A warning

[macgregor]

If you like TOAW because you like the large ww2 scenarios you better find something else. Whatever these guys did with the new version to improve the smaller scenarios(2.5-5km/hex) they did at a great cost to the larger scenarios(10-50km/hex).Of course, I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable. The signs were everywhere. But I didn't listen. Matrix will let you believe what you want to believe. ACOW was better. The air superiority engine is way off. I bought this game because I trusted Matrix. They've let me down. They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

[philturco]

Not pleased to hear that you think EA is unplayable given that I have just started a game and was looking forward to a fun game. Could you be more specific as to the problem.

[Procrustes]

Hi,

Sorry to hear about your troubles.  I haven't tried EA, but I'd be curious to hear what your problems have been.  I've replayed two different Barbarossa scenarios (20km/hex and 50km/hex) without trouble.   (Though I  did get  some eerie  error logs on one of them - seemed to have more to do with programmed events, though.)

[macgregor]

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway). Like I said, if Matrix wants to make some REAL improvements over aCoW, I'll be the first to acknowledge them. Besides some work on the AI(which I don't much use) and some work on protecting the game from reloaders(a valiant effort though I'm sure it's beatable) there have been almost no changes. If as Jamiam said Ralph is 'pining for the fjords' (My Germans sure are. Norway's literally impossible with this air engine.)that's probably not good. He's joined the choir invisible. He's an ex-TOAW programmer. At the very least he's shagged out after this long sqwauk. Perhaps the game needs new blood. After this scenario I'm done with this version.

[06 Maestro]

This can’t be true; after all, modern warfare is modeled after the TOAW engine.[:D][:D][:D]

Although I decided to become TOAW free about a year ago (and succeeded), I did still have some hope of the new game correcting some very serious problems in which case I would have purchased the new game. I read about the progress, I waited and I doubted-looks like I saved 40 bucks.

Don’t write off all of Matrixs’ partners though. Panther Games has a splendid game called COTA-check it out.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway). Like I said, if Matrix wants to make some REAL improvements over aCoW, I'll be the first to acknowledge them. Besides some work on the AI(which I don't much use) and some work on protecting the game from reloaders(a valiant effort though I'm sure it's beatable) there have been almost no changes...<snip>...Norway's literally impossible with this air engine...<snip>...Perhaps the game needs new blood. After this scenario I'm done with this version.

This is wrong on so many counts, but I'm too worn out tonight to answer methodically, or with civility. Look for a reply tomorrow.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable . . . They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

I have seen a number of your postings and they seem to have a common thread, i.e. you complain that other people do not design scenarios that meet your expectations. Maybe it is time for you to design a scenario.

Ask the authors for the rights to make modified versions of their scenarios. I'm sure you'll get permission. Adjusting the air superiority to your personal liking is not a big deal.

After you are done you will have the pleasure of hearing from all the other McGregor’s in the world b*tching about your scenario.

Try it . . .

Regards, RhinoBones

[SMK-at-work]

So try WW1 games with next to no airpower instead!![:D][:D][:D]

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
EA is no longer playable.

I read about EA in the SZO forums and if I understood it correctly EA does not function on TOAW3 yet. There were many bugs in the conversion between the two version (I think they are working on it) so maybe try a different scenario before whining? DNO is large and works like a charm. The great war (by Piero) is huge and I have had no problem so far. FiTE is playable, or at least it seems so from readin the AARs.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable . . . They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

I have seen a number of your postings and they seem to have a common thread, i.e. you complain that other people do not design scenarios that meet your expectations. Maybe it is time for you to design a scenario.

Ask the authors for the rights to make modified versions of their scenarios. I'm sure you'll get permission. Adjusting the air superiority to your personal liking is not a big deal.

After you are done you will have the pleasure of hearing from all the other McGregor’s in the world b*tching about your scenario.

I'm sorry that my comments are seen as nothing more than bitching and whining. One of two things is true. Either I'm all by myself in wanting TOAW to handle large scenarios effectively in which case you are correct to ignore and even defend against my imput, or there are many others who would like to see TOAW handle large scenarios. ACOW worked better playing large scens pbem. That's just a fact. To design a scenario the way I want (which doesn't solve the game engine problem at all) I would need bioed; which doesn't work with TOAW3. Another thing. Matrix says TOAW3 accepts all ACOW scenarios. What they don't say is that all ACOW scens (at least the large ones) are unplayable in TOAW3 due to severe event engine problems. Am I lying? I'll continue to scout the shelves of the gamestores for a new game to move on to. But until then I'm afraid you're stuck with me. My great sin is that I like this game and see it's potential.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway).

Hi!

I'm not familiar with the scenario, but I do play lots of large scale games.. I like them too.. whole war and all that.

First... if the allies have a 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39, then the scenario needs work. The Brits and French need to have most of their air units delayed until after the fall of Poland.

Second... I agree that air superiority is a bit out of sync. There is way too much attrition going on and units sacrificing themselves. However, to address your problem, the modeling actually, I believe, works a little better in TOAW 3, as one is forced to move fighter units very close in theatre if he wants to conduct an air drop. One just cannot have fighters stationed all over the map anymore and expect to move by air without problem. You have to concentrate to do that now.. and that is IMO a much better simulation.

Try concentrating your fighters as close to Norway as possible and see if they can't open a corridor for your paratroops to get in. They should be able to, even with the lack of air superiority.

Ray (alias Lava)

[karonagames]

I can confirm that the bug in the event engine causes EA to be unplayable. I have played 40 Turns by PBEM, dealing with bugs such as the Polish Yugoslavs and Belgian armies not withdrawing, and having the whole Swedish Army withdraw for no reason by agreeing house rules with my opponent. But when we got to turn 40 and the whole German army withdrew for no reason, then obviously a house rule was not going to allow us to continue playing.

I can post the save game if it will help someone to fix the bug.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND. Without air superiority, don't even think about crossing any water(Norway).

Hi!

I'm not familiar with the scenario, but I do play lots of large scale games.. I like them too.. whole war and all that.

First... if the allies have a 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39, then the scenario needs work. The Brits and French need to have most of their air units delayed until after the fall of Poland.

Second... I agree that air superiority is a bit out of sync. There is way too much attrition going on and units sacrificing themselves. However, to address your problem, the modeling actually, I believe, works a little better in TOAW 3, as one is forced to move fighter units very close in theatre if he wants to conduct an air drop. One just cannot have fighters stationed all over the map anymore and expect to move by air without problem. You have to concentrate to do that now.. and that is IMO a much better simulation.

Try concentrating your fighters as close to Norway as possible and see if they can't open a corridor for your paratroops to get in. They should be able to, even with the lack of air superiority.

Ray (alias Lava)

Thanks Lava. A brief synopsis would have the Brits moving a heavy surface into Oslo bay and the Germans with every one of the 6 airfields in Denmark to capacity 109s in closest in one massive strike on the ships and just getting impaled. My understanding is that the air engine takes into account 'local' air superiority. I have yet to see it however. It seems to take the sum of all air units on air superiority and apply them to all theaters, including ones completely out of range. This is utterly bogus. It needs to be redone. I participated on this website from the beginning. Offered every idea I could come up with. And knowing full well that they were going to be ignored, in the spirit of participation (and a dose of optimism) bought the game anyway. I think I have a right to offer some criticism, especially if it's constructive. That is, without being chastised. I don't want my money back. I just want the people working on this project(if there still are any) not to view me ( and others with my taste for large scenarios) as the enemy.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

My understanding is that the air engine takes into account 'local' air superiority. I have yet to see it however.

Oh, I have.

When I was designing my scenario "The Fourth Republic" to win the game, you must invade England with very little sea transport. I did that as a way of simulating the UK dominence at sea.

I worked it so that the player would have to use every bit of sea and air transport to make a beach head to succeed.

When I tested it, I found that even though I had air superiority in general, I had to place my airborne units close to their targets and 'surround' them with fighter squadrons near the coast to get them across.

Can't get more 'local' than fighting across the channel.

Ray (alias Lava)

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It seems to take the sum of all air units on air superiority and apply them to all theaters, including ones completely out of range. This is utterly bogus. It needs to be redone.

Ah..

That would be the "Air Briefing" you are referring to.

Don't know how it works, but to be quite honest, I never look at it because it doesn't appear to be a good indicator of what's going on in larger scenarios.

I think you have to watch the actual "fighting" the AI does to get a better feel for what's going on in the bigger scenarios. For example, in an "all the war" type scenario, the UK squadrons don't participate in Russia. Here the briefing may say you are at a disadvantage, but by watching the actual fighting, you will see that by concentrating to the west, you will have air superiority, whether the report says it or not.

This I think is one of those things which you just have to adapt to in the bigger scenarios because well, there is more than one theatre of operations for us humans, but the engine treats the whole map as a single theatre for its reporting.

It's a distortion which really doesn't have, as far as I can see, a remedy, except for the player's ability to analyze what he actually sees happening.

Ray (alias Lava)

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Lava
Don't know how it works, but to be quite honest, I never look at it because it doesn't appear to be a good indicator of what's going on in larger scenarios.

... in an "all the war" type scenario, the UK squadrons don't participate in Russia. Here the briefing may say you are at a disadvantage, but by watching the actual fighting, you will see that by concentrating to the west, you will have air superiority, whether the report says it or not.
Ray (alias Lava)

As far as I can tell, we're trying to make an "operational" engine be a "strategic" engine in the far larger scenarios and it's not designed to do that very well. Well, we will just have to adapt and improvise to pretend it's doing what we want it to do.

[SMK-at-work]

Total air superiority is theatre-wide AFAIK.

But individual units can only act within their own range - so if all your fighters on Air Superiority are in France, they won't interfere much with Soviet strikes on hte eastern front even if your "theatre" superiority is massive.

Reading from the ToaW II manual -

Theatre air superiority is a general indicator of air superirity in the theatre.&nbsp; It is presented solely for your information, and isn't used by the program.

To paraphrase the manual it's "Local" air superiroty that matters - the computer generates a number of random air-air battles at hte start of the turn at random locations.&nbsp; Then the chance that any given "A" unit will participate in battle depends upon its range to hte battle, its electronic support level and its quality - I suspect electronics dont' matter much in WW2, but quality will.&nbsp; Essentially high quality units htat are enarby have a higher chance of&nbsp; participating in air combat.

Local air superiority affects EVERY air mission flown by each side - if you're attacking targets in range of his fighters then you can expect to be intercepted.&nbsp; If not then you get a free ride.

If invading Norway is getting you killed 'cos of allied airpower then move more fighters to northern Denmark!

[liuzg150181]

As stated,it is an operational level wargame rather than a strategic one,and moreover there is range limits to aircraft operations,&nbsp; "Air Briefing" only serves as a rouge guide.
IMO the main focus&nbsp;of TOAW series is&nbsp;the&nbsp;land operation itself,representation of aerial support is abstracted and ancillary,while naval units ought to be improved.&nbsp;

[LOK_32MK]

For whatever is worth I have started a game of EA and we are in turn 34 with no major problems. i have not observed the Air Superiortiy bug mentioned above.
Yes, TOAW is not perfect and has issues/limitations/problems etc. but I have yet to find a better wargame on the market that can simulate the range of conflicts that TOAW can. If there is a better game out there I'd like to know

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If you like TOAW because you like the large ww2 scenarios you better find something else. Whatever these guys did with the new version to improve the smaller scenarios(2.5-5km/hex) they did at a great cost to the larger scenarios(10-50km/hex).Of course, I only like the large scenarios, so that's all I know. EA is no longer playable. The signs were everywhere. But I didn't listen. Matrix will let you believe what you want to believe. ACOW was better. The air superiority engine is way off. I bought this game because I trusted Matrix. They've let me down. They say they're going to keep improving it well...I'll believe it when I see it.

You are right here. Maybe they can change the game features:

"All of the Classic TOAW scenarios from Century of Warfare are included, along with 130 of the best scenario designs of the last 5 years."

and add this: if you are lucky to get it to work, or maybe that your whole army not withdraws lol