From: near Philadelphia
I only like big scenarios. I like the operational aspect of big wars of maneuver, the buildup of forces based on your own intelligence and estimations. Seeing your handwork getting paid off as you maneuver your forces meticulously across the battlefield. Small scenarios are like panzer corps. Once you figure out the opening moves through trail and error, that's the end of the game. The replay value of huge scenario is infinite, you never get the same game!
Ah yes. WitE is a great example of a game that has exact movements carefully calculated for the Axis on turn one. On the Soviet side any production has been reduced to a cooking recipe. No surprises in this one except for the few random outcomes. The joy of playing it was ruined fairly early on. Money down the toilet.
Thank you for your input into TOAW. FitE may be your cup of tea.
But my experience with FitE is similar to Larry Fulkerson. A lot of individual subunits in large TOAW scenarios are abstractly portrayed in FitE. My eyes sort of glaze over looking at the mass of units on the FitE map. I was approached to join the development FitE team for the Road to Minsk, to Smolensk, Kiev... scenarios. These would be based on my TOAW III Road to Moscow series I-VIII.
I tried, but I could not get my head around the game mechanics.
We are not talking big bucks to buy FitE; let us know what you think
Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.