RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (Full Version)

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



Message

golden delicious -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/14/2006 5:31:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cabron66

For me this is typical of HPS and defines their products in a nutshell. Potentially excellent, but always severely hamstringed by an overinflated sense of their own value and a minimal effort to correct glaring errors.


Sounds about the same as us TOAW scenario designers then [;)]



pvthudson01 -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/14/2006 8:51:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cabron66

Hello


10. Why do people continue to play it? I don't really know, but I suspect that it is because it is the only option for those of us who love the detail and complexity of WWII operational warfare. My only hope is that someone, perhaps Matrix, picks up on how easy it would be to scoop this market away from HPS.

Cheers

Paul


I think that SSG may solve part of this with Battlefront [:D]



BAL -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/14/2006 9:55:05 PM)

Hmm, I like TOAW3...I like HttR/CotA...and (gasp!) I like HPS's Panzer Campaigns. Must be something wrong with me. [8|]



golden delicious -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/14/2006 9:58:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BAL

Hmm, I like TOAW3...I like HttR/CotA...and (gasp!) I like HPS's Panzer Campaigns. Must be something wrong with me. [8|]


I don't think so. I like Civilization II (whaddya mean there are two more sequels?) and that certainly isn't much on simulation.



BAL -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/14/2006 10:13:49 PM)

quote:

I don't think so. I like Civilization II (whaddya mean there are two more sequels?) and that certainly isn't much on simulation.


Hey, on a Civ forum I literally had bodily harm threatened upon me because I had the nerve to say that I thought CivII was the best of the bunch. (I still think it is.)



hank -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/14/2006 11:16:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BAL

Hmm, I like TOAW3...I like HttR/CotA...and (gasp!) I like HPS's Panzer Campaigns. Must be something wrong with me. [8|]


Hmm me too. I still play PzC's some. I play HttR and BiN too. Must be something wrong with me too ... and the hundreds of others who play them.

This is just a convenient place for some people to exhibit their obvious superiority to other more meek and less intellectual people.

[&o]



golden delicious -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/15/2006 12:04:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BAL

Hey, on a Civ forum I literally had bodily harm threatened upon me because I had the nerve to say that I thought CivII was the best of the bunch. (I still think it is.)


I haven't played III or IV so I can't comment. However it's got to be one of my top five games of all time.

Lessee...
1. TOAW series
2. Civilization I & II
3. UFO: Enemy Unknown (AKA X-COM: UFO Defence)
4. Lords of Chaos (Atari ST)
5. Um.... maybe Diablo series?



Der Oberst -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/15/2006 12:14:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cabron66
I often wonder what Panzer Campaigns, which benefits from a very loyal community as well, could have become if it had been open to the same kind of innovation.

Cheers

Paul



If I have any complaint about PzC it's this one. Though with a little creativity it can be overcome somewhat. It's locked down a bit because of the marketing model imho. If I'm going to continue to sell you battles then I can't open up the game to full modification.

I've always held the opinion the wargames that sell the most are the ones that can most easily and completely be modified by the gaming community. Steel Panthers, TOAW, Campaign Series, heck even Combat Mission sold extremely well, and have enjoyed long lives due primarily, I believe, to providing an open modification environment to the community. When you have open systems with full OOB editors, mapeditors, full graphics editing 3D and otherwise

I'm concerned about the longevity of certain games that have relatively closed systems **cough ** HTTR **cough although I like their play and actually have bought them. Developers would do well to consider this when designing a game and a marketing model.






pad152 -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/15/2006 1:13:17 AM)

Well one thing I like in the PzC games, are engineers act more like engineers they can lay/clear mines. This is one thing I would like to see addresed in a future TOAW, along with a better naval model.

The only thing worse in PzC games than TOAW III are the 3D graphics, these are bad, xtra, xtra cheezy, bad sharware quality (a six year old with MS-Paint could do better)! [:D]

Dream Game - Witp (Naval, Air, & logistics) with TOAW III land combat [;)]




golden delicious -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/15/2006 3:07:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Well one thing I like in the PzC games, are engineers act more like engineers they can lay/clear mines.


This can be done to a certain extent in TOAW, as engineers assist other units in the hex to entrench. This is fine at most of TOAW's scales.

quote:

Dream Game - Witp (Naval, Air, & logistics) with TOAW III land combat [;)]


Yeah. If there was time to play it.



a white rabbit -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/19/2006 7:44:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.


Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.


As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph





..keep feeding Elmer the get-brighter pills...



liuzg150181 -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/19/2006 7:57:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..keep feeding Elmer the get-brighter pills...


And end up Elmer having its own conscience,after which it take over your PC entirely~~~[&o]



LewFisher -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (7/19/2006 9:40:19 PM)

As has been said, they are two different systems.I used to play PC but in most scenarios, victory has little to do with obtaining ojectives. In real battles, if a commander can't obtain objectives, he won't be a commander for long. Yes, the TOAW system takes losses into account but to win, one must gain objectives.



cabron66 -> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC (8/17/2006 9:06:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank


quote:

ORIGINAL: BAL

Hmm, I like TOAW3...I like HttR/CotA...and (gasp!) I like HPS's Panzer Campaigns. Must be something wrong with me. [8|]


Hmm me too. I still play PzC's some. I play HttR and BiN too. Must be something wrong with me too ... and the hundreds of others who play them.

This is just a convenient place for some people to exhibit their obvious superiority to other more meek and less intellectual people.

[&o]


That's good. Why don't we call this place a "forum". Does that sound like a good idea to you?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.21875