Number of units available in 3.4.0.178...

[1_Lzard]

I should know this but don't.........

What's the present number of units (by force) available in this version? 2000?


[X(]

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

I should know this but don't.........

What's the present number of units (by force) available in this version? 2000?


[X(]

Unfortunately the upper limit remains 2k per force.

[1_Lzard]

*sigh*

[fogger]

How much do we have to pay Ralph to fix this?

[pionier]

Yeah it would be quit cool if we could push up the nummer up to 2.5 k. Modern computers have no problems with more units =)

[1_Lzard]

Or 3k, for that matter! [:'(]

[shunwick]

My brain has a problem with the present limit.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

My brain has a problem with the present limit.

Best wishes,
Steve

The current counter limit cripples a scenario designeres ability to properly portray a campaign not because he can't put 4k units on the map all at the same time but because he can't shuffle units in and out as might have been done historically. A 500 unit force over a period of a couple of years could easily change four times because of changes in formations and/or TO&E. Just look at the changes German units went through from the beginning of the war to the end of 1941.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Panama

The current counter limit cripples a scenario designeres ability to properly portray a campaign not because he can't put 4k units on the map all at the same time but because he can't shuffle units in and out as might have been done historically. A 500 unit force over a period of a couple of years could easily change four times because of changes in formations and/or TO&E. Just look at the changes German units went through from the beginning of the war to the end of 1941.

Ultimately, any scenario which has problems with the unit limit is a strategic, not an operational scenario. They already tend to perform questionably due to their sheer size and length. Adding still more units is only going to make this worse.

By contrast the various outstanding questions around game mechanics would benefit scenarios which otherwise work just fine.

[Panama]

A strategic scenario and an operational scenario are not defined by length nor number of units.

"It is a twentieth?]century concept dealing with the direction of military forces in conceiving and executing operations to attain strategic objectives. It involves joint and combined forces and apportioning resources to tactical units. Operational art forms a bridge between strategy, defining the political aims of a war, and tactics, fighting the battles of a war. While not neglecting the strategic objectives of belligerents in war and their tactical doctrines, it concentrates on a level between them."

One of the reasons TOAW may have problems depicting prolonged campaigns is because of it's unit limit among others. Adding to the upper limit of units would not have a negative impact and could only help. I'm still struggling with why people might be so vehemently opposed to this. I'm not sure how difficult it would be other than making a larger database. If you don't like the scenarios don't play them. However, there are people who do like 'monster' scenarios. Why not give people the ability to properly model and play them if they want to?

[jomni]

Are you guys nuts?  Masochists?
I stopped playing TOAW because of the ridiculously large scenarios with hundreds of counters.
It's not about the capability of the computer.  It's about the patience of the player. Lol!
I guess you guys can't relate to my gripes.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: jomni

Are you guys nuts?  Masochists?
I stopped playing TOAW because of the ridiculously large scenarios with hundreds of counters.
It's not about the capability of the computer.  It's about the patience of the player. Lol!
I guess you guys can't relate to my gripes.

uhm...yeah. I think you stopped playing TOAW to play with girls wearing airplane suits. [:D]

[pionier]

Well i do not see any problems with a higher number, only technical but this is past...

Look if you don't wish to go up to over 2k, you might allow us to have more than 2k unis but only 2k units at the map on each side in time...
Is this an opportunity?

[1_Lzard]

ORIGINAL: jomni
Are you guys nuts?  Masochists?
I stopped playing TOAW because of the ridiculously large scenarios with hundreds of counters.
It's not about the capability of the computer.  It's about the patience of the player. Lol!
I guess you guys can't relate to my gripes.

Actually, your right! We can't relate to your gripes! If your not playing the game, why should we!

Further, WE have no problems with OUR patience, why should you?

[Curtis Lemay]

A scenario doesn't have to be too huge to run into the unit limit. Combat tends to sub-divide units. But that can't go past 2000 either. So you can't even get the OOB close to 2000 before you start getting a force that shatters easily due to lack of ablilty to sub-divide (sometimes that's useful, of course; but not usually). And you hit that with the formation unit limit, too. Also, units can be needed for other things besides combat forces - replacement disbandments, for example.

And there's a whole list of other things that need to be increased. Map Boundaries, Event Slots, Force Formation Limits, Formation Unit Limits, Unit Equipment Item Limits, Placename Limit, Bigger Briefing, More Restriction Zones, Equipment File Equipment Item Slots, More Event Variables, etc.

Of course, there may be a price in performance to pay for this. In the past, TOAW I through ACOW were split into "normal" and "huge" versions to try to accomodate this problem. So, Arracourt didn't have to carry around the overhead of FITE, etc. I don't think Ralph wants to have to support two versions (that's why the "normal" version was history in TOAW III). We would be creating a "super huge" version, and we don't know how that will impact normal sized scenarios. But Ralph is just superb. He may figure out how to do it dynamically, or such.

[ralphtricky]

*blush* Unit count wouldn't be too expensive to increase. It's pretty linear, for most operations, going from 2k to 5k would take 2.5 times the time assuming that all the units were valid. It would be a lot less time than that if many were invalid. Anything which looks at all your units and all his units is going to take 2.5*2.5 times as long if all the units are valid and on the map. Some of the ai routines may do that, but I'm pretty sure unless you're using all those units, it should have only a small impact.

Once 3.4 is out we can decide which limit increases will give us the most bang for the buck.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: jomni

Are you guys nuts?  Masochists?
I stopped playing TOAW because of the ridiculously large scenarios with hundreds of counters.
It's not about the capability of the computer.  It's about the patience of the player. Lol!
I guess you guys can't relate to my gripes.

I can, why do you think I added the new 'Elmer assist' mode? I'd like to try a couple of the large scenarios without dedicating my life to it!

[pionier]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

*blush* Unit count wouldn't be too expensive to increase. It's pretty linear, for most operations, going from 2k to 5k would take 2.5 times the time assuming that all the units were valid. It would be a lot less time than that if many were invalid. Anything which looks at all your units and all his units is going to take 2.5*2.5 times as long if all the units are valid and on the map. Some of the ai routines may do that, but I'm pretty sure unless you're using all those units, it should have only a small impact.

Once 3.4 is out we can decide which limit increases will give us the most bang for the buck.

sounds perfect to me.

best regards

Pio

[Ratbag55]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

*blush* Unit count wouldn't be too expensive to increase. It's pretty linear, for most operations, going from 2k to 5k would take 2.5 times the time assuming that all the units were valid. It would be a lot less time than that if many were invalid. Anything which looks at all your units and all his units is going to take 2.5*2.5 times as long if all the units are valid and on the map. Some of the ai routines may do that, but I'm pretty sure unless you're using all those units, it should have only a small impact.

Once 3.4 is out we can decide which limit increases will give us the most bang for the buck.

That sounds great!!

I would really like it if unit numbers where increased as well as formation numbers and the number of place names.

And while you are at it, why not change the 299x299 map to 999x999...

Cheers,

/Ratbag

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

*blush* Unit count wouldn't be too expensive to increase. It's pretty linear, for most operations, going from 2k to 5k would take 2.5 times the time assuming that all the units were valid. It would be a lot less time than that if many were invalid. Anything which looks at all your units and all his units is going to take 2.5*2.5 times as long if all the units are valid and on the map. Some of the ai routines may do that, but I'm pretty sure unless you're using all those units, it should have only a small impact.

Once 3.4 is out we can decide which limit increases will give us the most bang for the buck.

If you increase the number of equipment items per unit, say from 32 to 64, there's another doubling. But, still probably not too much of an issue. (Ooh - and increase the number and/or size of parameters in the equipment item - it just keeps growing). [:)]

But there could also be a hit on file sizes, and that may not depend upon whether the arrays actually had real units in them. Just the fact that the system has to have a 5k array might double file sizes, etc. That's why dynamic arrays might be the trick.