TOAW4 wish list and poll

[rhinobones]

In the world of electronic communications, where the transmission of orders is relatively instant, I don’t see the hierarchy of headquarters as being a big enhancement to TOAW. This might become a positive feature if the majority of scenarios were prior to modern communications, but that isn’t the case.

However, I do see the ability to shuffle units from formation to formation as a big enhancement. In the reality of military system of command and control the reassignment of units to local headquarters is a direct and necessary procedure. Happens all the time as commanders allocate resources to defeat the threat. Don’t know how practical this is in TOAW III coding terms, but it is something I would like to see.

Regards, RhinoBones

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

In the world of electronic communications, where the transmission of orders is relatively instant, I don’t see the hierarchy of headquarters as being a big enhancement to TOAW. This might become a positive feature if the majority of scenarios were prior to modern communications, but that isn’t the case.

However, I do see the ability to shuffle units from formation to formation as a big enhancement. In the reality of military system of command and control the reassignment of units to local headquarters is a direct and necessary procedure. Happens all the time as commanders allocate resources to defeat the threat. Don’t know how practical this is in TOAW III coding terms, but it is something I would like to see.

Regards, RhinoBones

Rhino.......

The (possibly) fun part of this is that you're working at it from a 'modern warfare' prospective, while I'm approaching it from a WW1 view....

"I don’t see the hierarchy of headquarters as being a big enhancement to TOAW."

I can see it as an aid to designers by way of allowing better commos to lower formations out-right, by way of allowing 'cooperation', etc ... In my present play-test we're having a problem due to this exact thing, in that the 'highest' HQ (and direct assets) can't be 'colored' in a way to 'pick them out' and still allow for the levels of cooperation that would seem neccesary thru out the multiple levels obtained thru the OOB of the Corps sized formations. AND this scenario has about 8 corps per side, with 2x divs each, and below that 3-4 regiments...and both corps and divisional artillery formations....

MY point has to do with direct aplication to the game engine/UI, and yours seems to me to be considerably more 'point specific', eh?

No joke, rhino, I'd like to see all your comments added in as well, especially your take on supply, but suspect only ToaW 4+ could offer this, eh?

The 'wish list' is just that, until Ralph has more than just the 'Toad's' to help work on this, ie; gonna take some BUX!

Peace, Dude!

[SMK-at-work]

In the world of electronic communications, where the transmission of orders is relatively instant, I don’t see the hierarchy of headquarters as being a big enhancement to TOAW. This might become a positive feature if the majority of scenarios were prior to modern communications, but that isn’t the case.

What do you mean by "modern communications"?

There's plenty of examples of comms problems as late as Vietnam for example.....

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

In the world of electronic communications, where the transmission of orders is relatively instant, I don’t see the hierarchy of headquarters as being a big enhancement to TOAW. This might become a positive feature if the majority of scenarios were prior to modern communications, but that isn’t the case.

Correct. For sure, any "command radius" would need to be set by the designer. And in most cases, no limit would really be justified.

However, I do see the ability to shuffle units from formation to formation as a big enhancement. In the reality of military system of command and control the reassignment of units to local headquarters is a direct and necessary procedure. Happens all the time as commanders allocate resources to defeat the threat. Don’t know how practical this is in TOAW III coding terms, but it is something I would like to see.

This is the other issue. Before we start shoehorning units/formations into a command hierarchy, they need to at least have some ability to be reasigned - that's if that hierarchy is actually going to have some game effect.

We're trying to do the easiest stuff with the biggest payback in 3.4 and I had hoped a simple unit reasignment option would make the cut. But Ralph felt it would need some sort of graphical UI to do right and therefore would be too tough for this time. (We're also finding that the "easiest stuff" is pretty darn hard).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: L`zard
I can see it as an aid to designers by way of allowing better commos to lower formations out-right, by way of allowing 'cooperation', etc ... In my present play-test we're having a problem due to this exact thing, in that the 'highest' HQ (and direct assets) can't be 'colored' in a way to 'pick them out' and still allow for the levels of cooperation that would seem neccesary thru out the multiple levels obtained thru the OOB of the Corps sized formations. AND this scenario has about 8 corps per side, with 2x divs each, and below that 3-4 regiments...and both corps and divisional artillery formations....

What you need are more cooperation levels. A command hierarchy won't fix that issue, unless more cooperation levels are included as part of it.

I've long thought that the cooperation levels are too crude. We ought to be able to vary cooperation from 0-100%. (See item 7.1.3 in the wishlist).

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda
P.S. Hmmmm... some more 'oh yeah'...... putting in the chain of command without any functional changes, would NOT require any changes to Elmer, and with it you could click up and down the chain of command and actually see the entirety of the army you have at your command.

It's a great idea, and if I wasn't working with what's basically DOS code, I'd do it.

Unfortunately the way the code is written, to do it, I'd need graphics for the open and closed tree symbols, graphics for the leaf nodes, logic to handle exactly where they clicked on, whether it was an open/close symbol, or the item, and to open/close/select that part of the tree. I'd have to do this in a static area of the screen (probably on the right hand pane.) I'd also have to make sure it resizes down to 800x600, which means scroll bars (or the equivalent arrows.)

We're reastically talking probably 40-80 hours of work, probably closer to or over the 80 hour mark. It's also throw-away code, since the next version won't be able to use it. 40 hours would be an ugly but functionality. button looking interface, 80 would be prettier. You also should be able to bring up the Unit and Formation dialogs from the tree.

That's a 1 month delay. The cost isn't worth the benefit, and this patch is definitely way later than we expected already.

It's definitely on the list for the next version, along with making it useful for things like making mass changes in emphasis, etc. If I get a decent definition of what other properties it should have, we may put that in too.

Ralph

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda
In any case, there are lots of players hear that IMO would put down good money to get some significant improvements to the TOAW engine... and IMO it is MATRIX that is missing out on an opportunity here.

Again, missing out on a significant business opportunity, IMO.

Yeah, might take being a bit creative in doing something like closing down enhancements for TOAW3, opening up a TOAW4 Fast Track (for like $50 that could be used in purchasing TOAW4 when it is ultimately released) and then releasing updates there NOT GOING THROUGH THE NORMAL RELEASE MECHANISM WHICH TAKES FOREVER, and getting enhancements to the player community fast.

Of course, I posted this previously under a different ID and, gee wiz... that was a considerable time ago and nothing since so..... what can I say???

There are legal reasons that nothing like that is possible right now. I'll leave it at that.

After this patch is out, I do want to make another backup of the source code, archive it, and start on the next game. I would like to experiment with an improvement model that includes more frequent betas to get wider feedback.

One thing that the patch wil add is an XML export/Import. I need to check on the legal aspects, but one possible starting point would be to create an open source editor project on CodePlex with the appropriate license agreement. That would let me experiment with the interface, and get some help in building out the editor. It would also help the TOAW 3 designers. I've read a couple of books, and I figure it would take me about 2 months to play arouns with WPF and learn enough to put up a decent start. It's going to take longer to get it completed.

I'm pretty sure that it's possible to do that with the 'express' edition, so anyone could contribute. They'd have to own TOAW, since I can't upload the graphics, but it is definitely something I'm looking into.

Ralph

[Zaratoughda]

Ralph.... I respect what you are saying but it wasn't what I was talking about.

What I was getting at... to be specific.... is right now you have formation displays and unit displays. In the formation displays the units in that formation are listed and if you right click on them you will bring up the unit display for that unit.

What I am suggesting.... is to allow other formations (subordinate formations) to be listed in a formation display along with units. Then, if you right click on a listed formation, it will bring up the formation display for that formation.

What would be needed with this.... is a way to go from a formation display to a higher level formation display. Right now, in unit displays, there is a STAR that you click on to get the formation display for that unit. So, what you would need, is this STAR included in the formation displays, and clicking on it would bring up the formation display for the higher level formation (the top formation would have a darkened star... no higher level formation).

With this, you could go up and down the chain of command and get a feel for the entirity of the army at your command. Functional changes, like attaching HQ Bias supply to the chain of command, could come later depending on value and work effort.

Something like a tree display of the entirety of the chain of command, would be cool no doubt but, like you say, it would be a much more significant programming effort.

Also, putting something like this in now or even later would in and of itself, have no value. Unless the chain of command is put in the scenarios there is no chain of command. But, putting in this relatively simple design with the chain of command scenario architecture (e.g. whatever fields, in any, that are needed in the scenario files) would allow the scenario designers to put in the chain of command and then if you put in a tree display later the scenarios would already support it.

Hmmm.... yeah.... might take some arcitecture changes and also there would have to be a way in the editor to assign formations to parent formations.

But, if something like this were put in.... IMO... would be a huge step forward for TOAW, because the lacking of a chain of command (other than the color coding) is a major lacking in TOAW compared to other games along these lines like Advanced Tactics.

Z

[Zaratoughda]

L'zard....

Right now, if I bring up a TOAW scenario that I have not been playing... it is difficult to get a feel for the entirety of the army under my command. Have to go back and forth across the map clicking on this unit and that and ultimately getting the best feel I can for the entirety of the army under my command... and we are talking a feel here that is not necessarily complete or valid.

But.... if the chain of command was in there as I have suggested (a tree display in addition would be even better but, a much more significant programming effort), I could then click on any unit and go up the chain of command until I hit the top. There, the second highest level formations would be listed and I could click on them and go up and down the chain of command until I got the feel for the entirety of that command, etc.

The advantage of something like this over a tree structure (like in AT) would be you could not only see the command structure but in TOAW as it is now, you can see where units are located.... typically moreso when you hit the bottom formations in the chain of command.

Hmmmm.... I guess the way this could be expressed is.... 'Gee wiz, would be nice if I could actually SEE the army under my command, as opposed to just seeing a bunch of units across the map'.

Whatever,

Z

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

L'zard....

Right now, if I bring up a TOAW scenario that I have not been playing... it is difficult to get a feel for the entirety of the army under my command. Have to go back and forth across the map clicking on this unit and that and ultimately getting the best feel I can for the entirety of the army under my command... and we are talking a feel here that is not necessarily complete or valid.

But.... if the chain of command was in there as I have suggested (a tree display in addition would be even better but, a much more significant programming effort), I could then click on any unit and go up the chain of command until I hit the top. There, the second highest level formations would be listed and I could click on them and go up and down the chain of command until I got the feel for the entirety of that command, etc.

The advantage of something like this over a tree structure (like in AT) would be you could not only see the command structure but in TOAW as it is now, you can see where units are located.... typically moreso when you hit the bottom formations in the chain of command.

Hmmmm.... I guess the way this could be expressed is.... 'Gee wiz, would be nice if I could actually SEE the army under my command, as opposed to just seeing a bunch of units across the map'.

Whatever,
Z

Zara;

Methinx we're pretty much on the same page with this, just coming at it from different viewpoints..

Presently, the only way to see a formation with 'stacked' subsidiary formations is thru the OOB tab. This basically sux due to not being able to do anything but scroll through the whole damn OOB until you find the formation your looking for (and not being able to save/jump-back after having gone to the map at that!)....

This may not be a problem in the smaller scenarios, but in the 'Monsters' it equates to some serious time-eating, tedious, effort! Especially when looking at the same formations after a number of turns (say turn-50 out of 154 total).

That this can affect 'cooperation levels' (or vice versa) is just the icing on the cake, LOL!

Guess this why a whole bunch of us will be 'pre-ordering' on Toaw IV, eh?
Ralph said it: 'basically DOS' ( if I wasn't working with what's basically DOS code). Tanstaafl, eh?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: L`zard
Presently, the only way to see a formation with 'stacked' subsidiary formations is thru the OOB tab. This basically sux due to not being able to do anything but scroll through the whole damn OOB until you find the formation your looking for (and not being able to save/jump-back after having gone to the map at that!)....

This may not be a problem in the smaller scenarios, but in the 'Monsters' it equates to some serious time-eating, tedious, effort! Especially when looking at the same formations after a number of turns (say turn-50 out of 154 total).

With 3.4 (I don't know about 3.2) if the combat screen is up, you can hold down on the space key and it disappears and shows the map. When you release the space key, it comes back.

If the OOB screen remembered the unit that was last selected and also pressing the left button made the OOB screen disappear and center on the unit until you released it and the OOB screen popped back up, would that help? It's a little non-intuitive, but not too bad, I think. That would let you look at your units a little quicker, at least.

Another option would be something like what I'm doing with placenames, but with formations or units. having an input box that would let you enter a name to do a partial match against, and it would let you find the next one easily that way. Something like ' to input a formation partial name and <ctrl>-' to find the next formation that matches.

Ralph

[sPzAbt653]

I was just dreaming about what a TOAW Chain of Command might look like, and I thought up a possibility. Please remember that this is for entertainment purposes only, it's only something I dreamed up, and it has nothing to do with anything.

[LOK_32MK]

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

Ralph.... I respect what you are saying but it wasn't what I was talking about.

What I was getting at... to be specific.... is right now you have formation displays and unit displays. In the formation displays the units in that formation are listed and if you right click on them you will bring up the unit display for that unit.

What I am suggesting.... is to allow other formations (subordinate formations) to be listed in a formation display along with units. Then, if you right click on a listed formation, it will bring up the formation display for that formation.

What would be needed with this.... is a way to go from a formation display to a higher level formation display. Right now, in unit displays, there is a STAR that you click on to get the formation display for that unit. So, what you would need, is this STAR included in the formation displays, and clicking on it would bring up the formation display for the higher level formation (the top formation would have a darkened star... no higher level formation).

With this, you could go up and down the chain of command and get a feel for the entirity of the army at your command. Functional changes, like attaching HQ Bias supply to the chain of command, could come later depending on value and work effort.

Something like a tree display of the entirety of the chain of command, would be cool no doubt but, like you say, it would be a much more significant programming effort.

Also, putting something like this in now or even later would in and of itself, have no value. Unless the chain of command is put in the scenarios there is no chain of command. But, putting in this relatively simple design with the chain of command scenario architecture (e.g. whatever fields, in any, that are needed in the scenario files) would allow the scenario designers to put in the chain of command and then if you put in a tree display later the scenarios would already support it.

Hmmm.... yeah.... might take some arcitecture changes and also there would have to be a way in the editor to assign formations to parent formations.

But, if something like this were put in.... IMO... would be a huge step forward for TOAW, because the lacking of a chain of command (other than the color coding) is a major lacking in TOAW compared to other games along these lines like Advanced Tactics.

Z

Ralph/Jamiam
what can we do to help? I realize there are a lot of legal & business reasons to do things a certain way but I think the TOAW community would be willing to contribute in many ways as you see fit. There are a lot of talented people on this board who can help in different ways without asking for monetary reward - just a better game.
[:)]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: LOK_32MK
Ralph/Jamiam
what can we do to help? I realize there are a lot of legal & business reasons to do things a certain way but I think the TOAW community would be willing to contribute in many ways as you see fit. There are a lot of talented people on this board who can help in different ways without asking for monetary reward - just a better game.
[:)]

Not much at the moment, I'm afraid. I am planning to open it up as much as I can to modification using things like the XML export, but it's going to take a while to get where I want to be.

There are two ways of creating games. The normal way is to produce a set of scenarios based series that model individual battles or timeframes. The other way is the way games like CIV and TOAW has been done which is to produce a 'toolkit' and let the community create much of the content. I am mainly doing this for fun, I have a full-time job, so I plan to continue doing things that way. My real love is AI programming, and I want to do more in that vein, so I plan to provide the community with the tools to customize graphics, language, the editor, and everything that I possibly can.

Thanks for the offer,
Ralph

[Zaratoughda]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: L`zard
Presently, the only way to see a formation with 'stacked' subsidiary formations is thru the OOB tab. This basically sux due to not being able to do anything but scroll through the whole damn OOB until you find the formation your looking for (and not being able to save/jump-back after having gone to the map at that!)....

This may not be a problem in the smaller scenarios, but in the 'Monsters' it equates to some serious time-eating, tedious, effort! Especially when looking at the same formations after a number of turns (say turn-50 out of 154 total).

With 3.4 (I don't know about 3.2) if the combat screen is up, you can hold down on the space key and it disappears and shows the map. When you release the space key, it comes back.

If the OOB screen remembered the unit that was last selected and also pressing the left button made the OOB screen disappear and center on the unit until you released it and the OOB screen popped back up, would that help? It's a little non-intuitive, but not too bad, I think. That would let you look at your units a little quicker, at least.

Another option would be something like what I'm doing with placenames, but with formations or units. having an input box that would let you enter a name to do a partial match against, and it would let you find the next one easily that way. Something like ' to input a formation partial name and <ctrl>-' to find the next formation that matches.

Ralph

I checked 3.2 and it works like you say for 3.4.... other than getting an artillery range ring for a second... which then goes away.

Getting the ability to use the space bar to temporarily remove a formation or unit display (like with the combat display) would be a plus because sometimes you can see the unit or units (if a formation) but sometimes the displays cover them. So, would be nice to be able to temporarily remove the display with the space bar to see where the units are.

I don't use the OOB display much... almost forgot what it was <g>.... but with something along the lines you suggest I could see myself using it more.

But still... would be nice to get a true chain of command... though in any case that would take scenario updates as well as the code updates.

Z

[hank]

If this question / suggestion has been asked before, please excuse.  I've read quite a bit of the forum threads but found nothing on this subject so far.

Has the idea of adding a timer to the combat results box been discussed?   In other words, have an option to set a timer of 5, 10 or 15 seconds for the combat result box to clear and move on to the next combat.  As it is now, you have to click the mouse on the checkmark to close the box and move on.  This would be an option obviously because I know a lot of players prefer studying the results in detail at their leisure, then click the clear button.

Or is there a setting hidden somewhere in a file or somewhere in the options I have not found yet to do this?

I know I can turn off these detailed combat reports in the advanced game options.  I don't want to turn them off I just want to be able to review them and move on without having to click the mouse ... OR if I have the need (to whiz for example) or desire (to get a beer) to walk away from the computer, the turn will resolve itself without me and I'll study the results at the end of the turn.

[&o]

[Dr. Foo]

[font=calibri]1. Special Forces units should be as hard to detect as Guerrilla units[/font]
[font=calibri]2. The Stryker added to the database[/font]
[font=calibri]3. The Marine unit should be able to move by helicopter[/font]
[font=calibri]4. When editing a units name or formation name you have to backspace to the point where you would like to edit. Can something be done so we can place a cursor anywhere in the text window? [/font]
5. The abilty to attach and detach units from a formation along with the ablity to create new formations during the game, such as a player might want to detach a few units in order to create a Task Force for an attack once the attack is over the units can go bact to their original formation.