RE: What to change ? (Full Version)

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



Message

lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 1:55:15 PM)

quote:

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!!



Mm. If you give him more information about the units, this will only get worse. Conceal that information and he'll have to switch off his targeting computer and rely on the force.


What I'm talking about here Ben is Stuff like mastering Supply soaking attacks and working the the game for maximum combat rounds. NONE of that has any thing to do with SIMULATING anything it is pure game mechanic. Given that your preference seems to lean toward simulation rather than game you should not like this stuff.

But I think it cuts to a core issue between us. You want a good simulation so you look at TOAW and see what you think will make it in to a good simulation. I want to play a GAME which has some elements of uncertanty, incorperates managebly defined risk taking and rewards actions like not leaving my flank in the air but does not require me to figure out that as a consequence of moving Field Kitchen in France that is ambushed by partizans that it is going to prevent a major offensive in Russia from happening. And that Is EXACTLY what can happen in TOAW with the way the combat impulse system works.

TOAW really has a lot going for it both from the game and simulation stand point. But sometimes it ain't real good at either. Reading Heats lists of requested Changes and Bug fixes at WFHQ really points this out well. And I'll have to say i am in concurence with almost all of them.




JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 1:56:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner

EDIT: wow, another censored forum.


If you mean my post, it was self-censored. Test: ass. [:D]



JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 2:02:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

What I'm talking about here Ben is Stuff like mastering Supply soaking attacks and working the the game for maximum combat rounds. NONE of that has any thing to do with SIMULATING anything it is pure game mechanic. Given that your preference seems to lean toward simulation rather than game you should not like this stuff.

But I think it cuts to a core issue between us. You want a good simulation so you look at TOAW and see what you think will make it in to a good simulation. I want to play a GAME which has some elements of uncertanty, incorperates managebly defined risk taking and rewards actions like not leaving my flank in the air but does not require me to figure out that as a consequence of moving Field Kitchen in France that is ambushed by partizans that it is going to prevent a major offensive in Russia from happening. And that Is EXACTLY what can happen in TOAW with the way the combat impulse system works.

TOAW really has a lot going for it both from the game and simulation stand point. But sometimes it ain't real good at either. Reading Heats lists of requested Changes and Bug fixes at WFHQ really points this out well. And I'll have to say i am in concurence with almost all of them.


I agree. Most frustrating thing about TOAW at the moment is that most of the time it feels like fighting the game system, not the battle/campaign at hand.



JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 2:29:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
The fact that TOAW is the best game of its type says more for the lack of other games covering this area than it does about TOAW.


Is there any competition at all? I mean there are no games of similar type actually...



Capitaine -> RE: What to change ? (10/10/2005 4:11:01 PM)

The discussion here is reminding me why I had to stop playing TOAW... [:(]



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/11/2005 12:33:08 AM)

quote:

I think you're mischaracterising my position (this seems to happen a lot).

Ben we do that to each other some how you totaly miss which issues I am talking about at which times. Hint I talk about more than one thing!!



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/11/2005 12:38:04 AM)

quote:

The discussion here is reminding me why I had to stop playing TOAW.


I hear you I haven't even played the game solitair in 18 months. On a certain levle the more you know about how the game is doing things the more scruewed you feel.



JJKettunen -> RE: What to change ? (10/11/2005 12:42:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

On a certain levle the more you know about how the game is doing things the more scruewed you feel.


I agree, unfortunately.



Crimguy -> RE: What to change ? (10/11/2005 7:44:57 AM)

I could never figure out exactly what was going on. In TOAW I have a trial-and-error method of getting the attacks right.

For me, it wasn't that the info I needed wasn't there; it was that it was never where I expected it. I do think the interface should be reworked - in that respect I give TOAW lower marks than the reviewer. Better use of contextual information in the right-side pane is the way to go IMHO. I also don't think a bunch of little buttons piled together is all that smooth. I even prefer the grouped buttons in Tiller's games to that.

I will plunk down the $40 for the game, and have rather meager requests for improvement (in order of preference):

1) Fix all bugs possible by next release.
2) Rework interface - might be the place to invest some of the added processing power since the 300mHz days [:D]
3) Comprehensive manual - an option for a printed, delivered copy at $10 + S/H would be a nice touch.
4) Improved statistical information for players to aid in handling your troops, including strength, supply, fatigue, etc.- I like charts/graphs and spreadsheets!
5) Better way to move groups of units in formation.
6) I'm a WEGO guy, but that would change a fundamental part of the game, so I'm not complaining if its not there.
7) Update the graphics to allow better maps. Make sure the UI works like any Windows app - allowing you to run it windowed, or take up my entire screen (1680x1050) if I like.

For an example of a game that does much of this right IMHO, check out Flashpoint Germany. My hats off to them for creating a useful interface that scales well to all computers.



Mantis -> RE: What to change ? (10/11/2005 4:02:28 PM)


quote:


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


Nope, not to my knowledge, and I don't think we'll see it happen any time soon.



pzgndr -> RE: What to change ? (10/11/2005 8:02:14 PM)

quote:

Is there any competition at all? I mean there are no games of similar type actually...


Russo-German War by Schwerpunkt. And its sequel, Anglo-German War, is ready for release. These are operational-level games with 1-week turns and division-size units. TOAW can simulate larger and smaller scales, but for the operational level Schwerpunkt offers an alternative.

I won't say "competition" so much as complementary. Both game systems offer lots of nice features, but also some irritating things. I've played both and I'll say that I am less irritated by the Schwerpunkt approach. Hopefully Matrix will resolve many of those longstanding TOAW issues that Talonsoft refused to address and I'll go back to playing both.



Grisha -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 2:21:55 AM)

Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but I'd like to the scenario file to be the 'pointer' to the weapons/equipment database to be used. The database could be the default one, or a modified one. Sure, there would be a lot of possibilities wrt weapons/equipment capabilities because of this, but there would also be a drive to standardize. And, when you have a modifiable database that relies heavily on balanced realistic assessments, you will have gamers dedicated to meeting that requirement. Make the TOAW weapons/equipment database easily modifiable and linked to a scenario, and I'm sure there will be a select few of player-based databases that we can all rely on to a surprising degree.

-grisha



steveh11Matrix -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 2:42:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grisha

Make the TOAW weapons/equipment database easily modifiable and linked to a scenario, and I'm sure there will be a select few of player-based databases that we can all rely on to a surprising degree.

-grisha

Now that sounds like an excellent suggestion!

Steve.



BlackSunshine -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 6:46:34 AM)

I played the hell out of TOAW until moving on to other wargames. One thing that should be done to interest returning players is to update the graphics. I know it's just a war game, but after 1000's of hours staring at the same tired graphics, they definately need an upgrade. Same with musical score and sound effects.

Try to make it feel like a new game



scout1 -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 8:29:40 AM)

quote:

Make the TOAW weapons/equipment database easily modifiable and linked to a scenario,


I've seen this come up in a number of games (DB Series, WitP, BTR, etc ....), most of which were developed some time ago. One of the esiest ways to greatly ease database modifications is to get away from the exclusive use of the game/scenario engine for mod's and (at LEAST) permit the info to be exported and imported via (comma delimited files (*.csv). This permits manipulation in a number of programs including Excel and Access (that are fairly available, easy to use AND are better suited to this type of work). The number of the members in the WitP community did this and it GREATLY enhanced the ability of players to mod.

Just a suggestion.....[;)]



steveh11Matrix -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 2:39:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

I played the hell out of TOAW until moving on to other wargames. One thing that should be done to interest returning players is to update the graphics. I know it's just a war game, but after 1000's of hours staring at the same tired graphics, they definately need an upgrade. Same with musical score and sound effects.

Try to make it feel like a new game

I understand what you're saying, but to me this is the least important aspect of the game. The graphics are clear and functional, and the sound is, at least, there - for those who want it (I habitually turn the sound off for most games I play).

Perhaps an update such that users can define their own pallette for the counters, rather than having one hard-coded. Not much else needed, at least, not for me.

Steve.



Nemo69 -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 2:49:27 PM)

Yeah. As a matter of fact there are graphic mods out there, be it for the icons or the terrain graphics. Would be nice indeed to have an easily editable or moddable (spelling?) default palette.



Mantis -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 5:46:58 PM)

I've gone through the mods available recently, and taken a few bmp's from here, and a few from there. The bulk of this mod is from Peter's mod, which is available at www.tdg.nu for those interested.

Have a peek!

[image]http://armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/shane/toawterrain.jpg[/image]



Mantis -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 5:50:14 PM)

(Hopefully Eric won't peek at this thread for at least a few more turns of game time - this is where his offensive is aimed... [:D])



CommC -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 6:02:17 PM)

I would like to add to the requests an improved set of formation orders for the programmed opponent and better performance in general for the AI.

With the current set of formation orders, it was almost impossible to tell the PO to execute a fighting retreat and many other combat operations.




Pippin -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 6:24:24 PM)

One thing I remember is when an emeny moves into a previously fortified position, there is a penalty, but still the enemy gets some bonus from that fortification. Now I've had many times where I was planing to leave a certain hex that I had been entrenched in, and wanted to wipe the defense bonus to that hex clean but couldn't. So all you can do is move out and let the enemy gain advantage from the defensive modifications that YOU created.

I'm not too sure on the realism of this.






Mantis -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 10:22:27 PM)

Each hex has an entrenchment level. When you dig in, you raise the entrenchment level of that hex. (It is displayed as a % when you hold the mouse over the hex in question). Now, this level *does not* provide any sort of defensive bonus or modifier. What it does do is increase the chance of any subsequent units there to entrench successfully. For example, you've all had a mobile unit dig in; sometimes they go to defending status, sometimes the make it to entrenched. The % value for entrenchment in that hex is a bonus to the chance to dig in, not to the overall (combat) defensive bonus for the hex. Therefore, how 'much' you dig in is really where this bonus is applied.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: What to change ? (10/13/2005 11:33:13 PM)

quote:

but after 1000's of hours staring at the same tired graphics, they definately need an upgrade.

Gee after 100's of hours looking at the "tired" graphics it's stil the best looking computer game I've ever seen as far as the 2d goes wich all I want to look at. The only problems are the Air fields and ports and minor roads in snow scenarios. These are all easey to fix with user graphics mods.

As far as sound goes I have a second computer on my desk with all my MP3's hooked up to a stereo reciever and my TV on the other side of the monitor I play games on. This all runs thru a DJ mixer so I can cross fade any sound I want. The last sound I'm going to be listening to is the sound from any game I am playing;^)



Reiryc -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 12:22:54 AM)

Am I missing something or where are these ben turner posts that I see getting quoted? [&:]



Mantis -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 12:42:25 AM)

I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but there was a problem when they tried to merge his new account with his old, inactive one. It accidentally wiped all his posts. [X(]



Reiryc -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 12:58:06 AM)

Doh...

Well thanks for answering. Was driving me nuts trying to find where these posts came from so I could follow the discussion!



Szilard -> RE: What to change ? (10/14/2005 2:44:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CommC

I would like to add to the requests an improved set of formation orders for the programmed opponent and better performance in general for the AI.

With the current set of formation orders, it was almost impossible to tell the PO to execute a fighting retreat and many other combat operations.




Ditto!

The AI could be very much better, probably without a huge amount of work.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875