Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JMass

ORIGINAL: Procrustes
-> The map could use a bit more of a facelift. I have a hard time telling roads from railroads, stuff like that. And some new terrain types would be nice, too.

There are some graphics mods available, give a look here.

i wish such mods were part of TOAW, it would make the game look more proffesional, and people could say that more changes were introduced...

i hope we don't have to wait for TOAW IV to have most (or at least some) of the suggestions listed above included [:(]

ORIGINAL: hank
No game I've played except TOAW will terminate your turn for reasons outside your control

If it helps, then think of that one round as your "turn". Then no game other than TOAW gives you a chance for extra bonus turns!

ORIGINAL: Marcus the leper

ORIGINAL: Lava

Personally, I'd like to see folks move on and create a strategy game using the engine.

This is exactly what I would love to see

From my point of view, given that you could change a few things, like being able to combine units, adding stuff like production, research and some sort of auto resource thingme, TOAW could serve as the foundation for a really kewl grand strategy game.

What would be really awesome is if it was not era specific.

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Lava

From my point of view, given that you could change a few things, like being able to combine units, adding stuff like production, research and some sort of auto resource thingme, TOAW could serve as the foundation for a really kewl grand strategy game.

And they could use my rules as a basis for some of the code....

I just started playing but, the cooperation between the main view port of the game and the mini map would be nice. Things like selecting a unit from the reinforcement screen and the mini map would change with it. Half of the time I don't know where my unit is on the map so I don't know which way he is to go! I then have to scroll around until I find the screen outline in the mini map. A zoom out feature for the mini map would be nice as well.

On the grand strategy game, I've been meaning to progrm myself up a game like that but haven't had the time with my other projects. I love large scale grand strategy games, such as HoI and MoO. Though, TOAW is awesome so far. It takes me 30-45 minutes to do a single side in FitE!!

30 mins in fite? wow Playingthe German in the early pre fall turns often I would be happy with anything under an hour

[font="times new roman"]I would like to see the ablity to effect rail transport capacity by the interdiction attacks and by bombing, by permanent lose of rail transport points throughout the scenario.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]In the case of interdiction attacks, when a unit is caused to disembark. It would cause the rail capacity to decrease by say 25% of the uints weight or transportation cost.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]In the case of bombing, create a civilian unit, in garrison mode, that when it is successfully attacked it would cause the lost of rail capacity. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]In the larger scenarios this will cause the need to replace rail capacity.  In the reinforcement /replacement phase of bookkeeping, the scenario can be set by the designer to have X number of rail capacity points added per turn. This replacement should be effected like any other replacement level of global increases and decreases factors. It could also mean that rail capacity could grow larger then the intial level set by the designer, if your opponent does not target your rail capacity.[/font]

ORIGINAL: dirk458

I would like to see the ablity to effect rail transport capacity by the interdiction attacks and by bombing, by permanent lose of rail transport points throughout the scenario.

Sort of possible. You'd need to create some "rolling stock" units with negative weight. The player has no natural rail lift capacity but he can embark these units to create some. House rules then require one of these units to accompany any unit moving by rail. If the rolling stock unit is hit then rail transport is permanently reduced.

Not 100% sure how this will work out in practice. Negative equipment behaves in very, very strange ways.

In the larger scenarios this will cause the need to replace rail capacity.  In the reinforcement /replacement phase of bookkeeping, the scenario can be set by the designer to have X number of rail capacity points added per turn. This replacement should be effected like any other replacement level of global increases and decreases factors. It could also mean that rail capacity could grow larger then the intial level set by the designer, if your opponent does not target your rail capacity.

There'd need to be a maximum limit. Beyond a certain point you just can't get more trains on the network.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: hank
I think there's a lot of justification going on of game characteristics that could be improved but won't because many people (including developers) who've played hundreds or thousands of scenario's and learned all the little nuances and behind the scene mechanics, don't want it changed because they've learned to play a very complex strategy game.  (which puts them in an advantageous position against most opponents)

I think Ralph (the developer) is actually pretty new to the game.

Yes, especially compared to most of the people here. I bought all the games in the series, but never actually did much PBEM, and the AI wasn't much of a challenge. Once I found that out, I was pretty disappointed.

James and the Beta testers have a lot more time in it than I do.

I agree that there are some people that like an overly micro-managed game. There are going to be some tough decisions for me. I suspect that what will happen is that there will eventually be a number of options that the PBEMer's will have to negotiate. If you've seen SPWAW's options screen, we may eventually end up with something like that.

There are a number of places where you are forced to do more micromanagement than I like to do. The game should definitely reward the player that's spent the time to learn the system, but I'm not sure that it should reward the player that's willing to micromanage as much as it does.

Over the next several years, I hope to do something to eliminate the micromanagement for those people that don't find it entertaining, and to provide more of the information that people need to manage the troops without having memorized the entire manual.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: hank
No game I've played except TOAW will terminate your turn for reasons outside your control

If it helps, then think of that one round as your "turn". Then no game other than TOAW gives you a chance for extra bonus turns!

You know, it's funny but when I started playing TOAW in 1998 and I received more "rounds" I did think of it as bonus turns. A unique feature then and one that I haven't seen replicated since. [8D]

FWIW

An awful lot of people like designing and playing uber scenarios and I think the most utilised effort would be for support for these sorts of scenarios.

The air and naval model could do with a revamp (air particularly) but I've always understood these were very abstractly modelled as it was never intended to get too complicated with them.

What really needs addressing above all else, though, is:

1. Formations. It is simply too inflexible as it stands. It clearly works for the sort of short mechanised campaigns Norm was writing this for but the popular FITE or Burn's Overlord cry out for the ability to switch units between formations, fold shattered ones into others (rather than disband) etc.

This should allow you to increase the range and value of HQ effects as well.

2. logistics. The supply model is again based on short Corp or Army sized campaigns. It falls over badly on anything much higher. The ability to prioritise and stockpile in some areas and keep low in others is vital to play at theatre level and simulate the way things actually worked.

Replacements also needs a revamp. Priority needs to be assignable to certain units to have any hope of simulating how (for example) the Heer allocated its manpower in the period after the winter campaign of 1941/42. Again, this is really only of benefit after you reach a certain size of scenario, but look at all the most lauded scenarios, and many of the most popular designers and big is often beautiful. I'd argue that the model works well for small scenarios, anyhow, so there is less to do here.


3. Optional might be other styles of commands that would allow you to simulate better a wego environment using IGO-UGO engines.

A counterattack reserve order, for example, where a hex or range of hexes was designatable. Anything which gives people more scope to act in the opponent's turn rather than just clear up afterwards in their own turn. In the above, an armoured unit and accompanying infantry could be ordered to counterattack into any hex designated if it was taken. Not just react into it if close enough in tactical reserve.


4. Ironduke's bugbears.

Artillery. The artillery model is functional but not really historical and suffers from being one shape fits all. the capabilities of the Germans, Soviets, Americans and British all differed in this important area. I feel it needs addressing because historically, it affects how you use it.

Doctrine. Some scenarios can be difficult to balance because Allied players, for example, will get all the Allied advantages and then make like they are Guderian. I can appreciate that the game's attraction in part lies in it's ability to let you explore alternate methods and strategies but a set of optional rules that forced players to devise these within the constraints that historical commanders faced would be welcome for me (at least). It might make for a more boring game in some ways, but a more fascinating one in others (and a more historically accurate one to boot).

regards,
IronDuke

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

...
Replacements also needs a revamp. Priority needs to be assignable to certain units to have any hope of simulating how (for example) the Heer allocated its manpower in the period after the winter campaign of 1941/42. Again, this is really only of benefit after you reach a certain size of scenario, but look at all the most lauded scenarios, and many of the most popular designers and big is often beautiful. I'd argue that the model works well for small scenarios, anyhow, so there is less to do here.
...
regards,
IronDuke

Just to be clear on this point: I assume you are asking for an event effect which would allow the designer to set unit replacement priorities, correct?

A more general enhancement would allow many of the force- and formation-level parameters to be set/changed via event effects. For example:

- Overall force proficiency
- Overall force precision guided weapons level
- Overall force loss intolerance
- Formation supply level
...etc.

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

...
Replacements also needs a revamp. Priority needs to be assignable to certain units to have any hope of simulating how (for example) the Heer allocated its manpower in the period after the winter campaign of 1941/42. Again, this is really only of benefit after you reach a certain size of scenario, but look at all the most lauded scenarios, and many of the most popular designers and big is often beautiful. I'd argue that the model works well for small scenarios, anyhow, so there is less to do here.
...
regards,
IronDuke

Just to be clear on this point: I assume you are asking for an event effect which would allow the designer to set unit replacement priorities, correct?

A more general enhancement would allow many of the force- and formation-level parameters to be set/changed via event effects. For example:

- Overall force proficiency
- Overall force precision guided weapons level
- Overall force loss intolerance
- Formation supply level
...etc.

To some extent. It might be as simple as a toggle which turned replacements on or off. If on you were okay, if off you were not considered during the replacement calcs and routine.

There could perhaps be a higher setting that gave selected units as many replacements as they required before the other units were considered.

I just think at theatre and uber campaign level, you need to be able to rebuild certain units more quickly. All units might get a minor attritional type replacement level simulating lightly wounded returning to the fray etc. Anything above that would be more strictly controlled and allocatable. Anything on uber replacement level might have certain restrictions built in which prevented you just throwing the unit back into combat immediately. Units require rest as well as replacements and training and integration to regain combat effectiveness.

I suppose it comes down to choices. If you have three shattered armoured regiments, but tanks over the next three turns and in the pool to replenish only one, you might do that to have a full strength regiment availble rather than three partial strength ones etc.

Regards,
IronDuke

Less information regarding the enemy the better

Create non artillery ranged fire for smaller scall engagements

Better as is graphics, I really do not care about pretty, I just want to see rail hex and broken rail etc..

Allow moral boosts for Heros and generals, tank aces etc

Freeboy, you can get clearer rail and borken rail graphics in the graphics thread that is stickied at the top of the page, under the sub-forums.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

David Heath happens to be both happy, and impressed, with the sales of TOAW III, thus far.

..good..

..i am happy and impressed with t3, especially the much needed work on the PO (ya wee bugger Elmer)..

..a genuine bench-mark game can only be refined, not improved, not an easy task for those involved, it takes a large degree of honesty on the part of the refiners and a long term view on the part of the backers, neither chess nor i-go apeared in their finished forms overnight...

..so, for me, if you can add a BioEd, say at 20$, to t3, i'll bite, if it has to be called toawIV, ok..

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: hank
I think there's a lot of justification going on of game characteristics that could be improved but won't because many people (including developers) who've played hundreds or thousands of scenario's and learned all the little nuances and behind the scene mechanics, don't want it changed because they've learned to play a very complex strategy game.  (which puts them in an advantageous position against most opponents)

I think Ralph (the developer) is actually pretty new to the game.

Yes, especially compared to most of the people here. I bought all the games in the series, but never actually did much PBEM, and the AI wasn't much of a challenge. Once I found that out, I was pretty disappointed.

James and the Beta testers have a lot more time in it than I do.

I agree that there are some people that like an overly micro-managed game. There are going to be some tough decisions for me. I suspect that what will happen is that there will eventually be a number of options that the PBEMer's will have to negotiate. If you've seen SPWAW's options screen, we may eventually end up with something like that.

There are a number of places where you are forced to do more micromanagement than I like to do. The game should definitely reward the player that's spent the time to learn the system, but I'm not sure that it should reward the player that's willing to micromanage as much as it does.

Over the next several years, I hope to do something to eliminate the micromanagement for those people that don't find it entertaining, and to provide more of the information that people need to manage the troops without having memorized the entire manual.

..Ralph, toaw starts around the point where bullets, arrows, assegais, whatever, stop flying around your ears, under normal circumstances at least, regardless of period and despite Ben's fixation with WW2..

Maybe some more report functions? Text files would be nice, and should of course also be Scenario/FoW option. I´m thinking of supplies, losses, etc reports and there's probably more to it. It would free up lot's of time that from clicking on units, moving around the map and allow that time to spent planning what orders to give

Other than that, I tend to agree with the ones asking for a more developed air and naval model and a BioEd. Graphics and UI can of course always be improved, but my top-4 would be: Option to have more and better reports, more developed air and naval model, BioEd, and yes, a number five as well, flexible command structure although that could have some implications down the road which are hard to predict (Span of command, HQ's abilities, eliminated HQ's and more)

BTW just started a PBEM for the first time in a veeeeery long time, and suddenly became very clear to me (again) why this is one of the games that has the longest "survival time" on my computer. I think it competes only with SPWAW

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

David Heath happens to be both happy, and impressed, with the sales of TOAW III, thus far.

..good..

..i am happy and impressed with t3, especially the much needed work on the PO (ya wee bugger Elmer)..

..a genuine bench-mark game can only be refined, not improved, not an easy task for those involved, it takes a large degree of honesty on the part of the refiners and a long term view on the part of the backers, neither chess nor i-go apeared in their finished forms overnight...

..so, for me, if you can add a BioEd, say at 20$, to t3, i'll bite, if it has to be called toawIV, ok..

So, if we add something without a new release, will you send me the money anyway<g>

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
So, if we add something without a new release, will you send me the money anyway<g>

I think a BioEd thingy would be possible to sell without calling it a new release of TOAW. Could be a standalone application, which means it would be v1 of the editor. On the other hand you need to resolve the db issues and how to store whatever you edit in BioEd[;)]

But, yes, I always end up sending money for whatever Matrix ask for.....