RE: Scrolling issues

RE: Scrolling issues (Full Version)

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

Message

hank -> RE: Scrolling issues (7/25/2006 12:22:39 AM)
You'll have to forgive me if this has been posted before but I want to reiterate it as I think it would be a great interface addition. With the great importance of artillery; I wish there was a setting that would highlight the hexes within range of an artillery unit when you click on that unit and make it current. Possibly set it up so that the unit's longest range tubes would highlight all hexes pink (or light yellow); the next longest tubes range would highlight a light red (or orange); and the next tubes range (if there is one) could be red (red). If there was only one equipment type it would only highlight pink (or yellow). Its tedious but managable to determine where an arty unit is best placed. Having a highlight option for this one type of equipment would go a long way to improving a players planning. hank

KarlXII -> RE: Scrolling issues (7/25/2006 12:44:05 PM)
I agree with Hank that it would be nice to see the artillery range. It could be shown in colored hexes. Here is two more wishes: - The possibility to see how strong a stack is by either summing its attack/defense values or show it by colour. When playing larger scenarios with long frontlines it is often hard to know how strong a stack is without going through them unit by unit every single turn to see if they are strong enough. It would help to have a button that either replaces all stacks with attack/defense values or by color code (green, yellow, orange, red etc) to quickly see if there are any weak spots in the line. - I would like more information when a scenario ends. I would like to see my losses compared to the other sides losses both in actual number, per equipment, equipment type (tanks, aircraft, at-guns etc) and also in percentage. Except for VP that would make an argument to play the scenario again against the computer to be able to maximise/minimise losses.

Szilard -> Little glitches switching between editor & game (7/25/2006 2:21:20 PM)
A couple of little things: - When you go into the editor, the TOAW loses any prior '2d small' map view setting. So when you go back into the game, you'll always be in '2d large' mode. This is a hassle when you're eg doing debug & Elmer-vs-Elmer test cycles on a scenario and want to run it in '2d small' mode so you have a broad view of what's going on. You have to interrupt the game and set it to '2d small' mode every time you come out of the editor and back to the game. Not a big hassle, but a hassle nonetheless. Be nice if the editor didn't reset the game view mode. - Additionally, under some circumstances, TOAW loses track of whether you've set computer-vs-computer mode. I think this happens (often/always?) when you exit from a game in human-vs-human mode, after starting in computer-vs-computer - which will be a common way to exit when you're going thru a test/debug process. Next time you do a "go to game" from the editor's file menu, the game mode indicator on the "SELECT NEW GAME" panel will show computer-vs-computer, but the game will actually start in hot seat mode. Previously, you could just switch into computer-vs-computer mode at this point & it was not an issue. But with the latest patch, starting in hotseat mode turns off variable initiative. So you have to remember to explicitly cycle through the mode settings back to computer-vs-computer when seleting a new game. - In addition to fixing these little glitches, it'd be nice to have an "Edit this scenario" option from the game's file menu & a corresponding "Play this scenario" from the editor's file menu - so you don't have to go through the selection process every time you switch from one to the other.

golden delicious -> RE: Scrolling issues (7/25/2006 3:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: karlxii - I would like more information when a scenario ends. I would like to see my losses compared to the other sides losses both in actual number, per equipment, All this is already available in the replacements screen after the end of the scenario.

Catch21 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 3:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial 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 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 'fixed' this by simply ignoring the finnish front, as they seemed to be most prone to produce turn burns (low attack ratings and little support units, so the defender wont retreat, defending units with low combat strength, so the attacker wont break off because he's not taking enough losses to fail the moral check) Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but for these 'monster' scenarios can't designers set overall force proficiency to 100% so you never fail these proficiency checks with your turn ending 'prematurely'? The new MRPB rating still provides some variability with an upper cap on rounds per battle, which should make planning easier but not totally predictable.

Catch21 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 3:43:45 PM)
To add something from the 'front', so to speak (the New Players Tournament at SZO), to the interface wish list here. New players struggle with a number of concepts, chief among them the Combat Rounds System. I've been experimenting with some of the new features and have to say I just adore the toggle buttons (thank you Ralph (Elmer too, looking much sharper these days)). 'M' to toggle between movement points and combat strengths among them. 'Scroll toll' should go way down with these. It would be brilliant if a '% movement used' could be added as a third toggle with the 'M' button. That way players, knowing they have 80% of a turn remaining, would immediately know at a glance whether a unit could be or should be used for an attack, and if an arty unit could be used in direct fire mode. Just my 0.02.

Legun -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 4:12:13 PM)
quote: It would be brilliant if a '% movement used' could be added as a third toggle with the 'M' button. That way players, knowing they have 80% of a turn remaining, would immediately know at a glance whether a unit could be or should be used for an attack, and if an arty unit could be used in direct fire mode. Just my 0.02. Really good idea - it could save a part of my wargaming time [:)].

murx -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 4:41:07 PM)
To pour some fire, err, arguments into the pro/con turn-burn discussion: Because a lot of players cant grasp the logic behind a skirmish near Murmansk eating up the round for divisions near Stalingrad I want to add another serious problem with turn burn. Basically - it does not happen to the defender. To clear up what I mean - if for instance a German direct assault on the Maginot Line (some happened on smaller scale and Propaganda had their hands full to hide the losses) - if such a direct assault would result in a clean, small loss push through there would have been a massive 'shock' in the defenders line; serious disruption and disorganization on how to deal with the situation. If for instance an airborne drop near Führerhauptquartier (Wolfsschanze) would have been staged, killing most of the OK staff and a good part of Generals, Feldmarshall, maybe even Goering and a few other high ranking military-political leaders but failing to kill Hitler - for sure the Wehrmacht would have kept on fighting - but the disruption of command would have been serious - very serious! So if the 'attacker' in TOAW can be seriously punished because of a bad planned attack (or freak battle result, or the typical long lasting 'Finnish battles') - why is there no such punishment if the defender loses an important cornerstone of his defensive line? Why none if a high command gets assasinated by partisans? Well - if the attack inflicts a good amount of casualities it throws the formation into reorg - oh yeah, but we have lowered that already, haven't we? Maybe including an indirect 'turn-burn' with the destruction of an HQ? A player automatically loses 10% of his (next) turn for losing 1-10% of his on board HQs, 20% for 11-20% of HQs destroyed, maybe up to a maximum of loss of 90% of his turn. OK, once all HQs are done for there is no additional turn-burn anymore, but then again - probably not much left to fight with anyway - until they reconstitute. murx

JAMiAM -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 4:55:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Staff Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but for these 'monster' scenarios can't designers set overall force proficiency to 100% so you never fail these proficiency checks with your turn ending 'prematurely'? It doesn't work this way. 100% force proficiency does not guarantee no early turn endings due to "proficiency checks". Neither does 0% force proficiency guarantee an early ending from the same.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 5:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: murx To clear up what I mean - if for instance a German direct assault on the Maginot Line (some happened on smaller scale and Propaganda had their hands full to hide the losses) They actually broke through to my understanding. This was in June and all the reserves had been moved off to form a new line. quote: If for instance an airborne drop near Führerhauptquartier (Wolfsschanze) would have been staged, killing most of the OK staff and a good part of Generals, Feldmarshall, maybe even Goering and a few other high ranking military-political leaders but failing to kill Hitler - for sure the Wehrmacht would have kept on fighting - but the disruption of command would have been serious - very serious! No doubt. However this is something that would have to be modelled by events. I don't think this can be considered to be a part of ordinary military operations. Would you put the rescue of Mussolini in a TOAW scenario (I guess in TOAW terms the Storch acts as a transport helicopter)? quote: why is there no such punishment if the defender loses an important cornerstone of his defensive line? I'd say the punishment is that the attacker goes on to make considerable advances. quote: Maybe including an indirect 'turn-burn' with the destruction of an HQ? The loss of HQs is supposed to make formations go into reorg, but I don't think this actually happens all the time. What it does do is reduce formation supply by half.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 5:04:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM It doesn't work this way. 100% force proficiency does not guarantee no early turn endings due to "proficiency checks". Are you quite sure? I think Jarek achieves just that effect in his WERS scenarios. I recall that some part of the documentation implies that tests against both force proficiency and the remaining part of the turn have to be passed; but I suspect that it is an either/or. Of course if Ralph has looked at the code and told you exactly what it says that's fair enough.

Captain Cruft -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 6:19:16 PM)
The 'D' Key I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn. Binding a single key to two actions is assuming that players manipulate their units in a certain way, which obviously some of us don't. If you want to string multiple actions together then please provide us with a complete macro language [;)] I realise this has been mentioned before but I'm not sure if it was on this wish list.

jimwinsor -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 8:02:28 PM)
I second that. In fact, I'd settle for it advancing to the closest unit!

Captain Cruft -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 8:30:18 PM)
Yes well the previous response on this was "use the mouse to dig in", which is of course what I do. The point is that this takes far longer than simply pressing 'D' would do, especially if you have a stack with multiple units.

PaladinSix -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 9:28:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft The 'D' Key I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn. And I'm prepared to put up half of whatever the good Captain has to pay. As long as there is no serious downside to digging in (and substantial benefits), most players are going to do it with most units on every turn. Thus, it should be made as painless (for the player) as possible. I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second. PaladinSix

hank -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/25/2006 9:43:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft The 'D' Key I would pay money if this key ONLY dug the unit in and DID NOT ADVANCE to the next "available" unit. This would save me vast time on every single turn. Binding a single key to two actions is assuming that players manipulate their units in a certain way, which obviously some of us don't. If you want to string multiple actions together then please provide us with a complete macro language [;)] I realise this has been mentioned before but I'm not sure if it was on this wish list. DITTO ... I quit using the "D" key because it jumps to another unit afterwards Please redo the "D" key so it just DIGS IN ... end of command ... thanks

Sleazey -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/26/2006 7:36:36 AM)
Oh yea, I hate this auto jump to the next unit when I dig in. None of the other keys do this; I stopped using the D key because of this fact. Make it an option somehow, but give me a D key that just digs in and doesn't jump to the next unit!

Casus_Belli -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/26/2006 8:34:38 AM)
quote: I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second. PaladinSix I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/26/2006 3:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work. It's a thought. In a hex where entrenchment level is less than 100%, a unit digging in could lose 5% readiness. This cost would be reduced if the unit has motorised engineering equipment.

Erik2 -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/26/2006 3:17:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli quote: I would prefer a system that imposes a cost on digging in, but if that is not possible in the current incarnation of the game engine, then streamlining the process is a close second. PaladinSix I'd like to second this: there should be some kind of cost. It's too easy as is and you end up with a landscape full of entrenched positions. After all, digging in is a lot of work. Currently you need at least 1 MP to dig in. additional costs would have to take into consideration the turn-frame of the scenario, 6-hour is quite different from 1-week. And I support the change od the D-command...

PaladinSix -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/26/2006 8:06:14 PM)
[/quote] Currently you need at least 1 MP to dig in. additional costs would have to take into consideration the turn-frame of the scenario, 6-hour is quite different from 1-week. And I support the change od the D-command... [/quote] The question of turn-length in a scenario certainly makes this a tricky problem, but isn't movement allowance based (at least in part) on the length of the turn? If so, simply requiring an amount greater than 1 point would suffice as a cost for digging in. Say, 10% of the total MA, or 5% or whatever. The amount of movement points required could be modified by engineering capacity, terrain, etc. It just seems odd and overly simplistic to say that any unit, regardless of size, turn length, era or equipment, always requires only 1 point to dig in. PaladinSix

hank -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/26/2006 8:48:42 PM)
It seems to me it should use up more than one MP to dig in. If you drive or walk off 90% of your movement points during a period of time, I don't see how you could get a full round of digging in by just using up 1 MP. I'm speaking from semi-ignorance since I've never looked at the calc's or code that controls digging in. ... my comment is just a feeling ... and too, it seems some units would be less adept at digging ... thus a sliding scale of how much % of entrenchment specific units can attain during one turn. Of course fully equipped Engineers would be at the top of efficiency and maybe recce or HQ units would be at the lower end of the scale. IMHO any unit can dig in, but their abilities to dig in vary and could be modelled in toaw. I have not paid much attention to the %'s of entrenchment achieved during a turn of digging and subsequent turns ... I'll have to start noticing this. I'm assuming the more turns you dig-in on a hex, the % of entrenchment increases. ... I just told everyone how big of a newb i am .. but that's OK hank

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/26/2006 9:30:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hank ... and too, it seems some units would be less adept at digging ... thus a sliding scale of how much % of entrenchment specific units can attain during one turn. This is already in the game. The ability of units to entrench depends on the amount of engineering equipment in the hex, and the existing entrenchment level of the hex.

hank -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/27/2006 6:57:54 PM)
I knew that :-) ... I guess I could say it was a rhetorical comment ... [&o]... or I could say I'm a newb But, I had another idea for the wish list. Beside highlighting artillery ranges (which I mentioned above) ... I think it would be helpful to add another colored hex outline for units that can be Recombined with the current unit. Most cases there will only be 2 units highlighted but sometimes these units are in large stacks of units and you have to weed through the units looking at the unit name and hope you pick the one that can be recombined. another 2 cents

Casus_Belli -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/28/2006 2:14:10 PM)
Is it necessary always to destroy railway line when moving on it in enemy territory? Maybe there's some thing I'm doing/not doing that would prevent this, but it seems a little odd. Surely one would try to capture railways lines intact if possible, and only destroy them if necessary.

golden delicious -> RE: Interface Wish List (7/28/2006 2:33:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casus_Belli Is it necessary always to destroy railway line when moving on it in enemy territory? Maybe there's some thing I'm doing/not doing that would prevent this, but it seems a little odd. Surely one would try to capture railways lines intact if possible, and only destroy them if necessary. The idea is that they've been destroyed by the enemy, or damaged incidentally during the advance. If nothing else, then your rail engineers have to check the length of track just to be sure there are no booby tracks or cracked rails. The event engine allows the scenario designer to set the % rail damage for each force so that rail is not always broken. But in most scenarios it is set to 100%.

rhinobones -> Need Better Engineers (7/29/2006 3:41:33 AM)
I usually prefer to turn auto destruct down to zero, but I can see where some designs need such a function. What I would really like to see are engineers (not just any unit) that can demo airfields, roads and rail lines just as any unit can currently demo bridges. Conversely, we also need engineers that can build new roads, new bridges, new ports, new supply depots and new airfields. Also, the engineers need to be able to added capacity to existing supply points, ports and airfields. Regards, RhinoBones

L`zard -> RE: Need Better Engineers (7/29/2006 4:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones What I would really like to see are engineers (not just any unit) that can demo airfields, roads and rail lines just as any unit can currently demo bridges. Conversely, we also need engineers that can build new roads, new bridges, new ports, new supply depots and new airfields. Also, the engineers need to be able to added capacity to existing supply points, ports and airfields. Regards, RhinoBones @Rhinobones: So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units? Or are you seeing something else in addition........? Either way, I like your thinking, as too many scenarios are left with either RRengineers or general engineer units (which I'm probably using incorrectly,lol, as I never see them do much besides 'dig in' assistance) and the 'combat engineers' which are just that, combat support units. Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote!

rhinobones -> RE: Need Better Engineers (7/29/2006 5:34:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: L`zard So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units? Or are you seeing something else in addition........? Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote! What I am suggesting would probably require a new Construction Engineer unit, or possibly designating the existing R/R Construction Teams as Construction Engineers. In the US Navy they would be known as Sea Bees. Construction Engineers would be able to build new things or improve existing facilities, much like the Civilization games where towns, forts and all kinds of things are built and expanded to promote the war effort. Of course the time it takes to build a support resource would depend on the unit capability, terrain and available supply. These are not necessarily my original ideas. Most of this stuff has been floating around the forums for quite some time. The difference now is that there is hope that it may actually come true. Think that these ideas would require a substantial rewrite to TOAW. Maybe TOAW 5 or 6!! Regards, RhinoBones

L`zard -> RE: Need Better Engineers (7/29/2006 6:14:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones quote: ORIGINAL: L`zard So your talking a change to data-base? ie: redefine various engineer units? Or are you seeing something else in addition........? Please expand upon your thinking, eh? If seeing 'CBs' type unit function, you've got my vote! What I am suggesting would probably require a new Construction Engineer unit, or possibly designating the existing R/R Construction Teams as Construction Engineers. In the US Navy they would be known as Sea Bees. Construction Engineers would be able to build new things or improve existing facilities, much like the Civilization games where towns, forts and all kinds of things are built and expanded to promote the war effort. Of course the time it takes to build a support resource would depend on the unit capability, terrain and available supply. These are not necessarily my original ideas. Most of this stuff has been floating around the forums for quite some time. The difference now is that there is hope that it may actually come true. Think that these ideas would require a substantial rewrite to TOAW. Maybe TOAW 5 or 6!! Regards, RhinoBones Rhinobones; JuRule [&o] EXACTLY!!!!

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.300781