Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

quote:


Try the following house rules:

1. You may not move any ground unit under its own traction for further than you have supply.
2. You may not attack or limited attack with gound units that are Cherry Red.
3. Artillery (and this includes exotic artillery - aircraft) may not be placed in any of the support deployments if Cherry Red.

I've considered this, but it is has a few weak spots. If my artillery unit moves 100 hexes it is at 1% supply. According to this house rule it cannot then fire. But by marching 100 hexes why can't I fire my artillery? I haven't used any ammunition in marching, in fact I've got a full load, I should be able to attack like nobodies business. Like wise if I fire my artillery until it is out of shells why then can't it move or move as fast as before?

Its kind of funny in the game. An artillery unit with a full load of shells represented by 100% supply can move at maximum speed. But after I fire all the shells then it moves much slower, you would think the opposite eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

It's not offensive but you can only discover so much asking someone what something is like. You will never know for certain unless you experience it yourself. Play another person.

What is Antarctica like?
It's very cold.
How cold?
Very very cold.

That in no way tells you how cold it really gets. Believe me. It is COLD! But you'll never really know unless you go there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

Since nobody risked stating what are the intellectual challenges present in a Toaw game, from the point of view of experienced players, perhaps I can, at least, have some descriptions of different strategical approaches some players have used in different scenarios, just to know how the game dynamics can change according to scenario setups.

I want to know how the reality of different conflicts can lead to different gameplay. Obviously scale and balance between forces will have a great influence, but is it all? Will events, communication lines, terrain, weather, supply points, equipment type etc have a big influence on the way the game is played or will those variables only affect balance indirectly, preserving the player his dynamics of play whatever scenario he is playing?

I'm not sure if I could be clear, but...

quote:

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

Thanks madner. That's exactly the kind of example I need. I have read Fite AARs and sometimes the statement of players saying that he must advance quickly and that's it, lead us to the conclusion that one must only find the fastest way for each unit and avoid making a major mistake in unit distribution along the front and then just push where you have superiority using some combined arms where possible. You put it in a way that makes me imagine that there's much more to a fast advance than that.
Any further example would be welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

It is possible to play TOAW almost superficially and players who do so are usually left wondering if terrain, supply, weather, and all the other stuff actually has that much of an effect.

But If you are prepared to put in the effort, to see past the hex grid to the terrain you troops are fighting in and to see past the counters to the troops who are cold, hungry, hurting, struggling, living and dying, then TOAW comes alive.

quote:

It is possible to play TOAW almost superficially and players who do so are usually left wondering if terrain, supply, weather, and all the other stuff actually has that much of an effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

quote:

It is possible to play TOAW almost superficially and players who do so are usually left wondering if terrain, supply, weather, and all the other stuff actually has that much of an effect.

I think I'm at this point still. So, I tried to find my answer reading some AARs, but those tend to be very synthetic and descriptions tend to focus on attack axis and divisions involved, quoting battle results and cities captured, but we don't see a lot of considerations about terrain, equipment type, supply routes, communication lines, etc.
There are some (one or two, in fact) detailed AARs I could find, but they deal mostly with engine characteristics, like turn burn, how to avoid loosing too many rounds on a battle, etc.
Your description helps a lot, making me believe there is much more under the simplistic appearance of just pushing the counters in the right places. Thanks very much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

quote:

It is possible to play TOAW almost superficially and players who do so are usually left wondering if terrain, supply, weather, and all the other stuff actually has that much of an effect.

I think I'm at this point still. So, I tried to find my answer reading some AARs, but those tend to be very synthetic and descriptions tend to focus on attack axis and divisions involved, quoting battle results and cities captured, but we don't see a lot of considerations about terrain, equipment type, supply routes, communication lines, etc.
There are some (one or two, in fact) detailed AARs I could find, but they deal mostly with engine characteristics, like turn burn, how to avoid loosing too many rounds on a battle, etc.
Your description helps a lot, making me believe there is much more under the simplistic appearance of just pushing the counters in the right places. Thanks very much.

Some of us have been playing for years(decades?), I don't really pay any attention to the details because I know them by heart by now...probaply why the AARs don't tell that much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

There is still one concern I have. I've noticed that Fire in the East seems to be the most played scenario, really dominating the Toaw scene. I began to ask myself about the possibility of Toaw surviving the emergence of games like Gary Grigsby War in the East. I know it won't have the flexibility of Toaw, which covers dozens of different conflicts. This flexibility is what I like the most about the game, but will I be able to find opponents for scenarios which don't portray the eastern front or WWII in general?
I would like to hear your oppinion about the future of Toaw when facing a game which covers the preferred theatre for Toaw players in a more detailed way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

There is still one concern I have. I've noticed that Fire in the East seems to be the most played scenario, really dominating the Toaw scene. I began to ask myself about the possibility of Toaw surviving the emergence of games like Gary Grigsby War in the East...

I would like to hear your oppinion about the future of Toaw when facing a game which covers the preferred theatre for Toaw players in a more detailed way.

FitE dominates the AARs, plenty of people who play other scenarios.

Well, dunno about plenty, no idea how many people still play this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

There is still one concern I have. I've noticed that Fire in the East seems to be the most played scenario, really dominating the Toaw scene. I began to ask myself about the possibility of Toaw surviving the emergence of games like Gary Grigsby War in the East. I know it won't have the flexibility of Toaw, which covers dozens of different conflicts. This flexibility is what I like the most about the game, but will I be able to find opponents for scenarios which don't portray the eastern front or WWII in general?
I would like to hear your oppinion about the future of Toaw when facing a game which covers the preferred theatre for Toaw players in a more detailed way.

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.