Where OPART shines and fails

[JReb]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue


Perhaps Gary and Norm could be locked in a room for a while.

Wow, what a collabration like that would bring, we can only fantasize about. [&o]
WiTp level WW2 Europe!

[macgregor]

Ahhhh .... ok. I'm simply going off what the game itself describes itself as, as well as my experiences with games in general. No one on here is saying don't ask for what you want. No one is saying don't dream of what you like either. Just trying to interject some reality in the discussion. Also, just trying to discuss what the game designer intended. No one is trying to rain on your parade, this presupposes it's important to me to do so (which it isn't). Perhaps you should chill out a little bit.

I'm not trying to single you out Rob. There's been many posts to this effect. Call me crazy but, I've played TOAW quite a bit and I'm not ready to make any assumptions about what Norm intended to do. All I know is that he included all-sea hexes and naval units and aircraft. Since it's inception, the game has constantly increased in scope with each newer version. I happen to see improving the naval aspect as one of the next possible logical steps. I don't think I'm out in left field with this idea either. If you can get Norm, or one of the developers to tell me what they or their colleagues intend(ed) to do I'll be happy to listen ( and even concede the point, if necessary) regardless. Personally,I think there is probably more than one opinion on this amongst them as well. Their silence on this issue is starting to hurt my ears.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

It's interesting to read this thread after having bought WITP and read those threads for a while. Over there, some want a better model of land war -- over here, a better air and naval model.

Perhaps Gary and Norm could be locked in a room for a while.

LoL- good idea! As usual everyone wants everything. God knows why anyone would want to be a game designer/programmer.

As long as the 'Air Staff Assistant' (I call it the 'ASS' personally- Air Staff (assisted) Suicide) is gone when I play anything to do with the Battle of Britain/Sealion in the new version (TOAW III) I'll be happy... at least it's got an on/off switch.

That's before we get to the AI (Artificial 'Incredulity') or PO (Programmed 'Offering')...

But I think whatever happens still the best thing out there at this level of abstraction.

[DanNeely]

Ralph's put a good ammount of effort into making Elmer (the po) play better. If you search around, you can see some movies comparing thier relative performance. larryfulkerson posted several.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Ahhhh .... ok. I'm simply going off what the game itself describes itself as, as well as my experiences with games in general. No one on here is saying don't ask for what you want. No one is saying don't dream of what you like either. Just trying to interject some reality in the discussion. Also, just trying to discuss what the game designer intended. No one is trying to rain on your parade, this presupposes it's important to me to do so (which it isn't). Perhaps you should chill out a little bit.

I'm not trying to single you out Rob. There's been many posts to this effect. Call me crazy but, I've played TOAW quite a bit and I'm not ready to make any assumptions about what Norm intended to do. All I know is that he included all-sea hexes and naval units and aircraft. Since it's inception, the game has constantly increased in scope with each newer version. I happen to see improving the naval aspect as one of the next possible logical steps. I don't think I'm out in left field with this idea either. If you can get Norm, or one of the developers to tell me what they or their colleagues intend(ed) to do I'll be happy to listen ( and even concede the point, if necessary) regardless. Personally,I think there is probably more than one opinion on this amongst them as well. Their silence on this issue is starting to hurt my ears.

Perhaps we're not so far off. I never liked the naval model and wished it had either been A) done right so if ships happened to fight it was realistic or B) not included or permitted and instead had naval power completely abstracted into the game as a shore bombardment component. I suppose after awhile I decided to infer that the naval war was never intended to be addressed so seriously since it was handled so poorly but I can understand your frustration.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

When I read posts like this I always feel the same way. It's like someone is trying to say ' This game is not for you, it's for me'.

Have you actually played WitP? I reckon you'd really enjoy it. Basically TOAW with its feet wet. If that's what you want, get WitP.

What you need to realise about the development of TOAW is that the resources are limited. Yes, if they were unlimited there could be a naval add-on. Since they're not, we have to prioritise, and it makes sense to get the ground simulation really polished first before going off on the enormous task of building a naval game.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Its equally frustrating to watch strategic bombers be shot out of the sky by ground AA batteries in large numbers.

Sure- but this doesn't happen in TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You know of a better 50km/hex simulator? I don't. Nor of a better Corps/Army scale simulator.

Well, I suppose the real trouble is that the week-long scale is a bit short for 50km/hex. Two-week turns would fix a lot of the problems.

Also airfields of variable size. If your air units have 500 planes each, it's a bit of a blow that you have to choose between 1500 planes per hex or zero.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Rob322

B) not included or permitted and instead had naval power completely abstracted into the game as a shore bombardment component. I suppose after awhile I decided to infer that the naval war was never intended to be addressed so seriously since it was handled so poorly but I can understand your frustration.

My own inclination is to handle naval combat through the event engine where necessary and only allow one side to have naval units on the map at any one time. At least in theory.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Rob322

B) not included or permitted and instead had naval power completely abstracted into the game as a shore bombardment component. I suppose after awhile I decided to infer that the naval war was never intended to be addressed so seriously since it was handled so poorly but I can understand your frustration.

My own inclination is to handle naval combat through the event engine where necessary and only allow one side to have naval units on the map at any one time. At least in theory.

This is how I did it.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You know of a better 50km/hex simulator? I don't. Nor of a better Corps/Army scale simulator.

Well, I suppose the real trouble is that the week-long scale is a bit short for 50km/hex. Two-week turns would fix a lot of the problems.

Also airfields of variable size. If your air units have 500 planes each, it's a bit of a blow that you have to choose between 1500 planes per hex or zero.

I like the concept behing WITP's way of dealing with airfields. Each base can have an airbase size (which may represent several fields) and this size reflects the operational capacity. I always wished TOAW had that feature ... maybe the next version ...