Comparison with The Operational Art of War III

[Widell]

I have both games and tend to enjoy both. Are they flawless, no, but to say TOAW is........useless.......based on.......ants, is just.......not....right. That would mean the whole community missed the ants, and given the huge amount of work that has been going into, and is going into TOAW scenario development and playing, for example, huge scenarios like FitE, I simply have to......disagree with that statement. It's an issue, not a showstopper.

I also disagree with the statement that AT should be more ahistorical. If you want historical simulation type of scenarios, these are easier to find for TOAW because there is less flexibility in the editor and the game engine, plus there are literally thousands of scenarios out there from years and years of community development. Look at what Captain Cruft is attempting to do with AT and I think you will find historical accuracy in terms of OOB, TO&E, C&C, map etc, but a game flexible enough to allow campaigns to develop differently compared to history. Now, the discussion if historical accuracy and simulation is to prefer before less historical, more game-like scenarios is, IMHO, a different discussion.

[DeadInThrench]

Hmmmm..... wasn't really trying to iritate anyone.... just saying things as I see them.

I never used the term 'useless' but.... if it comes to the point where I find TOAW's flaws so severe that I can't enjoy playing the game at all.... that is MY call... sheesh.

Otherwise..... I didn't coin the term 'ants blocking retreats'... it was someone else that came up with that. Maybe the thing is..... you see the user community that is playing TOAW but you don't see those that find TOAW's lackings severe because... well, they are not playing the game.

Then of course there is the primitive naval system (the rulebook states something along the lines that 'this is not meant to be a naval game'), the chain-of-command that only goes up one level, the fact that it is a two-player game only, the movement combat system that forces you to micro-manage your attacks across the front on a round by round basis (and it's broke), a supply system where units do not use up supplies, etc, etc. I can't remember all the other things I have run into.

On the other hand... if I were to just 'kiss off' TOAW... I would lose Inaki H's Franco-Prussian War scenario (and I don't ever expect to get anything better on that campaign), all the scenarios done by Eric Nygaard (Russio-Japanese War, Operation Torch, the German invasion of Norway, etc), as well as the Todd Klemme WW1 scenarios (again, don't ever expect to get anything better), as well as other scenarios like the Wayne Close Feldzug im Osten scenario that I have been looking at (corps level Barbarosa), etc, etc.

So, bottom line here, the pros and cons on TOAW are.... pretty severe, IMO.

(and that's an understatement)

DiT

P.S. Oh... and the idea of waiting for these things to be fixed.... you must be kidding me <g>.

[DeadInThrench]

ORIGINAL: Widell

I also disagree with the statement that AT should be more ahistorical.

Hmmmm... I never said that... and saying a game is an 'ahistorical war/strategy' game is not a knock.

Tactics II, the first ever commercial war/strategy game, was an 'ahistorical' war/strategy game.

Then, when computer war/strategy games started coming out, Computer Gaming World, was THE BIBLE on these and, they did an objective survey this one time, giving a free issue to everyone that responded, voting on the greatest computer game of all time, and numbers 2 through 10, were all role-playing games. But, the number 1 game of all time (by that vote).... was Empire... an ahistorical war/strategy game.

For me.... I musta played Empire over 1000 times. Easy to get into and always a challange given the computer production jacked up enough.

So, if AT is the ultimate replacement for Empire.... hey, no problem on my end and, what the heck.... got on NWS tonight and ordered it. Will be interesting to see if Vic and company are moving towards more historicity.

If AT does get to the point of.... say... becoming the game that TOAW *could* have become... no problem on my end re this either.

Hehe.... yeah.... could always wip off a program that takes TOAW user developed scenarios... and converts them to AT (lol). Hmmm.... I have done things like this before though not as extensive as this would be. Would be a challange for sure. Might be easier to just do it manually... whatever.

DiT

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: all5n


It seems there is a faction of the gamer community that gauges a game by its "historical accuracy" and anything that doesnt fit their pre-conceived notion of unit makeup and command structure is automatically not a good game. I disagree with this assessment.

So they should all use your pre-conceived notions??

People always evaluation things according to their own notions - sometimes they change those notions, but the changed notions are still heir own - how else can it be??

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Hmmmm..... wasn't really trying to iritate anyone.... just saying things as I see them.

And you didn't, these are games we are talking about, nothing else. I was just responding to your statements [:)]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
I never used the term 'useless'

Then I misunderstood, and appologise. It's a little hard to get your message through all the .....'s, but then again, my native language is not English, so it may be due to my lack of language skills. My thinking for summing up you statements to the term 'useless' was based on your statements below:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

• but..... otherwise... IMO.... a game that does not live up to it's promise.
• the more I get into the game... invariably I run into game systems that are seriously flawed, absent, or (in the case of the 'ants blocking retreats' problem) just plain silly
• you end up using these smaller units (ants) to completely surround enemy units (so they can't retreat) and.... IMO.... this just gets to be silly

Agreed, you also stated some positive remarks, so maybe 'useless' was a too strong choice of words, but how come then, the game has been around for ages and ages, and still have a lively community? But, then again, you seem to argue that the TOAW community is not reflecting the true nature of the game? Useless-ish?

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Maybe the thing is..... you see the user community that is playing TOAW but you don't see those that find TOAW's lackings severe because... well, they are not playing the game.

I think we can agree 100% on this! Those that does not like TOAW to the point they don't play it are most likely not a very audible part of the community, but hey, I tend to look for/to the people that actually play the game and not to the ones that don't. Maybe you see another user community that dislike TOAW to the point of not playing it, but with Matrix taking the product over, several issues have been addressed in recent patches and more seems to be in the pipeline. Not that I think that will bring in many from the user community that have decided they don't like the game, but maybe a few (like yourself?) will appreciate the game more?

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Then of course there is the primitive naval system (the rulebook states something along the lines that 'this is not meant to be a naval game'), the chain-of-command that only goes up one level, the fact that it is a two-player game only, the movement combat system that forces you to micro-manage your attacks across the front on a round by round basis (and it's broke), a supply system where units do not use up supplies, etc, etc. I can't remember all the other things I have run into.

And still it's one of the longest surviving games around.... I agree with the flaws, but it doesn't change the fact that TOAW is a classic game IMHO, which you also seem to touch on when you refer to the excellent scenarios available. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a game with the Air Model from GG Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich, ground combat from TOAW (with some of the flaws fixed of course [;)]), naval model from WitP:AE or CaW, flexibility in the editor and C&C, production, events etc from AT. But there would still be flaws wouldn't it?

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Oh... and the idea of waiting for these things to be fixed.... you must be kidding me

Don't understand what you are referring to? Something I wrote? TOAW? AT?

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
could always wip off a program that takes TOAW user developed scenarios... and converts them to AT

Now, that would be.......cool!

[Widell]

And also, to make things very clear, I play both games, consider TOAW to be a classic, AT to be a great game that hopefully will develop into a classic. The games are not easily compared due to different scope (See the posts earlier in this thread), none of them are flawless, I can't say I prefer one before the other etc etc. Most of this has been said and stated in very good summaries in this thread without being neither blatantly positive or equally negative. Congratulations to Matrix for picking up these two excellent titles. As I said before, get them both if you have the time and money to spend...

[DeadInThrench]

Widell, maybe a key thing here is as I originally posted, that I am a fan of the Grigsby style of games. In other words, historicity down to the detailed level, and guess my concern with TOAW is that, IMO, it has serious lackings if you get deep enough into the game systems.

Ug, another lacking that I just remembered, the equipment density (e.g. stacking) formula. It maxes out (as far as the relative limit) at 5KM/HEX but then trails off if you go above or below this scale, and the lackings in the formula are (probably) the reason why there is no 1KM/HEX scale, which would otherwise be a natural for TOAW. If you go down to 1KM/Hex, then the equipment density limit is almost the same as in 2.5KM/Hex (which would be a problem), and this is just because the formula for equipment density (what can I say?) is NOT THAT BRIGHT.

So, yeah, guess most players don't get into these things as deeply as I do, and then there is the wealth of scenarios developed for TOAW. One of the latest (if you have seen this on Ruggged Defense) is Silvanski's 1947 scenario. I myself do not have the time for the monster games but otherwise, this would be awesome (well, the scenario that is, as far as the TOAW game systems are concerned, that is another story).

So, at least for me, my bottom line statement on TOAW, that the pros and cons on this game are severe, is probably a good bottom line from my perspective.

As far as my comment on not waiting for upgrades, IMO to turn TOAW into the game that it could be, would mean you would probably have to redo all the game systems, and that would take an effort by Matrix along the lines of what they did with WiTP: Admiral's Edition, and that would be a pretty extensive effort, and I don't see that happenning.

So, wise on my part to see if I can still enjoy the TOAW scenarios that I am interested in (with the game as it is now), but otherwise go with AT and 2x3's eastern front game, once that comes out in a year or so.

DiT

P.S. Yeah, others have mentioned the ...'s. Stayed away from them in this post.

[Widell]

OK, now it makes more sense, and I fully agree that TOAW will most likely not evolve dramatically from what it is today, which may mean AT will catch up over time (if Vic and Matrix keep things moving of course).

I guess that with the diversity both in TOAW and AT, you kind of select the type and style of game you want and avoid the others. I don't care much for the monster TOAW scenarios either, and I haven't decided for AT just yet, but I can sense that the games vs AI will have a very different touch compared to the PBEM games as the AT system allow for so much more "stuff" to do for the players.

As for historicity, you definately need to look at this thread tm.asp?m=1708005. If Captain Cruft pulls that one off, that's a lot of detail to digest!

[IRONCROM]

ORIGINAL: all5n

It seems there is a faction of the gamer community that gauges a game by its "historical accuracy" and anything that doesnt fit their pre-conceived notion of unit makeup and command structure is automatically not a good game.  I disagree with this assessment.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The flexibility of AT is one one the things I like about the game. I like being able to take a historical scenario and have the ability to try out new strategy.

LOL... seems like every time someone starts a thread comparing TOAW with AT the discussions get a little heated. They must both be great games to invoke such passion in people.

[all5n]

You are of course correct. People are free to judge a game by whatever floats their boat.

If they like it and enjoy it, then thats all that matters.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: all5n


It seems there is a faction of the gamer community that gauges a game by its "historical accuracy" and anything that doesnt fit their pre-conceived notion of unit makeup and command structure is automatically not a good game. I disagree with this assessment.

So they should all use your pre-conceived notions??

People always evaluation things according to their own notions - sometimes they change those notions, but the changed notions are still heir own - how else can it be??

[SMK-at-work]

TOAW starts failing at the level of large campaigns like Barbarossa - but that's not a fault of the system - it's remarkable that it can actually cope with the monster scenarios at all IMO.&nbsp; the monster scenarios are still playable...but the cracks do start showing with strategic functions like supply and replacements.

And that shouldn't surprise anyone - after all it is the OPERATIONAL art of war - not the strategic art of war!![8D]

I don't see AT's more generic approach to "units" (ie SFT's viz TOAW's squads) as being any more or less "historical" than TOAW's squads - both are abstract representatoins of groups of men and equipment, and as long as they're balanced right within a given scenario both give good results IMO.

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
LOL... seems like every time someone starts a thread comparing TOAW with AT the discussions get a little heated. They must both be great games to invoke such passion in people.

Well, there's still very little heat compared to other comparative discussions. No games mentioned in particular, but I guess you can look at this and other boards and get the flavour. Now, in the case of AT and TOAW I get the feeling they cater to much the same crowd, and I also get the feeling that a fair amount of people own, play and enjoy both games. So, there's really not much need for heat since the two are different in scope, implementation and features. I think it's more interesting to talk about the future development of the two, and how different aspects of both games can be developed and improved over time rather than "what game is the best".

[bennyb]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Then, there is the 'ants blocking retreats' problem..... TOAW allows retreats into enemy controlled hexes.. but allows for many smaller units, as well as breaking down larger units into smaller ones and.... you end up using these smaller units (ants) to completely surround enemy units (so they can't retreat) and.... IMO.... this just gets to be silly.

Just one question; What sort of dumb-ass defender lets his units get surrounded like this? Whoever it is deserves nothing less than full ant suffocation. You can't expect a game system to protect players from their own stupidity!

[Widell]

In defence of this several weeks old statement (Why bump the thread btw?), and again, this is the AT forum, and this is a TOAW issue. But, anyways, to the defence of DeadInTrench: This is a well known issue with TOAW and has nothing to do with being a dumb-ass. Used in a gamey way, this is, just as he writes, kind of silly.

But then again, this has exactly zip zero to do with AT, so maybe you should consider bringing the question up in the TOAW forum?

[bennyb]

Yikes!&nbsp; Since when did forums become so heavily policed?&nbsp; You must be a riot at parties Widell. &nbsp;[;)]

[DeadInThrench]

Thanks for the defense but I don't think it was necessary.... there for sure is one 'dumb-ass' player that consistently lets his units get surronded.... Elmer!

The problem is there is a difference between PBEM games and games against the computer.... and a lot of us prefer to play mostly against the computer and.... this becomes a major problem... against Elmer.

But still..... other players in the forums have complained about this problem also so I imagine it comes up.... as silly as it is... in PBEM games as well.

As far as the comments here.... hehe.... I did not start this thread <g>... but, over in the TOAW forums the players there tend to get a bit 'religious' on their favorite game (as players do everywhere)... and are sometimes not interested in fair responses and in fact sometimes downright hostile. Not as much a problem in the TOAW forums as I have seen elsewhere.... but still.

Also there is the fact of the TOAW programmer's posted vision of a new TOAW.... better 3D graphics and continuously scrolling interface (I almost fell outta my chair when I saw that)... so why waste one's time even commenting over there.... if you are never gonna see the improvements that TOAW really needs????

Whatever,

DiT

P.S. Oh yeah, and Jam is the designer for TOAW now (or is he.... or do they have one??) and he is the forum moderator here as well as over there.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

P.S. Oh yeah, and Jam is the designer for TOAW now (or is he.... or do they have one??) and he is the forum moderator here as well as over there.

I have no moderator privileges over here. Vic is the developer, and hence the moderator. Here, I am just another player/poster/sh*tstirrer. Even if I was, I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. It's not like I ever squelched your opinions over in "my" end of the wading pool.

[bennyb]

Yeah I thought it was probably the AI which was partially to blame. &nbsp;[:)]&nbsp; Probably the other ant-surround culprits are scenarios which give the attacker an opportunity to divide and surround before the defender gets a chance to establish a defence.

I'm not here to bash AT by the way, I quite like it.&nbsp; But having said that, I did become somewhat disillusioned after playing the African Campaign scenario.&nbsp; Historically the battle followed close to the coastal road due to the difficulties of getting supplies inland; but in the AT scenario you can virtually head due east with half your army with virtually no supply headaches!&nbsp; So I'm going to wait a little while for the scenarios to mature before getting back into it.

[DeadInThrench]

Jam..... <g>.... I got no problem with you (for what it is worth) and was not knocking you nor whatever your roll is here in the AT forums.

My only point was... because you play a roll here as well as in the TOAW forums... you would see any comments made here about TOAW and thus... they would not be wasted.

DiT

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

Jam..... <g>.... I got no problem with you (for what it is worth) and was not knocking you nor whatever your roll is here in the AT forums.

My only point was... because you play a roll here as well as in the TOAW forums... you would see any comments made here about TOAW and thus... they would not be wasted.

DiT

Fair enough, and sorry if I read more into your comments than you meant. Like I said, over here, I'm just another player. Comments about TOAW III, and comparisons against other games, of course, are of professional interest to me and always noted. However, out of professional courtesy, I try not to bring my work onto the turf of other developers. It's not fair to them, and disperses my TOAW III development efforts into areas of the forum (and internet) that I don't track on an active basis.