Next version News (4.0)

[Rodia]

Hi.

Not top priority, obviously, but I would love to see the TOAW calendar on news and right on the screen working with BC years.

Glad to see TOAW development alive and kicking!

[Alpha77]

Hi[:)]

Some suggestions regarding supply, replacement and reconstituion (mainly valid for bigger and longer scens):

tm.asp?m=3423013

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I still like the way that TOAW plays. Games with similar mechanics have always seemed to play more like Chess where you try to analyze moves and countermoves X moves ahead while TOAW has always reminded me more of Go where it's more about positioning. I don't know if it's the addition of supply, or because of the larger unit counts in many scenarios or something else.

TOAW is great. Only thing that irks me is the way transport is abstracted. In a half week, ten km per hex game one halftrack can move an entire infantry division 100 km. That's because transport is abstracted. But in combat that same halftrack is just one halftrack. Same with armed trucks. One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times. Throw out the abstractions with land units in 4.x. [;)]

[Numdydar]

I will certainly buy 4.0 whenever it comes out, Defenately on of the best games I have ever played [:)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times.

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times.

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And don't forget the importance for the supply network i.e. Transport Asset Sharing.

Klink, Oberst

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

Entirely untrue and you contradict yourself in the next sentence to prove that it is untrue. You can adjust it the same as now. Don't really see a problem. No one forces you to make a unit TOE exactly as it was historically and in fact the game forces you to leave out the transport except that which is needed to make the movement somewhat reasonable. You would end up doing the exact same thing except now one truck for 36 240mm guns is not going to move them ten hexes.

What is really laughable is one infantry squad can move those same guns one hex. I don't give a hoot what distance one hex is. Ten guys won't get it done unless they are all the Hulk. [:D]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And what if the division didn't have enough trucks to move their artillery? Historically they would have to leave some of it behind as happened time and time again. But not in TOAW. That one truck can move everything. For a group who wants realism I am perplexed that you would accept this. And then there's the ten man squad of Hulks that tows multi ton guns as if they were weightless.

Really, for 4.x moving guns needs to be looked at. Transport needs some loving. Just like naval. Just like air.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

One truck should be one truck and one halftrack should be one halftrack at all times.

The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And don't forget the importance for the supply network i.e. Transport Asset Sharing.

Klink, Oberst

Exactly how would asset sharing be a problem? It would work the same no?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: golden delicious




The problem with this is that one then needs to model all the non-combat odds and sods in the unit as well. Otherwise there will be too much transport.

I'd say it works pretty well as it is. One figures out how fast the unit should be and assigns transport accordingly.

And don't forget the importance for the supply network i.e. Transport Asset Sharing.

Klink, Oberst

Exactly how would asset sharing be a problem? It would work the same no?

TSA is influenced by the amount of... transport Hence if you only put 1 truck in an Inf.Div. it won't count as much as 10-100 trucks for moving around supplies and enhancing the network.

Klink, Oberst

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink



TSA is influenced by the amount of... transport Hence if you only put 1 truck in an Inf.Div. it won't count as much as 10-100 trucks for moving around supplies and enhancing the network.

Klink, Oberst

So, as it stands right now how many trucks is one truck? Is it 10? Is it 100? Is it 1000? Also, at a certain point Transport Asset Sharing stops having an effect. If I recall correctly it maxes out at 3. Or was it 5? After it reaches that point or whatever point is the maximum one million trucks will not make a difference. Besides, the only way it works is if a unit does not move at all. It would still function but would be more realistic. Isn't that what we are striving for, realism?

The biggest problem I have with the truck/transport abstraction is with towed guns. Once again, how is that ten man squad going to pull multi ton guns any distance at all? Who will carry the ammunition? Because someone has to carry it. And most importantly, who has the chow?

[wodin]

Would love to see something like Scaff's unreleased mod abit further down in the link below..see the new unit images? Look much better and cleaner than the current 3D icon thats used.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1161658&mpage=7&key=

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You would end up doing the exact same thing except now one truck for 36 240mm guns is not
going to move them ten hexes.

I don't think it was unreasonable for Norm to make the assumption that designers wouldn't make units with one truck
for 36 240mm guns. It's proven over more than a decade to be a reasonable assumption. Why do you need it?

What is really laughable is one infantry squad can move those same guns one hex. I don't give a hoot what
distance one hex is. Ten guys won't get it done unless they are all the Hulk. [:D]

Huh?? Infantry squads don't move guns at all. If a gun has no transport of any kind it can move one hex by itself
- presumably moved by its gun crew - which, for bigger guns could be quite a lot of men (regardless of whether they
are physically shown in the unit). And, again, Norm made assumptions about designer's choices about hex scale and
turn scale combinations that would make that move doable. Only when designers deviate a long way from those
assumptions would it become unrealistic.

And what if the division didn't have enough trucks to move their artillery? Historically they would have to
leave some of it behind as happened time and time again.

I actually addressed this in my France 1944 scenario. German divisions in Brittany sent mobile reinforcements to
Normandy, but that left the remainder of the division transportless. I just split them into two parts - one mobile,
one static.

Really, for 4.x moving guns needs to be looked at. Transport needs some loving. Just like naval. Just like
air.

I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum
you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

[Lobster]

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

Hallelujah. Some sanity. Since those 240s are allied guns in France 1944: Cobra I'm going to make a logical assumption and assume the allies will be under the same one gun one vehicle.

BTW, historically units lost enough transport to have to leave guns behind. That is what I'm speaking of when I mention that. Having an abstract truck policy really does limit realism in scenarios. Transport becomes far too flexible in some armies when that was not the case.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

I think that you have here a point. Every APC/IFV/Truck had in the game the same movement or load points. I like to see that there are differnd movement orload point for differend vehicles like the real world. Like th helicopter say. Jeeps + light trucks 1 Load point, medium trucks 3 load points and heavy trucks 5 load points. Or that you can set it differend for each vehicle as for every 1 ton or fractical of it, you have 1 point. Like a 10 ton truck has 10 points. A 4 ton Truck has 4 points.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

Try assigning porter squads.

BTW, historically units lost enough transport to have to leave guns behind. That is what I'm speaking of when I mention that. Having an abstract truck policy really does limit realism in scenarios. Transport becomes far too flexible in some armies when that was not the case.

Sigh. You can actually do this. Create a bunch of dummy equipment in the database to mock up the stuff the trucks were carrying- supplies, medical personnel, that mobile field kitchen. Your unit will STILL move everything.

One could program something in which would require a minimum amount of transport for heavy equipment before the unit can move at all, combined with an option to abandon some of said equipment in order to mobilise it. However this wouldn't require a (totally unnecessary) reworking of the (completely satisfactory) means by which motor transport is reflected.

In any case, it's a really marginal issue. I can't believe this is the one thing you think needs doing when there are about a hundred others I can think of I would work on first.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Because sometimes you want to limit a unit's mobility. No trucks might = 1 movement point. One truck would = 10 movement points. You have nothing to work with in between.

Try assigning porter squads.

BTW, historically units lost enough transport to have to leave guns behind. That is what I'm speaking of when I mention that. Having an abstract truck policy really does limit realism in scenarios. Transport becomes far too flexible in some armies when that was not the case.

Sigh. You can actually do this. Create a bunch of dummy equipment in the database to mock up the stuff the trucks were carrying- supplies, medical personnel, that mobile field kitchen. Your unit will STILL move everything.

One could program something in which would require a minimum amount of transport for heavy equipment before the unit can move at all, combined with an option to abandon some of said equipment in order to mobilise it. However this wouldn't require a (totally unnecessary) reworking of the (completely satisfactory) means by which motor transport is reflected.

In any case, it's a really marginal issue. I can't believe this is the one thing you think needs doing when there are about a hundred others I can think of I would work on first.

Why assign porter squads? We are talking about trucks, not people carrying boxes on their heads.

We are talking about a new build, TOAW4. If you are making a new game then why would someone have to bother with work arounds? Make it realistic the first time. And we are not talking about what Norm wanted or didn't want. Norm isn't doing it. People are mentioning things they want to see. Why do you have a problem with a simple request for a new version of TOAW 4? Do you feel it's some kind of personal attack for someone to simply ask for something? The only ideas concerning transportation I see are work arounds, work arounds, work arounds. We are talking about a new game, not TOAW 3. Why bother with work arounds?

And who said it was the only thing I wanted to see? It's the only thing I mentioned. Nothing more. Nothing less. I'm all for the things you mentioned and whatever the hundred other things are. Including hierarchy, better naval and air simulations etc etc etc. Why the truckaphobia? In an operational scale transport becomes very important. Model that importance, don't paint over it. I see nothing of value in your suggestions when it comes to a new game because they are all workarounds, not anything new.

BTW, Alpha77 and Rodia mentioned some things. Maybe you should jump on them with both boots too. Don't understand why you feel I've earned a thrashing for a simple request. I've seen plenty of them.

[Oberst_Klink]

Let's all cool our boots, shall we? As Onkel Bob mentioned in his post:

I'll leak a little tidbit: In IV, you won't be able to move any 240mm guns with any amount of trucks. At a minimum you'll need an equal number of SdKfz 8 Artillery Tractors.

Among other features I suspect; so let's be patient. I am more than happy if we are able to get hold of a public beta 3.5.

Klink, Oberst

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
And who said it was the only thing I wanted to see?

You did. "Only thing that irks me is...."

This is why I objected- because I see this as a non-issue or at best a very low priority development. Worst thing about it is it would mean all existing scenarios would need to be reworked (or are we saying no backwards compatibility?). So I objected to you giving it your number one priority.

Now I'm also objecting you trying to paint me as a troll. I made a reasoned response to your post and you didn't like that I disagreed.

[SMK-at-work]

Sigh..... 4.0.... And you want us to be restrained??

I think not young padwan - I say let the creativity flow, let imagination run wild, let loose the dogs TOAW - full steam ahead and damn the combat radii!!

My wish list is pretty simple...in concept at least! [:D]
1/ Ability to shift units between HQ's in some circumstances (eg divisions between corps, but not companies between battalions)
2/ The ability to transform some squad types - eg as the Brits did in 1944 - turn all the AA and excess artillery into grunts...or, in Fabio's East Front, turn 20,000 surplus mounted rifle squads into unmounted ones goddammit!! [:@]
3/ Some other strategic stuff - yeah I know it is The OPERATIONAL Art of War....but it still makes a better strategic level game than many dedicated efforts!!

Rock on dudes doing 4.0

[Ruppich]

2/ The ability to transform some squad types - eg as the Brits did in 1944 - turn all the AA and excess artillery into grunts...or, in Fabio's East Front, turn 20,000 surplus mounted rifle squads into unmounted ones goddammit!!

This would definatly be needed to keep the long scenarios in good shape