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  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/4/2011 11:52:06 PM   
Toan

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/24/2007
Status: offline 		Maybe I missed it but how about
1. Eng. units that can build Ports, Air Fields, reguler terrain to trail, upgrade to road, upgrade to hiway, etc.
2. MI units that can ID enemy units within X hexes
3. Editable recon capability
4. New Terrain - Mangrove swamps, swamps (or combinable forest and marsh), Combinable Mountain and Forest/Jungle (where I live mountains are covered with trees), Villages (rural), Rice Paddies, Orchards, Plantation (tea/rubber etc)
5. Naval Helicopter Capability

More Later

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1741
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/15/2011 8:53:38 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Sorry to post this here, but it's important.

America stopped being a free country today. Obama just failed to veto Congress' bill giving the military the power to detain -- indefinitely, without trial -- anyone they suspect of terrorism.

Inside the US, or out. Citizen or no. They need never justify their decision. Pop you into the hatch, and that'll be that.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Toan)
Post #: 1742
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/15/2011 9:03:40 PM   
jmlima

 

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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Sorry to post this here, but it's important.

America stopped being a free country today. Obama just failed to veto Congress' bill giving the military the power to detain -- indefinitely, without trial -- anyone they suspect of terrorism.

Inside the US, or out. Citizen or no. They need never justify their decision. Pop you into the hatch, and that'll be that.


There's even far worst things brewing in governments corridors, and not only in the US.

They are afraid.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1743
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/15/2011 9:17:06 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		The definition of 'terrorism' is very broad, and includes any act that would cost major corporations money. Beware the whistleblowers and lawsuit bringers.

(in reply to jmlima)
Post #: 1744
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/15/2011 9:48:17 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		Oh, great! Let's get the Comprehensive Wishlist thread locked!

You know political discussion is not permitted on this board. Take this somewhere else.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1745
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/15/2011 9:56:09 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline 		In this thread or on this board?

The execution of OBL has been frenetically celebrated on this board. Why not mourn the death of the American Republic?

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1746
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 12/16/2011 4:22:08 AM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Telumar

In this thread or on this board?

The execution of OBL has been frenetically celebrated on this board. Why not mourn the death of the American Republic?


I'm not the monitor. But I don't want this thread to get locked. If he had opened his own thread I wouldn't have said anything. Someone else might, but I wouldn't.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 1747
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 1/1/2012 4:03:40 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		Attached is a zip file containing the wishlist document that Jarek Flis and I have been developing for months. It was developed by collecting the wishes expressed here, there, and everywhere. We've tried to be comprehensive, but, in spite of the label, that is unattainable. We'll try to continue to maintain it as more issues are raised. Hopefully, this will reduce the repetitive posting of the same wishes over and over.

It's very important that everyone understand that this document is totally unofficial. Be sure to read and understand the disclaimer it contains and repeated here:

Disclaimer: This document contains only a collection of WISHES made by anyone and everyone, and is not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein.

January 1, 2012: Version 12 posted.

Note: I'm not able to delete the version 10 document attached to post #1 of this thread or the version 11 document posted in post #1378. Just ignore them till I can get it fixed - if ever. The version in this post is the latest version.

Note that items in red are new. Items in blue have been implemented.

Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displaylang=en

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1748
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 2/2/2012 4:31:43 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/2/2012 5:09:32 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1749
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/7/2012 9:46:12 PM   
Grognard


Posts: 216
Joined: 6/24/2004
From: Madison, Wisconsin
Status: offline 		Wishlist:

Give the heavy weapons icon(s) the ranged support (ie artillery) capability.

and clarification:

I'm not saying HW units should be classified as arty - because with the exception of mortars they are largely direct fire weapons. It's the ranged support aspect that should allow them to indirectly participate in combat as HQ's currently can. This also presupposes average effective ranges of about 3,000 m

There are currently 6 heavy weapons icons - 2 armor (heavy tank & heavy SP AT) and 4 other (inf, mountain inf, motorized inf, mountain cav, and airmobile inf). The armor could be negotiable as that might be a can of worms differentiating HE indirect fire (and only if that AFV was capable) with ranges out to 10 km or more. But I think giving infantry HW a standoff capability would enhance realism. At smaller scales (1 or 2.5 km/hex) this might translate into a 2 hex range and allow HW units to be placed behind frontline units which intuitively just seems more appropriate.

_____________________________

Find 'em, Fix 'em, & Kill 'em

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1750
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/7/2012 10:40:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Wishlist:

Give the heavy weapons icon(s) the ranged support (ie artillery) capability.

and clarification:

I'm not saying HW units should be classified as arty - because with the exception of mortars they are largely direct fire weapons. It's the ranged support aspect that should allow them to indirectly participate in combat as HQ's currently can. This also presupposes average effective ranges of about 3,000 m

There are currently 6 heavy weapons icons - 2 armor (heavy tank & heavy SP AT) and 4 other (inf, mountain inf, motorized inf, mountain cav, and airmobile inf). The armor could be negotiable as that might be a can of worms differentiating HE indirect fire (and only if that AFV was capable) with ranges out to 10 km or more. But I think giving infantry HW a standoff capability would enhance realism. At smaller scales (1 or 2.5 km/hex) this might translate into a 2 hex range and allow HW units to be placed behind frontline units which intuitively just seems more appropriate.


See item 4.16 in the Wishlist.

(in reply to Grognard)
Post #: 1751
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/8/2012 5:35:55 AM   
Grognard


Posts: 216
Joined: 6/24/2004
From: Madison, Wisconsin
Status: offline 		Thank you Bob. I scanned the wishlist prior to posting but missed this. Sorry.

What, or how, would the secondary icon or its effect be represented in the interface?

BTW - I finally scavanged enough change from under the cushions in my sofa to buy the game and updated to 3.4. The first scenario I immediately dove into was CFNA (3). Boy howdy it's a very different (and better) game all 'round - Elmer is considerably improved. But the Tobruk minefields are giving me fits!
Did you want them to be able to attack (not just defend) with such brutal effectiveness? A single minefield attack on one unit or a green stack is producing 25-30% casualties. However, I'll still be in Cairo before turn 70.

One more observation: I'm getting a lot more RBC's (for and against) involving relatively strong defenders - surprisingly so. E.g. - the 3-7 Polish Armored Cav pushed my 13-16 2nd MG Bn around. It was > 70% supply/ready. I RBC'd a green 4-8 Aus Inf bn to elimination with an Italian 7-12 Mech.
Just sayin'

< Message edited by Grognard -- 3/8/2012 6:37:12 AM >

_____________________________

Find 'em, Fix 'em, & Kill 'em

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1752
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 3/8/2012 4:24:30 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Grognard

Thank you Bob. I scanned the wishlist prior to posting but missed this. Sorry.

What, or how, would the secondary icon or its effect be represented in the interface?


It would only be visible in the Force Editor. The Primary Icon would show in the game. But their effects would be combined.

quote:

BTW - I finally scavanged enough change from under the cushions in my sofa to buy the game and updated to 3.4. The first scenario I immediately dove into was CFNA (3). Boy howdy it's a very different (and better) game all 'round - Elmer is considerably improved. But the Tobruk minefields are giving me fits!
Did you want them to be able to attack (not just defend) with such brutal effectiveness? A single minefield attack on one unit or a green stack is producing 25-30% casualties. However, I'll still be in Cairo before turn 70.


Yeah, that's the thing - even the PO can still take Tobruk early. I figure, if you're sitting in a minefield, enemy attacks will be more lethal.

quote:

One more observation: I'm getting a lot more RBC's (for and against) involving relatively strong defenders - surprisingly so. E.g. - the 3-7 Polish Armored Cav pushed my 13-16 2nd MG Bn around. It was > 70% supply/ready. I RBC'd a green 4-8 Aus Inf bn to elimination with an Italian 7-12 Mech.
Just sayin'


Machineguns may be passive equipment, as I recall. You have to have a minimum of 4:1 odds to have any chance of RBC. But passive equipment doesn't count in the odds determination. Not sure about the Aussies - there's probably some of that that is passive, but I wouldn't have expected much.

(in reply to Grognard)
Post #: 1753
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/23/2012 8:04:14 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displaylang=en


When I click on this link it takes me to a blank page.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1754
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/23/2012 8:19:58 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=4

Leads to this:

" PK zPž? *£ ‚ Comprehensive Wishlist v12.docìý ˜$YY/ŒG3¬B1 È&AÃôdAVVW/³4 ..."

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1755
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/23/2012 10:25:00 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displaylang=en


When I click on this link it takes me to a blank page.


Try this link:

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,5256-order,1/description.html

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1756
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/24/2012 6:34:34 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displaylang=en


When I click on this link it takes me to a blank page.


Try this link:

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,5256-order,1/description.html


"PK zPž? *£ ‚ - Comprehensive Wishlist v12.docìý ˜$YY/ŒG3B1 È&AÃôdAVVW/³4
Z½M7L/ÓÕ3
ÈbTfTULgf$ ™]]£ŸÈEÙD¼t ÍU e»× E Q QYD@v \Ø v˜ïý½Ë9'"³º‹-|îÿù?_c8•±œõ=ï¾üÃßßíS/yí}? Uþ="º(úá-wŠn-Ü»-]oÙ¤?.‰¢?§¿ñó‡·Ür
n½‘~¼‰®?£ëÍtÝòÿýûÿùÿõŠ¿ˆ- Ý [{÷·¹•ÍþûÜ&ºk4ãü_?ñõ ÑÈ¿;Ýö^ÑOï¸(zîÕ›øúÃ;Þfô¥àß-·\|Þ¿íßãùÿ¿æ‘ûoø÷zÿýÉ …¿ºíùÿÛ¢ÿÖn E¿ºÉ߿Ͻ¢è ô{éNòû|ÿÝó ãÿû‰{F ÖãS÷”ß ùïCè¿Ë÷Ž¢oPÿ'ï E7ÑoZäH_)ý³y[ÕëËþ‹vñïïõwu=m~ö ¿? Ü·ïªÿEû»¢Ñvª¿?1nRÑè>oßÃõÆ?ŒãÔ üxöÝ=Šn ÿž¡ç?7æû
ýgýÙ|^I¨ò-Øð‡]ý»wùë÷nªÎãÿ¡ñ £ÿ¾Ÿ¾»Kµ±ÿkÿö 9tôؾ û..."



_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1757
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/24/2012 12:20:27 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Colin,

send me an email and you get the wish list as .pdf. Not sure why the free word viewer ain't work.

Klink, Oberst


_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1758
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/24/2012 2:35:10 PM   
Panama


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

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Colin,

send me an email and you get the wish list as .pdf. Not sure why the free word viewer ain't work.

Klink, Oberst



Downloaded both versions and installed. On the four different machines I have it works great. My guess is it isn't a Word Viewer problem.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 1759
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/24/2012 6:32:34 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Colin,

send me an email and you get the wish list as .pdf. Not sure why the free word viewer ain't work.

Klink, Oberst



Downloaded both versions and installed. On the four different machines I have it works great. My guess is it isn't a Word Viewer problem.


Thank God for Oberst's offer. My guess -- amply confirmed -- is that I've already sunk considerably more time into this problem than I'd wish to. We'll work on getting the boat ready for the next fishing trip, mapping more of the Sahara, actually depositing that rent check, seeing if the car is persisting in its oil leak, making sure we don't miss any good wines passing through Trader Joe's, plotting our eventual escape to Kuaui, finishing the deck so as to shut up the wife -- but not making frigging computers do something they clearly don't want to do.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1760
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/24/2012 6:33:24 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Colin,

send me an email and you get the wish list as .pdf. Not sure why the free word viewer ain't work.

Klink, Oberst



Sent. I was quietly hoping there'd be some good Samaritan out there. Thank you.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 1761
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 1:59:45 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		This one's not so hot:

"9.17.1 Embarked units must assault unrevealed anchorage hexes, even if they prove to be unoccupied."

One could easily be landing somewhere where there is little likelihood of opposition even if the hex isn't 'revealed.' While absurdities may occur with the current system, the change seems more likely to simply produce different absurdities than to actually produce a net improvement.

If, for example, I have a Boer War scenario, and the British come up with some idea involving debarking on the Natal coast or whatever, the prospective anchorage might well not be revealed -- but they'd hardly feel it necessary to prepare for a full-on naval assault. Probably send a boat in an hour ahead of time to make sure there are no surprises waiting -- but I can't see this rule working well in such a case.

Similarly with Japanese landing in New Guinea in early 1942, and no doubt others can come up with other cases.

As so often, if such an effect could be controlled in the editor, that would resolve the objection. However, the programming cost may be excessive, in which case it seems best to me to refrain from an 'improvement' of dubious value.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/25/2012 3:19:53 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1762
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 2:21:59 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Many of the other proposed naval changes sound good, but those under the 'revolutionary' section don't.

"9.16.1 Ships would be subject to damage. This would cause reduction in capability as appropriate. It would require repair. Sinking would be caused by 100% damage only. Naval units would not “evaporate” as land units do. They would only be eliminated if all ships in them were “sunk”. Damaged ships would not be returned to the pools – they would have to get back to port under their own power, debilitated by whatever damage they had incurred."

This seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In the scale and time frame OPART deals in, it's practically the opposite of reality. Take Crete: only a quarter or so of the Mediterranean Fleet was literally sunk -- but another two quarters was so damaged as to be unserviceable for various lengths of time.

Destroyers leaking from near misses can't put to sea again with reduced efficiency -- they have to dock and be repaired, or they'll sink. They're out, or they're in. Rarely are they coming back out of port but with only half of their original fighting strength.

The current system actually handles this about right. In OPART terms, all three-quarters of the Mediterranean fleet would be 'sunk' off Crete. Then the replacement engine will reluctantly dispense about half of the losses back over time.

And that's about what happened. A quarter were sunk for good, another quarter were so badly damaged as to be out of service for the duration of any reasonable TOAW scenario, and the third quarter were indeed repairable over the next few weeks or so.

In general, the whole thing seems to suffer from attempting to take a tactical approach to what is, after all, an operational level game ('Ships can have a secondary armament – with different range and shell weight from main armament...9.16.2 Modeling of catastrophic hits that detonate magazines.').

Sorry, but it's my guess that all this should be junked. If not junked, at least make it optional. It'll make matters worse rather than better. Get a stand-alone tactical naval game if that's what you want. This is like trying to make OPART do your taxes. It's not the right engine for the application.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/25/2012 2:30:40 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1763
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 2:34:46 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		'8.34.3 Alternate: Player option to set a divisor value for the unit. Both the unit’s remaining MPs and interdiction chances would be divided by that value.'

That's outstanding. Simple, elegant, and fairly accurate.

It's likely to prove cumbersome to do it unit by unit, though. Setting a default for the entire force, moving those units for which one has concerns, then turning the default off to move the rest of the force and/or toggling back and forth as needed would be better, if not necessarily practical to program.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/25/2012 3:18:06 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1764
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 2:39:53 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		'7.33 Attack Planner table showing percent chance of success – like old style CRT'

It won't be the end of the world if this appears -- but it appears to ignore the way OPART works.

The whole effectiveness of the system owes much to the fact that there are so many contributing variables that one has to go with one's gut feeling, modified by experience ('hmm...these guys actually seem to give way pretty easily -- let's try popping more of them with reduced forces').

But you don't know. You aren't given any terribly definitive data. It's like actual battle in that respect -- and this is a good thing.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/25/2012 3:32:14 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1765
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 2:42:39 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		'7.32 Ability of a fresh unit to replace an existing fortified unit in a location – gaining its fortified deployment immediately.'

Also outstanding. In an ideal world, there'd be some chance that your turn would end and you'd discover that the fortification hadn't 'took.' This would simulate units being caught relieving other units.

...But that'd take some research to work out just how often it happened and just how catastrophic the effects were. I'll take this one as is.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1766
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 2:53:42 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		"...6.38 Explicitly model tank-carrying trucks.
6.38.1 Would be used when moving over friendly territory – no tank breakdown, fast motorized speed..."

Excessively detailed, of dubious importance -- was there ever a force which found itself unable to move up tanks on account of no tank carriers?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/25/2012 3:43:16 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1767
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 2:59:31 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		'2.44 Bridge repair made non-random:
2.44.1 Less than 100% engineer attempts would be accumulated over time and between units, till 100% was reached. So a 25% engineer would take exactly four turns to repair a bridge.'

Been through that. For the reasons I gave at the time, I don't think this is necessarily a good idea.

However, it has its virtues, and either way, it won't exactly break the game. In general, though, I oppose efforts to make things completely predictable and controllable. Actual war tends to be just the opposite.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1768
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 3:03:42 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		"2.45 Make terrain effects cumulative for both movement and combat."

That sucks. How do you square this with not wrecking previous scenarios? I, for one, have mapped many things on the assumption that effects aren't cumulative.

...and I don't want them to be. Some hills are wooded. They're not uber-hills on that account -- on the whole, they're fairly average hills. Now I can't put in the trees unless I want to see the hills become that much more formidable. So much for Merrie Olde Englande in Seelowe -- all those hills are going to have to become bald whether they are or not.

The only way this could work is if it's designer option. As a fixed setting, it's an extremely bad idea.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/25/2012 3:16:25 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1769
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 4/25/2012 3:06:06 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		'4.7.2 “Minimum dividable unit size” designer setting. This would replace the “section” workaround.'

Good.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1770
Page:   <<   < prev  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
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  57 58 [59] 60 61   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

0.828