The Great Wishlist Thread

Time of Fury spans the whole war in Europe and gives players the opportunity to control all types of units, ground, air and naval. Not only that, each player will be able to pick a single country or selection of countries and fight his way against either the AI or in multiplayer in hotseat or Play by E-Mail. This innovative multiplayer feature will give player the chance to fight bigger scenarios against many opponents, giving the game a strategic angle that has no equal in the market. The game uses Slitherine’s revolutionary PBEM++ server system.

Moderator: doomtrader

User avatar
wolf14455
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by wolf14455 »

Maybee a supply chit can be introduced in the game with two sides. Half and full. Built in home country and can be used as a supply boost for troops with low basic supply. So I thinking it can be transported by rail and transport ship. For a sum or deduction from strategic transport points make the supply motorized. When used it will be flipped and for game balance sake increase surrounding units with supply to be used for prederment time of turns for offensive/defensive operations. Two areas to be used could be in the desert and on the russian tundra, long from railheads. The motorized supply will use own supply when moving second turn. This is just sudjestions how to implement it but I think Supply build up in any form will make an already good game even better.
SwedeWolf

I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

Work on the Events

Document the events. Wild and crazy stuff happens but its all 'hidden' Hidden can be good but this is not.
Document particularly those events or event like items which directly impact the play like the arbitrary infantry size limits.
Option for players to remove some events.
Spring cleaning clear out some of the events (most of them perhaps)
Enable choice during PBEM events go completely out of control in PBEM
Enable event descriptions in the reports (full description with the mouse over text) stuff happens particularly in PBEM and not is it often crazy random but you can't tell what...
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

Some Thoughts on Technology

Consider Separating tech development from $$$ each country should have a tech budget SEPERATE from production. Few projects required massive economic R&D efforts (A- Bomb in US and German Rockets did but otherwise $$$ did not = progress as directly as in the game) Countries should get 'tech points' to spend perhaps tech points could be 'bought' at a very high $$ cost to supplement the basic allowance.

If not halve all US research costs as only half of the economy is represented (pacific theater R&D would apply to ETO so for example PTO would 'pay' for at least Sub and Navy research and some air as well.

US and UK shared R&D this should be modeled.

Starting Tech

This and most games tend to overvalue German technology. Germany tends to be rated #1 in technology. This is simply not accurate. Wonder Weapons were essentially a myth. The true breakthroughs (V1 V2 and Jets advanced subs) had much less impact than Allied technology. (and if you carry the war to 1948 (as ToF does) this becomes much more pronounced.

US and UK domination of electronics (sonar radar and code breaking computers) Germany was always behind in radar sonar and had not any concept of electronic computers used for code breaking. This area is HUGE and impacted all branches (Air ground sea) significantly. Germany was ahead in jets but UK and US were not far behind and by 1946 they would have dominated.

And of course the famous big ticket wonder weapons. Who really developed effective wonder weapons?

V2 rocket with very impressive technology was pretty much a nuisance weapon which had less impact (pardon the pun[:D]) on the war than the US proximity fuses for artillery (see electronics....) In contrast the two main allied wonder weapons were Enigma (HUGE impact) and The A-Bomb which was essentially a war finisher (The Trinity Test effectively rendered all other weapons obsolete for 'Total War'). The enigma in particular was really a wonder weapon the enemy didn't even know it existed they just had to wonder how they were outguessed so often. (perhaps this should be modeled by turning of FoW for US and UK)

Many other of the famous German wonder weapons were while technically 'sweet' or impressive actually were pretty much worthless. (Maus Tank etc...)

Tanks, Germany was likely behind USSR in tank tech at the start and really never even caught up let alone passed them. The dominant tank and one of the most advanced was the T-34 and its variants German PzII and PzIII (of the same period) were inferior. German tank doctrine was of course second to none and use of radios and command and control was only ever matched by the US late in the war. But that is more a total doctrine advantage than technology.

German navy was NOT technically superior to UK or even US. In a single area battleships it could be argued that they were slightly better but behind in other areas. Naval Aviation was the key naval technology in WW2. A aaval aviation ranking by nation in 1940 would likely look like this.
1 - Japan
2 - US
3 - UK
4 - It
5 - GE
6 -USSR

Hardly reflected by giving GE the top naval tech in ToF Particularly as Naval aviation totally dominated naval technology in WW2 carrier battle groups crushed battleship groups.
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

Fix The MAP

Add the Qattara Depression effectively IMPASSABLE to the map in Egypt. This is a glaring omission. You don't need a new terrain type (but that would be optimal) you can just use ocean or move the map edge up...
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
wolf14455
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by wolf14455 »

I like what u sudgest and have a addition to it. Research in weapon airoplane and tanks are in great part experence from the battlefield and impression of the enemy material impact on your forces. So I would like to see some bonus from the account of losses and damaged dealt.

Otherwise it can be as for me playing Russia. Tech money used to build troops too replace losses. So no new equipment would emerge. If ofcource some events give me it.
SwedeWolf

I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

Convoys Ouch.. I do like this game but it has some elements which are REALLY poorly executed. The way ToF handles convoys is just dreadful.[:@][:@][:@]

1st Let the players set the route seazone by to seazone the AI is hopeless.

2nd British Colonies should be MSS for UK convoy India to Suez for supply better still British colonies (commonwealth) should be part of the UK add a hex for Canada and India which would be MSS and South Africa while you are at it. And practically speaking Axis units should not be able to operate 10000 km from home for extended periods with any effectiveness at all. UK had ports all over the world Axis had none, while some 'raiders' early in the war had limited success players will 'game' this and it really wasn't a sustainable thing.

3rd Revise AI routing (if player can't set route), LOOK at what is going on AI routes UK convoys always routes via med when it is not defensible. It should not be to hard to set up some logic to evaluate risk based on losses and 'known' sea zones. Longer 'safer' routes may take more stp but they would be used if alternative is (as it is) automatic failure.

4th eliminate 'stupid' routing Suicide routes like UK thru Bay of Biscay (seriously who EVER do that..) ALWAYS avoid routes covered by (or cover able by enemy air (strange that tac air cannot hurt a convoy but slaughters naval units like sheep but that's another issue) as ftr can cover subs in this game (a bit of a stretch in some sea zones but we can't fix everything) Some sea zones just would NEVER be used like bay of Biscay when GE controls France

4th Gibraltar a minor point but I recommend you move the sea zone boundary between Atlantic and Med next to Gibraltar and permit convoys (and ships) to enter Gibraltar directly from either (subs in Med interdict Gibraltar convoys from UK as it currently plays which while minor is inaccurate and irritating.

5th Recommend simplifying the map conflict really does not need to be modeled in distant sea zones convoys would have been very difficult to find existing zone to zone create bottlenecks where there were none and ignores bases like South Africa which made Axis operations in these areas impractical.
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

I like the idea of experience effecting R&D, but don't think it should be tied to success, quite the contrary. Also the effect may not be significant enough to require modeling it in the game. I believe most military's (they are bureaucratic after all) learn MORE from FAILURE than success battle experience on either (winning or loosing; taking or dealing damage) side particularly for with Armor would 'help' somewhat, but tanks are mechanical contrivances and can (and were)tested off the battlefield. Besides non combatants had observers, for example the US military had close ties to UK and even representation in the USSR while neutral.

Some other points are that: 'the best tank does not make the best tank unit' and the 'most powerful tank is not the best tank' Bang for buck is a factor. Based on mechanical reliability maneuverability and low cost you could argue that the T-34 and even M-4 were more effective weapons than the much vaunted Tigers. More subtle effects are less famous but more decisive. Innovations by the allies such as improved anti-tank ammunition. HVAP; HEAT; APDS etc. In some instances APDS for example the US (and UK) were able to produce the ammunition where Germany was not (in quantity) due to availability of Tungsten Germany used most available Tungsten for machine tools and did not have surplus supply need to use in munitions. APDS was by the way developed by the French who 'evacuated' the technology and the engineers associated with it to Britain in 1940. These innovations were pretty much purely technical (no battle field experience needed)

War games and wargamers tend to over emphasize primary weapons rather than the usually more significant secondary technology's (like advanced ammunition)

A primary example of this is the 'Legendary' Tiger tank. This IMO mediocre weapons system is practically worshiped by WW2 'buffs'

While well armed and armored and having an almost mythical reputation Tigers for example were:
Time consuming to produce
Very expensive
very limited in range and endurance
difficult to transport
mechanically unreliable

While kill to loss ratios are hard to evaluate (they were usually outnumbered and under combined arms attack) they only managed about a 1:1 kill loss ratio. Considering they likely cost 4x as much as an M-4 that's not a war winning weapon. "I'll take 3 Shermans and a Wolverine for the same cost thanks...."[:D][:D][:D] Or on the other front 6 T-34's and a Sturmovik (OK that's an exaggeration but not by much)

As the French transfer of APDS technology to the UK demonstrates 'allied' tech efforts were shared. This is a big deal and ToF should model it.
ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

I like what u sudgest and have a addition to it. Research in weapon airoplane and tanks are in great part experence from the battlefield and impression of the enemy material impact on your forces. So I would like to see some bonus from the account of losses and damaged dealt.

Otherwise it can be as for me playing Russia. Tech money used to build troops too replace losses. So no new equipment would emerge. If ofcource some events give me it.
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
Razz1
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: CaLiForNia

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by Razz1 »

I believe this is already modeled behind the scenes. Each country has a different rate of progress that is controlled by the developers.
On top of that, research is random as to how much you will gain each month.

You can adjust the cost for each country, but that is only one the way to effect the outcome.

I believe that is not the correct method as you will only research that technology sooner and effect game balance too much. Much better off controlling progress.

There is script that moves along research. In the Third Reich there is some technology sharing.
ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Some Thoughts on Technology

Consider Separating tech development from $$$ each country should have a tech budget SEPERATE from production. Few projects required massive economic R&D efforts (A- Bomb in US and German Rockets did but otherwise $$$ did not = progress as directly as in the game) Countries should get 'tech points' to spend perhaps tech points could be 'bought' at a very high $$ cost to supplement the basic allowance.

If not halve all US research costs as only half of the economy is represented (pacific theater R&D would apply to ETO so for example PTO would 'pay' for at least Sub and Navy research and some air as well.

US and UK shared R&D this should be modeled.
User avatar
Razz1
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: CaLiForNia

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by Razz1 »

Were lucky we have the British colonies. I tried to get more like Canada but we are lucky we have the British Colonies and were able to model it well.

Yes, the convoy routes are an issue and are being looked at. There is only so much you can do before release.

Once the convoy routing is perfected, you will be happy to have all those sea zones to move your navy if your Axis.

By the way... the Third Reich has convoys from Canada and enhanced detection for the UK.
ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Convoys Ouch.. I do like this game but it has some elements which are REALLY poorly executed. The way ToF handles convoys is just dreadful.[:@][:@][:@]

1st Let the players set the route seazone by to seazone the AI is hopeless.

2nd British Colonies should be MSS for UK convoy India to Suez for supply better still British colonies (commonwealth) should be part of the UK add a hex for Canada and India which would be MSS and South Africa while you are at it. And practically speaking Axis units should not be able to operate 10000 km from home for extended periods with any effectiveness at all. UK had ports all over the world Axis had none, while some 'raiders' early in the war had limited success players will 'game' this and it really wasn't a sustainable thing.

3rd Revise AI routing (if player can't set route), LOOK at what is going on AI routes UK convoys always routes via med when it is not defensible. It should not be to hard to set up some logic to evaluate risk based on losses and 'known' sea zones. Longer 'safer' routes may take more stp but they would be used if alternative is (as it is) automatic failure.

4th eliminate 'stupid' routing Suicide routes like UK thru Bay of Biscay (seriously who EVER do that..) ALWAYS avoid routes covered by (or cover able by enemy air (strange that tac air cannot hurt a convoy but slaughters naval units like sheep but that's another issue) as ftr can cover subs in this game (a bit of a stretch in some sea zones but we can't fix everything) Some sea zones just would NEVER be used like bay of Biscay when GE controls France

4th Gibraltar a minor point but I recommend you move the sea zone boundary between Atlantic and Med next to Gibraltar and permit convoys (and ships) to enter Gibraltar directly from either (subs in Med interdict Gibraltar convoys from UK as it currently plays which while minor is inaccurate and irritating.

5th Recommend simplifying the map conflict really does not need to be modeled in distant sea zones convoys would have been very difficult to find existing zone to zone create bottlenecks where there were none and ignores bases like South Africa which made Axis operations in these areas impractical.
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

I second this one excellent suggestion[:D]
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

Guess I should quote what I am seconding. I second this great idea!
ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Category: Scenarios.

Can we have a Barbarossa scenario where the player can be Germany without having to play the Med and Western Europe?
Just play Germany v. USSR without needing to worry about other fronts.
Obviously PP revenue would be reduced to make it fair.
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

Pretty good point I notice R&D costs are less for the US.
ORIGINAL: Razz

I believe this is already modeled behind the scenes. Each country has a different rate of progress that is controlled by the developers.
On top of that, research is random as to how much you will gain each month.

You can adjust the cost for each country, but that is only one the way to effect the outcome.

I believe that is not the correct method as you will only research that technology sooner and effect game balance too much. Much better off controlling progress.

There is script that moves along research. In the Third Reich there is some technology sharing.
ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Some Thoughts on Technology

Consider Separating tech development from $$$ each country should have a tech budget SEPERATE from production. Few projects required massive economic R&D efforts (A- Bomb in US and German Rockets did but otherwise $$$ did not = progress as directly as in the game) Countries should get 'tech points' to spend perhaps tech points could be 'bought' at a very high $$ cost to supplement the basic allowance.

If not halve all US research costs as only half of the economy is represented (pacific theater R&D would apply to ETO so for example PTO would 'pay' for at least Sub and Navy research and some air as well.

US and UK shared R&D this should be modeled.
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
wolf14455
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by wolf14455 »

So if I play a major Country from 1939 to 1948 without putting any money in tech I still getting Tech? By events?
SwedeWolf

I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
User avatar
doomtrader
Posts: 5319
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:21 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by doomtrader »

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

So if I play a major Country from 1939 to 1948 without putting any money in tech I still getting Tech? By events?
AFAIK, no.
User avatar
JLPOWELL
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Pacific Time Zone

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by JLPOWELL »

I don't know of any tech granted by events, so I doubt it but can't be sure. If the country started with a 'star' in an area you would eventually get that tech advance as well.

It may make sense to grant the US naval advances based on the Pacific, but I haven't seen anything like that.

Overall tech is pretty well implemented. Most of my quibbles are around the periphery not the execution of the core concept.

One place where a 'new' event (gasp I am advocating an event...[X(]) might make sense would be to check close allies for tech and give points to countries with whom they would have shared the technology. The US and UK shared technology pretty freely. Even Germany shared technical know how with others as well Italy Hungary Romania, even Japan albeit much less freely. And of course the Russians were masters at stealing secrets from everyone.

Including espionage is likely taking things a bit too far however. This area works pretty well so I would give a lower priority to 'fixing' it compared to other areas with significant playability issues like:supply (being addressed); naval surface combat; convoy implementation; PBEM events choice by players etc.
ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

So if I play a major Country from 1939 to 1948 without putting any money in tech I still getting Tech? By events?
"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
Razz1
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: CaLiForNia

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by Razz1 »

That is exactly what happens. Minors get a boost.

However, it is very little and not enough so see the Third Reich scenario for more of this:

tm.asp?m=3042300
User avatar
wolf14455
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by wolf14455 »

Ok thanx, good to know. Hope for the future patches some tech investment will trickle in from battle experience and secondary experiences.
SwedeWolf

I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
User avatar
wolf14455
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by wolf14455 »

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
However as we wanted to make the game accessible for more casual players we decided to simplify couple of things. All of the issues you have mentioned above are not broken, only the design decisions, so I don't think they might be fixed.

Will there be code lines discarded for the common good that can be used to create a "Master Version" for us more experienced players? [;)] To be sold for say 5 Euro.[:D]
Wishfull thinking i guess but I must ask. [:)]
SwedeWolf

I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
User avatar
wolf14455
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by wolf14455 »

Another wish is to have some sort of espionage and passive air recon. Where there is a chance to get a report on any landing craft sited and the air recon could be divided up with AP costly recon as of now but also a tech choice recon range working when it just sitting idle. Wheater could impair this range ofcource.
SwedeWolf

I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
User avatar
Meteor2
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Germany

RE: The Great Wishlist Thread

Post by Meteor2 »

Thats a good idea. I have never been a friend of this fixed FOW range. The SC-games are doing it in a plausible way. Invest in intelligence and you may know some more about your enemy... FOW range should be depended on such a factor and weather, of cource.
Post Reply

Return to “Time of Fury”