Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 1:13:01 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4670
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

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.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

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

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 61
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 1:15:31 AM   
Veers


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

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.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.



Good point. I've heard of this one before. Seems like a pretty good way to do it.

_____________________________

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 #: 62
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 2:40:25 AM   
wolflars

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

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.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.



I second this GD. This would be an excellent way to handle naval sorties without the curious effect of a virtual wall of ships setting up blockade without ever returning to port. In effect it would allow "ships to pass in the night"--susceptible to intercept/inderdiction possibilities. This thread has brought to my attention some of the peculiar problems with air units that Jam explained well enough to my satifisfaction. Also, rather than use the EA scenario to highlight TOAW shortcomings, I think it actually demonstrates how flexible the engine really is. I like EA exactly for the simple reason that it shows how creative a design team (Mark Stevens et al) can be in making it as close as possible, they put a square peg into a round hole.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 63
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 3:06:46 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft? I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. A little more programming, but that way we don't have to move the navies? Nobody said that every sea hex had to be supply. Add to what I said earlier locking zones of control. I'd be against naval walls of blockade too. If they didn't actually happen. House rules could prevent this .

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/12/2006 3:20:17 AM >

(in reply to wolflars)
Post #: 64
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 3:20:41 AM   
wolflars

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft? I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. A little more programming, but that way we don't have to think about the navies. I really do need a new game.


Well, as it stands the only effective way to handle the naval question is the event engine. But sure, having them behave somewhat like aircraft might be interesting. You could assign them to specific strikes, or inderdiction type missions which resemble regular patrols, whereas movement to contact that results in a meeting engagement that is a result of search, patrol, evasion, and intercept techniques. But, alas I know little of naval warfare having spent too many years as an infantryman so perhaps I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. But I will point out that the intent of TOAW has always been to model the land component of the operational fight and not the naval aspect. That isn't to say that I would not like to see some minor naval improvements but I dont think the naval problem is a deal breaker--if it is I have been reasonably assured that WitP is a fine simulator of tugboats and rubber duckies or whatever one calls those naval thingies.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 65
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 4:38:48 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3237
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft? I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. A little more programming, but that way we don't have to move the navies? Nobody said that every sea hex had to be supply. Add to what I said earlier locking zones of control. I'd be against naval walls of blockade too. If they didn't actually happen. House rules could prevent this .


House rules are not preferable to a better system - if they were you would't have complained in the first place!!

I dont' se the equivalency between the event engine and something liek the air missions allocation system.

Naval units DID operate in that fashion - albeit the time frame for their missions weer often days instead of minutes that they are for a/c!

Naval units had a base that they operated from, a radius of action from that base, and a mission when they went from that base. Blockades such as WW1 were maintained by screens of recce craft with het battle-fleet mainly sitting at home waiting word of a sortie by the high Seas Fleet.

RN destroyer action against Sealion would ahve been by night-taime sorties from destroyer bases such as Harwich, Sherness and Portsmouth (among others) with hte ships returning to base before daylight.

Such a system gives the player the choice of when to allocate the resource and in what fashion - which is ultimately all that is required.

It's the first I've heard of the idea but it definitely sounds preferable to the current one.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 66
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 11:38:05 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4670
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft?


Yeah. You have to bear in mind that my intent is to create a system which does a decent job of simulating the impact of naval war on land combat without having to get into the nitty-gritty of purely naval warfare- which I along with so many other players don't want to get involved with.

This is a simple fix which does most of what I want. I can appreciate you have different priorities as a naval buff- but most posters here so far seem to prefer the quick solution which doesn't require reading anything by Mahan.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 10/12/2006 11:43:30 AM >


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

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

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 67
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 4:59:24 PM   
liuzg150181


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

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.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.

Interesting and coincidentally that you have mentioned it,i pinpointed this out and suggested the same thing in a review which I had submitted to Armchair General site for pending approval to be published on their website. If it is jettisoned then i would post it on my ACG blog.


_____________________________

"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 golden delicious)
Post #: 68
RE: A warning - 10/12/2006 11:50:41 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
One thing I don't understand. There are scenarios that have naval action, and there are scenarios that don't. Golden Delicious- green hex...good. Blue hex...very bad. Stay away from any scenarios with blue hexes!You seem to be my nemesis on this issue. I can't convince you, therefor I can't seem to convince anybody at Matrix either. Do they have an Army Navy football game in England? They should. You want to see the navies represented and do battle, you just want the outcome to be completely random.Essentially you want to say THIS GAME IS NOT FOR NAVY PEOPLE! You feel better now? I said it.Read Mahan...give me a break. Unfortunately, I leave this thread thinking that Matrix agrees with you 100%. So if I come off angry and bitter once in a while...this is why.



< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/13/2006 12:05:46 AM >

(in reply to liuzg150181)
Post #: 69
RE: A warning - 10/13/2006 4:56:57 AM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline
Boy, everyone loves this thread. I think McGregor has a valad point, but there are limits to any game engine.......espically one that originated (although greatly modified) in 1998. Perhaps if it were retitled The Operational Art of Land War (Guest starring Air, and WITH Sea), the isue could be put to rest? Nahhh....those clever scenario desiners do some awsome tweeking.

Seriously, I'm greatful for TAOW3 (and a number of other Matrix titles), but I don't really expect a rework of TAOW from the ground up. If they were going to do that, why pay Talonsoft & Norm Koger. For ultra heavy count each bullet, rivet, ect, I'll put my money on something that starts from scratch, or at least a board game conversion. That way the code is fairly recent.

This is not to knock either side. I just feel that there is a limit to any game engine, and the between Matrix (I know I sound like I work for them---I don't) and the other MANY DEVOTED parties involved, TAOW1,2,3/CoW/WotY has far surpassed anything I expected of it. There are still a lot of glitches, but to me, they seem to appear mostly in scenarios designed for the CoW engine, or independant designers. I will be the first one to admit that some of the large scenarios have bugs, but I've been PBEMing EA, FitE, CFNA, and WitW, and so far (about half-way) nothing fatal has occured, orther than one restart after the third turn.

As an aside, for large-scale WW2, check out Schwerpuct Games (if the shamless plug doesn't get censored). They have Europe (West Front) and Russia. You have to shell out for 2 games if you want the whole enchilada, but the detail is impressive.

Good Luck, all

_____________________________

"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 macgregor)
Post #: 70
RE: A warning - 10/13/2006 8:02:56 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
..i've trundled thru a fair number of t3 scens now, including some biggies and old not-on-the-disc ones, mostly to test Elmer. Most throw up some error report whilst staying playable, however in all known-to-me scens the game plays differently, and just as the old toaw1 scens need reworking for acow, so i consider all previous scens need updating for t3 and not simply converting. Nothing to do with Matrix, they did their best to make the requested changes...

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 71
RE: A warning - 10/13/2006 9:03:00 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4670
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

One thing I don't understand. There are scenarios that have naval action, and there are scenarios that don't. Golden Delicious- green hex...good. Blue hex...very bad. Stay away from any scenarios with blue hexes!


No. Scenarios which incorporate naval elements are all very well- but I am not really interested in naval war for its own sake.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

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

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 72
RE: A warning - 10/20/2006 4:15:48 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
I've just discovered that all but a few of my fighters(all with 80% rediness or more) have mysteriously been put at rest. How can I play like this? Why is this happening? The air assistant was never enabled. This game has too many bugs to be playable.I feel I've invested in an unfinished product.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/20/2006 4:22:44 AM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 73
RE: A warning - 10/20/2006 4:31:02 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I've just discovered that all but a few of my fighters(all with 80% rediness or more) have mysteriously been put at rest. How can I play like this? Why is this happening? The air assistant was never enabled. This game has too many bugs to be playable.I feel I've invested in an unfinished product.

This is normal, even for Century of Warfare. It is working as designed, is not a bug, and in this case, no less "finished" than any other version of TOAW.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 74
RE: A warning - 10/20/2006 5:07:45 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
Great answer. So it's necesary for me to be vigilant of whether my orders are being obeyed? You know...no. I'm not buying that. My Luftwaffe fighter corps has mutinied! Gone AWOL! But don't worry. Happens all the time. Wrong. I gues my only problem is thinking I can play against one of the players who knows all these little 'issues'.Am I not capable of deciding when my aircraft should go at rest?

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/20/2006 5:14:29 AM >

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 75
RE: A warning - 10/20/2006 11:05:32 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2040
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Great answer. So it's necesary for me to be vigilant of whether my orders are being obeyed? You know...no. I'm not buying that. My Luftwaffe fighter corps has mutinied! Gone AWOL! But don't worry. Happens all the time. Wrong. I gues my only problem is thinking I can play against one of the players who knows all these little 'issues'.Am I not capable of deciding when my aircraft should go at rest?


Well, at least you are able to decide when your aircraft should NOT rest. Unless youre not playing a monster scenario it should not consume that much time to (re)assign missions to your Luftwaffe.

General der Flieger Telumar.

_____________________________


(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 76
RE: A warning - 10/21/2006 5:48:48 PM   
TOCarroll


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline
VERY NICE Atavar/Atavar/Picture thingie, Telumar. I can't make out enought detail on the cap to tell. It that a Whermacht Tanker's Dress Uniform? Waffen SS? Definitive proof that the Germans know how to make the snappiest uniforms. Also none of my business, but do you know who the picture depicts?

Just Curious.

_____________________________

"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 Telumar)
Post #: 77
RE: A warning - 10/21/2006 8:35:04 PM   
rich12545

 

Posts: 1701
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline
Previously in toaw I always thought aircraft were taken off the line way too much.  Unrealistically too much.  I hope this gets corrected in this version.

(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 78
RE: A warning - 10/21/2006 8:37:52 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2040
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

VERY NICE Atavar/Atavar/Picture thingie, Telumar. I can't make out enought detail on the cap to tell. It that a Whermacht Tanker's Dress Uniform? Waffen SS? Definitive proof that the Germans know how to make the snappiest uniforms. Also none of my business, but do you know who the picture depicts?

Just Curious.


Hey thanks. He's Gordon Gollob, General der Jagdflieger. "Just" Luftwaffe. Read here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gollob. I encountered his picture somewhere in the web and have chosen him to be my avatar just because he looked so smart.
Btw, i would never use someone wearing a SS uniform as an avatar.

"Definitive proof that the Germans know how to make the snappiest uniforms."
That was once - ever seen a german policeman? Horrible.

_____________________________


(in reply to TOCarroll)
Post #: 79
RE: A warning - 10/22/2006 5:54:22 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
I agree the avatar is pretty cool. Let me just say that I'm a WiF(and other boardgames, not only strategic level) player who happens to like the TOAW system better than WiF, albeit in need of improvement. I just want the game to be as good as it can be and so far it's not. If I'm tough on the dev team it's because I'm trying to sell this game to my gaming buddies and I'm still looking for a sellable product to people who know history and strategy and don't want a lot of 'gamey' tricks to have to deal with. Tricks that can be the difference between winning and losing. Without bioed this game is behind ACOW. While I've seen some new improvements, I've also seen some new 'issues'. The game has been 'Matrixified', but not much more. The game I have now is 99% the the game I had 8 years ago(and still have). So far there's been very little talk of any real improvements coming. To borrow a word I find this 'disheartening'.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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]
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

0.182