Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Part of the final package might require a means for the attacker to choose to delay his attack to a specified round.

That's not a bad idea. Of course, there's usually a suite of late units available to serve that purpose anyway. But, perhaps in some cases there wouldn't be just the right one around.

It wouldn't exactly add to the aura of authenticity if one found oneself calculating what unit to add to the stack to get the desired round. Particularly in situations left over from a previous turn, it'd come up, too.

You start the turn adjacent to an enemy unit that had been surrounded on four sides in the previous turn. You manage to move two units into position to complete the encirclement -- but neither one is something you'd care to add to the attack. Now you gotta go hunt for an MP battalion or something to shove into one of the actual attacking stacks that'll delay kickoff just the right amount.

Real authentic. It wouldn't be a game breaker -- but the situation is best avoided.

[ralphtricky]

Since 3.4 allows the surrounded unit to make a final attempt at an overrun, a simpler way might be to have the defending units strength modified based on how late the unit is.

In other words, if it's round 3 and the unit is due to arrive on turn 6 then the defender would defend at roughly half-strength for the purposes of the overrun (or 3/4 or some other amount). It would take a bit of tweaking, but it may be simpler than what I've heard proposed. Something like 1/2 strength minimum + strength dependent on how late it is with in position being an extra 1/2 and 10 rounds late being 1/20 extra. That's probably the wrong curve, but that's the idea. I can calculate how late it is by how much of it's MP have been used. That's alread used in several places in combat.

Ralph

[Panama]

Would it be difficult to have it retreat through the hex if there is an opposing unit there? For that matter, until it gets to a clear hex subtracting movement points for the hexes move into/through?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Since 3.4 allows the surrounded unit to make a final attempt at an overrun, a simpler way might be to have the defending units strength modified based on how late the unit is.

In other words, if it's round 3 and the unit is due to arrive on turn 6 then the defender would defend at roughly half-strength for the purposes of the overrun (or 3/4 or some other amount). It would take a bit of tweaking, but it may be simpler than what I've heard proposed. Something like 1/2 strength minimum + strength dependent on how late it is with in position being an extra 1/2 and 10 rounds late being 1/20 extra. That's probably the wrong curve, but that's the idea. I can calculate how late it is by how much of it's MP have been used. That's alread used in several places in combat.

Ralph

This may have the virtue of being practical to implement, and I'm not saying it would cause me to rise in rebellion if it was implemented, but it does have one rather obvious drawback.

One likes to be able to see intuitively about what the situation is. That's an engineer battalion there? Might not hold... A fresh infantry regiment, that's cool. On to the next sector...

Come combat resolution, when it turns out the infantry regiment's strength is being divided by five, it'd be a nasty shock.

Plus, a unit is either there or it isn't there. Fifty Tigers that are still ten miles down the road don't slow a retreating column at all. They don't slow it with 10% of their strength -- they don't slow it at all.

One second thought, maybe I will rise in rebellion...for now, I'd certainly tend to argue for a different solution.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Would it be difficult to have it retreat through the hex if there is an opposing unit there? For that matter, until it gets to a clear hex subtracting movement points for the hexes move into/through?

To my mind, this has the drawback I pointed out with regards to Ralph's solution -- but in spades.

Now we've got units that appear to be there but aren't actually there at all when it comes time to resolve the attack. It seems to me better if players just hold back on entering the hex if they don't want the attack delayed accordingly. As I say, with a 'take back' feature, this should work fairly well. You can retract the move of a unit to its last hex when you get to the attack planning dialogue and you see that this PzJg battalion is going to make your attack eat up 70% of the turn.

Again, not to dismiss your solution out of hand -- but I'd hope to do better.

[Panama]

I don't really like my solution but the one that would be most simple to do doesn't seem to sit too well. Once again, someone's lack of planning should not become the other player's problem, nor the programmer's. If you can't think as far ahead as you would in a game of checkers then you deserve what you get.

Once again, if a unit cannot physically be in a position to block a unit, the unit should be allowed to retreat. Physically meaning a time and space physically.

If a unit uses all of it's movement to get into a blocking position and the retreating unit it's blocking retreats on round three or five or eight that unit could not have been there could it? Or could it? It used all of it's movement allowance. And it couldn't have moved into the blocking hex untill it had spent it's last movement points. But if it had 24 movement points and it cost 12 to get into the hex when did it arrive in the hex? MP 13 or mp 14 or mp 24?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Since 3.4 allows the surrounded unit to make a final attempt at an overrun, a simpler way might be to have the defending units strength modified based on how late the unit is.

In other words, if it's round 3 and the unit is due to arrive on turn 6 then the defender would defend at roughly half-strength for the purposes of the overrun (or 3/4 or some other amount). It would take a bit of tweaking, but it may be simpler than what I've heard proposed. Something like 1/2 strength minimum + strength dependent on how late it is with in position being an extra 1/2 and 10 rounds late being 1/20 extra. That's probably the wrong curve, but that's the idea. I can calculate how late it is by how much of it's MP have been used. That's alread used in several places in combat.

Ralph

This may have the virtue of being practical to implement, and I'm not saying it would cause me to rise in rebellion if it was implemented, but it does have one rather obvious drawback.

One likes to be able to see intuitively about what the situation is. That's an engineer battalion there? Might not hold... A fresh infantry regiment, that's cool. On to the next sector...

Come combat resolution, when it turns out the infantry regiment's strength is being divided by five, it'd be a nasty shock.

Plus, a unit is either there or it isn't there. Fifty Tigers that are still ten miles down the road don't slow a retreating column at all. They don't slow it with 10% of their strength -- they don't slow it at all.

One second thought, maybe I will rise in rebellion...for now, I'd certainly tend to argue for a different solution.

Even worse is that if its strength is reduced and that causes it to RBC, that act might result in a disengagement attack or even an evaporation.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

...If you can't think as far ahead as you would in a game of checkers then you deserve what you get...

Mm. Well, I think ahead further than most people I play. In fact, I dare say I spend far more time contemplating exactly what I intend to do before touching a counter than most people do.

...and I can see it being a pain in the ass if one is stuck with the consequences of moving another unit adjacent to a unit that, as the turn develops, turns out to be surrounded. Indeed, I have a scenario where one has to watch out for something similar -- and it is a pain in the ass.

On the other hand, a system where a unit is 'there' and yet not there would be less than ideal. If we can't trust the graphic display to even be telling us where our units are, what can we trust? I don't want to get into figuring out just which units that seem to be there are truly there.

So I think (if that's what we're talking about) that a system where the round on which the attack occurs is determined by when the last surrounding hex was occupied coupled with a 'take back' option is the best solution.

Very occasionally, the 'take back' would be blocked by too many units in the hex it came from. But assuming the scenario isn't suffering from bad design in the first place, that should be rare -- and rare enough so that it can be filed under 'live with it.'

For reference, the solution I'm peddling is outlined more fully in post #1328.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In fact, I dare say I spend far more time contemplating exactly what I intend to do before touching a counter than most people do.

That's putting it mildly. I send you a turn, you acknowledge that you've received it and that you're opening it. STILL takes you six hours or whatever.

[samba_liten]

Don't know if this is in the wish list already, but here goes.

Terrain. I'd like to see a one hex lake tile, as well as differentiated low capacity and high capacity railroads. Possibly another road tile as well, to represent smaller country roads.

The railroads could have different movement costs to illustrate the waiting required when using lower capacity railroads for heavy traffic.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: polarenper

Don't know if this is in the wish list already, but here goes.

Terrain. I'd like to see a one hex lake tile, as well as differentiated low capacity and high capacity railroads. Possibly another road tile as well, to represent smaller country roads.

The railroads could have different movement costs to illustrate the waiting required when using lower capacity railroads for heavy traffic.

The way I see it smaller country roads = open terrain. Hard surfaced roads (aggregate or otherwise) = the unimproved roads you see in the game. All weather roads = the improved roads you see in the game.

One hex lake tile would be merely asthetic because shallow water already has lake qualities.

The railroads idea is sorely needed. In fact, heavy traffic should occaisionally destroy a low capacity rail over time unless a rail repair unit is parked there.

[Curtis Lemay]

In the same vein, one thing I'd like to see is for mountains/alpine and major escarpments to have a MP cost even for road movement.

Even when moving through or over those by road, the road has to wind back and forth, accounting for more MP cost. So add +1MP when moving through a mountain/alpine hex by road, and +1MP when crossing a major escarpment by road (any type).

[samba_liten]

All of which would work nicely with the new supply rules![:D]

About the smaller roads, i was thinking more about the 2.5 km/hex maps (one of which I've been working on for more than a year now with modest progress[8|]).
It would be nice to have them for forest roads etc.

[sPzAbt653]

Since 3.4 had pushed me into using the keyboard more than the mouse, I might suggest a few ideas for the hotkeys. With an air unit selected, maybe 'S' could put the selected unit on Combat Support, 'D' could put it on Interdiction, and 'R' could put it on Air Superiority.
 
'T' already puts a ground unit in Tactical Reserve, but hitting 'T' again for the same unit might put it in mobile status.
 
I notice that hitting 'T' with an air unit selected changes its status in the unit report box to Tactical Reserve, but not on the actual unit counter. Not sure what that means.
 
And using the mouse to click should override using the hotkeys with respect to where the cursor ends up. [&o]

[ColinWright]

I was browsing the thread on recon helicopters.  I'm uninterested in life after 1945, but have a recurring need for recon that varies in different areas of the map.  It dawned on me that they would be great for this.

Then I read the line '2. Date has an effect. TOAW III will not allow recon helicopters to work before 1957.'

Why?  Surely designers should have the option to make use of the weapon for whatever purpose they see fit.  Like, I may not want Axis recon in my Mediterranean scenario to be especially good elsewhere -- but recon copters would be just the thing to allow them to see Commonwealth attempts to resupply Malta.

[briantopp]

Wish list addition: events (like "withdraw unit") that don't get scrambled when the oob is edited.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Wish list addition: events (like "withdraw unit") that don't get scrambled when the oob is edited.

Probably hard to do. I tag everything with 'debug [text]' and then go back and fix the unit and formation references when I'm done with the OOB.

...It also helps to just leave formations and units that were once considered but abandoned in the OOB -- but undeployed. Then they can used for future additions without too much disruption.

What would help is a way to jump around the events list fast -- or at least to the beginning/end. Nothing like being on event 798 and realizing you need to check to see exactly what you did back on event 53.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Wish list addition: events (like "withdraw unit") that don't get scrambled when the oob is edited.

Probably hard to do. I tag everything with 'debug [text]' and then go back and fix the unit and formation references when I'm done with the OOB.

...It also helps to just leave formations and units that were once considered but abandoned in the OOB -- but undeployed. Then they can used for future additions without too much disruption.

What would help is a way to jump around the events list fast -- or at least to the beginning/end. Nothing like being on event 798 and realizing you need to check to see exactly what you did back on event 53.

Yes, tagging everything with debug helps.

I usually export the events to an xml file which can be watched easily with i.e. Notepad++. You can also search the exported event list for certain event types or debug messages.

What would help is a way to jump around the events list fast -- or at least to the beginning/end.

Indeed!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I was browsing the thread on recon helicopters.  I'm uninterested in life after 1945, but have a recurring need for recon that varies in different areas of the map.  It dawned on me that they would be great for this.

Then I read the line '2. Date has an effect. TOAW III will not allow recon helicopters to work before 1957.'

Why?  Surely designers should have the option to make use of the weapon for whatever purpose they see fit.  Like, I may not want Axis recon in my Mediterranean scenario to be especially good elsewhere -- but recon copters would be just the thing to allow them to see Commonwealth attempts to resupply Malta.

It's already on there: item 12.1.28.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Wish list addition: events (like "withdraw unit") that don't get scrambled when the oob is edited.

This is already addressed for units (see item 14.22). But not yet for formations - item 14.22.1.