TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

AA not firing at attacking plane, if that isn't broken I don't know what.

If you were more experienced with TOAW (rather than posting) you'd know that isn't a radical problem.

[BigDuke66]

Sure if the enemy has already air superiority leaving him untouched when he does engage ground forces isn't a problem.
If you don't think that is a problem it's your beer, for me I stopped because of it.
And by the way I'm sure I have played the TOAW series longer and more than you so please don't insult me with your silly allegations.

[josant]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

One more reason to step up the campaign! I need more signatures to reach the magic 500!

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ ... escription

Spread the word!

Klink, Oberst

Oberst, many people have not heard of this request, would be wise to put a new post in the general forum to reach more people

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

AA not firing at attacking plane, if that isn't broken I don't know what.

If you were more experienced with TOAW (rather than posting) you'd know that isn't a radical problem.

There are already enough long time posters who throw insults at others without a new one popping up.

There are a few problems with the game. Some can be worked around. Some can't. Kinda hard to design a new scenario. You test it and it works ok with the work arounds. But then the problems get fixed and guess what? Now it doesn't work anymore.

@Klink. Don't want to have to divulge all my personal information just to sign a petition. Not comfortable with that

[Oberst_Klink]

No problem about that at all. After all, I use a nom de plum as well. I have to reveal it once
the war-gaming sites to interview me about my crusade for 3.5 ) I suggested to the others to post in here with their login names anyway The more the merrier...

Klink, Oberst

[BigDuke66]

Yes no need to be afraid, after all the petition isn't asking for your credit card number.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

AA not firing at attacking plane, if that isn't broken I don't know what.

Sort of not that big a problem. AA doesn't shoot down many aircraft.

Indestructible fortified units, that makes the game almost unplayable.

[BigDuke66]

I guess the impact on the game could be bigger than just looking at the number of shoot down planes suggest.
But yea fortified units are an even bigger problem.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Indestructible fortified units, that makes the game almost unplayable.

Has anyone tried a house rule not to set dug-in units to Ignore Losses?

[Rodia]

My only experience is 3.4 so I have to ask (and also help this thread growing):

The bug of indestructible fortified units when was introduced? In 3.4 or in 3.5 beta?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Has anyone tried a house rule not to set dug-in units to Ignore Losses?

No- but I find these units just don't take any losses. That's the problem.

It's a lousy workaround. The game is still workable- barely, and with major adjustments made to scenarios.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Has anyone tried a house rule not to set dug-in units to Ignore Losses?

No-...

I'll try again. Has anyone tried a house rule as above?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Rodia

My only experience is 3.4 so I have to ask (and also help this thread growing):

The bug of indestructible fortified units when was introduced? In 3.4 or in 3.5 beta?

It's an issue with 3.4 or we wouldn't be talking about it. But it's more complicated than just a simple bug.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Rodia

My only experience is 3.4 so I have to ask (and also help this thread growing):

The bug of indestructible fortified units when was introduced? In 3.4 or in 3.5 beta?

It's an issue with 3.4 or we wouldn't be talking about it. But it's more complicated than just a simple bug.

I think that while we wait for a fix a lot could be achieved by reducing the engineering/entrenchment rates in the scenarios. Most of the old ones (pre 3.4) use 100/100, which means a well supplied unit only needs 3/4 turns to get to 'F'. It should take weeks if not months to get to 'F' status, which is meant to represent permanent fortifications.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato


I think that while we wait for a fix a lot could be achieved by reducing the engineering/entrenchment rates in the scenarios. Most of the old ones (pre 3.4) use 100/100, which means a well supplied unit only needs 3/4 turns to get to 'F'. It should take weeks if not months to get to 'F' status, which is meant to represent permanent fortifications.

The difficulty is that this means they don't get a "D" for some time, though.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But it's more complicated than just a simple bug.

It's not a simple bug, no. It's a deliberate change which has broken the game, and needs to be put back.

Entrenchments worked fine. Then they were changed. Now they're broken. Put them back. This is really frustrating because there was a lot of good stuff in 3.4- it really transforms what you can do as a designer. But this is a huge problem which, if any work could be done on TOAW at all, I would expect to be made the subject of a hotfix.

[golden delicious]

...

[governato]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: governato


I think that while we wait for a fix a lot could be achieved by reducing the engineering/entrenchment rates in the scenarios. Most of the old ones (pre 3.4) use 100/100, which means a well supplied unit only needs 3/4 turns to get to 'F'. It should take weeks if not months to get to 'F' status, which is meant to represent permanent fortifications.

The difficulty is that this means they don't get a "D" for some time, though.

Agree. In 'War in the East' it takes progressively longer to go from the equivalent of 'D' to 'E' and then 'F', which makes a lot of sense. Wish it was like that in TOAW.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

It's not a simple bug, no. It's a deliberate change which has broken the game, and needs to be put back.

Entrenchments worked fine. Then they were changed. Now they're broken. Put them back. This is really frustrating because there was a lot of good stuff in 3.4- it really transforms what you can do as a designer. But this is a huge problem which, if any work could be done on TOAW at all, I would expect to be made the subject of a hotfix.

Totally agree. I'd like to see a completely stable 'debugged' 3.4 out as maybe an interim 3.75 (for want of a better #) before we head off into the wilds of any new release as 4.0++.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: governato
It should take weeks if not months to get to 'F' status, which is meant to represent permanent fortifications.

This is not true. These are field works. Not concrete bunkers. Things like tank ditches, mine fields, wire, earthen bunkers, trenches, etc.

12.4 Fortification (Advanced Rules)
All Land units may deploy into defensive positions. The
presence of units with an Engineering Capability increases the
chance of successfully Entrenching or Fortifying. Even if a unit
fails to Entrench or Fortify, it will increase the local Entrenchment
Level, making it easier for that unit and others to Entrench or
Fortify in the future. Once created, Field Fortifications are permanent.
As the Entrenchment Level of a location increases, units
in the location will find it easier to enter Entrenched or Fortified
Deployments. When a location changes hands, the Entrenchment
Level is automatically reduced by 25%. Once ordered to
dig in, units will continue to dig until their location is Fortified or
you give them other orders.