Well, lets do this. We can make AAA a multi purpose swiss knife weapon. We can give it an artillery value so it can support ground combat at range. We can give it an AT value so it can help out in that respect. And we can give it an anit air value so it can help out with suppressing air units. And while we're at it let's give it anti ship values too since there's nothing stopping AAA from shooting at a ship. Did I leave anything out? Maybe something about elves and dwarves?
Personally I'd rather they work on giving scenario designers more tools. Make things like movement bias, communications and replacements dynamic so we can change values during a scenario. Things that would be really useful.
Under the circumstances, one begins to feel a certain sense of futility in suggesting improvements -- but one can always hope.
I was looking at a photo of the German advance through the Ardennes in 1940: it was captioned 'the biggest traffic jam in history.'
At the moment, we have two different kinds of roads: improved and unimproved. As it stands, the difference between them are really rather insignificant. If the weather's inclement, unimproved roads can be worse than improved, but generally, the difference is primarily cosmetic. I can run improved or unimproved roads across the Ardennes: the German advance will progress about the same.
Also at the moment, there is a traffic factor that can make it hard to pile up units along a road without suffering penalties -- but again, this generally doesn't come into play, although there are scenarios where it works well.
So, I was thinking...
What if unimproved roads were made more susceptible to traffic effects than improved roads? Wouldn't this more effectively model the distinction? After all, the difficulty the Germans had in the Ardennes wasn't in running one vehicle across them; it was in running ten thousand vehicles across them all at once -- or trying to.
It would also help if the concern was to model the importance of securing the best road, as opposed to merely a road. After all, most places there's some meandering track that a regiment can straggle along without undue delay -- but if you want a ram a corps through, a really good road -- or network of roads -- is going to help. Such a distinction would also help to model the distinction between a road net capable of permitting a really large flow of traffic and one that is going to significantly delay the movement of large bodies of troops -- why the Ardennes were considered 'impassible.' They were a barrier -- the Germans just managed to overcome it.
If there was such a system, designers' considerations and players behavior would be more like in real life. Your choice of axis of advance would be dictated not just by other considerations, but by considerations of just how many troops could be shoved along a given road without excessive delay.
Finally, if we had a volume-based supply system in the first place, the volume of supplies that could flow up an unimproved road could be meaningfully distinguished between the volume that could be moved along a major thoroughfare. That would be nice as well. After all, if I think about California, if I want to drive my car across the Sierras, there are perhaps half-a-dozen motorable routes. However, if I want to pass the Colinite Hordes across and supply them in the wastes of Nevada, it would behoove me to secure I-80 over Donner summit in particular. Highway 4 et al are perfectly passable by individual vehicles, but one breakdown would instantly block all hope of two-way traffic.
Yes, roads and railroads suffer the same fate. I can move just as many divisions down a one track side branch as I can down a two track main line. Not only that but I can use a rail line without worry of congestion and any rail line will supply any number of units. With rail you can limit the total number of units moved but it's far too abstract since they can all be moved down the same mountain pass narrow gauge logging line.
I imagine to take care of these things it would require a major rewrite. Probably something that would be done along with the supply system you want. Volume based traffic along with volume based supply. And while we are at it how about letting people over ride the game's automatic movement allowance distribution.
3. It should be possible to add artillery ranges to Flak guns without screwing up their assigned AT levels. (I don't know just how that works right now).
Well, lets do this. We can make AAA a multi purpose swiss knife weapon. We can give it an artillery value so it can support ground combat at range. We can give it an AT value so it can help out in that respect. And we can give it an anit air value so it can help out with suppressing air units.
Anyone can already do all those things via the BioEd. There's nothing you or Colin can do to stop it. (Why you would want to is beyond me).
My point was that I don't know what happens to the AT value if you give the gun a range. There is a mechanism that applies 1/4 of a ranged gun's AP value as AT. But these guns would have assigned AT values. Which would take priority? Clearly, the assigned value should take priority if it is non-zero. That's all I was saying.
At the moment, we have two different kinds of roads: improved and unimproved. As it stands, the difference between them are really rather insignificant. If the weather's inclement, unimproved roads can be worse than improved, but generally, the difference is primarily cosmetic. I can run improved or unimproved roads across the Ardennes: the German advance will progress about the same.
Also at the moment, there is a traffic factor that can make it hard to pile up units along a road without suffering penalties -- but again, this generally doesn't come into play, although there are scenarios where it works well.
So, I was thinking...
What if unimproved roads were made more susceptible to traffic effects than improved roads? Wouldn't this more effectively model the distinction? After all, the difficulty the Germans had in the Ardennes wasn't in running one vehicle across them; it was in running ten thousand vehicles across them all at once -- or trying to.
It would also help if the concern was to model the importance of securing the best road, as opposed to merely a road. After all, most places there's some meandering track that a regiment can straggle along without undue delay -- but if you want a ram a corps through, a really good road -- or network of roads -- is going to help. Such a distinction would also help to model the distinction between a road net capable of permitting a really large flow of traffic and one that is going to significantly delay the movement of large bodies of troops -- why the Ardennes were considered 'impassible.' They were a barrier -- the Germans just managed to overcome it.
If there was such a system, designers' considerations and players behavior would be more like in real life. Your choice of axis of advance would be dictated not just by other considerations, but by considerations of just how many troops could be shoved along a given road without excessive delay.
The new supply distribution method in 3.4 will start to address this. Supply ranges are in MPs not hexes. So, the mud and density penalties will accumulate supply reductions.
As to the difference between dirt and paved roads: It's not the width, it's the speed. One of my favorite "wishes" is for Motorized (or perhaps just Fast Motorized) units to pay only half a MP for each improved road traveled. This would not only affect troop movements, but supply ranges would double down improved roads. Their value over unimproved roads would be obvious.
After all, if I think about California, if I want to drive my car across the Sierras, there are perhaps half-a-dozen motorable routes. However, if I want to pass the Colinite Hordes across and supply them in the wastes of Nevada, it would behoove me to secure I-80 over Donner summit in particular. Highway 4 et al are perfectly passable by individual vehicles, but one breakdown would instantly block all hope of two-way traffic.
There are already "wishes" for both Trails and Super Highways. Not too many interstates have come under combat yet, though.
Personally I'd rather they work on giving scenario designers more tools. Make things like movement bias, communications and replacements dynamic so we can change values during a scenario. Things that would be really useful.
I completely agree. Not in the contest of the debate, since I'm not following it, but as a lonely statement.
I also think that a scenario design manual would be more worth than a new players manual. Toaw is as good as its scenarios and some nice scenarios ideas were thrown away because of design flaws which could be avoided by a better (not much better) understanding of the game engine and access to the experience of those designers who are long dealing with scenario design problems. Dozens of times I have seen experienced designers making important and simple to follow statements here, which would help in the way of collecting better designed scenarios by the average designer, but which remain lost in the great pile of information of this (and other) forums.
How about making a wish list specifically focused on scenario design, separate from the current endlessly long wishlist? Probably not, eh?
I'm not sure how one would separate suggestions for scenario design tool improvements from suggestions for the improvement of TOAW in general. After all, what one can do in scenario design is pretty much determined by what the system is. At best, I think we get two threads splitting up what should be conversations (well...) occurring in one place.
That's just how the Clippers feel about the Lakers.
I'd be more inclined to use the analogy of educated Russians and the last Tsar. Indeed, it all reminds me of their feelings about Rasputin. I suppose your sex life isn't as good as R-dude's -- but one does begin to get the same combination of concern for the future coupled with frustration at the sheer mindless obscurantism. Then too, there's the same uncertainty about the exact extent of your influence. It's really a rather good match.
This is becoming frustrating. Your logic is fallacious, where you are reading far to much into what Zetterling wrote to support a thesis that is devoid of any support in facts.
I'm not frustrated at all, since my position is iron-clad.
At the moment, we have two different kinds of roads: improved and unimproved. As it stands, the difference between them are really rather insignificant. If the weather's inclement, unimproved roads can be worse than improved, but generally, the difference is primarily cosmetic. I can run improved or unimproved roads across the Ardennes: the German advance will progress about the same.
Also at the moment, there is a traffic factor that can make it hard to pile up units along a road without suffering penalties -- but again, this generally doesn't come into play, although there are scenarios where it works well.
So, I was thinking...
What if unimproved roads were made more susceptible to traffic effects than improved roads? Wouldn't this more effectively model the distinction? After all, the difficulty the Germans had in the Ardennes wasn't in running one vehicle across them; it was in running ten thousand vehicles across them all at once -- or trying to.
It would also help if the concern was to model the importance of securing the best road, as opposed to merely a road. After all, most places there's some meandering track that a regiment can straggle along without undue delay -- but if you want a ram a corps through, a really good road -- or network of roads -- is going to help. Such a distinction would also help to model the distinction between a road net capable of permitting a really large flow of traffic and one that is going to significantly delay the movement of large bodies of troops -- why the Ardennes were considered 'impassible.' They were a barrier -- the Germans just managed to overcome it.
If there was such a system, designers' considerations and players behavior would be more like in real life. Your choice of axis of advance would be dictated not just by other considerations, but by considerations of just how many troops could be shoved along a given road without excessive delay.
The new supply distribution method in 3.4 will start to address this. Supply ranges are in MPs not hexes. So, the mud and density penalties will accumulate supply reductions.
As to the difference between dirt and paved roads: It's not the width, it's the speed. One of my favorite "wishes" is for Motorized (or perhaps just Fast Motorized) units to pay only half a MP for each improved road traveled. This would not only affect troop movements, but supply ranges would double down improved roads. Their value over unimproved roads would be obvious.
Spectacular. The planned and proposed changes you enumerate are completely irrelevant to the concerns I raised. It's okay about your car breaking down, Curt -- I bought you a new toaster.
How about making a wish list specifically focused on scenario design, separate from the current endlessly long wishlist? Probably not, eh?
I'm not sure how one would separate suggestions for scenario design tool improvements from suggestions for the improvement of TOAW in general. After all, what one can do in scenario design is pretty much determined by what the system is. At best, I think we get two threads splitting up what should be conversations (well...) occurring in one place.
well indeed. Keeping a thread on subject in this forum is a bit like herding cats. [:D]
How about making a wish list specifically focused on scenario design, separate from the current endlessly long wishlist? Probably not, eh?
I'm not sure how one would separate suggestions for scenario design tool improvements from suggestions for the improvement of TOAW in general. After all, what one can do in scenario design is pretty much determined by what the system is. At best, I think we get two threads splitting up what should be conversations (well...) occurring in one place.
well indeed. Keeping a thread on subject in this forum is a bit like herding cats. [:D]
I dunno. Look at the thread title. It's supposed to be about wishes, and it's supposed to be comprehensive. Most of my posts at least express wishes. That can't be denied. What's more, they are wishes that relate to TOAW.
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'd be more inclined to use the analogy of educated Russians and the last Tsar. Indeed, it all reminds me of their feelings about Rasputin. I suppose your sex life isn't as good as R-dude's -- but one does begin to get the same combination of concern for the future coupled with frustration at the sheer mindless obscurantism. Then too, there's the same uncertainty about the exact extent of your influence. It's really a rather good match.
This kind of post only proves your inability to be a decent human being.
Check out my byline for some of your earlier gems of manhood.
Regards, RhinoBones
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil
Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
That's just how the Clippers feel about the Lakers.
I'd be more inclined to use the analogy of educated Russians and the last Tsar. Indeed, it all reminds me of their feelings about Rasputin. I suppose your sex life isn't as good as R-dude's -- but one does begin to get the same combination of concern for the future coupled with frustration at the sheer mindless obscurantism. Then too, there's the same uncertainty about the exact extent of your influence. It's really a rather good match.
That's also what the Clippers feel about the Lakers. They're really becoming whiners.
Spectacular. The planned and proposed changes you enumerate are completely irrelevant to the concerns I raised.
Why? Double the movement rate on an improved road and twice the stuff can be moved down it. It's going to make improved roads much more valuable. It would especially help the Desert War, as the coast road would focus supply on the coast.
