Features for ToaW 4

[rhinobones]

Captured weapons need to be realistically modeled. In WWII the Germans had entire battalions outfitted with captured French tanks. In 1918 they had more British Mk IV and V tanks than A7Vs. Use of captured weapons could also include support vehicles, artillery, aircraft and ships. Rifles, MGs, mortars, ATGs and RPGs might be too far in to the noise for scenarios at or above regiment level, but for scenarios below regimental level this might be an option.

As TOAW is now, the side losing a battle always has the damaged equipment added to their replacement list . . . the side that actually advanced into the ground (thereby acquiring the damaged goods) captures nothing. Maybe there should be a way to set the TO&E up so that major pieces of enemy equipment can be made available to the side that captures the ground.

Now . . . wouldn’t that make a mess of the TO&Es in the North African campaign games!!

Regards, RhinoBones

[Telumar]

I like the idea. Also can be applied for supplies (Ardennes i.e.). Then TOAW 4(?) would be the first wargame taking this into regard afaik.

[Scout_Pilot]

I'd settle for more unit and formation slots.  We got more events with TOAW III; how's 'bout more units and formations?

[rhinobones]

For TOAW IV, hex side rivers and WEGO. 
 
Who knows  .  .  .  maybe there could be both an IGYG and a WEGO version of TOAW IV.  Then both sides would be content.  As I dream on and on  .  .  . 
 
Regards, RhinoBones

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
For TOAW IV, hex side rivers and WEGO. 

Who knows  .  .  .  maybe there could be both an IGYG and a WEGO version of TOAW IV.  Then both sides would be content.  As I dream on and on  .  .  . 

I'll bet that somebody somewhere is probably working on a sortof rough clone of TOAW that has the Master setup on a server and there are client(s) to be downloaded onto the players machine so that WEGO would be trivially simple to implement. Somebody run this by Dayrinni....he's good at programming.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Veers

This thread was created by a player, not a designer, nor a beta tester. Thereofre, these features, many of which have already been dicussed, either here, or at TDG, or at GS, could be seen in TOAW III, or not at all.

Yep - it's entirely possible they're there & I just don't know about them! [:)]

I hadn't forgotten forgotten battles....I just hadn't recognised the characteristics since I'm only a part-time assistant game design advisor's gofer [:D]

Changing the HQ colour is indeed a good idea - thanks for that[&o]

[SMK-at-work]

Oh yeah - one other thing came to mind - the P1/P2 assymetry has been discussed here before and I see some discussion of WEGO above, but I was wondering if an easier alternative would be to give each player their own end-turn phase immediately before or after their turn, rather than doing them both together?

So if htey are run immediately before each turn the first thing that hapens in a game is Player 1's "end turn", then player 1 has 1st turn, then player 2's "end turn" is run, then player 2 has his turn 1 (or hers as appropriate..), then P1 has his end turn and runs his turn 2, then p2 has an end turn & runs T2...etc.

It makes sense to me....[8D]

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers

This thread was created by a player, not a designer, nor a beta tester. Thereofre, these features, many of which have already been dicussed, either here, or at TDG, or at GS, could be seen in TOAW III, or not at all.

Yep - it's entirely possible they're there & I just don't know about them! [:)]

I hadn't forgotten forgotten battles....I just hadn't recognised the characteristics since I'm only a part-time assistant game design advisor's gofer [:D]

Changing the HQ colour is indeed a good idea - thanks for that[&o]

I wasn't suggesting that they may already be in the game, just that they may end up being in T3, T4, or not at all.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Oh yeah - one other thing came to mind - the P1/P2 assymetry has been discussed here before and I see some discussion of WEGO above, but I was wondering if an easier alternative would be to give each player their own end-turn phase immediately before or after their turn, rather than doing them both together?

So if htey are run immediately before each turn the first thing that hapens in a game is Player 1's "end turn", then player 1 has 1st turn, then player 2's "end turn" is run, then player 2 has his turn 1 (or hers as appropriate..), then P1 has his end turn and runs his turn 2, then p2 has an end turn & runs T2...etc.

It makes sense to me....[8D]

THis has been suggested, and, if memory serves, is one of James' ways of solving P1/P2 assymetry.

[m5000.2006]

i think the max map size is 300x300 now

do you consider making it bigger in one of the next patches?

400x400 or 500x500?

would allow making really huge, detailed maps

[SMK-at-work]

Anothe thing - the ability to set some transport limits by zones - eg seperate naval transport capabilities for the Arctic, Baltic and Black Seas in FitE/DNO.
 
And the ability to change them by events that give a + or - amount, rather than having to just set a single total.

[AndyfromVA1]

Better map graphics.
Usable 3d units.
Sharper AI on both offense and defense.
AI that would allow you to delegate command of certain units, which would move and fight based on orders from the AI..

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006

i think the max map size is 300x300 now

do you consider making it bigger in one of the next patches?

400x400 or 500x500?

would allow making really huge, detailed maps

*gets a headache thinking abotu such a large map!! [:D] (Not that I am pooh-poohing the idea).

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: AndyfromVA1
Sharper AI on both offense and defense.

Heh heh, Elmer has come a long way from CoW. [:D]

[SMK-at-work]

Graphics and 3d are chrome - make the game modable & people can do it themselves - make the game good even with  ordinary graphics and it will happen - make the game bad with wonderful graphics and it's dead.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Graphics and 3d are chrome - make the game modable & people can do it themselves - make the game good even with  ordinary graphics and it will happen - make the game bad with wonderful graphics and it's dead.

Ah, that must be in response to Andy.
Didn't even notice the first two parts of his suggestion. Given thought, I have to agree that working on the code is much more important, at this stage, than the graphics. After all, there are many graphic mods out there that you could use, Andy.
Link

[m5000.2006]

gets a headache thinking abotu such a large map!! (Not that I am pooh-poohing the idea).

would make it possible to make a detailed map of Scnadynavia in FitE without any cuts...

[Ratbag55]

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006

i think the max map size is 300x300 now

do you consider making it bigger in one of the next patches?

400x400 or 500x500?

would allow making really huge, detailed maps

Agree!!

I need at least 650x650 for my Northern Europe scenario to run 5km/hex, so why not make it 900x900 while you're at it?

And 10000 units in 2000 formations. And at least 10 exclusion zones.

Please? [:)]

/Ratbag

[m5000.2006]

Agree!!

I need at least 650x650 for my Northern Europe scenario to run 5km/hex, so why not make it 900x900 while you're at it?

And 10000 units in 2000 formations. And at least 10 exclusion zones.

Please?

/Ratbag

that's not such a bad idea [:D]

[SMK-at-work]

Why have a size limit at all??!! [8D]