Back and Looking at the PO

Back and Looking at the PO (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV

Message

USXpat -> Back and Looking at the PO (2/13/2018 3:31:55 PM)
Hello Everyone! Congrats to Ralph Trickey and Robert Cross, and everyone else who contributed to TOAW IV. Just got some time to buy and immerse myself, and very happy with everything. A 3.5+ beta scenario from 2014 even loads and appears to even work... but quite a lot of other things have changed to where it needs considerable revising. To the point though, what is everyone's experience with the PO so far? What is it good at? What is it not good at? Does it perform noticeably better than in earlier versions? My first intention is to fully rework a version of Third Reich 42-25 to try and give it very respectable Axis PO. The first attempt worked very well for about 14 turns and then fell apart. With 4 years to think about it though, I know a few things that have to be done differently - and requiring the OOB to be structured differently from the normal OOB structure. That's the theory, anyways... Any and all insights and observations are welcome!

larryfulkerson -> RE: Back and Looking at the PO (2/13/2018 10:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USXpat Hello Everyone! Congrats to Ralph Trickey and Robert Cross, and everyone else who contributed to TOAW IV. Just got some time to buy and immerse myself, and very happy with everything. A 3.5+ beta scenario from 2014 even loads and appears to even work... but quite a lot of other things have changed to where it needs considerable revising. To the point though, what is everyone's experience with the PO so far? What is it good at? What is it not good at? Does it perform noticeably better than in earlier versions? My first intention is to fully rework a version of Third Reich 42-25 to try and give it very respectable Axis PO. The first attempt worked very well for about 14 turns and then fell apart. With 4 years to think about it though, I know a few things that have to be done differently - and requiring the OOB to be structured differently from the normal OOB structure. That's the theory, anyways... Any and all insights and observations are welcome! Hey there USXpat dude. I've done a lot of testing the PO using the D21 platform and I really like the new Elmer. I think it's a refined version of the Elmer we used to have. The Air Assistant is still somewhat braindead and needs to be monitored but I've seen bridges repaired and that's a good sign. I like your idea to redo Third Reich 42-45 with the new PO. I like to have the computer play the computer to test out my objectives and the new tracks because it's faster that way. And changing the objectives is straight forward and easy with TOAW IV. Keep us in the loop about how it's going.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Back and Looking at the PO (2/15/2018 8:40:20 AM)
quote: what is everyone's experience with the PO so far? What is it good at? What is it not good at? Does it perform noticeably better than in earlier versions? It has always worked well, IV doesn't have a 'new' PO but it has had some tweaks. One of the early designers has said that changes since TOAW I have made many of the early PO's not so good. That is the only negative thing I can think of, and that can be corrected. It's not so good when it doesn't have enough units to do the job. This can be corrected by giving the PO smaller formations/units [D-Day to the Ruhr and Nach Frankriech use this method - two scenario versions]. The PO can be as good as the time that is put into it, which can be a lot. Repeated play testing and adjustments. Smaller formations [smaller scenarios can have one unit per formation], multiple objective tracks, and programming for more than the historical progress of the subject all will help. I am not familiar with the scale of your scenario, but for large map projects with formations that cover large non-specific areas, keep at least three open hexes in between objectives. For more specific targets you can pile up the objectives. This is because the engine uses different logic for those two different situations. If you have troubles post here and maybe one of us can provide possible solutions. Solitaire games are worth the effort [but not the pay day!].

TPOO -> RE: Back and Looking at the PO (2/15/2018 3:35:38 PM)
Also adding on to Steve's suggestions for programming the PO. Try using the strategic bias events to get Elmer to do more of what you want to do. Berserk or aggressive modes will make Elmer more likely to be offensive and attack (likely will use up a lot of casualties) or cautious or very cautious will make Elmer more likely to retreat and also blow bridges retreating. Losses will also depend on the attack formation settings assigned (minimize, limit, ignore losses). Elmer formations will also perform differently using formation settings Attack/Defend vs Secure/Screen. The later Elmer tends to spread the units of the formation out more vs the former where he will concentrate. You can constantly change these settings for formations in events to achieve your intended result.

USXpat -> RE: Back and Looking at the PO (2/15/2018 7:10:02 PM)
Thank you, Gentlemen, for your thoughts and insights - I'll put them all to use. The first scenario is pretty large, Third Reich 42-45 covering the Eastern, Western and Med, but focusing on Axis first. I resolved to basically redo the entire Axis OOB/Event structure. No more need to set units to "section-level" to keep them from dividing and exceeding unit cap -- and help with screening. Will post more as it gets done, but you've reminded me of things like the strategic bias that I'd forgotten.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.703125