Comprehensive Wishlist

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
Well it doesn't... As we see it has wish of Bob Cross and Jarek there. So it is like comitee wish list. Why they didn't then include other's wish list is a question.

As I said in the first post, we tried to be comprehensive but that's unattainable. If there are things we've missed let us know. But try to find them in the document first - most of what you complained about it lacking so far were actually in there (Commanders, for example).

And you have a right to your opinion as to the value of any items. But it's just one opinion. Other people may feel differently (me in particular). Again, we're trying to be comprehensive.

OK I agree Bob. Thank you.

I will try to make contribution. Peacefully [:D]

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL:
This system is broad enough to include XIX century and XX century . . .

Since the TOAW engine is optimized for operational XX century warfare, there have always been problems whenever it is asked to perform XIX century, small unit and army level calculations. Wonder if it would be possible to modify the engine so that certain variables, or switches, could be selected by the author depending on the scale and time frame of the scenario? The purpose would be to adjust the engine to the scenario.

This could be included as part of the environment screen. Might actually be more trouble than it is worth, but Ralph would know whether this is practical.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

In any way why is Gamesquads or Matrix Forum lesser valued for any suggestion than TDG? I don't think so.

I don't think so, too. It's just that it was on tdg where it started.

And now... and no more

Go ahead and add your proposals here.

Stefan

OK yes you are right....

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

That is crazy .... How soon will you have it done? Will Daisy Dukes be a Theatre Option?

That's for the next version with the 3D models...

[Monkeys Brain]

All right Ralph mostly I agree....

Idea behind commanders is this:

As we already have one of most proposed features for future iterations of TOAW is attaching and deattaching of units to different HQ's. As we know any Army did shuffle of units to various HQ's. For example Grossdeutschland division was pulled out from Army Group South after preliminary Operation Blau move. It was attached to AG Central just in time to prevent catastrophe near Rzhev when Red Army was putting big pressure.

So, Commanders would not influence just units in their radius at least that was not mine idea. They would influence unit's directly subordinated to them.

This idea of course needs to be discussed and refined. For exammple if there is good General commanding Army Group does bonues and penalties would be carried over to lower echellons unit's like Corps HQ units and Division HQ units or bonuses would be calculated separately so Div HQ commander gives bonuses only to that division - anyway maybe middle HQ's unit commanders should give bonuses to their units and THOSE unit's Division that are in that Corps HQ.

All values to Commanders could have been assigned in Editor. This is because many would argue is Rommell Supply plus 4% or 2%, is he bonus of 5% to whole attack value or just 5% to armored attack value.

And so on...

Back to other replies as FiTE is waiting for me eheh.


Mario

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Let me see if I can make the case for pre-20th Century features, because they are dear to me.

First, I'll point out that there are already plenty of pre-20th Century scenarios out there. They include a number of American Civil War and Napoleonic War scenarios. They're popular, fun, and deserve support.

Second, those are topics with large wargamer followings. Even if all you want to do is play FITE, imagine how even FITE will benefit if all those wargamers can be attracted to TOAW. More sales means more resources for even more updates. There's a synergy produced by the combination that benefits both sides - even if they hate each other.

Third, if I've sold you on 19th Century features, consider that most of that effort will be devoted to implementing the things that change the game from frontal warfare to non-frontal warfare. Once all those features have been implemented, there's very little left to do to add 30 more centuries to the scope of the game. From the 19th Century, all you really need to add is body armor, non-gunfire projectile weapons, and a few special items (like elephants). (And even body armor could be justified for Napoleonic Warfare - think heavy cavalry). So a huge increase in scope could be had for relatively little effort. Again, think of the synergy that even benefits FITE.

Can't argue this. If it can be made. Then we will see a lot others scenarios like battle of Canae and such [;)]

But only Ralph know is this possible with current engine combat model.


M.

[Veers]

Having now (finally) taken an actual look at the doc. I can officially say, "Sweet." Kudos, on a great job, boys.
 
One Q: I didn't find anythng exact on leadership...Did you see my and Mario's (Yeah, I know, wow! [:D]) contribution here, for a relatively simple way of implementing limited Leadership abilities?

[Monkeys Brain]

A) They did include others' wishes. Just open your eyes and you'll see that.
B) They are not gods, there is now way they could get every wish in there. You need to put down your vendetta and rememeber that. As I think Bob indicated, he willbe continuing to add to the list.

There is no vendetta. Maybe that's why you act like ... I understand that they are listening so we will see how much hehe...
Maybe you need to get of your high horse - my words are just my style but they are just words. It is not something that should be charged like a mad bull.

With people like you around, someone has to.

Ahahahahahaha. Buarghagagagaagahahaga...
FiTE is waiting but this is fun also [:D]
Again, just said that I use words ahem let's say in poetic freedom way. Nothing to get too excited about.
When I said stupid that's just a word - that was appropriate word in my English dictionary so I just used it.

Why should you be able to? Say you don't like the idea, say you don't think it shoud be included. Don't be derogatory towards the idea, otherwise you're inviting a crusifiction of yourself. Be nice about your statement of dislike and you wouldn't incure my anger.

Ahahaha. Again. Sorry couldn't resist. LOL
I never was against idea that is whole point. Sorry if you cannot stand a little bit over the top words but nobody's perfect [:D]

Right. You figured me out. I just want to be nice to Ralph and James so I can...what? Get a free copy? I already have that.
(EDIT: Not a free copy, one I paid for.)

No never said that. But actually I am coming from Usenet and I have used to brutal words fight hahaha. That's what you need to realize. There is no arrogancy in that. But I am creative in that haha. I never condemn you for your love for TOAW 3 etc... just you don't have to say to everything that is great. Bropaden the subject and be more critical, for the good of TOAW that's all.

Like I am some troublemaker that needs to be taught a lesson.

You said it.

C'mon. Where is good will? You are just digging up some old discussion and remember I had perfectly legal right for my opinion. That is not reason to spill bad blood over and over again just because of few words...

If something is stupid then it is stupid. Like elephants in TOAW it's simply not great or splendid.

Just be nicer and less arogant about it, otherwise people might start to think you're an arogant jerk.

Garh! Hahaha. I am not. Period.

EDIT: WOW! Lots of posts sine I started this....[:D]

Heh. I noticed too and as a good boy answered to all.

OK. Peace.


Mario

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

A) They did include others' wishes. Just open your eyes and you'll see that.
B) They are not gods, there is now way they could get every wish in there. You need to put down your vendetta and rememeber that. As I think Bob indicated, he willbe continuing to add to the list.

There is no vendetta. Maybe that's why you act like ... I understand that they are listening so we will see how much hehe...
Maybe you need to get of your high horse - my words are just my style but they are just words. It is not something that should be charged like a mad bull.

With people like you around, someone has to.

Ahahahahahaha. Buarghagagagaagahahaga...
FiTE is waiting but this is fun also [:D]
Again, just said that I use words ahem let's say in poetic freedom way. Nothing to get too excited about.
When I said stupid that's just a word - that was appropriate word in my English dictionary so I just used it.

Why should you be able to? Say you don't like the idea, say you don't think it shoud be included. Don't be derogatory towards the idea, otherwise you're inviting a crusifiction of yourself. Be nice about your statement of dislike and you wouldn't incure my anger.

Ahahaha. Again. Sorry couldn't resist. LOL
I never was against idea that is whole point. Sorry if you cannot stand a little bit over the top words but nobody's perfect [:D]

Right. You figured me out. I just want to be nice to Ralph and James so I can...what? Get a free copy? I already have that.
(EDIT: Not a free copy, one I paid for.)

No never said that. But actually I am coming from Usenet and I have used to brutal words fight hahaha. That's what you need to realize. There is no arrogancy in that. But I am creative in that haha. I never condemn you for your love for TOAW 3 etc... just you don't have to say to everything that is great. Bropaden the subject and be more critical, for the good of TOAW that's all.

Like I am some troublemaker that needs to be taught a lesson.

You said it.

C'mon. Where is good will? You are just digging up some old discussion and remember I had perfectly legal right for my opinion. That is not reason to spill bad blood over and over again just because of few words...

If something is stupid then it is stupid. Like elephants in TOAW it's simply not great or splendid.

Just be nicer and less arogant about it, otherwise people might start to think you're an arogant jerk.

Garh! Hahaha. I am not. Period.

EDIT: WOW! Lots of posts sine I started this....[:D]

Heh. I noticed too and as a good boy answered to all.

OK. Peace.


Mario

Eh, I'll give you the last word. Peace.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Veers

Having now (finally) taken an actual look at the doc. I can officially say, "Sweet." Kudos, on a great job, boys.

One Q: I didn't find anythng exact on leadership...Did you see my and Mario's (Yeah, I know, wow! [:D]) contribution here, for a relatively simple way of implementing limited Leadership abilities?

?? Leaders are definitely in the document. See 4.12.1.

The details of how they would be implemented were intentionally left vague.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Veers

Having now (finally) taken an actual look at the doc. I can officially say, "Sweet." Kudos, on a great job, boys.

One Q: I didn't find anythng exact on leadership...Did you see my and Mario's (Yeah, I know, wow! [:D]) contribution here, for a relatively simple way of implementing limited Leadership abilities?

?? Leaders are definitely in the document. See 4.12.1.

The details of how they would be implemented were intentionally left vague.

Sorry, missed it because it's under Pre-20th Century: Special Command Factors.. I was hoping for leadership to come into play in more modern scenarios, as well as pre-20th Century.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL:
This system is broad enough to include XIX century and XX century . . .

Since the TOAW engine is optimized for operational XX century warfare, there have always been problems whenever it is asked to perform XIX century, small unit and army level calculations. Wonder if it would be possible to modify the engine so that certain variables, or switches, could be selected by the author depending on the scale and time frame of the scenario? The purpose would be to adjust the engine to the scenario.

This could be included as part of the environment screen. Might actually be more trouble than it is worth, but Ralph would know whether this is practical.

Regards, RhinoBones

Well, that's what 4.12 and 7.20 are addressing. Of course these items would be optional.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Veers
Sorry, missed it because it's under Pre-20th Century: Special Command Factors.. I was hoping for leadership to come into play in more modern scenarios, as well as pre-20th Century.

Don't worry about how things are labeled. As Rhinobones says, you could pick and choose. For example, one might want to employ Linear Tactics to some extent as late as WWI. And there are other items in the list that are really needed for pre-20th Century but aren't specifically labeled as such (7.3 & 7.9, for example).

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Veers
Sorry, missed it because it's under Pre-20th Century: Special Command Factors.. I was hoping for leadership to come into play in more modern scenarios, as well as pre-20th Century.

Don't worry about how things are labeled. As Rhinobones says, you could pick and choose. For example, one might want to employ Linear Tactics to some extent as late as WWI. And there are other items in the list that are really needed for pre-20th Century but aren't specifically labeled as such (7.3 & 7.9, for example).

Right'o. [;)]

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

Some good suggestions some plain stupid...
[:D]



Stupid are: elephants and such things (why you need ancient warfare here at all? LOL[:'(]

Mount and Dismount - pure stupidity, TOAW is OPERATIONAL game - it is not tactical game a la STEEL PANTHERS!!!

..decent elephants require direct Elmer-intervention in player games usable for limiting player control over dodgy formations..i like elephants

..mount and dismount gives the possibility of trucks (and ships) actually carrying things and so an accurate representation of several country's troop transport system, the French in Indochine for one, but most early war countries, not every one had the US glut of transport..but i like cavalry..

..but i'm sure you worked all that out before posting..

[Monkeys Brain]

[/quote]

..decent elephants require direct Elmer-intervention in player games usable for limiting player control over dodgy formations..i like elephants

..mount and dismount gives the possibility of trucks (and ships) actually carrying things and so an accurate representation of several country's troop transport system, the French in Indochine for one, but most early war countries, not every one had the US glut of transport..but i like cavalry..

..but i'm sure you worked all that out before posting..

[/quote]

Oh here it is hippy from San Francisco, let's roll one before proceding [:D]

Just joking of course, not to be taken seriously.

For Christ sake first TOAW is already micromanaging hell (try FiTE) and first we must see will this actually benefit to the game or not. Everything that can be put AS A OPTION PER SE - is not that bad. Everything in fact that has on off switch even better.

What benefits to the real monster scenarios that ARE MOST POPULAR MIND YOU! is taking few trucks from Minsk to Smolensk to bring some supply to the 113 company of 15th PnGr div or something like that.
There is no end to that then. Then you must include AMBUSH MODE of drunken band of gypsies that attacked this convoy out of the woods.[:D]

Something that you propose would be usuable for some tactical situations that's why I have said STEEL PANTHERS. How many players in fact play 1km scale scenarios in TOAW?

I was talking about priorities and TOAW is OPERATIONAL game. My problem is not that you didn't cleaned your ears before posting to me some ironic posts.

How do you want to TOAW actually develops? With one programmer and this snail pace sure you will have everything in what time 10 years? 20?

I would rather that some priorities are made - PRODUCTION a la Secon Front for example with factories in cities, already there is many good ideas about that. I doubt that even THAT is not easy to be made.

So stop attacking me...I repeat make some priorities on this wish list.

Of course if you want elephant on 1st place I will not stop you. But laughing is not forbidden.

Bleeeeee...[:-]



Mario

[Boonierat]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
I was talking about priorities and TOAW is OPERATIONAL game. My problem is not that you didn't cleaned your ears before posting to me some ironic posts.
....
I would rather that some priorities are made - PRODUCTION a la Secon Front for example with factories in cities, already there is many good ideas about that. I doubt that even THAT is not easy to be made.

You contradict yourself here, you say TOAW is operational then ask for a production system, something found in strategic games

[Monkeys Brain]

[/quote]

You contradict yourself here, you say TOAW is operational then ask for a production system, something found in strategic games

[/quote]

Yeah, Boonierat you are right.
But my favorite scenario are monster scenarios

1) FiTE
2) The Great War 2.0
etc...

Unlike many others that voiced their opinion against PRODUCTION system I am with all my powers for it.

Take for example FiTE or The Great War 2.0

You are right - TOAW is OPERATIONAL game but basically FiTE 5.0 and The Great War 2.0 are not just operational as YOU are in fact HEAD HONCHO of ALL FRONT! You are Hitler or Kaise. You can grew even moustaches like Hitler so when you wake up in the morning to say Sieg Heil! when you look into mirrow before brushing your tooths. LOL

So these scenarios are also STRATEGIC not just operational. Maybe you don't agree but all your decisions have strategic consequences in the battlefield and it really doesn't matter that your units are regiments or divisions and not corps.

In FiTE you could take decisions and coupled that with research you can speed up production of some tanks or planes, or you could decide to make bigger amount of manpower etc... maybe try to introduce PzIIIJ at earlier date and with bigger numbers? Or Tigers? etc... of course Russians would not be weak as well they will have their options and anyway they made so much tanks in 1942. and that's why they survived.

The Great War as well - you decide would Krupp make bigger guns or more lesser caliber guns? Would Germans try to make tanks before? or armored cars? or more ships or subs?


Mario

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..mount and dismount gives the possibility of trucks (and ships) actually carrying things and so an accurate representation of several country's troop transport system, the French in Indochine for one, but most early war countries, not every one had the US glut of transport..but i like cavalry..

There is indeed that aspect. Think of the 101st Airborne in the Bulge. It's foot-bound, but was swiftly tranported to Bastogne by pool trucks. Then the trucks left it there. That sort of "truck-lift" is hard to model in TOAW. Mount/Dismount is one of the ways suggested.

But the main benefit is when you have a heavily motorized assault facing a mostly foot defense - and that defense sets itself up in terrain that motorized units can't enter, like badlands or dunes. A prime example of this is the Desert War: Italians on foot defending against the British on wheels. The British need to be able to "dismount". That's going to be the case in any Desert War scenario at almost any scale. Anyone who thinks the Desert War scenarios aren't popular is living a sheltered life.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
So these scenarios are also STRATEGIC not just operational. ...

I think Boonierat was being facetious, but I'll jump in here and agree with Mario. A scenario can be operational in scale while being strategic in scope.