Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As with my other wishes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already on there, but I really think there should be separate 'truck' units that can pick up and carry units.

OPART tends to assume either that a unit has organic transportation, or that it has no access to trucks at all. Actually, my readings are convincing me that neither one was the norm (pun not intended).

Italians, Britons, Germans, Japanese -- all spent most of the war without enough trucks to haul all of their infantry all the time. Rather, there were so many trucks, and these could be shifted around to move this or that unit to some position where it would thereafter be limited to shank's mare. The trucks, meanwhile, would have gone off to perform some other function.

This was the norm -- far more than the feast or famine TOAW requires. Since the game's focus really is on World War Two, shouldn't it at least allow the possibility of reproducing this situation. Truck units that can provide a long distance strategic movement capability to otherwise foot-bound infantry?

You could remember - we discussed the problem on TDG. There are 3 different ways: present-rail-like trucks (6.9), present-aircraft-carrier-like transport units (6.13) and one of effects of composite units 4.8.

Oh I'm aware many of these problems have been discussed before. It's just that I see two possible paradigms for what improvements get made and what don't.

The first is that Ralph Tricky et al carefully comb all the various 'TOAW improvement' columns for the past two years and judiciously pick out the most meritorious ideas to implement.

The second is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There are a hell of a lot of suggestions out there. I feel it's quite right that I single out those for which I think the need is particularly acute and reiterate the request.

[ColinWright]

Another change I'll add to my 'greatest hits' list: designer-editable density levels.

I was reading further about 1918. It would appear that while OPART allows about one regiment-plus per five km hex, in 1918 attackers routinely put in at least a division, if not two, into such a frontage. Moreover, I'm talking about the actual assault wave -- not the divisions that 'pass through' and continue the assault.

They -- and they're not alone -- would probably have been horrified had they been restricted to the kind of densities TOAW will permit to be feasible.

So we need designer-editable density. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement. As matters stand, I was thinking about doing a 1918 scenario -- and realizing that the first thing I would need to do would be to divide all authorized equipment by at least three. Not an impossible work-around -- but the change I've proposed would be preferable.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Another change I'll add to my 'greatest hits' list: designer-editable density levels.

I was reading further about 1918. It would appear that while OPART allows about one regiment-plus per five km hex, in 1918 attackers routinely put in at least a division, if not two, into such a frontage. Moreover, I'm talking about the actual assault wave -- not the divisions that 'pass through' and continue the assault.

They -- and they're not alone -- would probably have been horrified had they been restricted to the kind of densities TOAW will permit to be feasible.

So we need designer-editable density. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement. As matters stand, I was thinking about doing a 1918 scenario -- and realizing that the first thing I would need to do would be to divide all authorized equipment by at least three. Not an impossible work-around -- but the change I've proposed would be preferable.

It's important, but you could by-pass the problem. I've made it in my Forgotten Battles. The map is about 4 km per hex, but I've used 15 km map and just adjusted artillery ranges.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It's just that I see two possible paradigms for what improvements get made and what don't.

The first is that Ralph Tricky et al carefully comb all the various 'TOAW improvement' columns for the past two years and judiciously pick out the most meritorious ideas to implement.

The second is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There are a hell of a lot of suggestions out there. I feel it's quite right that I single out those for which I think the need is particularly acute and reiterate the request.

OK. We could use both of them. I'll try to prepare poll as well as my own favorite wishes - just like a campaign before voting.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It's just that I see two possible paradigms for what improvements get made and what don't.

The first is that Ralph Tricky et al carefully comb all the various 'TOAW improvement' columns for the past two years and judiciously pick out the most meritorious ideas to implement.

The second is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There are a hell of a lot of suggestions out there. I feel it's quite right that I single out those for which I think the need is particularly acute and reiterate the request.

OK. We could use both of them. I'll try to prepare poll as well as my own favorite wishes - just like a campaign before voting.

That's what it is. There are those who take the high road -- and those who get elected.

More seriously, I'm not sure any attempt to control the process will work. For example, what do poll results mean? That more chronic posters found one idea more appealing than another? So?

You're welcome to have a go, but perhaps fights like the one Curtis and I are waging over volume-based supply are more useful. They're not especially pleasant, but at least they do lay out some of the arguments pro and con for any given change. A poll can't do that.

[ColinWright]

It'd be cumbersome -- perhaps even fatally so -- but in an ideal world, we'd have a thread for each proposed change. People would then comment as they saw fit. They like the idea but they think it's unimportant. They think the idea should be implemented as follows... They think the idea blows...

Whatever. That might be of more use than a poll. It'd give the designers some material to consider as they came to each proposed change -- and the simple number of posters would be as good an indicator of general interest as a poll.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Another change I'll add to my 'greatest hits' list: designer-editable density levels.

I was reading further about 1918. It would appear that while OPART allows about one regiment-plus per five km hex, in 1918 attackers routinely put in at least a division, if not two, into such a frontage. Moreover, I'm talking about the actual assault wave -- not the divisions that 'pass through' and continue the assault.

They -- and they're not alone -- would probably have been horrified had they been restricted to the kind of densities TOAW will permit to be feasible.

So we need designer-editable density. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement. As matters stand, I was thinking about doing a 1918 scenario -- and realizing that the first thing I would need to do would be to divide all authorized equipment by at least three. Not an impossible work-around -- but the change I've proposed would be preferable.

Item 7.10.

It also covers the other part of the problem, which I still consider to be a bug-fix, not an enhancement: apply density penalties to unstacked units, not just stacks. WWI scenarios routinely use regiments @ 2.5km/hex, etc. So a single unit can violate the limit - but won't suffer unless it stacks with something.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Another change I'll add to my 'greatest hits' list: designer-editable density levels.

I was reading further about 1918. It would appear that while OPART allows about one regiment-plus per five km hex, in 1918 attackers routinely put in at least a division, if not two, into such a frontage. Moreover, I'm talking about the actual assault wave -- not the divisions that 'pass through' and continue the assault.

They -- and they're not alone -- would probably have been horrified had they been restricted to the kind of densities TOAW will permit to be feasible.

So we need designer-editable density. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement. As matters stand, I was thinking about doing a 1918 scenario -- and realizing that the first thing I would need to do would be to divide all authorized equipment by at least three. Not an impossible work-around -- but the change I've proposed would be preferable.

Item 7.10.

It also covers the other part of the problem, which I still consider to be a bug-fix, not an enhancement: apply density penalties to unstacked units, not just stacks. WWI scenarios routinely use regiments @ 2.5km/hex, etc. So a single unit can violate the limit - but won't suffer unless it stacks with something.

Strange agreeing with you. Yeah -- that too. Although here note that if the single-unit thing is to be corrected, the need for editable density penalities only grows more acute. After all, you will have then eliminated one of the work-arounds that permit plausible World War One scenarios. After all, as matters stand, you can have World War One scenarios. You just can't stack.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
After all, you will have then eliminated one of the work-arounds that permit plausible World War One scenarios. After all, as matters stand, you can have World War One scenarios. You just can't stack.

Not a very good work-around (speaking from sad experience). The attacker has complete control over whether he stacks. Meanwhile, he can force one defender to retreat onto another and then exploit the stack that results. A gamey edge for the attacker is not a good thing for WWI, even in 1918.

Note: this is why item 7.10 is pretty close to the top of my wishlist.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You're welcome to have a go, but perhaps fights like the one Curtis and I are waging over volume-based supply are more useful. They're not especially pleasant, but at least they do lay out some of the arguments pro and con for any given change. A poll can't do that.

There is a problem. This way important, but not doubtful wishes are lost. Nobody is waging - the problem isn't critical. I don't like the approach taken literally.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You're welcome to have a go, but perhaps fights like the one Curtis and I are waging over volume-based supply are more useful. They're not especially pleasant, but at least they do lay out some of the arguments pro and con for any given change. A poll can't do that.

There is a problem. This way important, but not doubtful wishes are lost. Nobody is waging - the problem isn't critical. I don't like the approach taken literally.

That's true. However, hopefully whoever makes the choices at least has the ability to pull out and implement the ideas that are easy to program and only have an up side.

[cymloveselva]

Just wonder if I can add another:
what's the specialty/characteristics about each 128 unit icons available in TOAW3...
Put them inside Manual would be best[>:]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Just wonder if I can add another:
what's the specialty/characteristics about each 128 unit icons available in TOAW3...
Put them inside Manual would be best[>:]

A lot of them don't do anything -- but you're right. If would be good if there was a list of the ones that do actually provide some special capability and what that capability is.

To take the question backwards, as far as I know, the following icons don't do anything. Engineers of all types, truck and transport icons, naval aviation as opposed to ordinary aviation, military police, anti-aircraft. In all these cases, the capability inheres in the equipment assigned, not the icon. Don't know for sure about cavalry, armor, recon -- but I'll put my money on it just being the equipment that gives the effect.

Icons that will do something in and of themselves include all HQ and artillery icons, including 'infantry artillery.' Airborne, glider, etc. Guerrilla. Mountain. Supply.

Somebody can probably improve on this list -- but that's what comes to mind.

[cymloveselva]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Just wonder if I can add another:
what's the specialty/characteristics about each 128 unit icons available in TOAW3...
Put them inside Manual would be best[>:]

A lot of them don't do anything -- but you're right. If would be good if there was a list of the ones that do actually provide some special capability and what that capability is.

To take the question backwards, as far as I know, the following icons don't do anything. Engineers of all types, truck and transport icons, naval aviation as opposed to ordinary aviation, military police, anti-aircraft. In all these cases, the capability inheres in the equipment assigned, not the icon. Don't know for sure about cavalry, armor, recon -- but I'll put my money on it just being the equipment that gives the effect.

Icons that will do something in and of themselves include all HQ and artillery icons, including 'infantry artillery.' Airborne, glider, etc. Guerrilla. Mountain. Supply.

Somebody can probably improve on this list -- but that's what comes to mind.

[8|] What happen if Tanks assigned into Carrier Icon...? I wonder...[8|]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

Just wonder if I can add another:
what's the specialty/characteristics about each 128 unit icons available in TOAW3...
Put them inside Manual would be best[>:]

Reading the manual, where they already are put, would be even better...[;)]

Look at the icons and superscripts for them in section 16.1 of the manual. The key for the superscripts is at the end of that long list of icons, with a brief description of their special properties. See section 16.1.1.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As with my other wishes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already on there, but I really think there should be separate 'truck' units that can pick up and carry units.

OPART tends to assume either that a unit has organic transportation, or that it has no access to trucks at all. Actually, my readings are convincing me that neither one was the norm (pun not intended).

Italians, Britons, Germans, Japanese -- all spent most of the war without enough trucks to haul all of their infantry all the time. Rather, there were so many trucks, and these could be shifted around to move this or that unit to some position where it would thereafter be limited to shank's mare. The trucks, meanwhile, would have gone off to perform some other function.

This was the norm -- far more than the feast or famine TOAW requires. Since the game's focus really is on World War Two, shouldn't it at least allow the possibility of reproducing this situation. Truck units that can provide a long distance strategic movement capability to otherwise foot-bound infantry?

You could remember - we discussed the problem on TDG. There are 3 different ways: present-rail-like trucks (6.9), present-aircraft-carrier-like transport units (6.13) and one of effects of composite units 4.8.

..railway-conversions are very useful, but only if you don't actually have a railway that's an essential part of the scen..

[ColinWright]

.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As with my other wishes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already on there, but I really think there should be separate 'truck' units that can pick up and carry units.

OPART tends to assume either that a unit has organic transportation, or that it has no access to trucks at all. Actually, my readings are convincing me that neither one was the norm (pun not intended).

Italians, Britons, Germans, Japanese -- all spent most of the war without enough trucks to haul all of their infantry all the time. Rather, there were so many trucks, and these could be shifted around to move this or that unit to some position where it would thereafter be limited to shank's mare. The trucks, meanwhile, would have gone off to perform some other function.

This was the norm -- far more than the feast or famine TOAW requires. Since the game's focus really is on World War Two, shouldn't it at least allow the possibility of reproducing this situation. Truck units that can provide a long distance strategic movement capability to otherwise foot-bound infantry?

You could remember - we discussed the problem on TDG. There are 3 different ways: present-rail-like trucks (6.9), present-aircraft-carrier-like transport units (6.13) and one of effects of composite units 4.8.

If you merely mean that the idea is already on the wish list, I refer you to my original post: '...I'm sure most of the above is already in the list...'

I'll note that composite units would actually let units use their trucks precisely as I tend to object to seeing them used. The infantry become panzergrenadiers. Infantry almost universally could ride in trucks -- but ordinarily didn't use them for tactical movement. The 2/5 Borsets may well have arrived to join the Amiens attack of 25 August 1918 on trucks -- I'm quite certain they didn't use them to exploit their success.

This isn't to condemn the idea of composite units in general. It's merely that they wouldn't produce what I was looking for. Actually, they would work when the opposite of the effect I am discussing was desired -- when you wanted to have the ability to separate infantry that normally fought as panzergrenadiers/motor infantry from their trucks.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'll note that composite units would actually let units use their trucks precisely as I tend to object to seeing them used. The infantry become panzergrenadiers. Infantry almost universally could ride in trucks -- but ordinarily didn't use them for tactical movement. The 2/5 Borsets may well have arrived to join the Amiens attack of 25 August 1918 on trucks -- I'm quite certain they didn't use them to exploit their success.

This shouldn't be as big problem as you mention. Anyway - you find other important problem - calculation of proficiency. If the program could remember original prof of grouped unit, and use recalculated prof of composite unit only as temporary parameter, the problem is solved. You could just set proficiency of independent British or Italian truck unit as 1%. This way, your 70% infantry could try to be panzergrenadier, but it reduces it's battle strength dramatically. Let define your truck unit this way, that there is 50 trucks and 175 civilian group. You have 225 pieces of equipment with prof of 1% for each 25 infantry squad with prof of 70%. Temporary prof of such unit could be about 7% - just enough to discourage for trying mobile warfare.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'll note that composite units would actually let units use their trucks precisely as I tend to object to seeing them used. The infantry become panzergrenadiers. Infantry almost universally could ride in trucks -- but ordinarily didn't use them for tactical movement. The 2/5 Borsets may well have arrived to join the Amiens attack of 25 August 1918 on trucks -- I'm quite certain they didn't use them to exploit their success.

This shouldn't be as big problem as you mention. Anyway - you find other important problem - calculation of proficiency. If the program could remember original prof of grouped unit, and use recalculated prof of composite unit only as temporary parameter, the problem is solved. You could just set proficiency of independent British or Italian truck unit as 1%. This way, your 70% infantry could try to be panzergrenadier, but it reduces it's battle strength dramatically. Let define your truck unit this way, that there is 50 trucks and 175 civilian group. You have 225 pieces of equipment with prof of 1% for each 25 infantry squad with prof of 70%. Temporary prof of such unit could be about 7% - just enough to discourage for trying mobile warfare.

Forgive me, as I haven't been keeping up with this threat much, but there's something on this particular topic that I'd like to comment on.

In regards to what I highlighted above, I know from reading the "War Diaries" (which were the former "Intel Reports") of my great-grandfather's units in France during WW1 (the Tyneside Scottish and the Queen's Westminster Rifles) that they always used trucks or trains to move them long distances into and out of the line. But, once they got close to the line (about a couple of miles out), then debarked them and moved forward on foot.

I don't think that there were "motorized" attacks (using trucks for actual combat purposes) in WW1 at all (this, of course, doesn't count the use of tanks as that's different). In fact, the first recorded "motorized" attack used was when then-2LT George S. Patton, Jr used four trucks/vehicles to make a motorized attack on a small village that some of Pancho Villa's men were using to hide out in (during our incursion into Mexico in 1916 to chase him away from Texas and other border states and territories.....one can say that this was our second war with Mexico).

Hmmmm.....that would be a good scenario to make up---General Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa in Mexico. Too bad I don't have the time for it.