RE: A warning (Full Version)

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



Message

golden delicious -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 1:13:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Thanks Golden Delicious. I'm not a programmer. But all I really think the naval system needs is to disable whatever prevents naval units enjoying , or suffering the same choices as the ground units suchas having tactical and local movement status and suffering from air interdiction as do ground units on roads.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.



Veers -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 1:15:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Thanks Golden Delicious. I'm not a programmer. But all I really think the naval system needs is to disable whatever prevents naval units enjoying , or suffering the same choices as the ground units suchas having tactical and local movement status and suffering from air interdiction as do ground units on roads.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.



Good point. I've heard of this one before. Seems like a pretty good way to do it.



wolflars -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 2:40:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Thanks Golden Delicious. I'm not a programmer. But all I really think the naval system needs is to disable whatever prevents naval units enjoying , or suffering the same choices as the ground units suchas having tactical and local movement status and suffering from air interdiction as do ground units on roads.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.



I second this GD. This would be an excellent way to handle naval sorties without the curious effect of a virtual wall of ships setting up blockade without ever returning to port. In effect it would allow "ships to pass in the night"--susceptible to intercept/inderdiction possibilities. This thread has brought to my attention some of the peculiar problems with air units that Jam explained well enough to my satifisfaction. Also, rather than use the EA scenario to highlight TOAW shortcomings, I think it actually demonstrates how flexible the engine really is. I like EA exactly for the simple reason that it shows how creative a design team (Mark Stevens et al) can be in making it as close as possible, they put a square peg into a round hole.



macgregor -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 3:06:46 AM)

If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft? I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. A little more programming, but that way we don't have to move the navies? Nobody said that every sea hex had to be supply. Add to what I said earlier locking zones of control. I'd be against naval walls of blockade too. If they didn't actually happen. House rules could prevent this .



wolflars -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 3:20:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft? I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. A little more programming, but that way we don't have to think about the navies. I really do need a new game.


Well, as it stands the only effective way to handle the naval question is the event engine. But sure, having them behave somewhat like aircraft might be interesting. You could assign them to specific strikes, or inderdiction type missions which resemble regular patrols, whereas movement to contact that results in a meeting engagement that is a result of search, patrol, evasion, and intercept techniques. But, alas I know little of naval warfare having spent too many years as an infantryman so perhaps I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. But I will point out that the intent of TOAW has always been to model the land component of the operational fight and not the naval aspect. That isn't to say that I would not like to see some minor naval improvements but I dont think the naval problem is a deal breaker--if it is I have been reasonably assured that WitP is a fine simulator of tugboats and rubber duckies[:D] or whatever one calls those naval thingies.



SMK-at-work -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 4:38:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft? I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. A little more programming, but that way we don't have to move the navies? Nobody said that every sea hex had to be supply. Add to what I said earlier locking zones of control. I'd be against naval walls of blockade too. If they didn't actually happen. House rules could prevent this .


House rules are not preferable to a better system - if they were you would't have complained in the first place!!

I dont' se the equivalency between the event engine and something liek the air missions allocation system.

Naval units DID operate in that fashion - albeit the time frame for their missions weer often days instead of minutes that they are for a/c!

Naval units had a base that they operated from, a radius of action from that base, and a mission when they went from that base. Blockades such as WW1 were maintained by screens of recce craft with het battle-fleet mainly sitting at home waiting word of a sortie by the high Seas Fleet.

RN destroyer action against Sealion would ahve been by night-taime sorties from destroyer bases such as Harwich, Sherness and Portsmouth (among others) with hte ships returning to base before daylight.

Such a system gives the player the choice of when to allocate the resource and in what fashion - which is ultimately all that is required.

It's the first I've heard of the idea but it definitely sounds preferable to the current one.



golden delicious -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 11:38:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you're going to do that you may as well let the event engine handle naval warfare. So you'd rather have the game engine determine what naval combat occurs. The players simply put their naval units on missions like aircraft?


Yeah. You have to bear in mind that my intent is to create a system which does a decent job of simulating the impact of naval war on land combat without having to get into the nitty-gritty of purely naval warfare- which I along with so many other players don't want to get involved with.

This is a simple fix which does most of what I want. I can appreciate you have different priorities as a naval buff- but most posters here so far seem to prefer the quick solution which doesn't require reading anything by Mahan.



liuzg150181 -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 4:59:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Thanks Golden Delicious. I'm not a programmer. But all I really think the naval system needs is to disable whatever prevents naval units enjoying , or suffering the same choices as the ground units suchas having tactical and local movement status and suffering from air interdiction as do ground units on roads.


Mm. This isn't how I'd do it- the reserve settings don't work well enough even for land units. I'd be inclined to make naval units function like air units do currently. So they'd have a port (rather than an airbase) and be able to carry out interdiction, naval superiority or combat support missions within a certain radius.

Some sort of air interdiction would of course have to be factored in. Ideally this would be a separate setting.

Interesting and coincidentally that you have mentioned it,i pinpointed this out and suggested the same thing in a review which I had submitted to Armchair General site for pending approval to be published on their website. If it is jettisoned then i would post it on my ACG blog.



macgregor -> RE: A warning (10/12/2006 11:50:41 PM)

One thing I don't understand. There are scenarios that have naval action, and there are scenarios that don't. Golden Delicious- green hex...good. Blue hex...very bad. Stay away from any scenarios with blue hexes!You seem to be my nemesis on this issue. I can't convince you, therefor I can't seem to convince anybody at Matrix either. Do they have an Army Navy football game in England? They should. You want to see the navies represented and do battle, you just want the outcome to be completely random.Essentially you want to say THIS GAME IS NOT FOR NAVY PEOPLE! You feel better now? I said it.Read Mahan...give me a break. Unfortunately, I leave this thread thinking that Matrix agrees with you 100%. So if I come off angry and bitter once in a while...this is why.




TOCarroll -> RE: A warning (10/13/2006 4:56:57 AM)

Boy, everyone loves this thread. I think McGregor has a valad point, but there are limits to any game engine.......espically one that originated (although greatly modified) in 1998. Perhaps if it were retitled The Operational Art of Land War (Guest starring Air, and WITH Sea), the isue could be put to rest? [:'(] Nahhh....those clever scenario desiners do some awsome tweeking. [&o]

Seriously, I'm greatful for TAOW3 (and a number of other Matrix titles), but I don't really expect a rework of TAOW from the ground up. If they were going to do that, why pay Talonsoft & Norm Koger. For ultra heavy count each bullet, rivet, ect, I'll put my money on something that starts from scratch, or at least a board game conversion. That way the code is fairly recent.

This is not to knock either side. [:)] I just feel that there is a limit to any game engine, and the between Matrix (I know I sound like I work for them---I don't) and the other MANY DEVOTED parties involved, TAOW1,2,3/CoW/WotY has far surpassed anything I expected of it. There are still a lot of glitches, but to me, they seem to appear mostly in scenarios designed for the CoW engine, or independant designers. I will be the first one to admit that some of the large scenarios have bugs, but I've been PBEMing EA, FitE, CFNA, and WitW, and so far (about half-way) nothing fatal has occured, orther than one restart after the third turn.

As an aside, for large-scale WW2, check out Schwerpuct Games (if the shamless plug doesn't get censored). They have Europe (West Front) and Russia. You have to shell out for 2 games if you want the whole enchilada, but the detail is impressive.

Good Luck, all[;)]



a white rabbit -> RE: A warning (10/13/2006 8:02:56 AM)

..i've trundled thru a fair number of t3 scens now, including some biggies and old not-on-the-disc ones, mostly to test Elmer. Most throw up some error report whilst staying playable, however in all known-to-me scens the game plays differently, and just as the old toaw1 scens need reworking for acow, so i consider all previous scens need updating for t3 and not simply converting. Nothing to do with Matrix, they did their best to make the requested changes...



golden delicious -> RE: A warning (10/13/2006 9:03:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

One thing I don't understand. There are scenarios that have naval action, and there are scenarios that don't. Golden Delicious- green hex...good. Blue hex...very bad. Stay away from any scenarios with blue hexes!


No. Scenarios which incorporate naval elements are all very well- but I am not really interested in naval war for its own sake.



macgregor -> RE: A warning (10/20/2006 4:15:48 AM)

I've just discovered that all but a few of my fighters(all with 80% rediness or more) have mysteriously been put at rest. How can I play like this? Why is this happening? The air assistant was never enabled. This game has too many bugs to be playable.I feel I've invested in an unfinished product.



JAMiAM -> RE: A warning (10/20/2006 4:31:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I've just discovered that all but a few of my fighters(all with 80% rediness or more) have mysteriously been put at rest. How can I play like this? Why is this happening? The air assistant was never enabled. This game has too many bugs to be playable.I feel I've invested in an unfinished product.

This is normal, even for Century of Warfare. It is working as designed, is not a bug, and in this case, no less "finished" than any other version of TOAW.



macgregor -> RE: A warning (10/20/2006 5:07:45 AM)

Great answer. So it's necesary for me to be vigilant of whether my orders are being obeyed? You know...no. I'm not buying that. My Luftwaffe fighter corps has mutinied! Gone AWOL! But don't worry. Happens all the time. Wrong. I gues my only problem is thinking I can play against one of the players who knows all these little 'issues'.Am I not capable of deciding when my aircraft should go at rest?



Telumar -> RE: A warning (10/20/2006 11:05:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Great answer. So it's necesary for me to be vigilant of whether my orders are being obeyed? You know...no. I'm not buying that. My Luftwaffe fighter corps has mutinied! Gone AWOL! But don't worry. Happens all the time. Wrong. I gues my only problem is thinking I can play against one of the players who knows all these little 'issues'.Am I not capable of deciding when my aircraft should go at rest?


Well, at least you are able to decide when your aircraft should NOT rest. Unless youre not playing a monster scenario it should not consume that much time to (re)assign missions to your Luftwaffe.

General der Flieger Telumar.[sm=nono.gif]



TOCarroll -> RE: A warning (10/21/2006 5:48:48 PM)

VERY NICE Atavar/Atavar/Picture thingie, Telumar. I can't make out enought detail on the cap to tell. It that a Whermacht Tanker's Dress Uniform? Waffen SS? Definitive proof that the Germans know how to make the snappiest uniforms. Also none of my business, but do you know who the picture depicts?

Just Curious.



rich12545 -> RE: A warning (10/21/2006 8:35:04 PM)

Previously in toaw I always thought aircraft were taken off the line way too much.  Unrealistically too much.  I hope this gets corrected in this version.



Telumar -> RE: A warning (10/21/2006 8:37:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

VERY NICE Atavar/Atavar/Picture thingie, Telumar. I can't make out enought detail on the cap to tell. It that a Whermacht Tanker's Dress Uniform? Waffen SS? Definitive proof that the Germans know how to make the snappiest uniforms. Also none of my business, but do you know who the picture depicts?

Just Curious.


Hey thanks. He's Gordon Gollob, General der Jagdflieger. "Just" Luftwaffe. Read here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gollob. I encountered his picture somewhere in the web and have chosen him to be my avatar just because he looked so smart.
Btw, i would never use someone wearing a SS uniform as an avatar.

"Definitive proof that the Germans know how to make the snappiest uniforms."
That was once - ever seen a german policeman? Horrible.[:D]



macgregor -> RE: A warning (10/22/2006 5:54:22 AM)

I agree the avatar is pretty cool. Let me just say that I'm a WiF(and other boardgames, not only strategic level) player who happens to like the TOAW system better than WiF, albeit in need of improvement. I just want the game to be as good as it can be and so far it's not. If I'm tough on the dev team it's because I'm trying to sell this game to my gaming buddies and I'm still looking for a sellable product to people who know history and strategy and don't want a lot of 'gamey' tricks to have to deal with. Tricks that can be the difference between winning and losing. Without bioed this game is behind ACOW. While I've seen some new improvements, I've also seen some new 'issues'. The game has been 'Matrixified', but not much more. The game I have now is 99% the the game I had 8 years ago(and still have). So far there's been very little talk of any real improvements coming. To borrow a word I find this 'disheartening'.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125