Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
You might even have some influence on the design evolution, by arguing your points in a public forum such as this. Such appeals to "realism", "playability", "feel", "simulation", "balance" and all the other intangibles that make a great GAME are what make such an active exhange of ideas a worthwhile endeavor.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Affects the chance of AA helping in a battle. It looks like low AA should have a 50 km range.

[&:]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Affects the chance of AA helping in a battle. It looks like low AA should have a 50 km range.

[&:]

Low altitude ranged AAA (i.e., SAM's) have a 50 Km range. Not the pistols of the general stafff, nor the 88's of the Wehrmacht. No worries here. Carry on...[:D]

ORIGINAL: dobeln

"I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not."

Sounds reasonable to me.

ORIGINAL: murx

My personal favorite for the interface would be to get rid of some of the buttons on the right (for real, how often do you change ports/airfields, borders and location names in a game? How often do you re-read the scenario description?) and exchange them with a fixed 'group composition' info field - I remember TAO had this so players could with one glance - and not 'right-click, menue navigate, left click' - see what is actually IN a hex.

murx

ORIGINAL: murx

Reading the discussion between Golden Delicious and Industrial I suggest:
The Germans never reached Stalingrad because the (local) counterattacks at Leningrad front that stopped the Germans there burned up the 6th army turns [:D]
But when the 6th army DID show up at Stalingrad they burned up AGCs divisions movement in the heavy city fighting.
So the Germans did lose Barabarossa mainly through a quirk in reality called turn-burn.

murx
(Golden Delicious please dont get me wrong - TOAW and the programming done is a real big and well done job - but please face the reality - a 'local' counterattack some 50Km away (or even in real small battles some 5Km away) do NOT stop other units a few hex away to do something useful - even if the opponent tries to use this 'event' as anqor for a bigger/broader counterattack; and even a counterattack on a broad section of the front usually does not stop the ongoing offensive - of course this is a dangerous moment for both sides, the counterattacking force has to watch one or both flanks - the attacking force might get cut off if the counterattacker penetrates into its rear - 'Keil und Kessel' tactic used by the Germans in WWII of the counterattacker vs one or both sided flanking attacks of the attacker - this happens on the broad scale. It basically means a strategic gamble - the attacker allows the counterattack to happen and let the enemy troops flow into his back area like a ballon and then cuts the bottle neck and eats up the counterattacker.
Industrials example with attacker, roadblock and militia allows to find enough reason why turn-burn should be allowed, the situation is not clear enough after the heavy fight has ended and thus no march order reaches the militia, the radio equipment was blasted etc etc. The example would be perfect if there were 3 militia, one behind the attacking force and one to each side with a bit distance - would the CO wait to give them march order? Would he wait a while and the 'gamble' on the outcome? THIS is a CO/players decision! But it is never possible since the turn just burns. Turn-burn is maybe a nice thing for really tiny small purely tactical scenarios but just completely wrong for large scale multi front scenarios)

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

You can disagree all you want, but there is a crucial difference that you might want to keep in mind. I (in tandem, with Ralph) am developing the game...[;)]

I say this not to puff my ego, or score any bragging points, but merely to point out what my role here, and job, is. So, when I see someone saying that some basic design concepts or paradigms of the game are "x", while I define them as "y", then the error is, by definition, on the part of that person who is claiming "x".

ORIGINAL: murx

Nemo69 thanks for the advice, never read the whole manual [8|]
But still a constant display of the current hexes contains helps people like me with a short attention span [:D]
murx

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Put formations on internal support, lower force cummunication level, lower force proficiency level, change force loss intolerance and movement bias,

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Higher force loss intolerance - That's a myth, plenty of French died in the war.

Read Ben Turner's thesis paper on French morale.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The answer may be something completely oddball, like complex scenarios with multiple maps, and being able to resolve combat on each map independently.

ORIGINAL: karlxii

- While I have already written earlier that I would like to see a small colored symbol to indicate if my units are in supply or not, it would be nice if there was some way I could assure wether the enemy is in supply or not as well. As it is now, I have to guess/assume I have blocket supply lines to the enemy but if I can´t be really sure I am wasting resources (read troops) trying to do that. Peharps it is by intent but still it would help a lot.

- The most single important thing in my view is to make a better endreport screen when the scenario is over. I would like to see losses for both sides, statistics for different equipment lost in comparison to the enemy. I am always playing against the computer and the only way to replay a scenario would be to compete against myself regarding losses (and Victory points).