Interface Wish List

[hank]

You'll have to forgive me if this has been posted before but I want to reiterate it as I think it would be a great interface addition.

With the great importance of artillery; I wish there was a setting that would highlight the hexes within range of an artillery unit when you click on that unit and make it current.

Possibly set it up so that the unit's longest range tubes would highlight all hexes pink (or light yellow); the next longest tubes range would highlight a light red (or orange); and the next tubes range (if there is one) could be red (red). If there was only one equipment type it would only highlight pink (or yellow).

Its tedious but managable to determine where an arty unit is best placed. Having a highlight option for this one type of equipment would go a long way to improving a players planning.

hank[/align]

[KarlXII]

I agree with Hank that it would be nice to see the artillery range. It could be shown in colored hexes.
 
Here is two more wishes:
 
- The possibility to see how strong a stack is by either summing its attack/defense values or show it by colour. When playing larger scenarios with long frontlines it is often hard to know how strong a stack is without going through them unit by unit every single turn to see if they are strong enough. It would help to have a button that either replaces all stacks with attack/defense values or by color code (green, yellow, orange, red etc) to quickly see if there are any weak spots in the line.
 
- I would like more information when a scenario ends. I would like to see my losses compared to the other sides losses both in actual number, per equipment, equipment type (tanks, aircraft, at-guns etc) and also in percentage. Except for VP that would make an argument to play the scenario again against the computer to be able to maximise/minimise losses.
 
 

[Szilard]

A couple of little things:

- When you go into the editor, the TOAW loses any prior '2d small' map view setting. So when you go back into the game, you'll always be in '2d large' mode. This is a hassle when you're eg doing debug & Elmer-vs-Elmer test cycles on a scenario and want to run it in '2d small' mode so you have a broad view of what's going on. You have to interrupt the game and set it to '2d small' mode every time you come out of the editor and back to the game. Not a big hassle, but a hassle nonetheless. Be nice if the editor didn't reset the game view mode.

- Additionally, under some circumstances, TOAW loses track of whether you've set computer-vs-computer mode. I think this happens (often/always?) when you exit from a game in human-vs-human mode, after starting in computer-vs-computer - which will be a common way to exit when you're going thru a test/debug process. Next time you do a "go to game" from the editor's file menu, the game mode indicator on the "SELECT NEW GAME" panel will show computer-vs-computer, but the game will actually start in hot seat mode.

Previously, you could just switch into computer-vs-computer mode at this point & it was not an issue. But with the latest patch, starting in hotseat mode turns off variable initiative. So you have to remember to explicitly cycle through the mode settings back to computer-vs-computer when seleting a new game.

- In addition to fixing these little glitches, it'd be nice to have an "Edit this scenario" option from the game's file menu & a corresponding "Play this scenario" from the editor's file menu - so you don't have to go through the selection process every time you switch from one to the other.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: karlxii

- I would like more information when a scenario ends. I would like to see my losses compared to the other sides losses both in actual number, per equipment,

All this is already available in the replacements screen after the end of the scenario.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: Industrial
OK, well it happened quite often to me in DNO, usually it was the finnish front (opening at turn 6 and by than the Axis shock is gone), I had for example a finnish regiment attack a soviet engineer company, burning 5 combat rounds in a row because they decided to continue attacking, completely screwing up the entire german front.
I 'fixed' this by simply ignoring the finnish front, as they seemed to be most prone to produce turn burns (low attack ratings and little support units, so the defender wont retreat, defending units with low combat strength, so the attacker wont break off because he's not taking enough losses to fail the moral check)

Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but for these 'monster' scenarios can't designers set overall force proficiency to 100% so you never fail these proficiency checks with your turn ending 'prematurely'? The new MRPB rating still provides some variability with an upper cap on rounds per battle, which should make planning easier but not totally predictable.

[Catch21]

To add something from the 'front', so to speak (the New Players Tournament at SZO), to the interface wish list here.

New players struggle with a number of concepts, chief among them the Combat Rounds System. I've been experimenting with some of the new features and have to say I just adore the toggle buttons (thank you Ralph (Elmer too, looking much sharper these days)). 'M' to toggle between movement points and combat strengths among them. 'Scroll toll' should go way down with these.

It would be brilliant if a '% movement used' could be added as a third toggle with the 'M' button. That way players, knowing they have 80% of a turn remaining, would immediately know at a glance whether a unit could be or should be used for an attack, and if an arty unit could be used in direct fire mode.

Just my 0.02.

[Legun]

It would be brilliant if a '% movement used' could be added as a third toggle with the 'M' button. That way players, knowing they have 80% of a turn remaining, would immediately know at a glance whether a unit could be or should be used for an attack, and if an arty unit could be used in direct fire mode.

Just my 0.02.

Really good idea - it could save a part of my wargaming time [:)].

[murx]

To pour some fire, err, arguments into the pro/con turn-burn discussion:
Because a lot of players cant grasp the logic behind a skirmish near Murmansk eating up the round for divisions near Stalingrad I want to add another serious problem with turn burn.

Basically - it does not happen to the defender.
To clear up what I mean - if for instance a German direct assault on the Maginot Line (some happened on smaller scale and Propaganda had their hands full to hide the losses) - if such a direct assault would result in a clean, small loss push through there would have been a massive 'shock' in the defenders line; serious disruption and disorganization on how to deal with the situation.
If for instance an airborne drop near Führerhauptquartier (Wolfsschanze) would have been staged, killing most of the OK staff and a good part of Generals, Feldmarshall, maybe even Goering and a few other high ranking military-political leaders but failing to kill Hitler - for sure the Wehrmacht would have kept on fighting - but the disruption of command would have been serious - very serious!

So if the 'attacker' in TOAW can be seriously punished because of a bad planned attack (or freak battle result, or the typical long lasting 'Finnish battles') - why is there no such punishment if the defender loses an important cornerstone of his defensive line? Why none if a high command gets assasinated by partisans?

Well - if the attack inflicts a good amount of casualities it throws the formation into reorg - oh yeah, but we have lowered that already, haven't we?

Maybe including an indirect 'turn-burn' with the destruction of an HQ? A player automatically loses 10% of his (next) turn for losing 1-10% of his on board HQs, 20% for 11-20% of HQs destroyed, maybe up to a maximum of loss of 90% of his turn.
OK, once all HQs are done for there is no additional turn-burn anymore, but then again - probably not much left to fight with anyway - until they reconstitute.

murx

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: General Staff
Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but for these 'monster' scenarios can't designers set overall force proficiency to 100% so you never fail these proficiency checks with your turn ending 'prematurely'?

It doesn't work this way. 100% force proficiency does not guarantee no early turn endings due to "proficiency checks". Neither does 0% force proficiency guarantee an early ending from the same.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

To clear up what I mean - if for instance a German direct assault on the Maginot Line (some happened on smaller scale and Propaganda had their hands full to hide the losses)

They actually broke through to my understanding. This was in June and all the reserves had been moved off to form a new line.

If for instance an airborne drop near Führerhauptquartier (Wolfsschanze) would have been staged, killing most of the OK staff and a good part of Generals, Feldmarshall, maybe even Goering and a few other high ranking military-political leaders but failing to kill Hitler - for sure the Wehrmacht would have kept on fighting - but the disruption of command would have been serious - very serious!

No doubt. However this is something that would have to be modelled by events. I don't think this can be considered to be a part of ordinary military operations. Would you put the rescue of Mussolini in a TOAW scenario (I guess in TOAW terms the Storch acts as a transport helicopter)?

why is there no such punishment if the defender loses an important cornerstone of his defensive line?

I'd say the punishment is that the attacker goes on to make considerable advances.

Maybe including an indirect 'turn-burn' with the destruction of an HQ?

The loss of HQs is supposed to make formations go into reorg, but I don't think this actually happens all the time. What it does do is reduce formation supply by half.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

It doesn't work this way. 100% force proficiency does not guarantee no early turn endings due to "proficiency checks".

Are you quite sure? I think Jarek achieves just that effect in his WERS scenarios. I recall that some part of the documentation implies that tests against both force proficiency and the remaining part of the turn have to be passed; but I suspect that it is an either/or. Of course if Ralph has looked at the code and told you exactly what it says that's fair enough.

[Captain Cruft]

The 'D' Key

I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn.

Binding a single key to two actions is assuming that players manipulate their units in a certain way, which obviously some of us don't. If you want to string multiple actions together then please provide us with a complete macro language [;)]

I realise this has been mentioned before but I'm not sure if it was on this wish list.

[jimwinsor]

I second that. In fact, I'd settle for it advancing to the closest unit!

[Captain Cruft]

Yes well the previous response on this was "use the mouse to dig in", which is of course what I do. The point is that this takes far longer than simply pressing 'D' would do, especially if you have a stack with multiple units.

[PaladinSix]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

The 'D' Key

I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn.

And I'm prepared to put up half of whatever the good Captain has to pay. As long as there is no serious downside to digging in (and substantial benefits), most players are going to do it with most units on every turn. Thus, it should be made as painless (for the player) as possible.

I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second.

PaladinSix

[hank]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

The 'D' Key

I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn.

Binding a single key to two actions is assuming that players manipulate their units in a certain way, which obviously some of us don't. If you want to string multiple actions together then please provide us with a complete macro language [;)]

I realise this has been mentioned before but I'm not sure if it was on this wish list.

DITTO ... I quit using the "D" key because it jumps to another unit afterwards

Please redo the "D" key so it just DIGS IN ... end of command ...

thanks

[Sleazey]

Oh yea, I hate this auto jump to the next unit when I dig in. None of the other keys do this; I stopped using the D key because of this fact.

Make it an option somehow, but give me a D key that just digs in and doesn't jump to the next unit!

[Casus_Belli]

I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second.

PaladinSix

I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work.

It's a thought. In a hex where entrenchment level is less than 100%, a unit digging in could lose 5% readiness. This cost would be reduced if the unit has motorised engineering equipment.

[Erik2]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second.

PaladinSix

I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work.

Currently you need at least 1 MP to dig in. additional costs would have to take into consideration the turn-frame of the scenario, 6-hour is quite different from 1-week.
And I support the change od the D-command...