Features for ToaW 4

[Boonierat]

I won't settle for less than 1000x1000, I'd be able to make a Vietnam map at 1km/hex then [:D]

[Ratbag55]

Seriously though. Why not raise the limits? Would it be a big undertaking in terms of programming?

I understand that raising the number of exclusion zones would involve more work since you would have to add support for them in the editor- and event menus.

But the limits of hexes, units and formations? I would guess (humbly) that the present limits 300*300/2000/400 were set originally because a limit has to be set to a computer calculation. The question is; what other parameters would be effected by raisning these limits?

I think it is something that should be considered seriously.

/Ratbag

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Ratbag55

Seriously though. Why not raise the limits? Would it be a big undertaking in terms of programming?

I understand that raising the number of exclusion zones would involve more work since you would have to add support for them in the editor- and event menus.

But the limits of hexes, units and formations? I would guess (humbly) that the present limits 300*300/2000/400 were set originally because a limit has to be set to a computer calculation. The question is; what other parameters would be effected by raisning these limits?

I think it is something that should be considered seriously.

/Ratbag

I'm pretty sure it is being considered seriously.

[SMK-at-work]

I suspect computers are a lot more capable now than they were when the limits were set, so computational limits shuold not be so tight.

[m5000.2006]

ORIGINAL: Ratbag55

I think it is something that should be considered seriously

i WAS considering it seriously when i suggested 400x400 or 500x500...

the 300x300 limit came with toaw-acow back in the 90s, now it's 2007, time to move on a bit, i think [8D]

also, it would grant designers more freedom regarding the map scale and size, more possibilities...

[Ratbag55]

Well since I'm just dreaming anyway... here's would I would like:

The inclusion in the game of a hierarchy that would work like this:

1. Alliance (eg Axis, Allies, NATO etc)
2. Nation - all Nations must be part of an Alliance
3. Faction - (eg National Spanish, Republican Spanish etc) - all factions must be part of a Nation
4. Formation - same function as today
5. Unit - same function as today
6. Subunit - the units that make up a Unit. A Unit breaks down into Subunits.

The present system of exclusion zones are removed from the game. Instead the editor allows a designer to define any group of hexes as either Alliance, Nation and/or Faction. All hexes on a map must be defined this way. I would not have Exclusion Zone 1, but instead Nation Germany to work with in the event editor. This would allow the game to keep track of an Alliance/Nations/Factions victory points.

And while I'm at it I want a pony too.

/Ratbag

[SMK-at-work]

Subunits would be good - I remember playing hte old DNO boardgame in the mid-70's, and a few others since, where you could build up units from set menus - eg the Sov's got a bunch of Tank brigades, and soem time later they gained the ability to combine a couple of tank brigades, a mech inf brigade and an arty or AT brigade and some more "reserve points" to make tank corps.

So the makeup of a unit would be defined, and if you split it split into its component parts rather than jsut 1/2's or 1/3rds of the total squads in each subunit.

[Ratbag55]

Here's some other suggestions:

1) When moving a unit by air-transport from an airport to another friendly controlled airport the unit should NOT conduct an air assault on that friendly controlled airport but should instead land without any disruption.

2) It should be possible to give Coastal Artillery units the order Interdiction, in which case they would strike at naval units and units in sea transport mode.

/Ratbag

[Erik2]

ORIGINAL: Ratbag55

Here's some other suggestions:

1) When moving a unit by air-transport from an airport to another friendly controlled airport the unit should NOT conduct an air assault on that friendly controlled airport but should instead land without any disruption.

2) It should be possible to give Coastal Artillery units the order Interdiction, in which case they would strike at naval units and units in sea transport mode.

/Ratbag

1) To specify,most units should be able to move by airtransport to a friendly airport. This could be an equipment flag, airtransportable or not.
Units with both kind of equipment would leave the heavy stuff behind.

2) We could be using the current Local reserve order for attack out to max range and Tactical reserve for limit attack to adjacent hexes.

[Telumar]

If we are at airdrops. Airdrops should be conducted in a 'drop them all at once' manner. This would just be realistic, currently you can drop a unit into a certain hex and when you discover that that hex is already occupied (your airborne unit evaporates) , you can just drop to a neighbouring hex. Or if you drop the first unit you can also see if the adjacent hexes are occupied and execute your drops accordingly. This maybe would require the introduction of aereal recon that can be controlled by the player instead of (or in addition to) the more general theatre recon level.

And regarding sub-units: Legun aka Jarek Flis has made a decent and very detailed suggestion about subunits, attachments etc. over at Http://www.tdg.nu

[Veers]

If we are at airdrops. Airdrops should be conducted in a 'drop them all at once' manner. This would just be realistic, currently you can drop a unit into a certain hex and when you discover that that hex is already occupied (your airborne unit evaporates) , you can just drop to a neighbouring hex. Or if you drop the first unit you can also see if the adjacent hexes are occupied and execute your drops accordingly. This maybe would require the introduction of aereal recon that can be controlled by the player instead of (or in addition to) the more general theatre recon level.

 
And until that time when we have some way to recon the area, I will be a staunch supporter of the current system. When we get a way to recon certain areas then great, until that time, dropping and learning and then dropping somewhere else is the only way to do that recon work. Paradrops are guess-work enough as it is, the last thing we need (before we have area specific recon) is to have to make that entire drop based on poor engine recon. 

[rhinobones]

Wonder if there might be a way to break a player’s turn into two phases; the first phase would be recon and the second phase combat as with the current system.

During the recon phase ships and aircraft would be moved and their discoveries plotted. Any remaining movement points they have could be used during the combat phase. Not real sure that land units would benefit from a recon phase, or need a recon phase since they already seem to have plenty of recon capability. Much room for thought on this one.

As for myself, don’t think I will be a big supporter of a feature that could use a bit of improvement. Think that in this case it is more productive to be proactive.

Regards, RhinoBones

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Veers

If we are at airdrops. Airdrops should be conducted in a 'drop them all at once' manner. This would just be realistic, currently you can drop a unit into a certain hex and when you discover that that hex is already occupied (your airborne unit evaporates) , you can just drop to a neighbouring hex. Or if you drop the first unit you can also see if the adjacent hexes are occupied and execute your drops accordingly. This maybe would require the introduction of aereal recon that can be controlled by the player instead of (or in addition to) the more general theatre recon level.

And until that time when we have some way to recon the area, I will be a staunch supporter of the current system. When we get a way to recon certain areas then great, until that time, dropping and learning and then dropping somewhere else is the only way to do that recon work. Paradrops are guess-work enough as it is, the last thing we need (before we have area specific recon) is to have to make that entire drop based on poor engine recon.

The Sov airdrops in 1943 were "all at onece" right on top of enemy. Arnhem famously had a Pz division right next door.
Air recon is over-rated. You have yuor theatre recon - you make a choice and drop where you THINK there is no enemy based upon what you know, or you decide it's too great a risk.

The idea that it should be foolproof is not supportable historically, and I'm agaisnt it. I think Telumar is right, and Veers is wrong.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers

If we are at airdrops. Airdrops should be conducted in a 'drop them all at once' manner. This would just be realistic, currently you can drop a unit into a certain hex and when you discover that that hex is already occupied (your airborne unit evaporates) , you can just drop to a neighbouring hex. Or if you drop the first unit you can also see if the adjacent hexes are occupied and execute your drops accordingly. This maybe would require the introduction of aereal recon that can be controlled by the player instead of (or in addition to) the more general theatre recon level.

And until that time when we have some way to recon the area, I will be a staunch supporter of the current system. When we get a way to recon certain areas then great, until that time, dropping and learning and then dropping somewhere else is the only way to do that recon work. Paradrops are guess-work enough as it is, the last thing we need (before we have area specific recon) is to have to make that entire drop based on poor engine recon.

The Sov airdrops in 1943 were "all at onece" right on top of enemy. Arnhem famously had a Pz division right next door.
Air recon is over-rated. You have yuor theatre recon - you make a choice and drop where you THINK there is no enemy based upon what you know, or you decide it's too great a risk.

The idea that it should be foolproof is not supportable historically, and I'm agaisnt it. I think Telumar is right, and Veers is wrong.

Heh heh heh. Recon is currently totally random, which is bulloney. The Soviets may have chosen not, or been unable, to recon properly, but, if you recall, the Allies famously knew that there were tanks at Arnhem, and decided to drop anyways. When we get the chance to concentrate our recon flights where we would like (wether that intel is acurate or not), then I will support the idea of an 'all at once' method. Until then, I think I'm right and you're wrong.

[Ratbag55]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Wonder if there might be a way to break a player’s turn into two phases; the first phase would be recon and the second phase combat as with the current system.

During the recon phase ships and aircraft would be moved and their discoveries plotted. Any remaining movement points they have could be used during the combat phase. Not real sure that land units would benefit from a recon phase, or need a recon phase since they already seem to have plenty of recon capability. Much room for thought on this one.

As for myself, don’t think I will be a big supporter of a feature that could use a bit of improvement. Think that in this case it is more productive to be proactive.

Regards, RhinoBones

Good idea - I like it! It might actually be a Recon/Supply phase and then a Movement/Combat phase of the same turn. If the proposed enhanced suppy logistics system was implemented it would go into the first phase.

I would also LOVE to see a new unit type: Electronic Warfare Unit which would include equipment: Electronic Warfare Squad. If air units could be given the order "Recon", then EW units should have the same ability. They would be good at discovering HQs.

/Ratbag

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Veers
Heh heh heh. Recon is currently totally random, which is bullshit. The Soviets may have chosen not, or been unable, to recon properly, but, if you recal, the Allies famously knew that there were tanks at Arnhem, and decided to drop anyways.

Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong. That's not somethign you get from recon in ToaW - if you get intel it is always 100% correct....it may not be complete but you know that whatever yoo do get is accurate.

Now if you could factor in false intel you'd have a good point.

But until then you are still wrong [8D]

[Veers]

ORIGINAL:  SMK-at-work
Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong.

And the differance between deciding to drop anyways, and deciding that the intel was wrong are...what? Cause to me they look pretty uch the same.

Now if you could factor in false intel you'd have a good point.

It would be nice to have this.

But until then you are still wrong [8D]

I disagree. Until we have a way to recon a specific area then the current system is better than a blind drop. With the current system you can split a Div (Rgt, Batt, etc) up into three pieces. You drop one blind (and loose it if you get unlucky and run into the II SS Corps) and the other two you at lest have an idea of what's down there. (So you live long enough to get squeezed into the Rhine)



Stefan put it well when he suggested

This maybe would require the introduction of aereal recon that can be controlled by the player instead of (or in addition to) the more general theatre recon level.

about the 'all at once' idea.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Not quite - they had information that elements of 2 Panzer divisions rewere refitting in the area, but they dismissed it - they didn't "decide to drop anyways" - they decided the intell was wrong.

And the differance between deciding to drop anyways, and deciding that the intel was wrong are...what? Cause to me they look pretty uch the same.

They sure are if you're one of the people dropping!!

But not in terms of what you said - you said they knew there were panzers in the area - by which I'm taking "panzers" to mean the 2 divisions and not jsut a few stray tanks that they did "know" about.

In fact what they knew was that there were REPORTS of panzer divisions in the area - the disregarded them as inaccurate and therefore they actually thought there were not panzer divisions in the area.

[Karri]

Another thing si to consider that in real life you drop troops near a panzer division and they're still ther. Yeah, in a shitty situation but there. In TOAW you drop troops and if there happens to be an enemy unit in the hex your unit evaporates.


One thing I want to see is better event system. If you've played Paradox games you know what I mean. I want to be able to increase/decrease single equipment production with a number or with a percentage. Ie. increase stuf production with 5, increase stug production 50%.

[m5000.2006]

i'd add a 3rd and a 4th and a xnth force to the game, but at least a 3rd force would alleviate the most serious problems


now there are only two forces, which makes it unrealistic to play scnearios where there are Western Allies, Soviets, and Germans, and other countries (e.g. Storm on the Reich, Goetterdaemmerung 1945, or all scens depicting the entire ww2), or Germans, Soviets, and Poles (Fall Weiss)


in Goetterdaemmerung 1945 e.g. when Soviets are attacking Budapest they are supported by Western Allies' aircraft, similarly, while fighting in Italy, American and Bitish units may be supported by Soviet air units since for the computer American, British and Russian are just one force

besides, since Soviet units usually have low proficiency, they lower the overall proficiency of the Allied Force