New Bug in TAOW III version???

Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Location
NYC
Country
llUnited States
I'm the allies, Paris was taken twice - I took it back the next turn, was taken right after - and was held this time. Two turns later - my French troops are still there. It's obviously good for me, but I'm sensing some unfairness perhaps?
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
Hi,

Go ahead and send me the file from the last turn that you played, where you did not retake Paris. An after the attack SAL, or the PBL. I'll forward it to Ralph so that he can fix it. You and your opponent will have to replay a couple of turns, but at least the rest of the game should be okay.
 

ralphtrickey

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
556
Reaction score
4
Location
Colorado Springs
Country
llUnited States
I'm the allies, Paris was taken twice - I took it back the next turn, was taken right after - and was held this time. Two turns later - my French troops are still there. It's obviously good for me, but I'm sensing some unfairness perhaps?
The easiest thing is probaly to send me the turn sent to the Axis player right after Paris fell. I'll walk through the events and make sure that the correct army is withdrawn, then send a sal file to the axis player, so I'll need his email.

If you both agree, you can send me a later turn sent to the Axis player, and I should be able to fix it instead.

ralphtrickey (at) hotmail (dot) com
 

viridomaros

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
1
Location
liege
Country
llBelgium
isn't it related to the turn range of the surrender event? If so it's not a bug but rather a WAD. it makes sense to me, it's not like everyone is going to stop fighting once the capital falls. a 2,3 turns delay isn't that unrealistic.

This happened in my game against Blueflag for Poland and France.

Now you can start working on improving naval combat. I played a turn the other day: i attacked the dane's navy (4 destroyers) with my med fleet unit. No support for both sides, the allied lose 3 battleships, a bunch of heavy cruisers, battle cruisers etc... while the danes lose 1 destroyer. You're going to tell me to go around the problem and to use planes. It seems that in toaw III ships shot down a lot more planes than before and as a result i often lose too much planes for what i can sink.
I really needed to attack the unit since my opponent blockaded gibraltar's route with it.
 
Last edited:

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
"isn't it related to the turn range of the surrender event? If so it's not a bug but rather a WAD. it makes sense to me, it's not like everyone is going to stop fighting once the capital falls. a 2,3 turns delay isn't that unrealistic."

I fear not: there isn't a delay built in - Paris being occupied by the Axis at the start of a turn (Event 82) should trigger the withdrawal of the French (Event 85).

The reason there isn't a delay - which, as you say, wouldn't be unreasonable - is because the Fall of France triggers other Events, like the formation of Vichy and the Axis TO to mobilise Spain (and that in turn triggers others) so a delay - perhaps allowing a strong Allied player to retake Paris in the interval - would screw up the Event sequencing.

"Now you can start working on improving naval combat" Amen to that. What I'd really like to see is ships being treated more like air bomber units, but obviously limited to affecting the sea hexes only, i.e. they can still physically be moved but then be set to 'combat support' or 'interdiction' - I imagine that 'naval superiority' might be too difficult? - and either provide support to naval landings/defense as appropriate or, if on interdiction, have a %age chance of striking other naval or embarked land units moving within their range (which would need to be vastly increased). Land units forced to disembark at sea would have to sink.

I'd imagine that this is a bit ambitious, but it would be better than the giant floating artillery batteries that we have at present, at least for the larger scale scenarios like EA.
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
isn't it related to the turn range of the surrender event? If so it's not a bug but rather a WAD. it makes sense to me, it's not like everyone is going to stop fighting once the capital falls. a 2,3 turns delay isn't that unrealistic.

This happened in my game against Blueflag for Poland and France.
I didn't check the events myself, and was taking it "on faith" that there was no delay built in. Mark? Can you weigh in on this and let us know whether you built in a delay?

Now you can start working on improving naval combat. I played a turn the other day: i attacked the dane's navy (4 destroyers) with my med fleet unit. No support for both sides, the allied lose 3 battleships, a bunch of heavy cruisers, battle cruisers etc... while the danes lose 1 destroyer. You're going to tell me to go around the problem and to use planes. It seems that in toaw III ships shot down a lot more planes than before and as a result i often lose too much planes for what i can sink.
I really needed to attack the unit since my opponent blockaded gibraltar's route with it.
No, I won't tell you that you should have used planes. Instead, you should have attacked the Danes from 2 hexes away, if you had a naval unit with battleships in it. Then, they wouldn't have caused you any casualties since their units don't have any ships with a range of 2 hexes. Incidentally, I don't recall the Danes ever joining the Axis in any of the games that I played, though admittedly I usually don't attack Denmark/Norway as the Axis. How did they get to be Axis controlled in yours?
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
I didn't check the events myself, and was taking it "on faith" that there was no delay built in. Mark? Can you weigh in on this and let us know whether you built in a delay?
Nevermind Mark. I see we crossposted. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
I
Incidentally, I don't recall the Danes ever joining the Axis in any of the games that I played, though admittedly I usually don't attack Denmark/Norway as the Axis. How did they get to be Axis controlled in yours?
When Denmark falls a small 'Danske Fleet' is deployed for the Axis.
 

viridomaros

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
1
Location
liege
Country
llBelgium
No, I won't tell you that you should have used planes. Instead, you should have attacked the Danes from 2 hexes away, if you had a naval unit with battleships in it.
this is what i did to start with. But the danske fleet has only 4 destroyers as a result you can't destroy the unit by artillery bombardement. it would have damaged the unit quite badly if it had let us say 20 destroyers but against small units it doesn't work.

PLEASE RALPH improve the naval combat :upset: .

On a side note i had my first Return to desktop after 1h00 gaming in a gotterdammerung turn, anyone knows why this happened?
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Location
NYC
Country
llUnited States
Well thanks to everyone for helping to feed and nuture my little game habit here. Is there a new patch for TAOW 3 EA?
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
Ulver being Danish, he was madly keen to recreate the seizure of the small Danish fleet by the Germans. Maybe a four destroyer disband would have done the trick.
HAHAHA, that's cute.
Hey, been meaning to ask. How did you and Ulver get to making this wonderful scenario, and where is Ulver now?
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Crikey, you're challenging our friend Shane (Mantis) for the EA :hail: Award, you brown-nosed devil you.

I could tell you that I was at my prayers one day when there was a blast of trumpets, a smell of ambrosia, and that the clouds parted to reveal the scenario being lowered down from heaven to a grateful wargaming world, cradled in the arms of angels ...

but that's only half true.

Trey Marshall originally knocked it out in 2000ish. Ulver and I had been playing other TOAW scenarios and this one really caught our eye. Ulver suggested a few minor improvements and, after getting Trey's OK, we began buggering about with it. Ulver dropped off of the radar a couple of years ago and now I'm like one of those poor little worms trapped in a maze in a science experiment: I'm shuffling cheerfully along looking for a piece of crap to eat, but every time I get an electric shock (in the form of a suggestion or complaint) I shudder, then turn blindly down another developmental dead end until I'm bought up short by another 50,000 volts. And I emphasise mental.

Then TOAW III came out and I've never looked forward...er...back.

Trust that answers your question.
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
Crikey, you're challenging our friend Shane (Mantis) for the EA :hail: Award, you brown-nosed devil you.

I could tell you that I was at my prayers one day when there was a blast of trumpets, a smell of ambrosia, and that the clouds parted to reveal the scenario being lowered down from heaven to a grateful wargaming world, cradled in the arms of angels ...

but that's only half true.

Trey Marshall originally knocked it out in 2000ish. Ulver and I had been playing other TOAW scenarios and this one really caught our eye. Ulver suggested a few minor improvements and, after getting Trey's OK, we began buggering about with it. Ulver dropped off of the radar a couple of years ago and now I'm like one of those poor little worms trapped in a maze in a science experiment: I'm shuffling cheerfully along looking for a piece of crap to eat, but every time I get an electric shock (in the form of a suggestion or complaint) I shudder, then turn blindly down another developmental dead end until I'm bought up short by another 50,000 volts. And I emphasise mental.

Then TOAW III came out and I've never looked forward...er...back.

Trust that answers your question.
HAHAH, yes it does, and in a very cute way. :laugh:
Did you lose track of Ulver, as well, or has he just moved on form TOAW?
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
We worked together on this scenario for several years running in the early 2000s, and were in very regular contact: we even phoned each other occasionally. It was on Ulver's own wargaming website that we originally posted the scenario, and after a while we were invited to move it to the TOAW section on what eventually became Gamesquad.

Some time after it moved our e-mail exchanges got less frequent, then petered out altogether. I used to send him the revised versions as they appeared, but he stopped acknowledging them and I haven't seen a post from him on any topic for several years now. His website seems to be defunct. Perhaps he is too. I've lost his phone number.

Although I'm not a sentimental sort of chap, I've left his name on the thing to acknowledge that it was his idea to tinker with Trey's original scenario, and he did an awful lot of work on what's still the underlying Event structure, although obviously there've been many changes in the last couple of years.
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
We worked together on this scenario for several years running in the early 2000s, and were in very regular contact: we even phoned each other occasionally. It was on Ulver's own wargaming website that we originally posted the scenario, and after a while we were invited to move it to the TOAW section on what eventually became Gamesquad.

Some time after it moved our e-mail exchanges got less frequent, then petered out altogether. I used to send him the revised versions as they appeared, but he stopped acknowledging them and I haven't seen a post from him on any topic for several years now. His website seems to be defunct. Perhaps he is too. I've lost his phone number.

Although I'm not a sentimental sort of chap, I've left his name on the thing to acknowledge that it was his idea to tinker with Trey's original scenario, and he did an awful lot of work on what's still the underlying Event structure, although obviously there've been many changes in the last couple of years.
Well that's too bad. Maybe someday he'll magically reappear.
At least one of you stayed on to look after the scenario. :D
 
Last edited:

viridomaros

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
1
Location
liege
Country
llBelgium
a house rule to diband small naval units to provide replacements for major fleets is a good idea. I'll put it into action next time i start an EA game.
I don't think it's possible to disband air units is it possible to do it with navals?
i have the impression it's impossible as well so you would have to use events to activate unit disband.....
 
Top