Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeMarchant_ssl

The idea that only a single AFV can occupy a space greater than 1000 square metres, or that one AFV can't pass another in such a space is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

If the intention is to model ASL all well and good, but there's no reason to model the really stupid bits.


Best Wishes

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gerry

Bypass in ASL could be used by tanks and infantry for bypassing buildings and woods hexsides.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gerry

In the first example a tank with reliability problems immobilized on the first start. Notice there is no place for the other ones to move to!

Second example not quite so bad as I can move around the OOC tank.

Please consider allowing tanks to drive through a hex containing another tank. I don't want two tanks per hex, just to drive through. I don't mind losing in games but this restriction is taking away a lot of the fun.

Second example in next post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: idjester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gerry

In the first example a tank with reliability problems immobilized on the first start. Notice there is no place for the other ones to move to!

Second example not quite so bad as I can move around the OOC tank.

Please consider allowing tanks to drive through a hex containing another tank. I don't want two tanks per hex, just to drive through. I don't mind losing in games but this restriction is taking away a lot of the fun.

Second example in next post.

Gerry I do get your point but a D2 map can look deceiving when you compare that to reality. There isn't 1000 meters of free space between those building and we sometime forget the realities of war when looking at a D2 map. Hardly even did a tank or vehicle pass another one when they were moving unless they were in open landscape.

Just ask the British soldiers at Arnhem about this. They were told their relief force was coming from just miles away and would be there shortly but these reinforcements were attacked by a few German soldiers, which blew up some of the lead tanks. Since they were traveling down a single lane road these units ground to a halt. They could go nowhere for days until they removed the tanks that were in front. 4 miles of vehicles stacked up behind a few broken down tanks.

The reality of this situation is that you can’t just drive around a vehicle because one broke down in front of you. There normally isn’t the space, there isn’t the maneuverability, and the time and effort to undertake this just wasn’t feasible.

As mentioned above we don’t want to get into a situation where by-pass movement is the way to go because of the logistics of worrying about hexspine movement, broken units in by-pass movement, and LOS with a unit in by-pass. It boils down to need verses want.

Maybe this will get changed in a future update to TOTH if Peter thinks it is important but I just wanted to give a different perspective on the situation which we can’t see when we are looking at a 2D map.

idjester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeMarchant_ssl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

Totally understandable, Peter, but what about allowing AFVs to pass each other, rather than occupy the same hex? How much work would that involve?


Best Wishes

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: casebier

can immobilization be made an option?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Allowing two vehicles per hex is a huge undertaking and it impacts almost every area of the game engine.

1) It would require to modify the game database and scenario file structure as well as game editor.

2) Almost all the game rules, Fire, movement, stacking, close combat, AI would need to be modified.

We are talking months of work here, it's a major re-design/development impact on the game engine; not something that I'm really interested in. I made a decision early on in the development to only allow one vehicle per hex. The impact on the game development was big, from the game play perspective the impact is not so big - from my point of view.

quote:

TotH is a very good game standing on its own as we will be reminded (ad nauseum)
by ASL elitist and thats fine by me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

Peter, just thinking out loud but as a "work around", would it be possible code the game to allow vehicles to enter building hexes, even with a large MP cost? Something like that would lessen the impact of bottle-necking and simulate finding a bypass route but with obvoius drowback of slowing the following vehicles down but not totally stopping forward movement?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

Peter, just thinking out loud but as a "work around", would it be possible code the game to allow vehicles to enter building hexes, even with a large MP cost? Something like that would lessen the impact of bottle-necking and simulate finding a bypass route but with obvoius drowback of slowing the following vehicles down but not totally stopping forward movement?

You can, just be prepared that your AFV may Bog down (fully-tracked that is, half-tracks and armored cars cannot enter buildings, check out Appendix C on page 71). AI however doesn't consider moving through buildings...