RE: Interface Wish List

RE: Interface Wish List (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

rhinobones -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 4:05:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious A simple and elegant solution has been proposed on another forum: that units which remain engaged after each round of combat should be frozen whilst the player sets up a new set of attacks. A failed check against force proficiency would still end the turn. This satisfies me entirely This sounds a lot like a suggestion I made to the TDG. At the time it wasn’t all that well thought out and therefore, was not well received. Mostly my fault for not providing a clear explanation. The suggestion did not use proficiency, but instead communications as the check. A unit out of communications would continue with the last set of orders received. After the completion of a round, and when at least one unit passed the communications check, the round stopped and orders could be issued to all units which had passed the communications check. In fact, it would be possible for a unit failing the communications check to continue with orders received during a previous turn. My thought was that those units closest to a HQ were most likely to be available for new orders while units out in space would be unlikely to pass the communications check. The formula for deciding the communications check would certainly need to be adjusted for the era, map and time scale. Conceptually the game would not necessarily stop after every round, but would only stop when at least one unit was eligible to receive orders, otherwise, the rounds would continue to burn. Also, it could be possible that at the beginning of round 1 a unit would fail the communications check and therefore, be unavailable for new orders. Maybe the rounds should always automatically stop after round #9; just to give the troops an opportunity to dig in. Regards, RhinoBones

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 5:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial Thats my ideal solution, too, (except for the early turn ending!) problem is that it would probably require quite a lot of code-rewrite, so as an intermediate solution I could live with units breaking off an attack and beeing able to be given new orders again. No, I see that level of control over a battle as being worse than the current situation. Frankly, if you play carefully turn-burners only come up once in every twenty turns anyway. quote: Ideally, when the unit is locked in combat as you proposed, I get an option to break off combat, with the other unit (maybe based on its proficiency/loss settin) getting a chance for an immediate counter-push (similar to an disengagement attack). After this counterattack the unit should return to its original hex and fortification status. That's not bad. The way disengagement works is ideal for this, though it'd have to be assumed to be disengaging from the enemy held hex- that is, from a hex with no friendly units in it. quote: none of these come even close to the situation an early turn ending or turn-burn produces, as it would mean that because for example something goes wrong with the attack of one division, 6 army groups suddenly stop whatever they are doing for x days. Well the point at debate is early turn ending due to a failed check against force proficiency. I think this is vital to simulate a miscalculation at the higher levels of command leading to the other side being able to take the initiative. The designer can always make this failure impossible with 100% force proficiency if he wants (though there are other effects of such a setting). quote: 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 see. I thought you were talking about things a little earlier than that. quote: 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 hope you were on "minimise losses".

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 5:45:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones This sounds a lot like a suggestion I made to the TDG. I thought so. I namedropped you in another post. quote: At the time it wasn’t all that well thought out and therefore, was not well received. Mostly my fault for not providing a clear explanation. The suggestion did not use proficiency, but instead communications as the check. A unit out of communications would continue with the last set of orders received. You misunderstand me. I was refering to the existing check against force proficiency which occurs at the end of every set of attacks. quote: After the completion of a round, and when at least one unit passed the communications check, the round stopped and orders could be issued to all units which had passed the communications check. In fact, it would be possible for a unit failing the communications check to continue with orders received during a previous turn. I prefer them carrying on with their attack just the same as they do now- only with the player able to issue orders to other units in the force at intervals (possibly set by the designer). Industrial's suggestion of allowing units to break off with a disengagement penalty rounds this off nicely. I don't think units which are engaged in combat should be able to pause and go off and do something else- no matter how close they are to their HQ. quote: Maybe the rounds should always automatically stop after round #9; just to give the troops an opportunity to dig in. I don't think so. This then eliminates the possibility of attacking troops being caught unprepared by a well-timed counterattack.

Chuck2 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 6:00:15 AM)
There is something called max rounds per battle now. Works reasonably well. It's up to the designers to go back and set in their scenarios.

dobeln -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 10:49:01 AM)
"There is something called max rounds per battle now. Works reasonably well. It's up to the designers to go back and set in their scenarios." Yea, I thought I saw something about scenario designers being able to limit turn burn in TOAW III - should be good for the monster scenarios.

Erik2 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 12:18:35 PM)
One simple thing, I'd like to be able to use group movement for ships. I've designed a couple of scenarios with a lot of individual ships and its a chore moving them one at a time. Also group movement allows escorts to move with seatransports. Another simple (?) addition, allow most infantry-type unit icons to be allowed movement between airbases. The units should ideally not divide when entering the new aribase. Currently you have to fudge with using glider/para symbols to allow pure airtransport of units. Thanks Erik

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 1:07:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 There is something called max rounds per battle now. Works reasonably well. It's up to the designers to go back and set in their scenarios. quote: Me I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not. [8D]

dobeln -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 2:23:37 PM)
"I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not." Sounds reasonable to me.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 4:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard Another simple (?) addition, allow most infantry-type unit icons to be allowed movement between airbases. The designer needs to have a lot of control over this. Some armies (i.e. the Germans) used this a lot more than others.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 4:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not. You can go into the editor and change this if you want. However, think of it like this; Would you consider it reasonable for players to want to go into the editor and halve or double the attrition divider? The change you're proposing players be able to make as idly as they please can be just about as dramatic, and could wreck the scenario. Leaving it in the scenario editor- where it is still accessible to anyone who wants to change it- makes it clear that this is not a playability option, but rather something which is fundamental to the design of the scenario.

Legun -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 4:35:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard One simple thing, I'd like to be able to use group movement for ships. I've designed a couple of scenarios with a lot of individual ships and its a chore moving them one at a time. Also group movement allows escorts to move with seatransports. Another simple (?) addition, allow most infantry-type unit icons to be allowed movement between airbases. The units should ideally not divide when entering the new aribase. Currently you have to fudge with using glider/para symbols to allow pure airtransport of units. Thanks Erik Both request can be easyly answered by the composite units - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1190477. You just need to define "task force" counters allowing groupment of naval units and "airlift" empty units. However, it could be nice to add a group of land units, with ability to be transfered from airfield to airfields only.

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 5:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not. You can go into the editor and change this if you want. However, think of it like this; Would you consider it reasonable for players to want to go into the editor and halve or double the attrition divider? The change you're proposing players be able to make as idly as they please can be just about as dramatic, and could wreck the scenario. Leaving it in the scenario editor- where it is still accessible to anyone who wants to change it- makes it clear that this is not a playability option, but rather something which is fundamental to the design of the scenario. Sure, and while we are at it we shoudl move the option to switch FogOfWar on/off to the editor, active disengagement, command and control, heck, as the decision to play with standart rules instead of advance rules in itself will disable so many features, it should be outright removed from the game so that players can no longer fiddle with the scenario designers idea of how to play his work. [/sarcasm] Attrition divider is a setting thats specific to each scenario and can change the look&feel of a scenario quite drastically, so there is a good reason why it's only available through the scenario editor, but turns are universal to each scenario, each scenario no matther what size scale or year is based on 10 turns, and as I can't imagine any scenario that would break by allowing both players to have guaranteed 10 combat rounds I dont understand why you won't allow the players access to such a feature? Early turn endings and turn burns are no 'fundamental features' of a scenario, I dont think that any scenario designer would design his scenario with turn burns in mind as: Player 1 will have 50% turn burns on average, so I model my scenario around that assumption. Quite on the contrary, disableing turn-burn effects and early-turn endings _should_ be a playability feature, the player deserves to have controle over it's setting.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 7:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial heck, as the decision to play with standart rules instead of advance rules in itself will disable so many features, it should be outright removed from the game so that players can no longer fiddle with the scenario designers idea of how to play his work. Tempting. Certainly it's current position directly under the mouse pointer after selecting which scenario to play has forced me to restart a scenario on more than one occasion. I suppose some new players may find this setting useful, though. quote: Attrition divider is a setting thats specific to each scenario and can change the look&feel of a scenario quite drastically, so there is a good reason why it's only available through the scenario editor, but turns are universal to each scenario, each scenario no matther what size scale or year is based on 10 turns, and as I can't imagine any scenario that would break by allowing both players to have guaranteed 10 combat rounds I dont understand why you won't allow the players access to such a feature? It would absolutely break a good number of scenarios. For example in Seelowe the British player has to operate under the knowledge that his turn could end at any point, reflecting the rather better German operational art at this time, and the relatively amateur nature of the British army being portrayed in the scenario. Your change would remove this burden from the British player, and suddenly his force will be able to launch intricate and dynamic attacks without fear of dislocation. Not right at all. Really, at the root of all this is the fact that players find early turn endings annoying. No doubt. However they're a vital part of the simulation as it stands. It could be improved (as I and Rhinobones have outlined) - but removing them altogether is not the solution.

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 9:08:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious It would absolutely break a good number of scenarios. For example in Seelowe the British player has to operate under the knowledge that his turn could end at any point, reflecting the rather better German operational art at this time, and the relatively amateur nature of the British army being portrayed in the scenario. Your change would remove this burden from the British player, and suddenly his force will be able to launch intricate and dynamic attacks without fear of dislocation. Not right at all. Without looking up that specific scenarios I can think of several ways as to how to simulate a brittle defender better, like lowering the proficiency of his divisions, setting his formations on internal support and lowering force communication level, besides hoping for early turn endings to simulate operational weaknesses. If a scenario relies on potential turn-burns or early turn-endings to simulate the weakness of one force than something is substantially wrong with that scenario. I know that we currently will run in some problems with guaranteed 10-turns, but thats simply because of other quirks of TOAW which are for ex. supply drain attacks. Guaranteed 10 turns would make supply drain attacks far to strong, so this needs to be corrected in the same patch, easisest by making the supply lost for the defender proportional to the attacking force size compared to the defenders size. So 3 towed 37mm AT guns attacking an infantry division should lose something like 50% of their supply from that attack (if not outright destroyed) while the defender should suffer only 1% or even no supply loss. Next thing would be to change the entranchment progress relative to the remaining movement points, and than there wont be any reason left of how guaranteed 10 combat rounds could lead to possible exploits. Force behavior can be far better simulated by tweaking some of the many force-related settings of TOAW, without even having to think about turn-burns or early turn endings.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 9:38:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial Without looking up that specific scenarios I can think of several ways as to how to simulate a brittle defender better, like lowering the proficiency of his divisions, setting his formations on internal support and lowering force communication level, besides hoping for early turn endings to simulate operational weaknesses. That's just it, though- on the defence the British Army is just fine. It's in counterattacking that they have problems. quote: If a scenario relies on potential turn-burns or early turn-endings to simulate the weakness of one force than something is substantially wrong with that scenario. I'm not interested in discussing turn-burning attacks. I've made my suggestions on that subject. Now we are discussing early turn ending due to a failed check against force proficiency. In that regard, I think your above statement is faulty. quote: Guaranteed 10 turns would make supply drain attacks far to strong, so this needs to be corrected in the same patch, easisest by making the supply lost for the defender proportional to the attacking force size compared to the defenders size. So 3 towed 37mm AT guns attacking an infantry division should lose something like 50% of their supply from that attack (if not outright destroyed) while the defender should suffer only 1% or even no supply loss. I'm all for making supply drain attacks less effective. Though I'll note there shouldn't be a unit with 3 towed 37mm AT guns in a scenario where you will commonly have a division all in one hex. quote: Next thing would be to change the entranchment progress relative to the remaining movement points, and than there wont be any reason left of how guaranteed 10 combat rounds could lead to possible exploits. What about setting artillery and aircraft back to passive support at the end of a turn?

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 10:04:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Now we are discussing early turn ending due to a failed check against force proficiency. In that regard, I think your above statement is faulty. Well, early turn endings are also prone to produce some unlikely situations, take for example force A attacking, there is a roadblock from force B, force A encirceles and than attack that roadblock while several units stack up on the street behind, waiting for the path to be cleared. now force A resloves its attack, eleminates the roadblock, and the turn ends early, leaving all units with 50% of theri MP left sitting there. Now, in real life those troops would have their orders to advance as soon as the roadblock is cleared to follow their predisigned objectives, but in this situation they will simply sit it out. Or take artillery units which were moved to the front (range 2) and set to TAC reserve to help opening a breakthrough in the front, tac. settins so that they support the attacks whith the player expecting to advance them further once the front is breached. Now the turn ends early, the arty remains on tac and because of that advances into the frontlines during a conterattack from Force B. Now, how unlikely is that? Arty would never behave that way, and the only reason why they were on tacRes was because thats the only way in TOAW to get them to support combat without digging them in. Or take the situation of a Theather Option beeing available for one turn to decide where reinforcements will appear, Player A wants to first get some probing attack going to decide where the enemy is weakest, gets an early turn ending and therfor has no chance of selecing said TO, getting no reserves at all? I could come if with many more examples of how early turn endings result in unrealistic situations, but the best argument is still: a turn represents a given time-span, lets assume 1 week. If player 1 has an early turn ending at 50% he'll effectively only have 3,5 days out of this week, while his opponent without an early turn ending would be able to counter his advances with an entire week of combat operations. That's a totally unjustified advantage for the player without an early turn-ending. quote: I'm all for making supply drain attacks less effective. Though I'll note there shouldn't be a unit with 3 towed 37mm AT guns in a scenario where you will commonly have a division all in one hex. Take a 1/3rd understrength german AT company vs a dug in soviet rifle division in DNO and you'll be able to simulate just that [8D] quote: What about setting artillery and aircraft back to passive support at the end of a turn? Artillery yes, you cant go wrong with that, but aircraft is a different thing, players wight want to set some aircraft to rest, switch others from CS to I or AS, simply giving them random assignments usually wont do it.

JAMiAM -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 10:27:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial I could come if with many more examples of how early turn endings result in unrealistic situations, but the best argument is still: a turn represents a given time-span, lets assume 1 week. If player 1 has an early turn ending at 50% he'll effectively only have 3,5 days out of this week, while his opponent without an early turn ending would be able to counter his advances with an entire week of combat operations. That's a totally unjustified advantage for the player without an early turn-ending. And I could come up with very reasonable rationalizations why your specific examples should be subject to the behavior that you are complaining about, Stefan. I'll give others a shot at it first, though...[;)] In short, a turn represents a certain amount of time, yes, in which a certain amount of activity can take place. Whether it does, relies on the tactical, and operational, competence of the commander, luck, and the interference of the enemy. The division of the turn into tactical rounds is only an approximation of linear time within the context of the game. It is a game mechanic, an abstraction, if you will, and not a strict timepiece. Question: If each move on a chess board represents an hour of "real-time", how long does it take for a bishop to cross the field? How long does it take for him to cross half the field?

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 10:41:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM In short, a turn represents a certain amount of time, yes, in which a certain amount of activity can take place. Whether it does, relies on the tactical, and operational, competence of the commander, luck, and the interference of the enemy. The division of the turn into tactical rounds is only an approximation of linear time within the context of the game. It is a game mechanic, an abstraction, if you will, and not a strict timepiece. Question: If each move on a chess board represents an hour of "real-time", how long does it take for a bishop to cross the field? How long does it take for him to cross half the field? Any interference would be of local nature, affacting companies, regiments, maybe up to several divisions in extreme cases, but not the entire theather of battle as it is the case for early turn endings. Also would such local interferances not prevent the units from doing something useful to react to that situation, like digging in in face of an counterattack, but even such simple and logical decisions are impossible to order after an early turn ending. And in the case of chess... moving your bishop across the board to declare check-mate to your opponent, are there such things as early-turn endings, leaving your bishop stranded in mid-turn? [;)]

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 10:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial now force A resloves its attack, eleminates the roadblock, and the turn ends early, leaving all units with 50% of theri MP left sitting there. Now, in real life those troops would have their orders to advance as soon as the roadblock is cleared to follow their predisigned objectives, but in this situation they will simply sit it out. In real life, the second force wouldn't wait patiently while the first force set up its attacks and went ahead. They'd actually be responding at the same time. So a failed force proficiency check means the attacker has been unable to strike decisively before the defender can react. quote: Or take artillery units which were moved to the front (range 2) and set to TAC reserve to help opening a breakthrough in the front, tac. settins so that they support the attacks whith the player expecting to advance them further once the front is breached. Now the turn ends early, the arty remains on tac and because of that advances into the frontlines during a conterattack from Force B. Now, how unlikely is that? Arty would never behave that way, and the only reason why they were on tacRes was because thats the only way in TOAW to get them to support combat without digging them in. This is a complaint to make about the way artillery is set to passive support, not about the system of early turn endings. However, note that the artillery being pushed to the front means that they will be particularly likely to get caught out if the second force is able to get in a quick counterattack (as they are doing in your example). Presumably had the turn continued, the guns would have been pushed on again so as to support continued attacks further on. quote: Or take the situation of a Theather Option beeing available for one turn to decide where reinforcements will appear, Player A wants to first get some probing attack going to decide where the enemy is weakest, gets an early turn ending and therfor has no chance of selecing said TO, getting no reserves at all? Better than making attacks consuming 80% of the turn, then taking the TO with the same effect as if he had made the decision at the start of the turn. quote: I could come if with many more examples of how early turn endings result in unrealistic situations, but the best argument is still: a turn represents a given time-span, lets assume 1 week. If player 1 has an early turn ending at 50% he'll effectively only have 3,5 days out of this week, while his opponent without an early turn ending would be able to counter his advances with an entire week of combat operations. This assumes the attacker hasn't moved any of his units by more than 50% of their movement allowance, nor dug in any of his units. quote: Take a 1/3rd understrength german AT company vs a dug in soviet rifle division in DNO and you'll be able to simulate just that In my regiment scale, 10km/hex Poland scenario, all the battalions are made indivisible by use of the section size icon. Companies are not appropriate in this situation. quote: Artillery yes, you cant go wrong with that, but aircraft is a different thing, players wight want to set some aircraft to rest, switch others from CS to I or AS, simply giving them random assignments usually wont do it. That's not what I had in mind. Never mind.

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/11/2006 11:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious In real life, the second force wouldn't wait patiently while the first force set up its attacks and went ahead. They'd actually be responding at the same time. So a failed force proficiency check means the attacker has been unable to strike decisively before the defender can react. I was precisely for that reason speaking about a roadblock, aka a unit left befind with the sole reason as to slow down the attacker, with no force B counterattack coming from anywhere. In that case it would be: roadblock cleared, empty front for 200 miles ahead without any enemy resistance, yet frindly units just sitting there idle for 3 days for no reason whatsoever. Dont try to justify any early turn ending with enemy interferance, Force B has plenty of time to make these interferences happen by actually moving his units to cross Force A's plans, there is absolutely no need for such a random and annoying and abstract thing as early turn endings in this great game. quote: This is a complaint to make about the way artillery is set to passive support, not about the system of early turn endings. Thats just another point that could need some attention, but the main point was that early turn endings interrupt movement that is supposed to happen for no apparent reason. Beeing it units still set to wrong defencive stence, not able to advance despite having movement points left, not able to reunite after beeing split up earlier etc, pick whatever you want. quote: However, note that the artillery being pushed to the front means that they will be particularly likely to get caught out if the second force is able to get in a quick counterattack (as they are doing in your example). Presumably had the turn continued, the guns would have been pushed on again so as to support continued attacks further on. Nope, what really happens: really weak counterattack with no chance whatsoever as to breach the force A defences, yet force A arty moves into the front line because of its setting, which is just stupid, subsequent counterattack will tear said arty unit apart in direct combat. Unrealistic to the extreme, shouldnt happen, but is a direct result of an early turn ending. quote: Better than making attacks consuming 80% of the turn, then taking the TO with the same effect as if he had made the decision at the start of the turn. Huh? Unless there is a houserule demanding that a player has to select a TO before moving any unit I don't see any logic in that. It should be entirely up to me as to when during my turn I select a TO, and first probing for enemy weaknesses before comminting my reserves via TO seems be be a VERY valid reason to delay selecting the TO a bit! quote: This assumes the attacker hasn't moved any of his units by more than 50% of their movement allowance, nor dug in any of his units. It doesn't matter how many units that player has already moved, the more he moved the less painfull an early turn eding is, but that doesn't make that situation any less unrealistic, even if its just a division thats unable to move because somehow half a week suddenly vanished from them. Next time it might be 3 army groups with 80 assigned division, would you try to find a reasonable explanation for that situation too?

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 12:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial I was precisely for that reason speaking about a roadblock, aka a unit left befind with the sole reason as to slow down the attacker, with no force B counterattack coming from anywhere. In that case it would be: roadblock cleared, empty front for 200 miles ahead without any enemy resistance, yet frindly units just sitting there idle for 3 days for no reason whatsoever. 200 miles of empty road sounds like a pretty extreme circumstance. Even in the monster east front you don't often see something like that. Of course, the Germans, with their high force proficiency, would barrel on just fine. A worse force might well blunder and fail to advance. quote: Dont try to justify any early turn ending with enemy interferance, Force B has plenty of time to make these interferences happen by actually moving his units to cross Force A's plans, Not if it's the middle of Force A's turn. quote: there is absolutely no need for such a random and annoying and abstract thing as early turn endings in this great game. There's the crux of it: early turn endings are annoying. Well, sometimes things don't go our way. quote: Thats just another point that could need some attention, but the main point was that early turn endings interrupt movement that is supposed to happen for no apparent reason. Beeing it units still set to wrong defencive stence, not able to advance despite having movement points left, not able to reunite after beeing split up earlier etc, pick whatever you want. All rather necessary abstraction in a turn-based game. quote: Nope, what really happens: really weak counterattack with no chance whatsoever as to breach the force A defences, yet force A arty moves into the front line because of its setting, which is just stupid, subsequent counterattack will tear said arty unit apart in direct combat. A really weak counterattack which can tear defending artillery apart? quote: quote: Better than making attacks consuming 80% of the turn, then taking the TO with the same effect as if he had made the decision at the start of the turn. Huh? Unless there is a houserule demanding that a player has to select a TO before moving any unit I don't see any logic in that. It should be entirely up to me as to when during my turn I select a TO, and first probing for enemy weaknesses before comminting my reserves via TO seems be be a VERY valid reason to delay selecting the TO a bit! I'd say there should be an incentive in TOAW to take decisions sooner rather than later, just as there is in real warfare. You've just described it. quote: It doesn't matter how many units that player has already moved, the more he moved the less painfull an early turn eding is, but that doesn't make that situation any less unrealistic, even if its just a division thats unable to move because somehow half a week suddenly vanished from them. Next time it might be 3 army groups with 80 assigned division, would you try to find a reasonable explanation for that situation too? What the effect does is inject uncertainty into the game. It is preposterous for the player to be able to know with absolute certainty that the enemy won't attack him for seven days. Absolute nonsense. So we have early turn ending. Yes, it's an abstraction. Yes, it causes weird effects, yes you and every other person who's ever played TOAW hates having early turn ending happen to them. The alternative is bad simulation.

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 1:17:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious 200 miles of empty road sounds like a pretty extreme circumstance. Even in the monster east front you don't often see something like that. Of course, the Germans, with their high force proficiency, would barrel on just fine. A worse force might well blunder and fail to advance. Look, I don't care how experience the waiting forces really are. Even a militia unit with only 3 days of training, if given the order to wait until a road is cleared and than advance to its predesigned target, should be able to carry out that order and not beeing paralyzed for 3 days after they are toled that the road is clear, which is exactly what an early turn ending would indicate. And please note that these units weren't engaged in combat, because other units were doing the fighting, they were simply sitting their waiting for the go-signal. This is something that doesnt happen in reality, and anything an enemy unit could do to interfer can already be modeled (like interdiction) or is simply outside the scope of an IGOYOUGO game. Early turn endings dont help a bit, on the contrary they make matters worse and more unrealistic. If the enemy wants to counterattack the militia he can do that during his turn, repeat after me, early turn endings are no substitute for counterattacks [8D] quote: quote: Dont try to justify any early turn ending with enemy interferance, Force B has plenty of time to make these interferences happen by actually moving his units to cross Force A's plans, Not if it's the middle of Force A's turn. TOAW is an IGOYOUGO game, there are compromises we have to accept, one is that truely simultanious movement of both sides is not possible and can't be simulated. The best we can get is TAC/LOCAL reserve setting or interdiction strikes, for anything more detailed you have to look for a different game. quote: There's the crux of it: early turn endings are annoying. Well, sometimes things don't go our way. And things not going as planed is already pretty nicely modeled, roads suddenly turning muddy in the middle of a turn, combats taking longer than anticipated, enemy units retreating in unfavorable directions, attacking units going into reorg after an attack, enemy interdiction strikes evaporating one of your advancin units, your spearheads bumping in a previously unknown unit blocking your way, ..... For each of these occurences you can find an equivalent in real life and agree that they deserve to be in the game, but early turn endings have no real life counterpart and therefor don't deserve to be in the game. quote: All rather necessary abstraction in a turn-based game. ] Whats the abstraction of a unit beeing in a wrong defence stance for? An entire regiment gone nuts acting stupid? Whats the abstraction of a unit beeing unable to reunite for, a regiment suddenly starting to hate each other, and companies deciding to fight on their own without cooperation with the others regimental companies? Whats the abstraction of a unit unable to use its entire movement points for, a division collectively falling asleep forgetting to advance for 3 days ? Those are no abstractions for things that happen in real warfare, early turn endings simply tend to produce unrealistic situations, nothing we want to see in an operational war simulator. quote: A really weak counterattack which can tear defending artillery apart? Have you never done weak counterattacks with lots of arty in support? Will eat the opposing passive defenders alive, especially enemy arty, without them beeing able to fire back as they would if attacked by counter-artillery fire. Artillery cought in an ground attack is treated as beeing in direct combat with the enemy and will take huge losses. quote: I'd say there should be an incentive in TOAW to take decisions sooner rather than later, just as there is in real warfare. You've just described it. Huh? That might be your point of view, I tend to grab an opportunity by the balls if it presents itself, if that means quickly shifting reinforcement to a different part of the front I will do just that. You just go ahead and commit them as initially planed if you wish, put please accept that some of us might have different ideas of how to employ our forces [:)] As I said, as long as there is no house rule demanding otherwise I should be righly able to do just that. quote: What the effect does is inject uncertainty into the game. It is preposterous for the player to be able to know with absolute certainty that the enemy won't attack him for seven days. Absolute nonsense. So we have early turn ending. Yes, it's an abstraction. Yes, it causes weird effects, yes you and every other person who's ever played TOAW hates having early turn ending happen to them. The alternative is bad simulation. How would the absence of early turn endings make TOAW a bad simulation? I simply cant see any reason whatsoever for that, or are you saying that a scenario in which one player was lucky and got no early turn endings is a bad scenario? Nonsens I say. And all the uncertainty I need in a game comes from my opponent, how he employs his forces, where he attacks and where he retreats, from the weather and its affect on the battlefield. I dont need any artifical 'surprises' that have nothing to do with the mission of this game, which is to simulate warfare. There are some things that are unpredictable in war, and modeling these is fine and dandy, but there are some things that are universally certain in each scenario, which are: a day has 24h and a week has 7 days, and I want exactly that in my scenario and no magically disappearing days. [8\|] In the end, all I wanted and asked for is an OPTION for the players to disable turn-burnss and early turn endings in the advanced game options, if you like these features, feel free to play your PBEMs with them enabled, but I wouldn't shed a tear should they disappear forever and would rather play my PBEM with them disabled.

Chuck2 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 1:52:42 AM)
Early ending turns is an integral part of TOAW. For example, you'd probably want a low force proficiency for the Allies in a France '40 scenario to limit their ability to put together multiple rounds of attacks. I don't think the individual unit proficiencies would be that much lower than the Germans. It's the ability to function on the operational level where the Allies should have difficulties.

JAMiAM -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 1:53:03 AM)
You guys really, really, REALLY need to get away from the thought that each tactical round represents 1/10th of a turn's length, and that there is any sequential, one-to-one correspondence between them and the imaginary turn length divisions you've trapped yourselves into thinking of them about. A turn that ends after the 5th round simply means that your forces only did half of what you expected they'd be able to do within the time frame that you were originally planning to have available for operations. That's as simple as I can put it for you... The issue of turn burn for attacks, is a non-starter with TOAW III. Any player can load the scenario into the editor, and set the MRPB to any number they want, between 1 and 99. If you want to make sure your attacks don't past one round each series, and have a like-minded partner, then do it. Just be aware that the game will behave slightly different - as it will, when you go adjusting any of the design parameters. Sometimes this will seem "better" and sometimes "worse". Play with it, and find the sweet spot for you.

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 2:35:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM You guys really, really, REALLY need to get away from the thought that each tactical round represents 1/10th of a turn's length, and that there is any sequential, one-to-one correspondence between them and the imaginary turn length divisions you've trapped yourselves into thinking of them about. A turn that ends after the 5th round simply means that your forces only did half of what you expected they'd be able to do within the time frame that you were originally planning to have available for operations. That's as simple as I can put it for you... this is where I disagree with you, a turn represents a given time span, and is divided into 10 equal parts, so each part represents 1/10 of said timespan. With 90% of my turn remaining, units will have 90% of their movement points remaining, as 1/10 of the gives timespan has just elapsed. Combat and combat losses are calculated for each combat round on the assumption that each round takes 1/10 of the turn-time to resolve. Remaining movement points are calculated on that assumption. So please tell me what could possibly have happen to a force to basically make every unit in the theather to perform at only half their expected performance? Lets take a western 1944 theather, with Italy and Normandy, why should all 5 million allied soldiers in that theather, including army, airforce and navy all of a sudden during one week only show the performance of 3 days ? Something can go wrong ... to individual units or formations in a local theather, true, sudden rain can turn roads to mud, slowing their advances, yes, but what could bring the entire theather of war (for only one side, mark you) to an hold? Allien Invasion?? [sm=sterb029.gif] Just for kicks, imagine what the germans would have done to the allied beachheads in Normandy if the entire allied army+navy+airforce would all of a sudden have ceased to do anything for 4 days.... I guess that the french would speak german (or russian) now [;)]

Industrial -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 3:14:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 I don't think the individual unit proficiencies would be that much lower than the Germans. It's the ability to function on the operational level where the Allies should have difficulties. Put formations on internal support, lower force cummunication level, lower force proficiency level, change force loss intolerance and movement bias, many ways to find a propper solution, early turn endings on the other hand is not something that would in any way help in simulating french combat performance in WW2.

JAMiAM -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 3:17:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM You guys really, really, REALLY need to get away from the thought that each tactical round represents 1/10th of a turn's length, and that there is any sequential, one-to-one correspondence between them and the imaginary turn length divisions you've trapped yourselves into thinking of them about. A turn that ends after the 5th round simply means that your forces only did half of what you expected they'd be able to do within the time frame that you were originally planning to have available for operations. That's as simple as I can put it for you... this is where I disagree with you, a turn represents a given time span, and is divided into 10 equal parts, so each part represents 1/10 of said timespan. With 90% of my turn remaining, units will have 90% of their movement points remaining, as 1/10 of the gives timespan has just elapsed... You can disagree all you want, but there is a crucial difference that you might want to keep in mind. I (in tandem, with Ralph) am developing the game...[;)] I say this not to puff my ego, or score any bragging points, but merely to point out what my role here, and job, is. So, when I see someone saying that some basic design concepts or paradigms of the game are "x", while I define them as "y", then the error is, by definition, on the part of that person who is claiming "x". Now, as a customer, or potential customer, you have every right to decide whether you prefer x, or y, and to make your purchasing decision based on it, and any other letters of the alphabet that we throw into the mix. You might even have some influence on the design evolution, by arguing your points in a public forum such as this. Such appeals to "realism", "playability", "feel", "simulation", "balance" and all the other intangibles that make a great GAME are what make such an active exhange of ideas a worthwhile endeavor. In other words, Stefan, my friend, keep up the discussion. I don't want to stifle it. Just don't be too disappointed if I occasionally pull a trump card that you don't even know I have...[:D]

Chuck2 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 4:18:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 I don't think the individual unit proficiencies would be that much lower than the Germans. It's the ability to function on the operational level where the Allies should have difficulties. Put formations on internal support, lower force cummunication level, lower force proficiency level, change force loss intolerance and movement bias, many ways to find a propper solution, early turn endings on the other hand is not something that would in any way help in simulating french combat performance in WW2. Those are some good ideas on paper, but I don't know if in TOAW they would be enough to reflect Allied performance in 1940. Internal support - OK, but how useful this is in TOAW is questionable. I'm also not sure if this is entirely accurate as to French doctrine at the time. Communication level - Not sure how this works. It was broken, so there is little data as to what effect this has. Lower force proficiency - Yes, but that is what causes early turn ends! Don't know what else it does except determine proficiencies of reconstituted units. Higher force loss intolerance - That's a myth, plenty of French died in the war. Read Ben Turner's thesis paper on French morale. Plus, from a gaming perspective, I don't see the French player holding back to save VP from losses when in the end they'll lose everything anyway. Better to suffer the VP hit early on and save Paris rather than save a few VP and get wiped out at Dunkirk anyway. Movement bias - Not bad, not great either. Sometimes the Allies could move at their proper speed. This is when we don't want an early turn end. Other times they were delayed by various operational factors that are best handled by an early turn ending.

ralphtricky -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 4:43:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 Communication level - Not sure how this works. It was broken, so there is little data as to what effect this has. <scratches head> It looks like it does quite a bit. I can't verify that these are true. Affects the chance of coming out of reorganization. Affects the chance of artillery helping in the battle. Affects the chance of AA helping in a battle. It looks like low AA should have a 50 km range. Ralph

Chuck2 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/12/2006 4:53:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 Communication level - Not sure how this works. It was broken, so there is little data as to what effect this has. <scratches head> It looks like it does quite a bit. I can't verify that these are true. Sure, but my point is that it hasn't been verified that: 1. It works. 2. If it does work, how much effect does it have. quote: Affects the chance of AA helping in a battle. It looks like low AA should have a 50 km range. [&:]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.125