Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: rico21

and no snipers?

I would not put snipers high on my feature request list. Right now, I think I would put having the ability to transport passengers and ordinance at the top priority.

and no snipers?

Is not so important.

ORIGINAL: DoubleDeuce

I would not put snipers high on my feature request list. Right now, I think I would put having the ability to transport passengers and ordinance at the top priority.

+1!

Hi all, first of all, congratulations to the developers for TotH. As an old ASL gamer, I could not imagine myself returning to the old gameboards thanks to TotH. It´s like if time would have not passed at all since 1995. Only a careful read of the manual, a bit scenarios and I´m plenty confident playing again, this time against AI [:)]

As features required, I miss the capability of AFVs to overrun enemy infantry, like in old times, horse-drawn wagons (90% of the german army was hipomobile), multi-store buildings, burning wrecks and prisoners. I always loved to take prisoners (well, not in all occasiones)[:D]

Sincerely, thanks again for this great game.

ORIGINAL: acropora

and no snipers?

Is not so important.

I have found from reading personal accounts from WW2 Vets that Snipers were in the top 3 fears they faced in battle, and a lot of times the number 1.

Hello again, as a novice, I´m wondering if I´m doing something wrong with AFV´s; It seems that they can´t enter in the movement phase in enemy infantry occupied hexes, not to say overrun enemy infantry. Am I doing something wrong?

ORIGINAL: ArtReg250

Hello again, as a novice, I´m wondering if I´m doing something wrong with AFV´s; It seems that they can´t enter in the movement phase in enemy infantry occupied hexes, not to say overrun enemy infantry. Am I doing something wrong?

Not in game although I have found from reading personal accounts from WW2 Vets that overrun were in the top 3 fears they faced in battle, and a lot of times the number 1.

Hope entering enemy hexes by AFVs will be introduced someday in this fantastic game. Regarding snipers, ASL system was perfect, triggering them as a random event.

IIRC, for any ASL vets out there, interested in, or playing this game, its a lot closer to the Starter Kits than full blown ASL. So there are NO Snipers, Multi-story buildings, Bypass Movement, Concealment, Prisoners and quite a few other full ASL rules.

And I add for the many marines who play this game that there is no Japanese either.

ORIGINAL: DoubleDeuce

IIRC, for any ASL vets out there, interested in, or playing this game, its a lot closer to the Starter Kits than full blown ASL. So there are NO Snipers, Multi-story buildings, Bypass Movement, Concealment, Prisoners and quite a few other full ASL rules.

I purchased this game recently, and I am really enjoying it. I have played ASL and know of Starter Kits, but I am not trying to steer future development of TotH towards either one. This is a tactical computer game that I think is very well done, in fact the best one of this type I have ever played on the computer. I thought this was a feature request thread, so I am just giving my opinion of what I think would be a nice added feature to an excellent game. A sniper feature is a legitimate feature request in any tactical level wargame. I am not weighing in on priorities because I also like a lot of the other suggestions too, and would be happy with any added new features in the future.

Inspired by Technikzauberer & UP844 in their recent thread Scenario Design -'Frozen' Units

Technikzauberer: '[...]options for emulating unready or surprised units'

UP844: 'the possibility of setting a personnel unit state (Good Order/Pinned/Broken)'

+2 [:)] [:)]

I totally subscribe to this idea which would greatly enrich the possibilities offered to the scenario designers
while preserving (IMO) the spirit of the game wanted by Peter.
Excessivily detailed Table of Equipment means inevitably more complex rules of use greedy in memory resources
and time of computation and leads to forget that essential goal: to keep the priority on the game's fluidity...
and also favor the scenwriters' imagination!

Peter, add this description feature please, if you don't do for me, do it for UP.[:D]

what we really need to do is not go down the path of ASL .
A lot of options that you require a degree in to understand , then find that there are not many others who have the same degree and dedication.
After all , to attract new followers , it is better to give them a condensed version of the bible rather than the whole book.
Even at this point of the game , someone picking it up ,playing a scenario , has to be daunting .

Let's not be too hasty to keep TotH dumbed down to attract new players but fuselex has a point. My remedy, TotH 2![8D]

Sorry if this has been said before, My request is a more graphical terrain.
This game is great to play, but I wish the graphics were a bit more like newer Close Combat titles.[:D]

I suggest during the Movement Phase that AFV's that have moved would have a (moved) indicator like the infantry.
Sometimes I forget which AFV has moved during the Movement Phase. Now and then I forget which AFV moved so
when I unknowingly select an AFV that moved and start the AFV just to find out it has moved and now the AFV is
stuck in Motion because the AFV was halted with 1 MF to spare. Just enough to start. I believe this is a minor fix to
show AFV's that moved to have (moved) as a suffix like the infantry during the Movement Phase. Thanks[:)]

Hi, I’m new to the whole forum thing so I can’t seem to start a new thread yet. I’m trying to understand what features with respect to afvs, that are included in this sim. First: is there a noticeable difference in armor thickness for the different sides of an afv, second: are there different facings for turrent and body, third: is there a hull down status so that big guns with light armor such as tank destroyers become useful as in reality. I really like the concept of the game but these are things that really made the original squad leader pretty great. A dug in 88, a low silhouette tank destroyer, Shermans hull down on a ridge!

eobrian2,

Here the answers:

First: is there a noticeable difference in armor thickness for the different sides of an afv? There is usually a different armor rating for front and side/rear of AFV's.
Also, there is an armor rating difference between hull vs turret. Whether the difference is noticeable or not is dependent on the AFV.

second: are there different facings for turrent and body? Yes, the turret can face differently from the hull.

third: is there a hull down status? No

any plans on adding other nationalities anytime soon?as well as adding aircraft?