Targeting

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Unit destroyed trigger should be fixed for the Matrix Games Edition. In the meantime, if the LRDG is a commando unit, then you don't have to worry about it reconstituting, since one of that icon's properties is to disallow reconstitution.

Are you sure?

You can also use the section unit size to prevent unit breakdowns, if that is a design goal for the particular unit.

Since it's such a small unit in a battalion-scale scenario, it probably should be possible to divide it anyway.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Oh...and for the event hog worries. MGE will allow up to 999 events.

Only 999?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Also, all precision munitions aren't missiles. Many "smart bombs" are just that- bombs. Good luck shooting those down.

I don't see why this is a particular problem. Missiles fly rather faster than these bombs' terminal velocity, so far as I'm aware.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
Or the use of annother event to cancel the TO if the LRDG is destroyed.

The "Unit Destroyed" trigger doesn't work if the unit is sub-divided. Besides, the unit can be destroyed and then reconstitute. And this is becoming a ridiculus event-hog project - far beyond what it warrents.

Unit destroyed trigger should be fixed for the Matrix Games Edition. In the meantime, if the LRDG is a commando unit, then you don't have to worry about it reconstituting, since one of that icon's properties is to disallow reconstitution. You can also use the section unit size to prevent unit breakdowns, if that is a design goal for the particular unit.

There's also a timing issue. The TO will still be available on the turn the LRDG unit is destroyed. It can't be removed until the next turn. Denying breakdown has other consequences to the unit's combat performance.

I thought I controlled reconstitution directly for each unit, and the LRDG units are authorized to reconstitute. If the icon is over riding that, it's a problem that should be fixed.

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Oh...and for the event hog worries. MGE will allow up to 999 events.

Only 999?

1000 would require potential interface layout changes because it would be 4 chars wide instead of 3. Use up the current windfall and start snivelling again in a few months. Hopefully sales will be high enough to justify major post release work.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

1000 would require potential interface layout changes because it would be 4 chars wide instead of 3. Use up the current windfall and start snivelling again in a few months. Hopefully sales will be high enough to justify major post release work.

I can't think of anywhere this would matter.

We'll use up all 999 events fairly quickly. Provide 4,000 and we'll struggle.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Oh...and for the event hog worries. MGE will allow up to 999 events.

This raises another concern. Will event 500 remain the target event for removing Theater Options? If not, many scenarios will have to be adjusted.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Oh...and for the event hog worries. MGE will allow up to 999 events.

This raises another concern. Will event 500 remain the target event for removing Theater Options? If not, many scenarios will have to be adjusted.

I'd bet it got bumped to 1,000. We'll check it. I should be able to adjust that when loading.

[ralphtricky]

Are there any other 'magic numbers' that may have changed that I need to worry about?

[DanNeely]

This conversation probably should be moved to the other forum, but I don't think so.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Are there any other 'magic numbers' that may have changed that I need to worry about?

Here and there. For example, if you fiddle with the 'distance-to' hexes, you may want to bear in mind that some designers currently enter values of -1 to -56 to achieve values from 255 through 200 respectively.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
I don't get it - are you arguing that because anti-PGM/SSM weapons systems aren't likely to be used in all-out conventional conflicts in the future, they shouldn't be modeled in ACoW? Nuclear/chemical weapons are even more unlikely to be used on the battlefield, yet they are modelled.

I certainly don't see it as a "must have" item. Whatever countermeasure systems exist have been little used and are largely unproven, and pushing the timeframe out more than a few years into the future verges on turning TOAW into a sci-fi game.

I think modern anti-PGM/SSM SAMs should be modeled in ACoW (as should dedicated SEAD). As it is now SSMs are virtual 'super weapons' which can rain down unrealistically high levels of damage at will, with no effective countermeasures, even for forces equipped with systems at least theoretically capable of knocking SSMs down.

The only targets that SSMs are effective against are unarmored, high AP targets like helicopters, and only then when they are unprotected by other units. Air units can also be strongly affected by SSMs because of the airfield attack feature.

The helicopter thing was a problem in Don Maddox's "Saddam's Last Gamble" scenario, but one which could have been easily fixed by simply removing the SSM units.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I certainly don't see it as a "must have" item. Whatever countermeasure systems exist have been little used and are largely unproven,

So are thermonuclear weapons.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I certainly don't see it as a "must have" item. Whatever countermeasure systems exist have been little used and are largely unproven,

So are thermonuclear weapons.

And I think we could easily do without those as well.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
And I think we could easily do without those as well.

You've obviously never played Berlin Crisis. By that time, both sides had deliverable thermonuclear weapons.

A conflict with battlefield use of nuclear weapons is a highly interesting prospect in wargaming, since it represents a real unknown. All bets really are off.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
A conflict with battlefield use of nuclear weapons is a highly interesting prospect in wargaming, since it represents a real unknown. All bets really are off.

It's interesting, but not one in which the game depiction is likely to mirror reality(or alternate reality, really). In any case, it doesn't look like much thought was given to the effects of nuclear weapons in TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

It's interesting, but not one in which the game depiction is likely to mirror reality(or alternate reality, really). In any case, it doesn't look like much thought was given to the effects of nuclear weapons in TOAW.

It's true that there is a severe bug in the way they work. But I think that can be easily fixed.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
And I think we could easily do without those as well.

You've obviously never played Berlin Crisis. By that time, both sides had deliverable thermonuclear weapons.

A conflict with battlefield use of nuclear weapons is a highly interesting prospect in wargaming, since it represents a real unknown. All bets really are off.

Note that the issue of battlefield use of nuclear weapons is highly topical even today - witness the current situation in the Middle East, or with the DPRK. Designers have and will continue to create modern-era historical and hypothetical scenarios in which use of nuclear weapons are a very real possibility.

Nuclear weapons effects are somewhat abstracted in ACoW, and as golden delicious pointed out currently have a serious implementation bug. But I too am hopeful this will be fixed!