RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (Full Version)

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

Message

JAMiAM -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 2:09:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 Here's another one....maybe, when the computer (PO) is working on its turn, it can move grouped units as one, instead of individually. In my opinion, this takes the PO longer to complete a turn (when it moves each unit individually). A problem with that is that even when units move as "a group" they are still entering and exiting hexes a single unit at a time. There are way too many gameplay issues (interdiction, disengagement attempts/attacks, density penalties, etc.) linked to this to change for the sake of shaving a few seconds off of the turn.[:-] Besides, for every person complaining that Elmer moves too slowly, I've seen two complaining that he moves too fast to follow...[:D]

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 12:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silvanski quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 That is crazy .... How soon will you have it done? Will Daisy Dukes be a Theatre Option? [:D] good idea... and supply points... Walmart and the Home Depot? [:D][:D][:D] Uh, is that where one can pick up some Mexicans to be used as mercenaries? Okay, okay, I know it was in bad tatste, but it's an actual reality in the States For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, illegal immigrants work mostly as "day laborers," and they always wait outside the Wal-Mart of Home Depot stores for someone to come by and offer work to them. My apologies if I offended anyone.

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 12:37:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh? Huh? It doesn't do that for me..........

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 12:42:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 Here's another one....maybe, when the computer (PO) is working on its turn, it can move grouped units as one, instead of individually. In my opinion, this takes the PO longer to complete a turn (when it moves each unit individually). A problem with that is that even when units move as "a group" they are still entering and exiting hexes a single unit at a time. There are way too many gameplay issues (interdiction, disengagement attempts/attacks, density penalties, etc.) linked to this to change for the sake of shaving a few seconds off of the turn.[:-] Besides, for every person complaining that Elmer moves too slowly, I've seen two complaining that he moves too fast to follow...[:D] I can understand that, but in the bigger scenarios, when there's not always interdiction, it would make sense. Besides, when I move forces as a group, and they get interdicted, the game still goes on, and the pieces still move along. Thinking of that, I just thought of another one....can we turn off the message that tells you that your unit was interdicted? I can see it happening....I don't need the reminder. [;)]

Silvanski -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 2:06:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 quote: ORIGINAL: Veers That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh? Huh? It doesn't do that for me.......... In 3.2 the PO speeds up when you press the Caps Lock key

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 5:44:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MPHopcroft Now I seem to be unable to read the file ... This reminds me: does anyone remember the link to the free Word reader download? I can't remember where it was posted.

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 6:33:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silvanski quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 quote: ORIGINAL: Veers That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh? Huh? It doesn't do that for me.......... In 3.2 the PO speeds up when you press the Caps Lock key Cool. Have to download and plug it in. Just been too lazy to do it.......

Veers -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 6:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silvanski quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 quote: ORIGINAL: Veers That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh? Huh? It doesn't do that for me.......... In 3.2 the PO speeds up when you press the Caps Lock key Right, danke.

JAMiAM -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 7:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: MPHopcroft Now I seem to be unable to read the file ... This reminds me: does anyone remember the link to the free Word reader download? I can't remember where it was posted. Bob, it's hyperlinked in the Whatsnew pdf and is in the FAQ thread (first post) on the stickied portion of the main forum.

JAMiAM -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/2/2007 7:12:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: Silvanski quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 quote: ORIGINAL: Veers That's why they made the PO speed up when you hold down the spacebar, eh? Huh? It doesn't do that for me.......... In 3.2 the PO speeds up when you press the Caps Lock key Right, danke. Thanks for bringing up another issue with the Beta. The description in the Whatsnew is screwed up.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/3/2007 6:02:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo That is not a wishlist that is TOAW IV. [:D] Given some of the strategic wishes it's a bit more than just T"O"AW!! My but aren't we a demanding bunch!

JAMiAM -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/3/2007 7:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work quote: ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo That is not a wishlist that is TOAW IV. [:D] Given some of the strategic wishes it's a bit more than just T"O"AW!! My but aren't we a demanding bunch! True. Maybe we should just call it New Improved Product - TOAD's Ultimate Construction Kit. Or, Nip-Tuck, for short...[:D] Or, TOAD's Fabulously Ultimate Construction Kit...[:-] Imagine going to the store and asking the lady to help you get your TOAD **** off the shelf...[X(]

macgregor -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/3/2007 7:58:35 AM)
I'm glad I finally took a look at this. I'm very happy with the naval warfare improvements(wishes) though I figure they'll be awhile in coming. They're pretty radical and the list is rather prodigious. I just downloaded the 3.2beta and it works well, perhaps smoother than before the patch. Perhaps by TOAW4.

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/3/2007 1:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silvanski I have an idea for a crazy Southern style scenario... Redneck War with squads driving Ford Bronco's, Hummers and other typical vehicles versus State Troopers with police cruisers[sm=00000959.gif] It's not needed, Silvanski. We already had that on TV and in the movies---it's called The Dukes of Hazard. [:D]

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/5/2007 2:31:41 AM)
Here's another one that I thought of as I was re-setting the "losses" preference (minimize, limit or ignore) on the Berlin Crisis 1961 scenario---why one of the game options be to automatically set your forces preference automatically, instead of having to go through the whole board to set your losses by hand? This isn't a problem with small scenarios, but it sure it with big ones. Thanks. [:)]

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/12/2007 3:09:42 PM)
Another suggestion/idea... There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it). Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength?

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/12/2007 8:21:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 Another suggestion/idea... There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it). Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength? Fulda gap [:D] Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour) Mario

Trick37_MatrixForum -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/12/2007 11:12:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 Another suggestion/idea... There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it). Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength? Fulda gap [:D] Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour) Mario Sorry, but that wasn't it. The game was modeled after Harold Coyle's book "Team Yankee," and there was anillustrated book called "Team Yankee, The Graphic Novel," which I have. I know about the Fulda Gap, and its signifigance (I trained there, too), but I remember that the town was either one near Darmstadt or somewhere.....it could've been the Fulda Gap (most likely scenario), but I'm nto sure. The book that I have doesn't mention it, but the game has it on the map as the main objective. It should be noted that the book takes from the book "The Third World War, August 1985" (by General Sir John Hackett, 1979) in that it says that the war came to an end after a coups in Moscow that followed the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk. Coyle's book centers around a company that was involved in Sir Hackett's book. Anyway, the board game is where the FASCAM artillery/mines were used, and it's this feature that I'd like to see in the TOAW. EDIT TO ADD: I found the game online, and the town on the map is Korberg. Funny, I'm not sure why that doesn't seem like the one that I was looking for (thought it started with an "F").

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/13/2007 12:15:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain quote: ORIGINAL: Trick37 Another suggestion/idea... There was a board gaem that I played years ago, but I can't remember the name of it (the game depicted the Soviet advance through a particular gap that could've been a town that existed in two strategic locations.....I'll get the name of it later, when I go home, as it was modeled after a cartoon-style book depicting it). Anyway, the game had the features of being able to saturate a hex or hexes with either artillery or with FASCAM (Field Artillery Scattered Mines). Is it possible to incorporate teh FASCAM into TAOW, insofar as being able to saturate hexes with mines (in front of an advancing force) to reduce their strength? Fulda gap [:D] Any train between Stuttgart and Hannover pass though it. I remember ot when I was going to Hannover Messe in ICE fast train (260 km per hour) Mario Sorry, but that wasn't it. The game was modeled after Harold Coyle's book "Team Yankee," and there was anillustrated book called "Team Yankee, The Graphic Novel," which I have. I know about the Fulda Gap, and its signifigance (I trained there, too), but I remember that the town was either one near Darmstadt or somewhere.....it could've been the Fulda Gap (most likely scenario), but I'm nto sure. The book that I have doesn't mention it, but the game has it on the map as the main objective. It should be noted that the book takes from the book "The Third World War, August 1985" (by General Sir John Hackett, 1979) in that it says that the war came to an end after a coups in Moscow that followed the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk. Coyle's book centers around a company that was involved in Sir Hackett's book. Anyway, the board game is where the FASCAM artillery/mines were used, and it's this feature that I'd like to see in the TOAW. EDIT TO ADD: I found the game online, and the town on the map is Korberg. Funny, I'm not sure why that doesn't seem like the one that I was looking for (thought it started with an "F"). heh, thanks... i've learned something

Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/15/2007 8:14:04 PM)
That units from both sides can share the same hex. This depend on Hexscale, unitscale, unittype, landscape etc. In a 10km hex can a platoon/company easy hide from discovery from enemy units.Mayby with the help a new command. Namly Hide. I think here special on Special Forces, Guerrila and Recon unit, for reconnaissance.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/16/2007 3:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym That units from both sides can share the same hex. This depend on Hexscale, unitscale, unittype, landscape etc. In a 10km hex can a platoon/company easy hide from discovery from enemy units.Mayby with the help a new command. Namly Hide. I think here special on Special Forces, Guerrila and Recon unit, for reconnaissance. See 7.20: Hidden Units

akdreemer -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/20/2007 8:38:10 PM)
How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base.

Silvanski -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/20/2007 8:50:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base. ...a unit having the characteristics of a carrier but with ground deployment capabilities... might be possible using bio-ed... Curtis/Bob, what do you think?

Silvanski -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/23/2007 5:38:39 AM)
Something I may have overlooked in the list. -Being able to set the activation turn for formations in Garrison status in the formation display instead of having to set an event for that. -"Fixed" deployment setting also available for the non-PO side

ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/23/2007 6:01:10 AM)
quote: Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there. That's true, but... What's happened in the past is that superficial additions are made to 'expand' the scope of OPART -- but nothing was done to implement the more serious changes that really were required. So when ACOW came out we 'got' World War One and even the nineteenth century -- except that we didn't. Sopwith Camels and musket squads hardly touched the differences between the original World War Two and later scope of OPART and the earlier periods that were now 'modelled.' So I think it's legitimate to criticize 'wishes' that have the effect of superficially dealing with problems that really should be dealt with in more depth. For example, rules that prevented artillery from firing in support of units that have already advanced would do a lot more to enable OPART to better simulate World War One than adding Sopwith Camels -- and that should be pointed out. Give the designers a choice between a few hard but essential improvements and a grab-bag of relatively easy add-ons (like elephants) and they'll naturally tend to do what's easiest -- and we'll get that much less substantial improvement in the design. It's like if you give a car designer a choice between giving you a car that runs on solar power and one that has a second cup-holder. Well, you're going to get the second cup-holder. For similar reasons I tend to disapprove of ideas like production models. I'd rather see what's wrong within the scope that OPART already covers fixed than encourage Ralph to add things. There's obviously a finite amount of programming time that will get sunk into OPART -- and I'd rather see that programming time spent addressing the more fundamental flaws that are already present than in adding bells and whistles.

Veers -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/23/2007 6:07:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: Mario, it's a 'Wish list'. It has everyone's wishes on it. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are 'stupid' or don't belong there. That's true, but... What's happened in the past is that superficial additions are made to 'expand' the scope of OPART -- but nothing was done to implement the more serious changes that really were required. So when ACOW came out we 'got' World War One and even the nineteenth century -- except that we didn't. Sopwith Camels and musket squads hardly touched the differences between the original World War Two and later scope of OPART and the earlier periods that were now 'modelled.' So I think it's legitimate to criticize 'wishes' that have the effect of superficially dealing with problems that really should be dealt with in more depth. For example, rules that prevented artillery from firing in support of units that have already advanced would do a lot more to enable OPART to better simulate World War One than adding Sopwith Camels -- and that should be pointed out. Give the designers a choice between a few hard but essential improvements and a grab-bag of relatively easy add-ons (like elephants) and they'll naturally tend to do what's easiest -- and we'll get that much less substantial improvement in the design. It's like if you give a car designer a choice between giving you a car that runs on solar power and one that has a second cup-holder. Well, you're going to get the second cup-holder. For similar reasons I tend to disapprove of ideas like production models. I'd rather see what's wrong within the scope that OPART already covers fixed than encourage Ralph to add things. There's obviously a finite amount of programming time that will get sunk into OPART -- and I'd rather see that programming time spent addressing the more fundamental flaws that are already present than in adding bells and whistles. Well, to be quite honest I was more against the way that Mario did the criticizing than the actual criticizing.

ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/23/2007 7:38:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silvanski quote: ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior How about some kind of dedicated ground unit for airbases? These would represent aircraft ground support crews. Thus unit would have to be present in an airbase hex in order for aircraft to operate from the base. ...a unit having the characteristics of a carrier but with ground deployment capabilities... might be possible using bio-ed... Curtis/Bob, what do you think? It is possible using the Bio-ed. I use them. There are limitations, though, to make a long story short.

Boonierat -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/27/2007 11:22:44 AM)
Could it be possible to prevent a unit of splitting in 3 when its airlifted from one friendly-controlled airfield to another? its annoying having to recombine them almost every time [;)] Also, I'm probably gonna start beating the proverbial dead horse again but is there any particular reason why limiting air units to 3/hex max has never been changed?

ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/27/2007 12:03:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Boonierat Also, I'm probably gonna start beating the proverbial dead horse again but is there any particular reason why limiting air units to 3/hex max has never been changed? As far as that goes, it'd be nice if the maximum number of units per airbase could be set in the editor. Sometimes -- particularly in low density scenarios, one wants players to be able to use smaller fields in remote locations. One doesn't want three units totalling 437 aircraft to be able to operate from them.

rhinobones -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (9/29/2007 12:43:53 AM)
7.18 Surrounded defender breakout from combat – retreating units could check RBC against the weakest or all blocking enemy units. I actually had this happen during a TOAW III (previous patch) solitary game. An artillery unit escaped encirclement by overrunning, and eliminating, a weaker AT unit. The artillery unit was being controlled by the PO so maybe that had something to do with the combat results. For the wish list, I would like to see an option available which lets the player see combat losses equated in AP units rather than percentages. The enemy losses should probably be masked by the fog of war, but not to the extent that aircraft losses are currently reported. Also, a unit which is victorious and enters the previously enemy controlled hex should have more accuracy in reporting enemy losses as opposed to a unit which does not take the enemy position. Would also like to see some variety when it comes to the engine's division of retreating units. Seems that they always split into three subunits with at least one of them in the reorganization state. Like to see units sometimes split into two subunits, having a higher frequency of being able to function after the combat. Regards, RhinoBones [image]local://upfiles/5722/D6CF5449B44F4E7A8A65F63766674513.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.9375