Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
To say that some unit was held up by some enemy unit 300 miles away is gross exaggeration, or malice, or failure to understand basic principles of this game.

quote:

You're free to intensely dislike his chosen method, and propose alternatives, but when you use ridicolous or malicious arguments like above I can't let it pass unchecked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Norm has never, at any time I am aware of and through all of his patch notes, even alluded that the turn ending mechanism was defective, bugged, unrealistic, or the slightest bit in need of help.

quote:

It's not like Norm pushed the game out the door and just turned away. There were numerous editions and patches.

quote:

The "formation by formation" rubric you tout is the very kind of behavior the time usage rule is meant to stop. Limit your scenarios to smaller operations, and you will have better results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

You're free to intensely dislike his chosen method, and propose alternatives, but when you use ridicolous or malicious arguments like above I can't let it pass unchecked.

How was my argument malicious? Because I was daring to criticise Norm? Norm Himself has repeatedly modified his design- so it can hardly be perfect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Norm has never, at any time I am aware of and through all of his patch notes, even alluded that the turn ending mechanism was defective, bugged, unrealistic, or the slightest bit in need of help.

He also hasn't said that the naval engine is flawed. Not that I can recall anyway.

quote:

It's not "flawed", it's just so very basic, as is fitting for the game originally meant to portray mechanized land campaigns in WW2 period (later expanded to cover whole century).

quote:

The "formation by formation" rubric you tout is the very kind of behavior the time usage rule is meant to stop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Norm has never, at any time I am aware of and through all of his patch notes, even alluded that the turn ending mechanism was defective, bugged, unrealistic, or the slightest bit in need of help.

He also hasn't said that the naval engine is flawed. Not that I can recall anyway.

Dude, that much is obvious.

It's not "flawed", it's just so very basic, as is fitting for the game originally meant to portray mechanized land campaigns in WW2 period (later expanded to cover whole century).

It is you and Colin who constantly whine on this "flawed" argument, without realizing that portraying Jutland was neven NEVER the intention of TOAW at all. So it's not flawed. It's just not there. BTW - this much was said by Norm himself in his posts many months ago.

O.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


...Way I see it, it's either Norm - with all his imperfections - or total dissaray and chaos. That's my very personal opinion on design and development of this (and almost every other) wargame. (BTW totaly unrelated to the "early turn end" issue.) But you're free to try, by all means...


Oleg

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

quote:

It's not "flawed", it's just so very basic, as is fitting for the game originally meant to portray mechanized land campaigns in WW2 period (later expanded to cover whole century).

Given this case it is highly ironic that the engine seems to work much better for WWI than WW2. Many fewer egrigious turn endings etc. in the earlier period;^)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Has anyone considered the affects of introducing a 'delay x phase' command would be? It could probably be put on the attack planning dialog, and I think that it might resolve some of the issues mentioned here.

It would allow you to coordinate things like 'a probing attack with these units, followed by the main punch by these units.

Thoughts?

Ralph

Functionally, how would this differ from simply not making the attack until a later round? If the attack is to be launched in the SAME round, then launching it later will simply increase the amount of time it takes for all attacks to be resolved in that round.

As I see, currently the problem is that everyone has to wait around until all attacks have been resolved. The problem is that if one attack turns out to eat up the whole turn, everyone's turn is over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

I must agree with Oleg. TOAW served its design and purpose, and still does to this day. TOAW was never intended to simulate naval engagements, or the bombing of the Reich, etc. It is mainly a land warfare game.

quote:

However, all games are flawed in one way or another. It's an inherent problem for the designer (and publisher) who must make decisions about weighing playability, realism, etc.

quote:

But I think that Matrix has some very capable group of designers, programmers and testers. And they do listen to the community.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

If the attack hasn't started yet, then nothing happens, although you can't make any changes to the units.

Adding a Delay until turn X option would allow people to plan around the system somewhat, and add another level of meaningful decisions. I'd think that a common scenario would be to attach a remote until to pull the reserves, then attack with force the main place that you wanted to attack. With a 'Delay' option, you could potentially plan most of your attacks. It actually makes sense to me too, to be able to plan out the attacks that way.

No, this doesn't 'fix' the perceived problem, but it does allow people to do much of what they want to do without major changes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

I must agree with Oleg. TOAW served its design and purpose, and still does to this day. TOAW was never intended to simulate naval engagements, or the bombing of the Reich, etc. It is mainly a land warfare game.

Right. So let's model some mainly land-based campaigns. Seelowe's a good one- oh, wait, that involves naval warfare.

I'm not asking for TOAW to be able to model the battle of Midway. I'm asking for it to provide realistic results to impact on the land warfare.

quote:

Right! So what changes would you like to see? Personally, I think formation-by-formation early turn ending [and] a better supply model

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

A bit of a Straw Man argument here: if you want to model Seelowe in TOAW you start with the RAF and RN defeated, and work on from there.

quote:

In general, I'd say that TOAW focusses primarily on land warfare and that therefore any use of naval forces in a scenario should be restricted to their use in support of the land campaign. If you want to model the PTO in WW2, play WitP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

A bit of a Straw Man argument here: if you want to model Seelowe in TOAW you start with the RAF and RN defeated, and work on from there.

Great. One doesn't even need TOAW for this simulation. The Germans win every time.

quote:

quote:

In general, I'd say that TOAW focusses primarily on land warfare and that therefore any use of naval forces in a scenario should be restricted to their use in support of the land campaign. If you want to model the PTO in WW2, play WitP.

I don't, but I do like to play land campaigns where naval warfare has an impact. This can't always be done using events.

quote:



Anyway, you're right in that TOAW shouldn't be made into a detailed naval model. That's not what it's for. I just want it to produce realistic results from naval warfare to impact on the land campaign. I don't really want to have to think about naval strategy. I do want to be able to ask the navy to interfere with the seaborne supplies of my opponent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

I think that, in such cases, trying to use TOAW is a mistake, like using a hammer to drive a screw - you can do it, but it's harder and the results aren't as good.

quote:

Mark you, if Matrix were able to kinda-sorta fit the WitP Naval-Air model into a TOAW setting, it really, really would be good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Well, I haven't played WitP-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
You should try WITP. I shudder at the thought of what "smart" suggestions would you and Colin have regarding "deeply flawed" LAND combat model in that game

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

A bit of a Straw Man argument here: if you want to model Seelowe in TOAW you start with the RAF and RN defeated, and work on from there.

Great. One doesn't even need TOAW for this simulation. The Germans win every time.

Hmm....depends on the supply assumptions, but broadly, yes.

quote:

quote:

In general, I'd say that TOAW focusses primarily on land warfare and that therefore any use of naval forces in a scenario should be restricted to their use in support of the land campaign. If you want to model the PTO in WW2, play WitP.

I don't, but I do like to play land campaigns where naval warfare has an impact. This can't always be done using events.

I think that, in such cases, trying to use TOAW is a mistake, like using a hammer to drive a screw - you can do it, but it's harder and the results aren't as good.

I really do think that for these truly combined-arms-at-the-operational-level situations a standalone game is required, that can take due account of the actual situation. Trying to bend TOAW to fit simply isn't going to work.

Mark you, if Matrix were able to kinda-sorta fit the WitP Naval-Air model into a TOAW setting, it really, really would be good.

quote:



Anyway, you're right in that TOAW shouldn't be made into a detailed naval model. That's not what it's for. I just want it to produce realistic results from naval warfare to impact on the land campaign. I don't really want to have to think about naval strategy. I do want to be able to ask the navy to interfere with the seaborne supplies of my opponent.

Something like stopping supply from getting into Sevastopol or Leningrad when you've laid siege on the landward side, for example? Yes, I think I would certainly agree with you there. I'd even go so far as to allow for naval interceptions, if they could be programmed in easily and bug-free, and without unforseen complications. But to me at any rate TOAW is primarily a game of operational warfare on land, and that is where it's emphasis should remain. I see tweaks to the naval side as being of relatively low priority. Doesn't mean I can't see their utility, just that there are other things to do. Like stopping the silly-end-of-turn, for example....

Steve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMS2

Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMS2

Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.

Hi!

No, I think you guys are all missing my point.

I am not arguing for simplicity, what I am basically trying to say is to try to broaden the appeal of the game by including more scenarios and using some imagination.

But my basic complaint is, when you look at the TOAW section of the forums and you see the biggest thread on it having a conversation about how the game is "broken", it doesn't lend itself too favorably to people who have never played the game.

So, unlike you, I do believe that it not only depends on the product, but what the players have to say about it. And if the impression you are giving people is that it is broken, then you are doing Matrix and TOAW a disservice.

Just take a look at some of the subject lines in this section of the forum... you'd think the game was a complete disaster needing a total overhaul.



Ray (alias Lava)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

I thought true grognards were professional and mature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

[Just take a look at some of the subject lines in this section of the forum... you'd think the game was a complete disaster needing a total overhaul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

I really do think that for these truly combined-arms-at-the-operational-level situations a standalone game is required, that can take due account of the actual situation. Trying to bend TOAW to fit simply isn't going to work.