Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series



Message

fredericklai -> Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 1:42:12 PM)

I'm interested in Advanced Tactics because players can design their own WWII scenarios. I own "The Operational Art of War III" which also allows players to design their own WWII scenarios. What are the main differences between these two games? Is it worthwhile to purchase "Advanced Tactics" for owners of "The Operational Art of War III"?



Grell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 2:18:07 PM)

The Operational Art of War III is far better than this game. I haven't tried to make scenarios in Advanced Tactics but I do believe TOAW3 is a better game by far.

Regards,

Grell



kender79 -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 2:54:31 PM)

TOAW III is the third version.
It is complex and very good.
BUT, it has some limitations (limited event script, 2 player max, ...), and the team has changed

AT is a new game, with somes good concept and a developer team ready to improve it (see the number of patch).
So it miss a good community (who is forming) and lots of little (big?) things.

SO I'm hoping for futur version of BOTH.

PS : AT is for me between TOAW and HOI (of Paradox).




bwheatley -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 3:05:49 PM)

I think while TOAW is one of my favorite franchises that AT will become one of my favorite franchises as well. With TOAW you can't manage production down to the indivual rifleman. I agree with kender that this game is between TOAW and HOI in scope. I'm really digging this game and i think it has a viable future next to TOAW (another matrix property). Just another example of Matrix finding war game developers to bring on board with their games that make it fun to keep being a wargamer :).



Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 4:45:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grell
The Operational Art of War III is far better than this game. I haven't tried to make scenarios in Advanced Tactics but I do believe TOAW3 is a better game by far.


Well, see that's where you are missing out on the area where AT is far beyond TOAW. That being said, TOAW has been on my computers since TOAW I and is one of my, if not the, all time favourites. It all depends on what you are after when you compare the two, but here's my conclusions so far:

  • Editor is superior in AT.
  • Amount of scenarios is huge for TOAW. Number of scenarios are growing and they are more innovative for AT. My bet is that unless TOAW gets a new editor out, AT will have more and/or "better" scenarios mid to long term.
  • Flexible command structure for AT is something I have always missed with TOAW.
  • Spontaneously, haven't really put it to the test, I'd say AT have a naval component that is much less abstracted versus TOAW.
  • AT has explore and production modes which is not, and have never been, part of the TOAW scope.
  • Personally I think the combat resolution in TOAW feels "better". I have no data or tests to back this up, so I may be completely out of whack on that statement, so it's mainly based on how results are presented at the time of resolution.

To sum things up, TOAW is much more mature since it has been around since Stonehenge was on the real estate market. AT is more flexible in terms of what scenarios can be created, but it is still missing the multitude of scenarios possible as well as the proper TOE's to go with it. However, have a look in the Mods and Scenarios forum and you'll find that this difference will even out over time.

So, which is the "best" game? For me they are different enough to justify owning both (which I, needless to say, do). TOAW has the more historic touch to it if you prefer that. AT has a huge potential and I think at least some of the TOAW scenario designers are working on AT as well simply because the editor is a charm compared to TOAW. I think the best comparison between the two can be done by those who have played FitE in TOAW and its counterpart in AT, but I have yet to see such comparison.

If you have the money, go for both, TOAW for its solid base of scenarios, and AT because of being a rising star with a huge potential.

EDIT: Agree with the two previous posters reg the scope of AT being between TOAW and HOI. Great observation!



jjdenver -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 4:56:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grell

The Operational Art of War III is far better than this game. I haven't tried to make scenarios in Advanced Tactics but I do believe TOAW3 is a better game by far.

Regards,

Grell

Well definitely everyone is entitled to an opinion and Grell has one. But I don't see any reasons to back it up honestly. I own both games and feel that AT is a far better game. Here are my reasons:
1) Better coordination of supply/air/ground/naval in a single game.
2) Great combined arms mechanics
3) Nice production model
4) Ability to organize detailed TO&E
5) Great supply model
6) I love the AT scenario pool and it has a great editor from what I've seen
7) I love the C&C and experience systems in AT

Anyway - I'm certainly not downing TOAW III. I've played it a lot and it's a great game too - but I certainly prefer AT.



Moltke71 -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 5:28:23 PM)

Once again, apples and oranges.  TOAW is committed only to an operational level of warfare where eliminating the enemy within a defined time range is the primary goal.  AT is low on the tactical side but has a strategic side lacling in TOAW.  Victory is usuually a function of capturing cities. 

For hardcore historical accuracy on an operational level, TOAW is the game.  AT takes the prize for flexiblity and ease of play including strategic aspects.



Captain Cruft -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 7:02:35 PM)

One thing to consider ...

How hard would it be to make AT into a game that is in fact better than TOAW? From where I'm sitting not too hard at all. It's mostly a matter of adding a few "unit-centric" features i.e. some ability to fix the OOB and ToEs. The only problem is Vic doesn't want to do it :)

On the other hand, adding the stuff that AT already does better (e.g. production, no slot limits) to TOAW III would be decidedly non-trivial and basically mean a complete re-write.



JAMiAM -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 7:03:09 PM)

Jim sums it up rather succinctly.

As a co-developer of TOAW III, I'll just say this...any gamer that does not have both in his collection is doing himself a great disservice.



all5n -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 7:05:36 PM)

I am having the time of my life playing AT via PBEM.

I am in 6 games and am exited to the point of nervous every time i get to play a turn.

Its been a while since I played a game that i liked so much.

The pre-made scenarios are great (European Diplomacy, 9 players!), but the "Empire" style PBEM games are also a BLAST i am finding.

It seems there is a faction of the gamer community that gauges a game by its "historical accuracy" and anything that doesnt fit their pre-conceived notion of unit makeup and command structure is automatically not a good game.  I disagree with this assessment.



rickier65 -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 9:19:53 PM)


I saw the post and was expecting to write a long reply since both are favorites of mine.

But after reading Widell's response above, I dont think I can add much.

(I do have to disagree with one of poster who indicated that detailed TO&E's were a good feature - that's probably the one weakness I see - I tend to agree more with Captain Cruft here).

The editor in AT is so nice to use (and them map builder feature is ABSOLUTELY GREAT).

I think AT will become a classic.


Rick



Joshuatree -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/24/2008 11:52:51 PM)

"TO&E" ??

Forgive-me-for-asking-a-stupid-question, but what is TO&E?




Grell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/25/2008 12:28:25 AM)

Just my opinion fella's.

Regards,

Grell



Moltke71 -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/25/2008 12:33:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

"TO&E" ??

Forgive-me-for-asking-a-stupid-question, but what is TO&E?




Table of Organization and Equipment.



IRONCROM -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/25/2008 12:35:13 AM)

Well I've owned 3 of the TOAW's and have logged in plenty of play time.

For me I would say that AT rates higher on fun factor. Toaw is a real in the trenches war game.
AT has a better strategic game. I feel like I'm fighting a war where I have god like control over every aspect of the war. In TOAW I'm fighting a battle where I have to do the best I can within the very strict limits the scenario designer has given me.

IMHO



Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/25/2008 2:37:39 AM)

Well fredericklai, I hope you got answers to your questions? [;)] Life is simple if you have an endless supply of time time and expendable money!

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Rick
(I do have to disagree with one of poster who indicated that detailed TO&E's were a good feature - that's probably the one weakness I see - I tend to agree more with Captain Cruft here).


Ah, but looking at what the Captain himself is working on in his grog scenario. If he gets that working, he goes into my book of greater beings for sure! Never the less, I can agree that TOAW is more developed and has a huge amount of equipment in the database, and now that you can have unique db's for each scenario without having to maintain copies etc, that's a big step forward. I guess that AT will see one or more "standard" databases being developed by the community over the next couple of months, and then it is good enough for me. Right now, I am a little allergic to the generic units for the WWII scenarios although they are fine for the exploration maps I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Rick
The editor in AT is so nice to use (and them map builder feature is ABSOLUTELY GREAT).


Could not agree more! This is the major, major area where AT is better compared to TOAW, regardless of what type of game you prefer (strategic, tactical, operational, historical, fictional).

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Rick
I think AT will become a classic.


Agree here as well, and looking at the quality of some of the scenarios that has been published since the release of the game, the future looks bright!

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Grell
Just my opinion fella's.

Regards,

Grell


Not a problem Grell, I only wanted to point out that regardless of game play and whether you prefer the one game above the other, the editor in AT is simply so much better compared to TOAW (and then we haven't even touched on BioEd yet.....). [:)]



fredericklai -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/25/2008 7:12:16 AM)

Thank you for all the reponses.  I've got a clearer picture of the game.

There is another question I would like to raise.  I don't own AT and thus have little idea of what this game looks like.  However, after seeing one screenshot on which I can see the whole Chinese Eastern coast and Japan, I wonder players can design scenarios at strategic level.  In TOAW3, a scenario of this scale would require hundreds or even thousands of counters which is impossible to play.  So, am I right to say that one difference between these 2 games is that TA is a strategic wargame and TOAW is an operational wargame?  If so, what is the maximum distance a hex can represent in TA? (If I remember correctly, in TOAW, a hex can only represent a distance between 5 km to 20 km)



rickier65 -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/25/2008 9:21:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fredericklai

Thank you for all the reponses.  I've got a clearer picture of the game.

There is another question I would like to raise.  I don't own AT and thus have little idea of what this game looks like.  However, after seeing one screenshot on which I can see the whole Chinese Eastern coast and Japan, I wonder players can design scenarios at strategic level.  In TOAW3, a scenario of this scale would require hundreds or even thousands of counters which is impossible to play.  So, am I right to say that one difference between these 2 games is that TA is a strategic wargame and TOAW is an operational wargame?  If so, what is the maximum distance a hex can represent in TA? (If I remember correctly, in TOAW, a hex can only represent a distance between 5 km to 20 km)



Well, actually I'm not sure there is an upper limit. In fact the way AT is designed, you dont explicitly give hexes a distance scale, rather the scale of the hexes is implied though the use of movement costs and time. In AT editor, you set how much it costs subFormation to move across a hex. You also set how long each turn is, from 1 day to 1 month (I actually set it up once for 1 turn equal 1 yr, just for fun.). So knowing So map scale is a function of those items.

You can have maps scaled from the operational level, to the grand strategic scale. There is a N. Africa scenario and and Ardennes scenario that come with the game, and user made scenarios that cover Crete, Tunisia and Salerno (at the low end of the range scale). Their are nmumerous others (I suppose at the upper end there is a Star Trek mod by Bulldog that scales in terms of light years for each hex I suppose.


Rick



Joshuatree -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/25/2008 11:12:26 AM)

@ Bismarck,

Thank you.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bismarck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

"TO&E" ??

Forgive-me-for-asking-a-stupid-question, but what is TO&E?




Table of Organization and Equipment.




DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/27/2008 10:51:15 PM)

Ug.... what the heck. I do not have AT yet (have played a lot of PT though) but have had TOAW3 for like 6 months and am quite familiar with it so... yeah... what the heck... may as well make my 'not necessarily blatantly positive comments'. <g>

As far as TOAW3 is concerned... great overall concept... and an incredible wealth of released and user developed scenarios... and a great player community both here and on GameSquad but..... otherwise... IMO.... a game that does not live up to it's promise.

Maybe I am spoiled with Gary Grigsby games but... in TOAW.... the more I get into the game... invariably I run into game systems that are seriously flawed, absent, or (in the case of the 'ants blocking retreats' problem) just plain silly.

For instance... in Grigsby's War In Russia.... unit effectiveness is more or less PROFICIENCY TIMES READINESS.... while in TOAW.... it is PROFICIENCY PLUS READINESS.

What???? Now, it may not be obvious why the TOAW formula is off the mark but... at least IMO... it most certainly is.

Now..... this by itself does not make a huge impact on how the scenarios play out but..... there are LOTS of other things along these lines and when I play a scenario I start wondering exactly how far from historicity I am deviating.

Then, there is the 'ants blocking retreats' problem..... TOAW allows retreats into enemy controlled hexes.. but allows for many smaller units, as well as breaking down larger units into smaller ones and.... you end up using these smaller units (ants) to completely surround enemy units (so they can't retreat) and.... IMO.... this just gets to be silly.

Now... let me say here that I would still recommend purchasing TOAW3 for anyone having an interest in this period.... if nothing else just bringing up the over 200 scenarios and... looking at them. It is worth it just for that!

But, as far as how it plays out.... well, right now I am trying a number of smaller scenarios from different eras to see if I can still enjoy playing the game... or not.

As far as AT is concerned... I haven't purchased it yet but will because I feel at the very least I owe Vic for the enjoyment I have gotten out of PT. But, right now... I got some RL things to deal with... expect to move in a couple of months and.... right now cannot get sucked into AT <g>.

Otherwise.... I see AT/PT more as an 'ahistorical war/strategy' game. In other words, where you may get some historical 'flavor', it is more like Tactics II or Empire... in other words, more a war/strategy game and less of a historical simulation.

So, you get less historicity in AT/PT but..... you are probably gonna enjoy playing the game more than with TOAW (any 5 or more player AT games going on out there??).

Still.... if I had to recommend one vs the other... I would probably recommend AT, with the reason being, Vic, the AT author, is supporting AT while TOAW is long removed from anything along those lines. From my recent experience... in practice.... this makes all the difference in the world as to games that are available.

Whatever..... again.... just thought I'd get my 'not necessarily blatantly positive' comments in <g>.

DiT



Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/27/2008 11:52:47 PM)

I have both games and tend to enjoy both. Are they flawless, no, but to say TOAW is........useless.......based on.......ants, is just.......not....right. That would mean the whole community missed the ants, and given the huge amount of work that has been going into, and is going into TOAW scenario development and playing, for example, huge scenarios like FitE, I simply have to......disagree with that statement. It's an issue, not a showstopper.

I also disagree with the statement that AT should be more ahistorical. If you want historical simulation type of scenarios, these are easier to find for TOAW because there is less flexibility in the editor and the game engine, plus there are literally thousands of scenarios out there from years and years of community development. Look at what Captain Cruft is attempting to do with AT and I think you will find historical accuracy in terms of OOB, TO&E, C&C, map etc, but a game flexible enough to allow campaigns to develop differently compared to history. Now, the discussion if historical accuracy and simulation is to prefer before less historical, more game-like scenarios is, IMHO, a different discussion.



DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 5:05:56 AM)

Hmmmm..... wasn't really trying to iritate anyone.... just saying things as I see them.

I never used the term 'useless' but.... if it comes to the point where I find TOAW's flaws so severe that I can't enjoy playing the game at all.... that is MY call... sheesh.

Otherwise..... I didn't coin the term 'ants blocking retreats'... it was someone else that came up with that. Maybe the thing is..... you see the user community that is playing TOAW but you don't see those that find TOAW's lackings severe because... well, they are not playing the game.

Then of course there is the primitive naval system (the rulebook states something along the lines that 'this is not meant to be a naval game'), the chain-of-command that only goes up one level, the fact that it is a two-player game only, the movement combat system that forces you to micro-manage your attacks across the front on a round by round basis (and it's broke), a supply system where units do not use up supplies, etc, etc. I can't remember all the other things I have run into.

On the other hand... if I were to just 'kiss off' TOAW... I would lose Inaki H's Franco-Prussian War scenario (and I don't ever expect to get anything better on that campaign), all the scenarios done by Eric Nygaard (Russio-Japanese War, Operation Torch, the German invasion of Norway, etc), as well as the Todd Klemme WW1 scenarios (again, don't ever expect to get anything better), as well as other scenarios like the Wayne Close Feldzug im Osten scenario that I have been looking at (corps level Barbarosa), etc, etc.

So, bottom line here, the pros and cons on TOAW are.... pretty severe, IMO.

(and that's an understatement)

DiT

P.S. Oh... and the idea of waiting for these things to be fixed.... you must be kidding me <g>.



DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 5:19:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

I also disagree with the statement that AT should be more ahistorical.



Hmmmm... I never said that... and saying a game is an 'ahistorical war/strategy' game is not a knock.

Tactics II, the first ever commercial war/strategy game, was an 'ahistorical' war/strategy game.

Then, when computer war/strategy games started coming out, Computer Gaming World, was THE BIBLE on these and, they did an objective survey this one time, giving a free issue to everyone that responded, voting on the greatest computer game of all time, and numbers 2 through 10, were all role-playing games. But, the number 1 game of all time (by that vote).... was Empire... an ahistorical war/strategy game.

For me.... I musta played Empire over 1000 times. Easy to get into and always a challange given the computer production jacked up enough.

So, if AT is the ultimate replacement for Empire.... hey, no problem on my end and, what the heck.... got on NWS tonight and ordered it. Will be interesting to see if Vic and company are moving towards more historicity.

If AT does get to the point of.... say... becoming the game that TOAW *could* have become... no problem on my end re this either.

Hehe.... yeah.... could always wip off a program that takes TOAW user developed scenarios... and converts them to AT (lol). Hmmm.... I have done things like this before though not as extensive as this would be. Would be a challange for sure. Might be easier to just do it manually... whatever.

DiT



SMK-at-work -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 8:21:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: all5n


It seems there is a faction of the gamer community that gauges a game by its "historical accuracy" and anything that doesnt fit their pre-conceived notion of unit makeup and command structure is automatically not a good game. I disagree with this assessment.


So they should all use your pre-conceived notions??

People always evaluation things according to their own notions - sometimes they change those notions, but the changed notions are still heir own - how else can it be??



Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 1:04:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Hmmmm..... wasn't really trying to iritate anyone.... just saying things as I see them.

And you didn't, these are games we are talking about, nothing else. I was just responding to your statements [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
I never used the term 'useless'

Then I misunderstood, and appologise. It's a little hard to get your message through all the .....'s, but then again, my native language is not English, so it may be due to my lack of language skills. My thinking for summing up you statements to the term 'useless' was based on your statements below:
quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

  • but..... otherwise... IMO.... a game that does not live up to it's promise.

  • the more I get into the game... invariably I run into game systems that are seriously flawed, absent, or (in the case of the 'ants blocking retreats' problem) just plain silly

  • you end up using these smaller units (ants) to completely surround enemy units (so they can't retreat) and.... IMO.... this just gets to be silly

Agreed, you also stated some positive remarks, so maybe 'useless' was a too strong choice of words, but how come then, the game has been around for ages and ages, and still have a lively community? But, then again, you seem to argue that the TOAW community is not reflecting the true nature of the game? Useless-ish?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Maybe the thing is..... you see the user community that is playing TOAW but you don't see those that find TOAW's lackings severe because... well, they are not playing the game.

I think we can agree 100% on this! Those that does not like TOAW to the point they don't play it are most likely not a very audible part of the community, but hey, I tend to look for/to the people that actually play the game and not to the ones that don't. Maybe you see another user community that dislike TOAW to the point of not playing it, but with Matrix taking the product over, several issues have been addressed in recent patches and more seems to be in the pipeline. Not that I think that will bring in many from the user community that have decided they don't like the game, but maybe a few (like yourself?) will appreciate the game more?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Then of course there is the primitive naval system (the rulebook states something along the lines that 'this is not meant to be a naval game'), the chain-of-command that only goes up one level, the fact that it is a two-player game only, the movement combat system that forces you to micro-manage your attacks across the front on a round by round basis (and it's broke), a supply system where units do not use up supplies, etc, etc. I can't remember all the other things I have run into.

And still it's one of the longest surviving games around.... I agree with the flaws, but it doesn't change the fact that TOAW is a classic game IMHO, which you also seem to touch on when you refer to the excellent scenarios available. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a game with the Air Model from GG Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich, ground combat from TOAW (with some of the flaws fixed of course [;)]), naval model from WitP:AE or CaW, flexibility in the editor and C&C, production, events etc from AT. But there would still be flaws wouldn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Oh... and the idea of waiting for these things to be fixed.... you must be kidding me

Don't understand what you are referring to? Something I wrote? TOAW? AT?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
could always wip off a program that takes TOAW user developed scenarios... and converts them to AT

Now, that would be.......cool!



Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 1:08:35 PM)

And also, to make things very clear, I play both games, consider TOAW to be a classic, AT to be a great game that hopefully will develop into a classic. The games are not easily compared due to different scope (See the posts earlier in this thread), none of them are flawless, I can't say I prefer one before the other etc etc. Most of this has been said and stated in very good summaries in this thread without being neither blatantly positive or equally negative. Congratulations to Matrix for picking up these two excellent titles. As I said before, get them both if you have the time and money to spend...



DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 4:16:30 PM)

Widell, maybe a key thing here is as I originally posted, that I am a fan of the Grigsby style of games. In other words, historicity down to the detailed level, and guess my concern with TOAW is that, IMO, it has serious lackings if you get deep enough into the game systems.

Ug, another lacking that I just remembered, the equipment density (e.g. stacking) formula. It maxes out (as far as the relative limit) at 5KM/HEX but then trails off if you go above or below this scale, and the lackings in the formula are (probably) the reason why there is no 1KM/HEX scale, which would otherwise be a natural for TOAW. If you go down to 1KM/Hex, then the equipment density limit is almost the same as in 2.5KM/Hex (which would be a problem), and this is just because the formula for equipment density (what can I say?) is NOT THAT BRIGHT.

So, yeah, guess most players don't get into these things as deeply as I do, and then there is the wealth of scenarios developed for TOAW. One of the latest (if you have seen this on Ruggged Defense) is Silvanski's 1947 scenario. I myself do not have the time for the monster games but otherwise, this would be awesome (well, the scenario that is, as far as the TOAW game systems are concerned, that is another story).

So, at least for me, my bottom line statement on TOAW, that the pros and cons on this game are severe, is probably a good bottom line from my perspective.

As far as my comment on not waiting for upgrades, IMO to turn TOAW into the game that it could be, would mean you would probably have to redo all the game systems, and that would take an effort by Matrix along the lines of what they did with WiTP: Admiral's Edition, and that would be a pretty extensive effort, and I don't see that happenning.

So, wise on my part to see if I can still enjoy the TOAW scenarios that I am interested in (with the game as it is now), but otherwise go with AT and 2x3's eastern front game, once that comes out in a year or so.

DiT

P.S. Yeah, others have mentioned the ...'s. Stayed away from them in this post.



Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 9:30:00 PM)

OK, now it makes more sense, and I fully agree that TOAW will most likely not evolve dramatically from what it is today, which may mean AT will catch up over time (if Vic and Matrix keep things moving of course).

I guess that with the diversity both in TOAW and AT, you kind of select the type and style of game you want and avoid the others. I don't care much for the monster TOAW scenarios either, and I haven't decided for AT just yet, but I can sense that the games vs AI will have a very different touch compared to the PBEM games as the AT system allow for so much more "stuff" to do for the players.

As for historicity, you definately need to look at this thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1708005. If Captain Cruft pulls that one off, that's a lot of detail to digest!



IRONCROM -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/28/2008 11:26:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: all5n

It seems there is a faction of the gamer community that gauges a game by its "historical accuracy" and anything that doesnt fit their pre-conceived notion of unit makeup and command structure is automatically not a good game.  I disagree with this assessment.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The flexibility of AT is one one the things I like about the game. I like being able to take a historical scenario and have the ability to try out new strategy.

LOL... seems like every time someone starts a thread comparing TOAW with AT the discussions get a little heated. They must both be great games to invoke such passion in people.



all5n -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/29/2008 5:05:32 AM)

You are of course correct. People are free to judge a game by whatever floats their boat.

If they like it and enjoy it, then thats all that matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work


quote:

ORIGINAL: all5n


It seems there is a faction of the gamer community that gauges a game by its "historical accuracy" and anything that doesnt fit their pre-conceived notion of unit makeup and command structure is automatically not a good game. I disagree with this assessment.


So they should all use your pre-conceived notions??

People always evaluation things according to their own notions - sometimes they change those notions, but the changed notions are still heir own - how else can it be??





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625