RE: TOAW IV features (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV



Message


sPzAbt653 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/19/2015 2:14:29 PM)

I'm trying to understand your point, why do we need 'linked scenarios' when we can have the entire campaign? What's the benefit of taking all the effort to split a campaign up into separate parts? Why not play the campaign scenario itself?




josant -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/19/2015 7:29:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I'm trying to understand your point, why do we need 'linked scenarios' when we can have the entire campaign? What's the benefit of taking all the effort to split a campaign up into separate parts? Why not play the campaign scenario itself?


Yes, this is true.




Lobster -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/19/2015 8:33:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I'm trying to understand your point, why do we need 'linked scenarios' when we can have the entire campaign? What's the benefit of taking all the effort to split a campaign up into separate parts? Why not play the campaign scenario itself?


Perhaps, as in the case of a long campaign, linked scenarios would be shorter than playing out the entire campaign. Many campaigns consist of periods of build up followed by shorter periods of intense activity.




r6kunz -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/21/2015 8:42:49 PM)

quote:

Perhaps, as in the case of a long campaign, linked scenarios would be shorter than playing out the entire campaign. Many campaigns consist of periods of build up followed by shorter periods of intense activity.


I quite agree. In the case of Barbarossa, in The Road to Moscow, I used eight "linked" scenarios in 4-8 week periods. These are linked in the sense one starts when the previous one ends. The forces are then reset to their historic strength and locations for the next date, etc... The final scenario is a "What if..." Guderian had the go-ahead to drive straight toward Moscow in mid-August 1941 rather being diverted to the Ukraine. You might be surprized!

Long campaign scenarios, of course, offer the chance of a free reign in the campaign. But try as I might I could never have anything look like the historic front line on, say, mid-October, or jump into Kiev. It is nice have both styles. The beauty of TOAW.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/22/2015 4:46:33 PM)

Without knowing how radical the changes in the GUI are, one little thing that I, since always forget to check the weather, would find useful is to have the hex's weather situation written in the bottom panel alongside the other information. Right now there's plenty of room available to do it.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/25/2015 12:01:26 AM)

Will it be any improvements regarding the weather?. It looks like designers have a hard time duplicating historical conditions, for example, the mud periods in Russia.




secadegas -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/25/2015 9:19:50 AM)


quote:


Will it be any improvements regarding the weather?. It looks like designers have a hard time duplicating historical conditions, for example, the mud periods in Russia.



This doesn't match reality at all. There a lots of scenarios where winter conditions are perfectly represented. TOAW allows designers to simulate mud or other winter conditions in several different ways. And criative designers do it with excellent results.

Of course everybody has the right to post, suggesting whatever it may but IMHO is much more productive make suggestions after getting a good idea of how TOAW really works.
And if there are doubts please do post because there are a lot of people here more than pleased to help.


























Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/25/2015 4:37:10 PM)

I didn't say anything about winter.. but, ok, weather modelling is perfect, no need to improve it. Moving on...




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/25/2015 5:36:26 PM)

Actually there is an issue with mud. It dries out independent of temperature. That makes it impossible to make a mud "sea", where every hex is muddy. Hopefully that will be addressed eventually.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/25/2015 9:04:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Actually there is an issue with mud. It dries out independent of temperature. That makes it impossible to make a mud "sea", where every hex is muddy. Hopefully that will be addressed eventually.


Thanks Bob, I just don't like the lame "cease fire" or shock/supply events to replace what weather should do by itself. Nice to hear from someone who really knows how TOAW works [sm=00000030.gif]




secadegas -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/25/2015 10:25:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Nice to hear from someone who really knows how TOAW works [sm=00000030.gif]



Ditto.





Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/26/2015 1:09:17 AM)

Inspired from the other thread: I would like a icon or something on the counter showing if the unit is unsupplied, without having to enter in the unit menu.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/26/2015 1:19:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Inspired from the other thread: I would like a icon or something on the counter showing if the unit is unsupplied, without having to enter in the unit menu.


It has that. The health spot now goes black when the unit is unsupplied.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/26/2015 1:26:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Inspired from the other thread: I would like a icon or something on the counter showing if the unit is unsupplied, without having to enter in the unit menu.


It has that. The health spot now goes black when the unit is unsupplied.


Cool.




Rhetor -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/26/2015 7:42:44 PM)

Things I would just love to see in TOAW IV:

- railroad gauges (rail damage does not do justice to that)
- single vs double track railroads
- more road types, especially for modern scenarios, to simulate motorway networks.
- fort units or fort equipment (requiring heavy artillery to crack) for WWI scenarios

And, perhaps more difficult options:

- supply causing congestion on roads, thus making it difficult to supply too many units via a single road/railroad/port etc.
- addition of supply dumps or mobile supply trains, acting as intermediate tier between supply sources and combat units (one might think also of a possiblity to capture enemy supplies). In other words - making supply quantified.
- diffrent supply types (adding at least fuel, perhaps forage as well?)

any comments?








SMK-at-work -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/26/2015 10:21:04 PM)

IMO all those are good ideas - it is the implementation of some (esp supply) that is the bother!




Rhetor -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/27/2015 10:48:46 AM)

And one more - an ability to select a specific unit for artillery or aerial bombardment. One might want to use their artillery or aircraft to target eg. only enemy artillery or hqs, not spread the firepower evenly through the whole stack. I am not sure whether it has not been already addressed somehow in the patches.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 9:29:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

quote:

Perhaps, as in the case of a long campaign, linked scenarios would be shorter than playing out the entire campaign. Many campaigns consist of periods of build up followed by shorter periods of intense activity.


I quite agree. In the case of Barbarossa, in The Road to Moscow, I used eight "linked" scenarios in 4-8 week periods. These are linked in the sense one starts when the previous one ends. The forces are then reset to their historic strength and locations for the next date, etc... The final scenario is a "What if..." Guderian had the go-ahead to drive straight toward Moscow in mid-August 1941 rather being diverted to the Ukraine. You might be surprized!

Long campaign scenarios, of course, offer the chance of a free reign in the campaign. But try as I might I could never have anything look like the historic front line on, say, mid-October, or jump into Kiev. It is nice have both styles. The beauty of TOAW.

I second Hawkeye's notion. Especially for beginners who're 'scared' of moving and managing more than 200 units splitting up a campaign is IMHO perfect. Even relatively short operations/campaigns, e.g. Kharkov '43 might be more enjoyable if I'd split it up into the Soviet initial offensive and 2nd scenario part dealing with Manstein's backhand blow. I now got a complete map *thanks to Rick* 2.5km hex to start various smaller scenarios relating to ALL 4 battles of Kharkov...

Klink, Oberst




Crossroads -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 10:07:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
I second Hawkeye's notion. Especially for beginners who're 'scared' of moving and managing more than 200 units splitting up a campaign is IMHO perfect. Even relatively short operations/campaigns, e.g. Kharkov '43 might be more enjoyable if I'd split it up into the Soviet initial offensive and 2nd scenario part dealing with Manstein's backhand blow. I now got a complete map *thanks to Rick* 2.5km hex to start various smaller scenarios relating to ALL 4 battles of Kharkov...

Klink, Oberst



Yes please!

The large scenario dilemma is not solely a beginner vs an advanced player thingie. It's also about how much time can you have for gaming.

I mostly shun the large scenarios for the reason I can only get so far, until I need to put it aside, and then after a month or three it is What the heck was I thinking there? moments all over the map.

So the concept of smaller 'linked' campaigns is very appealing to me.

Campaign Series that I am intimately familiar has linked campaigns. But as said you can work around with 'linked campaigns' as a scenario design approach too I think. Something like maybe have Theater Options popping up, asking whether in the previous scenario you got a Loss or a Win, or if Draw or having not played it choosing that Theatre Option instead. Would work I think but then again I have not created any scenarios with TOAW, just played them.

It is all good though. I mean if you guys can throw Linked Campaigns as a game feature in, I am all for it. But no pressure, I am definitively buying this regardless. So when can we preorder? [8D]







lcesar -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 10:46:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freyr Oakenshield

[&o]


So, that's mean on this new patch, are include the ones of "AAA2Opart 3"?

Cheer's




Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 2:10:25 PM)

I guess I don't understand who the "linked scenarios" thing is directed at. Scenario designers? It seems to me that the game has everything one would need to create such scenarios already. You've got an event editor with Theater Options. So, you can vary the forces and their circumstances however you desire.




Crossroads -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 2:28:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I guess I don't understand who the "linked scenarios" thing is directed at. Scenario designers? It seems to me that the game has everything one would need to create such scenarios already. You've got an event editor with Theater Options. So, you can vary the forces and their circumstances however you desire.


Almost but not quite I think. What the Linked Scenarios do is your exact losses carry on from scenario to another. Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over. You might still receive reinforcements and you often do, but if you left the first scenario your favourite unit badly mauled, chances are it may not recover to proper levels. Depending of course how the reinforcements are allocated, and the scope of each scenario.

So yeah you could sort of cover this quite nicely with Theater Options, like what I tried to think out loud there where you would select a Theater Option per your previous result. But it would not be an exact match for the exact losses carrying over. I think. As said haven't done any TOAW sceanrios, just played them.





sPzAbt653 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 3:06:36 PM)

quote:

Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over.


This idea is still beyond my comprehension - Why not just play the scenario ? Why bother a designer to break it up into individual days ? What is the difference ? If you play the full scenario you get losses carried over from day to day ?

It seems to me that 'linked scenarios' are a product of a game system that cannot produce the full scenario due to some limitation(s). And if you don't have time to play a full scenario, how do you have time to play the same full scenario but only when it is 'linked' ? And if you don't want to play the entire Eastern Front for 400 turns, then play the first 50 and quit.

I'm all about doing scenarios, but I have yet to see any reason why any of us should attempt to undermine TOAW's scope by creating 'linked' scenarios.




Crossroads -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 3:39:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over.


This idea is still beyond my comprehension - Why not just play the scenario ? Why bother a designer to break it up into individual days ? What is the difference ? If you play the full scenario you get losses carried over from day to day ?

It seems to me that 'linked scenarios' are a product of a game system that cannot produce the full scenario due to some limitation(s). And if you don't have time to play a full scenario, how do you have time to play the same full scenario but only when it is 'linked' ? And if you don't want to play the entire Eastern Front for 400 turns, then play the first 50 and quit.

I'm all about doing scenarios, but I have yet to see any reason why any of us should attempt to undermine TOAW's scope by creating 'linked' scenarios.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
I second Hawkeye's notion. Especially for beginners who're 'scared' of moving and managing more than 200 units splitting up a campaign is IMHO perfect. Even relatively short operations/campaigns, e.g. Kharkov '43 might be more enjoyable if I'd split it up into the Soviet initial offensive and 2nd scenario part dealing with Manstein's backhand blow. I now got a complete map *thanks to Rick* 2.5km hex to start various smaller scenarios relating to ALL 4 battles of Kharkov...

Klink, Oberst



Yes please!

The large scenario dilemma is not solely a beginner vs an advanced player thingie. It's also about how much time can you have for gaming.

I mostly shun the large scenarios for the reason I can only get so far, until I need to put it aside, and then after a month or three it is What the heck was I thinking there? moments all over the map.

So the concept of smaller 'linked' campaigns is very appealing to me.



[:)]




Lobster -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 5:05:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over.


This idea is still beyond my comprehension - Why not just play the scenario ? Why bother a designer to break it up into individual days ? What is the difference ? If you play the full scenario you get losses carried over from day to day ?

It seems to me that 'linked scenarios' are a product of a game system that cannot produce the full scenario due to some limitation(s). And if you don't have time to play a full scenario, how do you have time to play the same full scenario but only when it is 'linked' ? And if you don't want to play the entire Eastern Front for 400 turns, then play the first 50 and quit.

I'm all about doing scenarios, but I have yet to see any reason why any of us should attempt to undermine TOAW's scope by creating 'linked' scenarios.


What if you did want to go through the entire East Front campaign at 5km per hex but didn't have 15 years to do it? [:D]




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 5:42:37 PM)

Yeah I think the key here is playing the entire front or not, if you are going do it, the linked system makes no sense, but maybe you want to play a prolonged campaign but limiting yourself to a certain part of the front.




Meyer1 -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 5:51:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1
...but limiting yourself to a certain part of the front.


Or units, say I want to play the Gro▀deutschland through the whole war, starting as a Regiment, later as a Division and then Corps, see as the OOB changes the different equipment, the different battles.. I can see that some guys may dig that.




ogar -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/29/2015 6:53:31 PM)

When I started playing TOAW, I would have been in favor of the linked scenarios -- for example, playing Rob Kunz' Road series is great, but a linkage would make the player much more aware of the effect of losses/replacements/etc. You no longer can freely burn out units to grab a few last VPs, there is a cost in the next scenario.

But that assumption was based on my need, as a beginner, to keep the scenario scale small-to-medium. And the assumption that finishing a 40 turn scenario, then catching up with real life, and then starting a new 40 turn linked scenario, that I would recall all my experiences from the earlier scenario. And that second assumption is wrong. But the small/medium scale is great, as most players just do not have the time month after month to complete long (75 turns or more) scenarios.

And then I got into designing, ...just getting the damned scenario to work is very very tough. Adding in a whole other option about possible starting strengths/positions/statuses for units, plus supply status, VP standings, TO's used/unused, events fired and possible future effects. I think the linkage idea would have use only in certain limited situations.

But as Klink outlined, designing a scenario to last 70 turns, and then offering variants of it, is another approach that I think would help many players, and be feasible as a designer. Bob Cross does something like that with his Cobra/France scenarios. (I'm looking at that approach for another project if I can ever get the Damned Scenario That Just Will Not Balance to balance.) Add in Telumar's approach with EEV-generated Early Scenario Ends and/or player-toggled Theater Options to End Normally when they think 'the game is stuck' are very helpful as well.




Panzer War -> RE: TOAW IV features (8/30/2015 12:37:56 AM)

I was more thinking of a linked campaign system for smaller scenarios. That was how I was envisioning it not like Panzer General with purchasing units with prestige there have been several war games with linked campaigns I find the larger\massive scenarios a bit tiresome IMHO they just don't interest me as much as a more focused scenario in the medium to small size.
I have been with TOAW since 1999 and I find my self wondering if Norm would not have been able to understand why designers/gamers would want to make a 19th century database/scenarios or a scenario based of of the lotr war for the ring or why designers would want to create their own equipment database.
In my opinion one of the things that has kept toaw alive all these years is the flexibility in the engine that drew a vast array of designers to make such a vast array of scenarios for it.











,




wodin -> RE: TOAW IV features (9/4/2015 12:41:31 AM)

I really dig that!!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1
...but limiting yourself to a certain part of the front.


Or units, say I want to play the Gro▀deutschland through the whole war, starting as a Regiment, later as a Division and then Corps, see as the OOB changes the different equipment, the different battles.. I can see that some guys may dig that.





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02