The sequel of the legendary wargame with a complete graphics and interface overhaul, major new gameplay and design features such as full naval combat modelling, improved supply handling, numerous increases to scenario parameters to better support large scenarios, and integrated PBEM++.
Surrounding a unit before killing it becomes the norm now.
Yes, and this presents a problem with realism all it's own. Did the last units closing the 'trap' get there before the combat started or after? If a unit used all of it's movement to finish the encirclement then it plainly got there after the combat took place unless the combat takes all ten rounds. This is a clear departure from reality. This encirclement exploit needs to be cleared up.
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)
If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
Surrounding a unit before killing it becomes the norm now.
Yes, and this presents a problem with realism all it's own. Did the last units closing the 'trap' get there before the combat started or after? If a unit used all of it's movement to finish the encirclement then it plainly got there after the combat took place unless the combat takes all ten rounds. This is a clear departure from reality. This encirclement exploit needs to be cleared up.
" • The BTS feature may also be used to resolve the issue with late units that block defenders’ retreat paths (This is still under development). "
Would be nice to know how development is going here [:)]
On the question of the old scenarios under TOAW IV ...
My two cents is that any scenario shipped with T4 be labelled, and that only scenarios tested under T4 be labelled as such.
Examples: when Bob Cross' new Jutland scenario ships it can labelled
Designed under TOAW IV
Tested under TOAW IV
but for the old stand-by of Kasserine 1943
Played under TOAW IV
so a player will know that with K43 they have their work, in Editor_Hell, cut out for them. (Of course, that is already true under TOAW 3.4... - even 3.4.0.202 made sufficient changes to the Classic scenarios, and other old-timers, that require play-testing, and editing (recon, supply radius, supply points, re-balancing due to TIII bug-fixes that tilt the older scenarios, etc.).
Labelling each scenario is a bit of work, but it does identify each one's status, allows Matrix to ship the old ones, but clearly identfied as old-ones, and is a whale of a lot easier than testing/tweaking/re-testing/re-editing/... which is what is needed to ship a scenario that is presented as playable under TOAW IV. Otherwise, I think Matrix gets nothing but bad press for bundling 'past shelf date' scenarios with TOAW IV -- and given all the work that people have put into the project, especially this last upgrade piece, I think it would be a shame.
Generally, all scenario's are version labeled at the top of the briefings. There is no distinction between Deisgned and Tested because, generally, testing is part of design so only one version need be labeled. Some designers do take the extra step to catalog all version changes. Some of the older scenario's do not list a version number [like those in the Classic Folder] but it might be considered obvious that any non-labeled scenario was designed prior to TOAW III. If a scenario is not labeled, there is no way that anybody would know what version it was designed and tested with.
So, the short answer is good idea, but it's already partially implemented, and can't be fully implemented. [:)]
I seriously don't think I am interested in TOAW IV unless a serious effort is made at integrating and playtesting the older scenarios. I am sorry otherwise no deal.
