A few suggestions for the editor/ event engine

[Pants]

Just a few suggestions, with examples based on a hypothetical, option-filled, large-scale scenario of the 1991 Kuwait war:

1) Map: Allow more than two (exclusion) zones, with their status (see below) set in the event engine; allow zones to be named, rather than numbered;

2) Event Engine: Allow several levels of "zone":

a) Geographic: no effect on game play (to issue threats when, say, forces are approaching the Iranian border);

b) Restricted Zone: units can move and be issued orders, and can attack outside zone, but cannot leave zone, other force can enter or attack (prevents Kurdish insurgents from being transplanted to Kuwait to fight there);

c) Partial Exclusion Zone: as previous, but force outside zone cannot enter;

d) Exclusion Zone: as above, but units in zone cannot move

e) Total Exclusion: Units in zone cannot attack, bombard, or launch airstrikes (Israel: won't attack, but can be attacked by Scuds);

f) Non-Playable: as above, but units in zone cannot be issued any orders, and nothing in the zone can be attacked (The parts of the then-CIS that are on the map... should Saddam use nukes, allows the CIS to enter the game, but prevents Iraq from preemptively attacking their forces... assuming the Coalition player is an idiot);

3) Event Engine: new effect: "set zone level," allowing a zone to be toggled

4) Event Engine: Multiple geographic trigger options: When a particular hex is used as a trigger ("within 5 hexes of x,y," "force occupies x,y"), include the option to specify a zone, rather than a hex;

5) Event Engine: Multiple geographic scales for event effects: allow events that affect hexes to optionally effect zones (or a "radius" around zones);

6) Event Engine: Multiple heirarchichal scales for event effects: allow anything that can affect a unit to affect a formation, army (same color scheme), army group (same background color), or force (allows youto withdraw Egypt if Israel attacks, or pull the UK out if there is a change in government);

7) Event Engine: Nuclear Strike effect - have a strike of a particular magnitude target a particular hex or unit, perhaps with a secondary target should the first not be present (Israel responds to gas with a nuke... you can't stop them);

8) Event Engine: Multiple event engine variables, named instead of numbered, to allow you to keep track of multiple things (Israeli anger at Scud attacks, Iran's interest in joining the war);

9) Event Engine: Allow chance of occurrence to be adjusted based on Event Engine Variable value (each time Israel is attacked, the chance of them responding with force increases);

10) Formation orders: have a proper "Full Reserve" level for units where they are unable to move, attack, or issue orders, only defend themselves, until released (UN peacekeepers, for example).

Just a few friendly suggestions... [8D]

Jon

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Pants

9) Event Engine: Allow chance of occurrence to be adjusted based on Event Engine Variable value (each time Israel is attacked, the chance of them responding with force increases);

One can already do this with a series of events each triggering off a higher EEV level.

10) Formation orders: have a proper "Full Reserve" level for units where they are unable to move, attack, or issue orders, only defend themselves, until released (UN peacekeepers, for example).

Garrison status does this already. Units only become mobile through a Formation Orders event or if they are retreated.

[Pants]

ORIGINAL: Pants

9) Event Engine: Allow chance of occurrence to be adjusted based on Event Engine Variable value (each time Israel is attacked, the chance of them responding with force increases);

One can already do this with a series of events each triggering off a higher EEV level.

Quite true, you can approximate the effect with "threshhold" events: "when the EEV passes 10, there is an X percent chance of y occurring," then "when the EEV passes 15, there is an x+z chance of y occurring.

What I was suggesting is: "on each turn, there is a EEV/100 chance of Y occurring." This is a little more "smooth," and would require fewer events (but more math)

10) Formation orders: have a proper "Full Reserve" level for units where they are unable to move, attack, or issue orders, only defend themselves, until released (UN peacekeepers, for example).

Garrison status does this already. Units only become mobile through a Formation Orders event or if they are retreated.

Yes, they become mobile is retreated. I suggested a status which does NOT make units available for orders when retreated.

Thanks!

[:)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Pants

Yes, they become mobile is retreated. I suggested a status which does NOT make units available for orders when retreated.

Is this really going to come up? Take your example of UN peacekeepers. If they get attacked so vigorously as to be ejected from their base, are they really going to sit around idly in the hex they retreated to? Even the UN isn't usually that pathetic.

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Is this really going to come up? Take your example of UN peacekeepers. If they get attacked so vigorously as to be ejected from their base, are they really going to sit around idly in the hex they retreated to? Even the UN isn't usually that pathetic.

*hack* Srebencia *spit*

[Pants]

ORIGINAL: Pants

Yes, they become mobile is retreated. I suggested a status which does NOT make units available for orders when retreated

.

Is this really going to come up? Take your example of UN peacekeepers. If they get attacked so vigorously as to be ejected from their base, are they really going to sit around idly in the hex they retreated to? Even the UN isn't usually that pathetic.

I've been trying to remember the context in which it came up. It had to do with units that were not available for political reasons, and which must not be "goaded" into fighting. Sorry, it has been a while. Chalk it up to "giving designers more freedom."

It may have been meant for "civilian" units that players should not be allowed to control. A scenario I was designing (before work obligations reared their ugly heads) had pilgrims making the Hajj to Mecca... They were a politically loaded target... attacking them caused massive protests, and might potentially set off a jihad that would stymie the other player for weeks. If the owning player were able to move them as he saw fit (at any time), he could place them directly in harms way and potentially wreak havoc on the other side in a most unrealistic manner.

And yes, I am aware that civilians could be sacrificed by unscrupulous governments to win a propaganda victory. A few people in a market are one thing, thousands of pilgrims are another. Never mind the difficulty in actually getting them to maneuver!

[:)]

Thanks,

Jon

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Is this really going to come up? Take your example of UN peacekeepers. If they get attacked so vigorously as to be ejected from their base, are they really going to sit around idly in the hex they retreated to? Even the UN isn't usually that pathetic.

*hack* Srebencia *spit*

The UN forces here- so far as I can tell- were never 'retreated' in TOAW terms. They just sat there doing bugger all, exactly as a unit on "garrison" status would do.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Pants

It may have been meant for "civilian" units that players should not be allowed to control. A scenario I was designing (before work obligations reared their ugly heads) had pilgrims making the Hajj to Mecca... They were a politically loaded target... attacking them caused massive protests, and might potentially set off a jihad that would stymie the other player for weeks. If the owning player were able to move them as he saw fit (at any time), he could place them directly in harms way and potentially wreak havoc on the other side in a most unrealistic manner.

If they were set on garrison status, they would have had to be attacked before the player received control over them anyway.

Your point about giving the designer more freedom is well taken. It's a matter of establishing which of the many, many potential improvements should take priority.

[Pants]

Your point about giving the designer more freedom is well taken. It's a matter of establishing which of the many, many potential improvements should take priority.

...and this point is well taken as well. Personally, I think 1-6 of my original post are far more important and useful. Which reminds me:

6 - addendum) a "forced gas attack" might be nice as well, although this could be difficult, since gas is not treated as separate from regular combat.

11) Event Engine: a trigger for gas or nuclear attack on a hex, in a zone, or within a radius of either... there's a difference between Saddam using gas on American troops in the desert and on Israeli civilians in Haifa...


Anyway, all comments were much appreciated!

[:)]

Jon

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Pants

6 - addendum) a "forced gas attack" might be nice as well, although this could be difficult, since gas is not treated as separate from regular combat.

11) Event Engine: a trigger for gas or nuclear attack on a hex, in a zone, or within a radius of either... there's a difference between Saddam using gas on American troops in the desert and on Israeli civilians in Haifa...

Note that chemical attacks in TOAW need to be reworked anyway. Currently, it's more effective to have a shock effect which declines over time than to use the in-game chemical effect.