Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III is the next game in the award-winning Operational Art of War game series. TOAW3 is updated and enhanced version of the TOAW: Century of Warfare game series. TOAW3 is a turn based game covering operational warfare from 1850-2015. Game scale is from 2.5km to 50km and half day to full week turns. TOAW3 scenarios have been designed by over 70 designers and included over 130 scenarios. TOAW3 comes complete with a full game editor.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

We agree about the simulated part of it. This is all that I'm saying.

Great. Now can we debate fog of war?

Sorry, I do tend to ignore the points with which I agree and go right ahead to debate the rest. You are indeed right that- at least as far as the level of the company- there is no reason not to have the computer track the movements of smaller units, so long as the computer can handle it.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

If it isn't feasible then it shouldn't be done. I'm saying that if it's feasible "if it can be done", then why not do it? Why have a level of arbitrary abstraction if it isn't needed?

My suggestion is that it's not the limitations of computers which are the problem here, but rather the limitations of our understanding of the human psyche. Tactical games currently only simulate- with varying degrees of success- a few minutes in the life of a soldier at a time. Continuous simulation would present a whole new range of questions, to which the answers are either unknown or highly disputed.
Ok. But what does this have to do with what we're talking about? :)

I was just trying to define the terms of the debate. I don't want to get dragged off into talking about how to simulate the current situation in Iraq. No doubt that's a very important question- but it's not something that I want to discuss here.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
jungelsj_slith
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:51 am

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by jungelsj_slith »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

We agree about the simulated part of it. This is all that I'm saying.

Great. Now can we debate fog of war?

I like fog of war. I think it should be included in future versions of the HTTR engine - though I think arjuna said it might be very far down the road, since it will be an expensive feature, performance wise.

Once FOW is in, I think it would be really cool to be able to record and review your game without FOW - so that you can see the heroic things that specific units did, and see exactly what your enemy was up to. Say for example - your battalion somehow attacked and defeated a dug-in regiment - something that wouldn't happen in an abstracted game, but something that could very well happen with simulated maneuver elements that outflanked the regiment and got into their artillery areas, etc.
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

I like fog of war. I think it should be included in future versions of the HTTR engine - though I think arjuna said it might be very far down the road, since it will be an expensive feature, performance wise.

I don't see why this should be. The computer is doing all the thinking it currently is- it's just concealing most of it from the player. Though I suppose it also has to generate false information too.
Once FOW is in, I think it would be really cool to be able to record and review your game without FOW - so that you can see the heroic things that specific units did, and see exactly what your enemy was up to.

I suppose. Then you get to appreciate how valuable hindsight is.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
jungelsj_slith
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:51 am

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by jungelsj_slith »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
My suggestion is that it's not the limitations of computers which are the problem here, but rather the limitations of our understanding of the human psyche. Tactical games currently only simulate- with varying degrees of success- a few minutes in the life of a soldier at a time. Continuous simulation would present a whole new range of questions, to which the answers are either unknown or highly disputed.

I think you're right in that it definately creates more problems that won't be solveable for a very long time - if ever. I think tactical simulations like combat mission do get fairly close - and I'm interested to see how "Shock Force" solves the problems of individual soldier representation. I'm sure they'll be throwing out much of what goes on in the more 'boring' moments of a soldier's day to day stuff.
I was just trying to define the terms of the debate. I don't want to get dragged off into talking about how to simulate the current situation in Iraq. No doubt that's a very important question- but it's not something that I want to discuss here.

You're right - my point was just that different levels of formations were important in different time periods - individual simulation of platoons and squads are important in modern simulations, but not necessarily world war II. Companies were the individual maneuver element in that war, and formations of even larger size were probably important in world war I and onwards.
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

I think you're right in that it definately creates more problems that won't be solveable for a very long time - if ever. I think tactical simulations like combat mission do get fairly close - and I'm interested to see how "Shock Force" solves the problems of individual soldier representation. I'm sure they'll be throwing out much of what goes on in the more 'boring' moments of a soldier's day to day stuff.

No doubt. For a tactical game, you can abstract everything except those fifteen minutes the game actually lasts for. But for an operational level game to cover these aspects you'd need to understand what goes on in the remaining twenty-three hours and forty-five minutes of each day, rather than just giving each unit a "readiness" rating.

But think how cool it would be to go and inspect your troops.... [;)]
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
pvthudson01
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by pvthudson01 »

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

When Matrix starts putting out the same engine year after year for a different battle and charging $50 fopr it, then it will turn into HPS.
When it charges full price for games made 6 years ago it will turn into HPS sims.

That is also the day I will stop supporting Matrix. HPS is a company that has not modernized itself to the changing wargames enviroment.
They offer crusty old designs with poor interfaces and several things which make you scartch your head as a gamer.


I rarely badmouth an entire company but HPS games and buisness practices really make me angry.
When they finnaly move themselves into the 21st century I may take a look at their games again.


Do they even have more than one game designer? heh

I dont touch their stuff anymore, its a ripoff
Matrix Member since 2003!
kipanderson
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: U.K.

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by kipanderson »

Hi,

I am one that started open minded, I am not a veteran of earlier versions of TOAW, but like many others here I do prefer TOAWIII to the PzC series. In no particular order my reasons go something like this…


1) PzC has the wrong system for an “operational” game. Units adjacent to each other should not be required to shoot at each other. In PzC terms there should only really be assault combat. PzC is too much of a tactical game, as opposed to operational. Having said the above it is the 2.5km scale per hex that interests me in TOAWIII, so I do like a good helping of micro-management[;)]. It is not micro-management that puts me off, it is the compulsory fire combat in PzC which is inappropriate for an operational game system. In my view.

2) In TOAWIII the Local and Tactical Reserve features add a lot. They add just that small, but vital, simultaneous resolution feel to the game that make them that much more realistic than the pure-IGOUGO system of PzC.

3) In TOAWIII it is possible to cover all theatres and time zones with one game but still with each scenario at least equal too, better in my view, than anything that is possible with PzC.

Both TOAWIII and PzC try to do the same job, but PzC is handicapped by having a game system that appears to have its heritage in a smaller scale “tactical” game. TOAWIII has the feel of being designed from scratch for the operational level.

All good fun[:)],
All the best,
Kip.

User avatar
cabron66
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:40 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by cabron66 »

Hello

1. Panzer Campaigns is, and I think I am saying nothing new here, a cash cow for HPS. Each new battle is, while somewhat well-researched up to a certain point, based on an engine which has received only minor adjustments over the last eleven years. I have seen all of their battles and all of their products and it has become clear to me that they are blatantly using PC to support the development of new engines and, above all, efforts at taking a bite out of the new and lucrative military interest in simulations.

2. PC are well-researched in terms of OoBs, work done by a very good group of people that I like very much, but unfortunately the exacting detail brought about by Micheal Avanzini and others is not carried on by the scenario designers. In other words, yes all of the units are there, but no they are not accurate in any way in terms of their actual TO&Es.

Speed seems to be the goal. HPS places little or no emphasis on using any of the sources readily available to give units any kind of historical accuracy in terms of in what that condition that unit found itself when it entered battle. In one single battle you will find endless units with identical strengths that are arbitrarily applied based on a criteria I can often not determine.

For example when asked why every single infantry division was at 90% (I don't remember if it was Kursk or Kharkov or both) Glenn Saunders replied that he estimated German activity leading up to the battle would have resulted in a 10% loss rate. Instead of applying that loss rate unevenly or taking the time to research a bit more and find out which divisions were fresh and which ones weren't the design team simply reduced every division by 10%. The term "cookie cutter" is not enough to cover this.

This trend has continued right up to Stalingrad. In fact, I was shocked to see units going into battle at full strength!

As a side note, in neither battle, Kursk or Kharkov, was the German Army at anywhere near 90%.

3. Worse, even if the effort was made to accurately reflect a unit's TO&E, the engine is not nearly flexible enough. Units degrade as their strength in men or vehicles (one or the other, but not both as PC does not allow for mixed infantry and vehicle units) is lost. Actual equipment is not taken into account at all. In other words, an infantry company has a strength of 100 men (HPS only includes combat elements in this figure) and an attack value of 7. As men are lost the attack value is decreased. That is the extent of the depth of the system. The engine has no way of taking into account the actual equipment possessed by a unit. An infantry battalion with any number of weapon systems available to it is represented only by the number of combat soldiers in it. Firepower is averaged out over all of those men so that 1 man lost is always a certain percentage loss of firepower.

4. If one were to attempt to break up a battalion into its parts in order to give it some semblance of historical flexibility one would end up with thousands upon thousands of units. This would render an already tedious battle virtually unplayable. The solution that HPS appears to have reached is to abstract everything to the point where a unit moves, fires and does little else.

5. The game is meant to be played PBEM. HPS has more or less stated as much. Units have no intelligence at all, artificial or otherwise, meaning the player does everything. The only use of AI that attempts to take the load off the player is a relatively new feature that was supposed to move divisions from one place to another in road formation. This feature, as far as I know, has never worked properly, and little or no effort has been made to fix it.

6. Air? forget about it. PC makes no attempt to model airpower as it was historically used during WWII.

7. Artillery? Laughable. In its 11 or 12 years of existence PC has never done anything to move artillery beyond select a unit, choose a target and bombard it. IMO, if you are of the opinion that this is sufficient than you are unaware of what artillery does on a battlefield.

8. Graphics? Silly.

9. Sound? Annoying, bland and poorly implemented. Sound files load EACH AND EVERY time you fire or do anything. Buy the game and you will see what I mean. In order to escape the horrible drudgery of watching the "AI" plough through tens of thousands of random shots with the same sound files, you will attempt to use the faster speed option. At which point you will see hundreds of shots blow by in a space of seconds. Needless to say neither of these settings is functional. Understandable really. HPS has only had 11 years to do something about it.

10. Hex-based. Hex-based is such a bad idea that I don't know where to begin. It was the best of a few bad options when it was adopted and any designer will tell you so. Why people actually argue for its continued existence when computers can now do so so so so much more is beyond me. Space invaders was fun, but I am not about to go out and buy a game the size of a walk-in closet and argue that it is somehow superior to a modern pocket-sized gaming platform. Hex-based should be deader than Jimmy Hoffa. It is one of the greatest miracles of the modern age that it did not die the death that it so deserves.

10. Why do people continue to play it? I don't really know, but I suspect that it is because it is the only option for those of us who love the detail and complexity of WWII operational warfare. My only hope is that someone, perhaps Matrix, picks up on how easy it would be to scoop this market away from HPS.

11. Irony. I still try to force myself to like PC because of what it could be and every time I take it off my hard drive in utter frustration.

Cheers

Paul
Someone take my wife, please?
User avatar
ralphtricky
Posts: 6675
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:05 am
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by ralphtricky »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

I like fog of war. I think it should be included in future versions of the HTTR engine - though I think arjuna said it might be very far down the road, since it will be an expensive feature, performance wise.

I don't see why this should be. The computer is doing all the thinking it currently is- it's just concealing most of it from the player. Though I suppose it also has to generate false information too.
If it's done right, then the other units on your side under computer control also need to have the same misinformation, they may try to protect the left flank because they believe that the left flank is more exposed, etc. Anything else isn't going to believable, and you'll be able to use knowledge of the game system to deduce the actual strengths.
Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: cabron66

10. Hex-based. Hex-based is such a bad idea that I don't know where to begin. It was the best of a few bad options when it was adopted and any designer will tell you so.

Your point about computers now being able to go beyond this is well taken, but I don't see how it was "the best of a few bad options when it was adopted". I recall hearing that the US Army invested millions of dollars into just this question back in the early days of manual gaming, and they came up with the hex.

Anyway, of all the many hangovers from manual gaming, hexes are far from being the most offensive.
10. Why do people continue to play it? I don't really know, but I suspect that it is because it is the only option for those of us who love the detail and complexity of WWII operational warfare. My only hope is that someone, perhaps Matrix, picks up on how easy it would be to scoop this market away from HPS.

TOAW's been out for eight years. So the option's been around for a while.

Anyway, you certainly set my mind at ease that I'm not missing anything in never having encountered this series.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
JAMiAM
Posts: 6127
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:35 am

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by JAMiAM »

Sorry for being the pedant, but why are there two 10)'s?...[:D]

Two tens and an eleven. I'm having a Spinal Tap moment...
User avatar
ralphtricky
Posts: 6675
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:05 am
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by ralphtricky »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: cabron66
10. Hex-based. Hex-based is such a bad idea that I don't know where to begin. It was the best of a few bad options when it was adopted and any designer will tell you so.

Your point about computers now being able to go beyond this is well taken, but I don't see how it was "the best of a few bad options when it was adopted". I recall hearing that the US Army invested millions of dollars into just this question back in the early days of manual gaming, and they came up with the hex.

Anyway, of all the many hangovers from manual gaming, hexes are far from being the most offensive.
I am curious about what the good options are? I dislike the square patterns of the Civ series, and I don't have the patience for the tape measure and string method when playing a board game.

About computers going beyond hexes... The plain fact is that some people like turn based, and some people like continuous time games. Saying that one is better than the other is arguing that apples are better than oranges. I'm sure that I could get rid of the hexes in TOAW, but what's the point? Why would it be a better game without them? The UI would definitely be messier, with counters all over the place.

I also absolutely could put in a 3d terrain set that didn't use hexes. The problem with that option is that artwork is very expensive, especially is you want it to look good. A few trees on a plain is simple, but realistic woods, mountains and equipment is something totally different.


Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
User avatar
Der Oberst
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:12 pm
Location: United States

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by Der Oberst »

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Sorry for being the pedant, but why are there two 10)'s?...[:D]

Two tens and an eleven. I'm having a Spinal Tap moment...


It kind of reminds me of the Pythons Spanish Inquisition....

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."




Regards,

Der Oberst
-----------------------------------------
Dabbs
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:12 pm

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by Dabbs »

I'd have a hard-time with a wargame that was not hex-based - it keeps things simpler and cleaner without a lot of overhead considerations that for an operational game would be handled at the tactical level...

whether your 50mm ATG's are in range on the left while your PzIIIH's are advancing on the right, with infantry cautiously approaching up the center while the 81mm mortars are setting up, and whether or not air support will be arriving in 1 minute or in five hours.

I liked the Campaign Series for that scale of fighting, and though somewhat gamey, was/is among the best for its scale and relative simplicity. Combat Mission, gets even closer to the ground - but the exactitude needed for giving good orders is somewhat burdensome.
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
About computers going beyond hexes... The plain fact is that some people like turn based, and some people like continuous time games. Saying that one is better than the other is arguing that apples are better than oranges.

For simulation, I think ultimately going for vectors and grid references is going to improve matters. Of course, continuous time makes internet play much less practical, especially internationally- and human vs. human adds a level of realism of its own.
I'm sure that I could get rid of the hexes in TOAW, but what's the point?

No, I wouldn't advocate that at all. It'd be like trying to build a bookcase out of a table. Better off starting from scratch.
I also absolutely could put in a 3d terrain set that didn't use hexes. The problem with that option is that artwork is very expensive, especially is you want it to look good. A few trees on a plain is simple, but realistic woods, mountains and equipment is something totally different.

Yeah. I want the game to play realistic. How it looks isn't really my concern. And given how slowly my computer chugs its way through Dungeon Siege II, I want to avoid 3D graphics as far as possible.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
cabron66
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:40 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by cabron66 »

I am curious about what the good options are? I dislike the square patterns of the Civ series, and I don't have the patience for the tape measure and string method when playing a board game.

Well, board games were never going to get it right despite some pretty good attempts. War is just too fluid. A computer is a superior tool. Any game designer who prefers the board game is a game designer with limited means (most likely) or without an interest in realism.
About computers going beyond hexes... The plain fact is that some people like turn based, and some people like continuous time games. Saying that one is better than the other is arguing that apples are better than oranges. I'm sure that I could get rid of the hexes in TOAW, but what's the point? Why would it be a better game without them? The UI would definitely be messier, with counters all over the place.

This point has nothing to do with my original point. Whether or not a game is turn-based has absolutely nothing to do with it being or not being hex-based. If people like turn-based well give them turn-based or whatever. Breaking up the game into chunks can be extremely beneficial for PBEM games and such. However, the hex-based system is so inflexible and so poorly equipped to reflect real life situations that I suspect there are entirely different reasons why it is still around.

And the point about the UI is also completely irrelevant and, I'm sorry, lacking in vision.
I also absolutely could put in a 3d terrain set that didn't use hexes. The problem with that option is that artwork is very expensive, especially is you want it to look good. A few trees on a plain is simple, but realistic woods, mountains and equipment is something totally different.

Ah, the old "3D graphics are too complicated" argument. This one doesn't hold water either. Why does not using hexex imply expensive graphics? Please explain this point to me because I'm afraid I don't get it.

3D graphics do not have to be hard on your system at all, but this is beside the point. Getting rid of hexes does not imply that 3D graphics are the only option. All getting rid of hexes implies, in fact, is getting rid of hexes. What you make after the hexes are gone depends solely on your imagination (or lack thereof).

I honestly don't understand where these arguments come from. It's amazing to me how many people will come up with something that usually sounds like: I don't want to see progress because I am happy with what's around right now. Or even worse: I don't want to see progress because my computer might not be able to handle it. Well, honestly, too bad for you. I do want to see something new and I don't care if you want to stay in the stone ages. Besides, if your not interested in playing the new games and your computer can't handle them anyway, why do you care if the new games are there or not?

Thankfully, HPS is not the norm and there are several companies out there moving forward. In fact, wargaming is alive and well because of them. The only thing I would like to see is a decent stab at operational level warfare.

Cheers

Paul
Someone take my wife, please?
murx
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Braunschweig/Germany

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by murx »

To throw in a few thoughts:
Full 3d maps or 'fluid' maps like in Red Devils over Arnheim (and offsprings there-off) have in my eye a serious drawback over classic hex map - it is much harder to determine where your units 'exactly' are and what they are up to (not to mention the horrible AI for planning attacks and such...I remember, had the 1st edition of RDoA) - hex maps and counters  visualize much better.
For basic IGO-UGO problems I think a 'tick-wise' solution is a good option - like in Imerperium Galactica 2 - basically inbetween 'realtime' and 'turn based' and WeGo system. (Of course Stop/Order implemented) - every 'tick' represents some time (like an hour) and all units from both try to follow their orders - most of you have played a game like that I guess.
Of course a fluid gameplay is much harder on a the AI writing - a static situation assesment like in IGO-UGO needs much less calculations.
Also for depicting the 'individual soldier' (or if we're talking regimental or divisional scale scenarios: companies and in case of armored vehicles platoons) a system like in Close Combat 2 might be of interest - basically the whole unit gets an order and the subunits (which status can be viewed but which cant be influenced directly) try to act accordingly. Of course this needs some AI too. (I use Close Combat 2 because it was the best of the series with really good individual soldier AI).
Maybe 'stepping down' from hex based maps and again use simple squares - this would allow for easy 'zoom' and is half way between completely free 2D like in RDoA and classic hex maps. Units might be 5 times 5 squares big (with their subunits 1 square big and of course visible when zoomed in). This would both allow detail and good visual identification. Of course units can 'move' single square wise.

murx
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: murx

Also for depicting the 'individual soldier' (or if we're talking regimental or divisional scale scenarios: companies and in case of armored vehicles platoons) a system like in Close Combat 2 might be of interest - basically the whole unit gets an order and the subunits (which status can be viewed but which cant be influenced directly) try to act accordingly.

Yeah- this is how I'd go about it. Of course there needs to be a limit on the level of information the player has, too. Obviously the army commander is not going to be aware of the number of combat-ready tanks in a battalion on an hourly basis, and so on.

Mind you, I'd stop well above the level of individual soldiers. People are far too difficult to simulate.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
cabron66
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:40 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

Post by cabron66 »

Hello

It will be interesting to see how BFC handles individual soldiers in its new Combat Mission engine. Honestly, I'd rather they improve their air and artillery system, but who knows. Maybe we'll get it all.

A last word on Panzer Campaigns to be fair. I reworked their Smolensk 41 campaign a few years ago using Micheal Avanzini's OoBs as a basis. In the end, after I changed all of the values, cleaned up the all of the smaller units, used historical strengths and gave the player full control over air assets I began playtesting. The AI was useless, but in all fairness, the PBEM campaign played out very well and in fact produced fairly historical results every time. In other words, the potential is there. The game is not hopeless despite its archaic engine.

The lack of a map editor was the big killer as a scenario designer. There were several examples of this, but in my case, the original Smolensk 41 map, which HPS admits is fairly flawed, placed a major river running north to south between Orsha and Vitebsk. In reality this river is a minor offshoot of the Dvina (I think called the Luchesa but I can't remember for sure) which, in many places is fairly easily crossed. In fact, the Germans established bridgeheads in several places off the march even against stiff resistance. The Dnepr on the other hand, which runs through Orsha and Mogilev required a major coordinated effort to cross, but in the game both rivers are the same. Needless to say, this was a major stumbling point for producing historical results.

For me this is typical of HPS and defines their products in a nutshell. Potentially excellent, but always severely hamstringed by an overinflated sense of their own value and a minimal effort to correct glaring errors.

Compared to BFC or Panther, for example, HPS, at least concerning their various "campaigns" products, seems to me to be operating in a weird sort of vacuum in which the last decade has had little or no influence at all.

In fact, TOAoW has grown and flourished even after Talonsoft ceased to exist in any real capacity. Scenario designers have pushed the limits of the engine and come up with some very ambitious projects that are respectable efforts to say the least. I often wonder what Panzer Campaigns, which benefits from a very loyal community as well, could have become if it had been open to the same kind of innovation.

Cheers

Paul
Someone take my wife, please?
Post Reply

Return to “Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III”