RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III

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

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

Message

SMK-at-work -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/29/2008 6:19:52 AM)
TOAW starts failing at the level of large campaigns like Barbarossa - but that's not a fault of the system - it's remarkable that it can actually cope with the monster scenarios at all IMO. the monster scenarios are still playable...but the cracks do start showing with strategic functions like supply and replacements. And that shouldn't surprise anyone - after all it is the OPERATIONAL art of war - not the strategic art of war!![8D] I don't see AT's more generic approach to "units" (ie SFT's viz TOAW's squads) as being any more or less "historical" than TOAW's squads - both are abstract representatoins of groups of men and equipment, and as long as they're balanced right within a given scenario both give good results IMO.

Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (3/29/2008 11:49:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IRONCROM 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. Well, there's still very little heat compared to other comparative discussions. No games mentioned in particular, but I guess you can look at this and other boards and get the flavour. Now, in the case of AT and TOAW I get the feeling they cater to much the same crowd, and I also get the feeling that a fair amount of people own, play and enjoy both games. So, there's really not much need for heat since the two are different in scope, implementation and features. I think it's more interesting to talk about the future development of the two, and how different aspects of both games can be developed and improved over time rather than "what game is the best".

bennyb -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/3/2008 12:07:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench 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. Just one question; What sort of dumb-ass defender lets his units get surrounded like this? Whoever it is deserves nothing less than full ant suffocation. :) You can't expect a game system to protect players from their own stupidity!

Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/3/2008 9:22:18 PM)
In defence of this several weeks old statement (Why bump the thread btw?), and again, this is the AT forum, and this is a TOAW issue. But, anyways, to the defence of DeadInTrench: This is a well known issue with TOAW and has nothing to do with being a dumb-ass. Used in a gamey way, this is, just as he writes, kind of silly. But then again, this has exactly zip zero to do with AT, so maybe you should consider bringing the question up in the TOAW forum?

bennyb -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/3/2008 9:30:25 PM)
Yikes! Since when did forums become so heavily policed? You must be a riot at parties Widell. [;)]

DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/4/2008 8:30:07 AM)
Thanks for the defense but I don't think it was necessary.... there for sure is one 'dumb-ass' player that consistently lets his units get surronded.... Elmer! The problem is there is a difference between PBEM games and games against the computer.... and a lot of us prefer to play mostly against the computer and.... this becomes a major problem... against Elmer. But still..... other players in the forums have complained about this problem also so I imagine it comes up.... as silly as it is... in PBEM games as well. As far as the comments here.... hehe.... I did not start this thread <g>... but, over in the TOAW forums the players there tend to get a bit 'religious' on their favorite game (as players do everywhere)... and are sometimes not interested in fair responses and in fact sometimes downright hostile. Not as much a problem in the TOAW forums as I have seen elsewhere.... but still. Also there is the fact of the TOAW programmer's posted vision of a new TOAW.... better 3D graphics and continuously scrolling interface (I almost fell outta my chair when I saw that)... so why waste one's time even commenting over there.... if you are never gonna see the improvements that TOAW really needs???? Whatever, DiT P.S. Oh yeah, and Jam is the designer for TOAW now (or is he.... or do they have one??) and he is the forum moderator here as well as over there.

JAMiAM -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/4/2008 8:56:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench P.S. Oh yeah, and Jam is the designer for TOAW now (or is he.... or do they have one??) and he is the forum moderator here as well as over there. I have no moderator privileges over here. Vic is the developer, and hence the moderator. Here, I am just another player/poster/sh*tstirrer. Even if I was, I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. It's not like I ever squelched your opinions over in "my" end of the wading pool.

bennyb -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/4/2008 9:13:03 AM)
Yeah I thought it was probably the AI which was partially to blame. [:)] Probably the other ant-surround culprits are scenarios which give the attacker an opportunity to divide and surround before the defender gets a chance to establish a defence. I'm not here to bash AT by the way, I quite like it. But having said that, I did become somewhat disillusioned after playing the African Campaign scenario. Historically the battle followed close to the coastal road due to the difficulties of getting supplies inland; but in the AT scenario you can virtually head due east with half your army with virtually no supply headaches! So I'm going to wait a little while for the scenarios to mature before getting back into it.

DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/4/2008 9:18:30 AM)
Jam..... <g>.... I got no problem with you (for what it is worth) and was not knocking you nor whatever your roll is here in the AT forums. My only point was... because you play a roll here as well as in the TOAW forums... you would see any comments made here about TOAW and thus... they would not be wasted. DiT

JAMiAM -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/4/2008 9:43:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench Jam..... <g>.... I got no problem with you (for what it is worth) and was not knocking you nor whatever your roll is here in the AT forums. My only point was... because you play a roll here as well as in the TOAW forums... you would see any comments made here about TOAW and thus... they would not be wasted. DiT Fair enough, and sorry if I read more into your comments than you meant. Like I said, over here, I'm just another player. Comments about TOAW III, and comparisons against other games, of course, are of professional interest to me and always noted. However, out of professional courtesy, I try not to bring my work onto the turf of other developers. It's not fair to them, and disperses my TOAW III development efforts into areas of the forum (and internet) that I don't track on an active basis.

DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/4/2008 9:46:11 AM)
bennyb.... Hmmm.... I dunno. I DLed this corps level Russian front scenario from Rugged Defense... by Col Wayne Close.... and it looks really well done (and I prefer scenarios with less counters not more) and.... he has these partisian units and as the German player..... the first thing you are gonna do is break down those units and use them to block the retreats of the Russian units on the front and.... I am sure the partisian units played a roll but.... using them to that extent.... just seems SOOOO unrealistic (maybe not, I am not an expert on the roll of the partisans in the opening phases of that campaign). But.... what are ya gonna do? The problem starts with units being able to retreat into enemy controlled hexes in the first place... and with that you gotta have every adjacent hex occupied... and you end you putting recon, artillery, HQ units, you name it, in those hexes just to block retreats and.... this is where things get silly. As far as the Africa Corps scenarios.... WHICH scenario did you try?? There are so many of them. I tried the one with the Italians vs the British at the start of the war... and with the Italians was able to get the Brits over extended and then wipe them out. Posted this in TOAW forums and another poster posted that he had had the same experience. This one, blamed on Elmer being 'not that bright'. Oh.... and sheesh..... those Africa Corps scenarios are way old for the most part... and thus I would not hold my breath on getting enhancements in either the scenario or the game systems. The only thing I might suggest, try another of the Africa Corps scenarios and see if things are more realistic with that one. The other possibly, go through what else there might be on Rugged Defense and see if there is something better there. DiT

Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/4/2008 11:03:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bennyb Yikes! Since when did forums become so heavily policed? You must be a riot at parties Widell. [;)] I don't police any forums, just reacted to your comment which I found was, somewhat off the topic of a several weeks old thread. And, if you judge people's party abilities by their posts in this and other forums, you may be in for some surprises in your life......

bennyb -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/5/2008 5:19:50 PM)
quote: As far as the Africa Corps scenarios.... WHICH scenario did you try?? There are so many of them. I was actually referring to the Africa scenario from Advanced Tactics DiT. Have you given that one a try? quote: And, if you judge people's party abilities by their posts in this and other forums, you may be in for some surprises in your life...... It was supposed to be a joke Widell! Remember laughter? [:D]

Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/5/2008 11:06:52 PM)
quote: And, if you judge people's party abilities by their posts in this and other forums, you may be in for some surprises in your life...... quote: ORIGINAL: bennyb It was supposed to be a joke Widell! Remember laughter? [:D] I understand your attempt to make jokes here. Did you get my attempt at the same thing? On the other hand, English is not my native language, and jokes can be hard, specially when they involve personal traits of the one you are joking at the expense of. That being said, and this is not policing or being boring, or not remembering how to laugh (all potentially pretty judgemental comments, even if you obviously made them in an attempt to make some fun [;)]), it may be worth holding off on the more personal jokes until you know the person just a little bit better, OK? That being said, I will consider my point made, and let you make fun of any potential personal traits I may, or may not have [;)]. And finally, to make sure my comments are not taken too bloody seriously: [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] (After all, it is (at least somewhere in this thread) a couple of games we are talking about, not my social skills, or lack thereof depending on who gets to judge).

DeadInThrench -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/6/2008 2:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bennyb quote: As far as the Africa Corps scenarios.... WHICH scenario did you try?? There are so many of them. I was actually referring to the Africa scenario from Advanced Tactics DiT. Have you given that one a try? Hmmm..... I guess I see TOAW as a more historical game just that I have problems with some (many?) of the game systems once you get into it a bit. I believe I brought up AT Africa Corps (or was that in PT... can't remember) and they had a German panzer division and..... had it divided in half and each half had 1 medium tank and 2 light tanks (or something like that) as their armored contingent. Hehehe.... I know I can bring up any TOAW Africa Corps scenario... and there is gonna be a HUGE difference in historicity. So, with AT..... I think you gotta approach it as an ahistorical War/Strategy GAME, with some historical flavor in those scenarios that have it.... and if you approach it that way, then those scenarios can be fun (albeit I would like some more visibility <g>). Whatever, just my opinion of course. DiT

Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/6/2008 8:12:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench So, with AT..... I think you gotta approach it as an ahistorical War/Strategy GAME, with some historical flavor in those scenarios that have it.... and if you approach it that way, then those scenarios can be fun (albeit I would like some more visibility <g>). Whatever, just my opinion of course. I guess that TOAW is designed to be able to create very accurate historical OOB's and TOE's, with some, more or less historical, events. The difference is that any game that has the element of production and research built in, will by default leave much more of the decision making to the player = Less historical outcome since the player has more choices and options. Both are still games by the way, and not simulators. I suggest you have a look at the scenarios in AT that does not make use of research & production (Crete for example) which in my opinion is painfully historic for the Allied player that really only have one option once the Germans land = Stay and defend the harbours or evacuate as many men as possible (Which the Allied player gets to decided through an event/action card). Then, the "engine" in AT is different compared to TOAW, so the historical flavour of how the units are represented is not as "good" as TOAW where you think in squads and number of planes, tanks, trucks etc. That part is more abstracted in AT which I don't feel make it less historic in any sense. That is my opinion, and as I have said before, I play both games and enjoy them both immensely.

bennyb -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/11/2008 8:24:23 AM)
quote: I suggest you have a look at the scenarios in AT that does not make use of research & production (Crete for example) I don't think the North Africa scenario has any research and production, only timed reinforcements. I guess it's all a matter of personal preference. For me personally AT probably isn't my kind of game. From my perspective the Africa scenario may as well be called "Rommel in Middle Earth" for all the good it is. :) I mean there's a-historical and there's f*kn-a-historical!

rickier65 -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/11/2008 9:51:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bennyb quote: I suggest you have a look at the scenarios in AT that does not make use of research & production (Crete for example) I don't think the North Africa scenario has any research and production, only timed reinforcements. I guess it's all a matter of personal preference. For me personally AT probably isn't my kind of game. From my perspective the Africa scenario may as well be called "Rommel in Middle Earth" for all the good it is. :) I mean there's a-historical and there's f*kn-a-historical! Have you looked at the Crete scenario, or the Salerno scenario - both are historical, another is the Ardennes battle Probably the one thing I would have liked to see in this game is the ability to set max unit composition or something along those lines to better model historical OOB's, but some scenarios can come pretty close by limiting reinforcements and not allowing production, etc. But I've thought that enve when the battles deviate from the historical OOB - the "flavor" of the battles is still there. Rick

Widell -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/11/2008 9:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bennyb For me personally AT probably isn't my kind of game. Sounds as if you are right.

Daniel_machinegun -> RE: Comparison with The Operational Art of War III (5/19/2008 11:31:09 AM)
I played every hex based game since Perfect General 1 and PanzerGeneral 1. TOAW is a great game in terms of reality, but it has not much "replay/ability". At least not with Solo-Player TOAW is like fighting a Battle. AT is like fighting a WAR AT editor allow to buid almost any war. There was an old game I loved: Clash of Steel... and AT scenarios Europe1939 and WAW does improve the old Clash of Steel game. AT is more about "gameplay" than reality accurancy. A lot of gamers seem to forget that "abstraction" does improve gameplay while realism kill gameplay. Community AT will outmatch TOAW because of three reasons. 1) Smaller scenarios allow a quick PBEM play 2) Simplicity 3) Vic game support is huge.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.25