Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What would help is a way to jump around the events list fast -- or at least to the beginning/end. Nothing like being on event 798 and realizing you need to check to see exactly what you did back on event 53.

See item 12.15.4.

[Panama]

This is probably alot to ask but, could a new wishlist be made with the items implemented removed or put in their own area?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

This is probably alot to ask but, could a new wishlist be made with the items implemented removed or put in their own area?

Just delete the blue items.

[Panama]

Sounds a bit like blue pill, red pill. [:D]

Fine.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I was browsing the thread on recon helicopters.  I'm uninterested in life after 1945, but have a recurring need for recon that varies in different areas of the map.  It dawned on me that they would be great for this.

Then I read the line '2. Date has an effect. TOAW III will not allow recon helicopters to work before 1957.'

Why?  Surely designers should have the option to make use of the weapon for whatever purpose they see fit.  Like, I may not want Axis recon in my Mediterranean scenario to be especially good elsewhere -- but recon copters would be just the thing to allow them to see Commonwealth attempts to resupply Malta.

It's already on there: item 12.1.28.

No doubt, but this one would not be hard to implement, and I can't see a down side.

[fogger]

I recall reading somewhere that the Germans had a working helicopter ( two seater) very late in the war. Does anybody know if this is correct and can they throw some light on the subject?

[Panama]

If you look at Camo Workshop's SPWW2 you can see them. Flettner Fl-282 and Fa223 Drache.

Here ya go. The Drache. http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread. ... est-videos [:D]

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke_Achgelis_Fa_223

Fl-282 Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_282

[briantopp]

How about a "torrential mud" event which turns every land hex on the map to "wet" -- better simulating WW1 Flanders in the fall and WW2 Russia in the fall/spring?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: briantopp

How about a "torrential mud" event which turns every land hex on the map to "wet" -- better simulating WW1 Flanders in the fall and WW2 Russia in the fall/spring?

I always wondered why this wasn't made possible.

Also the reverse, map hexes that were designed as muddy drying up. Also swamp/flooded swamp hexes with woods. Very common in the world.

I'm the type who wants all things that effect game play to be able to be scenario designer modified. [;)]

[samba_liten]

Or recon airplanes. Could just be generic equipment, e.g, Bi-plane recon, Piston engine recon, jet recon, unmanned recon. They could work as aircraft, so that they take casualties from enemy air units on air-superiority.(a recon mission would, i suppose, have to be added- it could work like interdiction, except instead of attacking moving units it would reveal any units in a hex if the success check is passed.) 

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: polarenper

Or recon airplanes. Could just be generic equipment, e.g, Bi-plane recon, Piston engine recon, jet recon, unmanned recon. They could work as aircraft, so that they take casualties from enemy air units on air-superiority.(a recon mission would, i suppose, have to be added- it could work like interdiction, except instead of attacking moving units it would reveal any units in a hex if the success check is passed.) 

I'm just interested in a device for obtaining different recon levels in different parts of the map. Of course, the ability to create recon squadrons wouldn't hurt -- but the effect could be there for all kinds of reasons.

[samba_liten]

I am assuming that air units only have an effect within their range. Recent experience with GiO would seem to support this thesis, but I have no proof. If, however the thesis holds true, then recon squadrons would allow the player to discover what is going on only with the area covered by the planes, and only as long as the enemy does not devote sufficient fighter resources to shooting the recon planes down.

EDIT: Just to be clear, i'm not arguing against removing the limit for recon helicopters. As you say, it could be useful in many ways. I would simply like to have recon planes(too).

[Panama]

Can't you make recon aircraft simply by checking the recon tick box in the equipment editor? I realize there would still be a problem with the date.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: briantopp

How about a "torrential mud" event which turns every land hex on the map to "wet" -- better simulating WW1 Flanders in the fall and WW2 Russia in the fall/spring?

Seconded. And it would also help Anzio.

I'd like to add to the proposal that such an event could be combined with a percentage value. This could make a certain percentage of hexes muddy.

And if we are at rasputitsa and mud.. i would like to again promote the concept of "mechanical attrition". (it's already in the wishlist)

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: briantopp

How about a "torrential mud" event which turns every land hex on the map to "wet" -- better simulating WW1 Flanders in the fall and WW2 Russia in the fall/spring?

Seconded. And it would also help Anzio.

I'd like to add to the proposal that such an event could be combined with a percentage value. This could make a certain percentage of hexes muddy.

And if we are at rasputitsa and mud.. i would like to again promote the concept of "mechanical attrition". (it's already in the wishlist)

It's worth noting that in a lot of cases, 'mud' does a lot more than just add one MP to the movement rate.

The extreme case, of course, is Iraq -- particularly World War One/Two Iraq. It floods; not merely no movement, but no staying put.

In an ideal world, we'd want the ability to ordain onslaughts of not merely mud, but also combinations of marsh and badlands, and even flooded marsh.

Then too, only in certain defined areas. Like non-arid, non-road, non-urban hexes.

Just mentioning it. Not saying the solution is there, ready to be coded.

[ColinWright]

Then too, there's massive snowfall.

Like, I've been dealing with the Caucasus of late. These mountains (and plenty of others) don't just become snowy in winter -- they're impassable for eight months of the year. I'm having to block off an area with a border and make a house rule about it -- but surely this isn't the only case.

Lappland comes to mind, for example. I distinctly recall that attempts made there to engage in a spot of Christmas fighting came to a bad end. It proved militarily unfeasible to advance overland to Narvik in April 1940. Then too, the Turks pretty much managed to freeze a whole army to death by trying to campaign in Eastern Anatolia in the winter of 1914/15 (it's commonly described as happening in the Caucasus, but it was really just Anatolia -- well inside of modern Turkey).

There is, of course, the cease-fire event, but first off, this is global, and secondly, combat doesn't necessarily become totally impossible. Vide the Turks. They were able to give it a go. Similarly, the Germans continued to try to advance on Moscow through the Rasputitsa. They just found themselves advancing very slowly.

It's actually a pretty common effect. For example, the wet season and when it arrived pretty much dictated when one could campaign in Ethiopia in 1940-41. I was looking at some slides of the flooding in South Dakota. I'd say that in much -- if not most -- of the world there are periods where if there isn't a road, you're not going anywhere. It's just that since much of the fighting has occurred in one of the few well-roaded areas of the world, and since elsewhere these periods tend to bring a halt to the fighting among the sane, the phenomenon doesn't consume more than a paragraph or two in most histories.

The Russians and Germans both call a halt in the Spring of 1943. There's nothing to discuss. As a result, we lack devices to simulate what would happen if someone tried to carry on -- which does happen.

Given the Rasputitsa, the Caucasus proper, Iraq, and lesser onslaughts in such areas as Tunisia and Italy what would be good would be the ability to code the appearance and disappearance of effects both globally and for specific hexes ranging from ordinary mud, marsh, and snow as we know it through badland-like hexes to outright exclusion zones -- along with some appropriate tiles.

[ColinWright]

I suppose as something feasible to implement, it would be good if one could code the appearance and disappearance of specific badland-like hexes as dictated by the designer -- like exclusion zones, but not as perfectly exclusionary, and able to be brought into being as well as removed.

This -- broadly -- would convey the necessary effect. It wouldn't do justice to the Caucasus in winter, and might exaggerate what happens in Italy, but as an average, it's about right. Only non-mechanized units could move, and no supply could get through. As a result, any action would be confined to roads and the hexes adjacent to them.

[Curtis Lemay]

Attached is a zip file containing the wishlist document that Jarek Flis and I have been developing for months. It was developed by collecting the wishes expressed here, there, and everywhere. We've tried to be comprehensive, but, in spite of the label, that is unattainable. We'll try to continue to maintain it as more issues are raised. Hopefully, this will reduce the repetitive posting of the same wishes over and over.

It's very important that everyone understand that this document is totally unofficial. Be sure to read and understand the disclaimer it contains and repeated here:

Disclaimer: This document contains only a collection of WISHES made by anyone and everyone, and is not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein.

January 1, 2011: Version 11 posted.

January 1, 2012: Version 12 posted at the end of this thread (post #1748, page 59).

Note: I'm not able to delete the version 10 document attached to post #1 of this thread or the version 11 document posted in this post. Just ignore them till I can get it fixed. The version in this post is no longer the latest version.

Note that items in red are new. Items in blue have been implemented.

Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en

[Martin_Goliath]

Thanks, Bob for the updated wishlist. I usually skim through each new update of the list, but this time I thought I should try to single out a few items from the list that I find would be interesting to pursue. They fall, somewhat arbitarily, into three groups.

Extended and enhanced gameplay

1.13 multiside
1.14 multiplay
These items would bring new and interesting possibilities to TOAW

1.15 units in multiple-round combats placed in 'engaged' mode
I do not know it that was the origial intention behind this item, but I would like to see a way to weaken the effect of "turn-burning" engagements. Although this is put to good use in some scenarios, forcing the commander of low-proficiency units to adapt, I still find it hard to accept that a single engagement may paralyze the entire force for the rest of the turn. An alternative where the unit's formation has its MPs zeroed for the remainder of the turn might be worth considering.


Extending the scope
I am the first to admit that TOAW already has been brought outside the original intended scope. Nevertheless, one of the main reasons that TOAW appeals to me is the flexibility and ability to model almost any military conflict. If designers are willing to take the risk, I see no reason not to stretch a bit further...

1.3-1.4 extended setting of hex size & turn interval

4.10 OOB hierarchy

9.12 submarines
Perhaps not highest on my list, but would add to the naval component. Could maybe be modeled like air interdiction, attacking transports and naval vessels within range, itself subject to ASW capabilities present.

11 Pre-20 century
Judging from available scenarios, there is an interest for using TOAW further back in the past.

(12.17.2 Sphere)
Well, we had a thread on this a few years ago... Wouldn't it be cool playing TOAW with a GoogleEarth-like interface? (or maybe not...)


"Power to the scenario designers!"
Although no designer myself, the mere possibility to design almost any scenario is a main reason for me to place TOAW as the #1 wargame. I would like to see as many parameters as possible tunable by intrepid scenario designers (although many of those parameters probably would be detrimental to tamper with in most cases)

1.5 free setting of hex size & turn interval

1.6 turn interval changed by event
Would for instance enable speed-up of the Sitzkrieg

2.26 terrain parameters modifiable by designer
Would enable designers to define new terrain types they need

12.1 Parameter expansion
(see title of this group of items)

12.2-12.5, 12.13, 12.25 Additional...
(see title of this group of items)

12.21 Old scenarios loadable
Although ACOW-owners in the community are wonderful when it comes to converting old scenarios, it would be great to have direct access in TOAW III to all those older scenarios out there. Admittedly, they need tweaking to play well with TOAW III, but I would hate to see all those efforts slip into the digital abyss. I think Ralph once mentioned that the backwards compatibility was broken at some stage when going from ACOW to TOAW III.

Some suggestions I would like to add:

(1) Detailed game engine documentation
It would probably be useful both for designers and players to have a detailed reference to the gory details of the TOAW engine. As an aside, I have found some interesting material on combat simulation models used professionally, which would be interesting to compare with TOAW. My impression is that TOAW stands up well, at least when comparing to what was around in the 90's.

(2) "Smallest undivisible unit" setting
To make the section '..' workaround unneccessary.

(3) "int -> float"
...which would be a programmer's way to suggest going from using integer-valued parameters (like 1 or 2) to real-valued (like 1.62). This might not sound very cool, but I think it would benefit the game engine to take this step. Some wishes that would benefit from this are:
1.5 free setting of hex size & turn interval
2.26 terrain parameters modifiable by designer
3.20 more precision in AP, AT (etc) values
6.1 movement allowances scaled correctly
6.7 motorized bonus on road
I realize this would be a major rewrite of exisiting code, but if a future TOAW 4 is built from scratch it might be good to have this in mind from the outset. In the past, I guess integers were preferred in order to save memory and computational speed, but with the current capabilities sitting on desktops that should no longer be a big issue. Watch out though for a false sense of precision that simply cannot be achieved in the modeling: a 32.4 km hex grid with 21.1-day turns, units moving 15.23 hexes per turn, forests having a movement cost of 2.45 and infantry defensive factor 3.28

Regards
Martin

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: MarGol

Extended and enhanced gameplay

1.13 multiside
1.14 multiplay
These items would bring new and interesting possibilities to TOAW

1.15 units in multiple-round combats placed in 'engaged' mode
I do not know it that was the origial intention behind this item, but I would like to see a way to weaken the effect of "turn-burning" engagements. Although this is put to good use in some scenarios, forcing the commander of low-proficiency units to adapt, I still find it hard to accept that a single engagement may paralyze the entire force for the rest of the turn. An alternative where the unit's formation has its MPs zeroed for the remainder of the turn might be worth considering.


Extending the scope
I am the first to admit that TOAW already has been brought outside the original intended scope. Nevertheless, one of the main reasons that TOAW appeals to me is the flexibility and ability to model almost any military conflict. If designers are willing to take the risk, I see no reason not to stretch a bit further...

1.3-1.4 extended setting of hex size & turn interval

4.10 OOB hierarchy

9.12 submarines
Perhaps not highest on my list, but would add to the naval component. Could maybe be modeled like air interdiction, attacking transports and naval vessels within range, itself subject to ASW capabilities present.

11 Pre-20 century
Judging from available scenarios, there is an interest for using TOAW further back in the past.

(12.17.2 Sphere)
Well, we had a thread on this a few years ago... Wouldn't it be cool playing TOAW with a GoogleEarth-like interface? (or maybe not...)


"Power to the scenario designers!"
Although no designer myself, the mere possibility to design almost any scenario is a main reason for me to place TOAW as the #1 wargame. I would like to see as many parameters as possible tunable by intrepid scenario designers (although many of those parameters probably would be detrimental to tamper with in most cases)

1.5 free setting of hex size & turn interval

1.6 turn interval changed by event
Would for instance enable speed-up of the Sitzkrieg

2.26 terrain parameters modifiable by designer
Would enable designers to define new terrain types they need

12.1 Parameter expansion
(see title of this group of items)

12.2-12.5, 12.13, 12.25 Additional...
(see title of this group of items)

12.21 Old scenarios loadable
Although ACOW-owners in the community are wonderful when it comes to converting old scenarios, it would be great to have direct access in TOAW III to all those older scenarios out there. Admittedly, they need tweaking to play well with TOAW III, but I would hate to see all those efforts slip into the digital abyss. I think Ralph once mentioned that the backwards compatibility was broken at some stage when going from ACOW to TOAW III.

A very good list - although I still see the Sphere as impractical if not impossible.

Note that 12.25 is implemented already - in 3.4.

Some suggestions I would like to add:

(1) Detailed game engine documentation
It would probably be useful both for designers and players to have a detailed reference to the gory details of the TOAW engine. As an aside, I have found some interesting material on combat simulation models used professionally, which would be interesting to compare with TOAW. My impression is that TOAW stands up well, at least when comparing to what was around in the 90's.

While desirable, I doubt there's anyone who has that info. And trying to discern TOAW's operation via poking around in the code is a fool's errand. It would have to be determined via rigorous testing.

Also, note that the Wishlist is just for code issues. Somebody once posted a list of scenarios he wanted designed. That's fine, but not for this document. I don't even include equipment suggestions anymore, since one can do that oneself. Same for graphics wishes. So, sorry, no documentation requests for the list - regardless of their merit. Gotta stay on topic.

(2) "Smallest undivisible unit" setting
To make the section '..' workaround unneccessary.

Good idea.

(3) "int -> float"
...which would be a programmer's way to suggest going from using integer-valued parameters (like 1 or 2) to real-valued (like 1.62). This might not sound very cool, but I think it would benefit the game engine to take this step. Some wishes that would benefit from this are:
1.5 free setting of hex size & turn interval
2.26 terrain parameters modifiable by designer
3.20 more precision in AP, AT (etc) values
6.1 movement allowances scaled correctly
6.7 motorized bonus on road
I realize this would be a major rewrite of exisiting code, but if a future TOAW 4 is built from scratch it might be good to have this in mind from the outset. In the past, I guess integers were preferred in order to save memory and computational speed, but with the current capabilities sitting on desktops that should no longer be a big issue. Watch out though for a false sense of precision that simply cannot be achieved in the modeling: a 32.4 km hex grid with 21.1-day turns, units moving 15.23 hexes per turn, forests having a movement cost of 2.45 and infantry defensive factor 3.28

I suggested this over and over to Norm practically right from the start.