TOAW4 wish list and poll

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

just a thought, on some scales a counter attack feature where you could pick a hex that if entered of attacked from troops would attept a pre planned counter attack

Well
a) surrounded units will often counter attack a weak attacker already in TOAW.
b) you could view localised counterattacks as already being part of the defensive combat.

[Widell]

After running a few rounds of PBEM (first time since the COW days I think) I would like to add Improved Replay of PBEM Opponent Turn to the list of suggestions. I suppose this could be included in the more general suggestion I posted earlier: Improved Reporting Capabilities but it's more I specific in the sense that I'd like to see the replay full screen and not in the small window it is shown in now

And of course, and it has been mentioned before: Flexible Command Structure. Should be an option so it can be turned on and off as it doesn't make sense for all scenarios, but I´d really like to have the possibility to reassign units to new HQ's and formations while playing. There should of course be some penalties for "overloading" an HQ beyond its capabilities to command, so a feature like this needs some thinking before it's implemented

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Widell

After running a few rounds of PBEM (first time since the COW days I think) I would like to add Improved Replay of PBEM Opponent Turn to the list of suggestions. I suppose this could be included in the more general suggestion I posted earlier: Improved Reporting Capabilities but it's more I specific in the sense that I'd like to see the replay full screen and not in the small window it is shown in now

Thing is, this would require not only a major change to the way the playback is recorded and saved, but also a significant increase in the size of the PBM file. As it is, the playback only records the very basic amount of information you see. No unit strengths, no health indicators.

And of course, and it has been mentioned before: Flexible Command Structure. Should be an option so it can be turned on and off as it doesn't make sense for all scenarios, but I´d really like to have the possibility to reassign units to new HQ's and formations while playing. There should of course be some penalties for "overloading" an HQ beyond its capabilities to command, so a feature like this needs some thinking before it's implemented

Here's how I see this working;
A formation can be tagged by the designer as being able to accept different subordinate units. Individual units are also tagged as being able to switch formations. Thirdly, units can only switch to a formation with a co-operative HQ (using the HQ's formation support level only).
Each formation can control without penalty the equivalent of five units of one size lower than the controlling HQ. So a division can control four regiments and three battalions, for example. This might cause some difficulties but it can be designed around, and it's good as a simple rule. For each additional unit (regiment in the case of our division), formation proficiency and supply are penalised by a full 10%- not 10% of the existing value. This will make better HQs more able to cope with added burdens.

One major prerequisite of this is that formations need to be "aware" of their own HQs to an extent that they perhaps aren't at present.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..nope, straight lines were used in known safe areas, zig-zag was only if uboot activity was expected, and even then an attempt was made to keep going in the same general direction,

This would be dealt with by terrain, since these areas were fixed. Whether a u-boat was the last thing there or not is academic.

..rubbish, boats followed the pre-planned routes, subs moved around, so danger areas changed, cf the attacks on the US coast, the "golden days"..

..come on man, war's war, all that changes is the distance the killing's done, edged weapon(up close and honest), powder propelled , improved petrol product or ICBM..

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..rubbish, boats followed the pre-planned routes, subs moved around, so danger areas changed, cf the attacks on the US coast, the "golden days"..

That was over a period of months and then never again- not something that changed from day to day.

..come on man, war's war, all that changes is the distance the killing's done, edged weapon(up close and honest), powder propelled , improved petrol product or ICBM..

Also the resources and objectives of the combatants, the ability of commanders to control their troops, the importance of resupply- and about a thousand other factors.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..rubbish, boats followed the pre-planned routes, subs moved around, so danger areas changed, cf the attacks on the US coast, the "golden days"..

That was over a period of months and then never again- not something that changed from day to day.

..come on man, war's war, all that changes is the distance the killing's done, edged weapon(up close and honest), powder propelled , improved petrol product or ICBM..

Also the resources and objectives of the combatants, the ability of commanders to control their troops, the importance of resupply- and about a thousand other factors.

..err, you're point ?

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..rubbish, boats followed the pre-planned routes, subs moved around, so danger areas changed, cf the attacks on the US coast, the "golden days"..

That was over a period of months and then never again- not something that changed from day to day.

..nope, with the decoding at Bletchley, from 42/43, mostly daily..earlier it was variable and if the German's change the coding method the it could take weeks..

..honestly, i do wonder sometimes about modern English education..

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..err, you're point ?

I am, yes.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..err, you're point ?

I am, yes.

..kk, your point ?...

[Graymane]

My wishes:

1. Use a modern windows GUI instead of that DOS-like stuff we have now in the dialogs. I see that you have already done it for the selection of campaign folders, why not do it for the OOB and Force editors and everything else? Imagine how much easier life would be with a tree view?

2. Supply changes. This isn't well thought out by me yet, but I think we should have to trace a supply route, not just have it automatically there on every single hex. Supply source to an HQ along roads/rail for example. Supply dumps, mobile supply? Don't we have some of that now? I haven't really checked I guess. I would somehow like the ability to turn off supply and replacements for certain units to force that stuff to go to my more critical units over and above the percentages that can be set in the editor. I want to be able to decide during the campaign based on what is happening. I dunno, I have to think more on this, I think supply (or being out of supply actually) has too big of an effect too soon in an operational game. I like Dupuy's take on this, especially as applies to WWII and how being out of supply was a lot less critical than people think. I don't know, I don't really have a good way to think of this yet =)

3. Command, Control and Comm. I guess maybe doctrine is included in this. I don't think enough attention is given in war games to how much this matters. While a lot of grogs like to argue in the details of every piece of military equipment ever invented and rate them against each other, at the end of the day, armies like the WWII Germans beat the crap out the Polish, French, Russians, English, Americans and everyone else early on not because of their equipment, but because of their C3 and doctrine. Pz I, II, Czech and French tanks were not the most sophisticated tanks in the world when the Germans used them, but the German C3 was. If you read the memoires of a lot of the German commanders (Rommel, Guderian, v. Manstein, etc), I am struck to the extent to which they lead from the very front. Directing regiments at times over difficult parts of the campaign. The decision cycle of the german was light years faster than everyone else. The french (and others) would have to relay intel and command through layer upon layer of HQs before a decision could be made. Their doctrine and training emphasized initiative and leadership at a lower level. I don't think this is modelled well enough in TOAW or many other games for that matter. I'm not even sure how to model it either. Different stacking limits, more movement or rounds allowed, permanent shock modifier, different loss rates, die roll modifiers? I have no idea. Without something like a "command point" pool and a spending rate allowance, I don't know how to model it.

4. Air warfare. I wish I could specify an area to do interdiction. I wish I could say arty unit X could only support units A, B and C.

5. I would like some way to do multiple-select so I could dig every thing on the map or set everything to ignore losses at once. Stuff like that.

6. I want to blow up rail/road lines as well as bridges.

7. A richer hierachy structure. I know this has been mentioned before. The ability to change unit formations and the ability to have more levels in the hierarchy.

8. More event/trigger types and more ways to affect the scenario. Basically, make it easier for the scenario designers.

9. Get rid of every bit of hard-coded stuff possible. Use something like XML config files. That way we can also then use stylesheets to display info and you could use schemas to validate the config files and scenario files.

10. Take a look at something like the Paradox (HOI, EU, Victoria, etc) games event engine and how they do things. Basically, they have event scripts and the like in text files that everyone can fiddle with. Then they have an event engine in their games that fires the events in the scripts. The nice thing about externalizing stuff like this is that we can then create editors without changing the game engine.

I'm sure I got a lot more ideas from over the years that I'll think of, but that will do for now. At the end of the day, I'm just happy someone is supporting the game. Also, I think the priority should be for the scenario designers to get what they want because that is what is going to keep this game going in the long run.

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Widell
After running a few rounds of PBEM (first time since the COW days I think) I would like to add Improved Replay of PBEM Opponent Turn to the list of suggestions. I suppose this could be included in the more general suggestion I posted earlier: Improved Reporting Capabilities but it's more I specific in the sense that I'd like to see the replay full screen and not in the small window it is shown in now

Thing is, this would require not only a major change to the way the playback is recorded and saved, but also a significant increase in the size of the PBM file. As it is, the playback only records the very basic amount of information you see. No unit strengths, no health indicators.

That'd be OK - Just display it full size with the same information as now. No need to do major rework on something that's working fine.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Widell

That'd be OK - Just display it full size with the same information as now.

I would modify this to allowing the player to choose the size of the playback.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Graymane

1. Use a modern windows GUI instead of that DOS-like stuff we have now in the dialogs. I see that you have already done it for the selection of campaign folders, why not do it for the OOB and Force editors and everything else? Imagine how much easier life would be with a tree view?

Even just a scroll bar would be something.

2. Supply changes. This isn't well thought out by me yet, but I think we should have to trace a supply route, not just have it automatically there on every single hex. Supply source to an HQ along roads/rail for example. Supply dumps, mobile supply? Don't we have some of that now? I haven't really checked I guess. I would somehow like the ability to turn off supply and replacements for certain units to force that stuff to go to my more critical units over and above the percentages that can be set in the editor. I want to be able to decide during the campaign based on what is happening. I dunno, I have to think more on this,

For most of these things, supply is going to have to be quantified- e.g., x number of tons instead of just an abstract level. That opens a lot of other possibilities.

I think supply (or being out of supply actually) has too big of an effect too soon in an operational game. I like Dupuy's take on this, especially as applies to WWII and how being out of supply was a lot less critical than people think. I don't know, I don't really have a good way to think of this yet =)

It depends on the type of unit. Really, one wants out-of-supply artillery to be useless, but out-of-supply infantry to be fairly potent- I'd say about as potent as it is now.

3. Command, Control and Comm. I guess maybe doctrine is included in this. I don't think enough attention is given in war games to how much this matters. While a lot of grogs like to argue in the details of every piece of military equipment ever invented and rate them against each other, at the end of the day, armies like the WWII Germans beat the crap out the Polish, French, Russians, English, Americans and everyone else early on not because of their equipment, but because of their C3 and doctrine. Pz I, II, Czech and French tanks were not the most sophisticated tanks in the world when the Germans used them, but the German C3 was. If you read the memoires of a lot of the German commanders (Rommel, Guderian, v. Manstein, etc), I am struck to the extent to which they lead from the very front. Directing regiments at times over difficult parts of the campaign. The decision cycle of the german was light years faster than everyone else. The french (and others) would have to relay intel and command through layer upon layer of HQs before a decision could be made. Their doctrine and training emphasized initiative and leadership at a lower level. I don't think this is modelled well enough in TOAW or many other games for that matter. I'm not even sure how to model it either. Different stacking limits, more movement or rounds allowed, permanent shock modifier, different loss rates, die roll modifiers? I have no idea. Without something like a "command point" pool and a spending rate allowance, I don't know how to model it.

There are a couple of ideas I've seen tried out, in particular in Colin Wright's Sealion scenario;

The British suffer from 90% shock for the entire scenario, but all units have their proficiency boosted. The overall effect is that these units will tend to attack and defend to the last, but one in ten formations will just not co-operate each turn. This makes it very difficult for the British to fight a mobile battle. For example the last turn of this I played I have 43rd Wessex division (one of the best I have) strung out in a salient, and I can't move it. Of course, I just wiped out 8. Panzer so... but I digress.

Second, some HQs have static support squads instead of regular ones. This requires a modified database which isn't currently possible in TOAW III. If these HQs move, all the support squads are lost and formation supply is halved, making it difficult to fight a fluid battle. This works even better if the HQs have a lot of the division's artillery.

Naturally force proficiency is also low, so the British tend to get a lot of early turn endings- again, encouraging them to force a static situation on the Germans rather than retreat and counterattack.

A much more radical alternative would be to actually put a delay in the execution of orders for certain units; so anything done by a French infantry division has to be planned a day in advance. This might be very difficult to do, though.

4. Air warfare. I wish I could specify an area to do interdiction.

Yeah. Likewise for all missions. There's a complete proposition for this at TDG.

6. I want to blow up rail/road lines as well as bridges.

Rail lines is kind of done automatically. Road lines are difficult to demolish, and when demolished are easier to repair. I'd say this isn't really going to be done except for things like mountain passes; then you might like to just put a river under the road hex and create a false bridge.

Also, I think the priority should be for the scenario designers to get what they want because that is what is going to keep this game going in the long run.

Mm. Ultimately, TOAW lives and dies on the quality of its scenarios. So the best improvement to the quality of the game will come from better tools for designers.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Also, I think the priority should be for the scenario designers to get what they want because that is what is going to keep this game going in the long run.

Mm. Ultimately, TOAW lives and dies on the quality of its scenarios. So the best improvement to the quality of the game will come from better tools for designers.

Amen! (Hope someone's listening out there...)

[a white rabbit]

..elephants (third player or Elmer intervention)...

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: Graymane
3. Command, Control and Comm. I guess maybe doctrine is included in this. I don't think enough attention is given in war games to how much this matters. While a lot of grogs like to argue in the details of every piece of military equipment ever invented and rate them against each other, at the end of the day, armies like the WWII Germans beat the crap out the Polish, French, Russians, English, Americans and everyone else early on not because of their equipment, but because of their C3 and doctrine. Pz I, II, Czech and French tanks were not the most sophisticated tanks in the world when the Germans used them, but the German C3 was. If you read the memoires of a lot of the German commanders (Rommel, Guderian, v. Manstein, etc), I am struck to the extent to which they lead from the very front. Directing regiments at times over difficult parts of the campaign. The decision cycle of the german was light years faster than everyone else. The french (and others) would have to relay intel and command through layer upon layer of HQs before a decision could be made. Their doctrine and training emphasized initiative and leadership at a lower level. I don't think this is modelled well enough in TOAW or many other games for that matter. I'm not even sure how to model it either. Different stacking limits, more movement or rounds allowed, permanent shock modifier, different loss rates, die roll modifiers? I have no idea. Without something like a "command point" pool and a spending rate allowance, I don't know how to model it.

I have an idea to simulate different doctrines and C3 problems:
There is another multipler set in editor - "attack preparation bias". This is a multipler of MPs needed to attack a hex. The default value is "1" and if it's set for 2, an attack in open terrain requires 2MP instead of 1. Such attack reduces unit's left MP by 2, too. This could be an easy way to make some forces less ready for mobile warfare.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Also, I think the priority should be for the scenario designers to get what they want because that is what is going to keep this game going in the long run.

Mm. Ultimately, TOAW lives and dies on the quality of its scenarios. So the best improvement to the quality of the game will come from better tools for designers.

Amen! (Hope someone's listening out there...)

Elmer is working better, that's a good start, he should be working even better after the patch. Several of the beta testers are designers, so there is some pressure there too. Rewriting TOAW to be a modern app is going to take quite a while, so I'm hoping to allow the export and import of different parts. This will help the dedicated designers that have the desire to learn all about the internals. One example of this is updating the current exports like the unit data to export all the data to XML instead of the current format. That should allow both the hand editing of the data, and the creation of separate tools to deal with the unit data instead of requiring updates to TOAW itself.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


Mm. Ultimately, TOAW lives and dies on the quality of its scenarios. So the best improvement to the quality of the game will come from better tools for designers.

Amen! (Hope someone's listening out there...)

Elmer is working better, that's a good start, he should be working even better after the patch. Several of the beta testers are designers, so there is some pressure there too.

..i agree, he is..

..turn 50 something of ACW 2008, and i still haven't won..

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..elephants (third player or Elmer intervention)...

Seems like I've heard that suggestion before somewhere[&:][:'(]

First we've got to make Elmer good enough that your willing to accept his 'help' and we may have to rework the sequence that turns happen in to get rid of some of the assymetries.

I'd implement it as a simple 3rd player system.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..i agree, he is..

..turn 50 something of ACW 2008, and i still haven't won..

I'm doing some more tweaks for the next upgrade, nothing as radical as the first, but he should do a little better, expecially if he's got an air force or navy.