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: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2010 7:28:37 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		I tend to see all this as worrying about the squeaky door when the roof has fallen in.

As far as it goes, the truck transportation thing is a reasonable abstraction. How about mechanisms to permit the far more common practice of temporarily assigned transport, for example? Or volume-based supply? Or interdiction that becomes more ferocious the faster the unit attempts to move? Or any one of another fifty possible changes that would directly and dramatically improve the validity of TOAW as a simulation of WW2-era warfare?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 991
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/27/2010 11:25:37 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I tend to see all this as worrying about the squeaky door when the roof has fallen in.

As far as it goes, the truck transportation thing is a reasonable abstraction. How about mechanisms to permit the far more common practice of temporarily assigned transport, for example? Or volume-based supply? Or interdiction that becomes more ferocious the faster the unit attempts to move? Or any one of another fifty possible changes that would directly and dramatically improve the validity of TOAW as a simulation of WW2-era warfare?


I agree. Bigger fish.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 992
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 2:46:01 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

As it stands, transport is transport and can move anything. The reason one truck can make a units movement jump from one to nine is because it is assumed this one truck can run back and forth, pulling one piece of equipment, running back, pulling another piece of equipment, run back, etc. Realism it thrown out the window. (yes again with the trucks )


I've always viewed Trucks, Jeeps, Horses, et al, not as being single pieces of equipment but as being representative of undefined numbers of hardware pieces. This is the same as the Squad representing something between 5 and 20 soldiers. 1 Squad = X soldiers and 1 Transport = X Transport Capacity.

I have no problem with thinking of 1 Truck as equaling an entire truck company and moving a battalion of artillery, or of 1 porter representing 100 individuals moving 5000 pounds of material.

Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

Regards, RhinoBones


_____________________________

Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 993
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 3:26:46 AM   
ralphtricky


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

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

I think designers LIKE rivet counting

Norm was also fighting the technology at the time, The memory requirement for Opart 1 was probably something like 32-64 Meg of memory. My phone has more memory than that, and probably has a faster processor!

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 rhinobones)
Post #: 994
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 3:51:29 AM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

For the wishlist have i the following suggestion
Equipment as Trucks/APC etc can only now transport or no Transport.
I like to see these split in

Light Transport for Team or towed light equiment (Jeep)
Medium Transport for Squad or medium equipment as towed 105mm Howitzer (2,5 ton Trucks, APC or IFV)
Heavy Transport for heavy equipment as Towed 203mm Howitzers or 2 squads + Teams
Very Heavy for ARV etc


To some extent you can do this now, provided the equipment is in separate units. So teams would be lifted by light trucks; squads by trucks; heavy guns by tractors, etc.

Also, just as an example, CFNA (the SPI game) had light, medium, and heavy trucks. I just counted each as 1/2, 1, and 2 trucks in the cumulative totals.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 995
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 3:56:44 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

I think designers LIKE rivet counting

Norm was also fighting the technology at the time, The memory requirement for Opart 1 was probably something like 32-64 Meg of memory. My phone has more memory than that, and probably has a faster processor!

Ralph



The original scenario designer for FitE stated that "turns in this scenario can take up to 1.5 hour on even an powerful computer to calculate."

It takes mine a minute or two. So yeah, things were vastly different then.

_____________________________


(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 996
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 5:38:09 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

The original scenario designer for FitE stated that "turns in this scenario can take up to 1.5 hour on even an powerful computer to calculate."

It takes mine a minute or two. So yeah, things were vastly different then.


What are your specs, if you don't mind my asking?

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 997
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 12:33:44 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		AMD Athlon 7750 Dual-Core 2.7mhz 64 bit processor (dual core won't matter with TOAW since I don't think it takes advantage of it does it?)
8 gig memory (this probably makes all the difference in the world)
Vista Home Premium 64

As far as how long it takes to fire up the scenario I think the first two are the only two things that matter. Not especially great system but it works ok for me.

_____________________________


(in reply to desert)
Post #: 998
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 4:48:30 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Maybe Norm was trying to save people from unnecessary rivet counting while concentrating on units that have combat power.

I think designers LIKE rivet counting



Well, that is part of the appeal. However (1), there is too much of a good thing. How many beds in the corps hospital? Shortage of Bronze Stars reduces proficiency?

Then more seriously, (2) there's an illusory objectivity. The impact of a given weapon varies according to the circumstances, the training of its operators, the training of the intended victims, etc. It's all really fairly situation-dependent. One can wind up treating the physical TO&E as more of a starting point than anything else.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 999
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/28/2010 6:03:42 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		Personally I would like to see transport as precisely modeled as tanks are. If something isn't there to pull the artillery it isn't going anywhere. If something isn't there to move the ammo something isn't going to be able to shoot. If something isn't there to move the fuel a tank is just a pillbox. Won't ever happen but it would be nice.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1000
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/29/2010 4:19:16 AM   
ralphtricky


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

ORIGINAL: Panama
AMD Athlon 7750 Dual-Core 2.7mhz 64 bit processor (dual core won't matter with TOAW since I don't think it takes advantage of it does it?)

Not really, Vista might throw the sound on the second processor, but that's pretty minor. In the next game, I'll work more on running on multiple processors, but it's pretty hard to do right while keeping things correct and not actually slowing them down, most of the algorithms like supply calculation depend on the neighboring hexes, so calculating those things in parallel can't be done. I can do some things to speed up Elmer since some of the formation calculations can be done independently, but I'm not sure I can do a lot to speed up the end of turn calculations.

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 Panama)
Post #: 1001
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/29/2010 5:06:56 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		*EDITED*
Sorry, hit the wrong button and removed the quote. Ralph

According to TOAW's product page, the game can run on a pre-millennial 32 MB card.

What is the GPU's effect on TOAW performance? Negligible?

< Message edited by ralphtrick -- 5/29/2010 5:16:42 AM >

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 1002
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/29/2010 5:21:43 AM   
ralphtricky


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

ORIGINAL: desert

According to TOAW's product page, the game can run on a pre-millennial 32 MB card.

What is the GPU's effect on TOAW performance? Negligible?

Yes.

_____________________________

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 desert)
Post #: 1003
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/31/2010 8:31:29 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Personally I would like to see transport as precisely modeled as tanks are. If something isn't there to pull the artillery it isn't going anywhere. If something isn't there to move the ammo something isn't going to be able to shoot. If something isn't there to move the fuel a tank is just a pillbox. Won't ever happen but it would be nice.


I'd take the position that you might as well model food supplies just as precisely. It does matter whether that's a battalion of T-26's or a battalion of T-34's that just popped up in your rear. It doesn't really matter whether it's a Ford or a Bedford lorry or a requisitioned bread van that brings the shells up -- all that matters is that they are brought up.

...and that's another point. There's a whole lot of stuff that isn't directly represented in TOAW at all that still has to be moved.

Let's take an artillery battalion. Twelve 105's and twelve trucks (actually, six, but never mind that).

Great, it's motorized.

In the real world? Not. No way to move the shells, no way to move the communications and forward observers, no way to move the food. That battalion is going to need three trips to get everything hauled to the new firing point.

So it's all a bit arbitrary to want the number of trucks to somehow match the number of weapons. There isn't a one-one correlation in real life, and you're going to save yourself a whole lot of rather pointless fussing if you just think of the 'truck' as an abstract representation of the transport assets available to the unit. You assign 'trucks' until the unit has the mobility you feel it should have. After all, in reality, a fully motorized unit with twelve field artillery pieces would presumably have more like sixty trucks than twelve.

Let's take a British infantry battalion up to 1940 TO&E. Around twenty trucks or so, as I recall. Does that mean everyone rides, or that half ride and then the trucks come back for the other half?

No. No one rides. They all walk. The organic trucks are to haul tents, bedding, ammo, food, field kitchens, etc. The unit's got a springier step, and its supply is always right at hand -- but it's still quite completely foot-bound. In fact, there were further divisional level transport assets (in theory) to allow one brigade out of every three to be 'lifted' as needed, so the division would be semi-motorized, but not because of the battalion-level transport assets.

You can't literally represent the actual trucks in an OPART unit. Why? Because the OPART 'unit' itself omits half of what's being hauled. So it's a fools errand to start worrying about having the number of trucks somehow appear to match the number of weapons.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/31/2010 8:43:40 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1004
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/31/2010 8:59:29 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

*EDITED*
Sorry, hit the wrong button and removed the quote. Ralph

According to TOAW's product page, the game can run on a pre-millennial 32 MB card.

What is the GPU's effect on TOAW performance? Negligible?


I have an 8mb integrated card(I think, doesn't really run any 3d games), works just fine.

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 1005
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/31/2010 10:18:28 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		No trucks and a unit moves one. One truck or horse or jeep or cart and it move nine. Nothing in between. One or nine. That's what abstraction gets you.

This makes me wonder why we have trucks in the TO&E at all. Why not really abstract them and let the scenario designer assign movement allowances? Give some kind of guide lines and let the scenario designer decide how a unit will move instead of tying it to transport that's abstracted to the point of giving the scenario designer little control of movement allowances. (Read above, one or nine)

Oh wait, forgot about 'asset sharing'. Something else in need of fixing.

< Message edited by Panama -- 5/31/2010 10:41:55 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1006
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 5/31/2010 11:17:22 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

No trucks and a unit moves one. One truck or horse or jeep or cart and it move nine. Nothing in between. One or nine.


Assuming you're talking about a unit with one weapon, that might be the case. However, if we're discussing units that commonly appear in scenarios, you can get whatever movement rate you like.

That's what abstraction will get you -- and more to the point, you'll always have an abstraction. Representing all the transport that's actually in the unit is certain to produce invalid results -- unless you want to start having field kitchen squads and surgical aid squads and signalling squads and orderly squads and sanitary squads and field post office squads and provost marshal squads and colonel's mistress squads and...

By and large, TOAW simulates the weapons that actually provide the unit's firepower. You add the transportation assets necessary to give the unit appropriate movement characteristics. If 'truck' disturbs you, pull out the ol' Bioeditor and rename it 'mechanized transportation asset.' Then assign whatever number produce the desired movement rate.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 5/31/2010 11:24:46 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1007
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/1/2010 12:25:14 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

No trucks and a unit moves one. One truck or horse or jeep or cart and it move nine. Nothing in between. One or nine.


Assuming you're talking about a unit with one weapon, that might be the case. However, if we're discussing units that commonly appear in scenarios, you can get whatever movement rate you like.




In FitE I want Soviet Rifle Divisions to have a movement of 7 to temporarily reduce their mobility compared to the Axis infantry. It has 60 horse teams and a movement of 12. If I reduce the horse teams to ONE it has a movement of 10. If I reduce the horse teams to ZERO it has a movement of 1.

If there is something I'm missing that allows me to assign movement allowances, please tell me. If you have a little trick that won't screw with the units equipment what is it? In short, I would like to know how you would give this unit a movement allowance of 5.


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1008
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/1/2010 6:33:15 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

No trucks and a unit moves one. One truck or horse or jeep or cart and it move nine. Nothing in between. One or nine.


Assuming you're talking about a unit with one weapon, that might be the case. However, if we're discussing units that commonly appear in scenarios, you can get whatever movement rate you like.




In FitE I want Soviet Rifle Divisions to have a movement of 7 to temporarily reduce their mobility compared to the Axis infantry. It has 60 horse teams and a movement of 12. If I reduce the horse teams to ONE it has a movement of 10. If I reduce the horse teams to ZERO it has a movement of 1.

If there is something I'm missing that allows me to assign movement allowances, please tell me. If you have a little trick that won't screw with the units equipment what is it? In short, I would like to know how you would give this unit a movement allowance of 5.



Five is presumably below the normal foot movement rate but there must be some way of doing it -- I do it in Seelowe, where I want the battalions of elderly veterans (there were such units) to still be able to fight okay but not able to march as in the days of their youth.

brb...

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1009
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/1/2010 6:45:44 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Alright. I used this to get a unit with about two-thirds of the standard leg movement rate. It's a battalion, but the principle would work for any unit.

36 Light Rifle

12 Movement inhibitors. DF of 1, box 4 (static) checked.

2 Porter squads (mod). DF of 1, boxes 9 (very slow)*, box 59 (infantry), box 8 (transport) checked.

I'm not really sure you need to do this. Fairly obviously, the principle I've used is that twelve pieces of static equipment and only two porter squads to carry them drag down the overall movement rate below that of straight light rifle.

You could try just making more of the division's equipment static and/or giving it porter squads or wagons instead of trucks.


* correction made here after my initial post.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/1/2010 6:48:07 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1010
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/1/2010 1:48:38 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		Wish List Item:

Giving the scenario author the ability to assign movement points to units regardless of equipment contained in a unit. This movement allowance can be changed via the event engine at any time.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1011
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/1/2010 2:07:04 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Setting the Movement Bias could work for some scenarios, but it can't be set by the Event Editor. For East Front scenarios you could set the bias to get your desired movement allowance at start, and then have truck replacements start whenever it is desired to increase movement allowances.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1012
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/1/2010 9:40:26 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Setting the Movement Bias could work for some scenarios, but it can't be set by the Event Editor. For East Front scenarios you could set the bias to get your desired movement allowance at start, and then have truck replacements start whenever it is desired to increase movement allowances.


Yes, I had thought about movement bias and it would be a nice tool just as communications levels would be. However, since it can't be changed in the course of a scenario I have never bothered with it. Also, both the Axis and Soviet armies are a mixed bag to say the least. Isn't movement bias a force type tool rather than unit or formation? If this is true, a broad stroke is the same as nothing. I'm not looking for an all or nothing tool.

What we need are tools to make flexible scenarios. It's very very possible. Just needs to be implemented. What set me off down this stupid truck path in the first place was the inability to give units the movement allowance that would fit the scenario and the inability to change that allowance later.

All through history conditions of campaigns large and small have changed and the impact on the units changed their behavior. Why we can't mirror some of the major changes is frustrating to say the least.

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 1013
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/1/2010 10:37:59 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Setting the Movement Bias could work for some scenarios, but it can't be set by the Event Editor. For East Front scenarios you could set the bias to get your desired movement allowance at start, and then have truck replacements start whenever it is desired to increase movement allowances.


Yes, I had thought about movement bias and it would be a nice tool just as communications levels would be. However, since it can't be changed in the course of a scenario I have never bothered with it. Also, both the Axis and Soviet armies are a mixed bag to say the least. Isn't movement bias a force type tool rather than unit or formation? If this is true, a broad stroke is the same as nothing. I'm not looking for an all or nothing tool.

What we need are tools to make flexible scenarios. It's very very possible. Just needs to be implemented. What set me off down this stupid truck path in the first place was the inability to give units the movement allowance that would fit the scenario and the inability to change that allowance later.

All through history conditions of campaigns large and small have changed and the impact on the units changed their behavior. Why we can't mirror some of the major changes is frustrating to say the least.


I did outline how you could do it. So it's untrue that you can't 'mirror' these changes. You can.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1014
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/2/2010 5:27:26 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		You outlined modifying the TO&E so some units were static when there is no static equipment. Nothing is mirrored simply cobbled together. Let me break the leg on this horse so it doesn't move as fast would be a more historic solution.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1015
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/2/2010 9:38:59 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

You outlined modifying the TO&E so some units were static when there is no static equipment. Nothing is mirrored simply cobbled together. Let me break the leg on this horse so it doesn't move as fast would be a more historic solution.


You complained that you couldn't slow units to some intermediate rate between full foot movement and one hex per turn. I showed you how to slow units to some intermediate rate.

Frankly, TOAW is chock-full of deficiencies. To some extent, this is inevitable, as it attempts to impose a simplified, uniform paradigm on a wide range of situations that were neither simple nor uniform.

I usually address myself to rectifying these deficiencies in my scenario designs. If it's something that can't be rectified through design, I bitch. However, as far as I can see, this can.



< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/2/2010 9:44:09 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1016
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/3/2010 11:33:42 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

You outlined modifying the TO&E so some units were static when there is no static equipment. Nothing is mirrored simply cobbled together. Let me break the leg on this horse so it doesn't move as fast would be a more historic solution.


You complained that you couldn't slow units to some intermediate rate between full foot movement and one hex per turn. I showed you how to slow units to some intermediate rate.

Frankly, TOAW is chock-full of deficiencies. To some extent, this is inevitable, as it attempts to impose a simplified, uniform paradigm on a wide range of situations that were neither simple nor uniform.

I usually address myself to rectifying these deficiencies in my scenario designs. If it's something that can't be rectified through design, I bitch. However, as far as I can see, this can.




Sorry Colin, I realize why you're doing what you're doing and I'll probably have to do something similar from your example. I sincerely hope that in future releases some seemingly simple flexibility is added to scenario design. But then again, maybe it isn't so simple.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1017
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/3/2010 7:31:30 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

You outlined modifying the TO&E so some units were static when there is no static equipment. Nothing is mirrored simply cobbled together. Let me break the leg on this horse so it doesn't move as fast would be a more historic solution.


You complained that you couldn't slow units to some intermediate rate between full foot movement and one hex per turn. I showed you how to slow units to some intermediate rate.

Frankly, TOAW is chock-full of deficiencies. To some extent, this is inevitable, as it attempts to impose a simplified, uniform paradigm on a wide range of situations that were neither simple nor uniform.

I usually address myself to rectifying these deficiencies in my scenario designs. If it's something that can't be rectified through design, I bitch. However, as far as I can see, this can.




Sorry Colin, I realize why you're doing what you're doing and I'll probably have to do something similar from your example. I sincerely hope that in future releases some seemingly simple flexibility is added to scenario design. But then again, maybe it isn't so simple.


We can't have much of a fight if that's going to be your attitude.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1018
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/5/2010 5:34:47 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		Okay fine. Here's more broke.

When I add a cavalry squad, a combat unit and a non abstract item, to an infantry division with no transport the divisions movement goes from one to nine.

When I add a jeep, a non abstract item but what should be a transport item as well, to an infantry division there is no affect on movement, it remains one. I would bet that if I did make a jeep a transport item adding one jeep would increase an infantry divisions from one to nine.

I have a feeling that the code says that if you add one transport item, regardless of what it is, to a unit it's movement will increase a dramatic amount. This is a Bad Thing. A Broke Thing. It needs to be a Fixed Thing.

I suppose if I looked there might be more. I don't have the patience any more.

It would be nice to treat all transport alike. You have X number of train, ship, aircraft transport. Why not give other transport points? One horse team can carry X amount of weight. It doesn't matter how abstract you make horse teams. It can still only carry so much weight. If you don't have enough horse teams the unit's movement is reduced accordingly. And don't start carrying on about ammo and supplies and mail and all the other things a unit might have. A train carries the same things when it's carrying a unit so I don't see a problem with it.

Well, I suppose now I'm going to have to go and mess with bioed and see if making a tank a transport item will increase a divisions movement by a lot.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1019
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/5/2010 5:46:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

...When I add a jeep, a non abstract item but what should be a transport item as well, to an infantry division there is no affect on movement, it remains one. I would bet that if I did make a jeep a transport item adding one jeep would increase an infantry divisions from one to nine.

I have a feeling that the code says that if you add one transport item, regardless of what it is, to a unit it's movement will increase a dramatic amount. This is a Bad Thing. A Broke Thing. It needs to be a Fixed Thing.


I think that your division has some relatively modest number of items that require transportation: hard to say without knowing the scale, but I'd guess four or eight.

So the truck starts moving them back and forth. Nu?

By the way, 'scout truck' may fulfill your desire for a jeep with transport ability.

It's hardly a strong point of the system, but I can think of a hundred things I'd rather see 'fixed' than this. If it's a bad thing, a broke thing, it's a bad thing like it's a bad thing that Haiti doesn't have free hi-speed internet access.

Maybe there are still more pressing needs.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/5/2010 5:48:42 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1020
Page:   <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   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

1.141