What to change ?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
Notably, the best TOAW player I've encountered in PBM (Colin Wright) is one of those people who plays the game as if it were a real battle.

I wonder if this Colin dude has ever played against any ladder leaders of SZO. Might get his a** whupped.

You seem to have managed to miss the point. Anyway, I wanted to mention we've compiled quite a list of possible changes over at TDG.

[Fidel_Helms]

I would be interested to see more of the internal game mechanics made editable, such as the number of "shots" a unit gets in combat, etc.

I'd also like to see an in game formation editor that would let you transfer equipment between units during play, as well as create new units. Ideally, this would have several different levels of intensity which the designer could assign to each force. Thus, in a France 40 scenario, the Allies would be limited to merely shuffling around equipment from one unit to another, whereas the Germans would be able to create ad hoc kampfgruppes on the fly.

[Fidel_Helms]

I'd also like to see some improvements to the playback function in PBEM. One thing I detest about the current setup is that detailed combat reports are not available to the player watching the playback. This puts the defender at a huge disadvantage in PBEM.

Also, the communication level doesn't seem to work. I was playing around with it a few years ago, since the help file seemed to state that moving would cause a comm check which could potentially cause a unit to go into reorg. This would have been great for a France 40 scenario or WWI or something, but even with a zero communication level, it never panned out. Nobody ever went into reorg.

[Fidel_Helms]

Sorry for the broken up posts, it's late.

How about editable climate zones? I'd like to be able to define my own rather than having to accept the number of hexes that the engine determines should separate different zones, and being able to have climate zones that run from east to west would be a big plus. When I designed my Ecuador 95 scenario years ago, there was no way to properly model weather because the zones only went north-south. Also, the game currently makes some assumptions about weather that would be nice to edit. For example, we found in the course of playtesting Campaign for South Vietnam that hot weather causes mud to disappear pretty quickly in TOAW- thus South Vietnam had to be made "cold"! I can't remember what if any side effects that had.

[coralsaw]

Looking at the great screenshot that Mantis provided, well I have to say this thing still looks the dog's... [:)]

And another thing that's been creeping inside my memories for ages: the font, I so hate TOAW's original font, it makes me cry. Fix it or sumthin. [:D]

/coralsaw

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Mantis

I've gone through the mods available recently, and taken a few bmp's from here, and a few from there. The bulk of this mod is from Peter's mod, which is available at www.tdg.nu for those interested.

Have a peek!

Hmm...

Hope we aren't going to stray too far from the original game. My take on the mod:

* Towns - better
* Fields - better
* Roads - better
* Frontier lines (red vice black) - better
* Rivers - Purple and light blue... tends to blend in too much with the rest of the scenary and looks weird - worse
* Airfields - perfer black
* Trees - perfer original

Overall, at least from this screen it looks too darn "hexy." Like a boardgame. Hope the game will maintain the ability for terrain to spill over into the other hexes like before.

Change things (in general) too much guys, and sure fire sales, may not be too sure fire.

Ray (alias Lava)

[JMS2]

But the good thing is that anyone can change the graphics in TOAW as they are .bmp files, one just needs patience. This is what Peter did, he liked the boardgame look, and it can be useful for debugging terrain when designing scenarios. In fact I use both the original and the mod depending on the scenario, all you have to do is put the original art into a winzip file and extract when the mood suits.

[RyanCrierie]

Well, I've always liked the way in HPS games when you select a unit, you immediately see in it's unit box how many men or vehicles are in that unit; while with TOAW; you have to select the unit, and then right click to see a breakdown of numbers. Perhaps the unit information screen in the upper right corner of the TAOAW screen could be reworked to show raw men/tanks/vehicles/ships in that unit to help us gauge how big that unit is at a glance; as a Division counter might actually be only at regimental strength, especially on the Eastern Front.

[RyanCrierie]

The user interface for creating OOBs and events needs to be overhauled; perhaps an external OOB/Event editor could be programmed that would allow much more ease in editing them than the in-game editor?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Mantis

I've gone through the mods available recently, and taken a few bmp's from here, and a few from there. The bulk of this mod is from Peter's mod, which is available at www.tdg.nu for those interested.

Have a peek!

This is very ugly. Too many bluish-purplish tones, and hexes do not blend. I play with no hex borders and have always liked the was hexes blend in TOAW, forming a very natural looking map.

To say I liked the original map better would be an understatement.

O.

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Well, I've always liked the way in HPS games when you select a unit, you immediately see in it's unit box how many men or vehicles are in that unit; while with TOAW; you have to select the unit, and then right click to see a breakdown of numbers. Perhaps the unit information screen in the upper right corner of the TAOAW screen could be reworked to show raw men/tanks/vehicles/ships in that unit to help us gauge how big that unit is at a glance; as a Division counter might actually be only at regimental strength, especially on the Eastern Front.

Yeah, but should be optional with a toggle on/off shortcut - the unit TOE can hold up to 32 different items if memory serves me and could use quite a bit of the display surface.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
Notably, the best TOAW player I've encountered in PBM (Colin Wright) is one of those people who plays the game as if it were a real battle.

I wonder if this Colin dude has ever played against any ladder leaders of SZO. Might get his a** whupped.

You seem to have managed to miss the point.

That you play the game as if it was a real battle? How's that even possible without any hallucinogenics?

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Anyway, I wanted to mention we've compiled quite a list of possible changes over at TDG.

http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.pl? ... 1128991272

[06 Maestro]

Other than removing the cheat bug, the most important change to this game would be the elimination of early turn ending do to a “failed proficiency check”. This feature is supposed to add randomness to the play, but in fact greatly reduces the games ability to accurately recreate military operations. Although it does not happen often, when it does, it can wreck a game.

There are many other improvements that can/should be made,but the two above need to be on a high priority. Not too many new players will stick with a game after they get hit with an early turn ending on a turn that they just spent 2 hours carefully preparing for the 1st round of combat.
There is a lively discussion regarding this at the Strategy Zone. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=33397

Might as well "get it on" here too.

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Other than removing the cheat bug, the most important change to this game would be the elimination of early turn ending do to a “failed proficiency check”. This feature is supposed to add randomness to the play, but in fact greatly reduces the games ability to accurately recreate military operations. Although it does not happen often, when it does, it can wreck a game.

There are many other improvements that can/should be made,but the two above need to be on a high priority. Not too many new players will stick with a game after they get hit with an early turn ending on a turn that they just spent 2 hours carefully preparing for the 1st round of combat.
There is a lively discussion regarding this at the Strategy Zone. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=33397

Might as well "get it on" here too.

New players won't be spending the two hours, though, surely? They'll be breaking themselves in with smaller scenarios. Well, I know I did, and I thought it was the obvious way to go, but I suppose I could be wrong.

Is it really that unrealistic? Can you not find a plausible reason for it happening? It is, after all, a 'proficiency check', a better force will suffer from it less. When it happened to me I always thought of it as Clauswitz's 'friction' in action.

Steve.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Other than removing the cheat bug, the most important change to this game would be the elimination of early turn ending do to a “failed proficiency check”. This feature is supposed to add randomness to the play, but in fact greatly reduces the games ability to accurately recreate military operations. Although it does not happen often, when it does, it can wreck a game.

There are many other improvements that can/should be made,but the two above need to be on a high priority. Not too many new players will stick with a game after they get hit with an early turn ending on a turn that they just spent 2 hours carefully preparing for the 1st round of combat.
There is a lively discussion regarding this at the Strategy Zone. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=33397

Might as well "get it on" here too.

New players won't be spending the two hours, though, surely? They'll be breaking themselves in with smaller scenarios. Well, I know I did, and I thought it was the obvious way to go, but I suppose I could be wrong.

Is it really that unrealistic? Can you not find a plausible reason for it happening? It is, after all, a 'proficiency check', a better force will suffer from it less. When it happened to me I always thought of it as Clauswitz's 'friction' in action.

Steve.

I recommend checking the discussion at SZO. It is pretty educational on the subject.

[steveh11Matrix]

Doing that right now...

[steveh11Matrix]

OK, read that now. Since I'm not registered there...

I'd like to keep the random element, but I sympathise with the complaints of the people who say "Why should my turn end over the whole front because one element a thousand miles away failed a check?"

In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn.

Sound workable? I'd guess only the Dev Team could say...

Steve.

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn.

Yeah, that would be just fine, proficiency check of sorts on a formation basis - should allow to retain a certain level of randomness in battle results while at the same time getting rid of one of the most annoying TOAW features.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn.

Now we're talking! In other words, I agree. [:D]

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn.

Now we're talking! In other words, I agree. [:D]

Cool! [8D]