features wanted - too late?

[finartmike]

Please forgive this duplicate post:

It is too late to influence matters and i have only just joined, but what i have noticed is that because TOAW was designed as an operational game at the "One up, two down" chain of command, we found with more ambitious games - and Barbarossa is an obvious example of the fourth or even 5th command levels floating around with no connexion, influence or purpose.

In other words a game involving simply - for example Corps -Div - Bde would be fine, but Army Group/Front -Army - Corps - Div - Bde, would not.

There is no "Family tree" in the formation creation editor. Has this been addressed?

Also, in the unit creation and formation creation editors, the programme is cumbersome in that the whole list has to be trawled through knocking out a unit only to have to scroll back to the other end of the list to drop it back in. Whereas a (dare i refer to it) "Windows based" editor would be more easily used.

Where can the game be bought and will the designers use the online registration/ licence key code technology to remove the need to insert the disc in order to play?

[Bloodstar]

Please forgive this duplicate post:

It is too late to influence matters and i have only just joined, but what i have noticed is that because TOAW was designed as an operational game at the "One up, two down" chain of command, we found with more ambitious games - and Barbarossa is an obvious example of the fourth or even 5th command levels floating around with no connexion, influence or purpose.

In other words a game involving simply - for example Corps -Div - Bde would be fine, but Army Group/Front -Army - Corps - Div - Bde, would not.

There is no "Family tree" in the formation creation editor. Has this been addressed?

Also, in the unit creation and formation creation editors, the programme is cumbersome in that the whole list has to be trawled through knocking out a unit only to have to scroll back to the other end of the list to drop it back in. Whereas a (dare i refer to it) "Windows based" editor would be more easily used.

Where can the game be bought and will the designers use the online registration/ licence key code technology to remove the need to insert the disc in order to play?

I already said so many times but as monster scenario are really popular, there should be considered "DYNAMIC MOVEMENT COST" feature... So PC is calculating in real time whetever the rear guard that has pinned your division is REALLY division or is it a mere company...

If it is a mere company then MOVEMENT COST to bypass this masterful rear guard of heroes should be LESSER. In real combat situation division would have another way and maybe battalion would have been ordered to deal with this company but not full division. That's very unrealistic.

I would also include historical commanders. As TOAW is like HoI good for AAR imagine - new kind of AAR's.... like "his Rommel was beaten in spite of his cunning planning at hex 123, 444 etc"...

If they plan to make new TOAW slowly in 6464 years and feature to take 2 years than this is failure in start... They must consider option seriously...
And include a real changes. Other than that you will be stumped when Norm Koger release IVAN and actually run you over... over his own product ironically :p


Mario

[finartmike]

Mario, Hi.

I had not considered movement costs but your point is good.

My point is that say 3 Pz Gp HQ belongs to no formation: it is parent of nothing. I understand that there is no cost to the Pz formations it commanded if it is knocked out. This may be of no great importance with homogenous forces like the Wehrmacht - but if modelling forces where inter formation cooperation should be curtailed (say by the use of different colours) then the fact that an Army or Army Gp command is killed should have a significant impact on it's Corps or Armies, as the case may be. There is no family tree facility.

[Bloodstar]

Mario, Hi.

I had not considered movement costs but your point is good.

My point is that say 3 Pz Gp HQ belongs to no formation: it is parent of nothing. I understand that there is no cost to the Pz formations it commanded if it is knocked out. This may be of no great importance with homogenous forces like the Wehrmacht - but if modelling forces where inter formation cooperation should be curtailed (say by the use of different colours) then the fact that an Army or Army Gp command is killed should have a significant impact on it's Corps or Armies, as the case may be. There is no family tree facility.


Yes Mike, you are right, this topic was already brought up numerous times, we had many times discussion what is needed for future TOAW games... All this was compiled and they have it, esp. since James is in charge and he is long time member of this forum.

I am playing right now big TOAW scenario, FiTE and know what you mean. I even used OKH HQ as a stop unit in one of my previous turns, they have defense factor 7 I think and shock for Axis was 140 then so I employed them in that role, but you are right apart of providing chance of ressuply (because all German units are on free support and Corps, Army HQ have big numbers of support squad) there is no family tree and in this scenario no good use for HQ's because apart from OOB list it doesn't matter is that division here or there because only parent HQ is one level up - divisional, yes I've heard that HPS games have this feature... TOAW lacks this from the start. They should have do something about it. Also there must be option to attach and de-attach units to various HQ's. This all can be also widen up by giving some more options to HQ's. I would just want that this not bring too much micromanagment to gameplay.

My idea about leaders is that they give some % of a bonus, like defense, or supply or something. It may be attached to HQ's so then HQ's will get on importance even more. This is great also for AAR's there were many hillarious AAR's for Heart of Iron, almost like comedy, and all because there were leaders which gave game some new dimension.

Also, movement points - as they are scanned dynamicaly then if you weaken enemy unit by attrition and it become sceleton force of few squads and tanks than again you are not supposed to pay 10 points just to pass by it - it must be adjusted dynamically. If this is not great idea I don't know what is :smoke:

Discussion was also about hexside rivers on Matrix forum, yes, I am also for that because now model is not very realistic regarding geography...

There is also some other minor issue... With some work, TOAW could have become better simulation and better stand the test of time... TOAW have aged slowly but game needs some additional work.


Mario