TOAW compared to BiI

TOAW compared to BiI (Full Version)

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

Message

scout1 -> TOAW compared to BiI (5/2/2006 2:02:04 AM)
Not trying to start a flame war here ...... I have BiN and BiI and enjoy them very much (not that I'm any good at either) and have followed the forum for TOAW with interest but don't have any background in it. Could someone who has experience with both provide a "facts" only comparison between the two game engines .....

solops -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (5/3/2006 4:11:50 PM)
Well, I like the graphics in TOAW a LOT better. They are clear and clean. BiN always appeared fuzzy and messy to me, the main reason I no longer play any of the otherwise outstanding SSG titles. Not the most important point for many, I admit.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (5/4/2006 6:06:16 PM)
TOAW's edge comes not from the canned scenarios that come with it, but from its incomparable editor. Without that, it would have been abandoned years ago. But with it, you can model almost any 20th Century topic (and beyond). That means that, not only will there be a never-ending refreshment of new games to play, but that one can be a designer instead of a player. I don't think that is possible with any of the other games listed. In those, you're stuck with one scale and one subject. So, when you get tired of the "Korsun Pocket" (which, for me, would occur before the game arrived) it goes on the shelf.

Marc von Martial -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (5/4/2006 6:47:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I don't think that is possible with any of the other games listed. In those, you're stuck with one scale and one subject. So, when you get tired of the "Korsun Pocket" (which, for me, would occur before the game arrived) it goes on the shelf. There are plenty of new scenarios (some 40 IIRC) for the "Decisive Battles" series available at: http://www.ssg.com.au/ Click on the "Run5" link in the top navigation and select scenarios. There is also a Help file for the scenario editor.

balsampear -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (5/7/2006 3:11:48 PM)
in BII, you can plan your battle more decisively, it is a better tactics game than toaw. anyhow, toaw is better than bii in the strategy level.

a white rabbit -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (5/8/2006 8:52:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay TOAW's edge comes not from the canned scenarios that come with it, but from its incomparable editor. Without that, it would have been abandoned years ago. But with it, you can model almost any 20th Century topic (and beyond). That means that, not only will there be a never-ending refreshment of new games to play, but that one can be a designer instead of a player. I don't think that is possible with any of the other games listed. In those, you're stuck with one scale and one subject. So, when you get tired of the "Korsun Pocket" (which, for me, would occur before the game arrived) it goes on the shelf. ..wot he said.. ..plus the no-cd and... .and then add the BioEd and....... ..and then add a Ralph, and..... ..need i say more ..except if i could just hide railways then we got serious spiders..[8D]

a white rabbit -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (5/8/2006 9:07:32 PM)
..and the i thought, what if i change the terrain tile... ..mmm, spiders.......

ravinhood -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 7:49:09 AM)
Ahhh but which has the better AI??? That is the million dollar question.

ralphtricky -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 8:04:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood Ahhh but which has the better AI??? That is the million dollar question. You're going to have to wait until TOAW 3 is released to tell for sure. I'd hope that BiI has a better AI than TOAW COW, but I'm not so sure about TOAW 3, especialy when combined with the editor, and a reasonable scenario.

ralphtricky -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 8:05:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..and the i thought, what if i change the terrain tile... ..mmm, spiders....... That's trivial in TOAW 3. You can even hide the text that says railroad, it you want to be that way...

Jonny -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 8:37:15 AM)
Here is my 2 cents on this matter. I loved TOAW, all of the versions. As PCs became more advanced TOAW stopped working or required (my experience) too much tinkering for me so I had to put it away. Like when a lover moves to Paris. Then came the Decisive Battles series. I was intriqued. I actually saw Korsun Pocket at Best Buy and was like $50 bucks for one battle? TOAW was cheaper and had many battles. But I bought KP from Amazon. It was okay and so I bought BiN. I played online a few times and got just crushed. AI was terrrible. I crushed the AI. BiI came out and I was tempted because of the grand Europe battle but I was getting really annoyed with the Decisive Battles. So I've actually started playing HPS games which are pretty sweet. It's just more real to me. Yet in my heart I ached for TOAW. And now it's being redone and sent out into the world. SWEET! TOAW is a great balance between Decisive battles (nice graphics) and HPS (a little too much at times but mega realistic). I will now ignore HPS for the rest of this thread and get back to the original questions. Graphics I really like the maps in the DBattles, pretty really. Units are cool as well, very original. The battle line is one of the coolest things ever. TOAW gives you 2D and 3D modes. Maps in TOAW are somewhat basic but it's gameplay that matters to me and how it feels. Sound is great as well in both games. Gameplay Here is where in my opinion TOAW can't be beat. It's fast and loose but with a lot of details. It's less gamey than Decisive battles series. DB drove me nuts because it just seemed fake. I like to know how many tanks, men and so forth a unit has. I like to know how my air units are doing. Not just a dot I stick on the map. It just seemed silly how units would be wiped out fighting in Caen in BiN. I could imagine the troops and battles in TOAW much easier. Artillery in DB...I didn't like it. Air and artillery were too broad for me in the DB series. I am a numbers person. The Adolf Hitler syndrom. How many tanks and squads are going into the battle. Blowing and building bridges in the Decisive battles was a little cooler than in TOAW. AI D Battles AI was no match. TOAW was better. I played the Normandy campaign as the Germans and really had fun. I never get bored playing TOAWs AI. I found DBs AI weak. When I played email games I was smashed by good gameplayers. Cost When it was all said and done I thought about the De. battles and was mad. I paid a lot of money I felt for BiN and it was an easy win. One battle was the focus with little detail. Sure there were the units but strength was given in blocks and gold coloring. I FELT REALLY RIPPED OFF. I never ever came close to having buyers remorse for TOAW. I love that game. The amount of scenarios is crazy and the community involved rules. D Battles to be fair has a great community who do some good work. TOAW seems to be for the historical gamer or people who want realism and Decisive Battles seems more for gameplayers with an interest in World War II who want a good game with good graphics. I applaud Decisive battles for trying to push the envelope and there are things that TOAW should use, the frontline marker for instance. But TOAW is just such a better buy with great attention to detail. If Decisive battles was like 20 dollars sure, it would be okay. Currently the cost is out of hand. I am just power pumped that TOAW is coming back. Awesome. Thanks, Jon

Fred98 -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 9:42:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonny I am a numbers person. ��.How many tanks and squads are going into the battle. Actually this point scares me! Given there are 200 Battalions on the map, I don�t care how many tanks and squads go into the battle. It sounds like a frightening amount of micro-management! -

ralphtricky -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 10:01:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe 98 quote: ORIGINAL: Jonny I am a numbers person. ��.How many tanks and squads are going into the battle. Actually this point scares me! Given there are 200 Battalions on the map, I don�t care how many tanks and squads go into the battle. It sounds like a frightening amount of micro-management! - It helps me get ito it, knowing that I can dig into that level of detail (I'm not a good player, and I normally don't.) The units are controlled by the equipment, and aren't just arbitrary numbers on counters. Being able to see the battle results in terms of men and equipment really helps me.

golden delicious -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 4:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe 98 Actually this point scares me! Given there are 200 Battalions on the map, I don't care how many tanks and squads go into the battle. It sounds like a frightening amount of micro-management! On the whole, it's not really necessary to regularly check the composition of your units. On a typical turn, I don't think I would check the composition of even 1% of them. Besides the fact that I don't think that's the secret to success, it's just not realistic for the overall commander to be kept up-to-date in real time of the exact strength of units in action. As Ralph says, it's useful to be able to do this. With long-ranged units, the types of equipment are important. And if a unit has lower numbers on the icon than you expect, or does something unexpected, then one can go look. But there's absolutely no need to go trawling through the OOB on a regular basis. None at all.

wodin -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/5/2006 9:55:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe 98 quote: ORIGINAL: Jonny I am a numbers person. ��.How many tanks and squads are going into the battle. Actually this point scares me! Given there are 200 Battalions on the map, I don�t care how many tanks and squads go into the battle. It sounds like a frightening amount of micro-management! - Joe, Nothing todo with micromanagement. Its just details that you can check out. Great from an immersion/realism point of view. I find things like that missing from the SSG games much to their detriment.

Jonny -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/6/2006 7:15:08 AM)
The numbers give me a better sense of how my unit is doing. If I look and see a unit has Tigers and squads I understand that better than blocks. As Wodin said, great for immersion and realism. I like to know how many T-80's get knocked out in an attempt to take a village. Details. Do I go through my Order of Battle to look at every unit? No, but if I want to I can.

pvthudson01 -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/6/2006 2:50:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay TOAW's edge comes not from the canned scenarios that come with it, but from its incomparable editor. Without that, it would have been abandoned years ago. But with it, you can model almost any 20th Century topic (and beyond). That means that, not only will there be a never-ending refreshment of new games to play, but that one can be a designer instead of a player. I don't think that is possible with any of the other games listed. In those, you're stuck with one scale and one subject. So, when you get tired of the "Korsun Pocket" (which, for me, would occur before the game arrived) it goes on the shelf. I still think that Battles Series has a clear edge over TOAW since it has had years to do what TOAW did but better, but TOAW is a very addictive game letting you span many years of war, not just one certain battle or time period. That is what makes it so cool. I own both games, and it really just depends on if you are in the mood to focus on one theatre or try your hand at really grand strategy.

golden delicious -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/6/2006 3:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonny I like to know how many T-80's get knocked out in an attempt to take a village. This is great if you're writing an AAR and decide to go into narrative mode "Major Kaplinski gritted his teeth as yet another LAW round slammed into the side of...." Mostly, though, the equipment is there because this is the level at which combat works. The numbers on the icon are there solely for the benefit of the player. They have no direct impact on how the unit fights.

Belisarios -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/7/2006 4:07:27 AM)
agree....it's a matter of experience and pattern recognition: like reading an x-ray negative....you don't need all the nitnoid (tactical) details to "assess the situation"....or know when you're getting your ass kicked

coralsaw -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/7/2006 8:54:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Mostly, though, the equipment is there because this is the level at which combat works. The numbers on the icon are there solely for the benefit of the player. They have no direct impact on how the unit fights. Is that right? I always thought that eg. a tank regiment with 10 PIVs was much worse in tank-to-tank fighting than one with 80 PIVs. Let alone those pesky jeeps... [8\|]

golden delicious -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/7/2006 10:47:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coralsaw quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Mostly, though, the equipment is there because this is the level at which combat works. The numbers on the icon are there solely for the benefit of the player. They have no direct impact on how the unit fights. Is that right? I always thought that eg. a tank regiment with 10 PIVs was much worse in tank-to-tank fighting than one with 80 PIVs. Let alone those pesky jeeps... [8\|] You misunderstand me. Suppose I take your example of these two units. Obviously they will behave differently. But I go into the editor and create them; 1. Panzer Kompanie 10 PzKpfw IVH 100% Proficiency 100% Readiness 150% Supply 1. Panzer Regiment (-) 80 PzKpfw IVH 11% Proficiency 33% Readiness 1% Supply Try this yourself. Both units rate 32-16 in my copy of TOAW, but will behave different in combat. The only clues to the differences on the icon are the health indicators in the corner, and the different size icons.

coralsaw -> RE: TOAW compared to BiI (6/7/2006 12:59:55 PM)
I'm with you now. [image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/image/s1.gif[/image]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.40625