Matrix Games Forums

[/quote]

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...

[/quote]

The question of turn-length in a scenario certainly makes this a tricky problem, but isn't movement allowance based (at least in part) on the length of the turn? If so, simply requiring an amount greater than 1 point would suffice as a cost for digging in. Say, 10% of the total MA, or 5% or whatever. The amount of movement points required could be modified by engineering capacity, terrain, etc.

It just seems odd and overly simplistic to say that any unit, regardless of size, turn length, era or equipment, always requires only 1 point to dig in.

PaladinSix

It seems to me it should use up more than one MP to dig in.  If you drive or walk off 90% of your movement points during a period of time, I don't see how you could get a full round of digging in by just using up 1 MP.  I'm speaking from semi-ignorance since I've never looked at the calc's or code that controls digging in.  ... my comment is just a feeling

... and too, it seems some units would be less adept at digging ... thus a sliding scale of how much % of entrenchment specific units can attain during one turn.  Of course fully equipped Engineers would be at the top of efficiency and maybe recce or HQ units would be at the lower end of the scale.  IMHO any unit can dig in, but their abilities to dig in vary and could be modelled in toaw.

I have not paid much attention to the %'s of entrenchment achieved during a turn of digging and subsequent turns ... I'll have to start noticing this. I'm assuming the more turns you dig-in on a hex, the % of entrenchment increases.

... I just told everyone how big of a newb i am .. but that's OK

hank

ORIGINAL: hank

... and too, it seems some units would be less adept at digging ... thus a sliding scale of how much % of entrenchment specific units can attain during one turn.

This is already in the game. The ability of units to entrench depends on the amount of engineering equipment in the hex, and the existing entrenchment level of the hex.

I knew that ... I guess I could say it was a rhetorical comment ... [&o]... or I could say I'm a newb
 
But, I had another idea for the wish list.  Beside highlighting artillery ranges (which I mentioned above) ... I think it would be helpful to add another colored hex outline for units that can be Recombined with the current unit.  Most cases there will only be 2 units highlighted but sometimes these units are in large stacks of units and you have to weed through the units looking at the unit name and hope you pick the one that can be recombined.
 
another 2 cents
 
 

Is it necessary always to destroy railway line when moving on it in enemy territory? Maybe there's some thing I'm doing/not doing that would prevent this, but it seems a little odd. Surely one would try to capture railways lines intact if possible, and only destroy them if necessary.

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

Is it necessary always to destroy railway line when moving on it in enemy territory? Maybe there's some thing I'm doing/not doing that would prevent this, but it seems a little odd. Surely one would try to capture railways lines intact if possible, and only destroy them if necessary.

The idea is that they've been destroyed by the enemy, or damaged incidentally during the advance. If nothing else, then your rail engineers have to check the length of track just to be sure there are no booby tracks or cracked rails.

The event engine allows the scenario designer to set the % rail damage for each force so that rail is not always broken. But in most scenarios it is set to 100%.

I usually prefer to turn auto destruct down to zero, but I can see where some designs need such a function.
 
What I would really like to see are engineers (not just any unit) that can demo airfields, roads and rail lines just as any unit can currently demo bridges.  Conversely, we also need engineers that can build new roads, new bridges, new ports, new supply depots and new airfields.  Also, the engineers need to be able to added capacity to existing supply points, ports and airfields. 
 
Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

What I would really like to see are engineers (not just any unit) that can demo airfields, roads and rail lines just as any unit can currently demo bridges.  Conversely, we also need engineers that can build new roads, new bridges, new ports, new supply depots and new airfields.  Also, the engineers need to be able to added capacity to existing supply points, ports and airfields. 

Regards, RhinoBones

@Rhinobones:

So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units?

Or are you seeing something else in addition........?

Either way, I like your thinking, as too many scenarios are left with either RRengineers or general engineer units (which I'm probably using incorrectly,lol, as I never see them do much besides 'dig in' assistance) and the 'combat engineers' which are just that, combat support units.

Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote!

ORIGINAL: L`zard
So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units?
Or are you seeing something else in addition........?
Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote!

What I am suggesting would probably require a new Construction Engineer unit, or possibly designating the existing R/R Construction Teams as Construction Engineers. In the US Navy they would be known as Sea Bees.

Construction Engineers would be able to build new things or improve existing facilities, much like the Civilization games where towns, forts and all kinds of things are built and expanded to promote the war effort. Of course the time it takes to build a support resource would depend on the unit capability, terrain and available supply.

These are not necessarily my original ideas. Most of this stuff has been floating around the forums for quite some time. The difference now is that there is hope that it may actually come true.

Think that these ideas would require a substantial rewrite to TOAW. Maybe TOAW 5 or 6!!

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: L`zard
So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units?
Or are you seeing something else in addition........?
Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote!

What I am suggesting would probably require a new Construction Engineer unit, or possibly designating the existing R/R Construction Teams as Construction Engineers. In the US Navy they would be known as Sea Bees.

Construction Engineers would be able to build new things or improve existing facilities, much like the Civilization games where towns, forts and all kinds of things are built and expanded to promote the war effort. Of course the time it takes to build a support resource would depend on the unit capability, terrain and available supply.

These are not necessarily my original ideas. Most of this stuff has been floating around the forums for quite some time. The difference now is that there is hope that it may actually come true.

Think that these ideas would require a substantial rewrite to TOAW. Maybe TOAW 5 or 6!!

Regards, RhinoBones

Rhinobones;

JuRule [&o] EXACTLY!!!!

ORIGINAL: 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.

I can say, after many, many games of both FB and WERS scanarios, that both sides 100% force proficiency and both sides 111% shock bonus cause that an early turn ending NAVER happens.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Think that these ideas would require a substantial rewrite to TOAW.

I dunno. You'd have to ask Ralph- but I wouldn't think it would be that difficult. A couple of points;

a) I think setting up new supply depots is a separate subject. This should be dealt with along with a general revision of the supply system
b) Obviously the current rail damage is a simplification. However making the player go through every hex and do the equivalent of "destroy bridges" would be a pain. I'm not sure if there's a happy middle ground.
c) Building airfields, roads, railways and so on is good, but of course there have to be limits on this, and the designer should be able to turn this off for his scenario. Perhaps the default should be off to protect existing scenarios.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I dunno. You'd have to ask Ralph- but I wouldn't think it would be that difficult.

. . . However making the player go through every hex and do the equivalent of "destroy bridges" would be a pain.

I'm sure Ralph is fully aware of these ideas. It was all noted in my original wish list that went to HEAT. All that was supposedly passed on to Ralph.

As for being a pain, just what are you intending to do, blow up everything on the map? Don't you want to keep a few things around for your own use? Get real, the only things that would be blown would be those military assets that are in immediate danger of being captured. You know, there's only so many engineer units around that can do the type of demolition I'm proposing and they are not going to be blowing up every hex on every turn! Actually, most of them will be occupied with repairing damaged stuff and building new infrastructure.

Ralph, James . . . are you listening?

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: 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.

I can say, after many, many games of both FB and WERS scanarios, that both sides 100% force proficiency and both sides 111% shock bonus cause that an early turn ending NAVER happens.

I ran a test a couple of years ago with Arracourt 44, setting the German force proficiency to 100% and repeatedly executing first round attacks until I got early turn endings with 20% or more movement left over. It happens. Likewise, I set it to 0% and was able to run multiple rounds of combat. I'll have to get Ralph to send me the entire snippets of code from that section so that I can state authoritatively exactly what the routine is, but it is not a single "die-roll" against the force proficiency, with it being the probability of continuing.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Ralph, James . . . are you listening?

Listening, but am only operating on memory and 2 cylinders. My laptop fried in last week's heat wave, and until it's repaired I'm using old back up computers around the house or sneaking onto the computer at work.

That’s the best we could hope for.

Too bad about the laptop. Feel glad you don’t own a restaurant. There’s a guy here in LA who has a meat locker with 600 pounds of spoiled fish . . . the city has dispatched a Haz Mat crew to clean it out.

Regards, RhinoBones

OOB Dialog Box Simple Request.

1. Is it possible to have the text align left for each of these blocks (Formation, Location, Unit Info) instead of center.

2. The ability to sort these blocks especially the Unit Info Block, this will help find Units better.

Can't do anything about the Unit Info, but the Unit and Formation names can be left justified. So can the designer entered news strings.

Regards, RhinoBones

How about making the Deploy and Orders menus cascade off each other? Would be real nice to be able to make both selections with one mouse movement.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Can't do anything [left justified] about the Unit Info, but the Unit and Formation names can be left justified. So can the designer entered news strings.

Regards, RhinoBones

Why can't ralph left justify the Unit info? You know something we don't? I'd like it left justified also, as well as a capacity to sort on type.