A warning

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >> A warning

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A warning - 10/7/2006 2:15:19 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

If you like TOAW because you like the large ww2 scenarios you better find something else. Whatever these guys did with the new version to improve the smaller scenarios(2.5-5km/hex) they did at a great cost to the larger scenarios(10-50km/hex).Of course, I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable. The signs were everywhere. But I didn't listen. Matrix will let you believe what you want to believe. ACOW was better. The air superiority engine is way off. I bought this game because I trusted Matrix. They've let me down. They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

Post #: 1

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 2:59:56 AM

philturco

Posts: 308
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

Not pleased to hear that you think EA is unplayable given that I have just started a game and was looking forward to a fun game. Could you be more specific as to the problem.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 2

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 3:13:58 AM

Procrustes

Posts: 633
Joined: 3/30/2003
From: Upstate
Status: offline

Hi,

Sorry to hear about your troubles. I haven't tried EA, but I'd be curious to hear what your problems have been. I've replayed two different Barbarossa scenarios (20km/hex and 50km/hex) without trouble. (Though I did get some eerie error logs on one of them - seemed to have more to do with programmed events, though.)

(in reply to philturco)

Post #: 3

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 3:56:13 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway). Like I said, if Matrix wants to make some REAL improvements over aCoW, I'll be the first to acknowledge them. Besides some work on the AI(which I don't much use) and some work on protecting the game from reloaders(a valiant effort though I'm sure it's beatable) there have been almost no changes. If as Jamiam said Ralph is 'pining for the fjords' (My Germans sure are. Norway's literally impossible with this air engine.)that's probably not good. He's joined the choir invisible. He's an ex-TOAW programmer. At the very least he's shagged out after this long sqwauk. Perhaps the game needs new blood. After this scenario I'm done with this version.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/7/2006 4:19:53 AM >

(in reply to Procrustes)

Post #: 4

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 7:45:02 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

This can�t be true; after all, modern warfare is modeled after the TOAW engine.

Although I decided to become TOAW free about a year ago (and succeeded), I did still have some hope of the new game correcting some very serious problems in which case I would have purchased the new game. I read about the progress, I waited and I doubted-looks like I saved 40 bucks.

Don�t write off all of Matrixs� partners though. Panther Games has a splendid game called COTA-check it out.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 5

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 9:13:58 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway). Like I said, if Matrix wants to make some REAL improvements over aCoW, I'll be the first to acknowledge them. Besides some work on the AI(which I don't much use) and some work on protecting the game from reloaders(a valiant effort though I'm sure it's beatable) there have been almost no changes...<snip>...Norway's literally impossible with this air engine...<snip>...Perhaps the game needs new blood. After this scenario I'm done with this version.

This is wrong on so many counts, but I'm too worn out tonight to answer methodically, or with civility. Look for a reply tomorrow.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 6

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 9:38:19 AM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable . . . They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

I have seen a number of your postings and they seem to have a common thread, i.e. you complain that other people do not design scenarios that meet your expectations. Maybe it is time for you to design a scenario.

Ask the authors for the rights to make modified versions of their scenarios. I'm sure you'll get permission. Adjusting the air superiority to your personal liking is not a big deal.

After you are done you will have the pleasure of hearing from all the other McGregor�s in the world b*tching about your scenario.

Try it . . .

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 7

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 12:54:46 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

So try WW1 games with next to no airpower instead!!

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 8

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 2:51:46 PM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
EA is no longer playable.

I read about EA in the SZO forums and if I understood it correctly EA does not function on TOAW3 yet. There were many bugs in the conversion between the two version (I think they are working on it) so maybe try a different scenario before whining? DNO is large and works like a charm. The great war (by Piero) is huge and I have had no problem so far. FiTE is playable, or at least it seems so from readin the AARs.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 9

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 3:24:35 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable . . . They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

I have seen a number of your postings and they seem to have a common thread, i.e. you complain that other people do not design scenarios that meet your expectations. Maybe it is time for you to design a scenario.

Ask the authors for the rights to make modified versions of their scenarios. I'm sure you'll get permission. Adjusting the air superiority to your personal liking is not a big deal.

After you are done you will have the pleasure of hearing from all the other McGregor�s in the world b*tching about your scenario.

I'm sorry that my comments are seen as nothing more than bitching and whining. One of two things is true. Either I'm all by myself in wanting TOAW to handle large scenarios effectively in which case you are correct to ignore and even defend against my imput, or there are many others who would like to see TOAW handle large scenarios. ACOW worked better playing large scens pbem. That's just a fact. To design a scenario the way I want (which doesn't solve the game engine problem at all) I would need bioed; which doesn't work with TOAW3. Another thing. Matrix says TOAW3 accepts all ACOW scenarios. What they don't say is that all ACOW scens (at least the large ones) are unplayable in TOAW3 due to severe event engine problems. Am I lying? I'll continue to scout the shelves of the gamestores for a new game to move on to. But until then I'm afraid you're stuck with me. My great sin is that I like this game and see it's potential.

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 10

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 4:25:47 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway).

Hi!

I'm not familiar with the scenario, but I do play lots of large scale games.. I like them too.. whole war and all that.

First... if the allies have a 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39, then the scenario needs work. The Brits and French need to have most of their air units delayed until after the fall of Poland.

Second... I agree that air superiority is a bit out of sync. There is way too much attrition going on and units sacrificing themselves. However, to address your problem, the modeling actually, I believe, works a little better in TOAW 3, as one is forced to move fighter units very close in theatre if he wants to conduct an air drop. One just cannot have fighters stationed all over the map anymore and expect to move by air without problem. You have to concentrate to do that now.. and that is IMO a much better simulation.

Try concentrating your fighters as close to Norway as possible and see if they can't open a corridor for your paratroops to get in. They should be able to, even with the lack of air superiority.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 11

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 5:12:08 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

I can confirm that the bug in the event engine causes EA to be unplayable. I have played 40 Turns by PBEM, dealing with bugs such as the Polish Yugoslavs and Belgian armies not withdrawing, and having the whole Swedish Army withdraw for no reason by agreeing house rules with my opponent. But when we got to turn 40 and the whole German army withdrew for no reason, then obviously a house rule was not going to allow us to continue playing.

I can post the save game if it will help someone to fix the bug.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 12

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 5:45:04 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway).

Hi!

I'm not familiar with the scenario, but I do play lots of large scale games.. I like them too.. whole war and all that.

First... if the allies have a 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39, then the scenario needs work. The Brits and French need to have most of their air units delayed until after the fall of Poland.

Second... I agree that air superiority is a bit out of sync. There is way too much attrition going on and units sacrificing themselves. However, to address your problem, the modeling actually, I believe, works a little better in TOAW 3, as one is forced to move fighter units very close in theatre if he wants to conduct an air drop. One just cannot have fighters stationed all over the map anymore and expect to move by air without problem. You have to concentrate to do that now.. and that is IMO a much better simulation.

Try concentrating your fighters as close to Norway as possible and see if they can't open a corridor for your paratroops to get in. They should be able to, even with the lack of air superiority.

Ray (alias Lava)

Thanks Lava. A brief synopsis would have the Brits moving a heavy surface into Oslo bay and the Germans with every one of the 6 airfields in Denmark to capacity 109s in closest in one massive strike on the ships and just getting impaled. My understanding is that the air engine takes into account 'local' air superiority. I have yet to see it however. It seems to take the sum of all air units on air superiority and apply them to all theaters, including ones completely out of range. This is utterly bogus. It needs to be redone. I participated on this website from the beginning. Offered every idea I could come up with. And knowing full well that they were going to be ignored, in the spirit of participation (and a dose of optimism) bought the game anyway. I think I have a right to offer some criticism, especially if it's constructive. That is, without being chastised. I don't want my money back. I just want the people working on this project(if there still are any) not to view me ( and others with my taste for large scenarios) as the enemy.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/7/2006 5:49:12 PM >

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 13

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 8:56:15 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

My understanding is that the air engine takes into account 'local' air superiority. I have yet to see it however.

Oh, I have.

When I was designing my scenario "The Fourth Republic" to win the game, you must invade England with very little sea transport. I did that as a way of simulating the UK dominence at sea.

I worked it so that the player would have to use every bit of sea and air transport to make a beach head to succeed.

When I tested it, I found that even though I had air superiority in general, I had to place my airborne units close to their targets and 'surround' them with fighter squadrons near the coast to get them across.

Can't get more 'local' than fighting across the channel.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 14

RE: A warning - 10/7/2006 9:30:18 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It seems to take the sum of all air units on air superiority and apply them to all theaters, including ones completely out of range. This is utterly bogus. It needs to be redone.

Ah..

That would be the "Air Briefing" you are referring to.

Don't know how it works, but to be quite honest, I never look at it because it doesn't appear to be a good indicator of what's going on in larger scenarios.

I think you have to watch the actual "fighting" the AI does to get a better feel for what's going on in the bigger scenarios. For example, in an "all the war" type scenario, the UK squadrons don't participate in Russia. Here the briefing may say you are at a disadvantage, but by watching the actual fighting, you will see that by concentrating to the west, you will have air superiority, whether the report says it or not.

This I think is one of those things which you just have to adapt to in the bigger scenarios because well, there is more than one theatre of operations for us humans, but the engine treats the whole map as a single theatre for its reporting.

It's a distortion which really doesn't have, as far as I can see, a remedy, except for the player's ability to analyze what he actually sees happening.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 15

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 1:51:13 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
Don't know how it works, but to be quite honest, I never look at it because it doesn't appear to be a good indicator of what's going on in larger scenarios.

... in an "all the war" type scenario, the UK squadrons don't participate in Russia. Here the briefing may say you are at a disadvantage, but by watching the actual fighting, you will see that by concentrating to the west, you will have air superiority, whether the report says it or not.
Ray (alias Lava)

As far as I can tell, we're trying to make an "operational" engine be a "strategic" engine in the far larger scenarios and it's not designed to do that very well. Well, we will just have to adapt and improvise to pretend it's doing what we want it to do.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 16

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 4:37:40 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Total air superiority is theatre-wide AFAIK.

But individual units can only act within their own range - so if all your fighters on Air Superiority are in France, they won't interfere much with Soviet strikes on hte eastern front even if your "theatre" superiority is massive.

Reading from the ToaW II manual -

quote:

Theatre air superiority is a general indicator of air superirity in the theatre. It is presented solely for your information, and isn't used by the program.

To paraphrase the manual it's "Local" air superiroty that matters - the computer generates a number of random air-air battles at hte start of the turn at random locations. Then the chance that any given "A" unit will participate in battle depends upon its range to hte battle, its electronic support level and its quality - I suspect electronics dont' matter much in WW2, but quality will. Essentially high quality units htat are enarby have a higher chance of participating in air combat.

Local air superiority affects EVERY air mission flown by each side - if you're attacking targets in range of his fighters then you can expect to be intercepted. If not then you get a free ride.

If invading Norway is getting you killed 'cos of allied airpower then move more fighters to northern Denmark!

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 17

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 7:34:30 AM

liuzg150181

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

As stated,it is an operational level wargame rather than a strategic one,and moreover there is range limits to aircraft operations, "Air Briefing" only serves as a rouge guide.
IMO the main focus of TOAW series is the land operation itself,representation of aerial support is abstracted and ancillary,while naval units ought to be improved.

_____________________________

"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 SMK-at-work)

Post #: 18

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 8:27:43 AM

LOK_32MK

Posts: 141
Joined: 6/14/2006
Status: offline

For whatever is worth I have started a game of EA and we are in turn 34 with no major problems. i have not observed the Air Superiortiy bug mentioned above.
Yes, TOAW is not perfect and has issues/limitations/problems etc. but I have yet to find a better wargame on the market that can simulate the range of conflicts that TOAW can. If there is a better game out there I'd like to know

(in reply to liuzg150181)

Post #: 19

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 5:32:50 PM

Monkeys Brain

Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you like TOAW because you like the large ww2 scenarios you better find something else. Whatever these guys did with the new version to improve the smaller scenarios(2.5-5km/hex) they did at a great cost to the larger scenarios(10-50km/hex).Of course, I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable. The signs were everywhere. But I didn't listen. Matrix will let you believe what you want to believe. ACOW was better. The air superiority engine is way off. I bought this game because I trusted Matrix. They've let me down. They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

You are right here. Maybe they can change the game features:

"All of the Classic TOAW scenarios from Century of Warfare are included, along with 130 of the best scenario designs of the last 5 years."

and add this: if you are lucky to get it to work, or maybe that your whole army not withdraws lol

< Message edited by Monkeys Brain -- 10/8/2006 5:34:04 PM >

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 20

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 8:08:35 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I realize that Lava (and to some extent Rhinobones) are correct that scenario design can compensate for game engine quirks. But that's bush league. Bioed was a great tool which really needs to make the transition as that would be the way to more 'encorporate' game engine behavior.That's still not as good as tweaking the engine. Larry you're billiant. I loved your idea for the clone.But you're wrong. This 'strategic vs. operational' is a bunch of semantical bs. Their are elements of strategic warfare in almost every operation. How would you effectively represent the Kosovo campaign? I guess just keep it 'what if' there were a ground war? And what of the operations in the Pacific during ww2? You're talking about making TOAW more like many other games of this genre(check the discount rack.) Don't mind if I do. This is a superflous argument however. We're talking about getting the air engine to work effectively.If I didn't feel so strong about the potential of this game I wouldn't be posting.I have invested hundreds of dollars in this game's developement.The game could, and probably should, be a lot better. Unlike the newcomers, I don't compare this game to nothing.I compare it to aCoW. If Matrix and the development team want to look at me as complaining then it's only because they're completely satisfied with the product.Well I'm sorry but I won't lie, I'm not.

(in reply to Monkeys Brain)

Post #: 21

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 10:26:56 PM

Veers

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

I would love to see Jamiam's opinion on this.

_____________________________

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 #: 22

RE: A warning - 10/8/2006 11:25:28 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND.

Only if they have a/c with range to reach Poland - it seems unlikely that the RAF and Fr A/f have such a/c at the time, so what's the actual problem?

As explained above "theatre air superiority" is only a number that has no influence on the game at all - actual air superiority is what you get by massing fighters close together, and it is real.

If your 111's are being intercepted over Poland then you need to shift more 109's there to escort and shoot up the PZL-11's. If your invasion of Norway gets hammered by Blenheims and Wellingtons then you ned your 109's based in Northern Denmark to cover them.

You've written a lot - but not really said anything.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 23

RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 2:23:04 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

I always love a good fight! Personally, and I'm neither the world's best player or designer (although I have had the game since 1999 as TAOW1), the game engine does not excell at large MULTI THEATER scenarios. PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO AIR FORCES. This point has been made about almost every WW2 full scale scenario created, including the one's for CoW. Sorry dude, but in my view, the Eueropean Theater Of Operations, or the Whole World, for that matter is STRATEGIC! Not OPERATIONAL.

That being said, I have got thousands of hours of play out of this puppy. If a scenario has bugs, I tweek it or go elsewhere. I don't think it is realistic to expect Matrix to take an old game, and invest the same amount of time and money in it as a new title, completely recreating the engine, scenarios, ect. What they have done is make basic changes to a system (designed in the 90's) to make it more fun. If you are as old as me, the parallel would be Avalon Hill buying Panzergruppe Guderian or Panzer Army Afrika, debugging the rules, and offering a fun playable game.

That said there are playable monster games out there, and Matrix may have one coming with their WW2 simulation (World Ablaze?)

. But the playable, full scale WW2 simulations I have seen tend to be pricey ($100) and are available only on the web, because it is a niche market. Most of us are happy with the "dumbed down" game TAOW3.

_____________________________

"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 SMK-at-work)

Post #: 24

RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 4:05:43 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Ultimately for a/c whether they are "strategic" or tactical is of little importance - they deliver ordnance onto a target, the target has to be in range, and that's about it.

As far as I can see TOAW does that fine.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 10/9/2006 4:10:04 AM >

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 25

RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 4:41:46 AM

Veers

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

quote:

Ultimately for a/c whether they are "strategic" or tactical is of little importance - they deliver ordnance onto a target, the target has to be in range, and that's about it.

As far as I can see TOAW does that fine.

Agreed.

_____________________________

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 SMK-at-work)

Post #: 26

RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 5:44:30 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

I have to respectfully disagree with Veers & SMK. 1) In a War in Europe or WW2 scenario, the game engine decides air superiority/interdection effiency for the entire scenario. In actual fact, there was the Russian Front, Afrika/Italy, and France, not to mention the Pacific. Air superiority in France certainly had no effect on air superiority in Russia. 2) My main poin was stated poorly. This game was originally disigned for operational level simulations. Hard working designers have managed to fit entire campaigns in, but it is best at simulating battles (Crusader, Stalingrad, Cobra, Bulge, ect). I have even seen some WW2 scenarios that are pretty amazing. But you can only push the engine so far. The level of detail and interaction on the operational level is so deep that I think it is foolish to carp about the limitations of simulating a global conflict. The game can do it to a point, but it was not originaly built for that. It would be nice if Matrix stuck millions of man-hours to completly redesign the game for grand strategic scope (I'D LOVE IT)., but they are in business to make money (and I feel they give good value). To get what the original poster wants, Matrix would be better off starting from scratch.

Tom OC

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 27

RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 6:35:40 AM

Veers

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

quote:

1) In a War in Europe or WW2 scenario, the game engine decides air superiority/interdection effiency for the entire scenario. In actual fact, there was the Russian Front, Afrika/Italy, and France, not to mention the Pacific. Air superiority in France certainly had no effect on air superiority in Russia.

The Air Superiority, as stated in the air briefing is nothing but a rough guide for the player. If I am playing EA and I want to know, globally, who has more aircraft on air superiority, I look at the briefing, because that's all it tells. However, local air superiority is determined locally. ie: my paras get interdicted by air craft that are in range, evidence of this being: take a para from England, fly it to Norway, if you still have control, there is very little chance of it being interdicted. Now, do the same, btu fly it over Germany. Damn near definate chance that it will not make it to its target early in the war, because of the mass of German aircraft.
Another thing is looking at the detailed combat reports: How often, when fighting in the east and the English fighters are in NA and England, do you see English fighters covering a Soviet attack? Never. Why, because they don't have the range and therefore do not fly air sup missions over there.
Furthermore, the interdiction level in the air briefing is also just an indicator. Interdiction levels are also determined locally.

Specifically to Macgror's comments: A) 2 to 1 air sup over Poland in '39. It would appear that the Allied player is using his air craft very effectively, placing them all in Poland, or you have placed your air craft very poorly, with none close to Poland.
B) The situation in Norway sounds like the Allied player is using his forces very efficiently, placing masses of fighters in Norway. However, if this is the case on the first turn you have attacked Norway, you may wish to mention to your opponent that they should not be placing air craft in Norway until after you have taken the DoW theatre option, as placing air craft there before hand, or turning the Norwegian fighters to air sup, would be against the house rules.

Further, I would like to here Jamiam sum up just what they changed on the air model, as, if I remember correctly, they changed the effectiveness of things like AA, and did nothing to the ranges of air craft.

Macgregor, I would love to see some saved game files form yourself and your opponent, so that I could offer more imput as to exactly what has caused your current air superiority problems. If you cannot zip and attach them here, my email is veersw (at) gmail dot com.

Lastly, I say this all in a very non-combative way, as I would foremost just liek to clear it up.
Thank you.

_____________________________

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 #: 28

RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 5:38:06 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

However, to address your problem, the modeling actually, I believe, works a little better in TOAW 3, as one is forced to move fighter units very close in theatre if he wants to conduct an air drop. One just cannot have fighters stationed all over the map anymore and expect to move by air without problem. You have to concentrate to do that now.. and that is IMO a much better simulation.

? Air superiority has always been local.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 29

RE: A warning - 10/9/2006 5:43:04 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> A warning

Page: [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

1.250

Slitherine

A warning