Sheik Yerbouti
Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explanation
Sure, I´d be interested. Send it right along.
TOAW Next Generation
- Thread starter Stauffenberg
- Start date
17poundr
Member
yep. i cant tell which side i'm on when on a river hex...Dan Neely said:
17poundr
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
I would like to see engineers able to build things on the map such as airfields,bridges,raillines,roads,fortified positions.
17poundr
Member
yep, add these to my list!Panzer-War said:
And the hq question is that of the immencely differing scale from scenario to scenario... that should be fixed...
Panzer-War
Member
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.
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
Member
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.Panzer-War said:
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Yes, that was the name, Norm Kroger. All hail Norm!Panzer-War said:
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Norm Koger. It's wargames, not groceries.Panzer-War said:
CyberRanger
Member
Panzer-War
Member
wargames not groceries???what?Bob Cross said:
17poundr
Member
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.Panzer-War said:
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
Member
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:
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
Member
Helicopter transporting of LAV's
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.
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
Member
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!Siberian HEAT said:
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!
Last edited:
larryfulkerson
Member
A more Superior PO is a must.....BUT.....
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.
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
Member
posted the TOAW clone executable ( such as it is )
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.
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.