Maybe not a good time?

[bo]

Maybe not a good time, with the 1.60 beta patch out and the official patch due soon maybe this is not a good time to bring this up but what the hell cant help it. If nothing can be changed due to programmers limitations or it would take to long then I must let it go.
1-yesterday I was playing the d-day mod a tank unit with Patton in it was trapped in open ground by six axis units [surrounded totally] They attacked and somehow the Patton unit survived for the next turn. I did not want to lose Patton because of his overall leadership strength so I removed him from that command and he appeared back on my commander list. Sorry that is wrong. If it doesn't bother anyone then thats it but it is still wrong.

2-To me the ZOC's in this game need to be changed [if possible I am not a programmer]
How can a lowly division of infantry have the same ZOC as a Panzer unit, according to players in the posts a hex is 25km [?] in all directions. IMO a division of infantry should have no zone of control period. A motorized infantry division [trucks] should have 1 ZOC
An armored motorized division 1 or 2 ZOC's, a Panzer division at least 2 ZOC's, my opinion stems from the speed in which certain divisions can reach an embattled area to fight an enemy. There are many knowldgeable players and posters here a hell of alot more savy than I am about war and programming, and I know it has been disscused before, I need you to tell me where I am wrong about this, If it cant be done because it would mess up all the other programming in the game then thats it, no more said, but to me it does not look right and it is not right, need some input on this please.

Bo

[gwgardner]

1) What if a small plane was sent in to the surrounded unit and Patton got aboard and flew out? I've always disliked the ability to strat move whole units out of an encirclement, but a leader seems fine to me. If you don't think it's reasonable, use a 'house rule' disallowing it.

2) This entry in the consts.csv file, per scenario, controls zones of control:
#Unit type;Plain;Forest;Rough;Swamp;Hills;Mountains;Desert;Other;enemy ZOC penalty;;;;;;;;
Infantry;1;1;2;2;2;2;1;1000;1;;;;;;;;
Motorized;1;2;3;4;2;3;1;1000;2;;;;;;;;
Armor;1;2;3;4;2;3;1;1000;2;;;;;;;;

As you can see, infantry units cause a 1 action point penalty for movement of enemy units, while motorized and armor cause 2. If you wanted to experiment with zero zoc penalty for infantry, just change the 1 to 0.

There is a consts.csv file for each scenario. Save your original consts.csv before altering.

[later] looking at that again, I may be wrong about that entry. Perhaps it means that infantry have a 1 AP loss when moving from a zone of control. Developers please clarify.

[Uxbridge]

I'm quite sure that the figures are the penalty the units suffer from ZoC, not what they cause. So changing infantry will not have the desired effect. What could be done if Bo wants to 'blitz around' for a while is that the figures for motorized and armour could be lowered to "0".

This change would of course mean that motorized and armour lose their ZoCs in regard to other units of the same kind.

I think it would break the balance of the entire game system.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

I'm quite sure that the figures are the penalty the units suffer from ZoC, not what they cause. So changing infantry will not have the desired effect. What could be done if Bo wants to 'blitz around' for a while is that the figures for motorized and armour could be lowered to "0".

This change would of course mean that motorized and armour lose their ZoCs in regard to other units of the same kind.

I think it would break the balance of the entire game system.

Hi Uxbridge your last part of your post will suffice for me but why do you go off on some tangent like I want to blitz around, that is part of what I dont like about some posters the question was not negative in any way, I was hoping a reasonable explanation would suffice not Bo goes blitzing around the map I guess the crap will never change.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

1) What if a small plane was sent in to the surrounded unit and Patton got aboard and flew out? I've always disliked the ability to strat move whole units out of an encirclement, but a leader seems fine to me. If you don't think it's reasonable, use a 'house rule' disallowing it.

2) This entry in the consts.csv file, per scenario, controls zones of control:
#Unit type;Plain;Forest;Rough;Swamp;Hills;Mountains;Desert;Other;enemy ZOC penalty;;;;;;;;
Infantry;1;1;2;2;2;2;1;1000;1;;;;;;;;
Motorized;1;2;3;4;2;3;1;1000;2;;;;;;;;
Armor;1;2;3;4;2;3;1;1000;2;;;;;;;;

As you can see, infantry units cause a 1 action point penalty for movement of enemy units, while motorized and armor cause 2. If you wanted to experiment with zero zoc penalty for infantry, just change the 1 to 0.

There is a consts.csv file for each scenario. Save your original consts.csv before altering.

[later] looking at that again, I may be wrong about that entry. Perhaps it means that infantry have a 1 AP loss when moving from a zone of control. Developers please clarify.

Thank you GW appreciate it do not want to change anything if it doesn't meet the criteria of the programmers and the rest of the players on these forums.

Bo

[gwgardner]

Hey, you can change it just for a test. Do some blitzing around!

Back in the Road to Victory days - Road to Victory was the parent of ToW - we had a discussion on ZOCs, and with Uxbridge's help I recall lessening the ZOC penalty and testing with that. I believe the developers lessened the original ZOC penalty based on that discussion. Have to check with them. The point is, if you can conceive of it, try it through modding.

Uxbridge wasn't being negative, he was being colorful. He's a prolific modder himself.

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

I'm quite sure that the figures are the penalty the units suffer from ZoC, not what they cause. So changing infantry will not have the desired effect. What could be done if Bo wants to 'blitz around' for a while is that the figures for motorized and armour could be lowered to "0".

This change would of course mean that motorized and armour lose their ZoCs in regard to other units of the same kind.

I think it would break the balance of the entire game system.

Hi Uxbridge your last part of your post will suffice for me but why do you go off on some tangent like I want to blitz around, that is part of what I dont like about some posters the question was not negative in any way, I was hoping a reasonable explanation would suffice not Bo goes blitzing around the map I guess the crap will never change.

Bo

No offence, Bo. I just meant that you could try it and then change back to the original setting if you didn't find the effects entirely to your liking. My suggestion isn't exactly what you were asking for, so I take it the trial, if you do try it, will be of short duration.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

I'm quite sure that the figures are the penalty the units suffer from ZoC, not what they cause. So changing infantry will not have the desired effect. What could be done if Bo wants to 'blitz around' for a while is that the figures for motorized and armour could be lowered to "0".

This change would of course mean that motorized and armour lose their ZoCs in regard to other units of the same kind.

I think it would break the balance of the entire game system.

Hi Uxbridge your last part of your post will suffice for me but why do you go off on some tangent like I want to blitz around, that is part of what I dont like about some posters the question was not negative in any way, I was hoping a reasonable explanation would suffice not Bo goes blitzing around the map I guess the crap will never change.

Bo

No offence, Bo. I just meant that you could try it and then change back to the original setting if you didn't find the effects entirely to your liking. My suggestion isn't exactly what you were asking for, so I take it the trial, if you do try it, will be of short duration.

Ok Ux you said it would break the game balance and I accept that I just felt because of the huge scale of this map that a different ZOC system might work but it would have to be with the agreement by programmers, players, yourself and others that would make it work for me. No problem thanks for your input.

Bo

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Hey, you can change it just for a test. Do some blitzing around!

Back in the Road to Victory days - Road to Victory was the parent of ToW - we had a discussion on ZOCs, and with Uxbridge's help I recall lessening the ZOC penalty and testing with that. I believe the developers lessened the original ZOC penalty based on that discussion. Have to check with them. The point is, if you can conceive of it, try it through modding.

Uxbridge wasn't being negative, he was being colorful. He's a prolific modder himself.

Oh, in fact, GW, I was making the ZoC stronger. [:)]

The problem with the weak ZoC, as we saw it, was that it was far too easy to work around an army trying to defend a long front with a limited number of units. When the Germans got the upper hand in this USSR, they could use the game system to swarm the steppes with cheap 1-level motorized units. This is where I raised the ZoC penalty with "1" for each unit type. I had to raise the AP for the slowest units to give them a chance to exit limited ZoCs, but mostly it worked.

Bo gave me an idea, however. Suppose we took the ZoC penalty off the armour units altogehter and raised the production cost for those units to the double, making them the queens of the battlefield they were, but expensive in use. Then we raise the ZoC penalty for normal inf and motorized, making those units unable to follow up armour breakthroughs unless the breakthrough gap is wide enough. With the hazzard of being cut off, armour wouldn't dare operate alone, so when seeking major breakthroughs, the player has to collect large armour formations to the operational area concerned, depriving other parts of the front from these vital units.

Might be worth further consideration, or what do you say GW?

[gwgardner]

I say 'publish that mod!' You make it and we will try it.

Howsomeever, from what I've seen on the Eastern front in my current PBEM, armor has been curtailed in power a bit already, by weather and greater resilience of the enemy forces.

In RtV units were smashed easily, clearing an open path instantly. In ToW it's much harder to force that open path.

[Wolfe1759]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Bo gave me an idea, however. Suppose we took the ZoC penalty off the armour units altogehter and raised the production cost for those units to the double, making them the queens of the battlefield they were, but expensive in use. Then we raise the ZoC penalty for normal inf and motorized, making those units unable to follow up armour breakthroughs unless the breakthrough gap is wide enough. With the hazzard of being cut off, armour wouldn't dare operate alone, so when seeking major breakthroughs, the player has to collect large armour formations to the operational area concerned, depriving other parts of the front from these vital units.

Now this is an interesting idea, makes me think of armour expolitation and breakthroughs from the likes of Third Reich (board game), also armoured divisions now have an extra utility as exploitation units and for this will be a lot more cost effective than the armoured corps which will be more of a hammer blow style unit.