipment items, etc. must all be transported from source to next required destination. Upon doing so they become subject to enemy interdiction. That includes bombing of transportation hubs and submarine warfare (assuming submarine warfare is simulated).
Is this Operational Art of Speer or War?[:'(]
Production ideas are OK for discussion but above thing is so hard to do properly and will go to SF pretty soon.
Player could have disrupted flow of manpower if system is abused or scenario allows that. In reality - never actually happened to a serious degree.
Mario

Mario;

Nah, this is the unlikely to be completed NEW GAME: "The Strategic Art of Operational Tactics", so don't sweat the small stuff, Big Guy!!! Expected publication date is Dec 21 2012, and you know what that means, LOL!

Just add into it, rather than blasting it, eh? We've all got something 'strangely disturbing' that we would like to see, so don't get too involved in other people's wet-dreams, eh?

Have fun! Not like you'll be asked to buy a copy, LOL!

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Stupid are: elephants and such things (why you need ancient warfare here at all? LOL[:'(]

If someone wants elephants for a Roman Empire era battle, why not...
He can use the equipment editor to create elephants, chariots, catapults and hot tar![;)]

I have an idea for a crazy Southern style scenario... Redneck War with squads driving Ford Bronco's, Hummers and other typical vehicles versus State Troopers with police cruisers

[sPzAbt653]

That is crazy .... How soon will you have it done? Will Daisy Dukes be a Theatre Option?

[Monkeys Brain]

[/quote]
Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.
[/quote]

Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.

And stop acting like a police guard here. I am allowed to call elephants in TOAW just that - stupid. This system is broad enough to include XIX century and XX century and you are now acting like biggest fanboy and sicophant which is simple not needed.

Like I am some troublemaker that needs to be taught a lesson.

If something is stupid then it is stupid. Like elephants in TOAW it's simply not great or splendid.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

That is crazy .... How soon will you have it done? Will Daisy Dukes be a Theatre Option?

[:D] good idea...
ans supply points... Walmart and the Home Depot? [:D][:D][:D]

It's just a private undertaking to see how wacky I can go in TOAW...

But my 2 cents on the ongoing discussion... elephants... it's all up to the individual designer... if designers wanna design such scenarios they'll design'em... if players wanna play such scenarios they'll play'em... There are some nice ones around designed with the 19th Century EXE

But imho I don't think TOAW itself should be modified to accomodate that type of scenarios... the EQP editor can allow designers to do a lot in order to create era specific scenarios...

Enuff said... back to Italy for a fresh turn of getting trashed by Mr Veers [;)]

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: L`zard

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Somehow spirit of Ben Turner (Ben Hur?) have gotten into Curtis Lemay [:D]
If you think that everything is covered OK but still think that it's better to add substantial essentials [:D] than wooden palisades.
Production suggestions are good start however there shoudn't be so much micromanaging - example:
6.13 Interdiction.
6.13.1 Mineral resources, raw materials, finished equipment items, trained equipment items, etc. must all be transported from source to next required destination. Upon doing so they become subject to enemy interdiction. That includes bombing of transportation hubs and submarine warfare (assuming submarine warfare is simulated).
Is this Operational Art of Speer or War?[:'(]
Production ideas are OK for discussion but above thing is so hard to do properly and will go to SF pretty soon.
Player could have disrupted flow of manpower if system is abused or scenario allows that. In reality - never actually happened to a serious degree.
Mario

Mario;

Nah, this is the unlikely to be completed NEW GAME: "The Strategic Art of Operational Tactics", so don't sweat the small stuff, Big Guy!!! Expected publication date is Dec 21 2012, and you know what that means, LOL!

Just add into it, rather than blasting it, eh? We've all got something 'strangely disturbing' that we would like to see, so don't get too involved in other people's wet-dreams, eh?

Have fun! Not like you'll be asked to buy a copy, LOL!

I have TOAW 3 hehe not installed but I have it so I can comment as much as I want my style suggestions because it's a free world and I am not sycophant to use only "great" words like someone as Veers who have come actually on all these boards after me and now he is giving me a lectures how I must behave. I will behave my way. He doesn't need to respond to me if he wants to teach me manners of sycophancy.

As Bob Cross have posted this wish list - I can comment it. Perfectly legal word is word stupid and I will always use it if I really see something stupid. He needs feedback or words "great" "my mouth is full of water" etc???

I just read the wish list and not with great attention, imagine what kind of stupidities I would find if I have really readed with attention.

L'zard I am not blasting it per se!!!! I have said that some ideas there are great, some are VERY DEBATABLE etc....?

SOme MUST BE EXPLAINED WHY THEY WANT THIS OR THAT. Like penalty from attacking enemy across major river they want increase from 30% to 50% - they need to explain thing like this not just suggest it. I am not sweating because I have a hintch that this will implemented NEVER. So it is again stupid to argue about the things that will be never put in the game.
I have just seen that if stupidities from other people are there then put mine also like Commanders. That will bring at least better AAR's and better connection with the game. Part of Hearts of Iron charm was their AAR's and WHY THE HELL THEY HAD COOL AAR'S ?
Because they could make a story out of COMMANDERS IN THE GAME!!
And that is not included in the wish list and elephants and 3000 other stupidities is.
So it's simply vanity of involved they think that they are really smart. Blah.


Mario

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain]

Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.

Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.

Mario, if you had popped up at the tdg - there was a long discussion over several threads and weeks, where you could have added something to the wish list. I did (although just a little point). You can't speak of a "comitee" wishlist... also, someone had to put it together, had to initiate it etc..
Be it as it is - you still can add (but not subtract ) something to the list. Calm down.

[Monkeys Brain]

[/quote]

Mario, if you had popped up at the tdg - there was a long discussion over several threads and weeks, where you could have added something to the wish list. I did (although just a little point). You can't speak of a "comitee" wishlist... also, someone had to put it together, had to initiate it etc..
Be it as it is - you still can add (but not subtract ) something to the list. Calm down.

[/quote]


Telumar,

I don't have time to post on so many forums, I have visited fe times TDG forums but never posted.
I don't knock their effort BUT in fact knock their "sanity" and "intelligence" because if COMMANDERS is good idea then let's document it. Let's agree what factors should be influenced by COMMANDERS - that is work that should have been discussed and commented. I can propose but it must be debated. So - should commanders influence all things or just some, in any way work on engine is needed. For example commanders could influence SUPPLY, READINESS, PROFICENCY; DEFENSE VALUE, ATTACK VALLUE, ANTI ARMOUR VALUE, ANTI PERSONAL VALUE, ANTI AIR VALUE, ETC... so many factors! But that would bring enormous change to the game and novelty.

I am not knocking ANCIEN warfare just like that - I think that it is just fanboy view that TOAW should cover everything from nuclear ages down to Indians who shoot poisoned arrows to red assed monkeys [:D]
I am sorry but when I say stupid I meant it. There is no way that someone should sugar coat his words when if TOAW needs changes then changes must be put inteligently not on ANCIENT warfare. I would rather make another game on Ancient Warfare then tried to model TOAW into Ancient Warfare.
It is just useless IMHO. You must make another module for Ancient warfare, and complete rewrite of an engine.

I will not however post on TDG as I don't have time for that. In any way why is Gamesquads or Matrix Forum lesser valued for any suggestion than TDG? I don't think so.

Just as I said - I am not knocking their work but they must have some priorities and some responsibility. If indians who shoot poisoned arrows into red assed monkeys lol are lousy idea then drop it and think of those that are better in priority.

ARMOUR for instance in Barbarossa scenarios are almost uselless - then make those dynamicy ZOC's or work on something like Ben Turner who made armored unit's with bigger recce value so that they can easily pass through enemy ZOC's. German armous are especially lousy in FiTE - and Russian is overpowered in defense. Blah. Contrary to the history. Now you must encircle Russian armour if you want to destroy it or not just shoot few T-26.

I will however not lose too much energy to persuade anyone be it Jarek, Ben, Obi Wan Kenobi, Veers, you or Curtis Lemay what is good to go and what is not. If you want elephants go ahead put then elephants.


Mario

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.

As I said in the first post, we tried to be comprehensive but that's unattainable. If there are things we've missed let us know. But try to find them in the document first - most of what you complained about it lacking so far were actually in there (Commanders, for example).

And you have a right to your opinion as to the value of any items. But it's just one opinion. Other people may feel differently (me in particular). Again, we're trying to be comprehensive.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

In any way why is Gamesquads or Matrix Forum lesser valued for any suggestion than TDG? I don't think so.

I don't think so, too. It's just that it was on tdg where it started.

And now... and no more

Go ahead and add your proposals here.

Stefan

[ralphtricky]

Mario,
This is strictly a wish-list. Since it's a wish list, of course some features won't be imlemented. This will happen because of the time required, the lack of definition, because they don't fit with my 'vision' of what TOAW should be, or for other reasons. I'm very glad that someone took the time to gather it in one place.[&o]

I know the games I like to play, and it's games that avoid micromanagement, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I know the difference between games that require you to manage youre units and make interesting decisions, and games that require you to micromanage and make meaningless choices. TOAW does a fairly good job of requiring management, but the UI still needs some tweaking to elimiante more of the micromanagement, clicking on 30 units and setting them to 'ignore losses' isn't my idea of fun. We need to eitehr explain what the differences are between the different stances, and why you would want to use each one, autmate the default setting of them, or make it easier.

All features added need to be optional or non-breaking. The recently added new flanking rules are something that's optional because while I believe it makes things better, it may also change the balance of some scenarios.

If you want something to be seriously considered, remeber that I'm lazy<g>. If there's a specific proposal to add like 'Leaders' as optional equipment that can have a range that would be sown up on range rings in this color, and would affect all units that are either pass a communications check, or... You get the idea. The more details, and the more simple the idea is, the more likely it is that it will be implemented.

Items that are simple to understand and code and either simplify playing the game or make it more immersive or make it better able to model more conflicts are more likely to be implemented.[:D]

The beta team that I rely on for help probably has over 50 years of experience with TOAW, so it's not just my arbitrary decisions. They've got a good idea (usually several conflicting ones[X(] of what things will and won't work[:-].

You seem be be a bit hung up on Elephants[8D], Actually, even though White Rabbit is hung up on them, they aren't just for ancient warfare. The idea of allowing Elmer to control individual formations would also be useful for controlling sides in a game. For example it might be possible to play a game like Europe Aflame, allowing Elmer to control Switzerland's navy<g>. That would allow the designer to add in more 'flavor' while not requiring extra work for the player when there are no 'interesting decisions' to be made by those units. If I add computer controlled formations, it opens up some decent ideas like the small scale scenarios havinh units reatreating like in Steel Panthers. 'Elephants' are a pretty minor step from that, and can also be used to control things like friendly guerillas.

If Elephants hadn't been on the wish-list, I wouldn't have thought of them, but they may be easy to implement, and open up some new possibilities.

Ralph

[Monkeys Brain]

Eh, OK [:D]

Mostly I agree... I will reply longer later...


Mario

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.

Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.

A) They did include others' wishes. Just open your eyes and you'll see that.
B) They are not gods, there is now way they could get every wish in there. You need to put down your vendetta and rememeber that. As I think Bob indicated, he willbe continuing to add to the list.

And stop acting like a police guard here.

With people like you around, someone has to.

I am allowed to call elephants in TOAW just that - stupid.

Why should you be able to? Say you don't like the idea, say you don't think it shoud be included. Don't be derogatory towards the idea, otherwise you're inviting a crusifiction of yourself. Be nice about your statement of dislike and you wouldn't incure my anger.

This system is broad enough to include XIX century and XX century and you are now acting like biggest fanboy and sicophant which is simple not needed.

Right. You figured me out. I just want to be nice to Ralph and James so I can...what? Get a free copy? I already have that.
(EDIT: Not a free copy, one I paid for.)

Like I am some troublemaker that needs to be taught a lesson.

You said it.

If something is stupid then it is stupid. Like elephants in TOAW it's simply not great or splendid.

Just be nicer and less arogant about it, otherwise people might start to think you're an arogant jerk.



EDIT: WOW! Lots of posts sine I started this....[:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

Let me see if I can make the case for pre-20th Century features, because they are dear to me.

First, I'll point out that there are already plenty of pre-20th Century scenarios out there. They include a number of American Civil War and Napoleonic War scenarios. They're popular, fun, and deserve support.

Second, those are topics with large wargamer followings. Even if all you want to do is play FITE, imagine how even FITE will benefit if all those wargamers can be attracted to TOAW. More sales means more resources for even more updates. There's a synergy produced by the combination that benefits both sides - even if they hate each other.

Third, if I've sold you on 19th Century features, consider that most of that effort will be devoted to implementing the things that change the game from frontal warfare to non-frontal warfare. Once all those features have been implemented, there's very little left to do to add 30 more centuries to the scope of the game. From the 19th Century, all you really need to add is body armor, non-gunfire projectile weapons, and a few special items (like elephants). (And even body armor could be justified for Napoleonic Warfare - think heavy cavalry). So a huge increase in scope could be had for relatively little effort. Again, think of the synergy that even benefits FITE.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Let me see if I can make the case for pre-20th Century features, because they are dear to me.

First, I'll point out that there are already plenty of pre-20th Century scenarios out there. They include a number of American Civil War and Napoleonic War scenarios. They're popular, fun, and deserve support.

Second, those are topics with large wargamer followings. Even if all you want to do is play FITE, imagine how even FITE will benefit if all those wargamers can be attracted to TOAW. More sales means more resources for even more updates. There's a synergy produced by the combination that benefits both sides - even if they hate each other.

Third, if I've sold you on 19th Century features, consider that most of that effort will be devoted to implementing the things that change the game from frontal warfare to non-frontal warfare. Once all those features have been implemented, there's very little left to do to add 30 more centuries to the scope of the game. From the 19th Century, all you really need to add is body armor, non-gunfire projectile weapons, and a few special items (like elephants). (And even body armor could be justified for Napoleonic Warfare - think heavy cavalry). So a huge increase in scope could be had for relatively little effort. Again, think of the synergy that even benefits FITE.

Sweetness. [8D]