RE: Next Patch

RE: Next Patch (Full Version)

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

Message

Menschenfresser -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 6:33:26 AM)
I'd like to see an editor variable which would increase the movement point loss as a unit runs down on supplies. I'm not sure what the low is now exactly...50%? I'm not sure how it scales, but this would greatly help large scenarios where supply is an issue.

a white rabbit -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 11:09:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mantill Could we please do something about the combat replay in PBEM, it is truly awful. I gave up watching it in my last PBEM as half the time I couldn't work out where it was showing me. At least, if nothing else, make it full screen. It would also be useful be able slow down and speed up the replay. Also we don't really need it to spend 10 minutes tell us we missed 600 consecutive hidden moves. Lets just scrap the hidden move results. It should be FOW anyway. "Commander, our recon planes have spotted the sixth army moving West along the Minsk highway. They also reliably inform me that n units moved a total of m hexes, where n x m = 316. They couldn't say much else about this except m times n was definitely 316" ...nooooooooooo.... ..kk it's a bore but, at least you know it happened, and the "where"s your guess.. ..better than no info at all...

MarcA -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 5:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: mantill Could we please do something about the combat replay in PBEM, it is truly awful. I gave up watching it in my last PBEM as half the time I couldn't work out where it was showing me. At least, if nothing else, make it full screen. It would also be useful be able slow down and speed up the replay. Also we don't really need it to spend 10 minutes tell us we missed 600 consecutive hidden moves. Lets just scrap the hidden move results. It should be FOW anyway. "Commander, our recon planes have spotted the sixth army moving West along the Minsk highway. They also reliably inform me that n units moved a total of m hexes, where n x m = 316. They couldn't say much else about this except m times n was definitely 316" ...nooooooooooo.... ..kk it's a bore but, at least you know it happened, and the "where"s your guess.. ..better than no info at all... Why is it better than no info at all? It is information of no value that you shouldn't have. Surely in this case it would be better not to have it. If you wanted all the info just play with FOW off.

a white rabbit -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 5:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mantill quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: mantill Could we please do something about the combat replay in PBEM, it is truly awful. I gave up watching it in my last PBEM as half the time I couldn't work out where it was showing me. At least, if nothing else, make it full screen. It would also be useful be able slow down and speed up the replay. Also we don't really need it to spend 10 minutes tell us we missed 600 consecutive hidden moves. Lets just scrap the hidden move results. It should be FOW anyway. "Commander, our recon planes have spotted the sixth army moving West along the Minsk highway. They also reliably inform me that n units moved a total of m hexes, where n x m = 316. They couldn't say much else about this except m times n was definitely 316" ...nooooooooooo.... ..kk it's a bore but, at least you know it happened, and the "where"s your guess.. ..better than no info at all... Why is it better than no info at all? It is information of no value that you shouldn't have. Surely in this case it would be better not to have it. If you wanted all the info just play with FOW off. ..i like to know he's moving, whatever, where ever, i'll play the unknown as if it was me.. ..any information is better than no information at all.. ..damn, who said that ?

m5000.2006 -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 7:40:40 PM)
talking of displaying info - correct me if i'm wrong but i have the impression that the number of destroyed aircraft in the air briefing isn't accurate but approximate, i remember reading about it in a different thread and someone said it is approximate and random to some extend - it changes when you move and click your mouse if it is, wouldn't it be a agood idea to add some information that it is approximate, e.g. "estimated number of destroyed aircaft" or something similar the problem is that most other types of information display are not approximate - you get accurate readiness, proficiency, supply, even how many rounds you're left with, but all of a sudden you get a random number of destroyed aircraft that changes when you move your mouse and click (?!) and you aren't even certain it is really random because it isn't stated anywhere so it would be nice to at least have the information that it is in fact, i was wondering why not make it accurate? really, the way it works now, it seems useless, i mean, why should i even bother to look at the aircraft figuers if i know they are approximate and randomised, what's the point...? [&:] i know that there may be something like the fog of war or communication problems on the battlefield, but if we really acknowledge that they influence the information that we have of various aspects of the game, then why is e.g. supply accurate, surely it is possible in the heat of a battle that the hq thinks its subordinate units are supplied while in reality, they aren't in fact, the same goes for proficiency, readiness, movement points, attack/defence value, remaining rounds, and most, if not all, of other sorts of information display, most notably the casualties information which you get at the end of each land battle, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't randomised... so if aircraft figures are randomised why not make the rest randomised too? what's the point in having only one randomised kind of information display - that of destroyed aircraft and if the rest is to remain accurate, then why should we have approximate aircraft info?

Veers -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 7:55:07 PM)
quote: the problem is that most other types of information display are not approximate - you get accurate readiness, proficiency, supply, even how many rounds you're left with, but all of a sudden you get a random number of destroyed aircraft that changes when you move your mouse and click (?!) and you aren't even certain it is really random because it isn't stated anywhere quote: You will always know your own losses exactly, but enemy losses are subject to misinformation. Pilots are notorious for inflating and double-reporting enemy planes shot down. Damaged aircraft (those sent to the Replacement Pool) are not included in the Loss Report. Pg. 45 in the manual, under the heading of, surprise, surprise, Air Briefing. quote: really, the way it works now, it seems useless, i mean, why should i even bother to look at the aircraft figuers if i know they are approximate and randomised, what's the point...? Lets see...Oh, I know, I know. To get an aproximate idea of how many aircraft your enemy has lost, compared to the number you know you have lost. quote: so if aircraft figures are randomised why not make the rest randomised too? what's the point in having only one randomised kind of information display - that of destroyed aircraft and if the rest is to remain accurate, then why should we have approximate aircraft info? With this, however, you have a point, though I recommend that you don't mix usless babbling with your good points next time, as others may stop reading before they get to the parts fo your post that made sense.

m5000.2006 -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 8:18:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: the problem is that most other types of information display are not approximate - you get accurate readiness, proficiency, supply, even how many rounds you're left with, but all of a sudden you get a random number of destroyed aircraft that changes when you move your mouse and click (?!) and you aren't even certain it is really random because it isn't stated anywhere quote: You will always know your own losses exactly, but enemy losses are subject to misinformation. Pilots are notorious for inflating and double-reporting enemy planes shot down. Damaged aircraft (those sent to the Replacement Pool) are not included in the Loss Report. Pg. 45 in the manual, under the heading of, surprise, surprise, Air Briefing. quote: really, the way it works now, it seems useless, i mean, why should i even bother to look at the aircraft figuers if i know they are approximate and randomised, what's the point...? Lets see...Oh, I know, I know. To get an aproximate idea of how many aircraft your enemy has lost, compared to the number you know you have lost. quote: so if aircraft figures are randomised why not make the rest randomised too? what's the point in having only one randomised kind of information display - that of destroyed aircraft and if the rest is to remain accurate, then why should we have approximate aircraft info? With this, however, you have a point, though I recommend that you don't mix usless babbling with your good points next time, as others may stop reading before they get to the parts fo your post that made sense. [:D] really, Veers you've outdone yourself this time, so many clever remarks in one post, well done, well done [&o] unfortunately, what you wrote doesn't answer anything, but is yet another attempt to pick on someone else's post had good fun reading it [;)] ------ i've read the manual and know of the page you're referring to, in other words i do know the official explanation, but the problem that i desribed above is this - why is aircracft briefing the only kind of information display that is randomised? one can come up with an explanation similar to what is written on pp 44-45 for any kind of information display - supply, readiness, land battle reports, etc, etc... so, sadly, the questions from my post above do remian unanswered

Veers -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 8:54:50 PM)
Yes, it was jolly good fun to write. [:D] But, more seriously: I wasn't trying to answer questions. I was agreeing with you, adding weight to your question. With more people wanting to know the answer, hopefully it will attract James or Ralph. Furthermore, the air briefing is even more pointless to have randomized because, once you know the integers at which it randomizes (2,2.5, and 3, if memory serves), all you have to do is click the button enough times to see the three different randomizations and then you can know almost exactly how many aircraft your opponent has lost over the turn. (This also answers the question of what good the display is.) As well, this display is much less usefull for the first player than it is for the second player. The second player gets to know the total losses for the whole turn, whereas the first player only gets to know losses during his turn. A helpfull addition to the air briefing screen, at least for the first player, would be a report for last turn's air losses.

JAMiAM -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 9:47:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m5000.2006 i've read the manual and know of the page you're referring to, in other words i do know the official explanation, but the problem that i desribed above is this - why is aircracft briefing the only kind of information display that is randomised? It's not the only information display that is "randomized".. There is a degree of randomization in the distribution of lost/returned to inventory for disabled results. You can determine a rough, overall effect from looking at your own inventory columns at the end of each series of battles (if you are so inclined) but the exact distribution of the enemy losses/returns is hidden from you. quote: ORIGINAL: m5000.2006 one can come up with an explanation similar to what is written on pp 44-45 for any kind of information display - supply, readiness, land battle reports, etc, etc... so, sadly, the questions from my post above do remian unanswered So, what is the thrust of your questions? Is it "Why don't we have more Fog of War?" Or, is it "Why have Fog of War at all, since it is not totally implemented?"

m5000.2006 -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 10:52:21 PM)
well, i was just under the impression that there is a focus on air cambat results fog of war, while ignoring other possible sources for fog of war, e.g. land combat results, so "the thrust of my questions" was towards the justification why so much focus on air combat while disregarding other aspects, e.g. land combat, supply it may be that this impression regarding focus on air combat results stems from the fact that the figures change while you click with your mouse so that you can see the different numbers, and so the fact that they are random is emphasised, it isn't so in land combat so they appear without any changes, and you may not notice the "approximate land losses' on the panel [:D], which i've just done after having read in your post that there's some degree of randomization included in land combat results too... so now that we know that both land and air combat results are randomised why not add 'approximate' in air combat so that it is more obvious for everyone that these are in fact randomised figures too ------ anyway, JAMiAM, yours is the kind of explanation that is really friendly and helpful Veers, really, there's no need for all those spiteful remarks, a constructive message would have been far more helpful

MarcA -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 11:09:07 PM)
Is there any FOW on the location of enemy units which can be seen on the map. At the moment, I assume, you get an incomplete picture of enemy dispositions but with the locations of units you can see being accurate. There should be FOW on location as well, which should become greater with distance from the front.

Veers -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 11:09:45 PM)
quote: Veers, really, there's no need for all those spiteful remarks, a constructive message would have been far more helpful Spiteful? I love you guys, how'd you get spiteful out of my remarks? It's all in good fun. Did ya not even read my follow-on response?

JAMiAM -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 11:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m5000.2006 well, i was just under the impression that there is a focus on air cambat results fog of war, while ignoring other possible sources for fog of war, e.g. land combat results, so "the thrust of my questions" was towards the justification why so much focus on air combat while disregarding other aspects, e.g. land combat, supply I think the simple answer to that question is that Norm served in the Air Force, so his personal experiences therein, bear out in certain aspects of the game. Designer's perogative, I guess...[;)]

JAMiAM -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 11:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mantill Is there any FOW on the location of enemy units which can be seen on the map. At the moment, I assume, you get an incomplete picture of enemy dispositions but with the locations of units you can see being accurate. There should be FOW on location as well, which should become greater with distance from the front. That's a good idea, even if not really feasible for TOAW III. Maybe something in the future...

JAMiAM -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 11:22:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: Veers, really, there's no need for all those spiteful remarks, a constructive message would have been far more helpful Spiteful? I love you guys, how'd you get spiteful out of my remarks? It's all in good fun. Did ya not even read my follow-on response? Ahh...the joys of internet (mis)communications...[:D] Since the two of you are normally chipper and helpful, I'll assume that you'll work out things on your own, without a call for kisses, hugs and handshakes...[:'(]

Veers -> RE: Next Patch (4/28/2007 11:37:48 PM)
*skips the handshakes and goes in for the kisses and hugs!!! [sm=00000280.gif][sm=innocent0004.gif]

a white rabbit -> RE: Next Patch (4/30/2007 2:38:19 PM)
..ok, next patch... ..an automatic save (without having to reload.......) after every combat round.. ..and a message that says " this game was reloaded from combat round x, y times" if you've just soo gotta do an anti-cheat thing.. ..yahh, he really likes the combat rounds...

a white rabbit -> RE: Next Patch (4/30/2007 2:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM So, what is the thrust of your questions? Is it "Why don't we have more Fog of War?" Or, is it "Why have Fog of War at all, since it is not totally implemented?" ..more Fog-of-War.. ..more Fog-of-War.. ..more sensual native beauties...sorry, i was distracted..[8D]

Veers -> RE: Next Patch (4/30/2007 6:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..an automatic save (without having to reload.......) after every combat round.. ..and a message that says " this game was reloaded from combat round x, y times" if you've just soo gotta do an anti-cheat thing.. Why?

freeboy -> RE: Next Patch (4/30/2007 6:50:47 PM)
keystroke monitor of the enemy? ok that was silly! If you don't trust folks, do not play with them! as for fow, I do think we see way too much info on the enemy re their supply and proficieny etc. maybe a setting or toggle to switch to uber fog, shows us the type of unit and the nationality and a guess at the size and quality?

a white rabbit -> RE: Next Patch (4/30/2007 6:58:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..an automatic save (without having to reload.......) after every combat round.. ..and a message that says " this game was reloaded from combat round x, y times" if you've just soo gotta do an anti-cheat thing.. Why? ..1/ he's 1 yr old, n luvs pushing keyboards ..2/ she's 20 yrs younger than i am...and...... ..3/ i'm busy doing my best to rewrite large sections of the peasant-agriculture for an island of 18 million people.. ..4/ cos it makes bloody sense, for a game as complicated as t3..sheeesh... ..one combat round, one auto-quick save labelled c1, c2 etc

cantona -> RE: Next Patch (4/30/2007 8:48:34 PM)
may have been mentioned but what about a whole formation dig in button or something along those lines to save digging in each individual unit

saintsup -> RE: Next Patch (5/1/2007 7:55:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cantona may have been mentioned but what about a whole formation dig in button or something along those lines to save digging in each individual unit I want that !!

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984375