Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A warning

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: A warning Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 6:29:46 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

In a War in Europe or WW2 scenario, the game engine decides air superiority/interdection effiency for the entire scenario.


Sure, but apart from the impact of interdiction on supply (which is theatre wide) the effects of air superiority and interdiction are carried out by individual units within their range. There is not a global air superiority or interdiction pool which acts all over the map.


Ahhh...finally someone who is known and trusted has put the word down. :)

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 31
RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 6:42:23 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4635
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

Ahhh...finally someone who is known and trusted has put the word down. :)


Very kind of you. I'm still curious to see what JAMiAM has to say- but really I don't think the way air units work has actually been changed for TOAW III. Macgregor is barking up the wrong tree.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 32
RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 6:51:46 PM   
alaric99x

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
Sounds like macgregor's problem is in his operator head-space.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 33
RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 6:54:38 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Sounds like macgregor's problem is in his operator head-space.

Now, now, be nice. All that will do is encourage an emotional reaction, which is very unuseful on this forum.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to alaric99x)
Post #: 34
RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 7:55:58 PM   
alaric99x

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
OK, I'm now in "nice mode" again.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 35
RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 7:58:47 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
Excellent!!

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to alaric99x)
Post #: 36
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 1:58:48 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
Alright then. I'm wrong for expecting more. Those that tell me I should find another game are right. Almost sounds like my original statement should've been directed...at myself. Regardless, I can see I've pushed this as far as it's going to go.Jamiam isn't going to say anything Rhinobones hasn't already said.Thank you all for your help.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 37
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 2:14:07 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
Not once did I say to find another game. The trouble is, it appears that your problem with TOAW III is an incorrect assumption about how air superiority is handled. I'd much rather be able to work through the problem with you than see you leave in a huff...Has what we've (Golden Delicious and myself) said not answered your comment?

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 38
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 2:35:06 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3208
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Alright then. I'm wrong for expecting more.


No - you are wrong in how you think the game works.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 39
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 2:39:05 AM   
Chuck2


Posts: 829
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
I did a quick test and the initial Europe Aflame air superiority values broken down on the fifth turn:

Germans: 36
Soviets: 25
British: 21
French: 12
Poles: 2
Allied Total: 60

You might want a house rule that prohibits the Allied player from using the Soviet aircraft until Barbarossa begins. Otherwise the Luftwaffe air superiority is about equal to the British, French, and Poles combined.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 40
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 2:41:43 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
A better house rule would be that Soviet ai craft cannot be used for interdiction until Barbarossa, and that any aircraft not in Leningrad or north of that area only be set to rest, as you need the Soviet Air force for the Winter War.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 41
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 3:22:49 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3208
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
In which case there's presumably a few finnish a/c that "join" the Axis too........but then the allies will get the Belgians and Dutch in due course too....so they should be set to "rest" until war is declared.

and the Poles must stay in Poland, French & low Countries on the European mainland, and not more than a couple of English units allowed on the Continent - 1 fighter & 1 light bomber.

that shuold be enough to stop a-historical massing of airforces.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 42
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 3:58:35 AM   
liuzg150181


Posts: 67
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Alright then. I'm wrong for expecting more. Those that tell me I should find another game are right. Almost sounds like my original statement should've been directed...at myself. Regardless, I can see I've pushed this as far as it's going to go.Jamiam isn't going to say anything Rhinobones hasn't already said.Thank you all for your help.

Point is,like what Veers had said "the trouble is, it appears that your problem with TOAW III is an incorrect assumption about how air superiority is handled",do you have anything to prove that your assumption is right? If yes,pls post your experience,or whichever that proves you right.
If no,do you just want to bury your head in the sands like an ostrich?

_____________________________

"In times of change learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 43
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 4:25:18 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: liuzg150181
Point is,like what Veers had said "the trouble is, it appears that your problem with TOAW III is an incorrect assumption about how air superiority is handled",do you have anything to prove that your assumption is right? If yes,pls post your experience,or whichever that proves you right.


Seconded. :)

< Message edited by Veers -- 10/10/2006 4:27:38 AM >


_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to liuzg150181)
Post #: 44
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 6:54:59 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
I understand that I was wrong about how air superiority is handled.(and thanks to those who've explained it)My opponent could be using a loophole in the house rules. I've encountered this before. Units on air missions while not at war should be a flagrant violation. Yeah I'm a little torqued over my first pbem game(on the new version)resulting in a 'gamey' conclusion.(much like my last aCoW pbem game where the German army got impaled on the 6 hexes defending around Paris-while surrounded)The bottom line is I've now lost my desire to play this game, at least for awhile.Or until I get the desire to play a smaller scenario.For the record, my opponent had no allied air units in Poland beside the Poles and from what I saw only a couple(I believe one was Swordfish.Which would explain why I lost half the Kriegsmarine as well)were sent to Norway.The only other scenario I started pbem for TOAW3 was 'War in the West'. Which we had to stop because the event engine caused the German Navy to disappear. At this point I need a break.

And thanks Chuck for laying that out. That explains a lot.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/10/2006 7:02:12 AM >

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 45
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 7:01:25 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Units on air missions while not at war should be a flagrant violation.


I do belive this is a flagrant violation. If my gf wan't nagging me to close this, I'd look it up for certain, but I am almost positive it states that you must leave the neutral countries' af on rest.

I do hope that you find yourself back in the game with a turstworthy opponent (or one that knows the rules) soon.

Cheers, Wyatt


_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 46
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 7:19:36 AM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline
Mr. McGregror:   I don't say find another game. I sat the game was designed at operational level. Above that, clever designers and coders have put together a system that works---with abstractions. I enjoy the large scenarios. BUT I am looking formwad to A World Ablaze, supposedly scheduled for Spring 2007. (Probably lucky if we get it by Christmas). I assume it will be a full blown Very large scale WW2 Strategy/Operional level. Game. I noticed a lot of familiar faces in to forum, and wager that most will be delighted with it. Many less abstractions-many more shells.

Tom OC

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 47
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 7:53:42 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
Sorry about chiming in so late, but it seems that most of my thoughts regarding the warning have already been voiced, to some degree, or another. I do want to point out something, oft-overlooked, about the way that air combat works in TOAW III, as well as earlier iterations. This has to do with the ranges of aircraft equipment, and the ranges of aircraft units. There is a vital distinction to be made here.

The range of aircraft units is determined by that of the longest ranged piece of authorized equipment within the unit. This is true, even if none of that piece is currently assigned. When a unit is added into a battle, however, the ranges of the individual equipments is checked, and if the range is exceeded for a particular type of equipment, it is excluded from adding its strength into the battle, regardless of the type of combat. This results in a situation where units comprised of equipment with divergent ranges fights at different strengths, within each distinct radii, corresponding to the different ranged aircraft.

This is especially a problem in some scenarios where a designer has intended for units to take on new airframes over the course of a long campaign, and the newer airframes have a longer range than the earlier ones. Like EA, as a prime example. Take the German fighter units. They start off with only Me-109 E/F in the units. Later, Fw-190 (early), Fw-190 (late), and Me-109 (late) are added throughout the course of the war. The range for the units, is set at 14 hexes, since this is the range of the Fw-190 (late). However, it isn't until turn 201, that those airframes start appearing. The Fw-190 (early) start appearing at turn 118, and they have a range of 13. The Me-109 (late) don't appear until turn 149 and they have a range of only 10 hexes.

Thus, until after turn 118, any combats with these units that are at ranges of 12-14 hexes from their bases, are fought within the "donut of death" - the area between the concentric radii bounded by the maximum range of the unit's currently assigned equipment, and the maximum range of its authorized equipment. Any combats within this area are very likely to result in the evaporation of the German fighter units.

It should be mentioned that there is a similar effect, though not usually with as drastic of effect, in practice, with regard to the ranges of varying pieces of equipment in naval and artillery units.

To draw this to a close, and to go back to your orignal problem of getting to Norway, you need to focus on the exact ranges of your available air power, and sequence your invasion of Denmark, to secure those airfields needed to provide air superiority coverage over southern Norway. Even with the Danish airfields in control, only the Me-110 units can reach Oslo's airfield, and Bergen. These are fairly small units, and may have difficulty in outfighting the Beaufighters and other long range units that the RAF might have withing range of Norway.

In short, it is primarily a problem with scenario design, and your misunderstanding of how air combat works in TOAW, whether TOAW III, or earlier version. Hopefully, this clears that up.

(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 48
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 9:24:41 PM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline
Thank you kindly. This is a detail I was aware of only in the abstract. I still maintain that the game is a great value, but works "best" when scenarios are held to operational scale. This is NOT limited to airpower & Naval forces. The sheer scale of simulating WW2's ETO on a Corps scale has been done, and done well by clever and hard-working designers. It is a tribute to the game engine. However, as the scale increases (as in all games) the number of compromises (that grognards hate) has to also increase. I'm amazed at the depth of the interplay of concepts in TAOW, and I've owned it since Vol. 1. But for full blown WW2 games, I usually go WaW (more abstract) or something designed from the ground up for that purpose, like you guys are working on with World Abalaze (or something like that).

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time"
J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 49
RE: A warning - 10/10/2006 10:47:15 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline
On TOCarroll's note about WWII games in TOAW. I would like to mention that Europe Aflame does a damn fine job, probably the best job out of all the TOAW scenarii, to recreate the whole of World War II in Europe, and is worth taking a look at for any of you looking for a good fight against another human opponent.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 50
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 12:03:10 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veers

On TOCarroll's note about WWII games in TOAW. I would like to mention that Europe Aflame does a damn fine job, probably the best job out of all the TOAW scenarii, to recreate the whole of World War II in Europe, and is worth taking a look at for any of you looking for a good fight against another human opponent.


I agree. Mark Stevens has been excellent at working out problems with this scenario for several years. His active involvement with seeking out, and implementing community suggestions for improving this classic make him an exemplary example of a scenario designer. The size of the EA sub-forum over at SZO is testament to this.

(in reply to Veers)
Post #: 51
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 1:02:58 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
Thank you everyone. Jamiam is totally right. I'll have to check the individual air ranges from now on. I should've realized this.The scenario may work after all. Even if many feel it shouldn't have to.My opponent claims no neutral air missions. The numbers however...

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 52
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 2:38:32 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
Wait a minute! I have to take some of that back. My Aalborg 109s were in range, as were my Artus 110s. They were only on AS and surprisingly got away nearly unscathed.230 stukas were lost, including 2 entire stukagruppen. I would like to help Scott with these naval units.Therein lies the problem. They're simply to strong on AA. This is the kind of thing I asked for; more naval unit variety. Just how does that become impossible due to the game engine. If the bioed ever makes a successful transition don't worry... I'll do it. Am I the only one who finds the naval units in this game embarrasingly inadequate to give proper representation?

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 53
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 3:07:17 AM   
Chuck2


Posts: 829
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Wait a minute! I have to take some of that back. My Aalborg 109s were in range, as were my Artus 110s. They were only on AS and surprisingly got away nearly unscathed.230 stukas were lost, including 2 entire stukagruppen.


Which hex are the ships in? Also, where did the Stukas come from? What airfields are the British aircraft using?

quote:

They're simply to strong on AA.


I'm not sure at this point that ship AA is too lethal; it is a lot more lethal in TOAW 3 than in COW, though. The problem here might be that the ship units are too big in the scenario. For example, the British "Home Fleet" unit consist of 5 battleships, 5 battlecruisers, 5 heavy cruisers, 10 light cruisers, and 20 destroyers. On paper that's a lot of AA shooting at the Stukas.

quote:

Am I the only one who finds the naval units in this game embarrasingly inadequate to give proper representation?


No, of course not. Most agree that the naval aspect of the game isn't done very well.

< Message edited by Chuck2 -- 10/11/2006 3:40:18 AM >

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 54
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 4:21:37 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Wait a minute! I have to take some of that back. My Aalborg 109s were in range, as were my Artus 110s. They were only on AS and surprisingly got away nearly unscathed.230 stukas were lost, including 2 entire stukagruppen. I would like to help Scott with these naval units.Therein lies the problem. They're simply to strong on AA. This is the kind of thing I asked for; more naval unit variety. Just how does that become impossible due to the game engine. If the bioed ever makes a successful transition don't worry... I'll do it. Am I the only one who finds the naval units in this game embarrasingly inadequate to give proper representation?

The Stg units (with the Stukas) have some of the worst problems in EA. The early war Stukas have a range of 13 hexes, while the range of the unit is set by the non-existant late model Stukas with their range of 25 hexes. If these units are involved in any combats at ranges between 14 and 25 hexes away, they will evaporate. You would be surprised how many times I've seen my enemies air units evaporated in playbacks, due to exactly this reason. Given this design weakness in the particular scenario, I make it a point to NEVER put these units on missions, other than against those targets that I directly assign them to attack and that are within a range of 13 hexes or less.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 55
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 5:07:15 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3208
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
So do those units ACTUALLY evaporate - or is it that they are reported as having done so 'cos they have 0 (zero) aircraft left in them...having started the mission with 0?  Ie do the real early-war Stuka's all get killed 'cos there are no late war ones??

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 56
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 7:08:43 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 878
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline
This is all very interesting!  Are there any plans to deal with this "donut of death" issue in a later patch or version?  Not just for this scenario, but for the game as a whole.

_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 57
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 9:04:32 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4635
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Am I the only one who finds the naval units in this game embarrasingly inadequate to give proper representation?


I think that improving the standard of the naval simulation system would have a much more significant effect on realism than merely adding lots of extra ship types.

Incidentally, do you have the latest patch for TOAW III? AA was overpowered in the first release.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 10/11/2006 9:06:45 PM >


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 58
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 11:53:53 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
Thanks Golden Delicious. I'm not a programmer. But all I really think the naval system needs is to disable whatever prevents naval units enjoying , or suffering the same choices as the ground units suchas having tactical and local movement status and suffering from air interdiction as do ground units on roads. This would be as good as some of the best board games. In Victory Games 'Pacific War' one would move his/her naval units never knowing when an enemy airmission was going to put an end to the move.That's exactly what happens already with ground units moving on roads from interdiction. The code is there. It just has to be enabled. Forgive me if I'm over simplifying. Am I? There are other things that could be done by scenario designers if naval units weren't restricted but this would be a great start. I'll check my patch. I believe I have .17.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 59
RE: A warning - 10/11/2006 11:57:11 PM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
But all I really think the naval system needs is to disable whatever prevents naval units enjoying , or suffering the same choices as the ground units suchas having tactical and local movement status and suffering from air interdiction as do ground units on roads. This would be as good as some of the best board games. In Victory Games 'Pacific War' one would move his/her naval units never knowing when an enemy airmission was going to put an end to the move.That's exactly what happens already with ground units moving on roads from interdiction. The code is there. It just has to be enabled. Forgive me if I'm over simplifying. Am I? There are other things that could be done by scenario designers if naval units weren't restricted but this would be a great start.

Good points. Is even a simple fix as this being considered, James? (Or thought about, or worked over, etc...)

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: A warning Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.119