Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 8/16/2003 7:47:53 AM

Crimguy

Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B] But this is a Matrix forum and I don't think we should get into a ******* match here where some inevitably will make an unfavorable argument against the publisher's product, heaven forbid. [/B][/QUOTE]

lol :D

I also appreciate the civility around here. The boyz at the Battlefront forums are up for a fight at any chance by comparison.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 61

- 8/16/2003 7:55:46 AM

PeterF

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/10/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]but the most amazing thing about that game that made it worth its money (or at least one of the series games) was the novel concept of turn/time usage. ... Placed in a better game system, I think that could be a killer mechanism![/QUOTE]

TOAW was a game was a game of thrilling scope, lumpy with innovative ideas. It was also as screwy as H*ll. I think, with the single exception of Sid Meier, the best strategy/wargames are the creation of two man teams. One thinks of Steve Grammont and Charles Moylan at Battlefront. You need a visionary and a practical, green eyeshade type and these qualities are rarely united in a single person. Norm Koger, was/is apparentlya one man team, and a somewhat remote and testy one at that. At least that was my impression. Look at the superior sims; Il-Sturmovik, Combat Mission, the Papyrus racing series and you'll notice a certain idealism in evidence and as well as a close developer/fan base relationship. I think this is in evidence in the Korsun Pocket forum. The developers are engaged and attentive to our opinions. This is a good sign.

I still maintain that Sid Meier's Gettysburg was the most convincing recreation of battle ever created for the PC.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 62

- 8/16/2003 4:50:06 PM

Szilard

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline

This is off on a ery slopy tangent, but ... what about the old SSG Battlefront/Panzer Battles system? I get the impression most people didn't like it too well, mainly because you didn't have control over individual units. You would give orders to a corps (say), and the computer corps commander would control the divisions. It was too simplistic, and the computer commanders were often frustratingly dumb. But despite that, it remains my favorite computer wargame system.

I liked it partly because it's the only board or PC system I know of which gives me a POV which I can understand. I'm an Army commander; I give orders to my Corps commanders; they execute them, badly or well, but it's not my job to be moving divisions around.

And also because it's an approach which makes the computer do most of the boring work, instead of me.

I think it was a move in the right direction in the transition from cardboard to PC. It was a qualitative change, doing something you couldn't really do with a board game, and something which added (IMO) realism while cutting out labor. I think I'm pretty isolated in that belief, though. It seems that most prefer a completely different direction: finally the PC allows you to do CNA or some other monstrous board game without making you take over the living room for a year.

So you get Grigsby/Koger/Tiller designs which attempt to model things down to the last rifle (and are of course seriously incomplete and rather inconsistent in this modelling), allow/require you to directly control each sub-unit, work like a tax assessor on details over & over again ...

To my mind this is crazy. CNA etc were not bad designs because they lacked the technology to make them workable; they were just bad designs. (Obviously, a totally subjective judgement, I realize.)

I think the DB system is much better, largely because it doesn't aim for an inappropriate, unnecessary and self-defeating level of detail in the modelling. But I'd like it much better if they could graft onto it an updated & improved version of Panzer Battles' control mechanism.

Here's my ideal system: You, the player, have a POV which puts you somewhere in a standard military hierarchy. It can be at the top, or in the middle somewhere. You can jump around and wear more than one "hat" if you want to. You can issue/be issued various operational orders. Where the computer is in charge of a formation, he/she is represented by an AI agent which has routines to execute these orders.

The system includes tools for player-designers to create their own routines for executing standardized operational orders, and to transfer these between game settings - in effect, to create their own "persistent" digital commanders. You can play them off against others; you can do things like create a digital Rommel or Marlborough, or at least your conception of them.

(There was a message on Chris Merchant's board from Keating talking about planned AI upgrades for the Normandy game which seem to be vaguely in this direction.)

The response will be that this is all pie-in-the-sky, too difficult to do the AI etc (even if people wanted it, which maybe they don't.) But I think you could go much further along the way to something like this than happens at the moment. Most wargame AI seems not to have progresed very much since Jim Dunnigan etc sketched out basics 20-30 years ago - objective based, little or no global knowledge base, little or no memory between "turns" ... Very primitive. SSG obviously does far better than most, and I'll be really interested to see what they come up with for the Normandy game.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 63

- 8/16/2003 5:18:53 PM

Rob Gjessing

Posts: 525
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

I loved the old SSG battlefront/panzer battles series.. I liked the frustration of not being able to determine where exactly your units would go.. fantastic!

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 64

- 8/16/2003 5:43:25 PM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

You can't really knock TOAW. It often devolves into either total predetermination or total randomness, but that's more an issue of pushing the engine past its limits. I think that a lot of TOAW scenarios (whose ease of creating being part of it's magnificence) were really good.

It is often the case where you find people harping over little details until their agenda is theoretically proven. The bottom line is if you approach these games with an open mind and honestly explore them there is no reason why they can't be very enriching experiences. HPS games are made with a high degree of professionalism and are obviously play-tested a lot. You play the game and you can feel the hard work. I have a lot of respect for that. I'm in game development myself (I'm creative director of the upcoming Spider-Man 2 movie game for the consoles) and it's no cup of tea.

Capitaine, here some quotes from your recent posts:

"A PC game must still be a valid game."

".... The worst violations of gaming mechanisms are committed by Tiller designs, without even having to look very hard or deep. .... "

These are some pretty sweeping statements, especially when there is no accompanying explanation of your definitions. I'm certain that a "very hard" or "deep" look into most of these games actually reveals that there are no serious violations of gaming mechanisms. Only the occasional flawed execution of reasonably good ideas. None of which even remotely threatens the game's validity! I'm the first person to say that there are many computer/console games out there that are quite bad... but these wargames that are coming out nowadays are really solid forward moves in the world of operational level games.

It's very likely that many of you have played more board games than myself, but I'm certainly no stranger to them. I just don't have the time for the massive physical/material endeavor that big board war games end up being (not to mention the difficulty of finding people to play with). I spent the better part of a year playing 5th Fleet by myself taking the majority of my room and wishing it was computerized.

All in all I'm really happy with the computer wargame developments in the last few years. It can only improve really. TOAW, HPS, SSG all have one flaw in common though. They all think within the box of boardgames. Once we can break out of that cage who knows where wargames will go. RtM was a good idea, but where is it now? An maybe one day there'll be real AI innovation, but that's a lot to ask.

Tomo

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 65

- 8/16/2003 7:52:29 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

Tombstone, your view is fine. For you. As for me and others I've discussed these very matters with, we don't share your view and can no longer "tolerate" the deal killers we perceive in the titles being compared here.

FWIW, I approached each of those games, as I do every game pretty much (unless it's just another application of the same system), with an "open mind". Sometimes, my wallet would be better off if I had a "closed mind". ;)

I did not scrutinize in detail the comparison games here b/c (a) I do not desire to rehash things I argued years ago [I]ad nauseum[/I] for a second time, [I]ad nauseum[/I]; and (b) I do not think it is appropriate to discuss in detail another company's product since it will detract from the very fine product to which this particular forum is dedicated.

In sum, I offered my own [I]opinion[/I] on the matters raised by someone else in starting this topic simply to buttress the opinions that were akin to my own. A thread like this is sort of like a glorified poll; little else. The bottom line is that I dislike, now, both the PzC system and the TOAW system, even if there are some "good" things in both that I wish hadn't been marred by loopy design issues in other areas. In my opinion.

So, do you see where I'm coming from here? And more importantly, where I'm not? :cool:

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 66

- 8/17/2003 4:09:03 AM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Szilard
[B]This is off on a ery slopy tangent, but ... what about the old SSG Battlefront/Panzer Battles system? I get the impression most people didn't like it too well, mainly because you didn't have control over individual units. You would give orders to a corps (say), and the computer corps commander would control the divisions. It was too simplistic, and the computer commanders were often frustratingly dumb. But despite that, it remains my favorite computer wargame system.

I liked it partly because it's the only board or PC system I know of which gives me a POV which I can understand. I'm an Army commander; I give orders to my Corps commanders; they execute them, badly or well, but it's not my job to be moving divisions around.

And also because it's an approach which makes the computer do most of the boring work, instead of me.

I think it was a move in the right direction in the transition from cardboard to PC. It was a qualitative change, doing something you couldn't really do with a board game, and something which added (IMO) realism while cutting out labor. I think I'm pretty isolated in that belief, though. It seems that most prefer a completely different direction: finally the PC allows you to do CNA or some other monstrous board game without making you take over the living room for a year.

So you get Grigsby/Koger/Tiller designs which attempt to model things down to the last rifle (and are of course seriously incomplete and rather inconsistent in this modelling), allow/require you to directly control each sub-unit, work like a tax assessor on details over & over again ...

To my mind this is crazy. CNA etc were not bad designs because they lacked the technology to make them workable; they were just bad designs. (Obviously, a totally subjective judgement, I realize.)

I think the DB system is much better, largely because it doesn't aim for an inappropriate, unnecessary and self-defeating level of detail in the modelling. But I'd like it much better if they could graft onto it an updated & improved version of Panzer Battles' control mechanism.

Here's my ideal system: You, the player, have a POV which puts you somewhere in a standard military hierarchy. It can be at the top, or in the middle somewhere. You can jump around and wear more than one "hat" if you want to. You can issue/be issued various operational orders. Where the computer is in charge of a formation, he/she is represented by an AI agent which has routines to execute these orders.

The system includes tools for player-designers to create their own routines for executing standardized operational orders, and to transfer these between game settings - in effect, to create their own "persistent" digital commanders. You can play them off against others; you can do things like create a digital Rommel or Marlborough, or at least your conception of them.

(There was a message on Chris Merchant's board from Keating talking about planned AI upgrades for the Normandy game which seem to be vaguely in this direction.)

The response will be that this is all pie-in-the-sky, too difficult to do the AI etc (even if people wanted it, which maybe they don't.) But I think you could go much further along the way to something like this than happens at the moment. Most wargame AI seems not to have progresed very much since Jim Dunnigan etc sketched out basics 20-30 years ago - objective based, little or no global knowledge base, little or no memory between "turns" ... Very primitive. SSG obviously does far better than most, and I'll be really interested to see what they come up with for the Normandy game. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good stuff, couldn't agree more. That's the problem I have with the PzC series, and the like. I.e., take Smolensk campaign. In the campaign, you're not Guderian, nor Hoth, if on the German side. You're von Kluge, since both Panzergroups of Army Group Center are represented.
Yet, you're controlling battalions, or smalleer.

I don't think he worried about that scale in reality :)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 67

- 8/17/2003 4:30:23 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Pancoast
[B]...I don't think he worried about that scale in reality :) [/B][/QUOTE]

You're quite right John. Only Hitler did. :)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 68

- 8/17/2003 4:41:11 AM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
[B]You're quite right John. Only Hitler did. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL, true, I thought of that when I was writing that post :)

Also, forgot to mention, the BG series had a feature like what was mentioned, and I really liked that.

I think most gamers do like to micromanage though, realistic or not, so games are developed that way I would guess.

Personally, I hate it :) My life is full of enough micromanagement, I don't need to add to it :)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 69

- 8/17/2003 12:44:26 PM

Crimguy

Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline

A game that does what you like very well (giving orders to the commander and he in turn gives orders to subordinates) is Airborne Assault: Red Devils at Arnhem. Good game mechanics that are only marred in my opinion by too-small a setting.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 70

- 8/17/2003 3:37:08 PM

Szilard

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 71

- 8/18/2003 12:08:52 AM

Kent Pfeiffer

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crimguy
[B]A game that does what you like very well (giving orders to the commander and he in turn gives orders to subordinates) is Airborne Assault: Red Devils at Arnhem. Good game mechanics that are only marred in my opinion by too-small a setting. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I'd love to see that system scaled up. At one time the guys at Panther Games were talking about doing an Operation Crusader game with this engine. Anyone know if it is still in the works?

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 72

- 8/18/2003 7:05:47 AM

Kevinugly

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline

Kent, I hate to disappoint you but it seems the guys at Panther have placed the 'Crusader' game on the back-burner for a while. A revamped AA is the next due up followed by a 'Bulge' game partly due to economics ('Bulge' games generally sell better than Desert campaign games and 'man cannot live by bread alone'.)

I've just read through the whole thread as I was considering acquiring the PzC 'Bulge' game or KP or even both. Fascinating stuff although I'm no nearer making my mind up!

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 73

- 8/18/2003 7:29:59 AM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevinugly
[B]Kent, I hate to disappoint you but it seems the guys at Panther have placed the 'Crusader' game on the back-burner for a while. A revamped AA is the next due up followed by a 'Bulge' game partly due to economics ('Bulge' games generally sell better than Desert campaign games and 'man cannot live by bread alone'.)

I've just read through the whole thread as I was considering acquiring the PzC 'Bulge' game or KP or even both. Fascinating stuff although I'm no nearer making my mind up! [/B][/QUOTE]

Easy, get them both :)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 74

- 8/18/2003 11:15:07 AM

Kent Pfeiffer

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 75

- 8/18/2003 1:07:46 PM

Adam Parker

Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevinugly
[B]I've just read through the whole thread as I was considering acquiring the PzC 'Bulge' game or KP or even both. Fascinating stuff although I'm no nearer making my mind up! [/B][/QUOTE]

Kev, here's a way to decide and I'm in the school of acquiring both.

Regardless of the hiccups KP is showing with its new design both it and HPS's Panzer Campaigns series are solid conceptual offerings. Therefore 1 question kicks the issue off:

Do you want to play at the regimental level with 3km hexes and 12 hours turns? - Go KP/TAO3.

Do you want to play at the Battalion level with 1km hexes and 2 hour turns (4 hours at night)? - Go Panzer Campaigns.

The next issues - relating to AI, breadth of scenario coverage, ease of DYO etc then can be asked but this is where you should start things off.

Adam.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 76

- 8/19/2003 6:51:03 AM

Kevinugly

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline

Thanks Adam and John - I'm probably gonna go for both and 'suck it and see' so to speak. I was board and figure wargaming some 25 years ago and am a recent convert to computer wargaming - maybe I'm going through a second childhood :D if I ever left the first;) . You'll probably find me posting regularly up here once I've played them both much as I do with Airborne Assault.

Cheers again:)

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 77

- 8/19/2003 10:00:44 PM

von Schmidt

Posts: 63
Joined: 8/18/2003
Status: offline

Talking about operational level games: I am a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned Schwerpunkt's 'Russo-German War (41-44)' (http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/index.htm).

Very much a boardgame based design, but done quite well (including rules for Command/Control, Reserves, Armor ZOCS etc).

Not quite as sophisticated as KP, with a lesser AI (although better than the braindead PzC AI); *very* basic map which, however, is more 'readable' than the overly busy KP maps.

50 Scenarios covering the Eastern Front 41-44, including the (pretty unplayable) full Campaign and a scen for each year.

The real meat and the scen level the system is geared towards are the short operational maps; everything from Barbarossa (full or part of the operation), via Kiev Pocket, Leningrad, Moscow 41 to KHarkov 42 (43), STalingrad etc etc up to the invasion of Rumania and Bagration 44.

Talk about value for money!

Schwerpunkt are working on a follow-up game covering the Western Front - I am very much looking forward to that one.

von Schmidt
(now back to Wiking Wipeout - the Mighty Red Army *will* prevail!)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 78

- 8/20/2003 12:58:59 AM

PeterF

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/10/2003
Status: offline

Yes, but, IIRC, it suffers from the same deformation as TOAW, to wit, no hex side features; rivers run through the center of hexes. IMO, this doomed TOAW beyond all redemption despite its innovative features. This is an OK implementation for a tactical game but at the operational+ scale there's simply no excuse.

Question. If opposing units are adjacent but astride the SAME river is there a combat penalty? Think about it.....

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 79

- 8/20/2003 1:33:49 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeterF
[B]Yes, but, IIRC, it suffers from the same deformation as TOAW, to wit, no hex side features; rivers run through the center of hexes. IMO, this doomed TOAW beyond all redemption despite its innovative features. This is an OK implementation for a tactical game but at the operational+ scale there's simply no excuse.

Question. If opposing units are adjacent but astride the SAME river is there a combat penalty? Think about it..... [/B][/QUOTE]

And because of the poor AI you almost have to play by email. The problem here is the air rules are not suited for PBEM.

I stuck with it through about 6 months of constant improvemnets but when I gasve up it was seriously lacking. Maybe the latest patch(s) have improved some of it.

For those of us old timers who spent moany hours pushing cardboard counters around a paper map it sure brought back memories - and the stacks of units don't fall over like they did with cardboard counters.

I do agree though with von Schmidt, the KP map is a little busy for the size of the (too small) hexes.

:)

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 80

- 8/20/2003 6:32:37 AM

Adam Parker

Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Schmidt
[B]Talking about operational level games: I am a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned Schwerpunkt's 'Russo-German War (41-44)' (http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/index.htm). [/B][/QUOTE]

Von probably because the game's interface is unfathomable - and it is a great shame for I was in contact with the designer and owner and he has a great war gaming philosophy.

RGW should have been - the - definitive game of divisional level, ost front combat.

I may have to challenge you to a game of Wiking Wipeout because of those PzC comments ;)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 81

- 8/20/2003 11:38:13 AM

Kent Pfeiffer

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adam Parker
[B]Von probably because the game's interface is unfathomable - and it is a great shame for I was in contact with the designer and owner and he has a great war gaming philosophy.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know about that. The interface is certainly clunky, but it's hardly any worse Tiller's standard UI. I think RGW never achieved much wide-spread appeal largely because it is butt-ugly (aesthetics DO matter, even in a wargame) and several of its elements didn't work correctly at the time of the original release. Too bad, because I had high hopes for it, and a great deal of respect for Ron Dockal.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 82

- 8/20/2003 12:30:57 PM

Adam Parker

Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kent Pfeiffer
[B]I don't know... [/B][/QUOTE]

Finally agree that you've said something valid there Kent :D

Back O/T, the thing about Decisive Battles and PzC is that they are both inuitive designs. Hopping into gameplay is pretty much immediate in both yet, they are so divergent in approach.

Adam.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 83

- 8/20/2003 4:01:27 PM

von Schmidt

Posts: 63
Joined: 8/18/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeterF
[B]Yes, but, IIRC, it suffers from the same deformation as TOAW, to wit, no hex side features; rivers run through the center of hexes. IMO, this doomed TOAW beyond all redemption despite its innovative features. This is an OK implementation for a tactical game but at the operational+ scale there's simply no excuse.

Question. If opposing units are adjacent but astride the SAME river is there a combat penalty? Think about it..... [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed about the river issue; having it run through the hex leads to all sorts of weird situations.
I vaguely remember that the Schwerpunkt Western front game might have rivers on hexsides (IIRC).

It is however not a game-breaker though (I equate it with KP/TAO's busy maps; annoying but the rest of the game makes up for it).

BTW, the latest unofficial TOAW patch (1.06) actually allows for rivers on hexsides.
So if that is your greatest gripe, you might want to give the game another shot...

von Schmidt

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 84

- 8/20/2003 7:32:08 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]BTW, the latest unofficial TOAW patch (1.06) actually allows for rivers on hexsides.
[/QUOTE] Do you have a link to a site w/ that patch, v. Schmidt? That would be a major thing for TOAW (and I wonder if that is the only terrain modification included; I recall pestering Norm personally about certain terrain "issues" that gave me problems and he seemed to agree...).

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 85

- 8/20/2003 7:45:09 PM

Fidel_Helms

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Actually, the 1.06 patch to TOAW does not introduce hexside rivers, and actually introduced such a raft of combat resolution bugs that everyone has gone back to using 1.04.

_____________________________

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 86

- 8/20/2003 8:57:42 PM

von Schmidt

Posts: 63
Joined: 8/18/2003
Status: offline

Ouch! You are completely and utterly correct about the rivers in TAOW 1.06; still in hex istelf.

My memory and crap reading skills screwed me up. Sorry...

I based my statement on reading the following months ago:

'Look for the patch soon - just realized it won't be the "flaming bush" upgrade we have all been anxiously awaiting. However, he did share one tweak he is working on for future patches (not 1.06)...'...

(followed by a screenshot of TAOW with hexside rivers).

(from http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1901)

There might be some hope for the future though.#
To quote the Great Koger:

'It's been quite a while since I worked seriously with the
code, so 1.06 is primarily a test version intended to reveal anything
that may have crept into the logic over the last year or so - new
logic that I may have left unfinished then forgot, any changes
necessary to accommodate XP, etc. Once I'm sure the current code base
is clean, I plan to go back and add goodies as time allows. Since it's
not a money making proposition, I make no promises - but it's pretty
likely that new TOAW features will be coming your way before long.'

(http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical+author:koger&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=m0068v0v99ivedtl60sc03tcfi92jsobhp%404ax.com&rnum=2)

Anyway, sincerely sorry about raising hopes and adding confusion with regards to TOAW.

von Schmidt

(still think that RGW is underrated tho - much better gamesystem and playing experience than the more talked about PzC East front games)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 87

- 8/20/2003 9:13:46 PM

Fidel_Helms

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

As an aside, if I remember correctly, the original reason that Koger did in-hex, rather than hex-side rivers was because of the fact that TOAW supports riverine units. Given that no one's ever really used that particular function of the game system, I can see why he's now more willing to switch to hexside rivers.

_____________________________

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 88

- 8/20/2003 9:34:24 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

I can see Norm using riverine units as a basis for in-hex rivers. However, a better workaround would've been to require such units always to be adjacent to a navigable river hexside and suffer no "river penalty" for attacks. Seems designers always take the most drastic, invasive method possible to accommodate some fairly minor need. :p

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 89

- 8/20/2003 10:28:03 PM

Kent Pfeiffer

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

Hey Adam, I can't help it that RGW's interface is "unfathonable" to you, especially since it's broadly similar to Tiller's standard interface: a row of buttons across the top, drag-and-drop movement, etc. Then again, maybe it's not so surprising given that you find the "braindead" AI of PzC to be challenging.;)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 90