Comprehensive Wishlist

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I am not thinking that.

In fact your scenario is one of the masterpieces of TOAW. I still didn't played it but bought book FOXES OF THE DESERT just for that occasion! (Carell book excellent).
The only thing that maybe shoud be changed is to add a lot more airfields for the axis that cannot be reached by ships.
I also like to blast planes by ships but in reality it happened very seldom.


Mario

[Boonierat]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

I wasn't that much facetious actually (well maybe a little [:'(]), and even if I admire scens like FitE or EA, they clearly aren't what TOAW was made for. I'd rather see improvements of the operational side of the game rather than adding "strategic" elements to it. But I guess that's an endless debate.

[Telumar]

After spending the last evenings with the cumbersome scenario editor i thought it would be usefull to:

- have a better deployment editor, that means: to have a reinforcement list/arrival schedule in the editor (similar to that in-game) which is sortable by arrival turn, hex, formation, maybe unit type and which also shows withdrawals (see below). It's a pain to keep track of wether you already have exceeded the 9 unit limit per hex or not (especially if your reinforcements/formations arrive disrupted).

- to have some kind of unit/formation withdrawal independent from the event engine. This would also include a re-entry. It could be accessable via an enhanced deployment menue or via the formation report in the deployment mode.

- total overhaul of the so called deployment mode... it's painfull. I have 700+ units in approx. 140 formations and it is quite time (and nerve) consuming to click back and forth through the formations to get to this or that specific unit.. A hierarchical, expandable OOB would do miracles here. Anyone knows the COTA/AA series editor?

@ Ralph, James and TOAD team - Are there any plans to improve the editor GUI in general?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

After spending the last evenings with the cumbersome scenario editor i thought it would be usefull to:

- have a better deployment editor, that means: to have a reinforcement list/arrival schedule in the editor (similar to that in-game) which is sortable by arrival turn, hex, formation, maybe unit type and which also shows withdrawals (see below). It's a pain to keep track of wether you already have exceeded the 9 unit limit per hex or not (especially if your reinforcements/formations arrive disrupted).

- to have some kind of unit/formation withdrawal independent from the event engine. This would also include a re-entry. It could be accessable via an enhanced deployment menue or via the formation report in the deployment mode.

- total overhaul of the so called deployment mode... it's painfull. I have 700+ units in approx. 140 formations and it is quite time (and nerve) consuming to click back and forth through the formations to get to this or that specific unit.. A hierarchical, expandable OOB would do miracles here. Anyone knows the COTA/AA series editor?

@ Ralph, James and TOAD team - Are there any plans to improve the editor GUI in general?

Check out the ODD thread.

http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=TOAW3


EDIT: Added which thread to look at.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar
...to have a reinforcement list/arrival schedule in the editor (similar to that in-game) which is sortable by arrival turn, hex, formation, maybe unit type and which also shows withdrawals (see below). It's a pain to keep track of wether you already have exceeded the 9 unit limit per hex or not (especially if your reinforcements/formations arrive disrupted).

See 11.15.2

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Telumar

After spending the last evenings with the cumbersome scenario editor i thought it would be usefull to:

- have a better deployment editor, that means: to have a reinforcement list/arrival schedule in the editor (similar to that in-game) which is sortable by arrival turn, hex, formation, maybe unit type and which also shows withdrawals (see below). It's a pain to keep track of wether you already have exceeded the 9 unit limit per hex or not (especially if your reinforcements/formations arrive disrupted).

- to have some kind of unit/formation withdrawal independent from the event engine. This would also include a re-entry. It could be accessable via an enhanced deployment menue or via the formation report in the deployment mode.

- total overhaul of the so called deployment mode... it's painfull. I have 700+ units in approx. 140 formations and it is quite time (and nerve) consuming to click back and forth through the formations to get to this or that specific unit.. A hierarchical, expandable OOB would do miracles here. Anyone knows the COTA/AA series editor?

@ Ralph, James and TOAD team - Are there any plans to improve the editor GUI in general?

Check out the ODD thread.

http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=TOAW3


EDIT: Added which thread to look at.

Thanks Ralph, but that would be an external solution so to speak. However it wouldn't be possible without the new xml features you implemented. Nevermind, i think designers will like the new ODD.
But i still don't see an improved deployment mode..

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See 11.15.2

Ah - thanks, haven't seen that..it's a huge list.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Telumar

After spending the last evenings with the cumbersome scenario editor i thought it would be usefull to:

- have a better deployment editor, that means: to have a reinforcement list/arrival schedule in the editor (similar to that in-game) which is sortable by arrival turn, hex, formation, maybe unit type and which also shows withdrawals (see below). It's a pain to keep track of wether you already have exceeded the 9 unit limit per hex or not (especially if your reinforcements/formations arrive disrupted).

- to have some kind of unit/formation withdrawal independent from the event engine. This would also include a re-entry. It could be accessable via an enhanced deployment menue or via the formation report in the deployment mode.

- total overhaul of the so called deployment mode... it's painfull. I have 700+ units in approx. 140 formations and it is quite time (and nerve) consuming to click back and forth through the formations to get to this or that specific unit.. A hierarchical, expandable OOB would do miracles here. Anyone knows the COTA/AA series editor?

@ Ralph, James and TOAD team - Are there any plans to improve the editor GUI in general?

Check out the ODD thread.

http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=TOAW3


EDIT: Added which thread to look at.

Thanks Ralph, but that would be an external solution so to speak. However it wouldn't be possible without the new xml features you implemented. Nevermind, i think designers will like the new ODD.
But i still don't see an improved deployment mode..

I want to move the whole .sce file to XML and use an external editor eventually. There are so many things I would do differently with the editor that I want to rewrite it from scratch at some point as a stand-alone program. Since I'm planning to do that anyway, I'm doing more small changes than adding large chunks of functionality. If you know of any smaller things I can do, like adding an edit box to quickly filter the unit list, or other things like that, I'll be glad to think about adding them sooner. I don't use the editor, so it's hard to know what features would have the most 'bang for the buck.'

In the meantime, I'll throw those suggestions into my own todo list.

Ralph

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I want to move the whole .sce file to XML and use an external editor eventually. There are so many things I would do differently with the editor that I want to rewrite it from scratch at some point as a stand-alone program.

Ralph

Understand.[:)] Nice. Great. [&o] Other contemporary wargames use an external editor, too. Even CIv.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I'm doing more small changes than adding large chunks of functionality. If you know of any smaller things I can do, like adding an edit box to quickly filter the unit list, or other things like that, I'll be glad to think about adding them sooner. I don't use the editor, so it's hard to know what features would have the most 'bang for the buck.'

In the meantime, I'll throw those suggestions into my own todo list.

Ralph

Would be great. 11.15.2 especially.

What do you think of a non-event related unit and formation withdrawal? (Bob, can you add this to the wishlist?)

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar
What do you think of a non-event related unit and formation withdrawal? (Bob, can you add this to the wishlist?)

Sure. Not a bad idea.

[Jo van der Pluym]

Mayby is this something for the wishlist. I read on differend forums that people like to convert TOAW I scenario's to TOAW III. What about a tool like a scenario converter. That coverts TOAW I and TOAW II scenario's to TOAW III

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Mayby is this something for the wishlist. I read on differend forums that people like to convert TOAW I scenario's to TOAW III. What about a tool like a scenario converter. That coverts TOAW I and TOAW II scenario's to TOAW III

Excellent suggestion Jo!

[Jeff Norton]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I want to move the whole .sce file to XML and use an external editor eventually.

How will this effect a) saved games and b) PBEM ones? Or, will it work the same way across the board?

There are so many things I would do differently with the editor that I want to rewrite it from scratch at some point as a stand-alone program. Since I'm planning to do that anyway, I'm doing more small changes than adding large chunks of functionality. If you know of any smaller things I can do, like adding an edit box to quickly filter the unit list, or other things like that, I'll be glad to think about adding them sooner. I don't use the editor, so it's hard to know what features would have the most 'bang for the buck.'

Something along the ODD lines, or a whole new system?

In the meantime, I'll throw those suggestions into my own todo list.

Ralph

Heh - if its like my todo list (not to mention the 'honeydo' one), it must encompass cutting down quite a few trees....[:D]

[shunwick]

In one of the patches variable initiative was turned off in hotseat mode. Any chance of putting it back? No, forget that - is there any chance of making it optional?

Best wishes,

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

Is it possible to have warships move as groups instead of individually, as they always have been?
 

[sstevens06]

Reviewing some scenario documentation I wrote a while ago I came across the following enhancement suggestion:

TOAW III should support “force-specific news strings;” i.e., the ability to specify which side gets to see each news string: Force 1, Force 2, or both.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

Reviewing some scenario documentation I wrote a while ago I came across the following enhancement suggestion:

TOAW III should support “force-specific news strings;” i.e., the ability to specify which side gets to see each news string: Force 1, Force 2, or both.

See 11.4

[MPHopcroft1]

Now I seem to be unable to read the file (or download it properly) so I have no idea if these are on the suggestions list. But I have some odd ideas, mostly hyoptheticals.

1 WWII Might-have-beens: Japanese invasion scenarios of Australia ot the Hawaiian Islands; the Wehrmacht in the Berlin area attempting to stage a coup in the aftermath of an attempt on Hitler's life; The Germans invade Spain in an effort to sieze Gibraltar; the Societs invade Turkey to capture the Dardanelles and gain entry to the Mediterranean. All the things players of grand-strategic level games are insane enough to want to attempt, and you've been given the job of carrying them out.

2. WWII Historical Campaigns and battles: A scenraio nspecifically dealing with the Siege of Leningrad, with the Germans attempting to starve out the Sovciets because they aren't given enough troops to stage an assault; Mussolini's invasion of Abbysinia (with the risk of small-scale League of nations intervention should Mussolini failter); Patton's West African campaign and initial confrontation nwith Rommel at Kasserine ("Rommel, you maginificent bastard! I read your book!"); Japan's 1937 campaign in China culimating in the Rape of Nanking.

3. Period Conflicts: Mao's Long March to save what remained of his Communist Army from the Koumintang so he could fight another day (we don't see many scenarios where a strategic withdrawl is the victory condition in TOAW), China 1949 (the final confrotnationbetween mao and Chiang Kai-Shek in which he expelled the Kuomintang from Mainland China and established his dictatorship, er, "People's Republic"); any of the campaigns of the 1913-1919 Mexican Civil War, incluidng the abortive American intevrentions at Veracruz and Chihuahua; Heart of the Appalooza (the attempt by Thunder Rolling, aka Chief Jospeh, to lead the Nez Pearce from the lands they were being expelled from in Oregon and Idaho to what he imagined to be refuge in Canada, with the US army in hot pursuit -- thrice he stymied them on the battlefield before famine finally forced his surrender),

4. Period Hypothetiocals: Carter's Second Folly (A hypothetical attempt to resuce the hostages held in Tehran in 1980 and punish the Khomenbi regime; in effect, this would be the "October Surprise" feared by Republican political strategists during the 1980 campaign), And the Dominos Kept On Falling (in 1975, flush with their sudden success, the Khmer Rouge. Pathet lao and Vietnamese government attempt to conquer Burma and Thailand, foring another wildly unpopular American intervention).

4. Just for Sick Giggles: Blame Canada! (It's 2010, and the USA decides that Canada needs to be "pacified", so they send in troops, but only have limited resources to do it because of other commitments -- meanwhile, the Canadians put up a stiff fight and have the chance of help from the UK and other Commonwealth nations); I Lead the Revolution with Two Pistols (Hong Kong in 2012 attempts to throw off the yoke of China and establish itself as independent), We Told You We Weren't Kidding (a 2009 Chinese invasion of Taiwan), The Worst-Case Scenario (The US, with Indian help, must topple an Islamist revolutionary government in Pakistan beforre they can use or sell their nucelar arsenal), Guerra Civil Dos (Modern Mexico is shaken again by the throes of armed revolution, with individual units of the federal army chooisng sides resulting in a chaotic, bloody mess).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: MPHopcroft

Now I seem to be unable to read the file (or download it properly) so I have no idea if these are on the suggestions list. But I have some odd ideas, mostly hyoptheticals.

....

The document is about desires for code changes to TOAW III itself. Not scenario requests. You're fully empowered now to create any of the ones you listed.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

Mario, if you had popped up at the tdg - there was a long discussion over several threads and weeks, where you could have added something to the wish list. I did (although just a little point). You can't speak of a "comitee" wishlist... also, someone had to put it together, had to initiate it etc..
Be it as it is - you still can add (but not subtract ) something to the list. Calm down.

[/quote]


Telumar,

I don't have time to post on so many forums, I have visited fe times TDG forums but never posted.
I don't knock their effort BUT in fact knock their "sanity" and "intelligence" because if COMMANDERS is good idea then let's document it. Let's agree what factors should be influenced by COMMANDERS - that is work that should have been discussed and commented. I can propose but it must be debated. So - should commanders influence all things or just some, in any way work on engine is needed. For example commanders could influence SUPPLY, READINESS, PROFICENCY; DEFENSE VALUE, ATTACK VALLUE, ANTI ARMOUR VALUE, ANTI PERSONAL VALUE, ANTI AIR VALUE, ETC... so many factors! But that would bring enormous change to the game and novelty.

I am not knocking ANCIEN warfare just like that - I think that it is just fanboy view that TOAW should cover everything from nuclear ages down to Indians who shoot poisoned arrows to red assed monkeys [:D]
I am sorry but when I say stupid I meant it. There is no way that someone should sugar coat his words when if TOAW needs changes then changes must be put inteligently not on ANCIENT warfare. I would rather make another game on Ancient Warfare then tried to model TOAW into Ancient Warfare.
It is just useless IMHO. You must make another module for Ancient warfare, and complete rewrite of an engine.

I will not however post on TDG as I don't have time for that. In any way why is Gamesquads or Matrix Forum lesser valued for any suggestion than TDG? I don't think so.

Just as I said - I am not knocking their work but they must have some priorities and some responsibility. If indians who shoot poisoned arrows into red assed monkeys lol are lousy idea then drop it and think of those that are better in priority.

ARMOUR for instance in Barbarossa scenarios are almost uselless - then make those dynamicy ZOC's or work on something like Ben Turner who made armored unit's with bigger recce value so that they can easily pass through enemy ZOC's. German armous are especially lousy in FiTE - and Russian is overpowered in defense. Blah. Contrary to the history. Now you must encircle Russian armour if you want to destroy it or not just shoot few T-26.

I will however not lose too much energy to persuade anyone be it Jarek, Ben, Obi Wan Kenobi, Veers, you or Curtis Lemay what is good to go and what is not. If you want elephants go ahead put then elephants.


Mario

[/quote]

..commanders can work, use BioEd and create a high shell weight/lo AP unit, they reduce supply and so readiness only, no kills..in game terms it holds together..

..btw1, just what is your prob with Elmer intervention in player games ?..you don't want the UN to intervene ?

..oh and btw 2, San Francisco is on the Visayas i think, totally the wrong island, i'm at 6N 124E (thats weellll south Mindanao..)

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: MPHopcroft

Now I seem to be unable to read the file (or download it properly) so I have no idea if these are on the suggestions list. But I have some odd ideas, mostly hyoptheticals.

1 WWII Might-have-beens: Japanese invasion scenarios of Australia ot the Hawaiian Islands; the Wehrmacht in the Berlin area attempting to stage a coup in the aftermath of an attempt on Hitler's life; The Germans invade Spain in an effort to sieze Gibraltar; the Societs invade Turkey to capture the Dardanelles and gain entry to the Mediterranean. All the things players of grand-strategic level games are insane enough to want to attempt, and you've been given the job of carrying them out.

2. WWII Historical Campaigns and battles: A scenraio nspecifically dealing with the Siege of Leningrad, with the Germans attempting to starve out the Sovciets because they aren't given enough troops to stage an assault; Mussolini's invasion of Abbysinia (with the risk of small-scale League of nations intervention should Mussolini failter); Patton's West African campaign and initial confrontation nwith Rommel at Kasserine ("Rommel, you maginificent bastard! I read your book!"); Japan's 1937 campaign in China culimating in the Rape of Nanking.

3. Period Conflicts: Mao's Long March to save what remained of his Communist Army from the Koumintang so he could fight another day (we don't see many scenarios where a strategic withdrawl is the victory condition in TOAW), China 1949 (the final confrotnationbetween mao and Chiang Kai-Shek in which he expelled the Kuomintang from Mainland China and established his dictatorship, er, "People's Republic"); any of the campaigns of the 1913-1919 Mexican Civil War, incluidng the abortive American intevrentions at Veracruz and Chihuahua; Heart of the Appalooza (the attempt by Thunder Rolling, aka Chief Jospeh, to lead the Nez Pearce from the lands they were being expelled from in Oregon and Idaho to what he imagined to be refuge in Canada, with the US army in hot pursuit -- thrice he stymied them on the battlefield before famine finally forced his surrender),

4. Period Hypothetiocals: Carter's Second Folly (A hypothetical attempt to resuce the hostages held in Tehran in 1980 and punish the Khomenbi regime; in effect, this would be the "October Surprise" feared by Republican political strategists during the 1980 campaign), And the Dominos Kept On Falling (in 1975, flush with their sudden success, the Khmer Rouge. Pathet lao and Vietnamese government attempt to conquer Burma and Thailand, foring another wildly unpopular American intervention).

4. Just for Sick Giggles: Blame Canada! (It's 2010, and the USA decides that Canada needs to be "pacified", so they send in troops, but only have limited resources to do it because of other commitments -- meanwhile, the Canadians put up a stiff fight and have the chance of help from the UK and other Commonwealth nations); I Lead the Revolution with Two Pistols (Hong Kong in 2012 attempts to throw off the yoke of China and establish itself as independent), We Told You We Weren't Kidding (a 2009 Chinese invasion of Taiwan), The Worst-Case Scenario (The US, with Indian help, must topple an Islamist revolutionary government in Pakistan beforre they can use or sell their nucelar arsenal), Guerra Civil Dos (Modern Mexico is shaken again by the throes of armed revolution, with individual units of the federal army chooisng sides resulting in a chaotic, bloody mess).

..some nice scens there, really...