TOAW Next Generation

[Stauffenberg]

I've seen people complaining about the rating of Sherman's etc. There are far larger issues to be addressed as most of us know--sea movement/combat for example. The following is top of my list in what I would like to see.

I think one simple change could have an enormous effect on the way TOAW models (or fails to model) armoured breakthroughs:

--keep the disengagement dynamics, these are very good, but get rid of the actual enemy ZOC cost at scales of 10 km hex and up, perhaps even lower. Just get rid of it. If you pass the disengagement check moving out of, or through enemy ZOCs, then you just pay terrain costs to advance. These are already high, afterall, since you are advancing into enemy terrain. This would make things very fluid and render reserves critical.

--If it is possible you could make it a two-tiered system whereby the above is in place unless the ZOC being exerted is especially strong AND exerted by motorised units, in which case you pay the standard ZOC costs.

--Another nice nuance would be giving tactical reserves an automatic ZOC, in fact the only way to give infantry a ZOC at all at 10 kph+ scales.


Gosh, I know it isn't kosher, but if some programmer was to "figure away around the current TOAW impasse", I certainly would be tempted....

D.

[Mantis]

I especially like the bit about doing away with the extra movement costs for ZOCs if the check is passed. That would make for a much more fluid game, and would assist in making breakthroughs and exploitation a little more realistic. As it stand, punching a hole through enemy lines usually only lets your armor move another hex, perhaps two. Alot of times, the infantry can keep up. Odd.

Interesting thoughts.

[Chuck?]

Yes I agree. If a hex is say 25km then the armor should be able to go through that fairly quickly. Also there should be some better sea movement options. There should be two values; one for shipping to a friendly port and one for shipping to an invasion beach.

[Stauffenberg]

Yes amphib Cap values along with naval units set on interdiction along the lines of air unit dynamics. Disengagement dynamics at sea perhaps as well. Also a random sub hit percentage along the lines of interdiction.

What I really want to see in TOAW is a Command/Control rubric along the lines of World at War. Supply tonnages can be channeled and stored, units can be reassigned. A final bit of chrome to delight the grognards would be exceptional leader combat benefits.

Add the above few items in this thread alone and you have radically improved the accuracy of the system. I am sure grognards and newbies out there have other ideas....

D.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
What I really want to see in TOAW is a Command/Control rubric along the lines of World at War. Supply tonnages can be channeled and stored, units can be reassigned. A final bit of chrome to delight the grognards would be exceptional leader combat benefits.

Hear, hear!

I was just about to write a reply with exactly the same content. :)

Problems caused by lack of supply should also be `rationalized´. In TOAW one can keep on attacking with 1% on-hand supplies.

AI (which I call "Igor the Dumb") should be considerably improved for solitaire play.

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti




Problems caused by lack of supply should also be `rationalized´. In TOAW one can keep on attacking with 1% on-hand supplies.



I always wondered about this. It seemed sheer lunacy that a unit could continue to attack turn after turn with only 1% of its needed supplies - and have it's MPs and overall strength only marginally affected. The dynamics of the game would shift incredibly if supply was more realistic.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

In its present form one has to use theater options (negative shocks) to model significant supply problems.

Which reminds me that the number of event slots should be doubled, at least. :smoke:

[JAMiAM]

Assignable, and adjustable CAP zones, with an overlay feature to indicate their normalized strength over the map.

Targeted interdiction radii, with similar overlays.

The aforementioned supply tweaks, to be sure. Separation of "gas, bullets, and butter" to be included along with a more realistic stockpile accounting. The effects of each type of supply's level to be distinctly modeled. As it is now, it is alright as an abstraction, but it could be so much better.

And, in terms of interface, a "global disembark" command for units on trains. You don't know how many hours of my life have been wasted hunting down that last little entrained piece that is hiding under some stack of reserves, so that I can start the turn with full rail capacity, and not accidentally leave someone entrained through the turn, who should have disembarked at the start of it!!! <...deep breath...>

[Sheik Yerbouti]

-Formation shocks

-Arty button, which would work like the HQ-button; puts arty units on top of the stacks

-Equipment database modifications for scenarios possible

[Kraut]

Originally posted by JAMiAM
And, in terms of interface, a "global disembark" command for units on trains. You don't know how many hours of my life have been wasted hunting down that last little entrained piece that is hiding under some stack of reserves, so that I can start the turn with full rail capacity, and not accidentally leave someone entrained through the turn, who should have disembarked at the start of it!!! <...deep breath...>

I just had such a case in DNO where my rail capacyty was 10500 of 11000 and I was searching like mad for this last entrained unit until I found a militia unit (no entrained icon) with 0 of 208 movement points that got engaged in combat while being entrained and refused to free the missing rail capacity points :D

[General Staff]

Talking about global functions:

1) A global function to select Loss Tolerance setting. Try setting all Soviet Units to Ignore Losses manually in Gotterdamerung. :D

2) Air settings. Maybe 1 for air and 1 for ground in 1. Plus ability to set all air units to rest.

3) Some function to search for best RR capability, best Engineer capability, Best Reconnaissance capability. Maybe an SQL type search where you can put in the parameters- e.g. recce value>25%.

4) A global function to dig in.

Just a few.

[MattyB]

I'm guessing that substantially increasing the number of events would be the most trivial thing to do and would make life much easier for those heavy-hitting scenarios that are using all 500 slots.

Global Dig in (perhaps by Formation) is a must.

Also the automatic retreat (not sure of the correct term, when a unit clicks on the enemy unit for attack, and it automatically retreats). Complete negates disengagement penalties. Would love to see that corrected.

Improvement in the long range movement. Sometimes it seems the system does not pick the most efficient path. I actually had it once (and it was impossible to see this in advance because of the arrow direction) have the unit advance, back up and then go back to the original hex.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by MattyB
Also the automatic retreat (not sure of the correct term, when a unit clicks on the enemy unit for attack, and it automatically retreats). Complete negates disengagement penalties. Would love to see that corrected.

Not sure what you mean here...

If you are referring to the defender not being subject to disengagement penalties, then that is in error. They are.

If you are referring to the attacker not being subject to disengagement penalties, this is the same as if it were a regular attack and the attacker was able to advance after combat. There is no penalty to attacking units that advance after a successful combat. To put a penalty to overrunning units would be inconsistent.

I certainly agree with the rest of the items...now, where's someone to design a new game with all of the wish list items that we can come up with...;)

[Stauffenberg]

"Automatic retreat" comes right out of World @ War, and btw a few of us were digging around with a view towards buying up the rights of that system and retooling it from the ground up. Another corporate dead-end in terms of non-interest. The guy in the company that owns the rights was not even aware his company owned the game rights. Yes he was in charge of the wargaming section as far as I know.

This system had alot going for it, and it was marketed with far more savvy than TS; however, with no editor, the system was closed and has therefore been dead in the water for years now. TOAW could benefit immensely by importing their superior game function interface--not only more efficient, but aesthetically superior--along with a similar Command-Control/Supply rubric. This was superb.

D.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
"Automatic retreat" comes right out of World @ War, and btw a few of us were digging around with a view towards buying up the rights of that system and retooling it from the ground up. Another corporate dead-end in terms of non-interest. The guy in the company that owns the rights was not even aware his company owned the game rights. Yes he was in charge of the wargaming section as far as I know.

This system had alot going for it, and it was marketed with far more savvy than TS; however, with no editor, the system was closed and has therefore been dead in the water for years now. TOAW could benefit immensely by importing their superior game function interface--not only more efficient, but aesthetically superior--along with a similar Command-Control/Supply rubric. This was superb.

I have been wondering what ever happened to the very potential W@W-series. Thanx for the (sad) info.

[Chuck?]

Maybe an option for automatic weather fronts instead of having to set each warm and cold front individually. This would free up some events in the longer scenarios.

[RhinoBones]

Since this has become a wish list, I have a few:

1) I agree there should be a disengagement penalty, but to have a unit’s complete movement allowance used up due to a disengagement is much too sever. A unit might lose 20-50% of the movement allowance, but not the entire allowance.

2) Units should have the option to make probe and spoiling attacks. This would allow the units to fall back to their prepared positions once the attack is completed.

3) Would like to see casualties measured in relative strength points rather than a percentage. Seeing a combat result where a unit looses 5% doesn’t tell you diddly until you look into the details. Think it would be better if something like “Attacker-3 Strength, Defender-2 Strength” would be more informative. If you need more information about the casualties, you would still have the option to view the details. Maybe a toggle switch between Percentage and Strength would satisfy both sides.

4) In the Playback Mode, would like to have the option to view the individual combat results. Just like it is during your turn.

5) The last, and most radical, would be to make TOAW into a WEGO game engine.

The real burning question is . . . was this thread initiated as a tease, or does someone have a serious intent to develop the ideas into reality?

Regards, RhinoBones

[Siberian HEAT]

I would like to see more relative strength considerations on the attack/defense. The way things are set up now, if you throw a few trucks against a corps of hardened Panzers, eventually the corps will start to take losses...sometimes significant losses.

I always liken it back to the original Civilization game where you could take your battleship and attack a spear-wielding native and every once in a while the battleship would LOSE and sink. :surprise:

A good feature would be a pre-PBEM setting to permanently turn off ownership borders of any kind. (similar to turning off air assistant and such)

While we are dreaming, it would be nice to integrate Chris's victory level calculator into that big green space on the right side of the screen so you could clearly see the various victory levels as you play. :D

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Stevo
5) The last, and most radical, would be to make TOAW into a WEGO game engine.

WEGO was the strenght of W@W-series. Obviously if it were implemented with TOAW, it would make a whole different game.

Maybe bookkeeping could happen after each players moves so there would be less asymmetry between player one and two. Retreated units could get their full movement allowance back, if they pass some kind of "retreat check" (and no other way to get them attack or dig-in again), routed units would not.

Consequences of `double´ bookkeeping:

1) It would be easier for player one to surround enemy units; with the present `sticky´ enemy hexes, player two´s infantry (or whatever) units can move faster than player one´s motorized units, and can react quickly to every flanking maneuver. In short, this would take away a major disadvantage from player one´s pov.

2) Defender could use other losses settings than ignore with his troops to save men and material to model a fighting retreat, especially if the "retreat check" could be passed rather easily. A major disadvantage from player two´s pov would be taken away.

There would have to be some adjustments in supply calculations with this system, but nothing radical.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Stevo
2) Units should have the option to make probe and spoiling attacks. This would allow the units to fall back to their prepared positions once the attack is completed.

Use limited attacks. I think this is one of the most overlooked feature of the game. More `veteran´ I have become with the game, more limited attacks I have been using.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti

Use limited attacks. I think this is one of the most overlooked feature of the game. More `veteran´ I have become with the game, more limited attacks I have been using.

:hush: Jyri, shhhhhh! You're divulging secrets of the priesthood...;)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


:hush: Jyri, shhhhhh! You're divulging secrets of the priesthood...;)

Forgive me, your grace General Bishop JAMiAM, the Abbot of el TOAW Monastery. :hail:

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by Stevo

The real burning question is . . . was this thread initiated as a tease, or does someone have a serious intent to develop the ideas into reality?

Regards, RhinoBones


A few of us have had direct dealings with Norm Koger and Take-2. While things are definitely at an impass for now, I think it inevitable that this system will eventually carry on, somehow. For now, all these items are going into a file. Whatever new version of TOAW finally gets released, or even should a new system appear, these are issues that will have to be dealt with.

D.

[Kraut]

I'd like to have more controll over my combat phases, if I give my attackers the order 'min losses' I expect them to break contact early and preserve as much combat rounds as possible.
But than (Murphys Law) there is always this uninteresting little battle where a single StuG Btl. attacks an encircled NKVD unit and the stubborn soviets refuse to surrender and the battle goes on and on and on, burning almost all combat phases.
I want to be able to tell a unit: attack but break after 3 combat rounds. In a game where 10 combat rounds represent 3.5 days it's highly unlikely that the entire german army watches this little uniteresting fight and refuses to take orders in the meantime :D

It might be good to split up a turn in 10 _assured_ rounds, meaning I hit end turn and 10% of my attacks get resolved. If a combat is finished after 1 round I can continue moving these units, if the combat continues I can get a status report and decided wheteher I'd like to continue this attack or order my units to break off.

The only problem might be play balance, making it to easy for one side to surround & destroy the enemy but thats what playtests are for :)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Kraut
I'd like to have more controll over my combat phases, if I give my attackers the order 'min losses' I expect them to break contact early and preserve as much combat rounds as possible.
But than (Murphys Law) there is always this uninteresting little battle where a single StuG Btl. attacks an encircled NKVD unit and the stubborn soviets refuse to surrender and the battle goes on and on and on, burning almost all combat phases.
I want to be able to tell a unit: attack but break after 3 combat rounds. In a game where 10 combat rounds represent 3.5 days it's highly unlikely that the entire german army watches this little uniteresting fight and refuses to take orders in the meantime :D


Although I´d love to have some kind of manual limiter to avoid those `turn burning´ -attacks, it has to be remembered that the turn is an abstraction of the time scope it represents, so 10 combat rounds in half-week turn doesn´t mean they are 0.35 days each. Failed proficiency checks and `turn burning´ -attacks represent failures outside the scope of individual battles.

[Aryaman]

Items I would like to see in anew TOAW game
1. Supply depots and lines of supply instead of hexes with a supply base

2. Units with low supply should be unable to move or attack

3. Change the turn system to wego

4. Change the movement system, get rid of that hex possesion system and instead have to types of movements for units, tactical and stratecigal, like in the V4V games

5. A naval system similar to the air system, with ports acting like airbases

6. Real chain of command, with a tree structure adjustable and a penalty for units too far from their HQs

7. No subdivision capability, normally people design scenarios with some scale in mind, battalions, regs, divs, whatever, and those subdivisions only add gamey tactics

8. Surrounded units would fight to scape against the weakest encircling unit, so that you can´t destroy a division using companies to sealed a pocket

9. Experience should be modelled differently, those subtile percentages don´t do much of a difference between tough veterans and green units. A multiplayer factor, with a difference from 0.5 to 2.5 for green, recruit, experecienced, etc, for instance could be more realistic

10. Make inf units capable of being lorried, and motorized units to disembark

Just some points

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Aryaman
Just some points

...and a whole different game...:D

[Kraut]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


Although I´d love to have some kind of manual limiter to avoid those `turn burning´ -attacks, it has to be remembered that the turn is an abstraction of the time scope it represents, so 10 combat rounds in half-week turn doesn´t mean they are 0.35 days each. Failed proficiency checks and `turn burning´ -attacks represent failures outside the scope of individual battles.

I think you are wrong here, the 10 combat rounds do represent the time it takes for a battle to be decided. If I plan my attacks and the worst start is at the third combat round and all attacks are at limited losses and all attacks are finished after one go ( in _no_ combat report are news as 'Axis forces continue attack) than I _should_ have 50% left.

In a test scenario I did everything as described above and all combats ended early expect one (the above mentioned StuG Btl.) that attacked on min. losses and kept on attacking (lots of 'Axis forces continue attack' messages) and my turn was almost spent (20% left).
I reloaded the test scenario and let the StuGs rest... voila, 50% left! (Of course I did some more tests to be sure :) )

Of course luck in involved here but I am fairly certain that after 50% of my turn all combats were finished expect this one and because of this unprdictable long combat valuable combat rounds were burned.

Imagine yourself at the Ostfront, commanding the entire Wehrmacht and instead of following your orders the entire front from north to south stops attacking for a day or two because they wait until one little battle somewhere along the front is decided :D

[John Paul]

It would be nice if there was a differential made between troop ships and assault shipping.Just because you can transport X amount of divisions by sea,doesn't mean there is that same capability when making amphibious assaults.

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by Kraut


I think you are wrong here, the 10 combat rounds do represent the time it takes for a battle to be decided. If I plan my attacks and the worst start is at the third combat round and all attacks are at limited losses and all attacks are finished after one go ( in _no_ combat report are news as 'Axis forces continue attack) than I _should_ have 50% left.



This is an interesting point and I think you are both right, and wrong, as far as that goes. 10 rounds really represents an idealised "initiative", allowing for further attacks and exploitation if you have handled things well and if--and here is where it becomes an ideal--you are lucky. Koger purposefully built in a randomised failure function that will end rounds, any round, "for no reason". Every unit (not disrupted at the beginning of the turn or otherwise N/A) can move its full movement factor and attack if it can if you want it to. Your holding back units and staggering attacks time-wise is a gamble, one you choose to make, and one that bets that good planning will allow initiative to be maintained and developed. One has to be aware though that 10 rounds represents an ideal, a division of time to be sure, but not one you should expect to get with complete certainty: bad planning, fanatical defenses, and finally an inexplicable failure of initiative at the end of a round, can bring it all to a close far sooner. One can rationalise this last "mystery" in many ways. This was a nice touch on Koger's part in my view, a subtle way of handling initiative, along with variations on first player moves when playing face to face.

D.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Kraut
Imagine yourself at the Ostfront, commanding the entire Wehrmacht and instead of following your orders the entire front from north to south stops attacking for a day or two because they wait until one little battle somewhere along the front is decided :D

I think you missed my point. The game has a igo ugo-system, so there are many abstractions with time spending. With your logic one could imagine commanding the entire Soviet Army, which doesn´t react to Wermacht attacks until half a week has passed by...(well, kinda realistic during the early stages of Barbarossa :D ).

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
along with variations on first player moves when playing face to face.

We don´t have that in PBEM. :cry:

[Stauffenberg]

No, and the odds of meeting a grognard TOAW player for hotseat play is about the same as meeting a chap in a purple pantsuit.

[Brevet]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
No, and the odds of meeting a grognard TOAW player for hotseat play is about the same as meeting a chap in a purple pantsuit.

Did you ever watch The Big Lebowski? Has a dude named Jesus bowling in a purple pantsuit. One of my favorite movies :D

[Stauffenberg]

ah HA. Someone finally got the allusion. Yes exactly. On another thread Jamiam was scoffing at boardgamers that used counter-tweezers to sift through stacks of units, claiming that "real men grow long fingernails on thumb and index finger for that".

To which I replied, "the last chap I saw like that was in a purple pantsuit."
From the movie of course.

You get 10 Bonus Points and you can email Don Maddox for your prize when you hit the magic 100.

D.

[Red]

Okei, I'v been lurking around a long time and I just wish to add to the wish list (if its any good... )

The one thing that realy annoyes me is how rivers are represented in TOAW. I realy enjoy making maps, and I often find that the rivers "in hexes" clutters up my map. Especialy when I make maps with valleys. There is also the thing with roads paralelling rivers.

So my wish would be to give scenario designers the possibility to have hexsides rivers.

[Dan Neely]

join the club in LARTing takespew. the unreleased acow 1.05 patch supports hexside rivers.

[Red]

I was under the impression that it was just 50km hexes that supported hexsiderivers in "1.05" ????

[LOK]

If there is any possibility of TOAW being upgraded (or perhaps a new game system being developed) should we (Warfare HQ or TDG or ???) come up with a list of desired features/additions/bug fixes etc. and associated ratings?
Lots of people have posted excellent suggestions and of course, I have my own list.
I'm sure how we rate our desired features/additions (e.g. "must have" , "nice to have", etc.) will be hotly debated but it may help Take2 change their minds???

I'd be happy to assist in the effort if anyone is interested...

LOK

[Stauffenberg]

I don't know. What do you make of a company that refuses to allow an established system to grow and evolve? a company that turns down an offer to develop a complete new scenario CD by established designers at their own time & expense? a company that can barely be arsed to even civily respond to your proposal packages?
I'll use the highbrow term "nescient."

That said, I have every confidence that the system will get around this block eventually. It has too much going for it.

My "take" on Take-2 is that TOAW is not even a blip on their developmental radar screen as the number of unit sales is so small--niche market you know. On the other hand, judging by the fact they are still selling it and promoting it on their page (same Talonsoft box art--they really haven't put a dime into TOAW), I suppose they have X number of boxes to bundle and sell. I am also told that owning the rights affects their stock value.

Perhaps we can pester them with complaints about their failure to provide the latest upgrade for TOAW from Koger. In your email to these people, drop in a phrase along the lines of "this has become a hot topic on the wargaming boards."

Emails to: support@take2baltimore.com

This is another topic really and so I will start a new thread for this. If you want to respond about the Take-2 issue, do it in the other thread pls.

D.

[Red]

Does anyone know exactley what "1.05" contains?

Is there some sort of readme file floating around, cause I cant find any references except that "1.05" exists on Norms computer...

[Dan Neely]

Hex edge rivers.

[Red]

:) Ok, I guessed that much...:)

Would you care to elaborate a bit?

[Zarah Neader]

Seems like I've found the thread I was looking for. In fact I considered opening a new thread with exactly the same topic.

Short background: sw-developer, retired, with plenty of time & no games which catches her interest. Solution: write your own game.
TOAW comes close to my 'perfect' game, but has a clumpsy interface. Anyone counted the mouse clicks in one round in Barbarossa?. You need a robust physis.

So I'm thinking along the line of TOAW but:

- open source
- open data. I want everything to be editable, including the combat model. Simply cause I neither have the time nor the interest to do extensive military study. So my answer to the inevitable complaints is: if you don't like it, chance it..

- slick UI, minimzing number of clicks and scrolling. unlimited zoom
- more detailed unit and formation characteristics
performance paramter: Soft attack. Hard Attack, Air attack, Soft defense, hard defense, air defense
proficiency paramter: morale, fatigue, supply, fanatism, stubbornness, experince
non linear effect on combat performance
- events handled through a script language
- decision making tool: overlay with avg. Attack strength etc.
- supply & air to be defined, but generally less abstracted.

Parts of the suggestions was on my list, some suggestions are on my list now:). But by now I'm mostly interested in one aspect: Igo vs. WeGO. Obvious a fundamental design decision. There seems to be some tendency towards WeGO, but why? Because it's en vouge? Because it eleminates player1-player2 assymetries? But WeGO introduces some problems of its own, mainly the fact, that the player must give up some control to a tactical AI. Are you willing to pay that price? As a short mental exercise: imagine playing one of the large scale scenarios in a WeGO system.
I'd be really interested in further input.

Thanks for sharing, best regards

[Tim McBride]

I for one like the WeGo system. Much more realistic in my book. I don't mind the loss of some control...fairly realistic at this level

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by Red
I was under the impression that it was just 50km hexes that supported hexsiderivers in "1.05" ????

Yes, and 100 km hexes and up no rivers at all!

[Red]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg


Yes, and 100 km hexes and up no rivers at all!

Que?? :confused:

Was my post out off line, or do I just not understand your humor? :confused:

Hey, I'm not oversensitiv, just a recruit... ;)

[Stauffenberg]

My sense of humour. I was thinking back on some early scenarios I saw @ 50 km per hex, and also the attempt to generate terrain at that scale. The results were often grotesque.

D.

[MattyB]

2 more for the wish list.

1) An easier way to spot blown bridges...searching a huge map is tough
2) Shock effects at a formation rather than side level

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by MattyB
1) An easier way to spot blown bridges...searching a huge map is tough

The thing to do is just watch the supply trace. This tells you about the ones that matter, at least.

[Kraut]

One thing I almost forgot: I want a better turn replay! I want to be able to fast forward, fast reverse, step forward, step back, I want a slider to immediately jump to the turn that interests me without having to re-watch the whole replay.

In big scenarios like DNO it takes almost 30-45 minutes just to watch the soviets redeploy his troops!

[Dan Neely]

If you're going to rework the replay I'd suggest logging save/loads and what was undone.

[LOK]

I am not sure if TOAW or any other game will ever have these features but I've been keeping my own list (I have a S/S which rates the desirability of these features).
TOAW is close to being the perfect system, if only we could get some upgrades....

===================
Theater Options dialog box does not scroll – current TO limit is 16

For multi-country scenarios we need a country cooperation matrix e.g. country A can cooperate with country B but not C, B with C but not D etc in addition to formation cooperation levels

We need a lot more exclusion zones OR a "neutral" hex designation through which no movement is allowed (including air/naval movement). When countries are activate then the neutral hexes become friendly or enemy held.

Sea hexes should have friendly/enemy, neutral (see above), and an "international" ownership. Movement (air, naval, ground) should be allowed only through friendly and international hexes.

Supply should be traced through friendly and "international" sea hexes unless the option below can be implemented instead.

Add supply capacity to supply units, in effect have true supply units that can be transported and be moved around on the map and provide supply. Transport costs should be high.

Add ECM/EW units/rating and range - recon units with a recon range will be used simulate radar sites and air recon units such as AWACS etc.- leave the Theater Recon number in the event editor to simulate human and satellite intelligence. We should be able to set movement of Ground ECM/EW units to zero for fixed sites. Air strikes against these units can then be used to reduce enemy recon levels.

Dispense with Local/Tactical reserve and have a single reserve mode with a user-defined radius based on the unit's available movement points.

Supply should take into account level of country cooperation matrix, e.g. country A should not able to trace supply from a country B supply point even if it is friendly if the countries have chilly relationships (e.g. Israel and Saudi Arabia should be able to trace supply, etc.).

Supply points should have capacity number, e.g. different supply points should be able to supply N units (bdes, weight or use any other appropriate measure).

Increase the negative effects on unsupplied units (loss of movement and combat ratings). This would avoid desperate amphibious and airborne assaults.

Increase max number of supply points. Large scenarios reach the limit very quickly.

Increase max number of place names. Large scenarios reach the limit very quickly.

Dispense with the Air superiority mission and random air-air combat. Instead have CAP missions with a user defined radius based on the air unit's combat radius. CAP effectiveness/probability should decline should decline as a function of distance of the air unit to the battle location.

Have the ability to "escort" specific air missions. Be able to assign air units on CAP to "escort" a specific ground, airfield, bridge attacks etc. by other aircraft.

Interdiction should be effective against moving units only. Strike missions should serve as interdiction against specific stationary units.

Ability to define an interdiction area/radius - within the combat radius of the air unit. Interdiction effectiveness/probability should decline as a function of distance.

Add a logistical strike air missions against supply points to damage/diminish the enemy's supply.

We need naval units that are more than floating arty pieces with surface, AAA, subsurface, missile, and other appropriate ratings - more like ground/air units.

Naval units should have movement limitations just like ground units based on the type of unit (CVNs should have more movement than small patrol craft etc).

We need the ability to base cruise missiles and ICBMs on special subs (SSBNs). Should be able to carry out carry out missile attacks from the subs.

We need a better naval combat model similar to air/ground unit model. Possible missions include patrol, interception, interdiction, shore bombardment, submarine attacks etc.

For mixed air and naval units, the range should be determined by the shortest-range unit (biplanes should not have the range of B2 bombers if they are in the same unit)

Have true air/naval transport units to be used for amphibious and airborne assaults.

Sea and air transport should be from airport to airport and port to port only - not for amphibious and airborne assaults.

Separate naval and air transport from amphibious and airborne assault

Allow naval movement through canal hexes

Ability to apply shock effects per country or per formation

Increase the number of events to 1000 or more

Modify the event structure to allow all event triggers to activate all event effects, in order to minimize the event utilization

Have the ability to fast-forward through the replay to see only the battle resolution of specific parts

Instead of having a Special Forces/Airborne/Mountain etc Boolean flag for units use an appropriate rating instead. For example: US SF or mountain units will have a better rating SF/mountain rating than an Iranian Commando unit but both have SF/mountain abilities.

Have the ability to attack but not move into a hex; that is select which units will occupy the hex under attack.

Have air/naval bases in addition to ports and airports - air/naval units get resupplied or repaired only if they are based on an air/naval base.

Ability to reassign units to formations - with penalties perhaps.

Increase HQ structure by at least 1 level, that is have Army/Corps/Div HQs or Div/Bde/Bn, etc. formation structure.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by LOK
Have the ability to attack but not move into a hex; that is select which units will occupy the hex under attack.

Increase HQ structure by at least 1 level, that is have Army/Corps/Div HQs or Div/Bde/Bn, etc. formation structure.

There were a lot of goodies, but these two we already have...

[LOK]

On the second feature: I meant to add another layer of formations/command structure. For example have 1st Arm Div subordinate to III Corps which is subortinate to Central Army Group. So the destruction of Central Army Group HQs will impact the 1st Arm Div. Sorry for the bad explanation.

On the first feature I'd be very interested to know how I can prevent a specific attacking unit from advancing into the enemy hex being attacked. I must have missed that one completely:crosseye:

thanks

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by LOK
On the second feature: I meant to add another layer of formations/command structure. For example have 1st Arm Div subordinate to III Corps which is subortinate to Central Army Group. So the destruction of Central Army Group HQs will impact the 1st Arm Div. Sorry for the bad explanation.

OK. Combined with free (or limited) cross-attachment of units it would be nice.

On the first feature I'd be very interested to know how I can prevent a specific attacking unit from advancing into the enemy hex being attacked. I must have missed that one completely:crosseye:

Limited attacks...IMO the most overlooked feature of the game...

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti

Limited attacks...IMO the most overlooked feature of the game...

I think the wording of this has caused the most problems. When people see limited attack they think this is what is between minimize losses and ignore losses.

[General Staff]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
Limited attacks...IMO the most overlooked feature of the game...
Sssssssh!:D

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by General Staff

Sssssssh!:D

Another member of the priesthood, I presume...:hush:

Btw, when do you have the earth shattering replacement article ready?

[General Staff]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


Another member of the priesthood, I presume...:hush:

Btw, when do you have the earth shattering replacement article ready?

Lordy, which priesthood is that? Am I missing some party?

Article- nothing earth-shattering about it (though there's a few things in it that could go on this list). Just what every designer should know. Waiting for feedback from a couple of folks- you yourself as well if you'd be kind enough. Would rather get blatant errors out before posting.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by General Staff
Article- nothing earth-shattering about it (though there's a few things in it that could go on this list). Just what every designer should know. Waiting for feedback from a couple of folks- you yourself as well if you'd be kind enough. Would rather get blatant errors out before posting.

Sure, I´d be interested. Send it right along.

[17poundr]

Hex edge rivers.
yep. i cant tell which side i'm on when on a river hex...

[17poundr]

1, units must have preferences on arty support. ie. if ammo low, support this hexes if under attack foremost.
2. air support. certain hexes must be allowed to be pointed out as having cap all the time (for example that bridge you dont want to have the enemy bomb). sign a fighter unit or two to protect it, also one could put air cover on advancing armour units.
3. leaders of somekind that can have somekind of effect on the capabilities of their unit. ie. good in defence... ect.
4. minefields pointed out.
5 forward air controllers.
6. sea automated commander. also settings like if under attack on the other players turn how to act... retreat. skirmish. ram them! ect...
7. the allocation of replacements. a commander should be able to give a certain unit preference on all others in replacements.
8. much higher bonuses for high ground and units with arty or tanks if scale permits, must have a better go at enemy units below them. Look at cassino in toaw, one can get it in one turn... In reality, troops defending doog in mountain have incredible defencive bonus.
9. extra heavy defended hexes. pre prepared ground must be something heavier and needing specialist units than a regular inf unit fortified.
also the timescale. on one day turns it takes three days to get fortiryed. on one week turns it takes three weeks to get fortified!
10. somekind of understanding which way the unit is facing, this would make a flanking attack, or even getting behind more deadly.

I have had more ideas when playing that slip my mind, but as you can see these could be put under a sub menu from the actions menu. and usually be automated, only when the player needs to specify he can change the norm.

[06 Maestro]

In addition to the many good sugestions, something needs to be done to create a real funtioning "local reserve". I find it near totaly useless in its present form. It also leaves open certain possibilities in the game to totaly absurd movements all over the place and doing no good whatsoever whilst completely ignoring enemy units moving at will though friendly terrain to surround friendly units. Units on "local reserve" should be able to interdict advancing units though friendly terrain within a reasonble percentage of its movement factor.
Another item which has been oversimplified is supply. There should be some correlation of headquater units to provide supply and the distance from its higher HQ. The current game allows for extreamly non historical/possible situations; such as an infantry division conducting offensive operations while 300 km from any corps HQ. It would also be helpfull to have a quick link to find where a unit is in an order of battle w/o having to scroll through 700 units.

[Panzer-War]

I like the idea of haveing leaders perhaps the player could replace them or promote them but would cost VP.

I would like to see engineers able to build things on the map such as airfields,bridges,raillines,roads,fortified positions.

[17poundr]

I like the idea of haveing leaders perhaps the player could replace them or promote them but would cost VP.

I would like to see engineers able to build things on the map such as airfields,bridges,raillines,roads,fortified positions.yep, add these to my list!

And the hq question is that of the immencely differing scale from scenario to scenario... that should be fixed...

[Panzer-War]

I believe the leaders of units should only add bonus’s to the unit they command and not make certain units invulnerable.

I know there are people that don't like that units can operate any far distance from there formation hq. But if there was a penalty there would have to be some way to attach and detach units from formations. As independent units that get shifted around the battle as well sometimes a commander may detach units from one formation to help or shore up another area. I myself tend to try to keep units close to there hq but if I do send them some where else I consider them to be attached to another formation or acting independently. I think this could end up in unnecessary clicking for the player.

[17poundr]

I believe the leaders of units should only add bonus’s to the unit they command and not make certain units invulnerable.

I know there are people that don't like that units can operate any far distance from there formation hq. But if there was a penalty there would have to be some way to attach and detach units from formations. As independent units that get shifted around the battle as well sometimes a commander may detach units from one formation to help or shore up another area. I myself tend to try to keep units close to there hq but if I do send them some where else I consider them to be attached to another formation or acting independently. I think this could end up in unnecessary clicking for the player.this is another failing, especially the germans were known of the fluid way they handled formations, giving units under the command of another parent formation as the cituation needed. This was ofcourse not unknown to the allies either. The brits constantly gave a troop of armour to an inf division, and the famous combat command x of the us formations is to be seen on the pages of numerous histories.
Indeed why not be able to delegate a battalion of yours and make it temporarily a part of another divison? I hope someone gets all these ideas to mr toaw (what is his name)?

[Panzer-War]

By Mr. toaw you mean Norm Kroger?

Another Idea would be the ability to take 1,2 bn of inf regiment and combine it with 1 bn of armor regiment into a new regiment though there would have to be a limit to how many units you can combine into a task force or new regiment to keep players from making units division size in a scenario intended for regimental scale. Perhaps could allow for the scenario designer to set the limit.

[17poundr]

By Mr. toaw you mean Norm Kroger?

Another Idea would be the ability to take 1,2 bn of inf regiment and combine it with 1 bn of armor regiment into a new regiment though there would have to be a limit to how many units you can combine into a task force or new regiment to keep players from making units division size in a scenario intended for regimental scale. Perhaps could allow for the scenario designer to set the limit.
Yes, that was the name, Norm Kroger. All hail Norm!
as to the fluid construction of battlegroups, Historical precedents could give guidelines. Although I cannot see how they would be a troublesome feature.
Also from Avalon Hill's Panzergrieg game, I seem to remember creating 'Tank armies' or corps for the germans. this unit whould have a greater combat and shcock value than it's added units put together, do demonste the awesome power of a tank army on the move...
I wish somebody in the know could get Norm's comments on these pages...
I did send an e-mail to the company that still sells toaw, and invited them to look at these threads, too bad the two are in separate forums...

[Panzer-War]

They still sell it? I can’t find it at talon soft or take 2. I am beginning to believe they have abandoned it.
I remember playing some Stalingrad scenario (as the Germans) when the Russians launch there offensive I believe it was on toaw I (has it really been that long). But I remember being heavily outnumbered and looking at the replacement pool I remember havening large amounts of equipment locked up I think like 800 light rifle squads. ever since then I have thought it would have been nice if I could have created new units out of those replacements even if it was just an few infantry regiments with 81 light rifle squads and some light and a few heavy weapons. This could be a reward to the player that takes light casualties. Probly something that should be left up the the scenario designer to decide to allow or not to allow.

[Bob Cross]

By Mr. toaw you mean Norm Kroger?


Norm Koger. It's wargames, not groceries.

[CyberRanger]

They still sell it? I can’t find it at talon soft or take 2.Link to purchase can be found on the
WHQ TOAW main page. (http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=toaw/toaw_news.php)

[Panzer-War]

Norm Koger. It's wargames, not groceries.
wargames not groceries???what?

[17poundr]

wargames not groceries???what?
I believe that I misspelled his name. I write from a laptop that is on my sofa, not the best of positions, and as I do ten finger typing, I sometimes get letters in wrong places.
Plus, although being half British, I have lived in Finland as long as I can remember, and thus my english grammar can be faulty at times.
Still, I hope somebody, could get Norm's e-mail so that I could invite him to see the suggestions posted on these pages, hopefully he would get an inspiration... (one can always hope) ;)

[Siberian HEAT]

Mr. Koger's email : nkoger@austin.rr.com

His home page : http://home.austin.rr.com/normkoger/toc.html

You are welcome to try to contact him. I know he reads his email, but I also know he is very busy and seldom returns any of it. However, don't let that stop you! Give it a try. It can't hurt to show there is still interest in his game system.

:smoke:

[Panzer-War]

There also needs to be a way to designate light armored units for helo trans. Such as hmmvw's and other LAV's, even the LAV-25 is helo transportable by ch-53's. I tried one time to change this through the bio editor but apparently any thing with armor is not allowed to helo transport.

[17poundr]

Mr. Koger's email : nkoger@austin.rr.com

His home page : http://home.austin.rr.com/normkoger/toc.html

You are welcome to try to contact him. I know he reads his email, but I also know he is very busy and seldom returns any of it. However, don't let that stop you! Give it a try. It can't hurt to show there is still interest in his game system.

:smoke:
I e-mailed Norm, and informed of this thread. I mentioned the high output in this thread for example, and tried to convince that there is a bigger enough following to merit a toaw2, and here are some great ideas!
Let's hope Norm reads this forum!
Norm, if you are out there, please honour us by registering and writing a comment! Please saint Norm, please, Norm van Kenobi, you are our only hope!

OP NORM. Your mission, get hold of the e-mails seen above. Send a mail to Norm, let us carpet bomb him in pleas, that he can print and go to the software company, and we will get the manna from heaven...
Also with any luck maybe some of us would get to be trial players!

[larryfulkerson]

I have an idea for a more superior PO. Maybe I could code some kind of, I donno, artificial life, into the TOAW clone so that the PO learns from it's mistakes and becomes more and more proficient as it plays. And having the ability to save the PO parameters into a separate file so that you could use a "veteran" PO again and again so that it got better and better.
That way you could just set the game up and let the computer play itself a couple million times and the PO that might result could, theoritically, be unbeatable. LOL. Yeah like that would ever happen. I think humans will ALWAYS be able to beat any PO that might be developed. Of course that's what Kasparov said about a computer playing chess. Would be interesting to code such a beast and see what actually happens.

[larryfulkerson]

Hey you guys....I've decided to keep you in the loop as reguards the TOAW clone I'm working on. the fine people at RD gave me some disk space and I've decided to post the advancing versions of the TOAW clone there so you guys can play with it and make suggestions as to placement of stuff, colors, etc. And BUG reports will be appreciated.

You can find the current incarnation of the TOAW clone at
http://www.the-strategist.net/~larry/toawclone.html

Thanks for all your support.

[Ben Turner]

I have an idea for a more superior PO. Maybe I could code some kind of, I donno, artificial life, into the TOAW clone so that the PO learns from it's mistakes and becomes more and more proficient as it plays.

Well as it is I think the problem is that the PO doesn't really consider the whole scenario at once- only individual formations. If you can fix that- and then put in the kind of neural net you're talking about- that would be great. However, it might take an awfully long time for the PO to learn to be a really great commander.

What would be really interesting in the respect would be to play ten or twelve First World War scenarios with the PO and then play a 1940 scenario.

And having the ability to save the PO parameters into a separate file so that you could use a "veteran" PO again and again so that it got better and better.

Yeah. You could save different PO identities.

That way you could just set the game up and let the computer play itself a couple million times and the PO that might result could, theoritically, be unbeatable.

Perhaps. It might also take up a hell of a lot of memory.

I think humans will ALWAYS be able to beat any PO that might be developed. Of course that's what Kasparov said about a computer playing chess. Would be interesting to code such a beast and see what actually happens.

Well Kasparov was able to beat the computer. Just that he was beaten more often than he won.

[Amyrlin]

Oh, let's look at my list of desired additions to TOAW:

-The ability to launch a "skirmish" attack, that will last one round and ONLY one round. As it is, even minimize losses/limited attack CAN take up more than one round.

-The ability to order units to bombard an adjacent unit with artillery. I'd like to be able to have my entrench infantry divisions with organic artillery bombard opposing entrenched infantry divisions, without launching actual infantry attacks.

-The ability to put units on "reconnaisance" deployment. This would make the unit - ideally, one with a high proportion of units with the recon ability or motorized units - spread out, making all hexes within a certain radius "observed". The unit would then fight not as well.

-Allow units with the "transport" symbol (truck thing or wheel) to enable motorized transport of infantry units. This can either be like helocopter transport or on a one-to-one ratio, i.e. infantry unit moves onto transport units, mounts, then transporter moves and infantry dismounts.

-Have a "disengage" modifier to loss tolerances: units flagged by the player to "disengage" will automatically attempt to retreat from enemies, as opposed to standing and fighting.

-At lower scales, enable units to carry out an "ambush": the unit becomes hidden or harder to detect, and then carries out an automatic one-round attack at a high shock level on any enemy units moving into its hex. (Think Vietnam, company level)

-Multi-level order of battle. Have a separate "Force Management" window which would enable the player to graphically change the order of battle within certain constraints: a Wehrmacht player could assign units to an ad-hoc Kampfgruppe or Korpsgruppe, which would then be assigned as any other formation to a higher echelon formation, and so on. Allow the scenario designer to put on a "headquarters limit" on the number of headquarters units per force; all ad-hoc formations must have a headquarters attached; if there are empty headquarters slots a new one will be created; if not the player must use an existing one. One advantage to multi-level OOBs is that we no longer have distinctions on effect by "force", "formation", and "unit": a scenario designer can designate any effect to affect a certain formation at whatever level of the OOB - whether it be the topmost formation (think OKH or SACEUR), a middle one (think 6th Panzer Army which may contain LXVII, I SS Pz, and II SS Pz Korps), or down to a specific unit. The effect would then affect all units within the designated area.

-Multiple players! World War 2: one player controls UK/US/France/Poland/whatever, one controls Axis nations and allies, and one controls Soviet Union - that way, we can have the Winter War accurately modeled.

-A graphical force editor for scenario development. Designers would be able to create unit templates, create the formation structure, and drag-and-drop units onto formations as desired. Designers could set all unit & formation parameters easily through the editor. Here's my ideal situation for this: a kind soul creates an OOB for the German Army, 1944, down to regiment level or whatever. A designer would be able to import the whole OOB, highlight units/formations to delete to trim to his or her area of interest, and set the standard unit level to battalion - the editor would then pre-populate regiments with numbered battalions - and voila! the designer has a stress-free OOB for his scenario!

I'm sure I could think of things ad nauseum, but you get the idea.

[Ben Turner]

-The ability to launch a "skirmish" attack, that will last one round and ONLY one round. As it is, even minimize losses/limited attack CAN take up more than one round.

I'm not sure about this. Breaking off from combat is not normally that simple. Plus with the current game system this could easily be abused.

-The ability to put units on "reconnaisance" deployment. This would make the unit - ideally, one with a high proportion of units with the recon ability or motorized units - spread out, making all hexes within a certain radius "observed". The unit would then fight not as well.

Wouldn't this be the equivalent of splitting the unit up and moving the peices around?

-Allow units with the "transport" symbol (truck thing or wheel) to enable motorized transport of infantry units. This can either be like helocopter transport or on a one-to-one ratio, i.e. infantry unit moves onto transport units, mounts, then transporter moves and infantry dismounts.

I would say like helicopter transport.

-Have a "disengage" modifier to loss tolerances: units flagged by the player to "disengage" will automatically attempt to retreat from enemies, as opposed to standing and fighting.

This is a distortion. If those units are in the front line in the first place, they're there for a reason. Bear in mind that whatever your HQ unit was doing in that frontline hex, the other player's attack is occuring simultaneously with it in the real world.

-Multi-level order of battle. Have a separate "Force Management" window which would enable the player to graphically change the order of battle within certain constraints: a Wehrmacht player could assign units to an ad-hoc Kampfgruppe or Korpsgruppe, which would then be assigned as any other formation to a higher echelon formation, and so on. Allow the scenario designer to put on a "headquarters limit" on the number of headquarters units per force; all ad-hoc formations must have a headquarters attached; if there are empty headquarters slots a new one will be created; if not the player must use an existing one. One advantage to multi-level OOBs is that we no longer have distinctions on effect by "force", "formation", and "unit": a scenario designer can designate any effect to affect a certain formation at whatever level of the OOB - whether it be the topmost formation (think OKH or SACEUR), a middle one (think 6th Panzer Army which may contain LXVII, I SS Pz, and II SS Pz Korps), or down to a specific unit. The effect would then affect all units within the designated area.

Ideally, the designer would be able to define units at one level lower than their basic composition. Then, instead of breaking up into three identical fragments, they would divide into their real components- say three battalions and an infantry gun company.

-Multiple players! World War 2: one player controls UK/US/France/Poland/whatever, one controls Axis nations and allies, and one controls Soviet Union - that way, we can have the Winter War accurately modeled.

More or less. There aren't really any situations where there are three distinct sides in a conflict. One could seperate out the Allied turn into Western and Soviets like Axis & Allies does.

a kind soul creates an OOB for the German Army, 1944, down to regiment level or whatever.

The trouble is it's constantly changing. Not much use unless you're modelling a battle at that exact time. Plus, in different situations you'll want different OOBs. At regiment level you might want a bunch of light rifle squads with the artillery. At division, they shouldn't be in there.

[17poundr]

Oh, let's look at my list of desired additions to TOAW:

-The ability to launch a "skirmish" attack, that will last one round and ONLY one round. As it is, even minimize losses/limited attack CAN take up more than one round.

-The ability to order units to bombard an adjacent unit with artillery. I'd like to be able to have my entrench infantry divisions with organic artillery bombard opposing entrenched infantry divisions, without launching actual infantry attacks.

-The ability to put units on "reconnaisance" deployment. This would make the unit - ideally, one with a high proportion of units with the recon ability or motorized units - spread out, making all hexes within a certain radius "observed". The unit would then fight not as well.

-Allow units with the "transport" symbol (truck thing or wheel) to enable motorized transport of infantry units. This can either be like helocopter transport or on a one-to-one ratio, i.e. infantry unit moves onto transport units, mounts, then transporter moves and infantry dismounts.

-Have a "disengage" modifier to loss tolerances: units flagged by the player to "disengage" will automatically attempt to retreat from enemies, as opposed to standing and fighting.

-At lower scales, enable units to carry out an "ambush": the unit becomes hidden or harder to detect, and then carries out an automatic one-round attack at a high shock level on any enemy units moving into its hex. (Think Vietnam, company level)

-Multi-level order of battle. Have a separate "Force Management" window which would enable the player to graphically change the order of battle within certain constraints: a Wehrmacht player could assign units to an ad-hoc Kampfgruppe or Korpsgruppe, which would then be assigned as any other formation to a higher echelon formation, and so on. Allow the scenario designer to put on a "headquarters limit" on the number of headquarters units per force; all ad-hoc formations must have a headquarters attached; if there are empty headquarters slots a new one will be created; if not the player must use an existing one. One advantage to multi-level OOBs is that we no longer have distinctions on effect by "force", "formation", and "unit": a scenario designer can designate any effect to affect a certain formation at whatever level of the OOB - whether it be the topmost formation (think OKH or SACEUR), a middle one (think 6th Panzer Army which may contain LXVII, I SS Pz, and II SS Pz Korps), or down to a specific unit. The effect would then affect all units within the designated area.

-Multiple players! World War 2: one player controls UK/US/France/Poland/whatever, one controls Axis nations and allies, and one controls Soviet Union - that way, we can have the Winter War accurately modeled.

-A graphical force editor for scenario development. Designers would be able to create unit templates, create the formation structure, and drag-and-drop units onto formations as desired. Designers could set all unit & formation parameters easily through the editor. Here's my ideal situation for this: a kind soul creates an OOB for the German Army, 1944, down to regiment level or whatever. A designer would be able to import the whole OOB, highlight units/formations to delete to trim to his or her area of interest, and set the standard unit level to battalion - the editor would then pre-populate regiments with numbered battalions - and voila! the designer has a stress-free OOB for his scenario!

I'm sure I could think of things ad nauseum, but you get the idea.

GOOD IDEAS MOSIEUR! I especially liked the skirmish, and ambush, along with recon in force, meaning a recon, to find out a unknown units strength, and if it's a weakling, and possibly retreats, the unit follows it! Ofcourse, you will need veery good vehicles to do this, or small scale, where a company or platoon of inf can do it..


And for the air dimention, like with arty primary target's for interdiction, and combat support... meaning if these units do not need to be acted upon, the fly boys are free for other duties, also depending on how many dots, ie, one dot for this units CS and the two others for general purpoce...

And a cabrank, that the allies developed, where amongst a battle, you can ask, if you have the forward observer- the question comes, sqn 232 ready for support ok? Yes, no...


Also, areas for defence, say, this bridge, or general area of these beaches the more you divide in hexes the less percentage of protection it get's.

A much more clear way of defining the troops that get the asap supplies and re-inforcements in men and materiel.

Also,, a way of saying if a combat ensues, the trucks are ready for being in the back, I always find it stupid that i loose a third of my trucks, and a tenth of my fronline troops, what is the machine doing sending Bedfords into the fray???


Perhaps, the shock value, of troops could go away, with the incoming presence of the hq, and the finally awaited leaders! Yes, the famous one's!

Just like in Avalon Hills 'Panzerkrieg, von Manstein on the steppes of Russia', remember?

The best generals, had troop boosters, and so and so.

So that a red unit, that gets Patton next to it, turns two notches toward green automatically!

Also, the idea of strategic bombing, the wrekking of milages of railway, hexes can be pointed out like bridges....

Also, tank manouver, will they follow into retreating hex, this can be desided, and radio contact of every troop, so that the one's with no radio's, just get their orders and live with them like now, the ones with late war radio's in ww2, ask, for an advance after enemy retreat, ect...

ok enough, I have seen the vote, and TOAW is still the most loved pc game for strategy! Nooooooo guestions, cannot understand why someone doesnt make a toaw 2 soon?

All the gaming community's pages with patches, should tell them something!

Do we have grand feth auto patches? NO! *Because this is the place for strategy gamers, and you don have to change the terrain image, thus saving thousands in developement whith no snotty designer graphic bloke draining all the money into crap!

Only mathematics in the end, and that's so simple for a pc, c'mon! get it together!

TOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW 2!

[Ben Turner]

meaning a recon, to find out a unknown units strength, and if it's a weakling, and possibly retreats, the unit follows it!

Isn't this a retreat-before-combat?

Also, areas for defence, say, this bridge, or general area of these beaches the more you divide in hexes the less percentage of protection it get's.

Can't you already do this by dividing units?

Also,, a way of saying if a combat ensues, the trucks are ready for being in the back, I always find it stupid that i loose a third of my trucks, and a tenth of my fronline troops, what is the machine doing sending Bedfords into the fray???

This is based on your loss setting. Read the manual.

So that a red unit, that gets Patton next to it, turns two notches toward green automatically!

Definitely not. Patton was not capable of producing fuel oil by magic. You could have the red-light unit perform better with Patton, but once he's gone it'll be back to its old self. Of course, this all depends on your opinion of Patton anyway....

Also, the idea of strategic bombing, the wrekking of milages of railway, hexes can be pointed out like bridges....

Yeah. This should be fairly simple.

ok enough, I have seen the vote, and TOAW is still the most loved pc game for strategy! Nooooooo guestions, cannot understand why someone doesnt make a toaw 2 soon?

Because no-one buys these kind of games. They all buy Doom 3 and Grand Theft Auto instead. The cost of producing and distributing a game isn't justified by the small sales it will get. Plus TakeTwo are a bunch of....

[17poundr]

Isn't this a retreat-before-combat?
I WILL BRAKE THE BIG LETTERS BECAUSE MY ANSWER HAS TO STAND OUT OK? PLUS WE USE THEM IN FINLAND SO MUCH MORE THAT SOME PEOPLE (NOBODY HERE) ACTUALLY GETTING 'OFFENDED' BY WHAT IS ONLY ANOTHER KIND OF FONT... I DONT GET IT AND NEVER WILL.... TO THE ANSWER:

I MEANT A RECON, NOT MOVING ANY UNIT, A RECON COMES BACK AND TELLS WHAT IT FOUND OUT...


Can't you already do this by dividing units?
I WAS REFERRING TO AIR COVER. NOT GROUND UNITS.


This is based on your loss setting. Read the manual.
BUT IT'S TIED TO HOW MANY COMBAT LOSSES THE UNIT HAS BEFORE RETREATING, AND IF I REMEMBER ALSO TO THE ROUNDS OR COMBAT ITSELF. TO SEPARATE THESE TO ALL NON COMBATANTS RETREAT A HEX ONCE COMBAT BEGINS...


Definitely not. Patton was not capable of producing fuel oil by magic. You could have the red-light unit perform better with Patton, but once he's gone it'll be back to its old self. Of course, this all depends on your opinion of Patton anyway....
IM TALKING OF INTRODUCING MORALE INTO THE EQUASION. IE, LEADERS BOOST TROOP PERFORMANCE JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORALE POINTS...


Yeah. This should be fairly simple.
YEP, I AGREE A FAIR SUGGESTION, YES?


Because no-one buys these kind of games. They all buy Doom 3 and Grand Theft Auto instead. The cost of producing and distributing a game isn't justified by the small sales it will get. Plus TakeTwo are a bunch of....I SENT AN E-MAIL TO NORM, AND PLEADED HIM TO CONTACT ANOTHER COMPANY FOR TOAW-2. THE NAME OFCOURSE CAN BE WHATEVER SO TAKE-2 CAN BE LEFT SITTING ON A PILE OF OVERPRICED REPRINTS OF A GAME THAT HAS BECOME OBSOLETE!

I THINK THAT THE (WAS IT THREE VERSIONS, MEANING THE GAME SOLD SO MUCH THAT TWO FOLLOW UP'S WERE MERITED, THATS NOT SMALL PICKINGS IMHO.

GLAD TO GET THE CRITIQUE, AND RESPONCE THOUGH, MERRY AND WARM SPRING TO THERE TOO, I'LL BE COMING FOR THE SUMMER MOST PROBABLY.
:) :) :)

[larryfulkerson]

So um....hey you guys.....I'd like to bounce an idea offa you guys and see what sticks.

I'm designing this clone for TOAW see, and I've come across a situation where the aircraft in question has a range of only 12 hexes but can go another 1/2 of a hex after it runs outta range. So I'm thinking hey, if I based the range on pixels instead of hexes I can go almost 20 more pixels further ( since the hex has a width/heigth of about 40 pixels ). AND then it dawned on me that if we based all the gaming decisions on pixels instead of hexes we would get vastly greater granularity for distances that other units could move as well. Much more accurate wargaming could ensue.

Anybody got heartburn? What d'ya think guys?

[Ben Turner]

I'm designing this clone for TOAW see, and I've come across a situation where the aircraft in question has a range of only 12 hexes but can go another 1/2 of a hex after it runs outta range. So I'm thinking hey, if I based the range on pixels instead of hexes I can go almost 20 more pixels further ( since the hex has a width/heigth of about 40 pixels ). AND then it dawned on me that if we based all the gaming decisions on pixels instead of hexes we would get vastly greater granularity for distances that other units could move as well. Much more accurate wargaming could ensue.

I believe someone raised this point on another thread- but it bears repeating. By going to the level of 1 pixel rather than 40x40 pixel hexes, you're effectively reducing the minimum scale to one fortieth of what it currently is, since you have to figure out how units behave at that low level. Two units might not be physically touching one another- but if they're 1 pixel distant at 2.5km/hex then they're only 62 1/2 metres apart.

I reckon you should stick to a hex-based system and live with it's shortcomings. The number given for aircraft range is an approximation anyway- the aircraft could fly further but it wouldn't be able to fight at the extent of that range.

[larryfulkerson]

I believe someone raised this point on another thread- but it bears repeating. By going to the level of 1 pixel rather than 40x40 pixel hexes, you're effectively reducing the minimum scale to one fortieth of what it currently is, since you have to figure out how units behave at that low level. Two units might not be physically touching one another- but if they're 1 pixel distant at 2.5km/hex then they're only 62 1/2 metres apart.

I reckon you should stick to a hex-based system and live with it's shortcomings. The number given for aircraft range is an approximation anyway- the aircraft could fly further but it wouldn't be able to fight at the extent of that range.

Oh....yeah, I hadn't thought of that. May it might be more appropriate for the larger scale games, but I do see what kinds of problems it could cause for the smaller scale map(s).

[Reckall]

It can't hurt to show there is still interest in his game system.


"Still interest" is reductive - I belive this is one of the most longeve games ever after chess :)

[17poundr]

So um....hey you guys.....I'd like to bounce an idea offa you guys and see what sticks.

I'm designing this clone for TOAW see, and I've come across a situation where the aircraft in question has a range of only 12 hexes but can go another 1/2 of a hex after it runs outta range. So I'm thinking hey, if I based the range on pixels instead of hexes I can go almost 20 more pixels further ( since the hex has a width/heigth of about 40 pixels ). AND then it dawned on me that if we based all the gaming decisions on pixels instead of hexes we would get vastly greater granularity for distances that other units could move as well. Much more accurate wargaming could ensue.

Anybody got heartburn? What d'ya think guys?
You are absolutely right, then you could do the combat radius rings for various bomb loads (I hope you will invest this option into your air section, going for combat air patrol with just the machine guns, or rockets for catching a truck convoy in interdiction, or bombs for a pre fixed target ect), then you can put the different load range's in nice circles, and the 'so, so,' radius as an extra ring, before the no return ring.

Also, combat unit's should have the same kind of freedom of planned movement, but without the hexes, just that if you move your battalions movement path over mountainous terrain it is one third (or whatever your calculation is) less than clear land, ofcourse to compensate for the loss of hexes, way points are a must to plan a good advance (like toaw does, it automatically suggest the fastest route to the player who can ofcourse change his mind, the computer cannot think like that with pixels, but the player can go by waypointers).

Also in the combat planning box, not only arty (which could have more micro management, like how much of it's ammo goes into this attacks support, and how much is left for defencive, or other same div battalion commanders requests for fire missions).

But even the time of attack to produce the nasty combo of troops starting a 'holding attack', and the hookers can go in with disregard losses from the back after, this should be much more evident and a more forcible factor than in the toaw combat planning box.

Also, air units could be tasked to guard, say a certain bridge (hex) or area... (If pixels are used, then painting a circle of cap area, will be factored into how long the unit can stay, little circle long stay, big one, small stay period.

I know this is micro management, but if you truly are building on the still unbeated (although I'm defenatelly going to chech out decisive battles of ww2: batles in Normandy), TOAW, then what's the point unless you add to the detail of combat and supply management?

People already have and love TOAW.

But if word get's out that a true secuel (which means improvements, but not in the basic control method, that's perfect, left click selects the unit, right click has the options, so simple, an yet, such a great strategy game, like having dozens of old avalon hill games but the pc does the tables and the collapsing stacks, and the counting ect, perfect)!!!

So, some increase into the micromanagement is needed. also ships should have units that have the forward observer in them like in the real war, if he get's killed (this can be done by random chanche if command hq of a unit takes hits), then somebody not so skillful comes to give ship/cas commands, and sometimes when the dice goes really bad the unit looses all chanche of directed firesupport!

oh, you know, just try to add realism, that's all I'm saying.

by the way, if you really are doing this, I salute you and am willing to try it out, even a section of a bit.

About hexes, some guy's like me. Love them, so dont be so rash in taking the pixel route, there are unnecessary man hours you could be using to increase realism, that would go to changing into pixels... Still I'm not completely against the idea, just I started with boardgames in 79, and I know what works, and what doesnt!

Many a pc strat game has been a fiasco, with a 'novelty' screen and all that jazz...

keep the command style in toaw mold, but deepen the options for battle simulation.

And airpower, and seapower, and artillery.

I salute your project!

Mr Poundr. :)

[larryfulkerson]

Hey, those were all great suggestions thanks.

They are already loaded into the TOAW clone wish list.

Here it is....

[17poundr]

Hey, those were all great suggestions thanks.

They are already loaded into the TOAW clone wish list.

Here it is....
Looking good, looking very good! Remember, that the simple asshurance that any rounds on a ship or arty piece, or a tac air unit signed for loitering and attacking opportunity targets, or targets called for cas by ground troops, should be clearly visible, so one can plan how much to spend on the attacks and how much to save for enemy counter attacks,and attacks.

Also, one thing, the timescale. I find it incredible, that in a scenario where a turn is a week long, a stack of a fiew infantry regiments, and five specialist battalions, that are completely cut off, seem to last just as long as units cut off in game's with half a day turns!

In reality, a division sized unit that is completely (and this brings us to air supply, a must for a new feature, as well as strategic air bombing, and points given to complement the good ideas for air power) cut off for a week, is starving, and the morale is really low, plus if such a piece of action as 'harass' the enemy that is surrounded, to deplete the ammo, is included, then like in the winter war, in a couple of weeks seven finnish battalions destroyed two and immobized and neutralized one Soviet Divisions, that's how fast the depletion went in the cold!

Also desert is another reverce factor, there the cold(foodstuffs, heating, warmth-vehicles that have gasoline) isnt the supply cut off multiplyer, but the hot, a cut off unit, is pretty much done for very fast in the desert as water has to be constantly brought up,and even at a small oasis, water purifying agents are used up really fast!

So, remember to improve the cut off units downgrading with time, and weather conditions as very big factors...

There is ofcourse always something more to wish for, but your list looked already like a really nice expancion or version two game.

But please consider the things I just wrote from experience in seeing the most glaring un-realisms in toaw...

Keep on truking!

And I will wait with great anticipation for your product, if you pull off a good improved toaw style game, then I'm shure all the toaw fan's will buy it all around the world, so put in the work!

Remember toaw, went through three game's, with two extencions to the original, so that means it sold a lot in it's day!

Go for it! :)