tklemme
Posts: 12
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
|
If I remember correctly, there are three versions of this scenario -- 1 for PBEM, 1 for Entente PO and 1 for Central Powers PO. The biggest difference between the PO versions is the entry location hexes for PO reinforcements. The PO often doesn't do a very good job of moving units to the front and, in the case of England, is incapable of moving the reinforcements across to France. So, for example, in the Entente PO version, the British reinforcements appear on the map in France. The human player, when playing as the Entente, must move them across the channel the hard way.
The TOAW PO is much, much, much better when it's fighting on a solid front with anchored flanks. Out in open country the PO is almost hopeless. That's why it's doing a much better job in the west than in the east. The PO is especially bad on defense. It doesn't really defend an objective unless it's right on top of it. Otherwise, it waits until the enemy has taken the objective and then moves to counterattack. I don't recommend that as a strategy for human players. 
If you really like this scenario I suggest playing again as the Central Powers and then playing PBEM. It almost goes without saying that playing against a human will be a completely different, and more challenging, experience.
" I understand that this scenario is one of the really large ones that has a capable PO."
As TOAW scenarios go, it's not that big, although it's one of the bigger ones made by me (along with Bud, whom I haven't heard from in years). I always made my scenarios using regular OPART.exe (maximum 100x100 map, 500 units per side) rather than using the monster OPART300.exe. I liked working under the restrictions and limitations of the smaller scenario size and I had no interest in playtesting monster scenarios.
Todd
|
Printable Version
The Great War 1914-1918 - 
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