Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Hi
developing paragrapgh 5.6, as only a very short version of my suggestion was included in the document

[font="times new roman"]QUANTITATIVE SUPPLY SYSTEM[/font][/b]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/b]
[font="times new roman"]A supply system based upon supply points (Tons) with a difference between fuel and the rest (ammo, equipment…)[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]1)      Units spend supply points depending on their TOE composition[/font]
[font="times new roman"]2)      Supply sources produce supply points every turn[/font]
[font="times new roman"]3)      Supply points are delivered to depots[/font]
[font="times new roman"]4)      Depots are immobile units that have the capacity to store supply points to maximum depending on their TOE (They have “supply squads”). They could be created in a scenario by theatre options available to players.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]5)      Depots have 3 different stands to reclaim supply from the sources, so that the player can control supply allocation. There is a supply lose depending on distance from the supply source, only through roads/railways/sea transport/air transport.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]6)      Depots deliver supply points to adjacent HQs, with a maximum allowance depending on load capacity (Transport squads will have a load capacity) which in turn deliver supply to units of the same formation within movement range of HQ formation (with supply penalty depending on distance in MPs)[/font]
[font="times new roman"]7)      There will be a hierarchy of deliverance of supply through HQs, so that a Superior HQ could deliver supply to attached/friendly HQs [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]This system will have the advantage, besides being more realistic, of eliminating the need for the hex possession system. That would allow fort a different movement system[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

5.6 is something else. See 5.15.

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Maybe someone can clear a question for me. This wishlist is exactely for what purpose? TOAW 3? TOAW 4? TOAW 100? An hypotetical wargame to be? [&:]

The purpose is to record all the wishes. Primarily so they don't get forgotten, and don't have to be repeated over and over. What they will be used for, if anything, is unknown.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Maybe someone can clear a question for me. This wishlist is exactely for what purpose? TOAW 3? TOAW 4? TOAW 100? An hypotetical wargame to be? [&:]

The purpose is to record all the wishes. Primarily so they don't get forgotten, and don't have to be repeated over and over. What they will be used for, if anything, is unknown.

Ahhhhhhh... ok ,thanks. That clears my doubts.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



5.6 is something else. See 5.15.

No, they are different, and I know that very well, because 5.6 was my original suggestion, but reduced to a very simplistic mention, Jarek´s idea and mine were submitted to a poll in the TOAW design forum (I can´t recall the exact name of the site) and my idea lost, so in an effort to put together a document as simple as possible it was relegated to a mere mention. However a few days ago, reading the last version of the doc I noticed there was another quantitative supply suggestion, so I decided to explain in detail my original idea.

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
No, they are different, and I know that very well, because 5.6 was my original suggestion, but reduced to a very simplistic mention, Jarek´s idea and mine were submitted to a poll in the TOAW design forum (I can´t recall the exact name of the site) and my idea lost, so in an effort to put together a document as simple as possible it was relegated to a mere mention. However a few days ago, reading the last version of the doc I noticed there was another quantitative supply suggestion, so I decided to explain in detail my original idea.

What you posted in #338 is more or less identical to 5.15. It bears no resemblance to 5.6 which is about making supply units function as supply sources. Post #338 doesn't even mention supply units.

No, it is about using supply squads, that can be used for the TOE of different units, depotss and HQs, as I explained in post 338

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
No, they are different, and I know that very well, because 5.6 was my original suggestion, but reduced to a very simplistic mention, Jarek´s idea and mine were submitted to a poll in the TOAW design forum (I can´t recall the exact name of the site) and my idea lost, so in an effort to put together a document as simple as possible it was relegated to a mere mention. However a few days ago, reading the last version of the doc I noticed there was another quantitative supply suggestion, so I decided to explain in detail my original idea.

What you posted in #338 is more or less identical to 5.15. It bears no resemblance to 5.6 which is about making supply units function as supply sources. Post #338 doesn't even mention supply units.

..actual on-map supply, that actually gets eaten...

..sighhhh...

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

No, it is about using supply squads, that can be used for the TOE of different units, depotss and HQs, as I explained in post 338

I don't see any material difference between what you posted in #338 and what is already in item 5.15. Both are about supplying forces by physically lifting and moving quantities of supplies, in tons, from the sources to the units. That you incorporate supply squads into the mix is not very material, but I can add a line to 5.15 about that.

No, they are completely different, in 5.15 If I understand correctly, supply would be represented by actual units in the map, in my proposal supply would still be inmaterial, while depots would be material units. Supply squads are part of the Depot TOE to determine the unit supply capacity. Besides, in my proposal there is a supply hierarchy distribution through HQs.

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

No, they are completely different, in 5.15 If I understand correctly, supply would be represented by actual units in the map, in my proposal supply would still be inmaterial, while depots would be material units. Supply squads are part of the Depot TOE to determine the unit supply capacity. Besides, in my proposal there is a supply hierarchy distribution through HQs.

Sorry, but I still don't see any material difference. They're both quantitative supply systems - moving physical quantities of supply from sources to the units by some mechanism. The actual nut & bolts of just how to do that is not really the point. As I said, I can add some text about alternate methods.

Well, yes, they are both quantitative, but since I saw there was another quantitative supply system fully explained that was (at least to me) significantly different from my suggestion in 5.6 I decided to show an expanded version of 5.6, thats all. If you think they are too close to merit a separated explanation or that my suggestion does not add any significant improvement then I would suggest you just delete 5.6 leaving 5.15 as the only quantitative supply system, because they are not directly related (at least they were not when I redacted my original proposal).

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Well, yes, they are both quantitative, but since I saw there was another quantitative supply system fully explained that was (at least to me) significantly different from my suggestion in 5.6 I decided to show an expanded version of 5.6, thats all. If you think they are too close to merit a separated explanation or that my suggestion does not add any significant improvement then I would suggest you just delete 5.6 leaving 5.15 as the only quantitative supply system, because they are not directly related (at least they were not when I redacted my original proposal).

I probably shouldn't have been so expansive in 5.15. Ultimately, the programmer is going to figure it out for himself & what we get probably won't resemble anyone's initial idea. My idea was to just give him a few examples on how it might work. But, as I said, I'll try to expand that a bit with your alternates.

I still don't know what you see in 5.6 that makes you think its about what you're talking about. It's a completly different idea, and has some merit. It might be useful for amphibious scenarios.

Mayby can these on the wishlist.

V/STOL Planes Need no airfield can like Helicopters in every hex only further range.

Use of Autobahn/Highway as alternate airfield. Some countries has therefore trained.

[font="Verdana"]Would like to see a scenario generator added, something like Advanced Tactics. It would probably need additional selects for the length, era, basic unit size, number of formations and whether the scenario is intended for play against the AI or Cheyenne.

Regards, RhinoBones[/font]

WEATHER
Are there any plans for changing the way weather is modeled in TOAW3? such as designer defined "weather zones", where the designer could define the boundaries of the zones?
Or perhaps increasing the number of zones as they work now, from 3 to maybe 6?

MAPS
It had been previously stated that there were no plans to increase the 300x300 max map size in either of the upcoming patches. Is that a completely dead issue for TOAW3? If the 300x300 limit can't be increased, is there any chance support for maps of say 150x600 or 200x450?

ORIGINAL: Bill II
It had been previously stated that there were no plans to increase the 300x300 max map size in either of the upcoming patches. Is that a completely dead issue for TOAW3?

This is alreay far away a dead line of my perception [X(].

ORIGINAL: Legun

ORIGINAL: Bill II
It had been previously stated that there were no plans to increase the 300x300 max map size in either of the upcoming patches. Is that a completely dead issue for TOAW3?

This is alreay far away a dead line of my perception [X(].

Somehow you don't seem like a 500x800 hex scenario kind of guy...

However, if we're voting, I definitely want a larger max map size -- even if, as Bill suggests, it's merely one dimension at the cost of the other.

If nothing else, the work involved in making the upgrade can't be too challenging. Perhaps extensive, but surely it doesn't involve any breakthroughs in computer science?

The need isn't necessarily for unplayable monsters like 'all of the Eastern Front at 2.5 km per hex -- and can we have a unit limit of ten thousand so I can do it all at battalion/company scale?'

Au contraire. There are several interesting potential scenarios that involve combat by relatively small forces over potentially enormous areas: a 'centrifugal offensive' scenario, for one. My own need is so that I can do an 'Operation Orient' scenario covering Bizerte to Bushehr and yet have the scale fine enough so that one can meaningfully fight out an airborne landing on Crete or Cyprus. Right now, the best I can do is 15 km per hex, but I'd love to get down to 10 km -- and would happily look at 5.

The game engine needs to be changed so that the “retreat before combat” occurs during the combat phase of the turn, not during the movement/planning phase.

Reference the following thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1833849

Regards, RhinoBones

I always considered Rbc's as a form of 'overrun' attack. As overruns are a form of movement, I think they belong in the movement phase. Of course, if 'Rbc' is not 'overrun', then I am completely wrong. But I love overruns!

I also like RBCs, but lets be honest, RBC doesn’t always work to your advantage, you have no control on whether the attacking unit advances, the unit attacks before you give it the order to attack and we’ve both seen an opponent chase a weak unit four or five hexes which is NOT a very realistic military maneuver. Good for gamey tactics, but not so good for realism. I just think that units should only conduct combat (RBC included) during the combat resolution phase.

Regards, RhinoBones