Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

TAO2 Comparison

 
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] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket >> TAO2 Comparison Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
TAO2 Comparison - 12/21/2001 5:06:00 AM   
pxreiman

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/15/2001
From: Illinois
Status: offline 		I belive I read that Korsun Pocket will be based on the frame set up for TAO3. As the latest iteration, what improvements will we see in the KP or TAO3 systems over TAO2?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 1/28/2002 3:27:00 PM   
Visom

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		One improvement I'd like to see would be to have separate attack and defend values againt soft and hard targets for all units. Also, supply trucks should be limited in there combat abilities such as conquering ground and be part of the defending stack. Somehow the player should take more care for them and not risking them. You should suffer more if a supply truck is destroyed. In real life no commander would put the supply trucks as cannon fodder. End of game needs to improve with an end of game screen, showing results etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 2
- 2/19/2002 10:05:00 PM   
peter hellman

 

Posts: 217
Joined: 7/29/2001
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I agree with you that it should not be possbile to conquer ground with supply trucks. Maybe it should still have "freedom of movement", it would only lack the possibility to "conquer" a town. Then it would be useless to cover ground with it, and it would be used for supply reasons as meant to. And if you lose a truck, maybe it should be available only after a few turns, not immediately next turn. Just thoughts


_____________________________

"If you want to live in peace, you have to prepare for war" - Adolf Ehrnrooth

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 3
- 2/20/2002 3:12:00 AM   
Duncan Maggs

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 10/20/2001
From: Birmingham, England
Status: offline 		I agree wholeheartedly about the supply trucks. It is tempting for gamers to use them as recon or to trap units. I think the best solution is to have an automatic 10-1 victory over a supply unit alone in a hex even with engineer units or isolated units. I am not so sure about the soft/hard attack/defence value split. At a tactical level yes, but operational? Take the CC's of US armoured division for example - it contains both infantry and armour would you class it as a hard or soft target? I think the current values reflect the relative strengths of the units quite well. Of course you might want to give a combined arms bonus in addition to the divisional integrity bonuses already offered. Playtesting would be necessary to see its effect on game balance though.

_____________________________


(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 4
- 2/20/2002 4:34:00 PM   
Matthew Urch

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		The points made about supply trucks are spot on. I think they should be "0" step units, so they can't be used to absorb damage, they shouldn't be able to enter an enemy controlled hex. When killed they should return at supply heads, perhaps with a turn delay related to supply level. In addition I hope that supply will no longer be able to pass through enemy controlled hexes, or at least not pass through enemy controlled ZOCs. Currently strange pockets of supply can exist behind enemy lines, though the hexes through which the supplies must have passed are not in supply!? Artillery can fire defensively even when it has no ACC or DCC. This needs fixing. Airstrikes should inderdict open terrain as well as roads. Extra movement instead of combat should not expend a "bullet" - using up ammo won't help you move faster! The extra movement comes from the time saved through not fighting.
Perhaps ACC / DCC should be combined with bullets - just give every unit a minimum of two bullets - either attacking or being attacked uses up a bullet. No bullets = no supply. Maximum number of bullets received each turn by a unit in supply should relate to supply level.

_____________________________


(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 5
- 2/22/2002 7:33:00 PM   
BvB


Posts: 187
Joined: 10/7/2001
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		A compromise might be how supply wagons are handled in Talonsoft's civil war games. They can't take victory hexes and they have no defense value, but do block enemy movement. But then in the combat phase, they're overrun and the victor gains the supply wagon, or in TAO they could gain additional supply or a reduced supply base of somesort.
I like the ideas of being able to interdict open hexes to get at choke points other than roads and getting combined arms bonus... BvB

_____________________________

Enlisted during Nixon, retired during Clinton then went postal - joined the USPS, then retired from that during Obama.

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 6
- 2/26/2002 7:28:00 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		Supply is included in most games in an abstract way. The intention is to illustrate to the players the supply difficulties at that time. If there were no supply difficulties there would be no need to have supply represented at all. I think supply is done quite well in this game. I am of the view that a supply truck should have a defensive value of 1. If is in a stack it should be the first unit destroyed. If it is destroyed, it should re-appear at a supply head. This might cause the owner’s troops to be out of supply for a time till the truck can be moved within range again. The owner will then care for his supply trucks. At this level I feel that it is not practical for players to make use of a captured supply truck and use it to supply their own troops.

_____________________________


(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 7
- 3/16/2002 9:22:02 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		All right, I fully agree with the statements made on supply trucks, BUT I want to address a comprehensive scenario editor. I had this argument with Peter Fisla on TAO2. He agreed with me, BUT the problem was that the scenarios in TAO2 were hard-coded and could NOT be altered. I will now reiterate my desire for a scenario editor to be included with Korsun Pocket/TAO 3 that will allow for changes to the starting OOBs and other changes to the game parameters as the gamer sees fit. Pete, forgive me, but I STILL want the ability to move around units in the Bulge scenario that will reverse the positions of 6th and 5th Panzer Armies. An operational game of this nature SHOULD be open-ended, allowing for scenarios to be developed by the players, whether based upon existing scenarios or totally new ones. The what-if scenarios are what the operational gamer want. This would greatly add to the shelf-life of the game. What do you guys think?

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 8
- 3/17/2002 5:32:47 PM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		I seem to recall that in the original news release, that there would be a scenario editor.

It never said what exactly players could edit.

Unfortunately Korsun Pocket does not appear in the "developments" page so I can't find a current blurb.

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 9
- 3/19/2002 8:05:53 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		To expand on my previous posting: I mentioned the scenario editor for TAO2, which was developed independently by Peter Fisla (with some input from Roger Keating, IIRC). It's a fine piece of work , BUT, given the way the scenarios were coded, you were basically given a blank template and had to create a scenario from scratch. This also included writing your own AI routines. There are some hints about how the AI instructions were written in the Editor documentation. As of this date, I still don't know if anyone ever attempted building a new scenario with the TAO2 Editor. Given that, I'm hoping that Korsun Pocket/TAO3's editor will be somewhat less labor-intensive.

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 10
TAO2 Editor - 3/22/2002 1:52:38 PM   
leaderx

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Argentina
Status: offline 		Erwin, by any chance do you still have that editor lying around? I used to have it but lost it and now I can't get it as the link in The Wargamer does not work. I've gotten some inspiration at trying to design a TAO2 scenario as of late. If you still have it please email it to me at [email]aquipelando@yahoo.com[/email]

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 11
- 4/16/2002 7:26:41 AM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2503
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Hi leaderx,

I have written two versions of my TAOEdit:

1) TAOEdit 1.0.03 - This version was written for the original TAO game (the one that you bought in store)

2) TAOEdit 2.0.02 - This version was written for TAO 2.4 (free from SSG)

You can find the TAOEdit 2.0.02 here:

http://www.wargamer.com/wachtamrhein/

Once again Thank You Chris Merchant & Wargamer.com for hosting my the editors.

The original version is no longer on Chris's web page but if you want I can send it to you (3MB zip)

Peter

PS: I'm sorry guys that I have never written an example scenario for TAO2. I'm using Windows 2000 and TAO & TAO2 freezes in NT4 and Windows 2000. I do have full TAO source code but it's pain to find the problem (graphics engine) since even my debugger freezes so I can't find the problem what causes TAO to hang up. It's important to read TAOEdit documentation (pretty straight forward and small) as well as look at the AI dialog carefully every AI scrip is explained there what it does. I'm currently working on my own Operational Wargame from WW2 - Eastern Front.

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 12
- 4/19/2002 4:15:46 AM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2503
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by KG Erwin
[B]To expand on my previous posting: I mentioned the scenario editor for TAO2, which was developed independently by Peter Fisla (with some input from Roger Keating, IIRC). It's a fine piece of work , BUT, given the way the scenarios were coded, you were basically given a blank template and had to create a scenario from scratch. This also included writing your own AI routines. There are some hints about how the AI instructions were written in the Editor documentation. As of this date, I still don't know if anyone ever attempted building a new scenario with the TAO2 Editor. Given that, I'm hoping that Korsun Pocket/TAO3's editor will be somewhat less labor-intensive. [/B][/QUOTE]

While we are waiting for TAO3 I figured I will try to give something again to the TAO community. I have decided to try to port some smaller scenarios from TAO2 source code into my editor so that you will have some example scenarios to look at. I don't promise anything and there cetrtainly won't be the whole bulge campaign but I will certainly try to port some smaller scenarios as close to the original as possible.

perhaps someone will put it to got use :)

Peter

(in reply to pxreiman)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket >> TAO2 Comparison Page: [1]
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

0.715