Some more screenshots (graphic heavy)

[Vic]

Gothic Line:


End Sieg:


Ardennes:


Africa:


Russia 1941: (later in scenario)

[jynx11]

........very nice.  Quick question after looking at these screens, what is going to be max map size.  I enjoy those hard working fella's who make BIG scenarios  [:D]

[goodwoodrw]

I'm wetting my pants [:D] cool stuff

[dave74]

This looks brilliant!!!

How about some japanese screenshots - the war in china etc ?

[Vic]

Jynx,

I did not code in any upper limit to the map size.

However for practical purposes, gameplay considerations and for AI speed considerations i would keeps maps under 100x100.

Though for example a scenario like World at war (human only) by Tom Weber, downloadable from www.advancedtactics.org scenariobank upon release, is i think 200x200 hex.

[seille]

The map size is not the problem, more the time you have for a turn [:)].
I can remember that i had a game against Vic on a 30x40 map over 46 turns
where we both had really strong forces. For each turn you have not only to
manage the battles. Thats way too easy !! You have to check the supply situation,
the production, delivery of production. Any damage in cities, damage troops got
during opponents turn and a lot more.
These turns i talk about i needed 30-45 minutes !!
Same for a 1939 game i play actually. 30-45 minutes per turn if you play careful
and want to avoid any bigger mistakes. For some of them i needed probbaly around
1 hour. Hehe for a 100x100 map with normal troops density i would need 2 hours probably.
 
My way to play a turn:
 
1. checking the losses (losses overview and history function that shows each battle)
2. Checking the production (damage there and was delivery possible ?)
3. Checking supply. Did i produce enough ? Did my troops receive enough ?
4. Planning the attacks
5. Attacks
6. Sending the reenforcements to their places
7. Doing any upgrades if needed and i have the political points to pay
8. Planning next turn production and upgrades (adjustments)
Between these steps i let engineer units do their work. Mostly repairing
damaged locations or build bridges/roads. They also create airfields or fortifications.
 
I think a map of 50x40 is already big when i think on all the work i have with managing the troops.
And most of the time i check all of my units in every turn.
It´s not just moving and fighting.
 

[seille]

One of the screens i know too good [:D]
Shows my attack to russia (AI) in early 1942.
My germans got already Minsk, Riga, Stalingrad, Leningrad,
Kiev, Charkov and so on. And i´m only 2 hexes away from Moscow.
The resistance in Front of Moscow is very strong and the terrain is with the defenders,
but i think in max 3 turns i´ll sit in Moscow and the game is over.

[jynx11]

Wow, was looking at the linked website for this game and it looks to be super flexible.  I must say this is probably gonna end up on my computer.  I am loving the visual information that appears to be displayed.  It really helps me to understand features in a games.  Is there by chance gonna be an in game tutorial?  

[IAN 1963]

Hi
Can we have NATO symbles as well, perhaps using the 2D set from TOAOW III ? Otherwise looks very good indead.

Ian

[Vic]

@jynx1,

thanks. abou the tutorial though i think you'll have to settle for a manual-in-hand walk through for the release version.

@ian,

i am not going to add any nato symbols to the release version. but if you want to replace all the counter symbols in the editor you could.

[jynx11]

Vic,
Thanks for the response, its all good, I can live with that.  "I ain't a picky eat'er"[:D]

[freeboy]

one thing that u might consider is ebb and flow, you should not have enough supply to alway be on either attack or movement or defense, so those 35 to 2 hour turns should also be offset by much shorter turns, as an example in FITE scenario, a monster for TOAW3, some 2000 units are the limit per side and I hade seen 7000 to 8000 movement hex turns, not counting attacks etc.. taking two hours, also the turns where you are holding a defensive line, moving a few troops by rail and taking a few minutes.
 
Makes me wonder too, does this system have the ability to model rail or strategic movement?

[jynx11]

Freeboy,
Looking at the screen shots it appears there is rail modeled.  There is a box on the screen shot for "Rail"

[Charles2222]

Am I right in assuming that a King Tiger picture is representing the Medium Tank II? It don't look like a PZIV to me, whereas the Medium III is a Panther.

[Vic]

@Charles,

http://basic1.easily.co.uk/05800C/03D03B/twpzpic3.jpg

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Vic

@Charles,

http://basic1.easily.co.uk/05800C/03D03B/twpzpic3.jpg

Yes, I know what a PZIV looks like. It still looks like a King Tiger to me. Maybe it's just something about the picture being so small on this screen that makes it look like a sloped turret (although most of it is obscured). For what is shown of the barrel, it's a PZIV length, but then it may be chopped off too, which I cannot tell here. I never seen a PZIV that appeared to have such a sloped turret, but then again it is a somewhat unique posture. The upper hull might even be sloped on that picture, but as long as you're convinced it's a PZIV you must be right.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Am I right in assuming that a King Tiger picture is representing the Medium Tank II?

Nope.

Hard to say, but it's either a long gun PzIII or a PzIV.

The giveaway is the triangular plate on the bottom right of the turret.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Am I right in assuming that a King Tiger picture is representing the Medium Tank II?

Nope.

Hard to say, but it's either a long gun PzIII or a PzIV.

The giveaway is the triangular plate on the bottom right of the turret.

Ray (alias Lava)

Hmm, I can't see any triangular anything, but then the shot is so small anyway. The strongest case for it being a PZIV as I see it, is the length of the barrel, but then the shot may had chopped it off too. It also appears the commander is too large compared to the rest of the tank, despite how that turret seems shaped, for it to be a King Tiger. The picture is just too small for me to make out some of the finer details. I'm just amazed at how much that turret "appears" to be sloped. Maybe it's a shot of one on those "Tigers" from that Battle of the Bulge movie [:D].

[*Lava*]

Well...

I think the problem is that the angle of the shot gives the impression that the turret is sloped. The applique armor on the hull below the turret also appears to be sloped, again a distortion of the photo but very characteristic of the Pz III.

Find the iron cross and look a little up and to the right. There you will find the triangular plate characteristic of Pz III and IV turrets.

Ray (alias Lava)