RE: ETA release & info update

Matrix Games Forums

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: ETA release & info update

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: ETA release & info update

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ETA release & info update - 12/29/2005 7:13:58 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow

I believe the best way to handle naval events in TOAW is via the Event Editor.

Mm. At present, the limitations of the Event editor make even this difficult. Of course, those limitations should be one of the first things dealt with by Matrix.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Mad Cow)

Post #: 91

RE: ETA release & info update - 12/29/2005 7:54:34 PM

Rob322

Posts: 293
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

After this thoroughly brilliant critique by what are no doubt, wargame experts, I really would like to find another game that could better suit my needs. The problem is, there is no wargame as versatile as TOAW.

Have you tried War In the Pacific? Ships, planes down to squadron levels, and troops down to battalions (in fact there's a couple companies running around). Karachi to San Diego, Tasmania to Nome, 60 miles per hex. Ammo for each 20mm AA gun on each of your ships tracked. Sail your fleet, sink the enemy carriers, and then land the marines to take away his atoll after a lengthy bombardment by your BB's and heavy bombers. Now, given the hex size, ground combat is very abstract as compared to TOAW but it provides an interesting balance considering it's attempting to simulate rather divergent arms of service (navy, army, air force). How successful it has done so has been debated on those boards but it's attracted a lot of people. But I would say the versatility is at least comparable to TOAW and probably much more so (I add the caveat since it's really not fair to either system to compare them, they're quite different games).

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 92

RE: ETA release & info update - 12/29/2005 9:07:27 PM

macgregor

Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Versatility is not compensatory with detail level. I like to play ww2 but then again modern to napoleonic as well. My friends are finally coming around to enjoying TOAW (coming over from World in Flames). There's something akin to 'rulebook fatigue' that sets in as people get older. I still haven't figured out how to get the pieces to do what I want in Pacific War. About the only game I might be willing to spend 100 bucks on is World in Flames if that ever gets released. Two reasons, 1-I know how to play and 2, I have friends that want to play.

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 93

RE: ETA release & info update - 12/29/2005 9:46:11 PM

Lava

Posts: 1627
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Chikuma

4/4 8"/50 x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 52
2/2 5"/40 DP x 4
2/2 24" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 26
4/4 25mm AA x 12
1/1 Engine speed 13
1/1 Engine speed 6

I understand what you are asking for, but I don't think it is consistent with TOAW game play or design. For example, you do not produce:

4x4 Wheels
4x4 Truck chassis
4x4 Truck bodies

You get 4x4 Trucks.

While your concept seems interesting, it just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps you could achieve what you want from a different avenue of approach, like more differention of ship classes. TOAWs selection of ship classes is reallllllly basic.

I would also add that another problem with the ship model is the fact that TOAW treats "supply" for ships the same way it treats land forces (i.e., land based logistical points), which is really a poor way of modeling fleets. Transports ships should be able to serve as mobile supply points. This is the the actual way fleets were maintained at sea and is not modeled in TOAW.

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 94

RE: ETA release & info update - 12/29/2005 10:01:49 PM

Rob322

Posts: 293
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Chikuma

4/4 8"/50 x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 52
2/2 5"/40 DP x 4
2/2 24" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 26
4/4 25mm AA x 12
1/1 Engine speed 13
1/1 Engine speed 6

I understand what you are asking for, but I don't think it is consistent with TOAW game play or design. For example, you do not produce:

4x4 Wheels
4x4 Truck chassis
4x4 Truck bodies

You get 4x4 Trucks.

While your concept seems interesting, it just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps you could achieve what you want from a different avenue of approach, like more differention of ship classes. TOAWs selection of ship classes is reallllllly basic.

I would also add that another problem with the ship model is the fact that TOAW treats "supply" for ships the same way it treats land forces (i.e., land based logistical points), which is really a poor way of modeling fleets. Transports ships should be able to serve as mobile supply points. This is the the actual way fleets were maintained at sea and is not modeled in TOAW.

Ray (alias Lava)

Exactly, this reminded me of War in the Pacific which is one of the reasons I recommended this. TOAW does not get this nitty gritty. Take a tank, it has an anti-armor value, an anti-soft value, and an AA value. You don't get information on how many actual AA machine guns the thing has or the calibre of the gun.

(in reply to Lava)

Post #: 95

RE: ETA release & info update - 12/29/2005 10:48:16 PM

macgregor

Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I understand what you are asking for, but I don't think it is consistent with TOAW game play or design. For example, you do not produce:

4x4 Wheels
4x4 Truck chassis
4x4 Truck bodies

You get 4x4 Trucks.

With all due respect, I think we're comparing apples to oranges here. If for no other reason than than a capital ship's significance to the battlefield. I don't intend to model every ship, only CAs, BBs and CVs. Light cruisers, destroyers and submarines, would be listed and modelled according to class, but as one hit units. Much like they are now. This way the capital ship's escorts could be included in one unit.

Kongo

1/1 Kuma class lt cruiser
1/1 Matsu class destroyer
4/4 14" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 40
7/7 6" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 20
5/5 5" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 10
1/1 40mm AA x 4
1/1 Engine speed 5
2/2 13.2mm AA x 4
1/1 Engine speed 3
I haven't decided exactly what modern ships I would make multi-hit(besides CVs). But the multitude of weapons and their significance to the battle has not diminished.

quote:

I would also add that another problem with the ship model is the fact that TOAW treats "supply" for ships the same way it treats land forces (i.e., land based logistical points), which is really a poor way of modeling fleets. Transports ships should be able to serve as mobile supply points. This is the the actual way fleets were maintained at sea and is not modeled in TOAW.

This is a valid problem. Ideally, I would like to see ship's weapons supplied the same as naval units are now, with only the 'hull' or 'speed' units requiring a land-based supply source (with realistic supply usage). Even if all the weapons including 'hulls' were supplied as naval units are now I'd be happy. I'd like to see mobile supply points for beacheads, though TOAW handles this OK by having set supply sources (kinda limits the invasion options though) I'd like to think that my ideas are somewhat practical. The concepts I'm adding are all used elsewhere in the game.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 12/29/2005 11:11:31 PM >

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 96

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/3/2006 7:07:38 PM

macgregor

Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Regardless of how much I've suggested, I don't personally think the game needs to change too drastically to begin to sell. It gives good representation to almost any conflict imaginable. Not perfect, but what game can claim that? My crazy twisted imagination tells me that as long as the new modifications were defined, and were to eventually be available when ready for a free patch download all the current players wold buy a copy. Plus all the people I see stumbling on to the website, looking for a copy. I like the fact that it takes some of the pressure off Matrix to meet all our expectations, while at the same time begins engaging all the players. Which I think is one of the real strengths of the game.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 97

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/3/2006 7:41:48 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Regardless of how much I've suggested, I don't personally think the game needs to change too drastically to begin to sell.

Yeah. As far as sales are concerned, the problem is not in the way the game works but most likely in its image. Wargaming itself is something of an unsexy genre, and few people are keen to try an eight year old game. Dunno how Matrix plans to deal with this problem.

A fine game. Difficult to convince people that this is true, however.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 98

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/3/2006 8:47:24 PM

Rob322

Posts: 293
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Regardless of how much I've suggested, I don't personally think the game needs to change too drastically to begin to sell.

Yeah. As far as sales are concerned, the problem is not in the way the game works but most likely in its image. Wargaming itself is something of an unsexy genre, and few people are keen to try an eight year old game. Dunno how Matrix plans to deal with this problem.

A fine game. Difficult to convince people that this is true, however.

Well alot of gamers are daunted by this genre. They feel they need to know some history (which certainly helps), they don't like the symbols on the counters (what's the X in the box with the two vertical lines sticking out of it mean?), and find wargaming rules complex. It's been my experience since board games. Not to say there isn't a dedicated enough following to support some games but never enough to make a huge splash.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 99

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/3/2006 9:03:55 PM

Lava

Posts: 1627
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

Hi!

While I don't know how many scenarios will be offered in the Matrix edition, but I think this will be a major selling point.

We must also remember that this game really has been out of sight for a long time, and there is a new generation of players out there. It's a classic. And like most classics, they sell for a long time with a little tender loving care.

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to Rob322)

Post #: 100

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/3/2006 9:26:30 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Yeah. As far as sales are concerned, the problem is not in the way the game works but most likely in its image. Wargaming itself is something of an unsexy genre, and few people are keen to try an eight year old game. Dunno how Matrix plans to deal with this problem.

A fine game. Difficult to convince people that this is true, however.

Well...in addition to the nips and tucks that we have planned, do you think it'll help if we add SWFLOTH's to the available equipment list?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 101

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/3/2006 10:20:29 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Well...in addition to the nips and tucks that we have planned, do you think it'll help if we add SWFLOTH's to the available equipment list?

SWFLOTH?

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 102

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 12:34:16 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Well...in addition to the nips and tucks that we have planned, do you think it'll help if we add SWFLOTH's to the available equipment list?

SWFLOTH?

I'm sorry, that should be SWFLBATTH's
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Attached To Their Heads...

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 103

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 12:49:25 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I'm sorry, that should be SWFLBATTH's
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Attached To Their Heads...

Well, macgregor wants you to simulate naval warfare...

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 104

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 12:57:57 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

I don't want to make anenome out of anyone. I was just horsing around. Sea?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 105

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 1:20:16 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I don't want to make anenome out of anyone. I was just horsing around. Sea?

While we're on the database, I reckon the Swordfish is underrated. Makes heavy going for Coastal Command in Sealion.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 106

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 1:38:49 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I don't want to make anenome out of anyone. I was just horsing around. Sea?

While we're on the database, I reckon the Swordfish is underrated. Makes heavy going for Coastal Command in Sealion.

Swordfish kick heinie on naval units, provided they have any decent fighter protection to penetrate the Axis CAP. Set them (and your nearby Spits and Hurricanes) at ignore losses to get through the furballs and you shouldn't have any problems sending most of the KM to the bottom of the Channel.

Provided, of course, that your opponent obliges (through house rules, or failed prof checks) by leaving them at sea at the end of his turn.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 107

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 2:40:54 AM

macgregor

Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I'm just trying to help that's all. If Siberian HEAT's list is (even if not with the first release) accomplished -

quote:

10) Naval Combat
A) Implement a naval system that is more than just floating artillery. (a very detailed subject that can go many ways, but really any refinement of the system to where ship-on-ship combat reflects the real world would be greatly appreciated)*
B) Submarines: Some suggestions have been to make actual submarine equipment. Others have suggested giving a submarine interdiction capability (but no units) to each side in a particular scenario.
C) Ability to move naval units (embarked and pure naval typology) together just like land units. *
D) Naval interdiction (naval ZOCs). This goes for coastal artillery too.
E) Naval CAP/reaction zone. [In the larger discussion of naval units, one change that has gone unsaid, but might work, would be to redo the naval aspect so that it more resembles the air aspect of TOAW, if you get my drift. Missions to include: land bombardment, interdiction, etc.

...I should be happy. I've got enough anenomes as it is.

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 108

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 2:47:38 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Swordfish kick heinie on naval units,

So now you're the only one allowed to make nautical puns? Humbug.

Anyway, I suspect you're talking about a totally different Sealion scenario. Swordfish (and fighter command, for that matter) are rarely seen over the Channel in this one.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 109

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 4:50:21 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

Sorry, but my head was swimming, reading in a hurry, and missed you being subtle and naughty...call me the dull blade, fishing for excuses...

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 110

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/4/2006 5:02:38 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Sorry, but my head was swimming, reading in a hurry, and missed you being subtle and naughty...call me the dull blade, fishing for excuses...

S'alright. I've found myself in the same plaice.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 111

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/15/2006 6:40:59 PM

Jeremy Mac Donald

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Broadly speaking my views are closer to GD's than MG's. While I'd like a significantly improved naval model, it's not a top priority for me; which is why I'm trying to come up with improvements that wouldn't require major engine changes requiring extensive development and testing efforts. Depending on how much the land model's improved in the initial matrix release, and the level of effort they're willing to put into updating it afterwards my priorities are subject to change. But even if, I'm more interested in a good beer and pretzels level simulation, rather than adding harpoon into toaw.

I'd like to see some basic upgrades:

1. Air interdiction of naval ships.
2. Coastal gun interdiction of naval ships.
3. Different values for ship transport and amphibious operations.
4. Simplified mines and subs (could even be the same feature).
5. More realistic results when ships engage each other.

One thing I would add to this list is the ability of ships to intercept ships or units moving by sea transport. I'd go with something similier to the current air model. Basically one could set ships on interception the way we currently set planes on air superiority and they would try and intercept things within their movement radius in the same manner as planes try and intercept moving units in the current system.

A gross simplification of course but couple this with your above suggestions and we have enough, I'd think, to simulate the aspects of naval war that pertian to things like naval invasions ala Normandy or even situations where the water was being contested (as where some of the islands in the Pacific in 1942) without encumbering the system with a complex mechanism.

_____________________________

Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"

(in reply to Chuck2)

Post #: 112

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/16/2006 6:57:35 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 5714
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

Broadly speaking my views are closer to GD's than MG's. While I'd like a significantly improved naval model, it's not a top priority for me; which is why I'm trying to come up with improvements that wouldn't require major engine changes requiring extensive development and testing efforts. Depending on how much the land model's improved in the initial matrix release, and the level of effort they're willing to put into updating it afterwards my priorities are subject to change. But even if, I'm more interested in a good beer and pretzels level simulation, rather than adding harpoon into toaw.

I'd like to see some basic upgrades:

1. Air interdiction of naval ships.
2. Coastal gun interdiction of naval ships.
3. Different values for ship transport and amphibious operations.
4. Simplified mines and subs (could even be the same feature).
5. More realistic results when ships engage each other.

One thing I would add to this list is the ability of ships to intercept ships or units moving by sea transport. I'd go with something similier to the current air model. Basically one could set ships on interception the way we currently set planes on air superiority and they would try and intercept things within their movement radius in the same manner as planes try and intercept moving units in the current system.

A gross simplification of course but couple this with your above suggestions and we have enough, I'd think, to simulate the aspects of naval war that pertian to things like naval invasions ala Normandy or even situations where the water was being contested (as where some of the islands in the Pacific in 1942) without encumbering the system with a complex mechanism.

Naval and air interdiction of naval units will probably require a task force system. Ships don't usually travel individually, except in TOAW.

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)

Post #: 113

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/16/2006 7:17:33 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Naval and air interdiction of naval units will probably require a task force system. Ships don't usually travel individually, except in TOAW.

Just allowing group movement, as is already possible on land, would be the simplest way of resolving this.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 114

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/17/2006 4:59:59 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 5714
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Naval and air interdiction of naval units will probably require a task force system. Ships don't usually travel individually, except in TOAW.

Just allowing group movement, as is already possible on land, would be the simplest way of resolving this.

No. If you'll watch closely, group-moving units still move one unit at a time, with only one unit in a hex at a time. Naval units moving in such a fashion could not combine their AAA, naval, or ASW strengths. The "group" aspect of the movement is only that of a group order to move. They don't actually move as a group.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 115

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/17/2006 5:35:21 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. If you'll watch closely, group-moving units still move one unit at a time, with only one unit in a hex at a time. Naval units moving in such a fashion could not combine their AAA, naval, or ASW strengths. The "group" aspect of the movement is only that of a group order to move. They don't actually move as a group.

I'm aware of how group movement works visually; whether it could be used in this way would depend on the code.

I'm not keen on the prospect of managing task forces in TOAW in the way that one does in War in the Pacific. This is precisely the sort of thing I do not want to have to think about when I am playing the game.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 116

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/17/2006 8:17:07 PM

ralphtrick

Posts: 4447
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. If you'll watch closely, group-moving units still move one unit at a time, with only one unit in a hex at a time. Naval units moving in such a fashion could not combine their AAA, naval, or ASW strengths. The "group" aspect of the movement is only that of a group order to move. They don't actually move as a group.

I'm aware of how group movement works visually; whether it could be used in this way would depend on the code.

I'm not keen on the prospect of managing task forces in TOAW in the way that one does in War in the Pacific. This is precisely the sort of thing I do not want to have to think about when I am playing the game.

Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 117

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/17/2006 9:00:26 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 4586
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

Well, you've seen the code. How feasible would it be to have units moving as a group act together in an event like interdiction?

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to ralphtrick)

Post #: 118

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/17/2006 9:07:22 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

Well, you've seen the code. How feasible would it be to have units moving as a group act together in an event like interdiction?

A question to consider here, is are they moving together as a group, as a game mechanism to avoid micromanaging, or is the group considered to have met and travelled together for purposes of mutual support.

On long rail moves, it is generally the case of the former, while in naval missions, I would suspect that the case is more often the latter. A change in code would need to consider both cases, and intervene appropriately.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 119

RE: ETA release & info update - 1/17/2006 10:28:34 PM

ralphtrick

Posts: 4447
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Is there a reason they can't be considered as part of a group the way other units are?

Well, you've seen the code. How feasible would it be to have units moving as a group act together in an event like interdiction?

It wouldn't be possible. My question was why aren;t they being modeled as Task force Alpha, Task force Brave, etc. Then the question of moving individual units doesn't come up. I know that there are a lot of issues, but I was wondering about that one.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 120