Page 5 of 10
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:08 pm
by golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Szilard
A tiny one - can we lose "Urban area reduced to ruins" from the news? It's a useless piece of info (isn't it?), and it clutters things up.
Yeah.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:46 pm
by ralphtricky
ORIGINAL: S Gerät
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this already (or if this is strictly an interface issue), but is there any chance of an alternative font being made available? Personally I've always hated the one previous editions of TOAW used, and was disappointed to see that it had not been changed in TOAW III. A sans serif font would be nice...
I've seen someone post about having an alternate font. It's a bit of a pain to install at the moment.
I'm also trying to see if I can switch over to using windows fonts as an option. The problem I'm having there is that they're all a bit bigger or smaller than the current font. It's going to be a lot of repositioning to make it look good.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:48 pm
by ralphtricky
ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Szilard
A tiny one - can we lose "Urban area reduced to ruins" from the news? It's a useless piece of info (isn't it?), and it clutters things up.
Yeah.
What affect does it being reduced to ruins have?
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:08 pm
by JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Szilard
A tiny one - can we lose "Urban area reduced to ruins" from the news? It's a useless piece of info (isn't it?), and it clutters things up.
Yeah.
What affect does it being reduced to ruins have?
Makes it more difficult to move through. That's it, currently.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:01 am
by Curtis Lemay
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)
There is already a change in TOAW III that allows the huge scenarios (or any scenario) to limit "turn burn". It's called "Max rounds per battle", and can be set in the editor. Give designers some time to make use of it and post their results.
As to the risk of early turn ending, it is necessary to counter the fact that the game system is IGOUGO. In the above example, did the Russians sit on their hands while the Germans operated, followed by the Germans sitting on their hands while the Russians operated? Of course not, but that's how IGOUGO works. TOAW III's early turn ending risk provides a needed counter to that, somewhat modeling the impact of simultaneous action.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:52 am
by Industrial
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
As to the risk of early turn ending, it is necessary to counter the fact that the game system is IGOUGO. In the above example, did the Russians sit on their hands while the Germans operated, followed by the Germans sitting on their hands while the Russians operated? Of course not, but that's how IGOUGO works. TOAW III's early turn ending risk provides a needed counter to that, somewhat modeling the impact of simultaneous action.
Early turn endings don't even come close to simulate anything even remotely realistic, and certainly have nothing to do with making IGOYOUGO more WEGO.
The 'away with early turn endings' faction provided more than enough _examples_ where early turn endings totally ruined a turn and leed to very unrealistic results. I think it's time the pro-early-turn-endig faction finally steps down from their high chair and instead of only monotonly repeating that early turn endings are good, should finally state some examples from history (take the last 100 years, you should find some examples there... if there are any) where a situation reesembling a TOAW early-turn-ending actually happened.
Oh, and while you are at if, try to explain why early turn endings should only hit the attacker, because that's what they do, a defender who simply arranges his lines and than dig in will never be hit by early turn endings. If early turn endings simulate stuff going wrong, than you are saying murphys law can only happen to the attacker ?? *hollow laughter*
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:56 am
by glvaca
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
There is already a change in TOAW III that allows the huge scenarios (or any scenario) to limit "turn burn". It's called "Max rounds per battle", and can be set in the editor. Give designers some time to make use of it and post their results.
As to the risk of early turn ending, it is necessary to counter the fact that the game system is IGOUGO. In the above example, did the Russians sit on their hands while the Germans operated, followed by the Germans sitting on their hands while the Russians operated? Of course not, but that's how IGOUGO works. TOAW III's early turn ending risk provides a needed counter to that, somewhat modeling the impact of simultaneous action.
[/quote]
That option is welcome but just isn't enough for some in certain situations. So again, what harm can be done by making it an advanced option? If it annoys you, turn it of. If you like it, leave it on. How can this not improve this game? [&:]
Having a choice is alwasy better.
Why is it that so many people are against giving players the option to do as they like? What could be wrong about pleasing everybody?
Again, why don't the designers organize a poll? In the end it is about making a product that people like to play...and buy.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:07 am
by murx
Regarding the 'turn-burn' resembling 'shocked command/corps/whoever' effect of battles gone wrong - just have a higher chance for upper unit formations of those unit engaged in that fight to go into reorg status (yeah I know, there is already a patch to reduce reorg). But if one wants to simulate that a bad/lost attack shocked/froze the local situation this can remodel it in a better way.
This is a local situation solution maybe? If one army of AGC has a misconducted offensive it might throw over (reorg) their whole plan - if several AGC armies even whole AGC - which was planning on a major whole scale offensive - got thrown off its pace and have to re-asses.
If AGC had planned say 4 keypoint attacks to be followed up by the rest of AGC frontline probably most of AGCs unit would be preparing their individual attacks. If one of those attacks fail those armies might be thrown off pace only. (Maybe a 'chain reaction reorg' - if 10% of sub units have gone reorg there is a very easy proficiency check, if 33% has gone reorg there is a slighty more difficult proficiency check - if 50% sub units reorg there is a hard proficiency check. Likewise - if a higher command structure unit has gone reorg there is a check if sub units go reorg too - add some modifier into this depending if the higher command has gone reorg because of subunits gone reorg or not, if the higher command has gone reorg because of say - some air attack - easy proficiency check, if it gone to reorg because 1/2 of the higher commands subunits have gone reorg individual subunit makes adjusted/difficult proficiency check).
This would allow to have AGN and AGS still fight as 'usual' and still have the wanted shock effect on AGC.
And it would probably give the 'counterattack' a better chance since the turn not just ended for the 'turn-burn' player - but remove the defensive/dug-in status of the 'shocked' units.
murx
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:38 am
by murx
Btw - since I don't know where to put this and dont want to start a new thread about this simple thing:
It is 'Kriegsmarine' not 'Kreigsmarine' (I think it is in Barbarossa '41 but might be in other places too)
murx
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:37 pm
by alaric99x
Something else that I've seen pretty often (not here) is "Liebgarde" which would mean something like "Love Guard." It should be "Leibgarde."
I know, this comment also doesn't belong on this thread.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:02 pm
by murx
ORIGINAL: alaric99x
Something else that I've seen pretty often (not here) is "Liebgarde" which would mean something like "Love Guard." It should be "Leibgarde."
I know, this comment also doesn't belong on this thread.
Liebgarde - haha not seen this one yet (mainly play Barbarossa [8|]
Yeah - make love not war [:D]
murx
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:27 am
by rhinobones
ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You misunderstand me. I was refering to the existing check against force proficiency which occurs at the end of every set of attacks.
Obviously you fully understand the effect that I would like to create, and you certainly are more knowledgeable of the engine's inner mechanics, so I will defer to your position.
As is, I received my disk today and have other immediate needs to satisfy.
Regards, RhinoBones
BTW – Name dropping, I didn’t see it, but I hope it didn’t include a sobriety test.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:32 am
by ralphtricky
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
What affect does it being reduced to ruins have?
Makes it more difficult to move through. That's it, currently.
We should probably either make it do a little more or reduce the chance of it happenning. We can remove it from the news, but I'm wondering if making it happen less often might make it more meaningful.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:40 am
by ralphtricky
ORIGINAL: rhinobones
As is, I received my disk today and have other immediate needs to satisfy.
So, is this place going to be a ghost town for a little bit followed by being extremely busy, or just extremely busy as the designers get their CDs?
Ralph
.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:43 am
by JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
What affect does it being reduced to ruins have?
Makes it more difficult to move through. That's it, currently.
We should probably either make it do a little more or reduce the chance of it happenning. We can remove it from the news, but I'm wondering if making it happen less often might make it more meaningful.
We can stratify the effects somewhat. Maybe we can work some tweaks into the next patch, along with the terrain cleanup, that we still need to do. Another thing to consider is to do as with contaminated terrain, and give it a per turn chance of reverting to unruined terrain. Based on the turn length, of course.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:16 am
by rhinobones
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Makes it more difficult to move through. That's it, currently.
We should probably either make it do a little more or reduce the chance of it happenning. We can remove it from the news, but I'm wondering if making it happen less often might make it more meaningful.
We can stratify the effects somewhat. Maybe we can work some tweaks into the next patch, along with the terrain cleanup, that we still need to do. Another thing to consider is to do as with contaminated terrain, and give it a per turn chance of reverting to unruined terrain. Based on the turn length, of course.
It seems that ‘one’ attack always reduces a city/town hex to ruins. Maybe the engine should consider the violence of the attack plus the number of times the hex has been attacked before it becomes a ruin. A news article after an attack, such as XXX is 20% ruined, would be good. After a hex exceeds 50% the graphic and engine value would both change to a ruined city/town value for the remainder of the games.
Actually, if you think about it, in the really long scenarios ruined cities/towns should have a chance to recover. At least the rubble would be cleared from the streets and the movement required through the hex adjusted downward accordingly.
A ruin would also be expected to also have a slight defensive advantage over undamaged urban hexes, al la Berlin and Stalingrad.
Regards, RhinoBones
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:42 am
by Bloodybucket28th
I think the whole ruins thing should be a scenario designer's issue...I was bemused to find the Americans in Grenada reducing cities to ruins, something that I think they would try and avoid.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:49 am
by rhinobones
ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket
I think the whole ruins thing should be a scenario designer's issue...I was bemused to find the Americans in Grenada reducing cities to ruins, something that I think they would try and avoid.
Good point. The amount of destruction needs to be equal to force + time/turn + Politics!
Regards, RhinoBones
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:00 am
by Szilard
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Makes it more difficult to move through. That's it, currently.
We should probably either make it do a little more or reduce the chance of it happenning. We can remove it from the news, but I'm wondering if making it happen less often might make it more meaningful.
We can stratify the effects somewhat. Maybe we can work some tweaks into the next patch, along with the terrain cleanup, that we still need to do. Another thing to consider is to do as with contaminated terrain, and give it a per turn chance of reverting to unruined terrain. Based on the turn length, of course.
At least lose tyhe news item it for non-named urban hexes. You can see the effect on the map; a news flash telling you that unnamed hex x,y has been reduced to ruins adds zero value.
RE: Interface Wish List
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:52 am
by alaric99x
> Liebgarde - haha not seen this one yet (mainly play Barbarossa [8|]
Yeah - make love not war [:D]
murx, you might see this if you attend miniatures conventions in the US. Among the Napoleonic gamers who label their units, it seems that half of them make their guard units "loving."
Of course, then you also have "Drang Naught Osten," but I don't want to mention any names. [;)]