RE: TOAW IV features (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV



Message


SMK-at-work -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/22/2015 1:57:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Fantastic :)

A question about naval recce of adjacent land hexes - will there be a dedicated recce function of some sort to "replace" this??


If coastal guns fire at the ships then they (and their hex) are revealed. Otherwise, you can disembark a land unit adjacent - revealing all.


Of course...that's what I meant...honest....at last a use for special forces!! ;)




Lobster -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/22/2015 2:18:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

If that's all you're using it for then why not use something you have unlimited amounts of: Border hexsides. Just put a border around those hexes. Placenames take up file size for everyone (at least they do now - I can anticipate a day when there are no limits and the scenario file is tailored to the amount actually used).


Because border hex side graphics are used extensively. Start lines, stop lines and national borders to name just a few. 1k place names are nothing. And the hex graphics that could be used do not end up on top of terrain so become obscured in places like marsh, urban, dense urban, forest, jungle, flooded swamp, etc. The bmp files are the only thing that makes any sense but they take up place names. As it is bridges exist any place a road 'crosses' a river even if it's some graphic representation caused by the limitations of the game's graphics, ie, rivers don't follow hex sides, they go through the middle with roads and railroads. Makes no sense at all unless you have some way to display to players that, hey, this is a bridge and this isn't.

I'm not real sure what you mean when you say each place name takes up a file size. If the game uses ASCII then each space in the place name should take one byte. Each place name is a maximum of 24 places. That's 24 bytes. Each place name is a string constant of 24 bytes and they are loaded into the scenario one after the other probably with a space between them. So at 4k place names in a scenario that's what, 96k bytes or a little more? Add another 2k place names you add 48k bytes plus a little more? So that's 144k bytes and we'll round it up to 200kb? FitE2 is a little over 2mb. Even if you add 100kb for some extra place name strings it's nothing for a computer and 100kb is more than 1k or 2k place names would take. Heck, as far as games go TOAW is tiny and so are the scenarios.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/22/2015 11:21:52 PM)

I would like to propose some improvements to the air warfare:

-right now, you need to set up the units on airfields according the are you want them to operate, which is absurd. Of course, to maximize their range you would put them close to the front, but having them does not mean that you want to flying missions at their longer range. So a feature to set a user defined "operating range" to a unit, which would allow different air units based in different airfields to operate around the same area.
A keyboard shortcut showing the "operating range" of al air units on the map would come handy to set up the strategy.

-Bomber payloads was in conflict with the fuel carried, so the effectiveness of their attack should start dropping passing certain range, eg: 5 in the first hex, then 5-5-5-5-4-4-3-2-1, or something like that.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/22/2015 11:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I would like to propose some improvements to the air warfare:

-right now, you need to set up the units on airfields according the are you want them to operate, which is absurd. Of course, to maximize their range you would put them close to the front, but having them does not mean that you want to flying missions at their longer range. So a feature to set a user defined "operating range" to a unit, which would allow different air units based in different airfields to operate around the same area.


That's in TOAW IV. See the feature list.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/22/2015 11:43:42 PM)

Oops, can't believe I did not pay attention to that.
Thanks Bob.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 1:27:29 AM)

One silly thing: I like to check the formation dialog to see the units that have no movement points left, and is somewhat confusing to see units that will arrive later having movement points. Perhaps would be better to have "44.Inf Turn: 5 Enters: 55,44 Move -" instead of "44.Inf Turn: 5 Enters: 55,44 Move 7".
Also, having different colours for units that will arrive and that have withdrawn.




ufe31415926 -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 2:40:15 AM)

III I think, it's better have a table to show what will be done in each combat rounds, and we can select or cancel combats easily, and solve them exatly.
for example if there is 3 combats, A will begin at the first round, and end in the 2nd round, B will begin at the first round, and end in the 9th round, C will begin at the 3rd round, and end at certain round. i hope i can cancel B and C, execute A, and execute C at the next solve. i need a table to list for combats.




Lobster -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 3:11:22 AM)

This is probably pie in the sky but it would be nice to be able to model airfields properly.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Advanced_Landing_Ground

This is about how all of the major belligerents did it. While there were some fixed airfields like are currently portrayed in TOAW there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model.




Bombur -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 1:54:34 PM)

The new naval features are welcomed, but....there will be accross the sea supply?




Freyr Oakenshield -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 1:57:13 PM)

quote:

there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model


...which leads me to this question - will players be able to build airfields?




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 7:11:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

The new naval features are welcomed, but....there will be accross the sea supply?


No. We also will lack ship-borne torpedoes, submarines, naval reaction, etc. Naval Warfare is a big topic. Hopefully, some of that will be possible down the road.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 7:11:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

quote:

there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model


...which leads me to this question - will players be able to build airfields?


No.




Falcon1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/23/2015 10:32:26 PM)

Don't we already have across the sea supply?




Lobster -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/24/2015 8:47:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

quote:

there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model


...which leads me to this question - will players be able to build airfields?


No.


There is a way to do it. But then you might run into a problem with the formations limit. Think about it, is it really the airfields that you need or the units that represent airfield support?




Panzer War -> RE: TOAW IV features (7/25/2015 3:45:30 PM)

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?

Or engineer’s ability to effect the terrain build rail ways, roads etc.? Not just build air fields?








MaxG -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/2/2015 6:36:36 AM)

Curtis,

The "Battlefield Time Stamp" feature is a very welcomed one, but it doesn't address the main issue with the turn's model in TOW.
In my view, the really frustrating "feature" of the current game is the fact that once control switches from Player1 to Player2 in Turn1, Player1 can not regain control of his forces until the new game-turn starts (Turn2).
This results in a loss of remaining movement points for Player1's force in Turn1, which is not a realistic modeling of the warfare operations.
The fix for this issue would be to allow multiple changes of control between the sides within the same game-turn.
After each "Combats Resolved" event the game should determine which side has an initiative using the "Avg Remaining Movement Points" calculation, and pass control to the side with highest one.
In this case the new game-turn should start only after both sides explicitly end their turns by clicking UI button "End Turn", that should be available in addition to UI button "Resolve All Combats".
In my view this change would be a tremendous improvement to TOW turn model.
Makes sense?




SMK-at-work -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/2/2015 6:41:54 AM)

Yes it makes sense - but it won't work - can you imagine how long it would take to run a turn??

"We-Go" is a good alternative, but doesn't wok with TOAW's combat system.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/2/2015 2:13:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MaxG

Curtis,

The "Battlefield Time Stamp" feature is a very welcomed one, but it doesn't address the main issue with the turn's model in TOW.
In my view, the really frustrating "feature" of the current game is the fact that once control switches from Player1 to Player2 in Turn1, Player1 can not regain control of his forces until the new game-turn starts (Turn2).
This results in a loss of remaining movement points for Player1's force in Turn1, which is not a realistic modeling of the warfare operations.
The fix for this issue would be to allow multiple changes of control between the sides within the same game-turn.
After each "Combats Resolved" event the game should determine which side has an initiative using the "Avg Remaining Movement Points" calculation, and pass control to the side with highest one.
In this case the new game-turn should start only after both sides explicitly end their turns by clicking UI button "End Turn", that should be available in addition to UI button "Resolve All Combats".
In my view this change would be a tremendous improvement to TOW turn model.
Makes sense?


As noted, that would be unworkable. But I would also disagree that early turn ending is unrealistic. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" as they say. Early turn ending provides the risk/reward aspect of trying to implement a ambitiously complex plan. Really crummy forces shouldn't be good at it and really good forces should be. What the above would do is guarantee that every force, no matter how crummy, can carry out operations with surgical precision.




Freyr Oakenshield -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/2/2015 2:37:47 PM)

quote:

Curtis Lemay:
early turn ending



IMO, it's ok, it adds an element of unpredictability to the game, but I'd make it more local, depending on the scen scale, let's call it, say, early formation action ending or early div action ending, and so on; it's a bit silly that a failure of one unit can actually affect the whole front...




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/2/2015 4:02:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

quote:

Curtis Lemay:
early turn ending



IMO, it's ok, it adds an element of unpredictability to the game, but I'd make it more local, depending on the scen scale, let's call it, say, early formation action ending or early div action ending, and so on; it's a bit silly that a failure of one unit can actually affect the whole front...


That's what the BTS system will affect. There will still be turn endings due to Force Proficiency Check failures, though. That's a different thing.




geozero -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/14/2015 2:25:02 PM)

Would be nice to see new features such as ability to overlay a map (much like WitW and WitE where the hex "tiles" lay over them, this provides the best and smoothest land/water contours while still being able to lay hexes over them (i.e. tiles). Also this feature in the editor would help scenario designers create maps by easily "painting" over real terrains, and could be a huge time saver as well as provide more accuracy.

Ability to change unit colors to 16million color palette was discussed somewhere I saw, but bringing it up again because I think that is a huge feature (one that I recommended back in the days of BF/CA design days). Also ability to create new unit types along with their respective symbols would be cool... perhaps the game ships with default unit type "slots" and then allows additional slots to be added.

Multiple "factions" or "sides" instead of just 2. This could allow more complex scenarios with neutrals, UN forces, and several warring factions/sides within a scenario.

A drag/drop method of creating scenario unit OOB's would be great if not already there... anyway.. a million ideas to throw out I am sure you are all busy.





LOK32MK -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/16/2015 1:49:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Would be nice to see new features such as ability to overlay a map (much like WitW and WitE where the hex "tiles" lay over them, this provides the best and smoothest land/water contours while still being able to lay hexes over them (i.e. tiles). Also this feature in the editor would help scenario designers create maps by easily "painting" over real terrains, and could be a huge time saver as well as provide more accuracy.

Multiple "factions" or "sides" instead of just 2. This could allow more complex scenarios with neutrals, UN forces, and several warring factions/sides within a scenario.



+1
if it's too difficult to do "Multiple factions" then perhaps more exclusion zones?




josant -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/16/2015 2:40:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero


Multiple "factions" or "sides" instead of just 2. This could allow more complex scenarios with neutrals, UN forces, and several warring factions/sides within a scenario.





+1, I also support this, this would be wonderful




mavraamides -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/17/2015 1:38:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer War

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?



+++!

This would be #1 on my list. With core units that can survive and gain experience from one scenario to the next.

Also a naval / air system that allowed patrol zones. So you could maybe select a collection of hexes for a group of naval units and when enemy units passed through it there would be a pct chance of contact depending on how large the patrol zone was.

Convoys.






SMK-at-work -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/17/2015 9:54:55 PM)

not #1 but definitely a very good idea - designers of current games have been ingenious and inventive in their attempts to work within the current limitations and much kudos to them....but let's make it better :)




Freyr Oakenshield -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/17/2015 10:17:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer War

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?



+++!

This would be #1 on my list. With core units that can survive and gain experience from one scenario to the next.




I don't know... Smells like Panzer Corps...




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/17/2015 11:11:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield


quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer War

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?



+++!

This would be #1 on my list. With core units that can survive and gain experience from one scenario to the next.




I don't know... Smells like Panzer Corps...



You mean Panzer General [sm=00000030.gif]




mavraamides -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/18/2015 8:24:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield



I don't know... Smells like Panzer Corps...


I see you're point. They would have that in common. But really? Panzer Corps? Not even on the same planet in terms of realism and depth.

Maybe the core units are a bad idea. But having say an entire WWII game played out in linked operational level scenarios is very appealing to me. And having your performance in one scenario affect which one you played next and possibly OOB's and timeline would be very cool.

Say for example you are playing the allies and as Poland you manage to hold out longer than historically happened and induce a few more casualties.

So the next scenario is an invasion of France but it starts two weeks later allowing the French to build a few more units and some of the German units are a bit depleted because of the struggle with Poland. This is just an example of course.






geozero -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/18/2015 9:33:32 PM)

The Germans attacked France at their leisure... and the Allies had 5-6 months to prepare or do something in the west and did nothing... thus the "Phoney War". I really doubt the French would have built much even if the Germans had delayed their assault 2 weeks.




mavraamides -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/19/2015 1:49:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

The Germans attacked France at their leisure... and the Allies had 5-6 months to prepare or do something in the west and did nothing... thus the "Phoney War". I really doubt the French would have built much even if the Germans had delayed their assault 2 weeks.


OK bad example. But without getting into a debate about WWII history I think it would be cool to have linked scenarios where the result of one dictated the timeline, OOB and selection of the next. Instead of having each scenario in isolation with no real relationship to each other it would be cool to have an overall campaign consisting of linked scenarios.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02