3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post discussions and advice on TOAW scenario design here.

Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM

User avatar
shunwick
Posts: 2514
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:20 pm

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by shunwick »

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I see your point, but remember that the units aren't exactly in the middle of the hex. The main thing I wanted to fix was the horizontal fronts being 'bumpy' and allowing flanking attacks everyhwere diluting their importance.

The other choice would seem to be requiring 180 degree attacks, which would make flank attacks almost never happen.

I feel that if you stick your nose out that far, it should get punched.

I think your'e right. It just took me a little while to see past the hexes and the counters. Perfection is never going to happen although I notice that you keep trying. Long may that continue. Thanks.

Best wishes but still wishing I had my beloved pipe...
I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...
User avatar
ralphtricky
Posts: 6675
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:05 am
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by ralphtricky »

ORIGINAL: shunwick
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I see your point, but remember that the units aren't exactly in the middle of the hex. The main thing I wanted to fix was the horizontal fronts being 'bumpy' and allowing flanking attacks everyhwere diluting their importance.

The other choice would seem to be requiring 180 degree attacks, which would make flank attacks almost never happen.

I feel that if you stick your nose out that far, it should get punched.
I think your'e right. It just took me a little while to see past the hexes and the counters. Perfection is never going to happen although I notice that you keep trying. Long may that continue. Thanks.

Best wishes but still wishing I had my beloved pipe...
You do. Because this could potentially change the balance of some scenarios, it is strictly optional.[8D] We plan to make any major changes optional.

Minor changes, you'll have to deal with, but major ones like this should always be optional.

Ralph

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
User avatar
shunwick
Posts: 2514
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:20 pm

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by shunwick »

Ralph,

You really are de man! [:)]

Best wishes,
I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...
User avatar
ralphtricky
Posts: 6675
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:05 am
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by ralphtricky »

Fixed another bug.

Weather just got worse. The clouds weren't clustering the way that they should have.

EDIT:fixed typo
Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
User avatar
Veers
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:04 am

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by Veers »

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Fixed another bug.

Weather just got worse. The clouds weren't clustering the way that they should have.

EDIT:fixed typo
Aweome, I always thought the clouds' formations looked a little...retarded.
To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Fixed another bug.

Weather just got worse. The clouds weren't clustering the way that they should have.

EDIT:fixed typo

Awesome. Does this also apply for the mud then? Is it dependent on hex size?
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15470
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by Curtis Lemay »

I don't know why Ralph omitted this one from the above list, but it's so good I have to mention it:

Ranged-iconed units (artillery, HQs) can now be placed in Tactical Reserve without fear that they will move into the front lines if left in that condition at the end of the turn. In other words, when in Tactical Reserve, they only provide support and lack the "move into the attacked hex" part of it. Non-ranged icons in Tactical Reserve still work the same as before, and Local Reserve still works the same as before, even for ranged-iconed units. (So, if you really want that HQ to move toward attacks, then place it in Local Reserve instead of Tactical Reserve.)

So now, players no longer have to fret over the risk that an early turn ending will find all their artillery in tactical reserve instead of dug in, thereby causing those artillery to jump into the arms of the enemy because of it.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Veers
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:04 am

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by Veers »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I don't know why Ralph omitted this one from the above list, but it's so good I have to mention it:

Ranged-iconed units (artillery, HQs) can now be placed in Tactical Reserve without fear that they will move into the front lines if left in that condition at the end of the turn. In other words, when in Tactical Reserve, they only provide support and lack the "move into the attacked hex" part of it. Non-ranged icons in Tactical Reserve still work the same as before, and Local Reserve still works the same as before, even for ranged-iconed units. (So, if you really want that HQ to move toward attacks, then place it in Local Reserve instead of Tactical Reserve.)

So now, players no longer have to fret over the risk that an early turn ending will find all their artillery in tactical reserve instead of dug in, thereby causing those artillery to jump into the arms of the enemy because of it.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![&o][&o][&o] <---And I don't use that smiley much!
To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.
User avatar
Silvanski
Posts: 2511
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Belgium, residing in TX-USA

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by Silvanski »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Ranged-iconed units (artillery, HQs) can now be placed in Tactical Reserve without fear that they will move into the front lines if left in that condition at the end of the turn. In other words, when in Tactical Reserve, they only provide support and lack the "move into the attacked hex" part of it.

That's da max!
The TOAW Redux Dude
User avatar
sstevens06
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:12 pm
Location: USA

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by sstevens06 »

Is there a timeframe in mind for release of the 3.2 upgrade? Thanks in advance!
User avatar
ralphtricky
Posts: 6675
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:05 am
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by ralphtricky »

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
Is there a timeframe in mind for release of the 3.2 upgrade? Thanks in advance!
Yes. There are lots of moving pieces involved, however, so the official answer is 'When it's ready'

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
User avatar
Veers
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:04 am

RE: 3.2 Design changes *NOT FINAL*

Post by Veers »

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

Is there a timeframe in mind for release of the 3.2 upgrade? Thanks in advance!
Soon.
To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”