BiN vs TOAW (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Battles in Normandy



Message

scout1 -> BiN vs TOAW (9/26/2004 5:47:17 AM)

I've asked about the differences, play & feel between Bin & KP. Now's let's try comparing
it to a classic, TOAW. Yes, TOAW is ~ 10 years old, but has a tremendously loyal following. I can't even count the # of scenario's created for it.

Other than potentially having nicer graphics, please enlighten me how this game stacks up against a true classic......



JSS -> RE: BiN vs TOAW (9/26/2004 6:58:05 AM)

Scout,

TOAW is a great game but its not nearly as good as BIN; not even close IMHO. Three things make BIN stand out for me:

1) It's a lot more fun to play (less tedious in terms of minute detail, quicker paced battles... game flows better). I also like the BIN graphics 1000% better. TOAW is very drab looking.

2) BIN captures operational combat better than any other game I've seen. Feel and outcome have a historical basis to them. Only game I've seen do as well is the very old V4V/WatW games by Atomic. TOAW falls short in this area in all my experiences (I own 4 variants of TOAW). I'd rank it a somewhat distant third behind BIN and V4V/WatW.

3) PBEM BIN battles rarely turn out the same two times in a row (i.e. two different opponents = two unique experiences). BIN replay value is very high. Always felt TOAW results were very predictable game in, game out.

Think you mentioned managing your gaming budget. One huge advantage to BIN is for the $20 extra now you'll probably save hundreds later (i.e. I don't have enough time to play all the BIN I want[:D] ). You probably won't need to buy anymore games for awhile if you get BIN.[X(]

JSS



Adam Parker -> RE: BiN vs TOAW (9/26/2004 7:30:56 AM)

When TOAW released I remember lauding the fact that finally a complete Normandy "game" existed (it had a DDay Scenario). This of course was before the release of HPS's Normandy 44.

I was wrong. TOAW being a game construction engine just couldn't hack it. Its treatment of the air and naval aspects were all wrong. There could never be any campaign related chrome. Then again, there was always the question of voracity in researching the production of 1 mere scen vs the effort needing to be invested in dedicated titles such as BiN and N44.

I believe this will be the biggest difference you will find with BiN. Already I feel totally comfortable in that BiN "is" a faithful Normandy game, with the Normandy feel and Normandy chrome.

And I can already see some nice interface and user friendly info changes in place learning from KP. A toggleable hot text area for example is a huge improvement. In fact, I like everything about the revamped interface so far.

The only thing I would recommend is that the rulebook be structured differently. It basically follows a standard interface to rules progression (yet it does have the advancement of explaining some rules concepts as parts of the interface are reached).

The danger is that many unexplained rules concepts are also touched on early, with their broad coverage to come later in the manual. This could confuse the newbie. However, I trust that perserverence will pay off.

Yet, I now do suggest that newbies may feel more comfortable printing off the Tutorial Manual too as the place to start. Glance through it first, see if the Tutorial coverage makes broad sense/logical flow and then if helpful to the reader, print it off and start there.

Adam.



PresbyterJohn -> RE: BiN vs TOAW (9/26/2004 7:41:37 AM)

I like playing Century Of Warfare version of TOAW at the battalion level in the modern era, but there are some design problems with the system as it tries to be all things at all levels. I also think that the COW pieces look much less pixelated up close. I also like the way the game works in a windowed mode.

BiN has much better game play as far as PBEM (head to head) goes though, and the general gameplay is much better tuned for the topic of regimental WW2 ops.

If the COW engine was updated to get around the design flaws and make it more applicable to the regimental game then it would probably be the winner. But it is not up to date, and those flaws can't be overcome. BiN can be expected to be updated for a while I hope, as long as the concept continues to sell.



Toby42 -> RE: BiN vs TOAW (9/26/2004 5:14:31 PM)

I always was upset with the Normandy Scenario in COW that had German shore batteries sinking Battleships that came in range [&:]



Capitaine -> RE: BiN vs TOAW (9/26/2004 7:14:51 PM)

I wanted so badly to like TOAW, but there were just soooo many issues. I finally gave up, although I bought COW.

Decisive Battles is far superior for many of the reasons stated. The maps and graphic presentation are one thing that set it apart, but also exemplary are the actually more realistic combat resolution/results (I defy anyone to devise an accurate operational per vehicle/man casualty table) and ones that give you a better feeling b/c you know the die roll you received to explain what just happened. Just great, great gameplay!



johanvc -> RE: BiN vs TOAW (9/30/2004 4:47:00 AM)

Well, personally I was a dedicated and enthousiastic TOAW/CoW player for quite some time, until (after some initial, unfounded resentment) I decided to give Korsun Pocket a try. It didn't take me long to get hooked, and with the new improvements introduced in BiN I believe the system has truly become a very mature operational game.

The main difference is that with the KP/BiN engine, the point where detail stops and abstraction starts is well defined and very consistent - at a certain point relatively simple mechanisms take over, as opposed to TOAW where, because of the tremendous detail and refinement (e.g. the detailed unit composition, or the combat phase system), things tend to get rather unpredictable and fuzzy at times. While initially it may seem that this takes away from the realism (what do you mean I can't see exactly how many halftracks were destroyed during my last attack ??), in reality this transparency makes the game a lot more playable and enjoyable as it makes it simpler to understand what is happening for which reason. It is easier to develop strategies as it's easier to understand which factors will influence the battle odds.

In general I feel that the BiN system . For example, I much prefer the way BiN handles the supply system (especially with the new OP reserve system aka the fuel gauges) in comparison with the much more complicated CoW version - KP/BiN seems to better reflect "blitzkrieg" style armoured breakthroughs and their limitations. Also, in KP/BiN I feel that units and terrain behave more as expected (due to the relatively simple CRT and shock/anti-shock shifts), whereas in CoW due to the complex and detailed unit composition one would often be gazing at the equipment screen and wondering how good or bad a unit would really be in facing certain enemies on certain terrain, or even worse, experience nasty, seemingly unexplainable surprises when resolving combat.

Don't get me wrong, I still admire the ambitious nature of TOAW, and on paper at least TOAW still looks like an ideal engine for trying out some "what if" scenarios; but as a game, BiN is certainly smarter and leaner in design (sometimes less is more) and more enjoyable. These days, when I want to dig into details, I grab Combat Mission :-)

Johan.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125