Comprehensive Wishlist

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...
I for one have no particular problem with paying for a 'TOAW IV.'

I'm just mildly apprehensive as to what I'm going to get.
...

Colin, you're really an optimist. TOAW 4? Just take the time this last patch took, which included fairly minor stuff compared to some of the items being discussed for TOAW 4, multiply it by those items and see what you get.

Heck, that one you're now thinking of is basically a V4V / W@W clone and it's taking 10+ years with no signs of it.

[sPzAbt653]

I for one have no particular problem with paying for a 'TOAW IV.'

I have no problem with that either. I don't remember what the price was, but if I got ACOW for $40, and TOAWIII for $40, that's $80 over the past 10 years, $8 a year. I pay $63 a year to listen to a radio station.I pay $41 a month for cable tv, I guarantee I spend more time with TOAW than watching tv. So if there is a TOAWIV some years from now I'll gladly pay. And if it has a supply/subordination system, that's great.

[Curtis Lemay]

I just want to point out that this was discussed to death in this thread:

tm.asp?m=2582060

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to point out that this was discussed to death in this thread:

tm.asp?m=2582060

And it was equally unresolved there.

Hierarchy and reassignment will work hand in hand. A division can handle x number of units beyond it's TO&E but nothing larger than what the scenario designer specifies. Same for corps on up. Scenario designer sets the limits.

Through events the scenario designer can establish either a set number of command points used for reassignment for the duration of the scenario or a turn by turn cumulative number of command points. Depending on what happens during the sceanrio these numbers could be positively or negatively impacted.

Reassignment can cost x number of command points for a battalion, more for a regiment, even more for a brigade, yet more for a division, etc. These could also be adjusted during a scenario to account for negative or positive battlefield events, distance from HQ units, line of communication considerations, etc.

There. Limits imposed by the scenario designer on reassignment. Hierarchy given meaning and purpose. Both working together to form a cohesive chain of command and cost of giving commands so you don't have units running willy nilly without regard to support and cooperaton.

I really dislike the need to make all units or any units free support.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to point out that this was discussed to death in this thread:

tm.asp?m=2582060

It was good to read thru that thread again, lots of good points.

[ColinWright]

I will repeat something.

As long as any command hierarchy system is optional, it doesn't have to be perfect. If it meets your needs, use it. If it doesn't, don't.

And it can't be perfect. Circumstances vary too much, we lack the ability to perfectly simulate the often intangible effects of altering an organization, etc.

So it boils down to a 'bang for buck' question. How much has to be done to create an option how many will find useful.

It'll be easy enough NOT to use a hierarchy. Just don't create the additional levels, and barring singular evil programming, nothing should change.

Otherwise, the designer should have the ability to impose a cost, and it should be in some relevant parameter. Ideally -- although this might be hard to do -- in immediate readiness and then in supply recovery for the next few turns. Now you've got to go across town for your cigarets...

I'd also rather not see it 'packaged' with other changes in the way that variable supply points are now tied up with having to use the new supply system in which supply units were also eviscerated. That's really the source of much of my discontent there. The fact that I have to use the one to get the other -- but then have to accept the third. Each change should be as independent as possible of the others.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Hierarchy given meaning and purpose...

This makes you sound like an advocate of the Divine Right of kings or something. Next, you'll be for an established church and a properly enserfed peasantry.

Both working together to form a cohesive chain of command and cost of giving commands so you don't have units running willy nilly without regard to support and cooperaton.

I really dislike the need to make all units or any units free support.

I'm not defending the current system -- but have you looked into all you can do by varying unit colors, etc?

For example, I want infantry regiments to be able to cooperate freely, but I still want divisional artillery to be divisional artillery, not some free-fire asset that can be assembled at will for massive barrages of 18,000 tubes.

So...I give formations army level cooperation -- but give the artillery different colored icons. They can still cooperate freely with the units of their own formation, but (depending on what color scheme I choose) enjoy either limited cooperation or no cooperation at all with infantry regiments from other divisions.

At the same time, infantry regiments from different divisions that have wound up in the same hex together through the vicissitudes of combat can still cooperate.

Point is, there are things you can do.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not defending the current system -- but have you looked into all you can do by varying unit colors, etc?

For example, I want infantry regiments to be able to cooperate freely, but I still want divisional artillery to be divisional artillery, not some free-fire asset that can be assembled at will for massive barrages of 18,000 tubes.

So...I give formations army level cooperation -- but give the artillery different colored icons. They can still cooperate freely with the units of their own formation, but (depending on what color scheme I choose) enjoy either limited cooperation or no cooperation at all with infantry regiments from other divisions.

At the same time, infantry regiments from different divisions that have wound up in the same hex together through the vicissitudes of combat can still cooperate.

Point is, there are things you can do.

Something i did for Anzio 1km.

But i think you miss Panama's point. While the above solution works for some battles, for others of different scale (read: bigger and longer) it doesn't. For Barbarossa it doesn't.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not defending the current system -- but have you looked into all you can do by varying unit colors, etc?

For example, I want infantry regiments to be able to cooperate freely, but I still want divisional artillery to be divisional artillery, not some free-fire asset that can be assembled at will for massive barrages of 18,000 tubes.

So...I give formations army level cooperation -- but give the artillery different colored icons. They can still cooperate freely with the units of their own formation, but (depending on what color scheme I choose) enjoy either limited cooperation or no cooperation at all with infantry regiments from other divisions.

At the same time, infantry regiments from different divisions that have wound up in the same hex together through the vicissitudes of combat can still cooperate.

Point is, there are things you can do.

Something i did for Anzio 1km.

But i think you miss Panama's point. While the above solution works for some battles, for others of different scale (read: bigger and longer) it doesn't. For Barbarossa it doesn't.

No...I get his point.

I'm just suggesting what he might do in the interim -- until we do get an improved TOAW. It's even possible he already does it. It's just that pending developments, we do have to keep working. After all, a continuing supply of fresh TOAW scenarios is the only thing keeping the apocalypse foretold in the Mayan calendar at bay.

So my remark was what I said it was. 'UNTIL we get to the mechanic, have you tried this?'

I'm certainly not suggesting an end to agitation, subversion, or whatever it may turn out will best serve to advance TOAW -- and I certainly have no objection in principle to the idea of a command hierarchy and/or some means of reassigning units from one formation to another. In fact, the scenario I'm working on now (everything eastern from Astrakhan to Tunis and from 1941 to 1943) could do very well with such mechanisms.

[Panama]

IMO there are not enough agitators. [:D]

What would be best is to get TOAW to the point where each scenario can have enough different aspects that they are virtually different games from one another. The base is cheese pizza but the toppings added can make it seem something very different. Mmmm...pizza.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

IMO there are not enough agitators. [:D]

If there were more people giving Curtis grief, it might at least curb his arrogance.

...and then we'd get a better game. He's appallingly ignorant, completely unreceptive to argument, and usually manages to be simultaneously sure he's right in his own mind and quite wrong in fact.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If there were more people giving Curtis grief, it might at least curb his arrogance.

...and then we'd get a better game. He's appallingly ignorant, completely unreceptive to argument, and usually manages to be simultaneously sure he's right in his own mind and quite wrong in fact.

Considering the source, I'll take that as the highest form of praise.

[macgregor]

From where I sit Curtis, I find you two equally antagonistic. Everybody posts for a reason; either to offer ideas or try to shoot them down. As much as I seek input, I'd rather you two attack each other. But this is exemplary of how little traffic this forum gets anymore. This should mean something to somebody. I doubt it though.

[Telumar]

TOAW 3 was released 5 years ago. Seems normal to me that forum traffic decreases.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

TOAW 3 was released 5 years ago. Seems normal to me that forum traffic decreases.

Normal? Rationalization is a beautiful thing. If I had a business, I'd see success or failure from each person that encounters my product/service. No. I'm sorry. To know me is to love me, not to lose interest in 5 years, or else I'm losing.

[Telumar]

So then, what do you think is the reason for this?

[Oberst_Klink]

My 2p... What about co-operation as much and as 'civilized' as possible? We identified the core 'issues' and together, pulling on one string, they can be fixed and the changes implemented. Prioritization and focusing on a fix; that's it. Otherwise we violate an imporant maxim: 'To defend everything is to defend nothing.'Frederick the Great.

kLinK, Oberst

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

My 2p... What about co-operation as much and as 'civilized' as possible? We identified the core 'issues' and together, pulling on one string, they can be fixed and the changes implemented. Prioritization and focusing on a fix; that's it. Otherwise we violate an imporant maxim: 'To defend everything is to defend nothing.'Frederick the Great.

kLinK, Oberst

I'm for it. I manage to keep a civil tongue in my head with everyone else who's participating in this discussion, and if Curtis manages to keep one in his, I'll strive to reciprocate.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

TOAW 3 was released 5 years ago. Seems normal to me that forum traffic decreases.

...

I know several people who still play this game and still post avidly on the internet. They just don't post here.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

So then, what do you think is the reason for this?

Well, it would be selfish of me to say it's because they feel exactly like I do. Though I am perhaps the only somewhat critical voice that continues to post regularly here.

If you want my subjective opinion, I would say it is indeed because the areas of this game for which there is the most room for improvement seem to have been overlooked for this continual tweaking of things that are already superior to most games of this genre. I have to admit the rationalization I've encountered is disheartening. There is a small gang that appear to be VERY happy with the current situation, almost gloating over the fact that there is much less traffic, and certainly as defensive as all hell. It's been what? 10 years now I've been beating the same dead horse? The definition of insanity is beginning to have an effect on me as well.