Comprehensive Wishlist

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

That is not a wishlist that is TOAW IV. [:D]

Given some of the strategic wishes it's a bit more than just T"O"AW!!

My but aren't we a demanding bunch!

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

That is not a wishlist that is TOAW IV. [:D]

Given some of the strategic wishes it's a bit more than just T"O"AW!!

My but aren't we a demanding bunch!

True. Maybe we should just call it New Improved Product - TOAD's Ultimate Construction Kit. Or, Nip-Tuck, for short...[:D]

Or, TOAD's Fabulously Ultimate Construction Kit...[:-]

Imagine going to the store and asking the lady to help you get your TOAD **** off the shelf...[X(]

[macgregor]

I'm glad I finally took a look at this. I'm very happy with the naval warfare improvements(wishes) though I figure they'll be awhile in coming. They're pretty radical and the list is rather prodigious. I just downloaded the 3.2beta and it works well, perhaps smoother than before the patch. Perhaps by TOAW4.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski
I have an idea for a crazy Southern style scenario... Redneck War with squads driving Ford Bronco's, Hummers and other typical vehicles versus State Troopers with police cruisers

It's not needed, Silvanski. We already had that on TV and in the movies---it's called The Dukes of Hazard. [:D]

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

Here's another one that I thought of as I was re-setting the "losses" preference (minimize, limit or ignore) on the Berlin Crisis 1961 scenario---why one of the game options be to automatically set your forces preference automatically, instead of having to go through the whole board to set your losses by hand?  This isn't a problem with small scenarios, but it sure it with big ones.
 
Thanks. [:)]
 

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

Another suggestion/idea...
 
There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it).
 
Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines).  Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?
 

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Another suggestion/idea...

There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it).

Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?

Fulda gap [:D]

Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour)


Mario

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Another suggestion/idea...

There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it).

Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?

Fulda gap [:D]

Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour)


Mario

Sorry, but that wasn't it. The game was modeled after Harold Coyle's book "Team Yankee," and there was anillustrated book called "Team Yankee, The Graphic Novel," which I have.

I know about the Fulda Gap, and its signifigance (I trained there, too), but I remember that the town was either one near Darmstadt or somewhere.....it could've been the Fulda Gap (most likely scenario), but I'm nto sure. The book that I have doesn't mention it, but the game has it on the map as the main objective.

It should be noted that the book takes from the book "The Third World War, August 1985" (by General Sir John Hackett, 1979) in that it says that the war came to an end after a coups in Moscow that followed the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk. Coyle's book centers around a company that was involved in Sir Hackett's book.

Anyway, the board game is where the FASCAM artillery/mines were used, and it's this feature that I'd like to see in the TOAW.

EDIT TO ADD: I found the game online, and the town on the map is Korberg. Funny, I'm not sure why that doesn't seem like the one that I was looking for (thought it started with an "F").

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Another suggestion/idea...

There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it).

Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?

Fulda gap [:D]

Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour)


Mario

Sorry, but that wasn't it. The game was modeled after Harold Coyle's book "Team Yankee," and there was anillustrated book called "Team Yankee, The Graphic Novel," which I have.

I know about the Fulda Gap, and its signifigance (I trained there, too), but I remember that the town was either one near Darmstadt or somewhere.....it could've been the Fulda Gap (most likely scenario), but I'm nto sure. The book that I have doesn't mention it, but the game has it on the map as the main objective.

It should be noted that the book takes from the book "The Third World War, August 1985" (by General Sir John Hackett, 1979) in that it says that the war came to an end after a coups in Moscow that followed the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk. Coyle's book centers around a company that was involved in Sir Hackett's book.

Anyway, the board game is where the FASCAM artillery/mines were used, and it's this feature that I'd like to see in the TOAW.

EDIT TO ADD: I found the game online, and the town on the map is Korberg. Funny, I'm not sure why that doesn't seem like the one that I was looking for (thought it started with an "F").

heh, thanks... i've learned something

[Jo van der Pluym]

That units from both sides can share the same hex.
This depend on Hexscale, unitscale, unittype, landscape etc.

In a 10km hex can a platoon/company easy hide from discovery from enemy units.Mayby with the help a new command. Namly Hide.

I think here special on Special Forces, Guerrila and Recon unit, for reconnaissance.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

That units from both sides can share the same hex.
This depend on Hexscale, unitscale, unittype, landscape etc.

In a 10km hex can a platoon/company easy hide from discovery from enemy units.Mayby with the help a new command. Namly Hide.

I think here special on Special Forces, Guerrila and Recon unit, for reconnaissance.

See 7.20: Hidden Units

[akdreemer]

How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base.

...a unit having the characteristics of a carrier but with ground deployment capabilities... might be possible using bio-ed... Curtis/Bob, what do you think?

[Silvanski]

Something I may have overlooked in the list.
 
-Being able to set the activation turn for formations in Garrison status in the formation display instead of having to set an event for that.
-"Fixed" deployment setting also available for the non-PO side

[ColinWright]

Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.

That's true, but...

What's happened in the past is that superficial additions are made to 'expand' the scope of OPART -- but nothing was done to implement the more serious changes that really were required.

So when ACOW came out we 'got' World War One and even the nineteenth century -- except that we didn't. Sopwith Camels and musket squads hardly touched the differences between the original World War Two and later scope of OPART and the earlier periods that were now 'modelled.'

So I think it's legitimate to criticize 'wishes' that have the effect of superficially dealing with problems that really should be dealt with in more depth. For example, rules that prevented artillery from firing in support of units that have already advanced would do a lot more to enable OPART to better simulate World War One than adding Sopwith Camels -- and that should be pointed out.

Give the designers a choice between a few hard but essential improvements and a grab-bag of relatively easy add-ons (like elephants) and they'll naturally tend to do what's easiest -- and we'll get that much less substantial improvement in the design. It's like if you give a car designer a choice between giving you a car that runs on solar power and one that has a second cup-holder. Well, you're going to get the second cup-holder.

For similar reasons I tend to disapprove of ideas like production models. I'd rather see what's wrong within the scope that OPART already covers fixed than encourage Ralph to add things. There's obviously a finite amount of programming time that will get sunk into OPART -- and I'd rather see that programming time spent addressing the more fundamental flaws that are already present than in adding bells and whistles.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.

That's true, but...

What's happened in the past is that superficial additions are made to 'expand' the scope of OPART -- but nothing was done to implement the more serious changes that really were required.

So when ACOW came out we 'got' World War One and even the nineteenth century -- except that we didn't. Sopwith Camels and musket squads hardly touched the differences between the original World War Two and later scope of OPART and the earlier periods that were now 'modelled.'

So I think it's legitimate to criticize 'wishes' that have the effect of superficially dealing with problems that really should be dealt with in more depth. For example, rules that prevented artillery from firing in support of units that have already advanced would do a lot more to enable OPART to better simulate World War One than adding Sopwith Camels -- and that should be pointed out.

Give the designers a choice between a few hard but essential improvements and a grab-bag of relatively easy add-ons (like elephants) and they'll naturally tend to do what's easiest -- and we'll get that much less substantial improvement in the design. It's like if you give a car designer a choice between giving you a car that runs on solar power and one that has a second cup-holder. Well, you're going to get the second cup-holder.

For similar reasons I tend to disapprove of ideas like production models. I'd rather see what's wrong within the scope that OPART already covers fixed than encourage Ralph to add things. There's obviously a finite amount of programming time that will get sunk into OPART -- and I'd rather see that programming time spent addressing the more fundamental flaws that are already present than in adding bells and whistles.

Well, to be quite honest I was more against the way that Mario did the criticizing than the actual criticizing.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base.

...a unit having the characteristics of a carrier but with ground deployment capabilities... might be possible using bio-ed... Curtis/Bob, what do you think?

It is possible using the Bio-ed. I use them. There are limitations, though, to make a long story short.

[Boonierat]

Could it be possible to prevent a unit of splitting in 3 when its airlifted from one friendly-controlled airfield to another? its annoying having to recombine them almost every time [;)]
 
Also, I'm probably gonna start beating the proverbial dead horse again but is there any particular reason why limiting air units to 3/hex max has never been changed?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Boonierat

Also, I'm probably gonna start beating the proverbial dead horse again but is there any particular reason why limiting air units to 3/hex max has never been changed?

As far as that goes, it'd be nice if the maximum number of units per airbase could be set in the editor. Sometimes -- particularly in low density scenarios, one wants players to be able to use smaller fields in remote locations. One doesn't want three units totalling 437 aircraft to be able to operate from them.

[rhinobones]

7.18 Surrounded defender breakout from combat – retreating units could check RBC against the weakest or all blocking enemy units.

I actually had this happen during a TOAW III (previous patch) solitary game. An artillery unit escaped encirclement by overrunning, and eliminating, a weaker AT unit. The artillery unit was being controlled by the PO so maybe that had something to do with the combat results.

For the wish list, I would like to see an option available which lets the player see combat losses equated in AP units rather than percentages. The enemy losses should probably be masked by the fog of war, but not to the extent that aircraft losses are currently reported. Also, a unit which is victorious and enters the previously enemy controlled hex should have more accuracy in reporting enemy losses as opposed to a unit which does not take the enemy position.

Would also like to see some variety when it comes to the engine's division of retreating units. Seems that they always split into three subunits with at least one of them in the reorganization state. Like to see units sometimes split into two subunits, having a higher frequency of being able to function after the combat.

Regards, RhinoBones