TOAW IV features

[SMK-at-work]

Fantastic

A question about naval recce of adjacent land hexes - will there be a dedicated recce function of some sort to "replace" this??

[76mm]

Great list of (initial?) features, sounds good. I really like the naval improvements and Trusted PBEM mode, cool.

The editor enhancements sound great, but hopefully they'll be accompanied by some serious UI enhancements (including for the event editor).

I still hope to see hex-side rivers.

Very much looking forward to some screen shots when they are ready.

[golden delicious]

That's.... an impressive list. Well done. I have one clarification based on a discussion I had with Ralph literally years ago;

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

• Trusted PBEM. If opted, such games can use PO Assist and be exported to an XML file.

Does this mean I can or can't get the save back into the editor? This has been a bugbear for me since cheat prevention was first introduced since being able to link scenarios with an external strategic system is a hobby of mine.

Otherwise- well, I look forward to trying some of these out.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Does this mean I can or can't get the save back into the editor? This has been a bugbear for me since cheat prevention was first introduced since being able to link scenarios with an external strategic system is a hobby of mine.

I agree that it would be super-cool to be able to import the data back into the game.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

That's.... an impressive list. Well done. I have one clarification based on a discussion I had with Ralph literally years ago;

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

• Trusted PBEM. If opted, such games can use PO Assist and be exported to an XML file.

Does this mean I can or can't get the save back into the editor? This has been a bugbear for me since cheat prevention was first introduced since being able to link scenarios with an external strategic system is a hobby of mine.

Otherwise- well, I look forward to trying some of these out.

Yes, Ben. He was specifically addressing your need. If you declare that you trust your PBEM opponent then you get that ability. You better really trust him, though.

Edit: Note that Trusted PBEM will not be available for PBEM++ (against Matrix rules).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Fantastic

A question about naval recce of adjacent land hexes - will there be a dedicated recce function of some sort to "replace" this??

If coastal guns fire at the ships then they (and their hex) are revealed. Otherwise, you can disembark a land unit adjacent - revealing all.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

What I meant was something like the oil field or factory graphics that were added in 3.? that could be placed on any map. While it would be possible for a scenario designer to make their own there would still be the possibility of running up against the new 4k place name limit. I know this sounds like a lot but it's not really. There are a lot of things to be named and once you start adding factories, oil fields, bridges, etc., to the mix that 4k can vanish fast.

So, if we could get a small bump, say to 5k or 6k place names, it could only be good.

You do understand that those bitmaps don't do anything, right? They're just for show. So would you be using them for effecting some sort of house rule?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Yes, Ben. He was specifically addressing your need. If you declare that you trust your PBEM opponent then you get that ability.

Fantastic. This changes things.

You better really trust him, though.

It's extremely rare for me to PBEM with someone I've not known for years. Even if they don't cheat, randoms can ruin my experience by dropping off the face of the earth after five turns, or simply being so bad at the game that I might as well not have bothered.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

What I meant was something like the oil field or factory graphics that were added in 3.? that could be placed on any map. While it would be possible for a scenario designer to make their own there would still be the possibility of running up against the new 4k place name limit. I know this sounds like a lot but it's not really. There are a lot of things to be named and once you start adding factories, oil fields, bridges, etc., to the mix that 4k can vanish fast.

So, if we could get a small bump, say to 5k or 6k place names, it could only be good.

You do understand that those bitmaps don't do anything, right? They're just for show. So would you be using them for effecting some sort of house rule?

Yes, that's correct Bob. These bmp graphics are woefully under used in scenario design. There are loads of things that they can be used for. But it will all be by house rule. Bridges would be just one way they could be used. On a really big map like that used for FitE 2 the 4k limit could easily be broken if the map maker put bridges in their actual locations. Not to mention all of the factory, oil field, population centers, etc. And isn't that why we went to 700x700 maps size? So we could make huge scenarios?

Anyway, a bump of 1k or 2k would be nice. Oh, and don't forget we can do things like terrain charts on maps. I did one just for kicks and it took up a lot of place names.

Thanks for the replies. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

What I meant was something like the oil field or factory graphics that were added in 3.? that could be placed on any map. While it would be possible for a scenario designer to make their own there would still be the possibility of running up against the new 4k place name limit. I know this sounds like a lot but it's not really. There are a lot of things to be named and once you start adding factories, oil fields, bridges, etc., to the mix that 4k can vanish fast.

So, if we could get a small bump, say to 5k or 6k place names, it could only be good.

You do understand that those bitmaps don't do anything, right? They're just for show. So would you be using them for effecting some sort of house rule?

Yes, that's correct Bob. These bmp graphics are woefully under used in scenario design. There are loads of things that they can be used for. But it will all be by house rule. Bridges would be just one way they could be used. On a really big map like that used for FitE 2 the 4k limit could easily be broken if the map maker put bridges in their actual locations. Not to mention all of the factory, oil field, population centers, etc. And isn't that why we went to 700x700 maps size? So we could make huge scenarios?

Anyway, a bump of 1k or 2k would be nice. Oh, and don't forget we can do things like terrain charts on maps. I did one just for kicks and it took up a lot of place names.

Thanks for the replies. [;)]

If that's all you're using it for then why not use something you have unlimited amounts of: Border hexsides. Just put a border around those hexes. Placenames take up file size for everyone (at least they do now - I can anticipate a day when there are no limits and the scenario file is tailored to the amount actually used).

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Fantastic

A question about naval recce of adjacent land hexes - will there be a dedicated recce function of some sort to "replace" this??

If coastal guns fire at the ships then they (and their hex) are revealed. Otherwise, you can disembark a land unit adjacent - revealing all.

Of course...that's what I meant...honest....at last a use for special forces!!

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

If that's all you're using it for then why not use something you have unlimited amounts of: Border hexsides. Just put a border around those hexes. Placenames take up file size for everyone (at least they do now - I can anticipate a day when there are no limits and the scenario file is tailored to the amount actually used).

Because border hex side graphics are used extensively. Start lines, stop lines and national borders to name just a few. 1k place names are nothing. And the hex graphics that could be used do not end up on top of terrain so become obscured in places like marsh, urban, dense urban, forest, jungle, flooded swamp, etc. The bmp files are the only thing that makes any sense but they take up place names. As it is bridges exist any place a road 'crosses' a river even if it's some graphic representation caused by the limitations of the game's graphics, ie, rivers don't follow hex sides, they go through the middle with roads and railroads. Makes no sense at all unless you have some way to display to players that, hey, this is a bridge and this isn't.

I'm not real sure what you mean when you say each place name takes up a file size. If the game uses ASCII then each space in the place name should take one byte. Each place name is a maximum of 24 places. That's 24 bytes. Each place name is a string constant of 24 bytes and they are loaded into the scenario one after the other probably with a space between them. So at 4k place names in a scenario that's what, 96k bytes or a little more? Add another 2k place names you add 48k bytes plus a little more? So that's 144k bytes and we'll round it up to 200kb? FitE2 is a little over 2mb. Even if you add 100kb for some extra place name strings it's nothing for a computer and 100kb is more than 1k or 2k place names would take. Heck, as far as games go TOAW is tiny and so are the scenarios.

[Meyer1]

I would like to propose some improvements to the air warfare:

-right now, you need to set up the units on airfields according the are you want them to operate, which is absurd. Of course, to maximize their range you would put them close to the front, but having them does not mean that you want to flying missions at their longer range. So a feature to set a user defined "operating range" to a unit, which would allow different air units based in different airfields to operate around the same area.
A keyboard shortcut showing the "operating range" of al air units on the map would come handy to set up the strategy.

-Bomber payloads was in conflict with the fuel carried, so the effectiveness of their attack should start dropping passing certain range, eg: 5 in the first hex, then 5-5-5-5-4-4-3-2-1, or something like that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

I would like to propose some improvements to the air warfare:

-right now, you need to set up the units on airfields according the are you want them to operate, which is absurd. Of course, to maximize their range you would put them close to the front, but having them does not mean that you want to flying missions at their longer range. So a feature to set a user defined "operating range" to a unit, which would allow different air units based in different airfields to operate around the same area.

That's in TOAW IV. See the feature list.

[Meyer1]

Oops, can't believe I did not pay attention to that.
Thanks Bob.

[Meyer1]

One silly thing: I like to check the formation dialog to see the units that have no movement points left, and is somewhat confusing to see units that will arrive later having movement points. Perhaps would be better to have "44.Inf Turn: 5 Enters: 55,44 Move -" instead of "44.Inf Turn: 5 Enters: 55,44 Move 7".
Also, having different colours for units that will arrive and that have withdrawn.

[ufe31415926]

III I think, it's better have a table to show what will be done in each combat rounds, and we can select or cancel combats easily, and solve them exatly.
for example if there is 3 combats, A will begin at the first round, and end in the 2nd round, B will begin at the first round, and end in the 9th round, C will begin at the 3rd round, and end at certain round. i hope i can cancel B and C, execute A, and execute C at the next solve. i need a table to list for combats.

[Lobster]

This is probably pie in the sky but it would be nice to be able to model airfields properly.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Advanced_Landing_Ground

This is about how all of the major belligerents did it. While there were some fixed airfields like are currently portrayed in TOAW there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model.

[Bombur]

The new naval features are welcomed, but....there will be accross the sea supply?

[Freyr Oakenshield]

there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model

...which leads me to this question - will players be able to build airfields?