RE: toaw evolution

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: toaw evolution

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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: toaw evolution

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: toaw evolution - 10/16/2005 4:24:09 PM

Jeremy Mac Donald

Posts: 765
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mantis

Jeremy - in response to your post about production, I mean something a little bit more than just equipment. I want to add to the OOB. As an example, let's take a generic 5 year war. A Red vs Blue type thing. I want the players to be able to decide to be tank heavy, and have several extra armored corps by the end of the scenario. The other player went for infantry, and has spent all his production on that (or whatever). I know that disbands can simulate production in the fashion that you mention, and events could even simulate giving the player a choice of what to build. But I want the player to actually form new units in scenarios where that would be reasonable, such as R vs B above, etc. I know that even this could be simulated with a chart to weigh production times, and a horde of events, but I was thinking something more along the lines of production ala Hearts of Iron or GG's World at War.

OK - personaly if what you describe has an on/off toggle in the scenario design utility then its all for the good. If some scenarios have production points but other more operational ones use some some other system I don't see the problem.

This is however beyond what I am personally interested in, which really is much more of a system that allows desingers significantly more power to deal with replacements on an individual level instead of being forced to increase or decrease every piece of equipment in the scenario by the same percentage Or we can pick a specific turn and have production of that piece of equipment completely start or stop on that turn irrispective of whats going on in the scenario. Basically currently what we have is an extraordinarly crude tool that designers have to bend over backwards in order to get around - and even then its always by sacrificing some other element.

Personally I'm not so sure I even want the players choosing whats actually being produced but as a rule I do want the designer to have that latitude. Generally equipment was increased or decreased because of a wide veraity of factors - usually because it was what was already available on the production lines and it was generally halted because it had been substantially outdated. I think the designer is in the best position to decide when individual pieces of equipment should increase or decrease in relavence.

< Message edited by Jeremy Mac Donald -- 10/16/2005 4:38:36 PM >

_____________________________

Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"

(in reply to Mantis)

Post #: 31

RE: toaw evolution - 10/16/2005 9:04:30 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

On production, I've had quite a lot of experience with this through my Grand Strategy projects (see here: http://www.geocities.com/maldenhill/mygame.htm. The rules document contains the current industrial model I'm using in GS3 (though I'm giving it a major facelift at the moment)

If TOAW's going to have a detailed production model, it has to be done right. In the past I've had trouble with players having the prototype of a new tank be followed by an immediate massive production run, with all old models out of production overnight, among other problems. This really shouldn't happen.

As to unit composition, there have to be strict controls here, too. Imagine a France 1940 scenario where the French player has complete freedom to change his OOB. It won't be pretty.

If anyone (say, a Matrix Games programmer...) is interested in how I've dealt with production in TOAW, they should take a look at the rules document at the above link.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 10/16/2005 9:05:24 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)

Post #: 32

RE: toaw evolution - 10/16/2005 10:47:27 PM

LewFisher

Posts: 66
Joined: 8/18/2003
From: Reno, Nevada
Status: offline

As suggested, have Norm improve the TOW engine; upgrade graphics and AI; and, as stated, Matrix put out a compehensive rules book.

I would then suggest "The Strategic Art Of War" using much of the TOW system but adapted to the strategic level. This would allow for longer, more indepth scenarios on a more strategic level.

This would satisfy the hardcore operational gamers but still allow for strategic scenarios. In additon, this way matrix could issue two games that would be in demand.

_____________________________

Lew Fisher

(in reply to Mantis)

Post #: 33