Matrix Games Forums

If one knows the rules, one also knows the consequences. Ergo, no single file of tanks. Just like the British should not have done and allow Michael Wittmann to slaughter a column by blocking front and rear.
I don't think this is a critical topic of the game. There are far more important "fixes" to implement before that. However, a simple "drive through" should be not that tough to implement. Just ignore the wreck as an obstacle.

But, it is a GREAT game already!

"Its beginning to look as if this is the finished product. Starting to sound a little bleak around here"

Its pretty obvious peter could have built ASL if he wanted to but you are right in a subtle way...TotH was
never meant to be ASL--starting at ground level--for obvious reasons.

Its inspired by ASL (ad nauseam).TotH is not ASL (ad nauseum).

since its not changing...this now has turned into a scenario design issue.

adjust accordingly.

TotH is a very good game standing on its own as we will be reminded (ad nauseum)
by ASL elitist and thats fine by me.

TotH is a very good game standing on its own as we will be reminded (ad nauseum)
by ASL elitist and thats fine by me.

+1

Peter, just thinking out loud but as a "work around", would it be possible code the game to allow vehicles to enter building hexes, even with a large MP cost? Something like that would lessen the impact of bottle-necking and simulate finding a bypass route but with obvoius drowback of slowing the following vehicles down but not totally stopping forward movement?

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

Peter, just thinking out loud but as a "work around", would it be possible code the game to allow vehicles to enter building hexes, even with a large MP cost? Something like that would lessen the impact of bottle-necking and simulate finding a bypass route but with obvoius drowback of slowing the following vehicles down but not totally stopping forward movement?

You can, just be prepared that your AFV may Bog down (fully-tracked that is, half-tracks and armored cars cannot enter buildings, check out Appendix C on page 71). AI however doesn't consider moving through buildings...

Just thinking here... not sure how easy or hard it would be to code but maybe there could be an option to just remove a unit. That way you could just remove it all together.

I still think the best option of the examples listed above is for the tanks in the rear to just move and the ones in the middle would have to turn around and follow the other tank. For me this issue really isn't that much "AN ISSUE" but rather a
"tactical situation" that the player will have to adjust for. Strange things happen in battle all the time and you have to adjust
and alter your game plan accordingly. For me this situation would be a joy to play and figure out instead of a curse, I would just think the situation has changed and I have to "figure" out a different plan quickly to remedy the problem.

A tactical wargamers delight!!!

idjester

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

Peter, just thinking out loud but as a "work around", would it be possible code the game to allow vehicles to enter building hexes, even with a large MP cost? Something like that would lessen the impact of bottle-necking and simulate finding a bypass route but with obvoius drowback of slowing the following vehicles down but not totally stopping forward movement?

You can, just be prepared that your AFV may Bog down (fully-tracked that is, half-tracks and armored cars cannot enter buildings, check out Appendix C on page 71). AI however doesn't consider moving through buildings...

Hmm, saw that but when I had been trying it in the games I've played so far it wouldn't let me. Went back and tested further and it worked. I must not have had enough MP remaining to enter them when I was playing before. Duh!

My concern about all this is that it will cause players to adopt tactics which are completely ahistorical, and as soon as that starts to occur in a game it loses its authenticity and its appeal.

Battle Academy and Battle Academy 2 are good games, but playing them multiplayer is just silly, as everyone plays peek-a-boo combat with their AFVs and the game becomes farcical from an historical point of view. The game rewards stupid behaviour and so people who want to win behave stupidly. I'd rather TotH didn't end up going down this path. I'd prefer it to be a game where those who behave in an historically appropriate manner succeed.

I suppose the same argument could be made about multi-hex firegroups and a number of other issues as well.


Best Wishes

Mike

What I find interesting is that a wrecked afv takes up the same space as a operational afv.
You can go thru the hex,even though it maybe burning with ammunition cooking off.
Another strange design decision.2 afv not being able to occupy a fairly large area.

Another example. Russians start with 5 BA-6s IIRC. One is in the line of fire of the Jerries who get to shoot first and kill one. NP.

Now it's my turn and 2 BA-6s fail their radio check which is fine but they are blocking the other BA-6. The BA-6 that started from the yellow dot hex has to go way south of the woods to move in the desired direction of North. Pretty much scenario over.

If there was bypass then this situation would be playable.

I like idjester's thinking - s*** happens. But the above situation is ahistorical, so changing it would make it more historically accurate.