RE: What to change ?

RE: What to change ? (Full Version)

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

Message

ColinWright -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 9:45:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keke quote: ORIGINAL: Ben Turner Notably, the best TOAW player I've encountered in PBM (Colin Wright) is one of those people who plays the game as if it were a real battle. I wonder if this Colin dude has ever played against any ladder leaders of SZO. Might get his a** whupped. You seem to have managed to miss the point. Anyway, I wanted to mention we've compiled quite a list of possible changes over at TDG.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 10:27:38 AM)
I would be interested to see more of the internal game mechanics made editable, such as the number of "shots" a unit gets in combat, etc. I'd also like to see an in game formation editor that would let you transfer equipment between units during play, as well as create new units. Ideally, this would have several different levels of intensity which the designer could assign to each force. Thus, in a France 40 scenario, the Allies would be limited to merely shuffling around equipment from one unit to another, whereas the Germans would be able to create ad hoc kampfgruppes on the fly.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 10:42:43 AM)
I'd also like to see some improvements to the playback function in PBEM. One thing I detest about the current setup is that detailed combat reports are not available to the player watching the playback. This puts the defender at a huge disadvantage in PBEM. Also, the communication level doesn't seem to work. I was playing around with it a few years ago, since the help file seemed to state that moving would cause a comm check which could potentially cause a unit to go into reorg. This would have been great for a France 40 scenario or WWI or something, but even with a zero communication level, it never panned out. Nobody ever went into reorg.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 10:51:53 AM)
Sorry for the broken up posts, it's late. How about editable climate zones? I'd like to be able to define my own rather than having to accept the number of hexes that the engine determines should separate different zones, and being able to have climate zones that run from east to west would be a big plus. When I designed my Ecuador 95 scenario years ago, there was no way to properly model weather because the zones only went north-south. Also, the game currently makes some assumptions about weather that would be nice to edit. For example, we found in the course of playtesting Campaign for South Vietnam that hot weather causes mud to disappear pretty quickly in TOAW- thus South Vietnam had to be made "cold"! I can't remember what if any side effects that had.

coralsaw -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 11:06:31 AM)
Looking at the great screenshot that Mantis provided, well I have to say this thing still looks the dog's... [:)] And another thing that's been creeping inside my memories for ages: the font, I so hate TOAW's original font, it makes me cry. Fix it or sumthin. [:D] /coralsaw

*Lava* -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 1:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mantis I've gone through the mods available recently, and taken a few bmp's from here, and a few from there. The bulk of this mod is from Peter's mod, which is available at www.tdg.nu for those interested. Have a peek! [image]http://armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/shane/toawterrain.jpg[/image] Hmm... Hope we aren't going to stray too far from the original game. My take on the mod: * Towns - better * Fields - better * Roads - better * Frontier lines (red vice black) - better * Rivers - Purple and light blue... tends to blend in too much with the rest of the scenary and looks weird - worse * Airfields - perfer black * Trees - perfer original Overall, at least from this screen it looks too darn "hexy." Like a boardgame. Hope the game will maintain the ability for terrain to spill over into the other hexes like before. Change things (in general) too much guys, and sure fire sales, may not be too sure fire. Ray (alias Lava)

JMS2 -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 1:11:20 PM)
But the good thing is that anyone can change the graphics in TOAW as they are .bmp files, one just needs patience. This is what Peter did, he liked the boardgame look, and it can be useful for debugging terrain when designing scenarios. In fact I use both the original and the mod depending on the scenario, all you have to do is put the original art into a winzip file and extract when the mood suits.

RyanCrierie -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 2:40:11 PM)
Well, I've always liked the way in HPS games when you select a unit, you immediately see in it's unit box how many men or vehicles are in that unit; while with TOAW; you have to select the unit, and then right click to see a breakdown of numbers. Perhaps the unit information screen in the upper right corner of the TAOAW screen could be reworked to show raw men/tanks/vehicles/ships in that unit to help us gauge how big that unit is at a glance; as a Division counter might actually be only at regimental strength, especially on the Eastern Front.

RyanCrierie -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 2:41:39 PM)
The user interface for creating OOBs and events needs to be overhauled; perhaps an external OOB/Event editor could be programmed that would allow much more ease in editing them than the in-game editor?

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 2:49:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mantis I've gone through the mods available recently, and taken a few bmp's from here, and a few from there. The bulk of this mod is from Peter's mod, which is available at www.tdg.nu for those interested. Have a peek! [image]http://armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/shane/toawterrain.jpg[/image] This is very ugly. Too many bluish-purplish tones, and hexes do not blend. I play with no hex borders and have always liked the was hexes blend in TOAW, forming a very natural looking map. To say I liked the original map better would be an understatement. O.

Nemo69 -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 3:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie Well, I've always liked the way in HPS games when you select a unit, you immediately see in it's unit box how many men or vehicles are in that unit; while with TOAW; you have to select the unit, and then right click to see a breakdown of numbers. Perhaps the unit information screen in the upper right corner of the TAOAW screen could be reworked to show raw men/tanks/vehicles/ships in that unit to help us gauge how big that unit is at a glance; as a Division counter might actually be only at regimental strength, especially on the Eastern Front. Yeah, but should be optional with a toggle on/off shortcut - the unit TOE can hold up to 32 different items if memory serves me and could use quite a bit of the display surface.

JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 7:23:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Keke quote: ORIGINAL: Ben Turner Notably, the best TOAW player I've encountered in PBM (Colin Wright) is one of those people who plays the game as if it were a real battle. I wonder if this Colin dude has ever played against any ladder leaders of SZO. Might get his a** whupped. You seem to have managed to miss the point. That you play the game as if it was a real battle? How's that even possible without any hallucinogenics? quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Anyway, I wanted to mention we've compiled quite a list of possible changes over at TDG. http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.pl?board=TOAW;action=display;num=1128991272

06 Maestro -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 8:23:37 PM)
Other than removing the cheat bug, the most important change to this game would be the elimination of early turn ending do to a �failed proficiency check�. This feature is supposed to add randomness to the play, but in fact greatly reduces the games ability to accurately recreate military operations. Although it does not happen often, when it does, it can wreck a game. There are many other improvements that can/should be made,but the two above need to be on a high priority. Not too many new players will stick with a game after they get hit with an early turn ending on a turn that they just spent 2 hours carefully preparing for the 1st round of combat. There is a lively discussion regarding this at the Strategy Zone. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33397 Might as well "get it on" here too.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 10:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro Other than removing the cheat bug, the most important change to this game would be the elimination of early turn ending do to a �failed proficiency check�. This feature is supposed to add randomness to the play, but in fact greatly reduces the games ability to accurately recreate military operations. Although it does not happen often, when it does, it can wreck a game. There are many other improvements that can/should be made,but the two above need to be on a high priority. Not too many new players will stick with a game after they get hit with an early turn ending on a turn that they just spent 2 hours carefully preparing for the 1st round of combat. There is a lively discussion regarding this at the Strategy Zone. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33397 Might as well "get it on" here too. New players won't be spending the two hours, though, surely? They'll be breaking themselves in with smaller scenarios. Well, I know I did, and I thought it was the obvious way to go, but I suppose I could be wrong. Is it really that unrealistic? Can you not find a plausible reason for it happening? It is, after all, a 'proficiency check', a better force will suffer from it less. When it happened to me I always thought of it as Clauswitz's 'friction' in action. Steve.

JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 10:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix quote: ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro Other than removing the cheat bug, the most important change to this game would be the elimination of early turn ending do to a �failed proficiency check�. This feature is supposed to add randomness to the play, but in fact greatly reduces the games ability to accurately recreate military operations. Although it does not happen often, when it does, it can wreck a game. There are many other improvements that can/should be made,but the two above need to be on a high priority. Not too many new players will stick with a game after they get hit with an early turn ending on a turn that they just spent 2 hours carefully preparing for the 1st round of combat. There is a lively discussion regarding this at the Strategy Zone. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33397 Might as well "get it on" here too. New players won't be spending the two hours, though, surely? They'll be breaking themselves in with smaller scenarios. Well, I know I did, and I thought it was the obvious way to go, but I suppose I could be wrong. Is it really that unrealistic? Can you not find a plausible reason for it happening? It is, after all, a 'proficiency check', a better force will suffer from it less. When it happened to me I always thought of it as Clauswitz's 'friction' in action. Steve. I recommend checking the discussion at SZO. It is pretty educational on the subject.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 10:33:37 PM)
Doing that right now...

steveh11Matrix -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 10:59:57 PM)
OK, read that now. Since I'm not registered there... I'd like to keep the random element, but I sympathise with the complaints of the people who say "Why should my turn end over the whole front because one element a thousand miles away failed a check?" In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn. Sound workable? I'd guess only the Dev Team could say... Steve.

Nemo69 -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 11:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn. Yeah, that would be just fine, proficiency check of sorts on a formation basis - should allow to retain a certain level of randomness in battle results while at the same time getting rid of one of the most annoying TOAW features.

JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 11:53:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn. Now we're talking! In other words, I agree. [:D]

steveh11Matrix -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 12:02:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keke quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn. Now we're talking! In other words, I agree. [:D] Cool! [8D]

06 Maestro -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 6:50:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix OK, read that now. Since I'm not registered there... I'd like to keep the random element, but I sympathise with the complaints of the people who say "Why should my turn end over the whole front because one element a thousand miles away failed a check?" In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn. Sound workable? I'd guess only the Dev Team could say... Steve. That�s what I�m talking about, Steve. The current method is unpredictable and completely unrealistic. Early turn endings can occur to any side regardless of its proficiency. This does not make it more fair; it�s still an unrealistic feature. It my position that �proficiency� should be a factor only in computing combat power and not have anything to do with allotted time. It does ad a great degree of �randomness� to the game, but is that what we play for? I think we play TOAW to try to get a feel for operational level situations-not �randomness�. The situations that can arise in a game do to sudden turn ending are ridiculous and have no historical parallel. Most players obviously will not put up with such events for very long and will look elsewhere for their entertainment. Whether new players take a month or two months to start playing �huge� type scenarios is academic-they will see them and they will play them. It is guaranteed that they would be burned by a �proficiency check� before too long. Some will have caught the bug and continue to play regardless, but if the past is any indication, most will just move on to another game.

Chuck2 -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 8:00:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keke http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.pl?board=TOAW;action=display;num=1128991272 Thanks. I like Colin's hex possession idea, it just isn't necessary in some scenarios to increase movement rates for moving through 'enemy controlled' territory. It would be nice if designers could turn off this feature in the scenario editor.

RyanCrierie -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 8:40:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo69 Yeah, but should be optional with a toggle on/off shortcut - the unit TOE can hold up to 32 different items if memory serves me and could use quite a bit of the display surface. I wasn't talking about showing all 32 items; just RAW Numbers; like for 4th Panzer Division: 130 TANKS, 3000 VEHICLES, 4000 MEN, rather than doing a detailed breakdown.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 1:01:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix OK, read that now. Since I'm not registered there... I'd like to keep the random element, but I sympathise with the complaints of the people who say "Why should my turn end over the whole front because one element a thousand miles away failed a check?" In the game, as it currently stands, there's some provision for formations. Let's have this fleshed out, so that the failure of one division in a game based on, for example, PanzerGruppe Guderian, doesn't spell the end of the whole turn - it just eliminates that formation from future use in that turn. Sound workable? I'd guess only the Dev Team could say... Steve. That�s what I�m talking about, Steve. The current method is unpredictable and completely unrealistic. Early turn endings can occur to any side regardless of its proficiency. This does not make it more fair; it�s still an unrealistic feature. It my position that �proficiency� should be a factor only in computing combat power and not have anything to do with allotted time. It does ad a great degree of �randomness� to the game, but is that what we play for? I think we play TOAW to try to get a feel for operational level situations-not �randomness�. The situations that can arise in a game do to sudden turn ending are ridiculous and have no historical parallel. Most players obviously will not put up with such events for very long and will look elsewhere for their entertainment. Whether new players take a month or two months to start playing �huge� type scenarios is academic-they will see them and they will play them. It is guaranteed that they would be burned by a �proficiency check� before too long. Some will have caught the bug and continue to play regardless, but if the past is any indication, most will just move on to another game. OK, I'm now registered there and have posted. I'm in favour of keeping the random element, for formations, not a whole side, but with would agree to a switch to turn it off. Whether this is a switch controlled by the player or the Scenario Designer is another question, I guess - I'm in favour of making it player choice, but others may disagree. I'm actually not too sure I like the variable number of rounds as it's implemented in any case, as I see it as an encouragement to 'gamey play' and therefore a real turn-off, and actually an impediment to playing against a human opponent - you play the system, not the military situation. When I very first started playing wargames, with miniatures, the rules I used - anyone remember Donald Featherstone? - had an override called 'Inherent Military Probability'. If the game umpire saw a single trooper with a pistol overcome a brilliantly executed flank march by some freak die-roll, he could step in and say that wasn't right, and over-rule. I seriously doubt that we'll get an AI capable of doing this, nor am I sure I want it, but the best answer is not to allow such things in the first place, to reward good play, and not to reward manipulation of the game engine in a manner that is a distortion of 'The Operational Art Of War'. Steve.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 3:09:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grisha Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but I'd like to the scenario file to be the 'pointer' to the weapons/equipment database to be used. The database could be the default one, or a modified one. Sure, there would be a lot of possibilities wrt weapons/equipment capabilities because of this, but there would also be a drive to standardize. And, when you have a modifiable database that relies heavily on balanced realistic assessments, you will have gamers dedicated to meeting that requirement. Make the TOAW weapons/equipment database easily modifiable and linked to a scenario, and I'm sure there will be a select few of player-based databases that we can all rely on to a surprising degree. -grisha Well I'm all for one thats linked to the individual scenario. Beyond that things get more tricky. Sometimes one or both sides of a conflict don't use a piece of equipment in its optimal manner. In such cases it should nit be preforming up to specs. A good example is AA guns where, generally, the Allies did not use them for front line duty while the Germans did extensivly. Obvously in such a case AA guns in Allied hands can become unrealistic.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 3:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mantis I've gone through the mods available recently, and taken a few bmp's from here, and a few from there. The bulk of this mod is from Peter's mod, which is available at www.tdg.nu for those interested. Have a peek! [image]http://armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/shane/toawterrain.jpg[/image] Ahh - this mod with some of Jarek and Goran's files for roads and airfields are my personal choice for the look of TOAW as well.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 3:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms I'd also like to see some improvements to the playback function in PBEM. One thing I detest about the current setup is that detailed combat reports are not available to the player watching the playback. This puts the defender at a huge disadvantage in PBEM. I want some work in this area as well. I'd like to see a super fast forward that burned through moves where nothing could be seen of what the enemy was doing. Nothing more mind numbing then sitting through 6000 moves of Bob Cross' Campaign for North Africa of which only 12 moves or so are actually visable. A fast forward and a faster fast worward would also be nice. I recall once hiding a sneaky move in Erik Nygard's Norway scenario through the simple expediant of making my moves incrementally between moving the planes all over the map. Basically just presuming that my opponent won't notice what I'm doing 'cause his eyes have glazed over from watching the planes rebase. Finally the playback really needs a reverse button. I can no longer come close to the number of times I have hit pause just after something interesting happened. At that point I have to decide whether I want to watch 6000 moves again just to see what the 5 or so interesting ones I missed were.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 3:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava quote: ORIGINAL: Mantis I've gone through the mods available recently, and taken a few bmp's from here, and a few from there. The bulk of this mod is from Peter's mod, which is available at www.tdg.nu for those interested. Have a peek! [image]http://armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/shane/toawterrain.jpg[/image] Hmm... Hope we aren't going to stray too far from the original game. My take on the mod: * Towns - better * Fields - better * Roads - better * Frontier lines (red vice black) - better * Rivers - Purple and light blue... tends to blend in too much with the rest of the scenary and looks weird - worse * Airfields - perfer black * Trees - perfer original Overall, at least from this screen it looks too darn "hexy." Like a boardgame. Hope the game will maintain the ability for terrain to spill over into the other hexes like before. Change things (in general) too much guys, and sure fire sales, may not be too sure fire. Ray (alias Lava) The 'hexy' look was very intentional on Peters part. In fact I would go so far as to submit that getting a more 'boardgame' feel was the original reason the mod was created.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 3:38:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix quote: ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro Other than removing the cheat bug, the most important change to this game would be the elimination of early turn ending do to a �failed proficiency check�. This feature is supposed to add randomness to the play, but in fact greatly reduces the games ability to accurately recreate military operations. Although it does not happen often, when it does, it can wreck a game. There are many other improvements that can/should be made,but the two above need to be on a high priority. Not too many new players will stick with a game after they get hit with an early turn ending on a turn that they just spent 2 hours carefully preparing for the 1st round of combat. There is a lively discussion regarding this at the Strategy Zone. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33397 Might as well "get it on" here too. New players won't be spending the two hours, though, surely? They'll be breaking themselves in with smaller scenarios. Well, I know I did, and I thought it was the obvious way to go, but I suppose I could be wrong. Is it really that unrealistic? Can you not find a plausible reason for it happening? It is, after all, a 'proficiency check', a better force will suffer from it less. When it happened to me I always thought of it as Clauswitz's 'friction' in action. Steve. In my experience the worst way this happens is when the attackers just refuse to give up on the attack and 'use' up the turn. One of the most glaring examples of this is in Ilkka's Descision in the North. Basically the Finns had proficiency ratings through the roof. They were elite units but they were small. If you attacked a Russian unit what would end up happening was that they would not retreat - but the big Russian divisions were so large that they simply absorbed the punishment the Finns were dishing out. End result was that an attack by some Finnish patrol in the middle of Finland caused all of Amry Group North to roll to a halt 600 miles to the south.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: What to change ? (10/15/2005 3:52:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix I'm in favour of keeping the random element, for formations, not a whole side, but with would agree to a switch to turn it off. Whether this is a switch controlled by the player or the Scenario Designer is another question, I guess - I'm in favour of making it player choice, but others may disagree. I'd certianly be in favour of making the default the option of the designer. Designers can be a very exacting with their creations and what they choose to include or not can be very well thought out. There may be good historical reasons why its turned on or off. Actually making its ability to be turned on and off and allowing some kind of percentage to rate it per formation might be ideal. Then we get one more step in the direction of being able to simulate France 40 where the Germans rarely 'freeze' while the French, who are unprepared for Blitzkrieg, sadly have a strong tendancy to freeze after their initial WWI style prepared attack. quote: I'm actually not too sure I like the variable number of rounds as it's implemented in any case, as I see it as an encouragement to 'gamey play' and therefore a real turn-off, and actually an impediment to playing against a human opponent - you play the system, not the military situation. When I very first started playing wargames, with miniatures, the rules I used - anyone remember Donald Featherstone? - had an override called 'Inherent Military Probability'. If the game umpire saw a single trooper with a pistol overcome a brilliantly executed flank march by some freak die-roll, he could step in and say that wasn't right, and over-rule. I seriously doubt that we'll get an AI capable of doing this, nor am I sure I want it, but the best answer is not to allow such things in the first place, to reward good play, and not to reward manipulation of the game engine in a manner that is a distortion of 'The Operational Art Of War'. Steve. I'll say here I disagree with you - especially if its implemented better. The Germans could be said to have litterly had more 'moves' then their opponents. In fact this is a fundemental feature of the way the Americans fight modern war. American military doctrine contends that there is a descision loop in which military commanders order their formations to do something and their fomations comply after which the units recieve more orders. Modern American military doctrine attempts to get insiode this loop by using speed and firepower to litterly short circuite the enemies ability to give coherent orders becasue any order they give based on their latest information is already out of date. Essentially the modern American military strives to be able to make more 'moves' in a given space of time then their opponents.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125