Interface Wish List

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Oh, one last thing, it's not GUI but it's my Nr. 1 annoyance in the world of TOAW: give players an option to _disable_ turn-burns and early turn endings!

I guess this thread is going to receive a good many new posts in the next couple of days, then.

Same goes for early turn endings, I simply don't see any reason at all why a turn should end early.

Because sometimes things shouldn't work like clockwork. In the real world, you can't just attack for six days and dig in on the seventh. The other guy gets to do his moves at the same time.

yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have.

No. I don't think players should be allowed to break scenarios- for their own good. Of course, you can always go into the scenario editor yourself anyway.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Because sometimes things shouldn't work like clockwork. In the real world, you can't just attack for six days and dig in on the seventh. The other guy gets to do his moves at the same time.

Just as in real life you say? I know what you mean, my week never has exactly 7 days, my days never 24h, and sometimes I wake up and 3 days have passed without me noticing it [;)]

OK, we are talking operational level here, battles might not go as planed, advances might be slower than expected, units might get routed or shot combat-unfit through fierce battle, yes, many things can go wrong, but all of them are pretty good modeled already. Battles taking longer than anticipated? No problem, but they shouldn't prevent the rest of the front from doing something (anything!) in the meantime.

Advances are slow (because of mud or unexpected enemy units blocking the road? Sure, it's nicely modeled

units forced into reorg after an attack unable to do anything? Sure, its in the game already.

But... can you tell me any occurence during one of the many wars that raged over the last century that would come close to turn-burn effects or early turn endings?

Ah, I know, do you remember when during the opening phase of Barbarossa after 6 houres of combat the entire german army suddenly stopped doing anything for a week, which gave the soviets ample time to evacuate their entire forward units? No? Neither do I.

Or do you remember when at the beginning of Bagration after the opening devastating soviet artillery barrage all 10 million soldiers on both sides suddenly stopped fighting because they were glued to the radio, following the intense battle between a soviet recon company and a finish engineer platoon in the arctic north, which raged on for 1 week ? (it was a draw, soviet losses 10%, finnish losses 8%) The soviet recon units vowed to continue its attack next week, so the other soviet armies are not expecting any combat along their sectors in the near future. No? Neitehr do I.

Or do you remeber the recent incident when a US ranger companny attacked an iraqi stronghold near the syrian border, and all US attacks on Baghdad were stopped, to allow the US boys together with the fedejin saddam to follow the battle on CNN? No? Neitehr do I.

Such things dont happen in real combat, there is no such thing as turn burn effects, there is a reason why each army has its own staff, why each division has its own commander, why each platon has its own CO. They are no borgs who all simultanious stopp fighting once their connection to the mainframe is cut. They can continue to fight even without any communication, they usually get their objectives (take town XYZ) and should they lose contact with their HQ they simply try to follow their orders as good as possible.

No. I don't think players should be allowed to break scenarios- for their own good. Of course, you can always go into the scenario editor yourself anyway.

I strongly believe that this is something players should be able to control, just like Fog of War , if both sides agree to play without FOW (for example because they are beginners) its should be possible, if both want to activate/deactivate Command & Control they should be able to. The scenario designer should give advices of how he thinks his scenario is best played, if he thinks active disengagement should be turned off, he can state his opinion in the readme, but the final decision should be on the players side.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Such things dont happen in real combat, there is no such thing as turn burn effects, there is a reason why each army has its own staff, why each division has its own commander, why each platon has its own CO. They are no borgs who all simultanious stopp fighting once their connection to the mainframe is cut. They can continue to fight even without any communication, they usually get their objectives (take town XYZ) and should they lose contact with their HQ they simply try to follow their orders as good as possible.

An idea: Why not applying turn burn effects to the involved unit(s) or formation(s) instead to the whole force? For example PanzerBn A attacks InfantryRegt B and soaks up 8 combat rounds, so PanzerBn A will be down to 20% movement left while PanzerBn X, not participating in an attack still has 70% MPs left (because the attack with the highest loss tolerance setting during that round was at 'ignore losses' - or 80% left if it was at limit losses)..

[Glorfindel]

I think it would be great if an attack overview screen could be implemented that is before all the planned attacks are executed this window pops up where all intended attacks are seen.  It could for example be specified as attack a) b) c) etc with all the forces paticipating (all of yours and those of your opponent´s of which you are aware) the hex where it takes place, combat odds and so on. This would help a lot in giving the player a clearer picture of what is to come and to avoid silly mistakes.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Larry,
Did you knwo that the + and - keys work on most screens now?[:'(]
Ralph

Yeah, but to use the + and - keys I gotta take my hand off the mouse and carry it all the way over to the keyboard. Takes at least 1/2 second and I ain't got that kinda time sometimes. You understand, I'm sure.

That was funny...I don't have that much time either.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Just as in real life you say? I know what you mean, my week never has exactly 7 days, my days never 24h, and sometimes I wake up and 3 days have passed without me noticing it [;)]

Except all your units which have used their full movement allowance, or dug in. Those have had the full length of the turn.

OK, we are talking operational level here, battles might not go as planed, advances might be slower than expected, units might get routed or shot combat-unfit through fierce battle, yes, many things can go wrong, but all of them are pretty good modeled already. Battles taking longer than anticipated? No problem, but they shouldn't prevent the rest of the front from doing something (anything!) in the meantime.

Your proposal was knee-jerk and incomplete. Would all units retain their full move even if a combat had run to completion? Or would everyone just break off combat after one round? Either "solution" would be worse than the current situation.

A simple and elegant solution has been proposed on another forum: that units which remain engaged after each round of combat should be frozen whilst the player sets up a new set of attacks. A failed check against force proficiency would still end the turn. This satisfies me entirely

But... can you tell me any occurence during one of the many wars that raged over the last century that would come close to turn-burn effects or early turn endings?

Any occasion where an attacking force has been caught off-guard by a counterattack whilst still deployed offensively and suffered as a consequence. Any of numerous battles where a commander tried something elaborate and had one element go wrong, leaving his whole force screwed.

Ah, I know, do you remember when during the opening phase of Barbarossa after 6 houres of combat the entire german army suddenly stopped doing anything for a week, which gave the soviets ample time to evacuate their entire forward units? No? Neither do I.

I've never had this occur in any Barbarossa scenario. Most of them have positive German shock, which almost entirely eliminates this effect.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

An idea: Why not applying turn burn effects to the involved unit(s) or formation(s) instead to the whole force? For example PanzerBn A attacks InfantryRegt B and soaks up 8 combat rounds, so PanzerBn A will be down to 20% movement left while PanzerBn X, not participating in an attack still has 70% MPs left (because the attack with the highest loss tolerance setting during that round was at 'ignore losses' - or 80% left if it was at limit losses)..

Panzer Battalion X then attacks and burns its entire move in turn. Infantry Regiment B has now fought for 32 hours out of 24- and the turn's not over. This gets even worse with passive artillery support.

Also, doing this by formation would encourage players to mix their formations up even more than they do already. See the solution I posted (originally from Rhino Bones, I believe).

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Panzer Battalion X then attacks and burns its entire move in turn. Infantry Regiment B has now fought for 32 hours out of 24- and the turn's not over. This gets even worse with passive artillery support.

No. 24 hours engaged against two Panzer Battalions simultaneously.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Also, doing this by formation would encourage players to mix their formations up even more than they do already. See the solution I posted (originally from Rhino Bones, I believe).

Forget about the formation thing. Just the unit, you're right.

I always try to keep my formations together. Try. What about a 'formation integrity' radius? .... Hey, wasn't the discussion proposed to be at SZO? [;)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

No. 24 hours engaged against two Panzer Battalions simultaneously.

...with some passive artillery giving double support to the attack. Better yet, triple support if you throw another battalion in for the third round.

Forget about the formation thing. Just the unit, you're right.

Well, I think units should be frozen and combat paused after each round. Not the same as your suggestion.

I always try to keep my formations together. Try. What about a 'formation integrity' radius?

That would help, yeah. At the moment players have only very limited and passing incentives not to have the division HQ a thousand miles away from its units.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
A simple and elegant solution has been proposed on another forum: that units which remain engaged after each round of combat should be frozen whilst the player sets up a new set of attacks. A failed check against force proficiency would still end the turn. This satisfies me entirely

Thats my ideal solution, too, (except for the early turn ending!) problem is that it would probably require quite a lot of code-rewrite, so as an intermediate solution I could live with units breaking off an attack and beeing able to be given new orders again.

Ideally, when the unit is locked in combat as you proposed, I get an option to break off combat, with the other unit (maybe based on its proficiency/loss settin) getting a chance for an immediate counter-push (similar to an disengagement attack). After this counterattack the unit should return to its original hex and fortification status.

But... can you tell me any occurence during one of the many wars that raged over the last century that would come close to turn-burn effects or early turn endings?

Any occasion where an attacking force has been caught off-guard by a counterattack whilst still deployed offensively and suffered as a consequence. Any of numerous battles where a commander tried something elaborate and had one element go wrong, leaving his whole force screwed.

none of these come even close to the situation an early turn ending or turn-burn produces, as it would mean that because for example something goes wrong with the attack of one division, 6 army groups suddenly stop whatever they are doing for x days.
IF we somehow could manage to include such things in an IGOYOUGO game, it should only influence the units/formations directly affected by this, not the entire theather of battle (often including allies who have their completely seperate command structure)

Ah, I know, do you remember when during the opening phase of Barbarossa after 6 houres of combat the entire german army suddenly stopped doing anything for a week, which gave the soviets ample time to evacuate their entire forward units? No? Neither do I.

I've never had this occur in any Barbarossa scenario. Most of them have positive German shock, which almost entirely eliminates this effect.

OK, well it happened quite often to me in DNO, usually it was the finnish front (opening at turn 6 and by than the Axis shock is gone), I had for example a finnish regiment attack a soviet engineer company, burning 5 combat rounds in a row because they decided to continue attacking, completely screwing up the entire german front.
I 'fixed' this by simply ignoring the finnish front, as they seemed to be most prone to produce turn burns (low attack ratings and little support units, so the defender wont retreat, defending units with low combat strength, so the attacker wont break off because he's not taking enough losses to fail the moral check)

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
A simple and elegant solution has been proposed on another forum: that units which remain engaged after each round of combat should be frozen whilst the player sets up a new set of attacks. A failed check against force proficiency would still end the turn. This satisfies me entirely

This sounds a lot like a suggestion I made to the TDG. At the time it wasn’t all that well thought out and therefore, was not well received. Mostly my fault for not providing a clear explanation.

The suggestion did not use proficiency, but instead communications as the check. A unit out of communications would continue with the last set of orders received. After the completion of a round, and when at least one unit passed the communications check, the round stopped and orders could be issued to all units which had passed the communications check. In fact, it would be possible for a unit failing the communications check to continue with orders received during a previous turn.

My thought was that those units closest to a HQ were most likely to be available for new orders while units out in space would be unlikely to pass the communications check. The formula for deciding the communications check would certainly need to be adjusted for the era, map and time scale.

Conceptually the game would not necessarily stop after every round, but would only stop when at least one unit was eligible to receive orders, otherwise, the rounds would continue to burn. Also, it could be possible that at the beginning of round 1 a unit would fail the communications check and therefore, be unavailable for new orders.

Maybe the rounds should always automatically stop after round #9; just to give the troops an opportunity to dig in.

Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Thats my ideal solution, too, (except for the early turn ending!) problem is that it would probably require quite a lot of code-rewrite, so as an intermediate solution I could live with units breaking off an attack and beeing able to be given new orders again.

No, I see that level of control over a battle as being worse than the current situation. Frankly, if you play carefully turn-burners only come up once in every twenty turns anyway.

Ideally, when the unit is locked in combat as you proposed, I get an option to break off combat, with the other unit (maybe based on its proficiency/loss settin) getting a chance for an immediate counter-push (similar to an disengagement attack). After this counterattack the unit should return to its original hex and fortification status.

That's not bad. The way disengagement works is ideal for this, though it'd have to be assumed to be disengaging from the enemy held hex- that is, from a hex with no friendly units in it.

none of these come even close to the situation an early turn ending or turn-burn produces, as it would mean that because for example something goes wrong with the attack of one division, 6 army groups suddenly stop whatever they are doing for x days.

Well the point at debate is early turn ending due to a failed check against force proficiency. I think this is vital to simulate a miscalculation at the higher levels of command leading to the other side being able to take the initiative. The designer can always make this failure impossible with 100% force proficiency if he wants (though there are other effects of such a setting).

OK, well it happened quite often to me in DNO, usually it was the finnish front (opening at turn 6 and by than the Axis shock is gone),

I see. I thought you were talking about things a little earlier than that.

I had for example a finnish regiment attack a soviet engineer company, burning 5 combat rounds in a row because they decided to continue attacking, completely screwing up the entire german front.

I hope you were on "minimise losses".

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

This sounds a lot like a suggestion I made to the TDG.

I thought so. I namedropped you in another post.

At the time it wasn’t all that well thought out and therefore, was not well received. Mostly my fault for not providing a clear explanation.

The suggestion did not use proficiency, but instead communications as the check. A unit out of communications would continue with the last set of orders received.

You misunderstand me. I was refering to the existing check against force proficiency which occurs at the end of every set of attacks.

After the completion of a round, and when at least one unit passed the communications check, the round stopped and orders could be issued to all units which had passed the communications check. In fact, it would be possible for a unit failing the communications check to continue with orders received during a previous turn.

I prefer them carrying on with their attack just the same as they do now- only with the player able to issue orders to other units in the force at intervals (possibly set by the designer). Industrial's suggestion of allowing units to break off with a disengagement penalty rounds this off nicely. I don't think units which are engaged in combat should be able to pause and go off and do something else- no matter how close they are to their HQ.

Maybe the rounds should always automatically stop after round #9; just to give the troops an opportunity to dig in.

I don't think so. This then eliminates the possibility of attacking troops being caught unprepared by a well-timed counterattack.

[Chuck2]

There is something called max rounds per battle now. Works reasonably well. It's up to the designers to go back and set in their scenarios.

[dobeln]

"There is something called max rounds per battle now. Works reasonably well. It's up to the designers to go back and set in their scenarios."

Yea, I thought I saw something about scenario designers being able to limit turn burn in TOAW III - should be good for the monster scenarios.

[Erik2]

One simple thing, I'd like to be able to use group movement for ships.
I've designed a couple of scenarios with a lot of individual ships and its a chore moving them one at a time.
Also group movement allows escorts to move with seatransports.

Another simple (?) addition, allow most infantry-type unit icons to be allowed movement between airbases.
The units should ideally not divide when entering the new aribase.
Currently you have to fudge with using glider/para symbols to allow pure airtransport of units.

Thanks
Erik

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

There is something called max rounds per battle now. Works reasonably well. It's up to the designers to go back and set in their scenarios.

Me

I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not.

[8D]

[dobeln]

"I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not."

Sounds reasonable to me.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Another simple (?) addition, allow most infantry-type unit icons to be allowed movement between airbases.

The designer needs to have a lot of control over this. Some armies (i.e. the Germans) used this a lot more than others.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not.

You can go into the editor and change this if you want.

However, think of it like this; Would you consider it reasonable for players to want to go into the editor and halve or double the attrition divider? The change you're proposing players be able to make as idly as they please can be just about as dramatic, and could wreck the scenario. Leaving it in the scenario editor- where it is still accessible to anyone who wants to change it- makes it clear that this is not a playability option, but rather something which is fundamental to the design of the scenario.