RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

ComradeP -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (12/10/2010 12:48:37 PM)

Never expected to see so many fans of phased turns in one thread, I sometimes got the impression that Norm Koger was the only one on the planet who liked his system. TOAW is good on paper, though, so I'm happy that many people enjoyed it much more than I ever could.



solops -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (12/10/2010 2:59:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass


quote:

ORIGINAL: jjax
BTW, I actually like the phased turns and could never understand why so many people did not like them. For better or worst, It added an extra dimension of strategy that took some time to understand.


I like very much the phased turns and I subscribe what you wrote.


Yes. I like the phased turns as well in spite of the peculiarities. I hope I will come to like WitE's oddities as well.



Great_Ajax -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (12/10/2010 4:09:47 PM)

I did a ton of TOAW scenarios but never worked on the FiTE one. I loaded it up a few times and the unit density was just too high to be of any interest to me and it looked like too much work. Some of my works that I enjoyed the most like in 'West Front '44' were at the divisional scale with 10km/hex and thats why I like WiTE so much.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wikingus

... I know I know, it's unfair. WiTE is a completely new beast, but I am a long-time TOAW player and WiTE looks a lot like FiTE, with some extra options thrown on top, and with much better graphics.

I'm kind of not sure whether to get the game or not. Can any fellow TOAW player convince me it's worth buying?


El Hefe had alot to do with the TOAW FitE Scenario - he can give you the details.




Fastheinz -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (12/10/2010 10:00:20 PM)

As an old WiR player I have to say this is a great effort and should consume my life for a few years. Thank you all who made WitE possible![&o]



Wikingus -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (12/11/2010 10:00:22 AM)

Well I went ahead and bought it so I guess you could say I was convinced. [:D]



SlickWilhelm -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (12/30/2010 6:28:01 PM)

If this thread doesn't convince non-owners to purchase WitE, I doubt anything will. 



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 9:07:18 AM)

As someone who has neither game but who has the original TOAW and all of Grigsby's previous Eastern Front titles, I think my next purchase will be TOAW3. If WitE had daily turns like WitP AE, and/or a "wego" system, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It seems too contrived that one side would be able to conduct operations for an entire week without the other side being able to react. My understanding is that FiTE uses 2 turns per week, but I hope it won't be too difficult to edit the scenario into 1 or 2 days per turn.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 12:47:22 PM)

Funny no one mentioned my favorite East Front TOAW scenario and that was DNO, Drang Nach Osten by Daniel Mc Bride....

Anyhow, not to repeat what others said before me, WITE is completely different beast. In my eyes, the biggest advantage is (IMO) great system for managing support units in WITE, which do not have to be represented as separate counters on the map anymore.

TOAW phased system - I actually liked it, even though I think it was designed with small to medium scenarios in mind. With TOAW people really REALLY pushed the system to the limit with some scenarios so big... I am sure Norm Koger never envisioned his system being used for Barbarossa, whole WW1 or any such monstrosity...

Finally, what killed TOAW for me, was absolutely dreadful, atrocious quality control when it comes to scenarios, both official and unofficial. I mean I could live with some scenario from some Internet dump being total crap, but when TOAW 3 came out, and carried 100+ scenarios with it, of which at least 80 were total BS that's when I realised this whole thing is more work (culling good scenarios from bad from utterly horrific) for my taste.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 12:52:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I did a ton of TOAW scenarios but never worked on the FiTE one. I loaded it up a few times and the unit density was just too high to be of any interest to me and it looked like too much work. Some of my works that I enjoyed the most like in 'West Front '44' were at the divisional scale with 10km/hex and thats why I like WiTE so much.



Trey you were one of my absolutely favorite scenario designers in TOAW days, played your scenarios A LOT, I think I played some vs you in PBEM during testing.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 12:56:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Never expected to see so many fans of phased turns in one thread, I sometimes got the impression that Norm Koger was the only one on the planet who liked his system. TOAW is good on paper, though, so I'm happy that many people enjoyed it much more than I ever could.


Well add me to the list of phased turn fans. They were great for what TOAW was initially intended to do, medium sized scenarios with player commanding forces up to 2-3 corps worth. In those scenarios, if designed WELL, phased system really added another layer of quality and strategy to the game.

Where phased system failed....?

a) When people started designing monster scenarios - phased turns were simply a nuissance in that case.

b) When time per turn was too short. 6 hour turns, with units having 4-5 movement points per turn? FAIL! But that's the design scenario problem not the problem with system as such.



JMass -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 1:08:43 PM)

Oleg, I totally agree with you. I like too TOAW's rounds but with small or medium size scenarios, unfortunately the quality of the most of them is very questionable, I saw things unbelievable... [8|]



Great_Ajax -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 1:56:19 PM)

I appreciate that Oleg. Did we play a modern war Ukraine scenario PBEM?

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I did a ton of TOAW scenarios but never worked on the FiTE one. I loaded it up a few times and the unit density was just too high to be of any interest to me and it looked like too much work. Some of my works that I enjoyed the most like in 'West Front '44' were at the divisional scale with 10km/hex and thats why I like WiTE so much.



Trey you were one of my absolutely favorite scenario designers in TOAW days, played your scenarios A LOT, I think I played some vs you in PBEM during testing.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 2:06:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I appreciate that Oleg. Did we play a modern war Ukraine scenario PBEM?



Yes... US cavalry to the rescue [:)]



Apollo11 -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 2:18:25 PM)

Hi all,

I think I remember Oleg talking to me about Trey's scenarios many many years ago... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"



BletchleyGeek -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 4:19:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
TOAW and WitE are not in direct competition but are complementary, imo. TOAW is an operational game, WitE is more strategical, I think that Kharkov 42 or 43, Uranus or Korsun play better with TOAW.



I am not so sure JMass. The satisfaction one gets with TOAW depends a lot on the skill of the scenario designer to choose scale, OOB, events, etc. in a way you get a both a meaningful and fun simulation to play. I remember that the SouthFront 42 scenario which came with TOAW vanilla - covering Uranus - seemed to me very weak (I fear Oleg Mastruko to appear and tear my heart apart). On the other hand, the Kharkov 42 scenario was very good. The only TOAW scenario for the November 1942 - February 1943 period which fit the bill to me - it felt right, like OCS' Enemy At The Gates - was "Don 42-43" by Brian Topp.

WiTE hasn't yet those battles you're referring to but there's people working on some of them. Some of the designers of the best scenarios I've played on TOAW are also working on WiTE. Then we'll see what perception do we get of WiTE engine.

In any case, there won't be any TOAW for me on the Eastern Front anymore. I've got WiTE [8D]



JMass -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 4:38:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
TOAW and WitE are not in direct competition but are complementary, imo. TOAW is an operational game, WitE is more strategical, I think that Kharkov 42 or 43, Uranus or Korsun play better with TOAW.



I am not so sure JMass.


Let me explain better: Uranus or Korsun as situations could play better with TOAW (but South Front 42 and Korsun 44 are designed poorly) because they need a scale inferior of 10km/one week (and I intend Uranus only, not the winter 42-43 on the south front - Uranus and Little Saturn etc - that could fit very well in WitE).



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 5:02:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
Let me explain better: Uranus or Korsun as situations could play better with TOAW (but South Front 42 and Korsun 44 are designed poorly) because they need a scale inferior of 10km/one week (and I intend Uranus only, not the winter 42-43 on the south front - Uranus and Little Saturn etc - that could fit very well in WitE).


TOAW Korsun was *terrible* with infantry having as low as 3 movement points per turn, and mechanised units squeezing 6 or 7 with some luck. The phased turn finesse is completely lost in such scenarios, every turn would end after just one phase (!!), not to mention any mobile campaigns bog down in the first turn. Pointless to the extreme. South Front was quite bad as well.

Bad scenarios in a world of TOAW were very bad indeed, because scenario designers who would probably make s solid scenario about certain battle felt discouraged by the fact that the scenario about that battle already exists in "official" game scenario list.

There was a guy in Talonsoft back then, I won't name him, but it's easy to recognise who am I talking about since he designed like 60%+ official scenarios in the pre-TOAW3 days. His job in Talonsoft was simply to churn out scenarios for various Talonsoft games, and boy did he do that. He would apparently take OOB from somewhere, do a quick map and glue all together with no soul, with no testing, no feel for the battle whatsoever. Cookie cutter does not begin to describe how bad and lifeless his scenarios were (Korsun being good example of this guy's work).

I did hope TOAW3 would finally bring some good, tested and verified scenarios to the table, but all it did was to harvest all sorts of crap from every TOAW scenario dump on the web, and pile them together on one big steaming heap.

Having said all this, I spent more hours in TOAW than in any other game in my life (save for WITP, maybe). In hands of a good scenario designer this system was exceptional tool indeed. I knew my favorite scenario designers by name, unfortunatelly it's long gone so I can't remember them (except Trey) to send them my heartfelt "thank you!".



Great_Ajax -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 5:15:13 PM)

I've got a 'Decision in the Ukraine 43-44' in playtest now as well as a revised Typhoon scenario. On my plate at the moment is 'Red Army Resurgent 42-43' scenario that covers Army Group A,B, and Don from Voronezh, Stalingrad, and to the Caucasus that starts on 19 Novemeber 42 and ends mid March 43. It looks pretty cool ;)

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
TOAW and WitE are not in direct competition but are complementary, imo. TOAW is an operational game, WitE is more strategical, I think that Kharkov 42 or 43, Uranus or Korsun play better with TOAW.



I am not so sure JMass. The satisfaction one gets with TOAW depends a lot on the skill of the scenario designer to choose scale, OOB, events, etc. in a way you get a both a meaningful and fun simulation to play. I remember that the SouthFront 42 scenario which came with TOAW vanilla - covering Uranus - seemed to me very weak (I fear Oleg Mastruko to appear and tear my heart apart). On the other hand, the Kharkov 42 scenario was very good. The only TOAW scenario for the November 1942 - February 1943 period which fit the bill to me - it felt right, like OCS' Enemy At The Gates - was "Don 42-43" by Brian Topp.

WiTE hasn't yet those battles you're referring to but there's people working on some of them. Some of the designers of the best scenarios I've played on TOAW are also working on WiTE. Then we'll see what perception do we get of WiTE engine.

In any case, there won't be any TOAW for me on the Eastern Front anymore. I've got WiTE [8D]




JMass -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 5:20:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
On my plate at the moment is 'Red Army Resurgent 42-43' scenario that covers Army Group A,B, and Don from Voronezh, Stalingrad, and to the Caucasus that starts on 19 Novemeber 42 and ends mid March 43. It looks pretty cool ;)


Exactly what I wrote above and I am waiting to play! [8D][8D]



gradenko2k -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 5:37:34 PM)

I'm still going to go back to TOAW to get my fill of non-Eastern Front wargaming, but not few years yet, and maybe not altogether if WITW gets released before I get tired of WITE.

TOAW was great while it lasted, but having to look over your shoulder all the time to micromanage combat phases just seems downright primitive when compared to the counter-pushing intuitiveness of WITE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
There was a guy in Talonsoft back then, I won't name him, but it's easy to recognise who am I talking about since he designed like 60%+ official scenarios in the pre-TOAW3 days. His job in Talonsoft was simply to churn out scenarios for various Talonsoft games, and boy did he do that. He would apparently take OOB from somewhere, do a quick map and glue all together with no soul, with no testing, no feel for the battle whatsoever. Cookie cutter does not begin to describe how bad and lifeless his scenarios were (Korsun being good example of this guy's work).

Is it this guy? http://www.desperationmorale.com/worldofasl/worldfirsttofight.html



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 6:26:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
There was a guy in Talonsoft back then, I won't name him, but it's easy to recognise who am I talking about since he designed like 60%+ official scenarios in the pre-TOAW3 days. His job in Talonsoft was simply to churn out scenarios for various Talonsoft games, and boy did he do that. He would apparently take OOB from somewhere, do a quick map and glue all together with no soul, with no testing, no feel for the battle whatsoever. Cookie cutter does not begin to describe how bad and lifeless his scenarios were (Korsun being good example of this guy's work).


Is it this guy? http://www.desperationmorale.com/worldofasl/worldfirsttofight.html


Bill Wilder? No I don't know that guy... can't remember playing any of his scenarios for TOAW to be honest.

Guy I am talking about did bucketloads of scenarios for every Talonsoft game in the 1996-2002 period. Just open any Talonsoft game from those years and you'll see tons of his uninspired cookie cutter scenarios. Hint, his initials are D.B....

To tell the truth, in games like old Tiller's Campaign Series his cookie cutter, run of the mill scenarios worked very well. Campaign Series is like that - take OOB, put platoons on the map and you're good to go. TOAW on the other hand required a designer to put some soul into the scenario, do some testing, LOTS of customizing etc. etc.

But that's not all, there were some designers even worse than this guy, some who, I am sure, didn't even have most basic understanding how the system works (let alone advanced knowledge like phased turns etc). No problem, all of them got bunched together in the final TOAW3 release and that was just too much for me....



Great_Ajax -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 6:55:53 PM)

Bill Wilder is one of the best tactical scenario designers that I know and he didn't do any TOAW work. I think the guy you are looking for is Doug Bevard?

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
There was a guy in Talonsoft back then, I won't name him, but it's easy to recognise who am I talking about since he designed like 60%+ official scenarios in the pre-TOAW3 days. His job in Talonsoft was simply to churn out scenarios for various Talonsoft games, and boy did he do that. He would apparently take OOB from somewhere, do a quick map and glue all together with no soul, with no testing, no feel for the battle whatsoever. Cookie cutter does not begin to describe how bad and lifeless his scenarios were (Korsun being good example of this guy's work).


Is it this guy? http://www.desperationmorale.com/worldofasl/worldfirsttofight.html


Bill Wilder? No I don't know that guy... can't remember playing any of his scenarios for TOAW to be honest.

Guy I am talking about did bucketloads of scenarios for every Talonsoft game in the 1996-2002 period. Just open any Talonsoft game from those years and you'll see tons of his uninspired cookie cutter scenarios. Hint, his initials are D.B....

To tell the truth, in games like old Tiller's Campaign Series his cookie cutter, run of the mill scenarios worked very well. Campaign Series is like that - take OOB, put platoons on the map and you're good to go. TOAW on the other hand required a designer to put some soul into the scenario, do some testing, LOTS of customizing etc. etc.

But that's not all, there were some designers even worse than this guy, some who, I am sure, didn't even have most basic understanding how the system works (let alone advanced knowledge like phased turns etc). No problem, all of them got bunched together in the final TOAW3 release and that was just too much for me....





Baron von Beer -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 6:59:47 PM)

"Wild Bill"'s a class act. I know in the West/East Front days and on the SPCammo site he always found the time to help people out who were trying to learn the game system and/or mission editors.



Blind Sniper -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 9:42:26 PM)

quote:

Bill Wilder is one of the best tactical scenario designers that I know and he didn't do any TOAW work.


It seems that he has done a very poor job about ASL...



Great_Ajax -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/9/2011 11:09:18 PM)

You'll have to explain that comment. Did he work on some ASL projects?

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

quote:

Bill Wilder is one of the best tactical scenario designers that I know and he didn't do any TOAW work.


It seems that he has done a very poor job about ASL...




Blind Sniper -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/10/2011 9:30:23 AM)

quote:

You'll have to explain that comment. Did he work on some ASL projects?


Yes, he did. A lot of stuff indeed.

A note taken from the article:
"These products, which are typically available only for high prices on E-bay, are of extremely poor quality and most ASLers would find them more or less unusable. There appears to have been little to no proofreading, rules development or playtesting."

The author is not kind at all with Bill and reading several reviews is clear that he will never change his mind.
Anyhow I don't know if ASL system can be applied on modern warfare, surely see counters with 9-5-8 or 9-5-9 strenght factors is strange, he also made products for traditional ASL system (WW II) with 5-5-9 counters.
For ASL this values are very high, I should see the products before give my opinion although.
I read the ASL forum very often and nobody seem play his scenarios.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/10/2011 10:22:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
TOAW and WitE are not in direct competition but are complementary, imo. TOAW is an operational game, WitE is more strategical, I think that Kharkov 42 or 43, Uranus or Korsun play better with TOAW.

I am not so sure JMass.

Let me explain better: Uranus or Korsun as situations could play better with TOAW (but South Front 42 and Korsun 44 are designed poorly) because they need a scale inferior of 10km/one week (and I intend Uranus only, not the winter 42-43 on the south front - Uranus and Little Saturn etc - that could fit very well in WitE).


I got your point now. Indeed, a WiTE Kharkov 42 battle scenario would just last two or three turns and the very fluid situation that developed as FRIDERICUS was launched doesn't look to me easy to simulate properly. On the other hand, I don't think there's nothing bad - per se - on short games, either. They would be good practice for longer scenarios (covering several operations where planning, preparation and implementation are fully under your responsability).

I'm very interested in designing scenarios for WiTE.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/10/2011 10:24:30 AM)

I'm already salivating, thank you very much for that [&o]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
On my plate at the moment is 'Red Army Resurgent 42-43' scenario that covers Army Group A,B, and Don from Voronezh, Stalingrad, and to the Caucasus that starts on 19 Novemeber 42 and ends mid March 43. It looks pretty cool ;)


Exactly what I wrote above and I am waiting to play! [8D][8D]




notenome -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/10/2011 2:46:09 PM)

I'm a very big fan of TOAW and FITE (and briefly playtested the Directive 21 scenario). I'm also a big fan of phased turns though obviously it could be annoying for an attack in Finland to burn AGS's turn, but you learned to avoid that with time. Honestly I miss a lot of the TOAW nuances that would end up making such a difference. There's really no bombardments, no opportunity fire, no bonuses for flanking and multiple side attacks, all that combat planning stuff that some hated (and I loved). Of course I will always remember having a panzer division be stopped by 21 trucks and a mule team but then again WitE has developed its own version of this with the super swamp defense (I've had an entire panzer corps be stopped by a single ab brigade in a swamp, and ComradeP has probably lost years of his life in frustration with this in our PBEM).

There are other things I miss from TOAW, like the air management screen where I could easily assign missions. Though the CR report is a great tool, its still missing a few months worth of UI tweaks (which will inevitably come). The lack of air superiority missions is a bother, and interdiction, so vital to the Germans and so devastating to the Russians, well it just doesn't seem to have much of an impact.

If I were to summarize I'd say this: WitE is grand scale game, and TOAW is not. On the one hand that means WitE handles a lot of the big things better than TOAW ever could (or was meant to) on the other hand it lacks (at least for the momment) the little finness things that make operational games what they are, and that can cause a lot of frustration (especially for Axis players). But as it matures it will undoutebly surpass anything ever made on this scale.



morganbj -> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... (1/10/2011 3:03:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

As someone who has neither game but who has the original TOAW and all of Grigsby's previous Eastern Front titles, I think my next purchase will be TOAW3. If WitE had daily turns like WitP AE, and/or a "wego" system, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It seems too contrived that one side would be able to conduct operations for an entire week without the other side being able to react. My understanding is that FiTE uses 2 turns per week, but I hope it won't be too difficult to edit the scenario into 1 or 2 days per turn.

Oh, it'll be easy to edit the game (FITE). But, once you do, the movement ratings for units in FITE will drop dramatically. Remember, the game calculates movement points based on the map scale and the time of the turns. You'll find the results you get are not satisfactory.

I've played both games, FITE for thousands of hours, WITE for a hundred or so. WITE is far superior in all regards. The system works. It recreates the theatre quite well. FITE, on the other hand, stretched the TOAW system until it broke. You'll find the first major problem when you hit the mud turns in FITE. No, I love TOAW, but it's not suited for a huge game.

WITE is the best EF game on the market. Period.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.219727