RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

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: Comprehensive Wishlist

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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Page: << < prev 51 52 [53] 54 55 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 8:04:09 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Everyone else who is participating in this discussion either wants (a) hexes that can be designated as bridges without constraint, or (b) hex-side rivers.

For good reason. Those are the alternatives to the current system that actually accomplish something.

See the examples posted above. Your 'matrix' does nothing. It's the worst idea since the concrete zeppelin. Worse, it would appear that somehow you've acquired the ability to impose this idea on the rest of us.

As long as we're shooting for the Moon here, when can we have a bigger unit database? And the ability to flush weapon systems out of a units TO&E so we can do away with the lame transition process we're stuck with now?

1. What do you mean by a 'bigger unit database'?

2. As to weapons transitions, I've advocated introducing an absolute cap on on how many weapons can be in a unit. That would have addressed many of the problems without excessive complication -- but as I recall, the idea ran into Blocking Detachment LeMay. The discussion is somewhere...

1. More units. More formations wouldn't hurt anything either. Best would be a dynamic db that is sized according to what the user wants. But that's probably way out of the question.

2. That idea of yours sounds like a simple and good solution.

Would also be nice to be able to reassign units to formations.

Thing is, to keep this game alive and well it has to evolve. Stagnation = death.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1561

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 8:20:55 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

It may only arouse the Curtis again, but as I recall, my idea was something like this.

Let's suppose we have 'Panzer Divisionlet Colin.' We want it to make a transition from Pz IV's to Panthers, see the infantry get Panzerfausts, and go from 105 mm guns to Wespes.

So we draw it up like this:

0/12 Panthers

12/12 Pz IV H's

0/12 heavy rifle AT

12/12 heavy rifle

0/4 Wespe

4/4 105 mm guns

8/8 Trucks

Now, under the current system, the unit is perfectly liable to balloon into 'Panzer Divisionlet Colin Plus -- with the Panthers and the Pz IV's, etc. Like this:

12/12 Panthers

12/12 Pz IV H's

12/12 heavy rifle AT

12/12 heavy rifle

4/4 Wespe

4/4 105 mm guns

8/8 Trucks

However, if we impose an absolute weapons cap of weapons per category (12 tanks, 12 infantry, 4 artillery pieces, 8 transports), and cut the flow of old weapons into the pool as the new ones start appearing, the program will be forced to only add new equipment as the old equipment is lost -- the unit can never grow beyond 48 weapons. It can only acquire the Wespes as the 105's are lost, etc.

So at some point in the process it might look like this:

8/12 Panthers

4/12 Pz IV H's

2/12 heavy rifle AT

10/12 heavy rifle

0/4 Wespe

4/4 105 mm guns

8/8 Trucks

But never like this:

12/12 Panthers

12/12 Pz IV H's

12/12 heavy rifle AT

12/12 heavy rifle

4/4 Wespe

4/4 105 mm guns

8/8 Trucks

If one wanted to see it reequipped all at once, waiting until the pool had the requisite new equipment and then disbanding it should lead to the replacement unit showing up with mostly new equipment.

There are various possible simplifications and refinements. For example, if one could just impose a simple 'weapons cap.' This would allow for one weapon transition, but might cause problems with more than one. Like, in the above example, the program could hand out 12 Panthers, keep 4 Pz IV's, and say, 'what -- artillery? But you've already got 48 weapons. What do you want artillery for?'

Alternatively, one could go for more sophistication and have the program look for the newest equipment in the pool. Like even if we're reconstituting the unit and there are 12 Wespes and 7 105 mm guns in the pool, it'll say, 'Colin doesn't want those old 105's, and we've got enough of the new Wespes. We'll give him those.'

Main point is that creating a cap on either the total number of weapons or the total per category makes it possible to have equipment transitions while preventing the unit from growing beyond a specified size. Your fighter squadron can field 12 P-38's, P-51's, or some combination thereof -- but the number can't be more than 12. You can't have 12 P-38's and 12 P-51's.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/28/2011 8:26:27 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1562

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 8:23:18 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

+1

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations. And volume based supply. Quite a task for Ralph time wise, i know.

I also think the game needs to be expanded where it already outstands - and that is the flexibility to model more than one specific time/war/theatre. So, make it more flexible, begin with making the editor parameters (Movement Bias, ZOC cost, Movement Cost for Supply/Readiness, Engineering Build Rate etc, but also Force Proficiencies and things like Electronic Support etc) editable/changeable by the event engine. More weather control for designers, changeable terrain. Add additionally a possibility for designers to divide the map into certain areas where such parameters can be applied per area. (i think we had this years ago in a chat with Jamiam).

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1563

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 8:46:49 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Thing is, to keep this game alive and well it has to evolve. Stagnation = death.

I have no problem with any of your suggestions -- in particular, being able to reassign units would be nice -- but in general, I'd add a few caveats.

First, the system shouldn't grow so complex and arcane that it's inaccessible to new users. From some of the comments I've seen, it already pushes the envelope in that respect. I got into this because I could sit down and start playing without undue suffering. That aspect needs to be kept. Else we become the secret cell of the twelve players of TOAW.

Second, the improvements have to actually be good ones. One of the worst moments in this game's history was when ACOW replaced WGOTY -- and added a whole suite of weapons going back to the Napoleonic era without doing anything to actually allow for the differences in combat in different eras. As (and here I once again risk the wrath of the awful Curtis) several people have found, even if one does have the cannon and infantry types, this game still can't do the American Civil War very well. It irritates me to have weapons that don't actually simulate anything -- since they are essentially 'what if Johnny Reb was fighting in 1943?' Well, he wasn't, and that 'musket squad' in TOAW is a meaningless superfluity in a sense.

Third, particularly as more refinements are made, changes have a cost. That is to say, something is lost as well as something gained. Like, the 'new supply rules' may be fine 'n dandy -- but you can't use sea roads with them. Some bars to cheating were imposed -- and wrecked Ben's 'Grand Strategy,' which depended on being able to load ongoing PBEM games into the editor.

I tend to like changes that are elegant -- that produce a lot of improvement while adding a minimum of additional complexity. That are actually based on military fact. That address major flaws or holes in the system.

I dislike changes that actually move away from valid simulation. That add material that doesn't simulate anything that actually existed. That involve inordinate work and complexity for minimal gain. That leave the fundamental problem untouched. Like, AA has been fiddled with three times now. Until the essential problem -- that AA's primary impact isn't how many planes it shoots down -- is addressed, we really won't get very far.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1564

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 9:00:26 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

+1

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations. And volume based supply. Quite a task for Ralph time wise, i know.

I also think the game needs to be expanded where it already outstands - and that is the flexibility to model more than one specific time/war/theatre. So, make it more flexible, begin with making the editor parameters (Movement Bias, ZOC cost, Movement Cost for Supply/Readiness, Engineering Build Rate etc, but also Force Proficiencies and things like Electronic Support etc) editable/changeable by the event engine. More weather control for designers, changeable terrain. Add additionally a possibility for designers to divide the map into certain areas where such parameters can be applied per area. (i think we had this years ago in a chat with Jamiam).

For expanding eras, one needs density penalties adjusted. I believe we just got that.

One might also want some kind of 'negative' density requirement. Could a Civil War infantry regiment really do anything to keep another infantry regiment from marching right by it three kilometers away? Lee couldn't have meaningfully 'surrounded' the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg by having Stuart's cavalry fan out to occupy all the hexes around the location.

Finally, supply would need to be radically different. Napoleon didn't particularly need to bring up fresh powder and shot from Paris -- it wasn't the end of the world if Kutuzov got behind him. Had it been, the Russians would have had no problem cutting off the Grand Armee as soon as it started marching East -- it would have expired long before it got to Bordino. What Napoleon did need access to was food and shelter. He had to be somewhere his troops could subsist. If one reads Civil War history, a lot of where units went had to do with the prospects for food and forage in the immediate vicinity.

It wasn't totally different from WW2 (TOAW's 'home' era). In World War Two as well, the British in Iran pulled their units back to warmer climes for the winter. Conversely, Lee certainly didn't want Grant astride the Southside Railroad. But while in TOAW, what things are like where you are doesn't matter a bit as long as you're astride a railway, in the American Civil War a railway was nice, but green meadows and full barns in the immediate vicinity were a plus too. We'd need some kind of foraging rule if we wanted to go back before World War One.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/29/2011 6:54:01 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 1565

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 9:04:35 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

+1

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations. And volume based supply. Quite a task for Ralph time wise, i know...

Yeah. Hierarchical OOB's would be nice. As it is, one winds up with independent combat formations on the same plane as 'support formations' consisting of army artillery, construction units, miscellaneous-brigades-that-actually-moved-around-a-lot, and so on.

It's not a crippling problem, but it's also not particularly good simulation.

Jarek the Pole once had a lovely idea about specifying what was in all the potential subdivided units. So you could have your panzer division -- and its panzer regiment, its panzergrenadier regiment, etc. Or tailored kampfgruppes. Conversely, task forces could be assembled from components. Like, you could reinforce an infantry regiment with a tank company.

Whatever you wanted. That'll keep Ralph busy.

Less ambitiously, it would be nice if the subdivision penalty could be adjusted by the designer. In some contexts, it's quite inappropriate.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/28/2011 9:28:24 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 1566

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 9:35:38 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

Could always allow the scenario designer to scale AAA lethality.

If you look at GG War in the East it would seem he's been reading the wish list.

< Message edited by Panama -- 4/28/2011 9:37:10 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1567

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 10:51:44 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

+1

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations. And volume based supply. Quite a task for Ralph time wise, i know...

Yeah. Hierarchical OOB's would be nice. As it is, one winds up with independent combat formations on the same plane as 'support formations' consisting of army artillery, construction units, miscellaneous-brigades-that-actually-moved-around-a-lot, and so on.

It's not a crippling problem, but it's also not particularly good simulation.

Jarek the Pole once had a lovely idea about specifying what was in all the potential subdivided units. So you could have your panzer division -- and its panzer regiment, its panzergrenadier regiment, etc. Or tailored kampfgruppes. Conversely, task forces could be assembled from components. Like, you could reinforce an infantry regiment with a tank company.

Whatever you wanted. That'll keep Ralph busy.

Less ambitiously, it would be nice if the subdivision penalty could be adjusted by the designer. In some contexts, it's quite inappropriate.

Yes i remember Jarek's idea, was a good one. .. a bit like in WitE now.

Agree on the subdivision proficiency penalty.

I think it's all already in the wishlist.

quote:

I have no problem with any of your suggestions -- in particular, being able to reassign units would be nice -- but in general, I'd add a few caveats.

First, the system shouldn't grow so complex and arcane that it's inaccessible to new users. From some of the comments I've seen, it already pushes the envelope in that respect. I got into this because I could sit down and start playing without undue suffering. That aspect needs to be kept. Else we become the secret cell of the twelve players of TOAW.

Second, the improvements have to actually be good ones. One of the worst moments in this game's history was when ACOW replaced WGOTY -- and added a whole suite of weapons going back to the Napoleonic era without doing anything to actually allow for the differences in combat in different eras. As (and here I once again risk the wrath of the awful Curtis) several people have found, even if one does have the cannon and infantry types, this game still can't do the American Civil War very well. It irritates me to have weapons that don't actually simulate anything -- since they are essentially 'what if Johnny Reb was fighting in 1943?' Well, he wasn't, and that 'musket squad' in TOAW is a meaningless superfluity in a sense.

Third, particularly as more refinements are made, changes have a cost. That is to say, something is lost as well as something gained. Like, the 'new supply rules' may be fine 'n dandy -- but you can't use sea roads with them. Some bars to cheating were imposed -- and wrecked Ben's 'Grand Strategy,' which depended on being able to load ongoing PBEM games into the editor.

I tend to like changes that are elegant -- that produce a lot of improvement while adding a minimum of additional complexity. That are actually based on military fact. That address major flaws or holes in the system.

I dislike changes that actually move away from valid simulation. That add material that doesn't simulate anything that actually existed. That involve inordinate work and complexity for minimal gain. That leave the fundamental problem untouched. Like, AA has been fiddled with three times now. Until the essential problem -- that AA's primary impact isn't how many planes it shoots down -- is addressed, we really won't get very far.

When i first started COW it was very intuitive, you move this unit and this unit, all very accessible. And this it is still. For comparison: When i opened a HPS/PzC game for the first time it's been a nightmare... It took me quite a while until i found out how to move a unit...
So which comments do you mean? There have been a lot of questions regarding game options and the new menue. Also note that the tutorial(s) explain GUI things with the old options.

Regarding complexity, you're somehow painting it black with your 12 disciples of TOAW. I don't want to play Panzer General.. so a bit complexity is required. Also, look at WitE (again..). This is complex, but you can leave a lot of micromangement to the computer. That's the way it should be. And the quintessence of your post i would say.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 4/28/2011 10:53:30 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1568

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 10:58:41 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Could always allow the scenario designer to scale AAA lethality.

That's been done. However, the basic point is that even when it doesn't shoot down many planes, AA does a lot to protect targets.

Look up the history of those British vessels sunk off Crete. While the AA was banging away, not many German planes were going down -- but no British ships were getting sunk either.

It was when the formations got broken up -- and the AA ammunition ran out -- that the slaughter started.

Similarly, while I doubt that German flak inflicted crippling losses on Allied airpower in 1944-45, its presence allowed the German forces to retain some effectiveness. Had the Allies just been able to tee off on their targets the way the Germans could in 1939-1941, resistance would have indeed proved futile. Compared to the Germans in 1939-41, the Allies of 1944-45 had overwhelming air power.

Flak doesn't work by shooting down planes. That's a nice bonus, but it doesn't derive its effect from that. It derives its effect from forcing them to modify their behavior.

A classic example of this comes from the experience of the French tactical bombing squadrons in the opening days of the 1940 campaign. In common with some other forces of the period, they had a doctrine of coming in low and straight. Attacks on the first two days were quite effective -- but half the planes were getting shot down on each sortie.

Thereafter they started behaving differently. Still went on on sorties, but didn't suffer such heavy losses.

Also, didn't hit much. How flak works.

As I've said before, it's a bit like your local police department. How do you know they're having an effect? Because they shot 8532 people last year? No -- because every young punk doesn't just go out and find an old lady to beat up when he's a bit short of cash. They -- like flak -- force a change in behavior.

In my view, the effect of airpower should be -- absent flak -- several times what it is now. Aircraft are devastating against forces that have no effective defense.

However, that effect should be divided by the total AA power of the hex under attack. So a given number of aircraft attacking a given target would have a greater or lesser effect depending on the flak present. Naturally, a few planes would get shot down as well -- but that's not really the point.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/28/2011 11:18:20 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1569

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/28/2011 11:05:02 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think it's all already in the wishlist.

I could be wrong, but I have my suspicions about that wishlist...

When my mother was still alive, she would ask me to do this and that. I would tell her I'd put it down on my list of things to do.

She always found that reassuring...if you get my drift.

quote:

So which comments do you mean?

I've just noticed various newbies saying 'I don't get how to...'

Not that I'm saying we're already too complex. Just that obviously, there is some point at which those of us who are already familiar with the system will be comfortable, but newcomers would be lost.

It's a bit like the social conventions of some imaginary society. For those who have grown up in it, they're really no challenge at all. It doesn't follow that they can't get so arcane that newcomers will be at a loss.

It's just something to be borne in mind.

quote:

Regarding complexity, you're somehow painting it black with your 12 disciples of TOAW.

I'm not saying it is that way -- or even getting that way. After all, reality is the perfect simulation -- but in reality, it requires a full-time staff of a dozen to manage three units. That is not what we want. Obviously, at all times, some simplifications, omissions, and generalizations have to be made. When somebody proposes different categories of supply, for example, I ask -- well, how often does one run out but the other doesn't? If if isn't a chronic problem, do we really want to detail it?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/28/2011 11:25:47 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 1570

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 12:34:23 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I've just noticed various newbies saying 'I don't get how to...'

What they don't 'get how to' is read. They are usually too lazy to take the time to find the information themselves. One of the most common 'I don't get how to' is control the pop up when you are hovering over the map. Or how to get the right click menu. Both very simple but very commonly asked about.

This is a simple game. There isn't much reading to do. It's more along the lines of a Sim City game than a Victoria 2 game or GG War in the East game. Not a lot of rules.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1571

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 4:13:04 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

We want to see something that works 100% of the time. Roads/rails that cross rivers can be blowed up. Roads/rails that parallel rivers are not bridges, never were intended to be bridges and no amount of obfuscation can make them bridges so don't allow them to be destroyed.

And, again, that is exactly what the Matrix will do. Colin is still trying to convince you that road/rails that parallel rivers are bridges and should be treated as bridges. Don't buy his Kool-aid.

As I've demonstrated by referring to three completely different rivers flowing through completely different types of terrain, a road that appears to be 'paralleling' the river is as likely to contain the bridge as any other hex containing the river and the road.

This is up there (or down there) with your 'wadis are trenches' claim. Worse, this time you are asserting that you're actually going to impose your nonsense on the rest of us.

No, it is not. And it doesn't matter how often you repeat that idiotic claim. A road paralleling a river is vastly more likely to be paralleling the river, not veering back and forth across it over and over. That's what this whole discussion is about. No issue would have ever even been raised if players were ok with their opponents blowing a huge number of such hexes. They aren't and they are correct to feel that way.

The matrix fixes that exact problem for existing scenarios, and creates a way to set which hex has or doesn't have a bridge in it at the designer's pleasure that is equivalent to a dedicated tile set. It also has the advantages of being the simplest to program, gives players a natural graphical heads-up that there is or isn't a bridge in the hex, and, finally, potentially can solve the second issue about using a road to cross a river even though there isn't a crossing there.

It's better on every point. And, note that if it is optional, it isn't imposed on anyone.

And wadis obviously have trench properties (long depression in the ground). They don't have river properties (a water barrier).

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 4/29/2011 4:36:24 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1572

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 4:21:30 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Ummm...

Because the available graphics give them no choice?

Because in fact the road is in that hex?

Because moving it, aside from being inaccurate geographically, will create worse problems?

It seems to me that road winds up in that hex for about the same reasons anything winds up in any hex.

You want to substitute a routine that will declare some hexes bridges and others not without reference to the reality on the ground for a routine that at least has the virtue of simplicity and clarity. Currently, you put a road into a river hex, you know you're going to get a bridge. With your change, one will have to go -- 'oh this makes it a bridge. Now, how can I route things so that it's not a bridge?'

I still don't see any need for this. But, note that it is possible with the Matrix rules. See the attached version of your road-river map. Now there is no bridge in the lower hex and there is one in the upper hex. And the road is paralleling the river. And note that there are no game effects for the changes to the river. It will still function exactly as it did before.

Note that, while its appearance is not ideal, it would be wrong with a tile, too: the river crossing would be in the lower hex, while the bridge would be in the upper, and the road appear on the east, while it was actually on the west.

So, anything a designer could have done with a dedicated tile, they will be able to do with the Matrix rules.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1573

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 4:31:00 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 1574

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 5:27:13 PM

1_Lzard

Posts: 528
Joined: 8/18/2010
From: McMinnville, OR
Status: offline

Bob,

See my responce on the other forum, please....

Kurt

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1575

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 5:48:25 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So, anything a designer could have done with a dedicated tile, they will be able to do with the Matrix rules.

In other words, the damage this will do is minimal, and can be rectified with a bit of work.

Of course and on the other hand, there's no benefit at all. How about just not doing it?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/29/2011 5:55:10 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1576

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 5:49:08 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

We want to see something that works 100% of the time. Roads/rails that cross rivers can be blowed up. Roads/rails that parallel rivers are not bridges, never were intended to be bridges and no amount of obfuscation can make them bridges so don't allow them to be destroyed.

And, again, that is exactly what the Matrix will do. Colin is still trying to convince you that road/rails that parallel rivers are bridges and should be treated as bridges. Don't buy his Kool-aid.

As I've demonstrated by referring to three completely different rivers flowing through completely different types of terrain, a road that appears to be 'paralleling' the river is as likely to contain the bridge as any other hex containing the river and the road.

This is up there (or down there) with your 'wadis are trenches' claim. Worse, this time you are asserting that you're actually going to impose your nonsense on the rest of us.

No, it is not. And it doesn't matter how often you repeat that idiotic claim. A road paralleling a river is vastly more likely to be paralleling the river, not veering back and forth across it over and over. That's what this whole discussion is about. No issue would have ever even been raised if players were ok with their opponents blowing a huge number of such hexes. They aren't and they are correct to feel that way.

The matrix fixes that exact problem for existing scenarios, and creates a way to set which hex has or doesn't have a bridge in it at the designer's pleasure that is equivalent to a dedicated tile set. It also has the advantages of being the simplest to program, gives players a natural graphical heads-up that there is or isn't a bridge in the hex, and, finally, potentially can solve the second issue about using a road to cross a river even though there isn't a crossing there.

It's better on every point. And, note that if it is optional, it isn't imposed on anyone.

And wadis obviously have trench properties (long depression in the ground). They don't have river properties (a water barrier).

Sure Curtis. We recall the impressive arguments you posted at the time.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1577

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 5:51:44 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

This is valid -- if there are no restrictions and/or if the designer cannot control the effect.

On the other hand, for those of us who do more than just copy SPI games, there is a recurring problem.

When we look at actual history, reassignments occur continually. Units sometimes are 'sent all over the map.' The rigid, unchangeable formations of TOAW may be relatively easy to program, but they aren't accurate simulation.

I'd suggest a 'reassign formation' value that the designer could set at anything from 0 to 100% of that turn's movement allowance for the unit in question -- for each force -- or even disallow entirely.

Then too, if formations were hierarchical, and the supply, formation proficiency levels, and form'n orders set at each level, I imagine some bright spark could come up with some interesting effects. Like, you can have your 'SS Panzer Army' appear for the Ardennes offensive. Formations that are assigned to it might be in static deployment until der tag, but would have better supply than those not assigned, and would be able to build up strength for the upcoming offensive.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/29/2011 6:36:46 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1578

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 5:53:07 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

Bob,

See my responce on the other forum, please....

Kurt

WHAT other forum?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to 1_Lzard)

Post #: 1579

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 6:05:44 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

And just for the record...

'you repeat this idiotic claim'

'Don't buy his kool-aid,'

'only an imbecile would draw it that way'

'I know you're full of it'

'you can repeat your nonsense indefinitely'

'this endless deluge of stupidity.'

Ever notice that the weaker the point is you're attempting to make, the more abusive you become?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/29/2011 6:17:55 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1580

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 6:34:47 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I've just noticed various newbies saying 'I don't get how to...'

What they don't 'get how to' is read. They are usually too lazy to take the time to find the information themselves. One of the most common 'I don't get how to' is control the pop up when you are hovering over the map. Or how to get the right click menu. Both very simple but very commonly asked about.

This is a simple game. There isn't much reading to do. It's more along the lines of a Sim City game than a Victoria 2 game or GG War in the East game. Not a lot of rules.

Maybe you're right. Certainly some of the complaints seem to suggest the poster must have real problems figuring out door knobs.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/29/2011 6:38:04 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1581

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 7:39:10 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

Sure, and when the division HQ is overrun subordinate units will receive orders from who?

With your approach one may also ask why to distinguish between evergreen and normal (mixed) forests? Movement penalties and combat modifiers are the same. Why stick with two tiles?

< Message edited by Telumar -- 4/29/2011 10:38:16 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1582

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 10:34:41 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

Sure, and when the division HQ is overrun subordinate units will receive orders from who?

With your approach one may also ask why to distinct between evergreen and normal (mixed) forests? Movement penalties and combat modifiers are the same. Why stick with two tiles?

Hey. Telumar you are a genius. We wouldn't even need to make a new tile. Just do away with the useless redundant evergreen tile and make it a bridge tile by reworking effects.

_____________________________

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 1583

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/29/2011 10:40:49 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

Reassigning units between formations is critical. There are endless support units in every battle. Headquarters do die. Subordinate units can become too numerous due to changing circumstances. I could come up with a dozen reasons why to allow reassignment but only a couple why NOT to allow it.

And it wouldn't be the same as what we have now. You could actually restrict it in some fashion. Or better yet, allow the scenario desgner to restrict it. Why, it might even mirror real life. Imagine that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1584

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/30/2011 4:44:00 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

This is valid -- if there are no restrictions and/or if the designer cannot control the effect.

That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment? If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 1585

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/30/2011 5:14:32 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment?

Well, considering you will not entertain the possibility there can be no discussion with you about any of this. Before a serious discussion can be had there has to be some willingness on your part, doesn't there? All we get is smoke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

Until you are willing to seriously give this some consideration all of this is more useless banter.

Imagine, if you will, if you could come up with a workable system for TOAW. One that would not just be useful for the theatres you are a fan of, but for all theatres and times covered by the game. What would you do?

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1586

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/30/2011 8:48:52 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment?

Well, considering you will not entertain the possibility there can be no discussion with you about any of this. Before a serious discussion can be had there has to be some willingness on your part, doesn't there? All we get is smoke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

Until you are willing to seriously give this some consideration all of this is more useless banter.

Imagine, if you will, if you could come up with a workable system for TOAW. One that would not just be useful for the theatres you are a fan of, but for all theatres and times covered by the game. What would you do?

I'm with Panama in this. We had the OOB/hierarchy/assignment discussion before.

Just two things before we leave the battlefield to Colin and Bob again

. Bob, imagine there is volume based supply (which you said you will advocate/push for it). And a hierarchical OOB. That doesn't ring any bells about further possibilities of a hierarchical OOB, doesn't it?

I also think Elmer could benefit from it. I.e. he would not only check formation by formation, but "down" the OOB hierarchy for things like i.e. wether he is flanked or not.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 4/30/2011 8:49:50 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 1587

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 1:32:40 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

Yes but -- unless I missed something -- you're setting up a straw man. No one proposed that it be totally free.

I'd say it's fairly obvious that there should be a cost. Make it something like embarking, in that a unit can only do it if it hasn't expended movement points, and something like entrenching, in that it consumes the rest of the turn for that unit. Hopefully, of course, the designer could set that cost as a percentage for each force. Like, it'll cost 0% of your move, or 10%, or 50%, or 100%. Alternatively, the cost could be expressed as a decline in readiness and/or supply -- which seems more appropriate, actually. Getting to know the quartermaster at XII corps. Learning never to try sending a request to General Stickinbutt that isn't on the proper form...

It's possible it would all just be too hard...but that's an unknown. There's certainly no reason to dismiss the idea in principle. And it would make our forces look more like forces. After all, right now 'Transcaucasus Front' is just an agglomeration of various support units plus some divisions that moved around a lot. It has no relationship to its subordinate armies at all.

And the idea here is simulation. I see other needs that are even more imperative, but this'd be in my top twenty.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/1/2011 1:34:26 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1588

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 4:11:45 PM

jmlima

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment? If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

(just my 2 � cents)

Well, referring to other computer games, instead of boardgames who for reasons of their own are developed in a very different way, if you look at V4V / W@W, you could re-assign almost to your heart's content, but, given that there is only a finite amount of supply, the more units an HQ had, the more supply it would require, this in turn restricted supply to your other HQ's, with the consequence that, at some point you would have one functional HQ and several non-functional ones. Also, there was a limit to how many units an HQ could handle efficiently, that is, a regimental HQ could only handle x number of units, a divisional one could handle y, hence putting an effective limit onto the number of units you could pass to one HQ.

In there, there were several benefits of having a unit assigned to a particular HQ, one of them, given that the games modelled some significant individual commanders having a unit assigned to one of those commander's HQ would give it some bonuses , etc.

Of course, in the end, it's all down to the objectives of TOAW development, if you're looking to have a game that is aimed at newbie's, then these ideas are pointless and will indeed only add 'headaches' to game play, if you're aiming some notches higher then it's a different ball game and you need to consider things like these. If you try for both, then you probably will end up pleasing none of the two groups.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 1589

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/1/2011 4:37:45 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

I don't know about anyone else, but one of the things I feel that needs to be focused on is making the game flexible. That flexibility can be used by scenario designers to make scenarios simple, for newcomers, to complex, for grognards.

When people argue that something will make the game too hard then make that something optional for the scenario designer. Why does everything have to be mandatory? If this game engine is a game design tool then make it that. Sheesh. IMO everything in the game engine should be optional or adjustable by the guy making the scenario. If you are a scenario designer who wants to make a scenario for new players then you can leave out the things that you feel would make a scenario too complex for a beginner. If you want to make a scenario for hardcore wargamers throw in all the bells and whistles available.

The hierachy and reassignment ideas can be optional just as the new supply rules are. Just as the png graphics are. Just as supply levels are. I can go on and on. But just dismissing something out of hand because one person thinks it would make the game 'too hard' is not rational.

Having said that, it all comes down to a progarmming problem for Ralph or whoever else has to muck through the code. I don't know if the code looks like a plate of spaghetti or if it's orderly. If Ralph says something is impossible or far too hard, so be it. I'm just one of the end users.

_____________________________

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 1590

Page: << < prev 51 52 [53] 54 55 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist