What to change ?
Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky
What to change ?
With Matrix acquiring the rights to the Talonsoft titles [:D], they will obviously have their hands full deciding what to work on and when. One question (at a very high level) for each game, what types of things are fair game AND realistic to be addressed.
This holds true for all the acquired titles.
Some thoughts .....
1) Copy/Game protection (get rid of the need to put the CD into the drive)
2) Graphics Updates (could be resolution increase and/or minor overhaul)
3) User Interface (if it's one of GG's games, doubt this would happen but they need it
badly IMHO)
4) Bug Fixes (not player recommended enhancements)
5) Player recommended Enhancements (Gameplay, OOB, etc ...)
6) New Scenario's
7) Operating System Coverage (up to W2000 & XP)
8) Sound upgrade (with all the sound related issues of early WitP and other games, hope
they leave this one alone unless absolutely necessary)
9) Other ?
I'm sure I've overlooked alot, anyone have an opinion [;)]
This holds true for all the acquired titles.
Some thoughts .....
1) Copy/Game protection (get rid of the need to put the CD into the drive)
2) Graphics Updates (could be resolution increase and/or minor overhaul)
3) User Interface (if it's one of GG's games, doubt this would happen but they need it
badly IMHO)
4) Bug Fixes (not player recommended enhancements)
5) Player recommended Enhancements (Gameplay, OOB, etc ...)
6) New Scenario's
7) Operating System Coverage (up to W2000 & XP)
8) Sound upgrade (with all the sound related issues of early WitP and other games, hope
they leave this one alone unless absolutely necessary)
9) Other ?
I'm sure I've overlooked alot, anyone have an opinion [;)]
RE: What to change ?
There is already an extensive thread here for the same purpose:
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=33138
Have a peek through it; there's no sense for the community to duplicate its efforts!
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=33138
Have a peek through it; there's no sense for the community to duplicate its efforts!
RE: What to change ?
I remember on my old Acer computer, the sounds/music for TOAW never worked right. Never did hear it the way it was supposed to be heard.
RE: What to change ?
I would like to see TCP/IP. PBEM left it open to far too many exploits.
-
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: Scarborough, Yorkshire
- Contact:
RE: What to change ?
3) User Interface (if it's one of GG's games, doubt this would happen but they need it
badly IMHO)
Unless they over plush the interfaces so it is unweildy on anything but the most insane specs (see COG's unit listings for example).
I really want them to publish the COW edition in it's full glory. Not piecemeal like the original TOAW.
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:18 pm
RE: What to change ?
The one thing the game desperatly needs (and I think the rest of the people at TDG would agree with me) is a functional naval combat system. Ship to ship combat is simply worthless in the game. With Matrix's impressive credentials in naval warefare simulation, I'm hopeful they will be able to make this game even better.
RE: What to change ?
ORIGINAL: Pippin
I would like to see TCP/IP. PBEM left it open to far too many exploits.
I'm skeptical of the fit of this. Only the smallest toaw scenarios can be completed in a single session, on the huge end, even completing a single turn in one session is unlikely. Also, adding it would probably be a massive undertaking, and there are lots of other things that would add larger benefits for less effort.
He who writes this book in which hate is not hidden was formerly a pacifist... For him no disillusionment was ever greater or more sudden. It struck him with such violence that he thought himself no longer the same man. And yet, as it seems to him that
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:56 am
- Contact:
RE: What to change ?
I think I would like the strength numbers on the units to actually mean something. I remember reading in the dim past that those numbers are more related to the soft attack than anything else. This probably accounts for why I like scenarios with few or no tanks. If an attack looks like a 3-1 by the numbers, darn it that's what i want it to be;^)
Lets get those rivers on hex sides where they belong.
When using auto move lets have a unit stop when it enters a ZOC instead of repeatedly disengaging along it's path.
also naval really needs to be worked on BAD (only reason this is last is because most scenarios that use naval could simply be written from the context that one side has absolute superiority and just dodge the issue that way)
Oh could the event editor be a little more intuitive? I seem to remember cases where I must set up a deal where an event that does nothing has to happen to alow for the posibilty of an event that does when writing a scenario.
Lets get those rivers on hex sides where they belong.
When using auto move lets have a unit stop when it enters a ZOC instead of repeatedly disengaging along it's path.
also naval really needs to be worked on BAD (only reason this is last is because most scenarios that use naval could simply be written from the context that one side has absolute superiority and just dodge the issue that way)
Oh could the event editor be a little more intuitive? I seem to remember cases where I must set up a deal where an event that does nothing has to happen to alow for the posibilty of an event that does when writing a scenario.
If you are near Medford Oregon Check out,
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)
RE: What to change ?
I'm skeptical of the fit of this. Only the smallest toaw scenarios can be completed in a single session, on the huge end, even completing a single turn in one session is unlikely.
This is why players can SAVE.
RE: What to change ?
Lets get those rivers on hex sides where they belong.
Amen. I can't stand this at the scale of TOAW.
Also, it would be nice if you could have "hexside lakes", estuaries, and other neat shore/water features. This would require having both hexside water rubric AND the ability to reverse of the implementation of water/land hexes (so painting land on a water hexside makes that hexside land, not water).
(It's a little hard to describe w/o the game handy, but you can't recreate much coastal/lake terrain accurately b/c of the way the water painting works. The smallest lake therefore is a large, round, full hex.)
RE: What to change ?
ORIGINAL: Pippin
I would like to see TCP/IP. PBEM left it open to far too many exploits.
Regardless of how you do it, you will always have to rely on a player's honour. Since most of us don't really want to cheat to win, I don't think this is really very important- not compared to the more serious systemic problems with TOAW.
RE: What to change ?
ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson
I think I would like the strength numbers on the units to actually mean something.
I disagree. Good decisions should be made on a general appreciation of the situation rather than a comparison of two numbers displayed on the screen. The players should be given some information to get a general idea of the strength of the unit. The less quantitative, the better.
Lets get those rivers on hex sides where they belong.
Why not allow both?
When using auto move lets have a unit stop when it enters a ZOC instead of repeatedly disengaging along it's path.
Again, fog of war. If a player makes a move based on the expectation that the path was clear, he should suffer if he was wrong.
Oh could the event editor be a little more intuitive? I seem to remember cases where I must set up a deal where an event that does nothing has to happen to alow for the posibilty of an event that does when writing a scenario.
This won't matter if there is no limit on the number of events.
RE: What to change ?
ORIGINAL: Capitaine
Also, it would be nice if you could have "hexside lakes", estuaries, and other neat shore/water features.
This is why God (or Norm) gave us super river.
(It's a little hard to describe w/o the game handy, but you can't recreate much coastal/lake terrain accurately b/c of the way the water painting works. The smallest lake therefore is a large, round, full hex.)
This is only an aesthetical concern. Low priority.
RE: What to change ?
ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
Again, fog of war. If a player makes a move based on the expectation that the path was clear, he should suffer if he was wrong.
I agree with all the other points in your post, Ben, but this one bothers me just for the 'feel' of it. I learned in my first game to only sneak along a hex or two at a time when I'm opening up unknown terrain, so it's not something I get caught on. It just feels wrong. The simple fact of it is that if a commander tells his Lt. to get his men on to that hill over there, and a previously unknown division of enemy tanks starts rumbling down the road he's travelling up, I like to think that he wouldn't just go 'oh - isn't that interesting', and try to walk past them all without incident.
I mean, some things should just be a given. I don't tell my boys to reload their weapons during combat, I'm assuming they're smart enough to do that by themselves. When surprised by enemy units, I would expect them to react appropriately.
RE: What to change ?
ORIGINAL: Mantis
I agree with all the other points in your post, Ben, but this one bothers me just for the 'feel' of it. I learned in my first game to only sneak along a hex or two at a time when I'm opening up unknown terrain, so it's not something I get caught on. It just feels wrong. The simple fact of it is that if a commander tells his Lt. to get his men on to that hill over there, and a previously unknown division of enemy tanks starts rumbling down the road he's travelling up, I like to think that he wouldn't just go 'oh - isn't that interesting', and try to walk past them all without incident.
Mm. Your Lieutenant won't see a 'division of enemy tanks'. He'll see some tanks. Could be just those two- or there could be another 200 out of sight.
Of course, the problem with the argument I used is that the player can always just move one hex at a time if he likes, it's just rather tedious. But I don't like the sort of omniscient view implied by removing this aspect of the game altogether.
RE: What to change ?
Ok, long time TOAW player here and I have to say I'm thrilled to see this happening! I can't believe what is probably my all time favorite game is coming back to life! Thank you Matrix.
Now ...
That being said, I had some thoughts on things that could be fixed.
1) Naval. It's already been said but the naval aspect left much to be desired. Ship vs Ship was far too generic and unpredictable, no ZOC's, no interception (I loved the Sealion scenario where I sailed my German troop transports AROUND the British fleet), etc. I often would just leave naval out entirely, create events in the engine to simulate naval combat. Part of me feels it should just be jettisioned or turned strictly into shore bombardment. I know a navy can block someone's amphibious assault but most amphibious assaults were conducted when you had cleared away the enemy's navy to begin with, few sent transports into the teeth of the enemies' battle line. My druthers are to scrap the navy forces, this is a land combat game after all!
Still, if we have to have naval forces, we need more texture. For instance there is a wide variety of "missile frigates" in the world and some should clearly do better than others and yet sometimes the North Korean Navy (in Norm's 2000 scenario) could wipe the seas of the US! So if we're going to keep naval forces I would recommend far more detail be incorporated into them.
2) Air forces. One thing that always annoyed me was the stacking limits. It didn't seem to matter how big the air groups were. Neither did how big the hexes were (a 50km hex might have several airfields) have an impact. There should have been a way of instead just allocating points to each airfield to say that such a base can hold X number of planes. Also, not every airfield can accomodate every type of jet. B-52's need longer runways than F-16's. This should be reflected in a new version. And, I'd like the idea of being able to bomb airfields and damage the runways, base facilities, etc. Air units might become disabled until the runways are fixed, or the capacity of a base might be impaired.
Another thing I wished was the ability to assign certain roads or railines or other features as interdiction targets. I'd much prefer that than having interdiction diffused across the map. It also seems more realistic to me. If you know your opponent's armored division is going to drive up a particular highway, that's where you send your attack jets.
I know I'm not coming up with much new here but just wanted to add my voice and throw out some ideas to improve an already great game.
Now ...
That being said, I had some thoughts on things that could be fixed.
1) Naval. It's already been said but the naval aspect left much to be desired. Ship vs Ship was far too generic and unpredictable, no ZOC's, no interception (I loved the Sealion scenario where I sailed my German troop transports AROUND the British fleet), etc. I often would just leave naval out entirely, create events in the engine to simulate naval combat. Part of me feels it should just be jettisioned or turned strictly into shore bombardment. I know a navy can block someone's amphibious assault but most amphibious assaults were conducted when you had cleared away the enemy's navy to begin with, few sent transports into the teeth of the enemies' battle line. My druthers are to scrap the navy forces, this is a land combat game after all!
Still, if we have to have naval forces, we need more texture. For instance there is a wide variety of "missile frigates" in the world and some should clearly do better than others and yet sometimes the North Korean Navy (in Norm's 2000 scenario) could wipe the seas of the US! So if we're going to keep naval forces I would recommend far more detail be incorporated into them.
2) Air forces. One thing that always annoyed me was the stacking limits. It didn't seem to matter how big the air groups were. Neither did how big the hexes were (a 50km hex might have several airfields) have an impact. There should have been a way of instead just allocating points to each airfield to say that such a base can hold X number of planes. Also, not every airfield can accomodate every type of jet. B-52's need longer runways than F-16's. This should be reflected in a new version. And, I'd like the idea of being able to bomb airfields and damage the runways, base facilities, etc. Air units might become disabled until the runways are fixed, or the capacity of a base might be impaired.
Another thing I wished was the ability to assign certain roads or railines or other features as interdiction targets. I'd much prefer that than having interdiction diffused across the map. It also seems more realistic to me. If you know your opponent's armored division is going to drive up a particular highway, that's where you send your attack jets.
I know I'm not coming up with much new here but just wanted to add my voice and throw out some ideas to improve an already great game.
RE: What to change ?
ORIGINAL: Rob322
2) Air forces. One thing that always annoyed me was the stacking limits.
This gets into the question of stacking limits in general. If we're to base the capacity of an airfield on numbers (and presumably sizes) of aircraft, we should also look at scrapping the arbitrary limit of nine units total per hex- we already have traffic and density penalties; so this is to a certain extent redundant anyway. Provided more options were available for viewing and sorting the units in a hex, I don't see why there should be a limit on the number of units that can be in a single hex.
Another thing I wished was the ability to assign certain roads or railines or other features as interdiction targets. I'd much prefer that than having interdiction diffused across the map.
In general, one would want to be able to set the area of operations of each air unit (or group of air units).
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:23 pm
RE: What to change ?
The user interface for scenario creation is, IMHO, a bit of a nightmare. This thing should be made much easier to navigate.
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:56 am
- Contact:
RE: What to change ?
I don't tell my boys to reload their weapons during combat,
I think Ben would actually like this as a feature of the game;^) With increase in prosecers speeds it should be a small skip to calculating how each grain of powder burns after you dirrect the guy to pull the trigger.
If you are near Medford Oregon Check out,
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:56 am
- Contact:
RE: What to change ?
I think the need for additional events would be reduced if the event engine was rationalized a tad. I wrote one scenario (that i lost in a disk failure talk about depressing) where one of the main things going on was allowing the players to decide on which assets to bring on map. You could increase your military commitment in this border war but each time you did you lost victory points. I remember vividly having to use multiple events just to get to a single thing happening. It seems like half of the time you have to do stuff like
1] News = NO News = event 2 enabled
2] = Strategic option 1 side 2 = event 3 enabled
3] = News = Reinforcements = event 4 enabled
4] = reinforcements hex XXXX (what I wanted in the first place as a strategic option!!!!!)
It's been a while so I am probably off on the specifics but it gets the idea across;^)
1] News = NO News = event 2 enabled
2] = Strategic option 1 side 2 = event 3 enabled
3] = News = Reinforcements = event 4 enabled
4] = reinforcements hex XXXX (what I wanted in the first place as a strategic option!!!!!)
It's been a while so I am probably off on the specifics but it gets the idea across;^)
If you are near Medford Oregon Check out,
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)