Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

DandricSturm -> Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/8/2005 2:53:47 PM)

Link



Mantis -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/8/2005 4:43:29 PM)

Yes, Brian did a good job on that article.

I'll share some other links to good articles with you:

TOAW FAQ

Multiple Movement/Combat Phases (This one is *great*!)

TOAW Strategy & Tactics - Here's a series I've recently started.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 2:19:53 AM)

Brians article was a really good and I think sums up the strengths and weakness of the system very well. He actually points out that a lot of the strengths of TOAW are also the weakness. The main weakness boiled down is acsesebility to new players and even some of the old ones. I love this game and what it looks like and a lot of what it does. But find myself going hot and cold on it by turns. largely because so much of what goes on in the game is truly opaque without using an electron microsope. To really play a good game of TOAW you really have to study the TO&E of your individual units and get a grip on how to work the combat impulses to string out your turn for maximum length. What the upshot of this is, is that it is hard in Human to Human play to get even matches. My experience has been I am either playing against people so competent at working the system that the playback looks eerily like some level of cheating is going on;^) Or I am playing against people that are probably getting the same effect when they look at my replays. The best way I can describe this is it feels like the two players are playing two different games!! It dawns on me after reading this article that what i would like to see to make the game more fun for me would be the ability to lock out certain features as optional rules. I think for instance if everybody goes in to a game knowing the number of attack rounds they have available to a certainty it would make a better game for persons not willing to devote their lives to learning how to manipulate TOAW minutiae. Steep learning curve is sort of an understatement ;^) BTW this is a feature that would actually make me shell out for a new copy. There really needs to be some mechanism in place to allow people that are not PBEMing 20 mega scenarios at a time to set the level of play where they can feel like they understand what is going on. I think this would make the game much more marketable. I know several face to face opponents that are very competent board and miniature gamers that just gave up on TOAW when they realized that they could not be competitive at the game without a much greater investment in time than seemed reasonable for the payoff.



*Lava* -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 4:37:26 AM)

Hi!

Sorry, I don't agree with one of the basic premises, and that is that TOAW is a really complex game. I'm not saying that it cannot be complex, but it actually is fairly easy to learn IMO.

Someone new to wargaming has nothing to fear from TOAW. Yes, it requires some time to understand, but good scenario designing ensured there were a range of games to play from fairly easy to quite difficult.

IMO, this is what really separates TOAW from a lot of other wargames. It is not only accessable by people with not a whole lot of wargaming experience, but also can be very challenging to the best grog out there. To be able to cater to such a wide audience... this is what sets TOAW apart from many wargames.

I hope Matrix keeps this in mind, as they move forward with the game, that TOAW is an excellent vehicle for bringing fresh blood into the wargaming world (and believe me we REALLY NEED FRESH BLOOD as in youngsters) and do not become overly influenced by those who want to make this game a grog heaven.

Ray (alias Lava)



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 4:50:57 AM)

quote:

but it actually is fairly easy to learn IMO.

True Lava simple to play against the AI. But to play well against Human players an ability to process and remember tons of what should be trivia like the number of jeeps in EACH of your recon unit. Turns out to be key. Much is also counter intuitive like learning that the best thing to do most of the time with your Anti aircraft assets is to break them down and use them for recon!!



DandricSturm -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 1:39:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Much is also counter intuitive like learning that the best thing to do most of the time with your Anti aircraft assets is to break them down and use them for recon!!


That's just bad design.


I don't know. Not necessarily counterintuitive or unrealistic. Compare it to breaking down an M42 duster battalion into individual platoons and even individual vehicles, then scattering them all over, using them as armor, artillery and perimeter defense just as happened in Vietnam.



*Lava* -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 2:19:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DandricSturm

I don't know. Not necessarily counterintuitive or unrealistic. Compare it to breaking down an M42 duster battalion into individual platoons and even individual vehicles, then scattering them all over, using them as armor, artillery and perimeter defense just as happened in Vietnam.


Eh?

Individual vehicles? This is an operational game. Sure, because it has a great editor you can do just about anything with it, but, for the moment, let's keep it at the operational level like it was intended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

True Lava simple to play against the AI.


You mean single player, which BTW, is the predominate mode for most wargamers. PBEM.. well, yea sure, but it doesn't appeal to me, especially with so many great scenarios out there.

Which brings me to a couple other points.

The guy gives the game a 2/5 for interface. He's joking right? The guy most not know how to use a mouse. In fact the game really has a double interface with the buttons, but, then why use the buttons when you can draw out just about any information you need via the mouse. Or are we talking about scenario designing here? Once again, even though the interface for scenario designing can be fairly complicated, there are very few games which allow such flexibility than TOAW. As for the PBEM interface, dunno.. and don't care.

For me, while there may be lots of nits and pixs, I like playing BIG games, and about the only problem I have here is that I would like to finish some of these scenarios in MY LIFETIME. Yet, if you look around you have people asking for more events and more units. Huh? How about just getting the game to work as it is without having to take a siesta between moves? The reviewer mentioned that didn't he? Or maybe since I just skimmed the review I missed that.

TOAW is a great game. It's a great game because of its flexibility, ease of play and mass appeal. As I have said before, I hope if it is refined that process maintains the "Big Picture" and does not make the tragic mistake of catering to any single group of players simply because their voice is louder than others.

Ray (alias Lava)



DandricSturm -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 2:39:41 PM)

My point with the individual vehicles was not about the game, but about the reality. I have no problem with there being factors limiting things like this but I would hate to see the possibility completely eliminated. There are numerous examples of units and equipment being used for puposes for which they were never designed or intended.

quote:

The designer ought to limit the number of AA units in the scenario, prevent them from being subdivided, and give them a colour scheme which prohibits them from co-operating with friendly ground units, unless they were capable of filling such a role.


It seem to me then that the problem with people using ADA units as recon lies more with scenario design rather than with the game itself.

quote:

The guy gives the game a 2/5 for interface. He's joking right? The guy most not know how to use a mouse. In fact the game really has a double interface with the buttons, but, then why use the buttons when you can draw out just about any information you need via the mouse. Or are we talking about scenario designing here? Once again, even though the interface for scenario designing can be fairly complicated, there are very few games which allow such flexibility than TOAW. As for the PBEM interface, dunno.. and don't care.


I agree with that. I like the interface just about the way it is.



danst31 -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 6:25:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DandricSturm

My point with the individual vehicles was not about the game, but about the reality. I have no problem with there being factors limiting things like this but I would hate to see the possibility completely eliminated. There are numerous examples of units and equipment being used for puposes for which they were never designed or intended.

quote:

The designer ought to limit the number of AA units in the scenario, prevent them from being subdivided, and give them a colour scheme which prohibits them from co-operating with friendly ground units, unless they were capable of filling such a role.


It seem to me then that the problem with people using ADA units as recon lies more with scenario design rather than with the game itself.


No, toaw's ada, especially the modern type is massively underpowered. There's a mod on szo that fixes this, in increases Aa ratings by 100x to do so.



Mantis -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 7:32:19 PM)

You can find this and other files like it here on SZO.



EasilyConfused -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 7:57:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
Yeah. As it is, it is already possible to make scenarios so large that they cannot really be played competently without devoting oneself to them full time, and which can never realistically be finished.


More units isn't a huge concern for the reason you mentioned, but more events does not make the scenario more difficult to play (if done well at least).



Nemo69 -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 10:48:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

You mean single player, which BTW, is the predominate mode for most wargamers.

Definitely not for TOAWers, among whom PBEM is the predominant mode hands down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

PBEM.. well, yea sure, but it doesn't appeal to me, especially with so many great scenarios out there.


Most if not all of which are made with PBEM in mind, very few being designed to be played against the AI and none (that I know of) to be specifically played in solitaire mode.



Siberian HEAT -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/9/2005 11:13:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava


The guy gives the game a 2/5 for interface. He's joking right? The guy most not know how to use a mouse.


First of all, thanks for reading my article. But please take another look at my ratings. I gave interface an 11/15, and Documentation is what got a 2/5. I'm pretty good with a mouse. [:D]



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 3:13:26 AM)

Lava actually does make a good point. MOST people that buy the game do play mostly against the AI. At least if the distribution is anything like in Board Games. At one point Strategy And Tactics Magazine feed back suggested that fewer than 20% of the games they sold got played anything but solitaire. An interesting stat would be How many people even visit forums let alone actually play PBEM vs how many games are actually sold. My guess is that if sales where restricted to the "TOAW (oranygame)Comunity" There would not be enough money to make it worthwhile to the publishers. In my own real world contacts I know 5 guys that have bought TOAW in some morph. I make six, of those I have played hotseat with 2 and PBEM with 1 and he was one of the same guys I played hot seat with. The ballance have all only played the game vs AI. NONE have joined a club or post on boards. ALL have exactly the same complaints about the game that I do e.g. too much information presented in a format that renders it useless, to all but the anal retentive and not enough hard information. For what it's worth these guys are all Hard core Historical Board and or Miniature gamers they are with the exception of 1, all much more hardcore computer gamers than I am. I think of my self as a hardcore Wargamer that plays Computer wargames when something better isn't happening.



Mantis -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 3:29:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
Yeah. As it is, it is already possible to make scenarios so large that they cannot really be played competently without devoting oneself to them full time, and which can never realistically be finished.


In my experience, the bigger scenarios cannot be played vs the PO, as it is not intelligent enough to deal with the variables such a scenario offers. Lava, to which scenarios are you referring?



Charles2222 -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 8:00:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Lava actually does make a good point. MOST people that buy the game do play mostly against the AI. At least if the distribution is anything like in Board Games. At one point Strategy And Tactics Magazine feed back suggested that fewer than 20% of the games they sold got played anything but solitaire. An interesting stat would be How many people even visit forums let alone actually play PBEM vs how many games are actually sold. My guess is that if sales where restricted to the "TOAW (oranygame)Comunity" There would not be enough money to make it worthwhile to the publishers. In my own real world contacts I know 5 guys that have bought TOAW in some morph. I make six, of those I have played hotseat with 2 and PBEM with 1 and he was one of the same guys I played hot seat with. The ballance have all only played the game vs AI. NONE have joined a club or post on boards. ALL have exactly the same complaints about the game that I do e.g. too much information presented in a format that renders it useless, to all but the anal retentive and not enough hard information. For what it's worth these guys are all Hard core Historical Board and or Miniature gamers they are with the exception of 1, all much more hardcore computer gamers than I am. I think of my self as a hardcore Wargamer that plays Computer wargames when something better isn't happening.


I don't know about wargamers, and unfortunately I can't remember where I read it (perhaps Gamespot) that industry-wise (computer game industry, including wargaming) the figure was at 70% AI players about 10 years ago. That same 70% played AI, and AI alone. If the figure were as high as 80% truly, then that would show you that of that 70%, and some of the remaining 30%, were obviously people who had played both ways. Of course to read some of the forums at websites, particularly this website, and more particularly, more unbelievably, with the game WITP (surely the awfullest example of a game to play through PBEM in the history of mankind) you wouldn't know of many AI players by the vocalness of PBEM'ers . All it shows me is the guys who don't play AI are more vocal, perhaps even more outgoing, but then again they have to be to get a game.



*Lava* -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 1:08:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Siberian HEAT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

The guy gives the game a 2/5 for interface. He's joking right? The guy most not know how to use a mouse.


First of all, thanks for reading my article. But please take another look at my ratings. I gave interface an 11/15, and Documentation is what got a 2/5. I'm pretty good with a mouse. [:D]



[X(]

Sorry about that..

Ray (alias Lava)



*Lava* -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 1:27:26 PM)

Hi!

I like the large "whole war" games vs the AI. I don't mind moving hundreds of units all over the map, but the thing that drives me crazy is when the game goes into "brain dead" mode calculating supplies and reinforcements. If the game can't cope with the number of units and events it has now, how can it hope to cope if you allow even more.

@Nemo69. Yes, I realize that most dudes presently playing the game are PBEMers.. I'm just one of those people who do not.

@Charles_22. Your remark about the vocalness of PBEMers as opposed to peeps like me that play vs the AI, is why I am posting.

Ray (alias Lava)



*Lava* -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 2:23:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

I like the large "whole war" games vs the AI. I don't mind moving hundreds of units all over the map, but the thing that drives me crazy is when the game goes into "brain dead" mode calculating supplies and reinforcements. If the game can't cope with the number of units and events it has now, how can it hope to cope if you allow even more.


Well, I expect that since the game will be designed for the current level of technology, and (hopefully) the supply model will be changed, the algorithyms for this will be different and it should go faster.



I sure hope so. Dis is my biggest beef with the game.

You can do all kinds of changes, add more realism, better this or that, but if the game comes to a staggering halt.. well, it just kinda makes you want to look elsewheres.

Mind you, ALL things considered, even this one, I still think TOAW is the best wargame every made.

Ray (alias Lava)



Mantis -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 5:47:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner

That post was by me, not Lava.


I know that. I was using your statement as a sort of supporting argument to the fact that a PO cannot possibly manage large scenarios. That's why I asked Lava specifically which scenarios he plays vs. the computer. Here's Lava's statement:

quote:

For me, while there may be lots of nits and pixs, I like playing BIG games, and about the only problem I have here is that I would like to finish some of these scenarios in MY LIFETIME.



*Lava* -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/10/2005 8:58:05 PM)

Hi!

Well, the last large scenario (the whole war) I played was, I believe, War in Europe Ver 3. I'm sorry I can't remember exactly the specifics (cause I'm an old man with a bad memory.. and its been awhile), but at some point the game always would grind to halt, requiring a minimum of 20-30 minutes to process a move.

I remember that the game was not finished, having, for example forces that would not disappear after their country was conquered (Iran I think it was). I messed around with the editor and even vastly simplified the replacements, but the game always hit "the wall".

I also remember reading something about how this long process was "game" related (supply) as opposed to processor speed. But I'm not sure to tell you quite honest.

But to be quite frank, I am not sure why you are so interested in "what" scenario it is? Is there or is there not scenarios that get bogged down in the supply/reinforcements phase? That is the issue.

Ray (alias Lava)



Mantis -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/11/2005 3:47:25 PM)

No, I was curious as you mention that you play pretty much exclusively vs the PO, and I have been playing TOAW solid for about 5 years now. I have just over 500 scenarios in my folder, and I don't know of a single scenario that could be termed 'monster' and is playable vs. the PO. I wanted to know if you knew something I didn't... ;) (If there was a monster that could be played vs. the PO, my next post on here would be several days from now... [;)]



Mantis -> RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone (10/11/2005 3:48:29 PM)

(BTW - I tried WiE as well, but there were too many errors, much like you describe. I believe I was playing an earlier version, however).



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375