General

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

General

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] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> General

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

General - 11/12/2009 9:59:23 PM

Harbinger

Posts: 144
Joined: 12/20/2008
From: Ohio
Status: offline

I was more than a little discouraged and disappointed this morning as I read the new threads, posts and replies. I know many people are working hard to resolve these issues.

I can�t help but wonder if many of the issues are related to historical accuracy over actual game play.

The community seems quite active on these issues.

My experience has taught me that many of the systems are quite playable and engaging. A few experiences have led me to believe that improvements are both available and necessary.

Air/Naval
I�ve found that if one examines the Air/Naval system of combat in all of its aspects, then a general strategy can be achieved. This strategy includes acceptable losses in both naval and air strength factors. How can it not? Given the actual system of deployment and combat between these units the operational scale appears adequate.

...the only exception to this system that I have is the interception range and capabilities of fleet units to invasion hexes. Currently the full movement capabilities of fleets are used, which is 2. Interception appears to be automatic.

This creates wildly unbalanced interceptions of invasion attempts. First of all, with a movement allowance of 2, why should a fleet based in the Egyptian port of Alexandria in the East Mediterranean be allowed automatic interception of an invading force of Libya in the Central Mediterranean, or any other invasion within the 2 MP naval allowances?...

Interception combat should be limited to actual opposing Fleets in the Sea Zone exhibiting invasion.

This would increase the operational playability of naval units as well as the strategic deployment playability of Air units.

Reinforcements
...I am at a loss to determine why event based non naval reinforcements are even an issue. It seems clear to me that this is designed to represent historical reinforcements based on availability....

If any issue is at hand, it is the one that determines what events lead to these reinforcements becoming available.

...static or otherwise, if one knows these reinforcements become available, regardless of faction, then it becomes another system within the game that is playable. Simply plan for it...

Artificial Intelligence
AI not perfect. Surprised? Hardly. The difficulty settings will allow for comparing yourself to the AI. These are highly manipulative and one should experiment extensively before rendering an absolute opinon on the AI.

...that being said, there are several issues of the AI doing things ahistorically or "out of whack". This based wholly on the assuming players knowledge of the course of historical events. Simply because my knowledge tells me that historically the Germans didn't attack Russia until late July 1941 doesn't preclude the AI from prohibiting the Russians from any overt action towards Germany. Likewise, the German may determine that the time is never right for Barbarossa.

The point is that it is our own perceptions of history that handicap the AI, not the game systems. Simply knowing that the AI is going to do what it perceives in its own best interest based on the information it has is all that one can ask....

Repetition alone should be enough to make this playable.

Multiplay PBEM
I will sum up the multiplayer PBEM system in a single statement.

Any game with a requirement that players actively manipulate the game files in order to complete a game turn is�by definition�..broken!

The PBEM systems need to be fixed...ASAP. Multiplay is where this game will shine.

........
I've found several of the mods quite helpful. I currently use Carnimods units with Uxbridge's map and ETO scenario. I am especially taken with the unique functionality of the Trade Port box and its ramifications. The restricted economy in ETO is also quite playable. Keep it up.

I understand that many of you have played this game extensivley and found several issues not quite up to your "groggy" tastes. Taking steps to change these is what will eventually bring us to the uptopian mod. (LOL)
That's absolutely cool with me.

In the interim there is plenty of game to be played. Solo play is solo play. Worrying about when those Siberian reinforcements are arriving is part of the Axis doctrine. If it isn't.......I guess we can expect to see a post about an "ahistorical" reinforcement that somehow upsets the "balance" of someones game, multiplay or solo.
The same can be said for the Kriegsmarine rushing into the North Sea and the Atlantic Zones in 1939. If that's what the game is.......game on.

There is no reason to not play simply because one doesn't agree with the historical accuracy of the game. Using the existing systems and information, however you might aquire it, is part of the playing experience.

It's a game!

...notice I made no reference to historically accurate capabilities, only game play capabilities based on existing systems....

comments welcome

_____________________________

Assume nothing.

Post #: 1

RE: General - 11/12/2009 11:03:09 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

hear, hear

_____________________________

(in reply to Harbinger)

Post #: 2

RE: General - 11/14/2009 2:51:55 AM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

Harbinger you said above that you were dissapointed and discouraged by comments made on these forums this morning, could you please be more specific what discouraged you? Your comments above were well said and I respect most of your comments and feel they were very accurate.[thank god someone has an opinion] You said multiplay is where the game will shine, to me that is just a maybe. I simply like to play alone against an AI, it gives me freedom and not beholden to anyone that I would have to answer to in a game, it may not be correct to feel this way but thats me. I notice Michael the Pole isnt heard from lately either because he is fed up trying to get points across or he is tired of taking heat from people who disagree with him{only he knows why} You said or inferred that Wastelands was doing everything they could to answer peoples concerns. I happen to agree with that but that does not give Wastelands a free pass. I might not phrase everything I feel properly but I am not a mean person just a player looking for a superior game that I may never find. For arguments sake lets say we posters never said a word about dislikes in TOW and never complained about anything in the game, would not Wastelands feel everything was just great and everybody was happy, if that were the case there would have never been patch 1.6 or the coming 1.7. If this was their only game then shame on us people who put out funds for this game, but thats not the case because we have a follow up game coming in the Pacific and I have to be honest with myself and if the AI is anything like this one I will either not buy it or learn to play [ugh] PBEM. There are many good features in this game, very well done in some areas but the naval and the AI are not well done, to me the pp's very easy, easy, hard is far from a solution for play balance against a dedicated war computer gamer, there are other ways of doing the balance, also we are allowed to make comments about game play, I would like to see a rating sheet made up about the game and see how players rate this game like in Links 2003 [golf game] there is a place where modders make up courses and upload them to the course file for Links and then are rated by all the players, some ratings are not very nice, and what does that do to these modders, it tells them get on the stick either fix up the courses or learn to make them better or call it quits, I may be many things but at least I am honest about my feelings. That last part is not directed towards you in any way Harbinger it is directed to anyone who gives out free passes to any game company who has the talent to do better.

Bo

(in reply to Harbinger)

Post #: 3

RE: General - 11/18/2009 8:19:52 PM

MilRevKo

Posts: 293
Joined: 11/8/2006
From: Main Line, PA
Status: offline

quote:

The PBEM systems need to be fixed...ASAP. Multiplay is where this game will shine.

Indeed, for now house rules can be easily agreed upon but, the air vs. naval, automatic naval interceptions & lack of air cover for naval units effect the stratgic balance of the PBEM game and will need to be changed.

Still worth the work it takes because it can be a great game.

_____________________________

Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes -Publilius Syrus

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 4

RE: General - 11/18/2009 11:31:16 PM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

Sorry guys, as I've iterated in the past you will most likely have to wait till the naval-air interaction has a more solidified foundation based on the SoP model. My suggestion would be to just leave the naval model alone and play PBEM with the ground pounders only.

I'm sure that later the Wastelands developers will revisit ToW and there will be a whole new version out with many improvements and perhaps it will be the global edition incorporating all the improvements of both releases.

So keep testing and suggesting.