Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Here's another one....maybe, when the computer (PO) is working on its turn, it can move grouped units as one, instead of individually.  In my opinion, this takes the PO longer to complete a turn (when it moves each unit individually).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
That is crazy .... How soon will you have it done? Will Daisy Dukes be a Theatre Option?

good idea...
and supply points... Walmart and the Home Depot?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Here's another one....maybe, when the computer (PO) is working on its turn, it can move grouped units as one, instead of individually.  In my opinion, this takes the PO longer to complete a turn (when it moves each unit individually).

A problem with that is that even when units move as "a group" they are still entering and exiting hexes a single unit at a time. There are way too many gameplay issues (interdiction, disengagement attempts/attacks, density penalties, etc.) linked to this to change for the sake of shaving a few seconds off of the turn.

Besides, for every person complaining that Elmer moves too slowly, I've seen two complaining that he moves too fast to follow...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh?

Huh? It doesn't do that for me..........

quote:

ORIGINAL: MPHopcroft

Now I seem to be unable to read the file ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh?

Huh? It doesn't do that for me..........

In 3.2 the PO speeds up when you press the Caps Lock key

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh?

Huh? It doesn't do that for me..........

In 3.2 the PO speeds up when you press the Caps Lock key

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: MPHopcroft

Now I seem to be unable to read the file ...

This reminds me: does anyone remember the link to the free Word reader download? I can't remember where it was posted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers
That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh?

Huh? It doesn't do that for me..........

In 3.2 the PO speeds up when you press the Caps Lock key

Right, danke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

That is not a wishlist that is TOAW IV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

That is not a wishlist that is TOAW IV.

Given some of the strategic wishes it's a bit more than just T"O"AW!!

My but aren't we a demanding bunch!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski
I have an idea for a crazy Southern style scenario... Redneck War with squads driving Ford Bronco's, Hummers and other typical vehicles versus State Troopers with police cruisers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Another suggestion/idea...

There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it).

Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Another suggestion/idea...

There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it).

Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?

Fulda gap

Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour)


Mario

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Another suggestion/idea...

There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it).

Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?

Fulda gap

Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour)


Mario

Sorry, but that wasn't it. The game was modeled after Harold Coyle's book "Team Yankee," and there was anillustrated book called "Team Yankee, The Graphic Novel," which I have.

I know about the Fulda Gap, and its signifigance (I trained there, too), but I remember that the town was either one near Darmstadt or somewhere.....it could've been the Fulda Gap (most likely scenario), but I'm nto sure. The book that I have doesn't mention it, but the game has it on the map as the main objective.

It should be noted that the book takes from the book "The Third World War, August 1985" (by General Sir John Hackett, 1979) in that it says that the war came to an end after a coups in Moscow that followed the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk. Coyle's book centers around a company that was involved in Sir Hackett's book.

Anyway, the board game is where the FASCAM artillery/mines were used, and it's this feature that I'd like to see in the TOAW.

EDIT TO ADD: I found the game online, and the town on the map is Korberg. Funny, I'm not sure why that doesn't seem like the one that I was looking for (thought it started with an "F").

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

That units from both sides can share the same hex.
This depend on Hexscale, unitscale, unittype, landscape etc.

In a 10km hex can a platoon/company easy hide from discovery from enemy units.Mayby with the help a new command. Namly Hide.

I think here special on Special Forces, Guerrila and Recon unit, for reconnaissance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base.

quote:


Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:


Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it.
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there.

That's true, but...

What's happened in the past is that superficial additions are made to 'expand' the scope of OPART -- but nothing was done to implement the more serious changes that really were required.

So when ACOW came out we 'got' World War One and even the nineteenth century -- except that we didn't. Sopwith Camels and musket squads hardly touched the differences between the original World War Two and later scope of OPART and the earlier periods that were now 'modelled.'

So I think it's legitimate to criticize 'wishes' that have the effect of superficially dealing with problems that really should be dealt with in more depth. For example, rules that prevented artillery from firing in support of units that have already advanced would do a lot more to enable OPART to better simulate World War One than adding Sopwith Camels -- and that should be pointed out.

Give the designers a choice between a few hard but essential improvements and a grab-bag of relatively easy add-ons (like elephants) and they'll naturally tend to do what's easiest -- and we'll get that much less substantial improvement in the design. It's like if you give a car designer a choice between giving you a car that runs on solar power and one that has a second cup-holder. Well, you're going to get the second cup-holder.

For similar reasons I tend to disapprove of ideas like production models. I'd rather see what's wrong within the scope that OPART already covers fixed than encourage Ralph to add things. There's obviously a finite amount of programming time that will get sunk into OPART -- and I'd rather see that programming time spent addressing the more fundamental flaws that are already present than in adding bells and whistles.

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base.

...a unit having the characteristics of a carrier but with ground deployment capabilities... might be possible using bio-ed... Curtis/Bob, what do you think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boonierat

Also, I'm probably gonna start beating the proverbial dead horse again but is there any particular reason why limiting air units to 3/hex max has never been changed?