Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I'm not exactly working on 'Elephants', but I am working on making creation of Objectives a little easier...

Here's a sample, along with some different fonts.

Ralph

That's a start, Ralph. But what we really need for objective design is to be able to display the tracks of every formation at the same time - with only one live track that's being modified.

The real problem with track design is trying to remember where all the other tracks have already been placed, so you can keep them parallel.

And once we've got that, then we need to be able to just drag and drop track points, without going through the "delete objective" then "insert objective" routine.

Something like this? Tied to the 'I' key that toggles the range rings? It might toggle between one unit's track, and all the formations's tracks.

I'll see if I can do anything like that...

You DO want arrows, right?

Sorry about the funny colored roads.

Ralph, is there any possiblity that the range feature will recieve its own button sometime in the future?
(Did I already ask this, and forget the answer?[:D])

ORIGINAL: Veers

Ralph, is there any possiblity that the range feature will recieve its own button sometime in the future?
(Did I already ask this, and forget the answer?[:D])

I suppose I'll have to do that sometime, won't I? I also need to add it to the menus.

How about a button that brings all the engineers to the top of their stacks?

ORIGINAL: ralphtrickSomething like this? Tied to the 'I' key that toggles the range rings? It might toggle between one unit's track, and all the formations's tracks.

That would be a blessing Ralph [&o]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

How about a button that brings all the engineers to the top of their stacks?

I can imagine it's tough searching for all your rail repair units on that huuuuge FITE map [;)]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: hank

The way HttR/CotA displays this data is better IMHO.  There's bar charts and lists and other graphics that tell you the status of a unit, its combat power, fatigue, etc etc.  This is where I wish TOAW would get a major face lift.  I get tired looking at the small font serifs lettering and the center justification, etc. that comprise ToaW's user interface.

The reality, though, is that it isn't useful to repeatedly refer to this information. I don't think the way it's displayed is all that important.

OH!! well excuse me. ... just trying to make a constructive critique. Obviously what you have is the best and will never need to be made better.

[:-]

ORIGINAL: Veers

Ralph, is there any possiblity that the range feature will recieve its own button sometime in the future?
(Did I already ask this, and forget the answer?[:D])

How about a revision of the supply system (player control)? How about the revision of the replacements (player control)?

I wonder if to revise the objective tracks is such a priority...

(I'm already wearing a flame retardant suit) [:D]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
How about a button that brings all the engineers to the top of their stacks?

I can imagine it's tough searching for all your rail repair units on that huuuuge FITE map

Yes it is. Fortunately in FitE 5.0 all the rail repair units are grouped into their own formations. So I just click through the first couple of formations until I get to the first formation that is RR units and then click through the RR units until I find one I want to use. It's time consuming but less so than searching through all the stacks looking for one.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Something like this? Tied to the 'I' key that toggles the range rings? It might toggle between one unit's track, and all the formations's tracks.

I'll see if I can do anything like that...

You DO want arrows, right?

Exactly, except we need the active track to be a different color from all the inactive ones (like the active crop circle is a different color from the inactive crop circles). Arrows are useful - otherwise you couldn't be absolutely sure of the direction of the track.

In fact, this is the first time I've been able to see what a tangled mess I made of the tracks due to working blind. With this feature I could have kept them much neater, and possibly more effective. Regardless, it would have been easier.

Ralph, what fonts are you using and where could I get them? [:)]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
In fact, this is the first time I've been able to see what a tangled mess I made of the tracks due to working blind. With this feature I could have kept them much neater, and possibly more effective.

Oh...I don't know, Bob. I think they look pretty good. In fact, if you look at the lines, just right, you can see the statue of Nelson in Trafalgar Square...[;)]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
It will probably go straight towards 4. Elmer mainly cares about the highest enemy held objective.

Ralph

Since you are putting considerable time and effort into objective tracks, I would like to see units actually follow the specified track. See my previous post back at 33 & 34.

When I make a track with objectives 1 thru 10 I want the formation to actually make a path through objectives 1 thru 10. If tracks 2 thru 9 are already occupied by friendly forces I do not want the formation to make it's own path to objective 10. The possibility of by passing the intermediate objectives is not necessarily the intent of the designer . . . I can see where the designers of the high fidelity historical scenarios would insist that the planned objective tracks be used.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
It will probably go straight towards 4. Elmer mainly cares about the highest enemy held objective.

Ralph

Since you are putting considerable time and effort into objective tracks, I would like to see units actually follow the specified track. See my previous post back at 33 & 34.

When I make a track with objectives 1 thru 10 I want the formation to actually make a path through objectives 1 thru 10. If tracks 2 thru 9 are already occupied by friendly forces I do not want the formation to make it's own path to objective 10. The possibility of by passing the intermediate objectives is not necessarily the intent of the designer . . . I can see where the designers of the high fidelity historical scenarios would insist that the planned objective tracks be used.

This would require a new order emphasis for formations, or at least a designer set switch for this to happen. My use of obliquely staggered objective points to represent trigger positions for causing a formation to fall back, and properly counterattack a flanking maneuver would be completely incapacitated by such a paint-by-numbers approach as you suggest.

I can see that in some instances, a designer might want Elmer to take the "long road" through a set of pre-defined objectives in a path, but much of the time, movement through rear areas would be greatly impeded by following 1-2-3-4-5-6-..., rather than just jumping straight from 1-6, if 2 through 5 are already friendly controlled.

ORIGINAL: Boonierat

Ralph, what fonts are you using and where could I get them? [:)]

http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl ... 0279/11#11

I discovered it here. You'll probably have to play around with it to get a satisfying result. And the SS Runes will be no more displayed correctly (those that have been typed with Alt+B).

I'd just like to inform you I found a "lost" ToaW'er over at the CM forums - he's spent ages working on an FitE mod apaprently, so I'm getting him over here and in touch with Buzz....[8D]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Veers

Ralph, is there any possiblity that the range feature will recieve its own button sometime in the future?
(Did I already ask this, and forget the answer?[:D])

I suppose I'll have to do that sometime, won't I? I also need to add it to the menus.

I already did, I just forgot the answer[:D]. Press the show/hide unit button, and it will cycle through.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
My use of obliquely staggered objective points . . . would be completely incapacitated

When used in a defensive posture as you describe, I just do not see a negative impact. You can "Oblique" defensively to your heart's content.

. . . paint-by-numbers approach . . .

I guess this is intended to mean that if I want formations move as I intend, then my approach is acceptable. I could even have them move obliquely . . . or on the bias if you prefer.

When I want formations to cross a river at a certain point, or move through a particular mountain pass, I would rather not leave the navigation to AOwPI.

This is particularly important when reserves are introduced to the battlefield. Also, it ensures that the reserves move directly to a particular point of the battlefield. For the PO controlled force, this would help reconstituted units move to their parent formation.

ORIGINAL: . . . movement through rear areas would be greatly impeded . . .

Can you quantify this impediment or is this just an assumption you have made for argument sake? Does this great impediment take into account that the direct route from 1 to 6 might include enemy controlled areas, or a major river, mountains, heavy forest?

As for my original suggestion, I actually was hoping to hear from the more experienced designers; the historical scenario designers in particular. Zig-zag, oblique or otherwise.

Regards, RhinoBones

ORIGINAL: Zweihorn

Critics on TOAW. I discovered this very negative critics on TOAW in another forum:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002167I´m quite a newbie, but I would like to hear how the experts think on this critics. For me TOAW loooks very flexible and realistic on the operation level.

..toaw comes with it's own built in critics, ( a sub-program that no-one can rectify) look at the posts here, or at TDG..

..[8D]..