just wondering... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message


rjcme -> just wondering... (8/3/2012 11:35:20 PM)

I was really thinking about buying this game. It seems very well conceived, and the possibility of playing any battle of the 20th century sounds wonderful.However, Im not a fan of the IGOUGO system. I prefer the WEGO system.
I was just curious if TOAW players use any form to diminish the efects of the IGOUGO system in order to give a more realistic gaming experience.




Menschenfresser -> RE: just wondering... (8/4/2012 3:31:03 PM)

Matrix's version of TOAW has lessened the harsher effects of its IGOUGO system from its older incarnations; however, the turn system is integral to its game play and altering it would destroy the balance. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a way in which players could turn it more WEGO.

As far as realism is concerned, that's a thorny issue, at least for me. TOAW possesses a very open structure, while that is a great benefit, realism (in game-speak) does suffer. Personally, I think there is a way to play each scenario that enhances realism, meaning general results are closer to historical results, but that is not something enforceable by the system. And it's not an obvious thing either because it involves how you use the game mechanics, not necessarily tactics or strategy. It's something you'd have to discover for each scenario and be very much on the same page with another player.

TOAW is one of those games that pays off in the long run. A good PBEM opponent in well made scenario and the game shines.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: just wondering... (8/4/2012 3:44:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjcme

I was really thinking about buying this game. It seems very well conceived, and the possibility of playing any battle of the 20th century sounds wonderful.However, Im not a fan of the IGOUGO system. I prefer the WEGO system.
I was just curious if TOAW players use any form to diminish the efects of the IGOUGO system in order to give a more realistic gaming experience.


Not a fan of WEGO myself, but that's been argued to death around here and I don't wish to reprise it.

Two features TOAW has that compensate for IGOUGO are:

1. Risk of early turn ending due to proficiency check failure. So most forces, especially poor quality ones, risk their plans going awry if they try to conduct operations that are too complex. (By that, I mean trying to get all or most of the ten combat phases).

2. Units that begin supplied will still return a fraction of their equipment to the "On Hand" pools if eliminated - even if surrounded at that point. To completely eliminate a unit, it must begin the turn unsupplied - requiring it to have been cut-off in the previous turn.




Telumar -> RE: just wondering... (8/4/2012 3:55:38 PM)

Of course scenarios with low movement rates, i.e. the Road to Moscow series where 1 turn represents one day on a 10 km / hex map, lessen the "whole Army sits idle" effects of the IGOUGO abstraction.




rjcme -> RE: just wondering... (8/5/2012 12:21:00 PM)

Many thanks for your replies.
One possibility that occured to me was to decrease movement points in order to make units move less and therefore it might give a more realistic feeling. Is it possible? If so, is it possible only on scenario design or can it be done in the options menu?




Curtis Lemay -> RE: just wondering... (8/5/2012 4:02:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjcme

Many thanks for your replies.
One possibility that occured to me was to decrease movement points in order to make units move less and therefore it might give a more realistic feeling. Is it possible? If so, is it possible only on scenario design or can it be done in the options menu?


That can only be done in the editor. You can literally scale the movement rates with a Force parameter. But that would screw up the scenario's performance. To do it right, you would need to edit the turn interval. That can be done, but requires extensive editing of things like event turns, reinforcement arrival turns, replacement rates, etc. Not easy.

But, as Telumar said, some scenarios are already designed that way to some extent.




rjcme -> RE: just wondering... (8/8/2012 3:49:27 PM)

Is it possible to edit the movement costs?




Oberst_Klink -> RE: just wondering... (8/8/2012 4:47:01 PM)

As Bob mentioned, the movement costs can only be scaled. The movement costs itself to enter certain terrain, depending on the unit capability, e.g. motorized, foot, wheeled, tracked, etc. is hard coded. Be aware that the scaling down/up factor applies for the whole force, not just a particular unit.

As per manual, see the following:

Movement Related Characteristics
A units Movement Allowance and cost to enter certain terrain types are both based on the movement characteristics of the equipment assigned to the unit.

- Riverine Equipment: This equipment uses the Riverine Move-ment rate (2400 kilometers per week), and can only move along Rivers and through Shallow Water and Flooded Marsh terrain.
- Motor Equipment: The equipment uses the Motorized Move-ment rate (560 kilometers per week).
- Slow Motor Equipment: The equipment uses the Slow Motor-ized Movement rate (350 kilometers per week).
- Fast Motor Equipment: The equipment uses the Fast Motorized
Movement rate (660 kilometers per week).
- Horse Equipment: The equipment uses the Horse (with wag-ons and other transports) Movement Rate (340 kilometers per week).
- Fast Horse Equipment: The equipment uses the Fast Horse (Cav-alry) Movement rate (400 kilometers per week).
- Rail Move Equipment: The equipment always moves by Rail
Movement (4200 kilometers per week). It does this without us-ing Rail Transport capacity, and can only move by rail.
- Slow Equipment: The equipment uses the Foot Movement rate
(280 kilometers per week).

Klink, Oberst


[image]local://upfiles/28259/DE2AA5F484E14BB0856A0157C8E43725.jpg[/image]




Curtis Lemay -> RE: just wondering... (8/8/2012 8:53:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjcme

Is it possible to edit the movement costs?


No.




rjcme -> RE: just wondering... (8/10/2012 1:14:21 PM)

Once again, thank you.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.148438E-02