Critics on TOAW

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's a start, Ralph. But what we really need for objective design is to be able to display the tracks of every formation at the same time - with only one live track that's being modified.

The real problem with track design is trying to remember where all the other tracks have already been placed, so you can keep them parallel.

And once we've got that, then we need to be able to just drag and drop track points, without going through the "delete objective" then "insert objective" routine.

Until then the old fashioned method will do...

I just posted this in the scenario design forum[:D]

I'm ready to set up the PO's. Armed with lots of large copies of the N.American map and markers I'll start with the on-map formations first.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Veers

Wow. Have these guys even played the game for more than five minutes? It looks like they haven't.

It does seem that way. A lot of uninformed remarks. The second post on the thread is perhaps accurate enough- but not unique to TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

but let's make sure that we don't start some silly inter-forum flamewar.

You're no fun at all.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

but let's make sure that we don't start some silly inter-forum flamewar.

You're no fun at all.

[:D]

[SMK-at-work]

Hey I'm on both forums - and inter-forum falme war would see me burning myself!![:'(]

[m5000.2006]

i don't think there will be a war, no one is so crazy as to start a war these days...

wisdom and common sense will prevail [:D]

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

but let's make sure that we don't start some silly inter-forum flamewar.

You're no fun at all.

The golden one already has some experience in this one.. [:D] Nevertheless it would be damn stupid.

[hank]

Those were some interesting thoughts at the BF site.  ... or not.  
 
TOAW is very playable even though there are some things I dislike ... but not enough to trash the game.  Every wargame I have has something I don't like about it so ... everything's copesetic.  I jump from TOAW to PzC to BiN to HttR to IL2 to Steelbeasts ... then back again ... and have fun in all of them ... plus I'm on the edge of buying Battlefront (the game).
 
But the one thing that caugh my eye in one of the critics post at the BF site was that he got the same feel with HttR that he got with ToaW in that each unit has all the weapons/ammo/ etc. listed.  After I read that I could see what he meant. 
My main complaints on TOAW is the presentation of information.  The way HttR/CotA displays this data is better IMHO.  There's bar charts and lists and other graphics that tell you the status of a unit, its combat power, fatigue, etc etc.  This is where I wish TOAW would get a major face lift.  I get tired looking at the small font serifs lettering and the center justification, etc. that comprise ToaW's user interface.   ... However, it appears they're working on at least using a better font ... based on some other posts here.
 
I have fun with all those games I listed that I own.  I've played them for years.  I even bought TOAW twice, once when Win98 was king and the new release, TOAW III.
 
Thats all folks 
 
Oh, and Veers, I was looking for a patch when I saw this.  Hope that's why my last move didn't work.
 
later.

[Veers]

Oh, and Veers, I was looking for a patch when I saw this.  Hope that's why my last move didn't work.

Probably is, as I stated in my email.

[Shawkhan]

...I think TOAW could benefit from the use of more tooltips and more functionality for HQs. I liked the way some of the old boardgames HQs had a radius of command/control  giving full/additional movement and augmented combat performance up to their command limit. This gave different leaders a distinct 'personality' lacking in TOAW scenarios featuring such otherwise outstanding leaders as Napoleon, Rommel or Patton, just to name a few.
...The graphics in TOAW I think are remarkable, although I do wish we could have a larger size to accomodate my older eyes. (Is that a '5' or a '6' I see for movement, is a typical problem I encounter.)
...One of the few things that I know about Battlefront is that the graphics don't seem to match those of TOAWIII from what I see in screenshots. 

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006

i don't think there will be a war, no one is so crazy as to start a war these days...

This is why it is not called "flamewar" but "liberating innocent people from an evil tyrant" [:D]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...I think TOAW could benefit from the use of more tooltips and more functionality for HQs. I liked the way some of the old boardgames HQs had a radius of command/control  giving full/additional movement and augmented combat performance up to their command limit. This gave different leaders a distinct 'personality' lacking in TOAW scenarios featuring such otherwise outstanding leaders as Napoleon, Rommel or Patton, just to name a few.
...The graphics in TOAW I think are remarkable, although I do wish we could have a larger size to accomodate my older eyes. (Is that a '5' or a '6' I see for movement, is a typical problem I encounter.)
...One of the few things that I know about Battlefront is that the graphics don't seem to match those of TOAWIII from what I see in screenshots. 

I'm working on part of that. There's an 'Alpha' version of the Huge map on the View/Options/Map View/2D Huge. I know it's got problems, but it's there. I'm also working on larger fonts as an option down the road, but that's going to be lot of work to make the dialogs resize.

Ralph

[m5000.2006]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...I think TOAW could benefit from the use of more tooltips and more functionality for HQs. I liked the way some of the old boardgames HQs had a radius of command/control giving full/additional movement and augmented combat performance up to their command limit. This gave different leaders a distinct 'personality' lacking in TOAW scenarios featuring such otherwise outstanding leaders as Napoleon, Rommel or Patton, just to name a few.
...The graphics in TOAW I think are remarkable, although I do wish we could have a larger size to accomodate my older eyes. (Is that a '5' or a '6' I see for movement, is a typical problem I encounter.)
...One of the few things that I know about Battlefront is that the graphics don't seem to match those of TOAWIII from what I see in screenshots.

I'm working on part of that. There's an 'Alpha' version of the Huge map on the View/Options/Map View/2D Huge. I know it's got problems, but it's there. I'm also working on larger fonts as an option down the road, but that's going to be lot of work to make the dialogs resize.

Ralph

if you're working on 'huge' display, why not add 'very small' display too (call it 'very small' or 'tiny' or whatever) so that we have the oposite part of the spectrum as well

i think 'very small' could be useful to quickly look at a large area of the battlefield to see where the frontline is and to see a kind of 'global situation'

the minimap is so small that it's rather hard to use it this way

[m5000.2006]

also, what do you think about the 3d view that's in the game?

personally, i'm not a fan of 3D super graphics in wargames, i mean, i don't mind it as long as the game is good, but i don't think it's necessary

for me, TOAW's 3D display mode is not terribly functional, i was wondering if people ever use it

why not change it a bit and do something that hps panzer campaigns have - i mean a kind of 3D display mode but still with flat 2D counters, not 3D unit models, in my opinion it works pretty well in panzer campaigns - the flat 2D units have a lot of useful information on them


i mean something like this --> http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/3d_1.html


it shouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish

what do you think?

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006
i mean something like this --> http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/3d_1.html

Or something like this:



We are waiting for a patch to exchange 3d models for NATO symbols.

[m5000.2006]

ORIGINAL: JMass

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006
i mean something like this --> http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/3d_1.html

Or something like this:



We are waiting for a patch to exchange 3d models for NATO symbols.

not bad [:)]

is it officialy approved and scheduled for the next patch?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

The golden one already has some experience in this one.. [:D] Nevertheless it would be damn stupid.

I just don't have the time.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: hank

The way HttR/CotA displays this data is better IMHO.  There's bar charts and lists and other graphics that tell you the status of a unit, its combat power, fatigue, etc etc.  This is where I wish TOAW would get a major face lift.  I get tired looking at the small font serifs lettering and the center justification, etc. that comprise ToaW's user interface.

The reality, though, is that it isn't useful to repeatedly refer to this information. I don't think the way it's displayed is all that important.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JMass

Or something like this:



We are waiting for a patch to exchange 3d models for NATO symbols.

It looks like those units had a few too many cheeseburgers.

[freeboy]

that hurts