Changes. Your Thoughts.

[Panama]

What do people think about the upcoming changes? I like the direction the game is going. Some stuff I would have like to have seen besides what's coming but you can't have everything. [;)]

[philturco]

Exactly what are the changes?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL:  Curtis Lemay

Attached is a zip file containing the wishlist document that Jarek Flis and I have been developing for months.  It was developed by collecting the wishes expressed here, there, and everywhere.  We've tried to be comprehensive, but, in spite of the label, that is unattainable.  We'll try to continue to maintain it as more issues are raised.  Hopefully, this will reduce the repetitive posting of the same wishes over and over.

It's very important that everyone understand that this document is totally unofficial.  Be sure to read and understand the disclaimer it contains and repeated here:

Disclaimer:  This document contains only a collection of WISHES made by anyone and everyone, and is not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein.

January 1, 2012:  Version 12 posted.

Note: I'm not able to delete the version 10 document attached to post #1 of this thread or the version 11 document posted in post #1378.  Just ignore them till I can get it fixed - if ever.  The version in this post is the latest version.

Note that items in red are new.  Items in blue have been implemented.

Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en

tm.asp?m=1540287&mpage=59
post #1748

Pay special attention to the line about blue being implemented.

[Panama]

Am I the only one who bothers to read the wishlist? 

[Oberst_Klink]

The question is WHEN will 3.5 pop up, uh? My wishes, like it is in the nature of the Teutonic people, were modest - change the 'destroy road/parallel to river' thingie, create a hierarchy for proper OOB and flexibility, recon capabilities for planes *operative recon, not theatre recon* AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst

[sPzAbt653]

Am I the only one who bothers to read the wishlist?

Well, it is rather longwinded and tedious (comprehensive). It would be easier if you just listed what you know is coming.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst

That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?

[Jeff Norton]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

The question is WHEN will 3.5 pop up, uh? My wishes, like it is in the nature of the Teutonic people, were modest - change the 'destroy road/parallel to river' thingie, create a hierarchy for proper OOB and flexibility, recon capabilities for planes *operative recon,{\quote]
Agree

not theatre recon* AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst

Agree - my current EA game is like this - The defender is king in this game - I'm getting attacks at 300 points\%, and still cannot take ground. Grrrrrr....

[Jeff Norton]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Am I the only one who bothers to read the wishlist?

Well, it is rather longwinded and tedious (comprehensive). It would be easier if you just listed what you know is coming.

It is a very LARGE wishlist...

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst

That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?

One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

AND to cancel the impossible defence benefits when defending with ignore losses. The latter really spoils any PBEM game...

Klink,Oberst

That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?

One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst

I think the problem isn't the anti-ant-attack (assault ratio). That's a good and long waited feature.

Most probably is the new effects' combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which is killing the playing enjoyment. Any fortified on ignore losses unit (no matter how small it is or the assault ratio between attacker or defender) will prove to be extremely hard to dislodge.
The feeling of simulation is lost.

TOAW combat system was always a enigma but always made sense. Now it doesn't.

[Olorin]

10.000 event slots
700x700 map
10.000 units per force
1000 formations per force

Can someone please remake Drang Nach Osten utilizing the above new features?

Thanks in advance.

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas




That's very true.

To whom it may concern... can't we have a quick fix even before v.3.5?

One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst

I think the problem isn't the anti-ant-attack (assault ratio). That's a good and long waited feature.

Most probably is the new effects' combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which is killing the playing enjoyment. Any fortified on ignore losses unit (no matter how small it is or the assault ratio between attacker or defender) will prove to be extremely hard to dislodge.
The feeling of simulation is lost.

TOAW combat system was always a enigma but always made sense. Now it doesn't.

There are some problems associated with the fortified and ignore loss settings.

While it should be possible for any unit to be set to ignore losses it should not be possible for any unit to be successful at doing that. There should be a moral check or a proficiency check or both to see if the unit has the wherewithal to actually ignore all losses. The check should be made at the time it is assaulted. If it fails then, depending on proficiency, it should fall to one of the two lower states.

The same should be done for attacking units.

As for fortified status. This should only be achieved with the presence of an engineer battalion or higher and only after an appropriate amount of time depending on the number of days comprising a turn. It should not be a simple thing to do. Think Stalingrad or Moscow. These extensive field works took huge amounts of manpower and materials plus much time.

Please note fortified in the game does not mean concrete bunkers. Those are provided through scenario designer placed graphics and counters.

My two isk worth.

[Panama]

1.22, 2.221, 2., 2.30.1, 3.18.1, 4.16, 6.7, 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.35, 7.13, 8.1, 8.3.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5.1, 9.6.1, 9.15.1.5 & .6, 9.16.1, .2, .3, .4, 9.16.6.1, 9.17, 9.18, 12.1, 12.4.6, 12.5.3, 12.23.3, 12.25.7, 12.27, 13.7.6, 13.51, 13.35, 14.25, 14.26

Only somewhat accurate but that's the price you pay for laziness. [>:]

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Shazman

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink




One should apply ye'ole army motto for beta releases or patches as well - keep it simple, keep it easy. What's easy to implement, and the majority agrees upon, should be fixed first; it also gives the scenario designers an edge about what to tweak in the existing and what to consider in the new scenarios!

I am not a coder and I appreciate RT's commitment to keep the baby running... but the 'anti-ant-attack defensive impossible to kick out ignore losses defenders'thingie should be just a few lines or a fix of a combat calculation or formula, uh?

Klink, Oberst

I think the problem isn't the anti-ant-attack (assault ratio). That's a good and long waited feature.

Most probably is the new effects' combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which is killing the playing enjoyment. Any fortified on ignore losses unit (no matter how small it is or the assault ratio between attacker or defender) will prove to be extremely hard to dislodge.
The feeling of simulation is lost.

TOAW combat system was always a enigma but always made sense. Now it doesn't.

There are some problems associated with the fortified and ignore loss settings.

While it should be possible for any unit to be set to ignore losses it should not be possible for any unit to be successful at doing that. There should be a moral check or a proficiency check or both to see if the unit has the wherewithal to actually ignore all losses. The check should be made at the time it is assaulted. If it fails then, depending on proficiency, it should fall to one of the two lower states.

The same should be done for attacking units.

As for fortified status. This should only be achieved with the presence of an engineer battalion or higher and only after an appropriate amount of time depending on the number of days comprising a turn. It should not be a simple thing to do. Think Stalingrad or Moscow. These extensive field works took huge amounts of manpower and materials plus much time.

Please note fortified in the game does not mean concrete bunkers. Those are provided through scenario designer placed graphics and counters.

My two isk worth.

The 'issue' with the various entrenchment levels can be easily tackled; see my 48PzK scenario... One can adjust the entrenchment rate. I made it 'harder' for units to change into E/F because the ground is frigging frozen and in 6hrs per turn a battalion without proper equipment ain't possibly dig-in in reinforced positions... not that I am an engineering expert, but I know how long it takes to dig even a foxhole at -15°C in wooded or open areas *winter 1995/1996 Grafenwoehr training area*...

Klink, Oberst

P.S. I am glad we are finally discussing those issues here at all

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


The 'issue' with the various entrenchment levels can be easily tackled; see my 48PzK scenario... One can adjust the entrenchment rate. I made it 'harder' for units to change into E/F because the ground is frigging frozen and in 6hrs per turn a battalion without proper equipment ain't possibly dig-in in reinforced positions... not that I am an engineering expert, but I know how long it takes to dig even a foxhole at -15°C in wooded or open areas *winter 1995/1996 Grafenwoehr training area*...

Klink, Oberst

I already tested the entrenchements levels but unless you set it to 0 the units will eventually fortify - on a faster or slower way. Units fortifying isn't a problem. They always did so. They get much harder to defeat. That's normal and OK.
Ignore losses aren't an issue either.

The problem is when fortified defenders resist - on regular basis - against impossible odds (impossible odds being attackers with +400/600 assault ratio, with strong armoured and arty support against small tired fortified infantry units).
This doesn't happen when defenders are in mobile or even defend status.

The issue is, IMHO, the combination of defender terrain together with with defender deployment which was added to the last version. If possible, this should be fixed quickly.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

P.S. I am glad we are finally discussing those issues here at all

Ditto

[USXpat]

I'd be very happy to see these changes.   That's a vast wish list.  From personal interest, expanding the game parameters comes in at #1.  Even if it was just the # of events; or just the map size; or just the number of units... but all three together is very, very nice. 

The ability to merge maps would be astounding, if I am interpreting this right - like splicing two maps together... ?  The amount of work that goes into an excellent map is massive; even a so-so map is very time-consuming.  Most of the monster war games tend to run 300 x 300 or so, 90k hexes - so 700 x 700 490k is better than 5 times larger - and would likely require one person a full year of full-time work, possibly even two years, to complete. 

Improvements to the PO are always welcome.  Elmer's gradually gotten better over the years.  My hope with the PO is that there's been some effort to simplify the editing of objectives.  It would be nice if the copy Track 1 to Track 2, etc. was done on a formation by formation basis, vs. globally applied -- (1,000 formations, up to 99 objectives and up to 5 objective tracks).  

Skeptical but definitely welcome anything that improves naval combat, too.  It looks like there's been some work done on that. 

Overall, these are the kinds of changes that would go a long ways toward keeping TOAW viable for another decade in the monster war game niche.  Really, really looking forward to the next patch/version/release!

[sPzAbt653]

1.22, 2.221, 2., 2.30.1, 3.18.1, 4.16, 6.7, 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.35, 7.13, 8.1, 8.3.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5.1, 9.6.1, 9.15.1.5 & .6, 9.16.1, .2, .3, .4, 9.16.6.1, 9.17, 9.18, 12.1, 12.4.6, 12.5.3, 12.23.3, 12.25.7, 12.27, 13.7.6, 13.51, 13.35, 14.25, 14.26

Thanks for the effort, but I'm still too lazy to look thru all of these references.

10.000 event slots
700x700 map
10.000 units per force
1000 formations per force

Now this is something we can work with. Most scenarios won't come close to reaching these new limits, but there are a few popular scenarios that were restricted to some extent by the current limits. With the release of 3.5 we can look hopefully to the wonderful expansion of some of these scenarios.

10,000 units per force - I think its actually 5,000 per force with a total of 10,000 per scenario.

Many thanks to Ralph and Bob and whoever else is working on the continued progress of TOAW. (I'm dreaming that we can soon put 3.5 behind us and get on to 4.0).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

The problem is when fortified defenders resist - on regular basis - against impossible odds (impossible odds being attackers with +400/600 assault ratio...

Can you clarify this? Do you mean the AR value in the Combat Planner is 400/600? That would only be odds of 4-6. Or do you mean that the actual odds are 400-600? Are the attackers 4-6 x the defenders or 400-600 x the defenders?

The issue is, IMHO, the combination of defender terrain together with defender deployment which was added to the last version.

That would be 3.4 section IV item 11 of the What's New. I doubt that is the issue. The strength increases are only on the 20-30% range - and only if the terrain effect is about the same as the deployment effect. If there is a problem, it most likely is with 3.4 section IV item 10: Terrain & deployment effects on RFC chances. There, the chance that Fortified Deployment doesn't cancel an RFC was decreased from (I think) 50% to only 16%. That's pretty significant.

Now, in defense of that change, note that prior to 3.4, terrain had no effect on RFC chances. All else being equal, it was as easy to kick a unit out of Fortified Line terrain as it was clear terrain. So, for certain, it was wrong prior to 3.4. Could it have been over corrected, though? Sure. But we will need clear evidence of that - rigor.

And I just checked my test records for that feature and, unfortunately, all the defenders in my test scenario were set to Limit Losses. The benefits were hard to even discern at that setting - but I don't know just yet what Ignore Losses settings will produce. I'll redesign it to have them set to Ignore Losses and retest. I'm still in Kenya, so that may be a while before I can get to it.

However, I want to point out that attacker-favoring features complemented these defender-favoring features. Especially, RBC mechanics were revised to make RBCs easier to obtain. In particular, note 3.4 section IV item 5: Units that suffer 50% losses in a combat can be retested for RBC after that combat. Players need to revise their post-combat procedures accordingly: After a combat that leaves the defenders holding the ground, always use the largest unit available to initiate a subsequent combat against that hex - it will have the best chance of RBCing the remaining defenders, should they become subject to renewed RBC chances.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

The problem is when fortified defenders resist - on regular basis - against impossible odds (impossible odds being attackers with +400/600 assault ratio...

Can you clarify this? Do you mean the AR value in the Combat Planner is 400/600? That would only be odds of 4-6. Or do you mean that the actual odds are 400-600? Are the attackers 4-6 x the defenders or 400-600 x the defenders?

I meant attackers are + 400/600 stronger than defenders - or that is what shows as assault ratio on the attack planner.
I underline that these cases are often.