Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Interface Wish List

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Interface Wish List Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 5:16:03 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
You might even have some influence on the design evolution, by arguing your points in a public forum such as this. Such appeals to "realism", "playability", "feel", "simulation", "balance" and all the other intangibles that make a great GAME are what make such an active exhange of ideas a worthwhile endeavor.

What I'm interested in more is what are called 'interesting decisions.' If there are certain things that people do all the time, they should be automated. Rounds add a couple of things. One thing that they add is that it breaks up a large turn into several smaller turns, and forces you to make decisions about what size force you'll attack with, and whether it's worth risking the attack when it might fail and cause you to lose part of the turn. As the defender, you can also decide if you want to try to defend stiffly and cause him to use up part of his turn, or flexibly and keep your units in better shape. Right now, defending stiffly seems to be largely the better choice.

It's only when you get into the large scenarios that the whole thing doesn't always act right.

One other thing going on is that we need to see the consequences of some of the changes that have been made already. I saw one post that the limited number of rounds may have hurt the consequences of limited cooperation. We're going to have to look into those and see what is different.

TOAW is very complicated, and since I wasn't the original programmer, it's very difficult to make changes that don't have unintended consequences.

I definitely like to see a lively dialog, it helps to define the problem, and to see what the actually issue is from many sides.

The answer may be something completely oddball, like complex scenarios with multiple maps, and being able to resolve combat on each map independently.

Ralph


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 61
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 5:17:27 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Affects the chance of AA helping in a battle. It looks like low AA should have a 50 km range.




Low altitude ranged AAA (i.e., SAM's) have a 50 Km range. Not the pistols of the general stafff, nor the 88's of the Wehrmacht. No worries here. Carry on...

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 7/12/2006 5:18:06 AM >

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 62
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 5:49:20 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Affects the chance of AA helping in a battle. It looks like low AA should have a 50 km range.




Low altitude ranged AAA (i.e., SAM's) have a 50 Km range. Not the pistols of the general stafff, nor the 88's of the Wehrmacht. No worries here. Carry on...

You're right. It adds it's strength, but because it's outside of it's range, the strength it adds is 0. I just had to dig deep enough.



_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 63
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 8:37:24 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dobeln

"I know that TOAW III allows scenario designers to modify it, yet players still have no control over these features, but they should have. It belongs into the advanced rules, and both players should be able to decide prior to playing a scenario whether they want early-turn-endings/turn burns or not."

Sounds reasonable to me.


And to me.

(in reply to dobeln)
Post #: 64
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 8:52:54 AM   
KarlXII


Posts: 259
Joined: 8/21/2005
From: Stockholm
Status: offline 		- While I have already written earlier that I would like to see a small colored symbol to indicate if my units are in supply or not, it would be nice if there was some way I could assure wether the enemy is in supply or not as well. As it is now, I have to guess/assume I have blocket supply lines to the enemy but if I can´t be really sure I am wasting resources (read troops) trying to do that. Peharps it is by intent but still it would help a lot.

- More detailed information regarding losses for single units in a battle would be nice as well as a way to slow down the fast text messages during battle.

- The most single important thing in my view is to make a better endreport screen when the scenario is over. I would like to see losses for both sides, statistics for different equipment lost in comparison to the enemy. I am always playing against the computer and the only way to replay a scenario would be to compete against myself regarding losses (and Victory points).

Thanks for a great game!

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 65
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 9:08:26 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline 		A nice new feature would be to easily see what the influence of terrain will be on combat and movement.
For example clicking on a light woods hex would bring up a screen which lists the:
1. movement costs for inf, mot, etc...
2. defensive advantage
3. level of supply
4. weather effects (muddy, etc..)
5. Fortification bonus if present and if you have the necessary intelligence
6.....

Best,
Glenn

(in reply to KarlXII)
Post #: 66
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 10:30:59 AM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		My personal favorite for the interface would be to get rid of some of the buttons on the right (for real, how often do you change ports/airfields, borders and location names in a game? How often do you re-read the scenario description?) and exchange them with a fixed 'group composition' info field - I remember TAO had this so players could with one glance - and not 'right-click, menue navigate, left click' - see what is actually IN a hex.

murx

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 67
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 10:42:20 AM   
Nemo69


Posts: 685
Joined: 2/18/2004
From: Nowhere to be seen
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: murx

My personal favorite for the interface would be to get rid of some of the buttons on the right (for real, how often do you change ports/airfields, borders and location names in a game? How often do you re-read the scenario description?) and exchange them with a fixed 'group composition' info field - I remember TAO had this so players could with one glance - and not 'right-click, menue navigate, left click' - see what is actually IN a hex.

murx

There's a handy keyboard shortcut to see what's in a hex. Put your mouse over said hex and hit the C key - and voilà!

_____________________________

Fais ce que dois

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 68
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 10:54:31 AM   
dobeln

 

Posts: 311
Joined: 3/28/2005
Status: offline 		"There's a handy keyboard shortcut to see what's in a hex. Put your mouse over said hex and hit the C key - and voilà!"

True, but having a mouseover composition box on the right would save a whole lotta "c"-presses.... :)

(in reply to Nemo69)
Post #: 69
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 11:17:38 AM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Reading the discussion between Golden Delicious and Industrial I suggest:
The Germans never reached Stalingrad because the (local) counterattacks at Leningrad front that stopped the Germans there burned up the 6th army turns
But when the 6th army DID show up at Stalingrad they burned up AGCs divisions movement in the heavy city fighting.
So the Germans did lose Barabarossa mainly through a quirk in reality called turn-burn.

murx
(Golden Delicious please dont get me wrong - TOAW and the programming done is a real big and well done job - but please face the reality - a 'local' counterattack some 50Km away (or even in real small battles some 5Km away) do NOT stop other units a few hex away to do something useful - even if the opponent tries to use this 'event' as anqor for a bigger/broader counterattack; and even a counterattack on a broad section of the front usually does not stop the ongoing offensive - of course this is a dangerous moment for both sides, the counterattacking force has to watch one or both flanks - the attacking force might get cut off if the counterattacker penetrates into its rear - 'Keil und Kessel' tactic used by the Germans in WWII of the counterattacker vs one or both sided flanking attacks of the attacker - this happens on the broad scale. It basically means a strategic gamble - the attacker allows the counterattack to happen and let the enemy troops flow into his back area like a ballon and then cuts the bottle neck and eats up the counterattacker.
Industrials example with attacker, roadblock and militia allows to find enough reason why turn-burn should be allowed, the situation is not clear enough after the heavy fight has ended and thus no march order reaches the militia, the radio equipment was blasted etc etc. The example would be perfect if there were 3 militia, one behind the attacking force and one to each side with a bit distance - would the CO wait to give them march order? Would he wait a while and the 'gamble' on the outcome? THIS is a CO/players decision! But it is never possible since the turn just burns. Turn-burn is maybe a nice thing for really tiny small purely tactical scenarios but just completely wrong for large scale multi front scenarios)

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 70
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 11:22:53 AM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Nemo69 thanks for the advice, never read the whole manual
But still a constant display of the current hexes contains helps people like me with a short attention span
murx

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 71
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 1:36:46 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: murx

Reading the discussion between Golden Delicious and Industrial I suggest:
The Germans never reached Stalingrad because the (local) counterattacks at Leningrad front that stopped the Germans there burned up the 6th army turns
But when the 6th army DID show up at Stalingrad they burned up AGCs divisions movement in the heavy city fighting.
So the Germans did lose Barabarossa mainly through a quirk in reality called turn-burn.

murx
(Golden Delicious please dont get me wrong - TOAW and the programming done is a real big and well done job - but please face the reality - a 'local' counterattack some 50Km away (or even in real small battles some 5Km away) do NOT stop other units a few hex away to do something useful - even if the opponent tries to use this 'event' as anqor for a bigger/broader counterattack; and even a counterattack on a broad section of the front usually does not stop the ongoing offensive - of course this is a dangerous moment for both sides, the counterattacking force has to watch one or both flanks - the attacking force might get cut off if the counterattacker penetrates into its rear - 'Keil und Kessel' tactic used by the Germans in WWII of the counterattacker vs one or both sided flanking attacks of the attacker - this happens on the broad scale. It basically means a strategic gamble - the attacker allows the counterattack to happen and let the enemy troops flow into his back area like a ballon and then cuts the bottle neck and eats up the counterattacker.
Industrials example with attacker, roadblock and militia allows to find enough reason why turn-burn should be allowed, the situation is not clear enough after the heavy fight has ended and thus no march order reaches the militia, the radio equipment was blasted etc etc. The example would be perfect if there were 3 militia, one behind the attacking force and one to each side with a bit distance - would the CO wait to give them march order? Would he wait a while and the 'gamble' on the outcome? THIS is a CO/players decision! But it is never possible since the turn just burns. Turn-burn is maybe a nice thing for really tiny small purely tactical scenarios but just completely wrong for large scale multi front scenarios)

I VERY much agree with Murx and Industrial.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to create a poll on this and let the community decide? Besides, after all we are only talking about on OPTION. From a commercial point of view what can be against giving people who want to the possibilty to turn it off? I would think it would even make this game better as it would allow players to chose and do as they want knowing it might upset the balance for some scenario's. Use at own risk could be the motto...

In my FitE pbem I just had a taste of the early ending after one combat phase with _only_ arty bombardments (NO other ground units participated) which were prepping the way for assaults later on. Plenty of divs had not moved at all including several panzer divs which were re-supplying. Perhaps the chance of it occuring is slim but when it does it is _really_ frustrating and totally unrealistic.

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 72
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 2:20:43 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

You can disagree all you want, but there is a crucial difference that you might want to keep in mind. I (in tandem, with Ralph) am developing the game...

I say this not to puff my ego, or score any bragging points, but merely to point out what my role here, and job, is. So, when I see someone saying that some basic design concepts or paradigms of the game are "x", while I define them as "y", then the error is, by definition, on the part of that person who is claiming "x".


James, with all due respect, you might be the developer of TOAW III, but you aren't the designer of TOAW, that would be Norm Koger

So, as long as you dont have any insider knowledge of what Norm intended combat rounds to be, I'd say your opinion on that matter is as good as mine

And for me, seeing every combat round as 1/10th of a turn still makes the most sense.

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 73
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 3:50:05 PM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: murx

Nemo69 thanks for the advice, never read the whole manual
But still a constant display of the current hexes contains helps people like me with a short attention span
murx

You can also just attack with the whole stack, and then look at the attack planner.

Seriously, several people have asked for it. I'll see if I can come up with an option of some kind.


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 74
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 5:12:28 PM   
S Gerät

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 3/29/2005
Status: offline 		Not sure if anyone's mentioned this already (or if this is strictly an interface issue), but is there any chance of an alternative font being made available? Personally I've always hated the one previous editions of TOAW used, and was disappointed to see that it had not been changed in TOAW III. A sans serif font would be nice...

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 75
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 5:55:56 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Put formations on internal support, lower force cummunication level, lower force proficiency level, change force loss intolerance and movement bias,


The French army was perfectly capable of moving and fighting as one coherent body. Just not at the pace at which the 1940 campaign was fought.

As to force proficiency- well, that's what we're advocating. Lowering that would be ideal, since it would produce more early turn endings.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 76
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 5:58:07 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Higher force loss intolerance - That's a myth, plenty of French died in the war.


Well, quite a few. But they didn't like it.

quote:

Read Ben Turner's thesis paper on French morale.


My dissertation is on simulating the battle. There's a separate essay which focuses on the factors which decided the campaign, but morale is just one of them.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 77
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 6:01:26 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The answer may be something completely oddball, like complex scenarios with multiple maps, and being able to resolve combat on each map independently.


A lot of the problems with larger scenarios can be lessened by splitting them up into "zones"; each zone has a different force supply, replacement stockpile, supply radius, shock and air shock, rail transport- and the above suggestion.

Whether this is a) practicable and b) the best way of doing things would be another matter.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 78
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 6:03:26 PM   
Szilard

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline 		A tiny one - can we lose "Urban area reduced to ruins" from the news? It's a useless piece of info (isn't it?), and it clutters things up.


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 79
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 6:03:59 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: karlxii

- While I have already written earlier that I would like to see a small colored symbol to indicate if my units are in supply or not, it would be nice if there was some way I could assure wether the enemy is in supply or not as well. As it is now, I have to guess/assume I have blocket supply lines to the enemy but if I can´t be really sure I am wasting resources (read troops) trying to do that. Peharps it is by intent but still it would help a lot.


I think it's best not to be sure of the enemy supply state.

quote:

- The most single important thing in my view is to make a better endreport screen when the scenario is over. I would like to see losses for both sides, statistics for different equipment lost in comparison to the enemy. I am always playing against the computer and the only way to replay a scenario would be to compete against myself regarding losses (and Victory points).


You can review the entire situation after the end of the scenario, including the Replacements screens for both forces. This does what you are looking for.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 7/12/2006 6:17:31 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to KarlXII)
Post #: 80
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 6:08:24 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Szilard

A tiny one - can we lose "Urban area reduced to ruins" from the news? It's a useless piece of info (isn't it?), and it clutters things up.


Yeah.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Szilard)
Post #: 81
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 7:46:40 PM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: S Gerät

Not sure if anyone's mentioned this already (or if this is strictly an interface issue), but is there any chance of an alternative font being made available? Personally I've always hated the one previous editions of TOAW used, and was disappointed to see that it had not been changed in TOAW III. A sans serif font would be nice...

I've seen someone post about having an alternate font. It's a bit of a pain to install at the moment.

I'm also trying to see if I can switch over to using windows fonts as an option. The problem I'm having there is that they're all a bit bigger or smaller than the current font. It's going to be a lot of repositioning to make it look good.




_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to S Gerät)
Post #: 82
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 7:48:15 PM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Szilard

A tiny one - can we lose "Urban area reduced to ruins" from the news? It's a useless piece of info (isn't it?), and it clutters things up.


Yeah.

What affect does it being reduced to ruins have?


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 83
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/12/2006 8:08:37 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Szilard

A tiny one - can we lose "Urban area reduced to ruins" from the news? It's a useless piece of info (isn't it?), and it clutters things up.


Yeah.

What affect does it being reduced to ruins have?


Makes it more difficult to move through. That's it, currently.

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 84
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/13/2006 8:01:22 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: murx

Reading the discussion between Golden Delicious and Industrial I suggest:
The Germans never reached Stalingrad because the (local) counterattacks at Leningrad front that stopped the Germans there burned up the 6th army turns
But when the 6th army DID show up at Stalingrad they burned up AGCs divisions movement in the heavy city fighting.
So the Germans did lose Barabarossa mainly through a quirk in reality called turn-burn.

murx
(Golden Delicious please dont get me wrong - TOAW and the programming done is a real big and well done job - but please face the reality - a 'local' counterattack some 50Km away (or even in real small battles some 5Km away) do NOT stop other units a few hex away to do something useful - even if the opponent tries to use this 'event' as anqor for a bigger/broader counterattack; and even a counterattack on a broad section of the front usually does not stop the ongoing offensive - of course this is a dangerous moment for both sides, the counterattacking force has to watch one or both flanks - the attacking force might get cut off if the counterattacker penetrates into its rear - 'Keil und Kessel' tactic used by the Germans in WWII of the counterattacker vs one or both sided flanking attacks of the attacker - this happens on the broad scale. It basically means a strategic gamble - the attacker allows the counterattack to happen and let the enemy troops flow into his back area like a ballon and then cuts the bottle neck and eats up the counterattacker.
Industrials example with attacker, roadblock and militia allows to find enough reason why turn-burn should be allowed, the situation is not clear enough after the heavy fight has ended and thus no march order reaches the militia, the radio equipment was blasted etc etc. The example would be perfect if there were 3 militia, one behind the attacking force and one to each side with a bit distance - would the CO wait to give them march order? Would he wait a while and the 'gamble' on the outcome? THIS is a CO/players decision! But it is never possible since the turn just burns. Turn-burn is maybe a nice thing for really tiny small purely tactical scenarios but just completely wrong for large scale multi front scenarios)


There is already a change in TOAW III that allows the huge scenarios (or any scenario) to limit "turn burn". It's called "Max rounds per battle", and can be set in the editor. Give designers some time to make use of it and post their results.

As to the risk of early turn ending, it is necessary to counter the fact that the game system is IGOUGO. In the above example, did the Russians sit on their hands while the Germans operated, followed by the Germans sitting on their hands while the Russians operated? Of course not, but that's how IGOUGO works. TOAW III's early turn ending risk provides a needed counter to that, somewhat modeling the impact of simultaneous action.

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 85
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/13/2006 10:52:59 AM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As to the risk of early turn ending, it is necessary to counter the fact that the game system is IGOUGO. In the above example, did the Russians sit on their hands while the Germans operated, followed by the Germans sitting on their hands while the Russians operated? Of course not, but that's how IGOUGO works. TOAW III's early turn ending risk provides a needed counter to that, somewhat modeling the impact of simultaneous action.



Early turn endings don't even come close to simulate anything even remotely realistic, and certainly have nothing to do with making IGOYOUGO more WEGO.

The 'away with early turn endings' faction provided more than enough _examples_ where early turn endings totally ruined a turn and leed to very unrealistic results. I think it's time the pro-early-turn-endig faction finally steps down from their high chair and instead of only monotonly repeating that early turn endings are good, should finally state some examples from history (take the last 100 years, you should find some examples there... if there are any) where a situation reesembling a TOAW early-turn-ending actually happened.

Oh, and while you are at if, try to explain why early turn endings should only hit the attacker, because that's what they do, a defender who simply arranges his lines and than dig in will never be hit by early turn endings. If early turn endings simulate stuff going wrong, than you are saying murphys law can only happen to the attacker ?? *hollow laughter*

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 86
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/13/2006 10:56:41 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



There is already a change in TOAW III that allows the huge scenarios (or any scenario) to limit "turn burn". It's called "Max rounds per battle", and can be set in the editor. Give designers some time to make use of it and post their results.

As to the risk of early turn ending, it is necessary to counter the fact that the game system is IGOUGO. In the above example, did the Russians sit on their hands while the Germans operated, followed by the Germans sitting on their hands while the Russians operated? Of course not, but that's how IGOUGO works. TOAW III's early turn ending risk provides a needed counter to that, somewhat modeling the impact of simultaneous action.


That option is welcome but just isn't enough for some in certain situations. So again, what harm can be done by making it an advanced option? If it annoys you, turn it of. If you like it, leave it on. How can this not improve this game?
Having a choice is alwasy better.
Why is it that so many people are against giving players the option to do as they like? What could be wrong about pleasing everybody?
Again, why don't the designers organize a poll? In the end it is about making a product that people like to play...and buy.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 87
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/13/2006 12:07:57 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Regarding the 'turn-burn' resembling 'shocked command/corps/whoever' effect of battles gone wrong - just have a higher chance for upper unit formations of those unit engaged in that fight to go into reorg status (yeah I know, there is already a patch to reduce reorg). But if one wants to simulate that a bad/lost attack shocked/froze the local situation this can remodel it in a better way.
This is a local situation solution maybe? If one army of AGC has a misconducted offensive it might throw over (reorg) their whole plan - if several AGC armies even whole AGC - which was planning on a major whole scale offensive - got thrown off its pace and have to re-asses.
If AGC had planned say 4 keypoint attacks to be followed up by the rest of AGC frontline probably most of AGCs unit would be preparing their individual attacks. If one of those attacks fail those armies might be thrown off pace only. (Maybe a 'chain reaction reorg' - if 10% of sub units have gone reorg there is a very easy proficiency check, if 33% has gone reorg there is a slighty more difficult proficiency check - if 50% sub units reorg there is a hard proficiency check. Likewise - if a higher command structure unit has gone reorg there is a check if sub units go reorg too - add some modifier into this depending if the higher command has gone reorg because of subunits gone reorg or not, if the higher command has gone reorg because of say - some air attack - easy proficiency check, if it gone to reorg because 1/2 of the higher commands subunits have gone reorg individual subunit makes adjusted/difficult proficiency check).

This would allow to have AGN and AGS still fight as 'usual' and still have the wanted shock effect on AGC.
And it would probably give the 'counterattack' a better chance since the turn not just ended for the 'turn-burn' player - but remove the defensive/dug-in status of the 'shocked' units.

murx

< Message edited by murx -- 7/13/2006 12:09:06 PM >

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 88
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/13/2006 12:38:18 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Btw - since I don't know where to put this and dont want to start a new thread about this simple thing:

It is 'Kriegsmarine' not 'Kreigsmarine' (I think it is in Barbarossa '41 but might be in other places too)

murx

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 89
RE: Interface Wish List - 7/13/2006 4:37:47 PM   
alaric99x

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline 		Something else that I've seen pretty often (not here) is "Liebgarde" which would mean something like "Love Guard."  It should be "Leibgarde."

I know, this comment also doesn't belong on this thread.

(in reply to murx)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Interface Wish List Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.887