Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bombur

The new naval features are welcomed, but....there will be accross the sea supply?

No. We also will lack ship-borne torpedoes, submarines, naval reaction, etc. Naval Warfare is a big topic. Hopefully, some of that will be possible down the road.

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model

...which leads me to this question - will players be able to build airfields?

No.

Don't we already have across the sea supply?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

there were many times more temporary airfields that the game can't model

...which leads me to this question - will players be able to build airfields?

No.

There is a way to do it. But then you might run into a problem with the formations limit. Think about it, is it really the airfields that you need or the units that represent airfield support?

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?

Or engineer’s ability to effect the terrain build rail ways, roads etc.? Not just build air fields?

Curtis,

The "Battlefield Time Stamp" feature is a very welcomed one, but it doesn't address the main issue with the turn's model in TOW.
In my view, the really frustrating "feature" of the current game is the fact that once control switches from Player1 to Player2 in Turn1, Player1 can not regain control of his forces until the new game-turn starts (Turn2).
This results in a loss of remaining movement points for Player1's force in Turn1, which is not a realistic modeling of the warfare operations.
The fix for this issue would be to allow multiple changes of control between the sides within the same game-turn.
After each "Combats Resolved" event the game should determine which side has an initiative using the "Avg Remaining Movement Points" calculation, and pass control to the side with highest one.
In this case the new game-turn should start only after both sides explicitly end their turns by clicking UI button "End Turn", that should be available in addition to UI button "Resolve All Combats".
In my view this change would be a tremendous improvement to TOW turn model.
Makes sense?

Yes it makes sense - but it won't work - can you imagine how long it would take to run a turn??

"We-Go" is a good alternative, but doesn't wok with TOAW's combat system.

ORIGINAL: MaxG

Curtis,

The "Battlefield Time Stamp" feature is a very welcomed one, but it doesn't address the main issue with the turn's model in TOW.
In my view, the really frustrating "feature" of the current game is the fact that once control switches from Player1 to Player2 in Turn1, Player1 can not regain control of his forces until the new game-turn starts (Turn2).
This results in a loss of remaining movement points for Player1's force in Turn1, which is not a realistic modeling of the warfare operations.
The fix for this issue would be to allow multiple changes of control between the sides within the same game-turn.
After each "Combats Resolved" event the game should determine which side has an initiative using the "Avg Remaining Movement Points" calculation, and pass control to the side with highest one.
In this case the new game-turn should start only after both sides explicitly end their turns by clicking UI button "End Turn", that should be available in addition to UI button "Resolve All Combats".
In my view this change would be a tremendous improvement to TOW turn model.
Makes sense?

As noted, that would be unworkable. But I would also disagree that early turn ending is unrealistic. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" as they say. Early turn ending provides the risk/reward aspect of trying to implement a ambitiously complex plan. Really crummy forces shouldn't be good at it and really good forces should be. What the above would do is guarantee that every force, no matter how crummy, can carry out operations with surgical precision.

Curtis Lemay:
early turn ending

IMO, it's ok, it adds an element of unpredictability to the game, but I'd make it more local, depending on the scen scale, let's call it, say, early formation action ending or early div action ending, and so on; it's a bit silly that a failure of one unit can actually affect the whole front...

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

Curtis Lemay:
early turn ending

IMO, it's ok, it adds an element of unpredictability to the game, but I'd make it more local, depending on the scen scale, let's call it, say, early formation action ending or early div action ending, and so on; it's a bit silly that a failure of one unit can actually affect the whole front...

That's what the BTS system will affect. There will still be turn endings due to Force Proficiency Check failures, though. That's a different thing.

Would be nice to see new features such as ability to overlay a map (much like WitW and WitE where the hex "tiles" lay over them, this provides the best and smoothest land/water contours while still being able to lay hexes over them (i.e. tiles). Also this feature in the editor would help scenario designers create maps by easily "painting" over real terrains, and could be a huge time saver as well as provide more accuracy.

Ability to change unit colors to 16million color palette was discussed somewhere I saw, but bringing it up again because I think that is a huge feature (one that I recommended back in the days of BF/CA design days). Also ability to create new unit types along with their respective symbols would be cool... perhaps the game ships with default unit type "slots" and then allows additional slots to be added.

Multiple "factions" or "sides" instead of just 2. This could allow more complex scenarios with neutrals, UN forces, and several warring factions/sides within a scenario.

A drag/drop method of creating scenario unit OOB's would be great if not already there... anyway.. a million ideas to throw out I am sure you are all busy.

ORIGINAL: geozero

Would be nice to see new features such as ability to overlay a map (much like WitW and WitE where the hex "tiles" lay over them, this provides the best and smoothest land/water contours while still being able to lay hexes over them (i.e. tiles). Also this feature in the editor would help scenario designers create maps by easily "painting" over real terrains, and could be a huge time saver as well as provide more accuracy.

Multiple "factions" or "sides" instead of just 2. This could allow more complex scenarios with neutrals, UN forces, and several warring factions/sides within a scenario.

+1
if it's too difficult to do "Multiple factions" then perhaps more exclusion zones?

ORIGINAL: geozero


Multiple "factions" or "sides" instead of just 2. This could allow more complex scenarios with neutrals, UN forces, and several warring factions/sides within a scenario.

+1, I also support this, this would be wonderful

ORIGINAL: Panzer War

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?

+++!

This would be #1 on my list. With core units that can survive and gain experience from one scenario to the next.

Also a naval / air system that allowed patrol zones. So you could maybe select a collection of hexes for a group of naval units and when enemy units passed through it there would be a pct chance of contact depending on how large the patrol zone was.

Convoys.

not #1 but definitely a very good idea - designers of current games have been ingenious and inventive in their attempts to work within the current limitations and much kudos to them....but let's make it better

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

ORIGINAL: Panzer War

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?

+++!

This would be #1 on my list. With core units that can survive and gain experience from one scenario to the next.

I don't know... Smells like Panzer Corps...

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

ORIGINAL: Panzer War

Any possibility of getting a linked scenario/campaign system built in?

+++!

This would be #1 on my list. With core units that can survive and gain experience from one scenario to the next.

I don't know... Smells like Panzer Corps...

You mean Panzer General

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield



I don't know... Smells like Panzer Corps...

I see you're point. They would have that in common. But really? Panzer Corps? Not even on the same planet in terms of realism and depth.

Maybe the core units are a bad idea. But having say an entire WWII game played out in linked operational level scenarios is very appealing to me. And having your performance in one scenario affect which one you played next and possibly OOB's and timeline would be very cool.

Say for example you are playing the allies and as Poland you manage to hold out longer than historically happened and induce a few more casualties.

So the next scenario is an invasion of France but it starts two weeks later allowing the French to build a few more units and some of the German units are a bit depleted because of the struggle with Poland. This is just an example of course.

The Germans attacked France at their leisure... and the Allies had 5-6 months to prepare or do something in the west and did nothing... thus the "Phoney War". I really doubt the French would have built much even if the Germans had delayed their assault 2 weeks.

ORIGINAL: geozero

The Germans attacked France at their leisure... and the Allies had 5-6 months to prepare or do something in the west and did nothing... thus the "Phoney War". I really doubt the French would have built much even if the Germans had delayed their assault 2 weeks.

OK bad example. But without getting into a debate about WWII history I think it would be cool to have linked scenarios where the result of one dictated the timeline, OOB and selection of the next. Instead of having each scenario in isolation with no real relationship to each other it would be cool to have an overall campaign consisting of linked scenarios.