Please, please can we manipulate the OOB?

[Casus_Belli]

Just putting in another plug for the next patch to allow players to change the OOB and click-through sequence from within the game (not the scen editor) and assign units to HQs and formations.

If you could do this it would be possible to develop task forces, reserves, forces de decision, etc.

This is realistic; what a commander would do.

And hey, I know you haven't got much else to think about [;)].

(Just starting on Europe Aflame by email and happily looking forward to an epic struggle. Awesome game...)

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

If you could do this it would be possible to develop task forces, reserves, forces de decision, etc.

This is realistic; what a commander would do.

Actually, you can already. You don't need to alter the OOB to create ad hoc group of forces or reserves. I do it all the time when playing and don't bother that much about the OOB structure while doing so - hardly at all in fact. The only time I bother to check is when on the offensive to determine the level of cooperation when two formations are to take part in an attack.

On the other hand as a junior designer, I go to great lengths to ensure forces are grouped in historical an valid OOBs. Go figure... [;)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Nemo69

The only time I bother to check is when on the offensive to determine the level of cooperation when two formations are to take part in an attack.

You know, two units defending in the same hex still have to make a co-operation check.

Anyway, a limited (and designer-defined) ability to manipulate formations would be good. Especially if formation integrity was made more important.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Anyway, a limited (and designer-defined) ability to manipulate formations would be good. Especially if formation integrity was made more important.

I second that.

[wolflars]

Although I love this idea, I wonder if this might be a case of "be careful what you wish for."  Consider the consequences of being to manipulate formations during game.  Golden is absolutely correct is his assessment that formation integrity would take on a greater role (one of the absolute best feature of TOAW and most under untilized is formation integrity and the various level of cooperation).  As a result of this ability virtually existing scenarios would need pretty significant over hauls[X(].  Particularly I am thinking of some of the more venerable scenarios like DNO--think about how much work that would take.  If you think it could be implemented without redesign...hmmm, I wonder. 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

Although I love this idea, I wonder if this might be a case of "be careful what you wish for."  Consider the consequences of being to manipulate formations during game.  Golden is absolutely correct is his assessment that formation integrity would take on a greater role (one of the absolute best feature of TOAW and most under untilized is formation integrity and the various level of cooperation).  As a result of this ability virtually existing scenarios would need pretty significant over hauls[X(].  Particularly I am thinking of some of the more venerable scenarios like DNO--think about how much work that would take.  If you think it could be implemented without redesign...hmmm, I wonder.

Well, a new feature could always be made optional, with the default being off. Then you could play existing scenarios without any trouble.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

Just putting in another plug for the next patch to allow players to change the OOB and click-through sequence from within the game (not the scen editor) and assign units to HQs and formations.

This is an old request. However - it needs some discussion about conditions.
This is Ralph's suggestion: detail your ideas (the more details that are worked out, the more likely it will be implemented.)
I've just starting such detailed disscusion at:
http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1152287026

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli
If you could do this it would be possible to develop task forces, reserves, forces de decision, etc.

This is just what you could do thanks to "composite units":
tm.asp?m=1190477

[Erik2]

Shifting units between formations could be limited to identical icon colours or identical background colours.
Then it would be up to the designer to set the limits.

[XPav]

I liked the way the old V4V and WAW games handled it.  They were all battalion scale, with battalions belonging to HQs.  Depending on the quality of the formation, divisions would have one or more brigade HQs, and HQs could be reassigned to a different parent unit, there was a limit on the number of units for each.  Supply was traced from the HQs, with higher HQs able to supply for longer distances.

So, poor divisions were usually tied to their parent HQ really closely, while Armored Brigades were great for leaving at a Corps HQ until needed, then attaching to another division and kicking the supply up for that HQ.

[Casus_Belli]

I don't know whether composite units are quite the same thing.
 
Maybe I'm ignorant [:'(], but it all seems quite simple to me. When designers create scenarios, they create an OOB that has formations in it, which are in turn composed of smaller units - fronts, armies, corps, etc. The way they do this determines the order in which the player can systematically click through the forces at his/her command using the 'next unit' or 'next formation' buttons.
 
All that's required is to be able to shift these smaller units from one formation to another, thereby assigning them to different HQs - with all that that entails in relation to cooperation, command & control, supply, etc - and changing the order of clicking through units and formations. It just means being able to change the composition of particular formations (and perhaps the ability to create new ones).
 
This would also allow players to get around the problem of designers (who are, of course, universally savants, and should be worshipped [&o]) doing somewhat strange things like putting all Front HQs in one formation and Armies in another.
 
This would also simulate - or recreate - what any high-level operational commander would take as among the most important capabilities he has, that of organising available forces in optimal fashion for their assigned tasks.
All this could be done in the OOB window.
 
Again, there may well be something I haven't taken into account, but it just seems like it should be simple, and I'm surprised [&:] the game has gotten this far along the development track without such an obviously important capability.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

This would also allow players to get around the problem of designers (who are, of course, universally savants, and should be worshipped [&o]) doing somewhat strange things like putting all Front HQs in one formation and Armies in another.

Sounds like Europe Aflame. I think this was done due to the various upper limits in TOAW, for example the number of units per formation and the number of formations.

[Casus_Belli]

Fair enough. It's an absolutely wondrous scenario, and certainly would stretch this or any other engine to the max. I'm just looking for ways to alleviate the problem, which is not really all that big a problem, but would be nice to get around. The icing on the cake, so to speak.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

Fair enough. It's an absolutely wondrous scenario, and certainly would stretch this or any other engine to the max. I'm just looking for ways to alleviate the problem, which is not really all that big a problem, but would be nice to get around. The icing on the cake, so to speak.

Do you have COW? I made another version of the scenario, but you have to have TOAW-COW to run it.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli
I don't know whether composite units are quite the same thing.

They aren't. However, I've found the composite units as much more universal device, partially solving the problem of formation-to-formation-transfer (FTFT). Of course, I would like to see the FTFT as well as increased penalty for attack AND defence of uncooperative units (see next post).

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli
This would also allow players to get around the problem of designers doing somewhat strange things like putting all Front HQs in one formation and Armies in another.

My propostion of the FTFT limits and cost (I've called it "the first unit rule"):
1) the first unit of formation can't be FTFTed
2) an unit can be FTFTed if it's fully cooperative with the first unit of the other formation
3) an unit can be FTFTed if it has size smaller than the first unit of the selected formation
4) there is the arms condition - land to land, air to air, naval to naval (a moved unit to the first unit)
5) the FTFT can be done at the beginning of the turn, only - the FTFTed unit lost all its MPs at once
6) there is a formation proficiency check =number_of_added_units/original_number_of_units - a formation can get into reorganisation as a result of the FTFT

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli
(and perhaps the ability to create new ones).

It could be great, but this is an additional level of complicaation, I'm affraid.

[Legun]

From a TDG discussion: http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl ... 2565/45#58


About cooperation - there is a penalty for uncooperating units attacking together. But there is no such penalty for uncooperating units defending together. I don't have an idea, but I've found a gamey problem with defensive battle-array in my FB set. It's better to mix two divisions to get artillery support from both HQs, instead of give each one a separated sector of frontline:

This is completely unhistorical (except the Germans supporting the Italians on the desert)
In the case half of regiments have lost HQ supply bonus, but it's good business for sure. Anyway, the problem remains. Any ideas for solving it?

The controlled number of rounds, consumed by an attack in TOAWIII, makes the penalty for uncooperative units attacking together less painfull. I would like to change all cooperation procedures for a "confusion penalty". This is just another modification of prof check, which makes retreat or breaking from an attack more probably, if there are units from more than one formation stacking on a hex or attacking on a hex.
cooperation level = 1 for full cooperation, 2 for limited, 3 for unccoperating (f.e.)
% of penalty = 1 - (sum of (weight_of_unit/cooperation_level))/total_weight_of_defending_or_attacking_units

Ben:
I'd avoid using unit weight for this. Would a battalion of tigers be more likely to become confused than a battalion of Pz-Is?

Me:
Just oposite - an unit which gives higher % of total weight gets lower "confusion penalty". The Tigers crews knows, that they take more responsibility for the defence/attack. The Pz-I crews know that they are only a small attachement, so there is no reason for a full engagment.
You should noticed, that the panalty depends on RELATIVE weight/size of an unit. An panzergrenadier regiment supported by 10 StGIII probably feel less depend on thier strength than in the case of 10 King Tigers. French infantrymen could expect much more from attached tanks than German infantrymen. "Oh - these armoured guys should make all the job, we can wait in a safe place".
Maybe I would like to see just unit's size (instead of unit's weight), divided by 3 in the case of HQ's. Decimated or not decimated - all regiments are qual in their reposibility for a task. It looks like the most of generals is usually thinking this way.
However, there is a problem with the unit's size in the equation. Different armies use different structure as well as regiments have different meanings in the case of different types of units. A British infantry brigade would be more responible for defence than American infantry regiment stacking together. An AA regiment and a tank battalion in German army - next questionable situation.

[Casus_Belli]

Do you have COW? I made another version of the scenario, but you have to have TOAW-COW to run it
 
No, I'm afraid I don't.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

Do you have COW? I made another version of the scenario, but you have to have TOAW-COW to run it

No, I'm afraid I don't.

Oh well. A TOAW III version may turn up at some point.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli
Do you have COW? I made another version of the scenario, but you have to have TOAW-COW to run it

No, I'm afraid I don't.

Oh well. A TOAW III version may turn up at some point.

If you'll post your scenario here, or even send it to me in an email, I'll convert it to T3 and post it here, or email it back to you. larryfulkerson2002 at yahoo dot com

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

If you'll post your scenario here, or even send it to me in an email, I'll convert it to T3 and post it here, or email it back to you. larryfulkerson2002 at yahoo dot com

Thanks, Larry, but unless you can convert the .exe too then I'll just wait [;)]