2by3 please remove the train icon

[Lebatron]

The train icon just gets in the way. Why do we really need it? The map already shows the tracks and the number value. Another thing that I think is strange is the priority level given to the train icon. The order is:
1 Factory shown first
2 Train shown if factory not present
3 Resource shown if there is no train or factory.

It would make more sense to show the resource before the train. A resource trumps a train in weight of importance. Before 2by3 releases the final patch I sure wish they would address this. And also one of the other requests I made before. That being placing newly aquired techs above all other things on the end turn report screen. That way we don't have to pause and scroll down to see if we got a tech.

[JanSorensen]

Out of curiosity - when is it this is a problem?

For it to happen you need a territory with no units, no supply, no factory that has railways and atleast one resource.

I dont disagree with your suggestion, it makes sense. I just never saw it as a problem. Mind, you can still press "i" to view all the infrastructure at the same time.

[Lebatron]

Actually I would just prefer the train to be removed from the game. I toyed with this to see what it would like like. The view in Russia looks so much less clutered. All I'm really interested in is seeing the troops, factories, and resoures. The train servers no purpose. I would rather have the game looking like it does in this screen shot.

[JanSorensen]

I see your point. I normally play with FoW on so its not something I would really notice.

I assume you changed the rail tga to be transparent for your shot - but that obviously wont show the "underlying" resource. Simply changing the order should be enough though - then those that want to not see the rail can rather simply edit the corresponding tga.

[Lebatron]

I played with that for awhile and could not change the order of display. If I was successfull in that I would put it in my mod. But it looks like its not moddable. Which is why I hope Joel reads this and let us know if they can make this change for us.

[JanSorensen]

Aye, I tried the same (mostly in the art.txt file). Its easy enough not to get the rails to show as in your shot - thats a simple 30 sec edit of the tga. The order of apperance does seem hardcoded though, unfortunately but not unexpectedly.

[aletoledo]

I never thought about it, but I think I like Lebatron's suggestion best. I'd rather not see resources or trains on the grand map. you can see which provinces have trains by the underlying drawing and perhaps if some drew a little mineshaft, then there wouldn't be a need for showing the resources either.

on the other hand, I've played so much that I think I know where all the resources are, so simply an option to turn rail and resources off would be nice.

[JanSorensen]

Aleteledo

Thats easy enough then. Just download the file I have attached here, rename it as All_Rail.tga and place it in dat/art/units. Then the railways wont be showing - nor will the resources in territories with rails. The resources in territories without rail will still be showing but you can fix that too if you wish.

As the change is purely cosmetic you can do that without it interfering with your opponents.

The reason its harder for Lebatron is that the actually wants the resources to show up.

[aletoledo]

thanks jan! worked nicely.

however some of the provinces without railroad still show their resources? not a big deal, because that is so rare anyway, looks better this way.

ideally it would be cool to have infrastructure drawn on the map and not as units IMO.

[JanSorensen]

As I said - you can do the same if you want to get rid of the resources too. Infact, you can just use the same file I sent you by making a copy of it and renaming that to replace the resource tga.

[aletoledo]

ahh, thanks, I'm a little slow at times.

[mcaryf]

Sorry to barge in on your thread but it is a related question.

How easy might it be to change a unit icon and will that appear everywhere e.g. research screen, map etc.

Having had some fun with the Japanese TAC AIR as a Kamikaze, I looked around to see if there were any other little used units to adapt. It seems to me that it would be an unusual game for the Axis/German player to use their CAG. So how about allowing it to become a V-weapon. Thus I would like a rocket icon!

I would give it quite a long development cycle from 1940 - maybe 3 years, but it would be virtually immune to attack (evasion 12 or more) it would have speed 2 and land attack of 10 or more but zero (or 1 if needs to have something for it to work) sea or air attack.

I guess a cunning player might be able to research its speed and turn it into more of an ICBM but it is expensive so might only be one or two of them. After all Hitler wasted his development Reichsmarks on it so a player might as well. Whether it would be used strategically or tactically would be up to the player.

Sending in one unit might be judged equivalent to firing 2 or 300 V2's - over 1,000 fell in the UK and a fair number more on Antwerp so it would be reasonably accurate if a player got in 7 or 8 shots with it. whether it would have any real value I do not know but it would be nice if it could home in on factories rather than rail units.

Mike

[JanSorensen]

You need a painting program thats able to edit tga files - apart from that its easy. To make it look good is another matter obviously. You can get a free trial version of Photoshop for example - and then just experiment with the tga files.

[aletoledo]

you're coming up with a lot of good ideas mcaryf

[Lebatron]

V-2 rockets sound cool.

[Daykeras]

Two questions...

First one- Do you want it to be destroyable when attacked? What I mean is should it be able to be hit by an enemy raid and how hard should it be to be destroyed.

Second question (more of a statement)- I assume you want the V-2 to be suicidal and have an automatic destroy after every attack.

And since we're changing the CAG to make the V-2 (which I agree is an amazing idea) Then the Carrier should be changed to something else as well... unless you plan on changing another plane to the V-2.

A carrier without a carrier air group = worthless. So either we scrap the option for carriers completely or we pick heavy bomber and use the "Tactical Bomber" as the German Heavy Bomber for the purpose of A bomb research... That or we consider a V-2 with 20 research in attack an A-bomb or something (and significantly reduce the cost of research to match the change and the high attack)

[mcaryf]

Hi Aletoledo and others

I guess the number of ideas I have is directly proportional to the too many years I have spent with wargames, and I am speaking elapsed time here not calendar!

Obviously the idea of a CAG as a V2 does rather make the German CV obsolete unless you want to consider it as a Cruise Missile Cruiser with the CAG's still able to link to it and get launched nearer the target. I should point out that the Germans did actually pioneer the concept of the Polaris submarine with underwater versions of army rocket launchers (Nebelwerfers) to bombard New York - I can give you a web site reference with photos of launches if you are really interested, they had another variant with a V2 towed in a container behind the U-Boat. The plan failed because the normal U-Boat attacks on the Eastern Seaboard of the US were initially so successful that US ASW counter measures became too active to allow the rocket launching U-Boat enough chance of success.

Using the CAG as a V2 is necessarily conceptual and you would need to think of the unit as a capability to launch loads of them rather than the rockets themselves, hence the same unit could repeat attack next turn. In practice the Allies could not intercept the V2 as it was too fast, they could not destroy its launch capability as it was mobile and they could not destroy its production as it was hidden inside a mountain cave system. Its weakness was that it was relatively short range and could only hit London from France or Benelux (in GGWAW terms it had speed 2). Once these areas were overrun the Germans switched targets to Antwerp to try to interrupt supplies but it was an area effect weapon and more useful in terror bombing than causing real damage to the war effort. If adapted for GGWAW it would mainly be for the entertainment of the Axis player - rather similar to Hitler I suppose but could only be destroyed by being overrun as in real life. It would be unrealistic for it to be able to destroy enemy land units but then conventional air attack in GGWAW is equally unrealistic in its ability to do that so no great extra harm would be done by allowing it.

I am not capable of designing a .tga rocket icon but if Matrix Games had one in another product it could be a fun variant.

Mike

[aletoledo]

theres really no need to thank me and you're free to use it as you will.

(sorry 2by3 I'm already emplyed, so I can't come on as an artist)

[mcaryf]

Hi Aletoledo

Thank you for your effort! The attached is an actual photo of a German underwater rocket launch from WW2.

Regards

mike

[Lebatron]

The V2 is a cool idea that I think should get its own thread. My thread has gone off track and I would really like to see 2by3 do something about the train icon. I don't think it would take much devolopement time to just go into the code and change the priority of the train icon to be placed under the resource. Then in this way those of us who don't even want to see the train could just erase it and still see the map resourses.