Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to add one other point. Even if you buy into the premise, the mechanism proposed is not going to do what you want. Putting the guns and armor into reorganization will actually facilitate keeping offensives going, because the defenders will have to abandon their artillery and armor - they'll be fixed in place and unable to escape. In fact, given enough range, the attacker's artillery will still provide support while in reorganization, if it had been in reserve or dug-in before reorganizing.

I'm ignoring your other posts on this issue -- but this is a good point.

On the other hand, there's a good deal to be said for a retreating player having to abandon out-of-supply armor and artillery.

That's what often happened. Tanks without fuel do get abandoned. Presumably, guns whose tractors don't have fuel suffer a similar fate. So it would -- as it did in real life -- behoove a player to withdraw in a timely manner, whilst his artillery and armor still have the ability to move.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I just want to add one other point. Even if you buy into the premise, the mechanism proposed is not going to do what you want. Putting the guns and armor into reorganization will actually facilitate keeping offensives going, because the defenders will have to abandon their artillery and armor - they'll be fixed in place and unable to escape. In fact, given enough range, the attacker's artillery will still provide support while in reorganization, if it had been in reserve or dug-in before reorganizing.

I'm ignoring your other posts on this issue -- but this is a good point.

On the other hand, there's a good deal to be said for a retreating player having to abandon out-of-supply armor and artillery.

That's what often happened. Tanks without fuel do get abandoned. Presumably, guns whose tractors don't have fuel suffer a similar fate. So it would -- as it did in real life -- behoove a player to withdraw in a timely manner, whilst his artillery and armor still have the ability to move.

We're not talking about guns and tanks that are completely out of supply - that's already handled in TOAW via attrition of unsupplied units. We're talking about guns and tanks that don't have enough supply to warrant their use in offensive operations. Not only would they have sufficient fuel to escape, they presumably could still be used effectively defensively.

Again, this feature would penalize the defender more severely than the attacker. The attacker could leave his artillery to recover in the rear. The defender would have to abandon his. It would actually increase the ability of red-lined attackers to continue pressing their offensives.

I'd like to see the date restriction on recon helicopters lifted. Currently they can only be used after 1957.

See "WWI Reconnaissance Aircraft" thread at the Game squad site: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=80355

Me too!

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
We're not talking about guns and tanks that are completely out of supply - that's already handled in TOAW via attrition of unsupplied units.

And that's just the problem! An infantryman who's gone without lunch is handled just the same as a tank without fuel.

Historically, just the opposite was the case. Once encircled, Sixth Army effectively had no tanks within fairly short order. Its infantry remained combat-worthy for two months.

You know, you really could drop this 'all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds' schtick, consider that there is something behind points such as those I am making, and think about what would be the best solution. Then you could help to improve TOAW rather than doing the reverse.

ORIGINAL: Bill II

I'd like to see the date restriction on recon helicopters lifted. Currently they can only be used after 1957.

See "WWI Reconnaissance Aircraft" thread at the Game squad site: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=80355

There's certainly no valid reason for such a restriction. After all, if the designer finds something useful, he should be able to use it.

However, if one really wanted, one probably could tell the computer that the scenario is happening in 1960 -- and get it to display '1915' for the player.

Wishlist updated. See post #1 of this thread.

It may well already be there, but as long as I'm on the subject...

Interdiction should only occur when moving, and the chance of interdiction should increase disproportionately as a unit exhausts its movement allowance.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Interdiction should only occur when moving, and the chance of interdiction should increase disproportionately as a unit exhausts its movement allowance.

Think the TOAW definition of “Interdiction” should be changed so that it encompasses both pure attacks of interdiction and planned/opportunistic attacks on static targets. Air units assigned interdiction might have a first priority to attack mobile units but in the absence of appropriate mobile targets they should be redirected to known static targets. I think TOAW models this aspect of aerial warfare quite well.

Also, there are ample examples of air units which, lacking a target of opportunity, instead attacked planned static targets. There is no need to get hung up on semantics and make “interdiction” an absolute single purpose TOAW definition.

As for movement and the possibility of being attacked . . . I would prefer to see enemy interdiction capability and time scale/unit size/terrain for each individual unit used in calculating the probability of an enemy air attack. This should be done on a per move basis. I see no sense in attaching the moves made, or moves remaining, as part of the interdiction calculation.

Regards, RhinoBones

Hi,

I didn't see this on the list, and thought maybe it would be desirable:

Concept Purpose: to abate Player 1, Turn 1, perfect turns.

Concept: player 2 initiates the PBEM without being able to perform actions and sends player 1 the initial game start data. Play proceeds normally.

Very nice list. Quite impressive, really.

Thanks,
-Patrick

ORIGINAL: Abnormalmind
I didn't see this on the list, and thought maybe it would be desirable:
Concept: player 2 initiates the PBEM without being able to perform actions and sends player 1 the initial game start data. Play proceeds normally.

What would constitute the *game start data* ???
Why would player 2 sending player 1 anything *improve* the situation? I don't understand.

Hi Larry,

Well first of all, it gets the game going.
And as the main purpose, the 1st player cannot do his/her turns over and over, then chose which PBEM saved game to send his/her opponent since Player 2 will get notified on the number of reloads. Thus, this concept alleviates the "perfect first turn" syndrome that we sometimes experience.

As an example, lets say we decide to do a pbem. I go first. I could, technically, just do 10 PBEM starts and save them with all different names. Then out of the ten, I can send the best one. The results are obvious. Player 1 gets a "perfect" turn. Whereas in the concept proposal, if player 1 did his turn 10 times, Player 2 would get the "10 reload messages."

Wow.  People actually do that?  Thanks for the explanation....that cleared up my confusion.  I can see how that would be a temptation but what the heck, I play for fun.  I don't *need* to win to have fun.  Witness my reaction to your taking over the entire August Fog map.  "What a great game" is my motto.

I am with you Larry.[;)]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Wow.  People actually do that?  Thanks for the explanation....that cleared up my confusion.  I can see how that would be a temptation but what the heck, I play for fun.  I don't *need* to win to have fun.  Witness my reaction to your taking over the entire August Fog map.  "What a great game" is my motto.

I'm never really able to see how people could derive gratification from 'winning' after cheating. Certainly I'd rather not bumph around with precautions to prevent it. Anyone who is really willing to cheat in the first place will probably be able to figure out how to circumvent the measures in any case -- and then they'll just be able to tell themselves they were clever rather than dishonest.

I believe other game titles have shifted methods. Was Combat Mission Beyond Overlord setup so the "other" PBEM player started things rolling? I'm getting a little brain dead, but it was an issue 10+ years ago, so I figure it's still an issue today. I know there were PBEM issues with the Campaign Series games by Talonsoft. I'm not sure if Tiller changed it. Now I'm going to have to go ask on the other boards.

Yes, the Campaign Series had something. If the first player to move is player 1, player 2 could start the PBEM and send it to player 1.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Wow.  People actually do that?  Thanks for the explanation....that cleared up my confusion.  I can see how that would be a temptation but what the heck, I play for fun.  I don't *need* to win to have fun.  Witness my reaction to your taking over the entire August Fog map.  "What a great game" is my motto.

I'm never really able to see how people could derive gratification from 'winning' after cheating. Certainly I'd rather not bumph around with precautions to prevent it. Anyone who is really willing to cheat in the first place will probably be able to figure out how to circumvent the measures in any case -- and then they'll just be able to tell themselves they were clever rather than dishonest.

My philosophy is to try to keep honest people honest[;)]. Enough that someone who has made a mistake or had incredible bad luck in PBEM isn't too tempted to just reload and try again. Anything more than that is wasted, unless I do everything on-line on a protected server like WoW, there's no way to keep a dedicated hacker from doing anything they want.

Ralph

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Wow.  People actually do that?  Thanks for the explanation....that cleared up my confusion.  I can see how that would be a temptation but what the heck, I play for fun.  I don't *need* to win to have fun.  Witness my reaction to your taking over the entire August Fog map.  "What a great game" is my motto.

I'm never really able to see how people could derive gratification from 'winning' after cheating. Certainly I'd rather not bumph around with precautions to prevent it. Anyone who is really willing to cheat in the first place will probably be able to figure out how to circumvent the measures in any case -- and then they'll just be able to tell themselves they were clever rather than dishonest.

My philosophy is to try to keep honest people honest[;)]. Enough that someone who has made a mistake or had incredible bad luck in PBEM isn't too tempted to just reload and try again. Anything more than that is wasted, unless I do everything on-line on a protected server like WoW, there's no way to keep a dedicated hacker from doing anything they want.

Ralph

Although I agree that dedicated hackers make my life a little unpleasant at times, it still important for any player to player game to maintain the perception of fair play. Otherwise, a lot of us old grumpy men will simply wander off, not that I ever do that, but sometimes I forget things, and my wallet, too. TOAW is not likely to draw out the hacker groups that dedicate their lives releasing Trojan infested in-game hacks. As I have no knowledge about the available resources for TOAW_IV, I'm just happy that game development continues.

ORIGINAL: Abnormalmind
Although I agree that dedicated hackers make my life a little unpleasant at times, it still important for any player to player game to maintain the perception of fair play. Otherwise, a lot of us old grumpy men will simply wander off, not that I ever do that, but sometimes I forget things, and my wallet, too. TOAW is not likely to draw out the hacker groups that dedicate their lives releasing Trojan infested in-game hacks. As I have no knowledge about the available resources for TOAW_IV, I'm just happy that game development continues.

TOAW IV should be in .Net which means that it will be harder for a hacker group to release a hack that can actually damage the computer. I've folowed the standard practices, but I can't 100% guarantee that it isn't possible to create a scenario that does bad things. I plan to use a standard encryption algorithm so that turns will be harder to hack instead of the current process which uses obscurity. Preventing replaying of turns is a very difficult problem since there isn't really any place where you can store the turn played and other information that can't be sniffed easily by a half-decent hacker (in the old meaning of the word.)

As I said, I can keep honest people honest, but preventing hacking would require a lot of resources to create a server that would know when you load a game, save a game, etc., It might be possible to add in a mode that puts up a tweet every time a marked game is loaded, or something similar, I'll have to think about it, and take a look at the Twitter and Facebook TOS.

Ralph