What to change ? (Full Version)

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



Message

scout1 -> What to change ? (10/8/2005 5:43:17 PM)

With Matrix acquiring the rights to the Talonsoft titles [:D], they will obviously have their hands full deciding what to work on and when. One question (at a very high level) for each game, what types of things are fair game AND realistic to be addressed.
This holds true for all the acquired titles.

Some thoughts .....
1) Copy/Game protection (get rid of the need to put the CD into the drive)
2) Graphics Updates (could be resolution increase and/or minor overhaul)
3) User Interface (if it's one of GG's games, doubt this would happen but they need it
badly IMHO)
4) Bug Fixes (not player recommended enhancements)
5) Player recommended Enhancements (Gameplay, OOB, etc ...)
6) New Scenario's
7) Operating System Coverage (up to W2000 & XP)
8) Sound upgrade (with all the sound related issues of early WitP and other games, hope
they leave this one alone unless absolutely necessary)
9) Other ?

I'm sure I've overlooked alot, anyone have an opinion [;)]



Mantis -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 5:52:03 PM)

There is already an extensive thread here for the same purpose:

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33138

Have a peek through it; there's no sense for the community to duplicate its efforts!



Pippin -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 6:07:54 PM)

I remember on my old Acer computer, the sounds/music for TOAW never worked right. Never did hear it the way it was supposed to be heard.



Pippin -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 6:34:17 PM)

I would like to see TCP/IP. PBEM left it open to far too many exploits.



jvgfanatic -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 6:59:51 PM)

quote:

3) User Interface (if it's one of GG's games, doubt this would happen but they need it
badly IMHO)


Unless they over plush the interfaces so it is unweildy on anything but the most insane specs (see COG's unit listings for example).

I really want them to publish the COW edition in it's full glory. Not piecemeal like the original TOAW.



EasilyConfused -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 8:31:56 PM)

The one thing the game desperatly needs (and I think the rest of the people at TDG would agree with me) is a functional naval combat system. Ship to ship combat is simply worthless in the game. With Matrix's impressive credentials in naval warefare simulation, I'm hopeful they will be able to make this game even better.



danst31 -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 9:09:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I would like to see TCP/IP. PBEM left it open to far too many exploits.



I'm skeptical of the fit of this. Only the smallest toaw scenarios can be completed in a single session, on the huge end, even completing a single turn in one session is unlikely. Also, adding it would probably be a massive undertaking, and there are lots of other things that would add larger benefits for less effort.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 11:20:00 PM)

I think I would like the strength numbers on the units to actually mean something. I remember reading in the dim past that those numbers are more related to the soft attack than anything else. This probably accounts for why I like scenarios with few or no tanks. If an attack looks like a 3-1 by the numbers, darn it that's what i want it to be;^)

Lets get those rivers on hex sides where they belong.

When using auto move lets have a unit stop when it enters a ZOC instead of repeatedly disengaging along it's path.

also naval really needs to be worked on BAD (only reason this is last is because most scenarios that use naval could simply be written from the context that one side has absolute superiority and just dodge the issue that way)

Oh could the event editor be a little more intuitive? I seem to remember cases where I must set up a deal where an event that does nothing has to happen to alow for the posibilty of an event that does when writing a scenario.



Pippin -> RE: What to change ? (10/8/2005 11:30:42 PM)

quote:

I'm skeptical of the fit of this. Only the smallest toaw scenarios can be completed in a single session, on the huge end, even completing a single turn in one session is unlikely.


This is why players can SAVE.



Capitaine -> RE: What to change ? (10/9/2005 12:21:01 AM)

quote:

Lets get those rivers on hex sides where they belong.


Amen. I can't stand this at the scale of TOAW.

Also, it would be nice if you could have "hexside lakes", estuaries, and other neat shore/water features. This would require having both hexside water rubric AND the ability to reverse of the implementation of water/land hexes (so painting land on a water hexside makes that hexside land, not water).

(It's a little hard to describe w/o the game handy, but you can't recreate much coastal/lake terrain accurately b/c of the way the water painting works. The smallest lake therefore is a large, round, full hex.)



Mantis -> RE: What to change ? (10/9/2005 7:52:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner

Again, fog of war. If a player makes a move based on the expectation that the path was clear, he should suffer if he was wrong.



I agree with all the other points in your post, Ben, but this one bothers me just for the 'feel' of it. I learned in my first game to only sneak along a hex or two at a time when I'm opening up unknown terrain, so it's not something I get caught on. It just feels wrong. The simple fact of it is that if a commander tells his Lt. to get his men on to that hill over there, and a previously unknown division of enemy tanks starts rumbling down the road he's travelling up, I like to think that he wouldn't just go 'oh - isn't that interesting', and try to walk past them all without incident.

I mean, some things should just be a given. I don't tell my boys to reload their weapons during combat, I'm assuming they're smart enough to do that by themselves. When surprised by enemy units, I would expect them to react appropriately.



Rob322 -> RE: What to change ? (10/9/2005 8:07:11 PM)

Ok, long time TOAW player here and I have to say I'm thrilled to see this happening! I can't believe what is probably my all time favorite game is coming back to life! Thank you Matrix.

Now ...

That being said, I had some thoughts on things that could be fixed.

1) Naval. It's already been said but the naval aspect left much to be desired. Ship vs Ship was far too generic and unpredictable, no ZOC's, no interception (I loved the Sealion scenario where I sailed my German troop transports AROUND the British fleet), etc. I often would just leave naval out entirely, create events in the engine to simulate naval combat. Part of me feels it should just be jettisioned or turned strictly into shore bombardment. I know a navy can block someone's amphibious assault but most amphibious assaults were conducted when you had cleared away the enemy's navy to begin with, few sent transports into the teeth of the enemies' battle line. My druthers are to scrap the navy forces, this is a land combat game after all!

Still, if we have to have naval forces, we need more texture. For instance there is a wide variety of "missile frigates" in the world and some should clearly do better than others and yet sometimes the North Korean Navy (in Norm's 2000 scenario) could wipe the seas of the US! So if we're going to keep naval forces I would recommend far more detail be incorporated into them.

2) Air forces. One thing that always annoyed me was the stacking limits. It didn't seem to matter how big the air groups were. Neither did how big the hexes were (a 50km hex might have several airfields) have an impact. There should have been a way of instead just allocating points to each airfield to say that such a base can hold X number of planes. Also, not every airfield can accomodate every type of jet. B-52's need longer runways than F-16's. This should be reflected in a new version. And, I'd like the idea of being able to bomb airfields and damage the runways, base facilities, etc. Air units might become disabled until the runways are fixed, or the capacity of a base might be impaired.

Another thing I wished was the ability to assign certain roads or railines or other features as interdiction targets. I'd much prefer that than having interdiction diffused across the map. It also seems more realistic to me. If you know your opponent's armored division is going to drive up a particular highway, that's where you send your attack jets.

I know I'm not coming up with much new here but just wanted to add my voice and throw out some ideas to improve an already great game.



bluermonkey -> RE: What to change ? (10/9/2005 8:29:59 PM)

The user interface for scenario creation is, IMHO, a bit of a nightmare. This thing should be made much easier to navigate.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 2:21:38 AM)

quote:

I don't tell my boys to reload their weapons during combat,


I think Ben would actually like this as a feature of the game;^) With increase in prosecers speeds it should be a small skip to calculating how each grain of powder burns after you dirrect the guy to pull the trigger.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 2:22:29 AM)

I think the need for additional events would be reduced if the event engine was rationalized a tad. I wrote one scenario (that i lost in a disk failure talk about depressing) where one of the main things going on was allowing the players to decide on which assets to bring on map. You could increase your military commitment in this border war but each time you did you lost victory points. I remember vividly having to use multiple events just to get to a single thing happening. It seems like half of the time you have to do stuff like

1] News = NO News = event 2 enabled
2] = Strategic option 1 side 2 = event 3 enabled
3] = News = Reinforcements = event 4 enabled
4] = reinforcements hex XXXX (what I wanted in the first place as a strategic option!!!!!)

It's been a while so I am probably off on the specifics but it gets the idea across;^)



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 2:41:13 AM)

quote:

Why not allow both?

Ben try expanding on that philosophy;^) For instance let a guy like me see numbers on units that mean something when I have a unit spotted on "THE SORT OF KIND OF FOG WAR" setting. Then let some one else not even know where their own units are (very realistic serious) on the "SUPER DUPER ULTRA MEGA FOG OF WAR" Setting. Of course there are guys out there that don't want to know where their own units are but they do want to know how many cans of spam each guy has in his rucksack, I'm not sure what you call that.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 4:34:01 AM)

quote:

I've heard that the US Army ran a game along those lines- and the latter guy won.

Of course that can happen I think we have all been in the situation in some game we have played that some oponent does so consistantly badly that we even try throwing them bones. A lot that can be based on simple tactical ineptitude. In Miniature and Board games each of the players usualy have all the info most of the time except what the dice are going to do. Yet I still run in to a player occasionaly that has no concept of flank security. Or any other number of basics. That are true no matter what game you are playing at what level of FOW. What is frustrating is playing a game that is so minutae driven that an oponents units perform so much better because of a clinical understanding of internal game mechanics that he is at an advantage inspite of a rough parity or even inferiority at tactical or strategic principles!! Ironically complex attempts at "simulation" modeling are far more likey to exacerbate rather than amelorate this problem. Now interesting point the in TOAW you actually do get a pretty acurate read on what unit strenghts are in scenarios prior to WWII. I am real comfortable with the level of information I am getting in Tannenburg or Mons. Now when the tanks and air start showing up things go south real quick. Some of this does go directly to Norms somtimes bizzaire interpretations of what is important about unit strenght such as valuing rate of fire in AT over raw punch. Now real world an ROF of 20 rounds per minute is swell if you can punch your targets but useless if you can't. Better then an ROF of 1 round per minute if your shot hits and don't bounce!



Crimguy -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 6:09:38 AM)

Looks like Ben's played some TOAW ;-D

I'm pretty excited to see it coming. I agree with virtually all of ben's comments, but do think the numbers should be a bit more "firm" on the counters.

Really, all I want is a more comprehensive manual, no cd requirement, and maybe a bit more ability to move entire formations as a group. Lots of things in TOAW left me scratching my head, and that manual spent a good 2 months next to my toilet[:D]




JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 1:35:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
Notably, the best TOAW player I've encountered in PBM (Colin Wright) is one of those people who plays the game as if it were a real battle.


I wonder if this Colin dude has ever played against any ladder leaders of SZO. Might get his a** whupped.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8120117