RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918)

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: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918)

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] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/14/2013 5:02:44 PM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

That works except if you get rid of the freeze time on split merge. Existing division corps army distinction makes little sense with one unit per hex.(freeze times are arbitrary as are unit uniformity) At this map scale all you really have is 'units'. There are basically 4 flavors of unit component, but all could be in a hex at the same time. That said implementing the 4 'pure types: are: airborne (a special case of sub type infantry) infantry, motorized, and armor work pretty well. Split and merge should be the only distinction (no army corps division distinctions, you can still 'call' things brigades divisions etc. based on size) Just a maximum unit size. If you combine several smaller units you get a bigger unit the limiting factor should be max size. Breaking off or adding to a 'unit' really should just cost action points not turns (and not even all the action points). For a WWI implementation adding an extra 'Artillery' type with 2 hex range and granting a defensive bonus to adjacent units may be appropriate.

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 61

RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/15/2013 6:55:28 AM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

That works except if you get rid of the freeze time on split merge.

This is simple

_____________________________

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 62

RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/19/2013 3:39:14 AM

Tomokatu

Posts: 488
Joined: 2/27/2006
Status: offline

Allow me to ask for consideration of the (early) mobile features of 1914 and later in the caucasus. I'm thinking of Cmdr Locker Lampson and the RN Armoured Car Brigade which operated in Southern Russia until the Revolution. (Maybe it's an enhanced or armoured form of cavalry?)

Secondly, concerning Westfront corps and stacking concerns.
How about a set of off-map Army "boxes" which can have multiple corps of varying strengths, subject to re-inforcement/replacement rules, but consolidating their strengths in offence/defence and then adding the entrenchment defence bonus/movement penalty to the consolidated Army "box" total?

_____________________________

For every action, there is an equal and opposite malfunction

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 63

RE: Vote for "Time of Guns" (1914-1918) - 1/19/2013 8:03:14 AM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

The engine already allows to perform multidirectional attack, so theoretically you don't have to stack your units.
Also you can attack, witdraw the unit, place there new one and attack again. And again, And again. IIRC the infantry during WW1 was thrown in waves. Usually each one to push the enemy from one (few) line(s) of trenches.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tomokatu)

Post #: 64

Unit Size Substitute for Stacking - 1/19/2013 5:57:52 PM

Omnius

Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

The engine already allows to perform multidirectional attack, so theoretically you don't have to stack your units.
Also you can attack, witdraw the unit, place there new one and attack again. And again, And again. IIRC the infantry during WW1 was thrown in waves. Usually each one to push the enemy from one (few) line(s) of trenches.

doomtrader,
I'm starting to see that by allowing for two different unit sizes that you do this instead of stacking. The more I play SWiE and ToF the more I'm liking this approach. You are correct that units were thrown in in waves, a certain amount of frontage will only support so many men, tanks or artillery to attack or defend that "front" line. Especially in WW1 this wave approach was truly in vogue, lots of piecemeal attacks one after the other day after day.

The one thing about swapping units after making an attack is that you can't use swapping, that uses all AP's for both units and after a unit attacks I doubt it can swap. That means having to make sure that if a unit attacks it will have enough AP to move to an empty hex so another unit can move in with enough AP's to launch it's own attack. A delicate dance that the AI is incapable of unfortunately. Of course one can also attack more than once with the same unit. I like being able to make a combined first attack to really weaken a strong defender, then use strong single units to kill it one attack at a time.

I like the way you did leaders as well, the more I play the more I like how leaders work. I like the way they pump up the unit strength they are in while giving some kind of less obvious advantage to nearby units. I like the way it models how leaders would go to some unit to give them more impetus for attack or defense. I think some do not understand that these leaders don't just represent the actual general or admiral but also the combat assets that their higher level of command enjoys. It's like moving in the Army level assets plus the general staff to give some unit better combat performance. My only beef is why don't air and naval leaders gain experience like ground leaders?

I'd hold pat on how you modeled the lack of stacking. Some players want everything to be too easy, they want to play the biggest-stack-wins game that is just so lame.
Omnius

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 65

RE: Unit Size Substitute for Stacking - 1/19/2013 9:43:45 PM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

The one thing about swapping units after making an attack is that you can't use swapping, that uses all AP's for both units and after a unit attacks I doubt it can swap. That means having to make sure that if a unit attacks it will have enough AP to move to an empty hex so another unit can move in with enough AP's to launch it's own attack.

We can make swapping units to cost less action points, however teh AI is bad in swapping ATM, so we will have to teach it. ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to Omnius)

Post #: 66

Teaching AI New Tricks - 1/20/2013 5:13:40 PM

Omnius

Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

quote:

The one thing about swapping units after making an attack is that you can't use swapping, that uses all AP's for both units and after a unit attacks I doubt it can swap. That means having to make sure that if a unit attacks it will have enough AP to move to an empty hex so another unit can move in with enough AP's to launch it's own attack.

We can make swapping units to cost less action points, however teh AI is bad in swapping ATM, so we will have to teach it. ;)

doomtrader,
Yes I have noticed that the AI is bad at swapping, it tends to have too many units amass around some city in waves and then they just sit there picking their electronic noses. Always good to teach the AI new tricks.

Yeah swapping shouldn't cost all AP's. The cost should be what it costs each unit to move into the other's hex, in other words as if they just moved into that hex as if vacant. Depending on weather and terrain it could take up all AP's and that would be okay. It would give units remaining AP's in most swaps.
Omnius

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 67

RE: Teaching AI New Tricks - 1/20/2013 6:45:24 PM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

Probably one extra AP would be pretty fair deal, as there are always some logistical problems with such actions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Omnius)

Post #: 68