Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Scrolling issues

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Scrolling issues Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Scrolling issues - 7/25/2006 12:22:39 AM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline 		You'll have to forgive me if this has been posted before but I want to reiterate it as I think it would be a great interface addition.

With the great importance of artillery; I wish there was a setting that would highlight the hexes within range of an artillery unit when you click on that unit and make it current.

Possibly set it up so that the unit's longest range tubes would highlight all hexes pink (or light yellow); the next longest tubes range would highlight a light red (or orange); and the next tubes range (if there is one) could be red (red). If there was only one equipment type it would only highlight pink (or yellow).

Its tedious but managable to determine where an arty unit is best placed. Having a highlight option for this one type of equipment would go a long way to improving a players planning.

hank

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 121
RE: Scrolling issues - 7/25/2006 12:44:05 PM   
KarlXII


Posts: 259
Joined: 8/21/2005
From: Stockholm
Status: offline 		I agree with Hank that it would be nice to see the artillery range. It could be shown in colored hexes.

Here is two more wishes:

- The possibility to see how strong a stack is by either summing its attack/defense values or show it by colour. When playing larger scenarios with long frontlines it is often hard to know how strong a stack is without going through them unit by unit every single turn to see if they are strong enough. It would help to have a button that either replaces all stacks with attack/defense values or by color code (green, yellow, orange, red etc) to quickly see if there are any weak spots in the line.

- I would like more information when a scenario ends. I would like to see my losses compared to the other sides losses both in actual number, per equipment, equipment type (tanks, aircraft, at-guns etc) and also in percentage. Except for VP that would make an argument to play the scenario again against the computer to be able to maximise/minimise losses.


(in reply to hank)
Post #: 122
Little glitches switching between editor & game - 7/25/2006 2:21:20 PM   
Szilard

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline 		A couple of little things:

- When you go into the editor, the TOAW loses any prior '2d small' map view setting. So when you go back into the game, you'll always be in '2d large' mode. This is a hassle when you're eg doing debug & Elmer-vs-Elmer test cycles on a scenario and want to run it in '2d small' mode so you have a broad view of what's going on. You have to interrupt the game and set it to '2d small' mode every time you come out of the editor and back to the game. Not a big hassle, but a hassle nonetheless. Be nice if the editor didn't reset the game view mode.

- Additionally, under some circumstances, TOAW loses track of whether you've set computer-vs-computer mode. I think this happens (often/always?) when you exit from a game in human-vs-human mode, after starting in computer-vs-computer - which will be a common way to exit when you're going thru a test/debug process. Next time you do a "go to game" from the editor's file menu, the game mode indicator on the "SELECT NEW GAME" panel will show computer-vs-computer, but the game will actually start in hot seat mode.

Previously, you could just switch into computer-vs-computer mode at this point & it was not an issue. But with the latest patch, starting in hotseat mode turns off variable initiative. So you have to remember to explicitly cycle through the mode settings back to computer-vs-computer when seleting a new game.

- In addition to fixing these little glitches, it'd be nice to have an "Edit this scenario" option from the game's file menu & a corresponding "Play this scenario" from the editor's file menu - so you don't have to go through the selection process every time you switch from one to the other.


< Message edited by Szilard -- 7/25/2006 2:22:52 PM >

(in reply to KarlXII)
Post #: 123
RE: Scrolling issues - 7/25/2006 3:02:48 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: karlxii

- I would like more information when a scenario ends. I would like to see my losses compared to the other sides losses both in actual number, per equipment,


All this is already available in the replacements screen after the end of the scenario.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to KarlXII)
Post #: 124
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 3:36:24 PM   
Catch21

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Dublin
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial
OK, well it happened quite often to me in DNO, usually it was the finnish front (opening at turn 6 and by than the Axis shock is gone), I had for example a finnish regiment attack a soviet engineer company, burning 5 combat rounds in a row because they decided to continue attacking, completely screwing up the entire german front.
I 'fixed' this by simply ignoring the finnish front, as they seemed to be most prone to produce turn burns (low attack ratings and little support units, so the defender wont retreat, defending units with low combat strength, so the attacker wont break off because he's not taking enough losses to fail the moral check)

Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but for these 'monster' scenarios can't designers set overall force proficiency to 100% so you never fail these proficiency checks with your turn ending 'prematurely'? The new MRPB rating still provides some variability with an upper cap on rounds per battle, which should make planning easier but not totally predictable.

_____________________________

Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
(J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 125
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 3:43:45 PM   
Catch21

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 4/13/2006
From: Dublin
Status: offline 		To add something from the 'front', so to speak (the New Players Tournament at SZO), to the interface wish list here.

New players struggle with a number of concepts, chief among them the Combat Rounds System. I've been experimenting with some of the new features and have to say I just adore the toggle buttons (thank you Ralph (Elmer too, looking much sharper these days)). 'M' to toggle between movement points and combat strengths among them. 'Scroll toll' should go way down with these.

It would be brilliant if a '% movement used' could be added as a third toggle with the 'M' button. That way players, knowing they have 80% of a turn remaining, would immediately know at a glance whether a unit could be or should be used for an attack, and if an arty unit could be used in direct fire mode.

Just my 0.02.

< Message edited by General Staff -- 7/25/2006 3:44:45 PM >

_____________________________

Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
(J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

(in reply to Catch21)
Post #: 126
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 4:12:13 PM   
Legun

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline
quote:

It would be brilliant if a '% movement used' could be added as a third toggle with the 'M' button. That way players, knowing they have 80% of a turn remaining, would immediately know at a glance whether a unit could be or should be used for an attack, and if an arty unit could be used in direct fire mode.

Just my 0.02.


Really good idea - it could save a part of my wargaming time .

(in reply to Catch21)
Post #: 127
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 4:41:07 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		To pour some fire, err, arguments into the pro/con turn-burn discussion:
Because a lot of players cant grasp the logic behind a skirmish near Murmansk eating up the round for divisions near Stalingrad I want to add another serious problem with turn burn.

Basically - it does not happen to the defender.
To clear up what I mean - if for instance a German direct assault on the Maginot Line (some happened on smaller scale and Propaganda had their hands full to hide the losses) - if such a direct assault would result in a clean, small loss push through there would have been a massive 'shock' in the defenders line; serious disruption and disorganization on how to deal with the situation.
If for instance an airborne drop near Führerhauptquartier (Wolfsschanze) would have been staged, killing most of the OK staff and a good part of Generals, Feldmarshall, maybe even Goering and a few other high ranking military-political leaders but failing to kill Hitler - for sure the Wehrmacht would have kept on fighting - but the disruption of command would have been serious - very serious!

So if the 'attacker' in TOAW can be seriously punished because of a bad planned attack (or freak battle result, or the typical long lasting 'Finnish battles') - why is there no such punishment if the defender loses an important cornerstone of his defensive line? Why none if a high command gets assasinated by partisans?

Well - if the attack inflicts a good amount of casualities it throws the formation into reorg - oh yeah, but we have lowered that already, haven't we?

Maybe including an indirect 'turn-burn' with the destruction of an HQ? A player automatically loses 10% of his (next) turn for losing 1-10% of his on board HQs, 20% for 11-20% of HQs destroyed, maybe up to a maximum of loss of 90% of his turn.
OK, once all HQs are done for there is no additional turn-burn anymore, but then again - probably not much left to fight with anyway - until they reconstitute.

murx


< Message edited by murx -- 7/25/2006 4:43:53 PM >

(in reply to Legun)
Post #: 128
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 4:55:10 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff
Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but for these 'monster' scenarios can't designers set overall force proficiency to 100% so you never fail these proficiency checks with your turn ending 'prematurely'?

It doesn't work this way. 100% force proficiency does not guarantee no early turn endings due to "proficiency checks". Neither does 0% force proficiency guarantee an early ending from the same.

(in reply to Catch21)
Post #: 129
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 5:02:13 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: murx

To clear up what I mean - if for instance a German direct assault on the Maginot Line (some happened on smaller scale and Propaganda had their hands full to hide the losses)


They actually broke through to my understanding. This was in June and all the reserves had been moved off to form a new line.

quote:

If for instance an airborne drop near Führerhauptquartier (Wolfsschanze) would have been staged, killing most of the OK staff and a good part of Generals, Feldmarshall, maybe even Goering and a few other high ranking military-political leaders but failing to kill Hitler - for sure the Wehrmacht would have kept on fighting - but the disruption of command would have been serious - very serious!


No doubt. However this is something that would have to be modelled by events. I don't think this can be considered to be a part of ordinary military operations. Would you put the rescue of Mussolini in a TOAW scenario (I guess in TOAW terms the Storch acts as a transport helicopter)?

quote:

why is there no such punishment if the defender loses an important cornerstone of his defensive line?


I'd say the punishment is that the attacker goes on to make considerable advances.

quote:

Maybe including an indirect 'turn-burn' with the destruction of an HQ?


The loss of HQs is supposed to make formations go into reorg, but I don't think this actually happens all the time. What it does do is reduce formation supply by half.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 130
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 5:04:30 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

It doesn't work this way. 100% force proficiency does not guarantee no early turn endings due to "proficiency checks".


Are you quite sure? I think Jarek achieves just that effect in his WERS scenarios. I recall that some part of the documentation implies that tests against both force proficiency and the remaining part of the turn have to be passed; but I suspect that it is an either/or. Of course if Ralph has looked at the code and told you exactly what it says that's fair enough.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 131
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 6:19:16 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		The 'D' Key

I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn.

Binding a single key to two actions is assuming that players manipulate their units in a certain way, which obviously some of us don't. If you want to string multiple actions together then please provide us with a complete macro language

I realise this has been mentioned before but I'm not sure if it was on this wish list.




< Message edited by Captain Cruft -- 7/25/2006 6:21:39 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 132
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 8:02:28 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		I second that. In fact, I'd settle for it advancing to the closest unit!

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 133
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 8:30:18 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Yes well the previous response on this was "use the mouse to dig in", which is of course what I do. The point is that this takes far longer than simply pressing 'D' would do, especially if you have a stack with multiple units.

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 134
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 9:28:24 PM   
PaladinSix

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

The 'D' Key

I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn.



And I'm prepared to put up half of whatever the good Captain has to pay. As long as there is no serious downside to digging in (and substantial benefits), most players are going to do it with most units on every turn. Thus, it should be made as painless (for the player) as possible.

I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second.

PaladinSix

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 135
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/25/2006 9:43:06 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

The 'D' Key

I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn.

Binding a single key to two actions is assuming that players manipulate their units in a certain way, which obviously some of us don't. If you want to string multiple actions together then please provide us with a complete macro language

I realise this has been mentioned before but I'm not sure if it was on this wish list.





DITTO ... I quit using the "D" key because it jumps to another unit afterwards

Please redo the "D" key so it just DIGS IN ... end of command ...

thanks

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 136
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/26/2006 7:36:36 AM   
Sleazey

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/19/2001
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Oh yea, I hate this auto jump to the next unit when I dig in. None of the other keys do this; I stopped using the D key because of this fact.

Make it an option somehow, but give me a D key that just digs in and doesn't jump to the next unit!

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 137
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/26/2006 8:34:38 AM   
Casus_Belli

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 11/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:


I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second.

PaladinSix


I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work.

_____________________________

Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.

(in reply to PaladinSix)
Post #: 138
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/26/2006 3:15:23 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work.


It's a thought. In a hex where entrenchment level is less than 100%, a unit digging in could lose 5% readiness. This cost would be reduced if the unit has motorised engineering equipment.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Casus_Belli)
Post #: 139
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/26/2006 3:17:18 PM   
Erik2

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli


quote:


I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second.

PaladinSix


I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work.


Currently you need at least 1 MP to dig in. additional costs would have to take into consideration the turn-frame of the scenario, 6-hour is quite different from 1-week.
And I support the change od the D-command...


_____________________________


(in reply to Casus_Belli)
Post #: 140
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/26/2006 8:06:14 PM   
PaladinSix

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2006
Status: offline
[/quote]

Currently you need at least 1 MP to dig in. additional costs would have to take into consideration the turn-frame of the scenario, 6-hour is quite different from 1-week.
And I support the change od the D-command...

[/quote]

The question of turn-length in a scenario certainly makes this a tricky problem, but isn't movement allowance based (at least in part) on the length of the turn? If so, simply requiring an amount greater than 1 point would suffice as a cost for digging in. Say, 10% of the total MA, or 5% or whatever. The amount of movement points required could be modified by engineering capacity, terrain, etc.

It just seems odd and overly simplistic to say that any unit, regardless of size, turn length, era or equipment, always requires only 1 point to dig in.

PaladinSix

(in reply to Erik2)
Post #: 141
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/26/2006 8:48:42 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline 		It seems to me it should use up more than one MP to dig in.  If you drive or walk off 90% of your movement points during a period of time, I don't see how you could get a full round of digging in by just using up 1 MP.  I'm speaking from semi-ignorance since I've never looked at the calc's or code that controls digging in.  ... my comment is just a feeling

... and too, it seems some units would be less adept at digging ... thus a sliding scale of how much % of entrenchment specific units can attain during one turn.  Of course fully equipped Engineers would be at the top of efficiency and maybe recce or HQ units would be at the lower end of the scale.  IMHO any unit can dig in, but their abilities to dig in vary and could be modelled in toaw.

I have not paid much attention to the %'s of entrenchment achieved during a turn of digging and subsequent turns ... I'll have to start noticing this. I'm assuming the more turns you dig-in on a hex, the % of entrenchment increases.

... I just told everyone how big of a newb i am .. but that's OK

hank

< Message edited by hank -- 7/26/2006 8:51:30 PM >

(in reply to PaladinSix)
Post #: 142
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/26/2006 9:30:31 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

... and too, it seems some units would be less adept at digging ... thus a sliding scale of how much % of entrenchment specific units can attain during one turn.


This is already in the game. The ability of units to entrench depends on the amount of engineering equipment in the hex, and the existing entrenchment level of the hex.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 143
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/27/2006 6:57:54 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline 		I knew that :-) ... I guess I could say it was a rhetorical comment ... ... or I could say I'm a newb

But, I had another idea for the wish list.  Beside highlighting artillery ranges (which I mentioned above) ... I think it would be helpful to add another colored hex outline for units that can be Recombined with the current unit.  Most cases there will only be 2 units highlighted but sometimes these units are in large stacks of units and you have to weed through the units looking at the unit name and hope you pick the one that can be recombined.

another 2 cents


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 144
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/28/2006 2:14:10 PM   
Casus_Belli

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 11/20/2005
Status: offline 		Is it necessary always to destroy railway line when moving on it in enemy territory? Maybe there's some thing I'm doing/not doing that would prevent this, but it seems a little odd. Surely one would try to capture railways lines intact if possible, and only destroy them if necessary.

_____________________________

Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 145
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/28/2006 2:33:45 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli

Is it necessary always to destroy railway line when moving on it in enemy territory? Maybe there's some thing I'm doing/not doing that would prevent this, but it seems a little odd. Surely one would try to capture railways lines intact if possible, and only destroy them if necessary.


The idea is that they've been destroyed by the enemy, or damaged incidentally during the advance. If nothing else, then your rail engineers have to check the length of track just to be sure there are no booby tracks or cracked rails.

The event engine allows the scenario designer to set the % rail damage for each force so that rail is not always broken. But in most scenarios it is set to 100%.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 7/28/2006 2:34:32 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Casus_Belli)
Post #: 146
Need Better Engineers - 7/29/2006 3:41:33 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline 		I usually prefer to turn auto destruct down to zero, but I can see where some designs need such a function.

What I would really like to see are engineers (not just any unit) that can demo airfields, roads and rail lines just as any unit can currently demo bridges.  Conversely, we also need engineers that can build new roads, new bridges, new ports, new supply depots and new airfields.  Also, the engineers need to be able to added capacity to existing supply points, ports and airfields. 

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 147
RE: Need Better Engineers - 7/29/2006 4:52:16 AM   
L`zard


Posts: 362
Joined: 6/3/2005
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

What I would really like to see are engineers (not just any unit) that can demo airfields, roads and rail lines just as any unit can currently demo bridges.  Conversely, we also need engineers that can build new roads, new bridges, new ports, new supply depots and new airfields.  Also, the engineers need to be able to added capacity to existing supply points, ports and airfields. 

Regards, RhinoBones


@Rhinobones:

So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units?

Or are you seeing something else in addition........?

Either way, I like your thinking, as too many scenarios are left with either RRengineers or general engineer units (which I'm probably using incorrectly,lol, as I never see them do much besides 'dig in' assistance) and the 'combat engineers' which are just that, combat support units.

Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote!




_____________________________

"I have the brain of a genius, and the heart of a little child! I keep them in a jar under my bed."


(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 148
RE: Need Better Engineers - 7/29/2006 5:34:16 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard
So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units?
Or are you seeing something else in addition........?
Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote!


What I am suggesting would probably require a new Construction Engineer unit, or possibly designating the existing R/R Construction Teams as Construction Engineers. In the US Navy they would be known as Sea Bees.

Construction Engineers would be able to build new things or improve existing facilities, much like the Civilization games where towns, forts and all kinds of things are built and expanded to promote the war effort. Of course the time it takes to build a support resource would depend on the unit capability, terrain and available supply.

These are not necessarily my original ideas. Most of this stuff has been floating around the forums for quite some time. The difference now is that there is hope that it may actually come true.

Think that these ideas would require a substantial rewrite to TOAW. Maybe TOAW 5 or 6!!

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to L`zard)
Post #: 149
RE: Need Better Engineers - 7/29/2006 6:14:51 AM   
L`zard


Posts: 362
Joined: 6/3/2005
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard
So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units?
Or are you seeing something else in addition........?
Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote!


What I am suggesting would probably require a new Construction Engineer unit, or possibly designating the existing R/R Construction Teams as Construction Engineers. In the US Navy they would be known as Sea Bees.

Construction Engineers would be able to build new things or improve existing facilities, much like the Civilization games where towns, forts and all kinds of things are built and expanded to promote the war effort. Of course the time it takes to build a support resource would depend on the unit capability, terrain and available supply.

These are not necessarily my original ideas. Most of this stuff has been floating around the forums for quite some time. The difference now is that there is hope that it may actually come true.

Think that these ideas would require a substantial rewrite to TOAW. Maybe TOAW 5 or 6!!

Regards, RhinoBones



Rhinobones;

JuRule EXACTLY!!!!




_____________________________

"I have the brain of a genius, and the heart of a little child! I keep them in a jar under my bed."


(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Scrolling issues Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.594