Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  55 56 [57] 58 59   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/25/2011 5:09:35 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
I thought (or better: dreamed ) of a complete rebuilt of the scenario editor. Seperating the editor from the game. Using some Windows API/Menues/GUI instead of the TOAW like GUI. Like most games - where the editor is an extra executable.

Import images directly as a map, the designer could assign terrain types to certain colours (or colour ranges) and or defined areas (which could be drawn) on the map. Or simply import an image file as an overlay/layer to create your map upon. Own layers could be added, one could contain rails and roads, others cities etc, just for the comfort of editing. When the scenario or the map is saved it would be combined into a "one layer" TOAW map.. a design file could be retained that contains the original image and layers.
...ok maybe i got carried away, don't know if this can be done for IV. Time wise i mean. Coded it could be, if it is (considered) worth the effort is the question..

The short answer is that is remarkably like what I've been thinking about (except for the layers).

Scenarios can now be saved as XML and edited as XML and loaded. That isn't an accident, it is so that I can look at creating the editor as a stand-alone product, possibly before the next game. Portions (except for possibly the map drawing portion/graphics) might be released as open source. It's all speculation at this point, but the editor is very complicated and opening it up to have other people work on it seems like a good idea to me. It would also let me look at the user interface code more closely and how to write it using modern tools.

I've also thought about allowing a 'map overlay' of a jpeg where you can set the opacity and use it as a design aid.

All this is a ways off still, but I've thought about doing something like that.




I've tried editing the map XML directly a couple of times. Very tricky.

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 1681
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/26/2011 1:43:09 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6874
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Scenarios can now be saved as XML and edited as XML and loaded. That isn't an accident, it is so that I can look at creating the editor as a stand-alone product, possibly before the next game.


Or...some enterprising free-lance programer out there could design a stand-alone editor - then Ralph would be free to focus on other things.

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 1682
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/26/2011 7:55:17 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

... a stand-alone editor ...


Doesn't the ODD serve that purpose? I haven't used it but I looked at it. Just wondering what the difference is.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1683
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2011 3:06:30 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6874
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

... a stand-alone editor ...


Doesn't the ODD serve that purpose?


Apparently not to the satisfaction of Telumar.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1684
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2011 3:10:27 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6874
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I've tried editing the map XML directly a couple of times. Very tricky.


The last two scenarios I've worked on, I did the events via an XML editor. If you're doing a lot of them, that may be the way to go.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1685
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2011 6:35:41 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

... a stand-alone editor ...


Doesn't the ODD serve that purpose? I haven't used it but I looked at it. Just wondering what the difference is.


I've tried to use it. Some kind of documentation would help.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1686
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2011 7:28:26 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

Some kind of documentation would help.


There is an 'ODD Help File' included with the download. I just glanced at it and it looks like it has a lot of explanation.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1687
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2011 7:36:58 PM   
berto


Posts: 4186
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Scenarios can now be saved as XML and edited as XML and loaded. That isn't an accident, it is so that I can look at creating the editor as a stand-alone product, possibly before the next game. Portions (except for possibly the map drawing portion/graphics) might be released as open source. It's all speculation at this point, but the editor is very complicated and opening it up to have other people work on it seems like a good idea to me. It would also let me look at the user interface code more closely and how to write it using modern tools.

...

All this is a ways off still, but I've thought about doing something like that.


Open Sourcing parts of TOAW would be A Very Good Thing. Might even revive my, now defunct, interest in the game.

_____________________________

Early MusiChicago, http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT, http://pikt.org
Campaign Series Lead Programmer, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=226
AGElint debugging toolkit, http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 1688
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2011 9:44:42 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Some kind of documentation would help.


There is an 'ODD Help File' included with the download. I just glanced at it and it looks like it has a lot of explanation.


Oh, you mean the .hlp file that isn't supported by Vista or Windoze 7? And when you download the little program from Microshaft that is supposed to make the .hlp files work but instead it says, 'failed to open, try moving the .hlp file to another hard drive'? That file?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1689
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2011 11:55:10 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
Yeah, that's the file.

I'm stuck with XP and W98, so I wasn't aware that I have an advantage !! I wonder if Curt is aware that file doesn't work in later os's.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1690
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/3/2011 4:13:40 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 1692
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
I would like PO-controlled units to respect borders.

That is to say, units of formations with objectives across borders can cross them but units of formations that do not have objectives set over the border cannot.

Units unable to cross borders but forced over due to combat should be automatically disbanded - guerrillas excepted.

Best wishes,
Steve

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1691
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/3/2011 8:05:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

I would like PO-controlled units to respect borders.

That is to say, units of formations with objectives across borders can cross them but units of formations that do not have objectives set over the border cannot.

Units unable to cross borders but forced over due to combat should be automatically disbanded - guerrillas excepted.

Best wishes,
Steve


There are exclusion zones and unplayable hexes -- so this problem is already at least partially addressed.

I'd argue instead for the ability to create more than two exclusion zones and the ability to activate them as well as remove them. That would permit more simulation of borders and facilitate other things as well.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 1692
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/4/2011 2:20:54 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
quote:

I'd argue instead for the ability to create more than two exclusion zones and the ability to activate them as well as remove them.


I agree with this tremendously. How about 99 of them? That would be crazy, but once we have them I bet we can figure out how to use them.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1693
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/4/2011 6:00:51 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I'd argue instead for the ability to create more than two exclusion zones and the ability to activate them as well as remove them.


I agree with this tremendously. How about 99 of them? That would be crazy, but once we have them I bet we can figure out how to use them.


Activating as well as removing might pose some sort of technological challenge, but it's hard to see what could be difficult about having more than two exclusion zones.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1694
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/4/2011 8:14:13 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1577
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
I guess its they way the game is programmed, we have a lot limits but at them moment I remember only that the Events are up to 999 from 500 and I think more names on map are possible, if this and maybe some other minor stuff is all that had their limits raised there must be a reason and I guess that is the way the game was programmed. I really hope Ralph can break some more of those limits.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1695
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/4/2011 12:58:22 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I guess its they way the game is programmed, we have a lot limits but at them moment I remember only that the Events are up to 999 from 500 and I think more names on map are possible, if this and maybe some other minor stuff is all that had their limits raised there must be a reason and I guess that is the way the game was programmed. I really hope Ralph can break some more of those limits.


AFAIK, raising the limits on data would be one of the easiest things to do. Equipment slots, number of units, map size, equipment db, number of formations, number of place names. Things like that. An object is information. More objects are easy. It's manipulating that information that gets time consuming. That part is already there. At least in my limited programming experience it seems that's the general picture.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 1696
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/7/2011 3:17:27 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 1692
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
Ignore this...see later.

Best wishes,
Steve


< Message edited by shunwick -- 6/7/2011 3:20:03 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1697
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/7/2011 3:19:20 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 1692
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

I would like PO-controlled units to respect borders.

That is to say, units of formations with objectives across borders can cross them but units of formations that do not have objectives set over the border cannot.

Units unable to cross borders but forced over due to combat should be automatically disbanded - guerrillas excepted.

Best wishes,
Steve


There are exclusion zones and unplayable hexes -- so this problem is already at least partially addressed.

I'd argue instead for the ability to create more than two exclusion zones and the ability to activate them as well as remove them. That would permit more simulation of borders and facilitate other things as well.



Colin,

Partially addressed yes and I certainly support the call for more exclusion zones. But my problem is trying to keep provincial militia inside their provinces and not start wandering into other provinces. I can't use either exclusion zones or unplayable hexes for this since I need the other provinces to be playable.

Hence the need for PO controlled units to respect borders. There are a few exisiting scenarios that would benefit from that as well.

Best wishes,
Steve

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1698
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/7/2011 6:50:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

I would like PO-controlled units to respect borders.

That is to say, units of formations with objectives across borders can cross them but units of formations that do not have objectives set over the border cannot.

Units unable to cross borders but forced over due to combat should be automatically disbanded - guerrillas excepted.

Best wishes,
Steve


There are exclusion zones and unplayable hexes -- so this problem is already at least partially addressed.

I'd argue instead for the ability to create more than two exclusion zones and the ability to activate them as well as remove them. That would permit more simulation of borders and facilitate other things as well.



Colin,

Partially addressed yes and I certainly support the call for more exclusion zones. But my problem is trying to keep provincial militia inside their provinces and not start wandering into other provinces. I can't use either exclusion zones or unplayable hexes for this since I need the other provinces to be playable.

Hence the need for PO controlled units to respect borders. There are a few exisiting scenarios that would benefit from that as well.

Best wishes,
Steve


It's certainly a valid desire, and in fact I'm having to use house rules to deal with a similar problem in a scenario I'm working on (the Vichy French in Syria mustn't go and mount a drive on the Suez Canal, Italians can't move into Turkey, etc).

However, it might be fairly hard to program.

Problem is that the 'borders' are basically eye candy. It would probably be hard to get the program to actually pay attention to them. One would probably want to go at it by coming up with a category of exclusion zone that only affected units of specified formations.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 1699
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/7/2011 7:32:20 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Maybe something in the event editor. A rows/column type restriction. Wouldn't be perfect but might be the easiest. Could also lift the restriction that way.

< Message edited by Panama -- 6/7/2011 7:33:11 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1700
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/8/2011 4:40:27 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Maybe something in the event editor. A rows/column type restriction. Wouldn't be perfect but might be the easiest. Could also lift the restriction that way.


Approached that way, a radius effect would probably be what's wanted. The unit cannot move outside of a certain radius from a set of points.

However, some kind of targeted exclusion zone would be a lot easier to work with.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/8/2011 4:44:31 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1701
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/11/2011 8:15:54 AM   
l0ww

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 8/11/2011
From: Japan
Status: offline
Hello, generals. it's my first post on this forum, yay.
here is my brief idea for the supply system that i wanna see in next patch, or TOAW IV.
any question or comment will be much pleased!

--Basic ideas--

*Supply is divided into two types: combat supply and general supply.

*Combat Supply(CS) : CS is countable supply material which is to be consumed only in combat or bombardment operation. CS is represented as like units in the map, but can't move without transport units. any units within 25km from CS are able to use CS, in other words, CS have radius of 25km "throwing range"(it would be better if the range could be changed in the editor). the amount of CS to resolve one combat depends on the types of unit icon, and the unit size. e.g. tank regiment needs 6CS to conduct single attack.
CS can be captured by enemy units that enters the hex which CS is placed on, if there is no friendly combat unit in the same hex. CS can be destroyed by friendly units with expense of MP and some GS. CS can be attacked, but only by barrage or air bombardment.

CS rules don't apply to more than 20km per hex scale scenarios.

*General supply(GS) :GS is supply to keep any units alive. just as current TOAW supply, and will be handled as the same way as current supply system does. GS doesn't need to be delivered with trucks or transport units.

*combat units :a unit which has more than 1 attack strength and 1 defence

*transport units(TU) : a highly abstracted unit which can only transport CS. CS can move both on land, and on water.
TU has 2 roles and 3 types.

Roles:
1:transports CS to the frontline
2:extends CS range.
by placing TU with CS in same hex,
you can extend your CS range by up to 200km

Types:
all tyeps has 3 parameters. 1.transport capacity per one TU(TC), 2.extended CS range 3.MP

Big: TC=1000CS per unit and extend CS range to 200km.

Medium: TC=500CS per unit and extend CS range to 150km

small : TC=250CS per unit and extend CS range to 100km

ALL types has a MP of 75km per day

--detailed descriptions--

*CS is not caliculated as actual units, therefore they doesn't affect "Target density" in combat.

*CS doesn't need any supply.

* In each specific scenario-designer-defined-turns, player is given defined amount of CS. Player must distribute given CS to the supply depot hexes in the map. Supply depot hexes are limited to : friendly controlled Major cities and ports.

*CS which distributed into supply depot hexes can transport by using TU.

*the CS amount to conduct one single combat depends on units icon types, Unit size,combat types, how damaged the unit is compared to the beggining of the battle. (it's "must" that the matrix games allows designers to edit these numbers in the editor.)
e.g. Tank regiment requires 24CS to conduct one attack combat. Infantry regiment requires 12CS, Artillery 36CS, Infantry division requires 36CS and so on....

if the CS amount for infantry regiment to do one attack is 12CS, then : division will be 36CS, battalion will be 4CS.
unit damage affects the CS amount. this will be caliculated as follows:damaged unit strength / original unit strength x100 (%) suppose, there is 8-12(which means combat strength of 20) infantry regiment. and after few combats, that unit is now 4-6(10). so, now CS amout requirement to condust one attack is 10 / 20 x 100 = 50% , and original requirement is 12CS, and the half of 12CS, thus 6CS is the new requirement amout to do the attack.
combat types will also be considered.
there are 2 types of them : attack combat and defense combat.defence combat only needs half of the attack requirement.


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1702
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/25/2011 5:47:50 AM   
jkantor


Posts: 4
Joined: 1/4/2002
Status: offline
The only boardgame I like to play is OCS by Multimanpublishing because it uses Supply Points that are moved on the map along with trace like you are suggesting. But OCS uses both for fuel and Ammo points - and I think that's a requirement for WWII era scenarios where there is a huge difference in capability and logistical requirement between foot units and motorized or mechanized ones.

(in reply to l0ww)
Post #: 1703
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 1:39:07 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Assault engineers that have the same effect on dug in troops as heavy artillery. Reducing fortified to entrenched, entrenched to dug in, dug in to mobile deployment.

(in reply to jkantor)
Post #: 1704
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 4:27:52 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Assault engineers that have the same effect on dug in troops as heavy artillery. Reducing fortified to entrenched, entrenched to dug in, dug in to mobile deployment.


As I've noted, it's far from clear that assault engineers actually played this role in all attacks on all cases of what TOAW considers 'fortified defense.'

I'm being a killjoy, but as it stands, your idea seems to be a bad one. It would create a weapon that didn't clearly exist -- an 'assault engineer' capable of exerting a unique effect on all types of dug in defenders.

I suppose if there were special 'assault engineer squads' it wouldn't necessarily do any harm, as people would only put them in scenarios if they felt they were appropriate. However, it still seems to me that you're missing part of the equation, as you have no means of defining under what circumstances they had a dramatic effect.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/26/2011 4:47:08 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1705
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 5:05:18 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Anyway, read an account of what would be one of the special cases:  the German assault on Sevastopol.  Wikipedia has a detailed account:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1941%E2%80%931942)#Axis_forces

One notes various elements the Germans emphasized in preparing for the assault, some of which TOAW assigns special attributes for assaulting fortifications, some of which it does not:  yes, additional engineers -- although not, apparently, any kind of specialized 'assault engineers.'  Also, heavy artillery, and also, careful planning for heavy Luftwaffe support. 

Elements noted as being especially helpful in the attack are pinpoint attacks by Stukas, support from assault guns, and point-blank fire from anti-aircraft guns.  Engineers played their part -- but they don't seem to be any more important than any of the other mentioned elements.  I'll note that neither dive bombers nor assault guns nor AA is given any special ability to 'dig out' defenders.

And I will note that this is a special case.  Not all TOAW 'fortified hexes' are Sevastopols.




_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1706
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 7:57:55 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
...reading an account of the Herman Goering's abortive counterattack on the Allied beachhead on Sicily -- and it confirms something.

Generally, naval gunfire support only has a truly dramatic effect within a few kilometers of the coast -- for TOAW purposes, in the coastal hex.

While of course that could be made an editable value, I'd say the game would be improved if in fact ships could only provide fire support in coastal hexes. While they may well have fired further inland, that doesn't usually seem to have been the case -- or at any rate, their effectiveness fell off sharply.

As matters stand, in Seelowe for example, the Kriegsmarine can provide devastating fire support up to 15-20 km inland. For most navies most places, I don't think that's realistic at all.

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1707
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 3:09:40 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
As I understand it the prep gunfire from naval platforms was quite dismal in it's ability to destroy much of anything other than people's homes and businesses. As far as suppression, no accurate enough with friendlies closing.

< Message edited by Panama -- 8/26/2011 3:12:04 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1708
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 8:06:39 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
All this should be in 'Comprehensive Wishlist'...and now it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

If there were an equipment flag for "anti-entrenchment ability" then designers could make their own Flamethrower/Sapper squads as they desired. They could even give some extra purpose to all those Flamethrower Tanks as well. And it would be up to them, not affecting earlier stuff.

I kind of agree that it might be good to have another stage before reaching Fortified deployment. Perhaps with a x6 benefit. In fact, you could subdivide the whole thing into more stages than that, even. PacWar had 9 stages of entrenchment, for example.

I don't really agree that it should be proscribed without engineers, though - that level of fortification would be the "Fortified Line" terrain. Ultimately, of course, we'd like engineers of some sort to be able to construct stuff like that (as well as airfields and ports, etc.). But that has to be well thought out - or we'll end up with Maginot Line hexes on every hex of the scenario.

But, for me, a more serious remaining entrenchment issue is that it isn't prorated for MPs left. Ralph didn't want to do that last time - I can't remember exactly why, but I think it was something to do with the PO.

On the bridge issue, an engineer with 25% engineering should take 4 turns to repair the bridge. And, as it currently works, it may take longer or shorter to do so. But, if you're repairing 100 bridges over the course of the game, it's going to average out about the same. So I don't think there would be much real benefit to the difficulty of keeping track of how many repair levels a blown bridge has gone through.

Again, for me, a more serious bridge issue is that bridges over normal rivers are as easy to blow/repair as bridges over super rivers. There ought to be a difference of some level.


No particular disagreement...but I'll repeat/qualify some things.

1. Yeah. No particular reason to object to a special 'assault engineer' weapon. If you don't like the effect, don't put them in. In fact, putting some in various engineer units should allow one to more or less modulate the effect.


2. I don't see a particular need for yet another level of entrenchment. It wouldn't actually hurt, but...

Mainly, I'd just like to see it take longer to reach that final level, and I would like the status to be more promptly heritable. Units do relieve each other in fortified lines -- and a week after taking over a sector, the new unit isn't still struggling to reach 'entrenched' status. It jumps all the way to fortified in about a day, I would think.


3. I think people are missing a key point on the 'bridges' thing. Given the information that TOAW provides, bridge repair is indeed a crapshoot. 'Blown bridge' and no other information -- you indeed don't know how long it will take to fix. I suppose you could have it 'blow' with some random level of damage you could ascertain and then assign engineers to accordingly, but really...

Examples of blown bridges that come to mind.

Bridge blown by the Dutch at Maastricht in 1940. As I recall, they neatly dumped exactly one span in the river...and in a day or so, the Germans had it partially replaced and were on their way. Lots of materials in the vicinity, lots of bridging supplies on hand, and an expectation this would happen. The Germans probably had blueprints for what they were going to do.

Bridges blown by the Germans in Sicily. The Americans were very frustrated. Wrecked from abutment to abutment. Probably substantial canyons and no local materials, to boot. Also, (at a guess) little idea what the bridges were until they came to them.

Bridge blown by the Germans at Remagen. Whoops...

And this last brings up a point. For whatever reason, a lot of bridges that were supposed to get blown, didn't get blown. That isn't exactly simulated in TOAW -- but a random rate of repair is a start.

Point is, that while in a perfect system one could come up to the blown bridge in TOAW and know just about how long it is going to take to fix, as matters stand, one doesn't know -- nor should one. The bridge could be 'blown' as in completely destroyed in a remote location with hellish access and some serious engineering problems to be solved -- or it could be 'blown' as in actually, the charges failed to go off in time and it's quite intact. That'll get simulated when yer engineer unit moves onto the bridge, promptly repairs it, and yer panzers are on their way without ever expending an extra MP.

Point is, that as the system stands, a 'blown bridge' creates the same problem a mechanic faces if you call him up and say 'my car won't start. How much will it cost to fix it?'

No other information. Now, supply him with some more details, and he can figure 'sounds like a broken timing belt' or alternatively, 'sounds like the doofus left his lights on.' Then he can give you a pretty accurate figure.

But as it is -- it is indeed a more or less random amount. It could be the $50.00 he'll bone you for the jump, or it could be $800.00. You can't say, 'well, the mechanic should be able to fix the car in four hours.' From the information given, it's entirely unknowable.





< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/26/2011 8:35:38 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1709
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 8/26/2011 8:13:40 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

As I understand it the prep gunfire from naval platforms was quite dismal in it's ability to destroy much of anything other than people's homes and businesses. As far as suppression, no accurate enough with friendlies closing.


I'm aware of several instances where naval gunfire had an impressive effect.


1. Supporting the Australian crossing of the Damour at its mouth in 1941.

2. Repelling the counterattack of Herman Goering at Gela in 1943.

3. Stopping the German attempt to overrun the Anzio beachhead in 1944.


What has struck me -- and what I would like to see the system replicate -- is that all these instances occurred right in the coastal hex. USN aside, I'm not aware of any instance of naval gunfire being used with marked effect further inland.

As matters stand...where was the Royal Navy at El Alamein? After all, if the designer doesn't somehow prevent it, battleships can cruise up and down coasts, adding hefty values to any attack or any defense up to 35 kilometers inland.

Not what actually happened...

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1710
Page:   <<   < prev  55 56 [57] 58 59   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  55 56 [57] 58 59   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.139