Comprehensive Wishlist version 12 (Full Version)

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



Message

Curtis Lemay -> Comprehensive Wishlist version 12 (9/2/2007 5:48:31 PM)

Just a heads up to anyone that didn't notice I'd updated the wishlist document. See post #1 in the Comprehensive Wishlist thread in the Scenario Design board:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/1/2007 7:04:00 PM)

And now another heads up that the wishlist document has been revised a third time. See the same post #1 in the Scenario Design board:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287&mpage=1&key=�



JAMiAM -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/1/2007 7:31:15 PM)

Thanks for the heads-up, not to mention the continual work that goes into the document, Bob.



vahauser -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/1/2007 11:48:18 PM)

Overall, I agree with Mario that the wishes should be prioritized.  For example, I would make the pre-20th-Century stuff a lower priority than the PBEM stuff.

I would like to add some wishes:
1)  Make it easier to change fonts on the counters and the map and the GUI.  I am getting older and my eyes don't work as well as they used to. 
2)  Have the fully-zoomed-in (the large size) map and counters be as clear and crisp as the standard default zoom.  I am getting older and my eyes don't work as well as they used to.  But currently, the fully-zoomed-in (large size) map and counters are grainy and blurry and pixilated and it gives me a headache.
3)  Introduce Leaders into the game.  Leaders would have a variety of capabilites (supply, coordination, attack, defense, etc.) that they would pass on to the unit(s) under their command.  This is not my idea.  Mario brought it up and I like his idea.  I've played World in Flames, Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Civilization IV, Railroad Tycoon, Steel Panthers, and other games that have leaders and they really add a lot of color and flavor and a sense of history to the game.  EDIT1: This could be done in the Scenario Editor where a "blank leader" (sort of the way blank units are now) could be created and assigned a variety of attributes (there could be dozens of attributes, or more, to choose from). Then the leader could be named and assigned to a formation.
4)  Expand the BioEd (or whatever needs expanding) to allow for more than 2018 equipment slots. 
EDIT3: Wish 5) Allow the scenario designer to choose the hex density for the hex scale chosen.

EDIT2: My thoughts on the new hex scales being wished for are that I think they bring problems to the game engine not easily resolved. I like the new time scales being wished for. Bi-daily and bi-weekly time scales are a good wish IMO. However, the new hex scales being wished for, not so much IMO. 1.25km per hex is starting to get into the realm of the tactical, and 100km hexes are strategic, not operational. Also, 1.25km hexes are problematic in a different sense--many weapon systems have direct-fire ranges in excess of 1.25km, which means that direct-fire ranges would then have to be worked into the game engine and this would change how combat would have to be resolved. Indeed, I believe that even 2.5km hexes are too small due to the direct-fire capabilites of many weapons that are not properly being represented at that scale today.

In any event, I appreciate the effort that has gone into the wish list to date.  A well-prioritized and flow-charted layout would make the task of any would-be "wish granter" a lot easier to grant the wishes.



DeadInThrench -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/2/2007 1:50:22 AM)

OK, I downloaded and read this extensive (!) list, and saw my suggestion that there be an option to have the unit designiations on the counters (along with the combat vars and movement allowances) and also saw there the ideas of having readiness/supply and proficiency/%ofTOE as an option for what is displayed on the counters, and I like that suggestion.

But, I didn't see my other recent suggestions listed <g>. So, one liners on those in the event you so decide to include them in your list....

1. If you right click on a unit when the left mouse button is down, you bypass the pull-down menu and go directly to the unit display.
2. An option to have the hex composition screen in the upper right hand area in lieu of what is there now.
3. Add multipliers to the AP values of the different types of units so that the combat values printed on the counters come more into line with the changes that were made in COW (best estimate).

Also, I read through the list of wishes and.... IMO.... some of them are SCARY in the sense, do you really want to do that?? <g> So, might get some input from the overall community before implementing.

Thank you,

DiT



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/3/2007 12:39:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I would like to add some wishes:
1)  Make it easier to change fonts on the counters and the map and the GUI.  I am getting older and my eyes don't work as well as they used to. 


How much easier do you need? Just edit the "Opart 3 Fonts.ini" file. It's a little more difficult to change the fonts on the counters. That requires editing the "numbers.bmp" file. But, you have the power to do it yourself, if you desire.

quote:

2)  Have the fully-zoomed-in (the large size) map and counters be as clear and crisp as the standard default zoom.  I am getting older and my eyes don't work as well as they used to.  But currently, the fully-zoomed-in (large size) map and counters are grainy and blurry and pixilated and it gives me a headache.


You're fully empowered to create the tiles yourself if you want to. I believe the prefix is "h_" for them. Same for the tiny ("t_") and ultra tiny ("u_") tiles.

quote:

3)  Introduce Leaders into the game.  Leaders would have a variety of capabilites (supply, coordination, attack, defense, etc.) that they would pass on to the unit(s) under their command.  This is not my idea.  Mario brought it up and I like his idea.  I've played World in Flames, Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Civilization IV, Railroad Tycoon, Steel Panthers, and other games that have leaders and they really add a lot of color and flavor and a sense of history to the game.  EDIT1: This could be done in the Scenario Editor where a "blank leader" (sort of the way blank units are now) could be created and assigned a variety of attributes (there could be dozens of attributes, or more, to choose from). Then the leader could be named and assigned to a formation.


Already in there. Item 4.13.1.

quote:

EDIT3: Wish 5) Allow the scenario designer to choose the hex density for the hex scale chosen.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but check to see if it isn't the same as Item 7.10.1.

quote:

EDIT2: My thoughts on the new hex scales being wished for are that I think they bring problems to the game engine not easily resolved. 1.25km per hex is starting to get into the realm of the tactical, ...


Depends on the period and subject.

quote:

and 100km hexes are strategic, not operational.


About the same scale as WitP. An operational topic.

quote:

Also, 1.25km hexes are problematic in a different sense--many weapon systems have direct-fire ranges in excess of 1.25km, which means that direct-fire ranges would then have to be worked into the game engine and this would change how combat would have to be resolved. Indeed, I believe that even 2.5km hexes are too small due to the direct-fire capabilites of many weapons that are not properly being represented at that scale today.


Can you envision any topics where no such weapons are present? Let's treat the designers as adults, capable of determining for themselves whether such scales are ok or a problem for their topics. For most WWII topics and earlier, 1.25km is still operational.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/3/2007 12:43:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

1. If you right click on a unit when the left mouse button is down, you bypass the pull-down menu and go directly to the unit display.


There's already a hot key for that.

quote:

2. An option to have the hex composition screen in the upper right hand area in lieu of what is there now.


I missed that. It's helpful to me if we could concentrate the suggestions on the wishlist thread.

quote:

3. Add multipliers to the AP values of the different types of units so that the combat values printed on the counters come more into line with the changes that were made in COW (best estimate).


I don't think you've adequately established that yet. Show us some test results.



vahauser -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/3/2007 3:52:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I would like to add some wishes:
1)  Make it easier to change fonts on the counters and the map and the GUI.  I am getting older and my eyes don't work as well as they used to. 


How much easier do you need? Just edit the "Opart 3 Fonts.ini" file. It's a little more difficult to change the fonts on the counters. That requires editing the "numbers.bmp" file. But, you have the power to do it yourself, if you desire.

quote:

2)  Have the fully-zoomed-in (the large size) map and counters be as clear and crisp as the standard default zoom.  I am getting older and my eyes don't work as well as they used to.  But currently, the fully-zoomed-in (large size) map and counters are grainy and blurry and pixilated and it gives me a headache.


You're fully empowered to create the tiles yourself if you want to. I believe the prefix is "h_" for them. Same for the tiny ("t_") and ultra tiny ("u_") tiles.

quote:

3)  Introduce Leaders into the game.  Leaders would have a variety of capabilites (supply, coordination, attack, defense, etc.) that they would pass on to the unit(s) under their command.  This is not my idea.  Mario brought it up and I like his idea.  I've played World in Flames, Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Civilization IV, Railroad Tycoon, Steel Panthers, and other games that have leaders and they really add a lot of color and flavor and a sense of history to the game.  EDIT1: This could be done in the Scenario Editor where a "blank leader" (sort of the way blank units are now) could be created and assigned a variety of attributes (there could be dozens of attributes, or more, to choose from). Then the leader could be named and assigned to a formation.


Already in there. Item 4.13.1.

quote:

EDIT3: Wish 5) Allow the scenario designer to choose the hex density for the hex scale chosen.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but check to see if it isn't the same as Item 7.10.1.

quote:

EDIT2: My thoughts on the new hex scales being wished for are that I think they bring problems to the game engine not easily resolved. 1.25km per hex is starting to get into the realm of the tactical, ...


Depends on the period and subject.

quote:

and 100km hexes are strategic, not operational.


About the same scale as WitP. An operational topic.

quote:

Also, 1.25km hexes are problematic in a different sense--many weapon systems have direct-fire ranges in excess of 1.25km, which means that direct-fire ranges would then have to be worked into the game engine and this would change how combat would have to be resolved. Indeed, I believe that even 2.5km hexes are too small due to the direct-fire capabilites of many weapons that are not properly being represented at that scale today.


Can you envision any topics where no such weapons are present? Let's treat the designers as adults, capable of determining for themselves whether such scales are ok or a problem for their topics. For most WWII topics and earlier, 1.25km is still operational.


Curtis,

Thank you for commanding me to know and do what I am and am not empowered to know and do. And let's for the moment say that you do indeed know what I'm capable of and not capable of. Just because I'M capable of doing a thing doesn't imply that somebody else is or is not capable of the same thing. Some people might find editing the .ini file and editing the .bmp files extremely difficult, or even impossible. So perhaps the wishes I wished were to make such graphical presentation issues easier for everybody and not just the computer/graphically literate. EDIT: Also, I think that the more user-friendly that the game is, then the more copies of the game will sell. Which, in turn, will make the game more popular. So, from a purely marketing perspective, having user-friendly and easy to modify graphics is not a bad idea.

The point of wishes is that they are wishes.

Regarding my wish concerning the ability to edit the hex density. The manual states that a 2.5km hex has an "allowed equipment density" of 68, a 5km hex has an "allowed equipment density" of 100, and so on. Now, let's say I want to design a battle in which a Napoleonic general deploys his entire army into single 2.5km hex. The historical "allowed equipment density" in 1805 is very different than the "allowed equipment density" in 2007. By this I mean that in 1805 it was not unusual to deploy an entire army within the area defined by a 2.5km TOAW hex. And by this I mean that said Napoleonic army stack should not go "Red", because it is deploying at the historical densities for the period. It should not be penalized for doing what was common for that period in history. And so, my wish is for scenario designers to be able to edit the "allowed equipment density" per hex for their scenario. And I would like that wish to go on the "official" wishlist.

Regarding my opinions concerning hex size and the word "operational". They were only opinions and did not involve wishes. If people want to move armies and fleets around a map of the entire planet during 1939-1945 (which is what 100km hexes would allow) and call it "operational", then that's fine by me. And if people want to move platoons and companies around the Berlin area in 1945 (which is what 1.25km hexes would allow) and call it "operational", then that's fine by me, too. However, I would like to add a wish to the above wishes: I wish that the prioritization of 100km and 1.25km game scales be placed low on the "official" wishlist.

And I would also like my wishes regarding graphical presentation issues to be placed on the "official" wishlist (at any level of prioritization).

--Victor



DeadInThrench -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/3/2007 4:41:09 AM)

OK, you want some test results?? <g>

This started out as a gut feel that an artillery unit in the Italian East Africa scenario was not performing up to the Attack value printed on it's counter (this is JUST about the Attack values printed on the counters), and so I did some testing.

What I did, was go into the editor and take the 4th Indian division (also in the Italian East Africa scenario) and strip it's equipment down to 1 truck (had problems testing if I didn't have that 1 truck in there), and then systematically added the various equipment that had AP values (light infantry, engineers, light tanks and jeeps) to see how this increased the Attack value.

And what I found, that adding 1 of any of these equipment, got the Attack value up to 1.

So, to start, there is an adder of .99 to all Attack values, this apparently so that no scenarios start out with units with values of 0.

Then, there was the matter of how much of each type of equipment it would take to increase the Attack value by +1, and this was pretty consistant by unit and the test results here were....

Light Infantry: 30
Engineers: 12
Light Tanks: 20
Jeeps: 20

Again, it took THAT many of each type of equipment there to increase the Attack value by 1 (note that is some cases it was 1 less than the amounts indicated above but, this was the exception and not unexpected, given the situation)

Now, the AP values for these units are Light Infantry: 2, Engineers: 5, Light Tanks: 3, Jeeps: 3. So, what we are talking here, is that multiplying the numbers listed above by the AP numbers, all give the same result: 60.

So, the formula for Attack value for a unit would be:

Attack value = .99 + (sum of (individual equipment strengths X morale)) X scaling factor

with the 'individual equipment strengths' being the AP value of each times the number of each.

To get to the KEY POINT here, the Attack values are being calculated by straight AP values, with NO adjustment due to the changes that were made in COW, what with bombardment still being handled separately and otherwise as it was previously, but now infantry, motorized, and 'everything else', now having differing shots per round as detailed in the current manual.

So, my suggestion was that someone familiar with exactly how combat is resolved in the code, come up with gross multipliers for the each of the differing types of gear (e.g. artillery, infantry, mororized and 'everything else') and put this into the Attack values calculation so that the Attack values are at least reasonable relative to the changes made in COW.

I should also say here, that I would prefer .0, .1.... to .9, as Attack values that are less than 1, to the deal of adding .99 to each but, whatever.

Now, what I want to say in concluding here is that I realize that you guys gotta do what you gotta do and thus I am not interested in haranguing or anything along those lines. Instead, I am just putting this on the table and what you guys do or don't do, well, that's what you do or don't do. I will however say here that, IMO, this is more along the lines of a request for a fix rather than an enhancement.

DiT



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/3/2007 6:55:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Regarding my wish concerning the ability to edit the hex density. The manual states that a 2.5km hex has an "allowed equipment density" of 68, a 5km hex has an "allowed equipment density" of 100, and so on. Now, let's say I want to design a battle in which a Napoleonic general deploys his entire army into single 2.5km hex. The historical "allowed equipment density" in 1805 is very different than the "allowed equipment density" in 2007. By this I mean that in 1805 it was not unusual to deploy an entire army within the area defined by a 2.5km TOAW hex. And by this I mean that said Napoleonic army stack should not go "Red", because it is deploying at the historical densities for the period. It should not be penalized for doing what was common for that period in history. And so, my wish is for scenario designers to be able to edit the "allowed equipment density" per hex for their scenario.


That's the same as 7.10.1, as I suggested.

quote:

Regarding my opinions concerning hex size and the word "operational". They were only opinions and did not involve wishes. If people want to move armies and fleets around a map of the entire planet during 1939-1945 (which is what 100km hexes would allow) and call it "operational", then that's fine by me. And if people want to move platoons and companies around the Berlin area in 1945 (which is what 1.25km hexes would allow) and call it "operational", then that's fine by me, too. However, I would like to add a wish to the above wishes: I wish that the prioritization of 100km and 1.25km game scales be placed low on the "official" wishlist.


I'm not putting any opinions of the wishes in the wishlist. You can express your opinion here. And, I would point out that there are already a host of 1km scenarios already posted (including a bunch that came with the last update).

quote:

And I would also like my wishes regarding graphical presentation issues to be placed on the "official" wishlist (at any level of prioritization).


The wishlist is for code changes only - i.e. tasks that require Ralph to address. (For example, it doesn't include scenario requests either). Ralph isn't a graphics designer. All graphical tasks will have to be addressed by the community (as many continue to do - for example: J Mass). And that community is fully empowered to do so. The code issues have already been addressed for the new map zooms.

It's exactly as if you were to request that a specific peice of equipment be revised. Those matters are now handled by the equipment editor, not via code changes. Thanks to the code hooks Ralph has provided, virtually every graphical matter has now been, in effect, outsourced to the rest of us.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (11/3/2007 7:00:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

To get to the KEY POINT here, the Attack values are being calculated by straight AP values, with NO adjustment due to the changes that were made in COW, what with bombardment still being handled separately and otherwise as it was previously, but now infantry, motorized, and 'everything else', now having differing shots per round as detailed in the current manual.

So, my suggestion was that someone familiar with exactly how combat is resolved in the code, come up with gross multipliers for the each of the differing types of gear (e.g. artillery, infantry, mororized and 'everything else') and put this into the Attack values calculation so that the Attack values are at least reasonable relative to the changes made in COW.


I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I just think it requires more discussion. And I think we do need actual test data that show that motorized equipment really is three times stronger than currently displayed. Interpreting a line in the manual isn't that reliable.

quote:

I should also say here, that I would prefer .0, .1.... to .9, as Attack values that are less than 1, to the deal of adding .99 to each but, whatever.


I doubt that .99 is being added. It's just being rounded up.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (1/1/2008 5:43:22 PM)

And now another heads up that the wishlist document has been revised a fourth time. See the same post #1 in the Scenario Design board:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287

Note that, since I stopped deleting items that had been implemented in the last version, I decided to add back in all the items that have been implemented for T3 so far. Implemented items are shown in green.



Veers -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (1/1/2008 8:35:26 PM)

A wise decision.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (3/1/2008 6:47:04 PM)

The Wishlist document has now been revised a 5th time. See the same post #1 in the Scenario Design board:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287

This thing just won't stop growing. Also, I made some organizational changes. Pre-20th Century stuff was moved to their own section, so it won't clutter up other sections and it was too large to pretend it was only a single sub-section item. I also collected all the requests for designer control over various game parameters into one place in the editor section.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/1/2008 5:02:43 PM)

The Wishlist document has now been revised a 6th time. See the same post #1 in the Scenario Design board:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287&mpage=1&key=�

Not too many additions this time. Maybe we're close to getting everything listed.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/3/2008 10:31:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The Wishlist document has now been revised a 6th time. See the same post #1 in the Scenario Design board:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287&mpage=1&key=��

Not too many additions this time. Maybe we're close to getting everything listed.


Her is a addition for the wishlist

To add Transportplanes, Transportships and rail wagons.

Add Transport missions for (Transport) planes.
And Airborne units can then only mad a airborne assault if there are

Airtransport, Seatransport and Railtransport is now set/change with a event. With this is a scenario more realistic. And as example: Airborne units can then only made a airborne assault if there are also transportplanes. (On the same airfield or like helicopterport rule)

And as last wish. That there soon is a release of a patch.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/3/2008 4:43:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
To add Transportplanes, Transportships and rail wagons.

Add Transport missions for (Transport) planes.
And Airborne units can then only mad a airborne assault if there are

Airtransport, Seatransport and Railtransport is now set/change with a event. With this is a scenario more realistic. And as example: Airborne units can then only made a airborne assault if there are also transportplanes. (On the same airfield or like helicopterport rule).


See item 6.14



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/3/2008 9:25:11 PM)

Then have I these additions for the wishlist.

That Special Forces, Coastal Artillery can reconstituted (Scenariodesigner choice)

That the scenariodesigner can choose that the Airborne units if they reconstituted lost or hold the Airborne movement.

That in the game if there are 2 or more understrength units of the same army are in the same hex, that the player can choose one understrength unit, and that the others transfer there equipment, (They withdraw and can later reconstitued) to this unit.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/4/2008 5:00:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Then have I these additions for the wishlist.

That Special Forces, Coastal Artillery can reconstituted (Scenariodesigner choice)


I was vaguely aware of the Special Forces issue. It seems like an ACOW bug - the designer's choice in the reconstitution panel is being ignored. Are there any others besides those two?

quote:

That the scenariodesigner can choose that the Airborne units if they reconstituted lost or hold the Airborne movement.


Perhaps with a cost of increased reconstitution time (x2, x3?).

quote:

That in the game if there are 2 or more understrength units of the same army are in the same hex, that the player can choose one understrength unit, and that the others transfer there equipment, (They withdraw and can later reconstitued) to this unit.


There would need to be restrictions so this could only be done with identical units with full cooperation. Resulting proficiency would be adjusted proportionately.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/4/2008 6:57:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I was vaguely aware of the Special Forces issue. It seems like an ACOW bug - the designer's choice in the reconstitution panel is being ignored. Are there any others besides those two?


I am only sure of these two. Mayby there are more, but I don't know it.



JAMiAM -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/4/2008 7:59:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I was vaguely aware of the Special Forces issue. It seems like an ACOW bug - the designer's choice in the reconstitution panel is being ignored. Are there any others besides those two?


I am only sure of these two. Mayby there are more, but I don't know it.

Not a bug. It was explicitly stated in the CoW manual, as it was in the TOAW III manual. Hence, a feature.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/5/2008 1:27:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I was vaguely aware of the Special Forces issue. It seems like an ACOW bug - the designer's choice in the reconstitution panel is being ignored. Are there any others besides those two?


I am only sure of these two. Mayby there are more, but I don't know it.

Not a bug. It was explicitly stated in the CoW manual, as it was in the TOAW III manual. Hence, a feature.



Then for the wishlist the following wish to delete this feature. And let SF say have 3 to 5 times increased Reconstitution time.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 5 (5/5/2008 6:40:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Not a bug. It was explicitly stated in the CoW manual, as it was in the TOAW III manual. Hence, a feature.


I think that's a holdover from the original TOAW I manual that was never updated. When the unit reconstitution choice was added to the replacement editor, it obviously should have superceded that condition. Perhaps the default condition in that editor for those units should be "don't reconstitute", but the option should still work.

This is like if we now discover that the new flanking rules don't work and someone points to the manual's description of flanking as proof that they shouldn't work.



a white rabbit -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (5/13/2008 6:13:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Overall, I agree with Mario that the wishes should be prioritized.  For example, I would make the pre-20th-Century stuff a lower priority than the PBEM stuff.



..[:'(]..

..and then he wants leaders..

..errrr



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (7/16/2008 4:25:08 PM)

The Wishlist document has now been revised a 7th time. See the same post #1 in the Scenario Design board:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287&mpage=1&key=�

Last time's lull in additions must have been a fluke, since the growth of the document was greater than ever this time. I switched from 2 to a 2.5 month update interval, though.

Some of the additions are just reorganizations, but there were a lot of new items. Also, I changed the color of the "completed" items from green to blue in hopes of making it more readable.



Boonierat -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (7/16/2008 4:35:32 PM)

I noticed yesterday that riverine units can't be deployed on canals in the scenario editor, was it a bug or intentional? I checked the revised wishlist and didn't see it mentioned.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (7/17/2008 3:49:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Boonierat

I noticed yesterday that riverine units can't be deployed on canals in the scenario editor, was it a bug or intentional? I checked the revised wishlist and didn't see it mentioned.


Do riverine units move on canals? The manual doesn't list that. Regardless, there is an obvious work-around that we use for similar issues (deploying a naval unit on a anchorage hex, for example).



Boonierat -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (7/17/2008 3:58:39 PM)

They do move along canals yes (both types) and I'm aware of the work-arounds. Still I see no reason why they couldn't be deployed on canals.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (7/18/2008 8:44:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Boonierat

They do move along canals yes (both types) and I'm aware of the work-arounds. Still I see no reason why they couldn't be deployed on canals.


As I said there are other similar cases. Rather than fix them all individually, it would be easier to make some sort of general fix. I'm thinking of something like the switch we have now that turns auto-contouring on and off. We could have a similar switch that turns deployment permission on and off. With it off, you could deploy anything anywhere; turn it on and the rules are imposed.



rhinobones -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist version 3 (7/19/2008 7:28:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
We could have a similar switch that turns deployment permission on and off. With it off, you could deploy anything anywhere . . .


That certainly sounds risky . . . like a scenario design function just looking for a train wreck. Maybe you want to clarify what you mean by “deploy anything anywhere”.

Regards, RhinoBones



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125