The Operational Art of War III or Advance Tactics: World War II?

[Templer_12]

The Operational Art of War III or Advance Tactics: World War II?

I am looking for another challenging strategy game beside Witp:AE

Advance Tactics: World War II and The Operational Art of War III find my interest.
I looked in the forums and read the reviews.
However, I am not smarter.

Please someone explain the difference to me or make a recommendation?

And someone knows how good Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets is?
Is it also recommendable?

[damezzi]

First I must say that I still don't know Advanced Tactics (AT) very well, but I have already played around a bit with the editor to try an old project I had.
Toaw is still my favorite wargame. AT has a lot of potential due to it's very flexible editor and since the combat system is a lot more simpler than that of Toaw, one can tweak it to represent almost anything, but...

1. Inert potential is of little use. A game like Toaw is much more than it's engine. There is, for sure, MUCH more time of work put on the hundreds of Toaw's historical scenarios made by hardcore designers than the amount of work put on both engines together. The number of Advanced Tactics historical scenarios is still very small.

2. There are some engine characteristic that make game play very unreal in the default mode. They can be changed, but according to some statements I've read, some changes aren't easy to do, so that only the hardcore designers will go for it and there doesn't seem to be a lot of hardcore designers in AT community. For historical scenarios, Grymme is the only one I remember, but once again, I'm still not very acquainted with AT, so you should search around.

AT is more adjusted to the strategical level, but here there is a problem which, for me at least, is serious: there is no way to easily simulate production problems like lack of resources, idle production capacity, changing marginal costs, political pressures, fierce ideological and doctrinary pressures, etc. For me, any game allowing for prodution should simulate such things, at least, if it is to remain historical in feeling (if not in outcome, after all, a game should allow to change the outcome). Reading some AARs you can see people making full german and russian forces without tanks or armies of mortars or armored cars and the like. Things that make the game feel like RTS. There are ways of changing it on the editor, but it doesn't seem to be easy, so, most of the scenarios will be of that kind. Once again, inert potential...

Having said that, I think that AT is more capable of representing other periods (at least those that are too far alway from the twentieth century). Since you are free to establish the combat relations between two types of different equipments, between one type of equipment and one type of terrain, etc, the way equipments behave in battle is more adjustable than in toaw. Also, since the game fits a more strategical level, ancient period wars, for example, can be better simulated. After all, operational level don't fit well those periods and the tactical level is outside the scope of both games. Yet, once more, potential is the word here. Grymme has made a punic war scenario based in a boardgame, which is worth a look and there is an unfinished sengoku jidai scenario which would be nice to see, but apart from that, there is not much done for ancient periods. Even if Toaw ancient period scenarios don't feel very realistic, they can be fun to play (sometimes) and Toaw has a more significative number of them.

So, when it comes to the twentieth century and WWII (which seems to be the choice of 9 in 10 wargamers, even if it wouldn't be my first choice) Toaw does a much more consistent work. Some say that playing AT is more fun, since you have a lot more freedom, but producing tons of armored cars or mortars in detriment of other equipement types just because they show a better cost/benefit relation spoils the game for me. No commander had this kind of freedom. Consider the resistance for tanks in WWI or flawed projects, for instance. A player, knowing the value of each kind of equipment in antecipation can just plan to develop a certain technology and produce tons of some and none of the other. To simulate production in a game, one should, not only represent the economical and political aspects as I stated earlier, but also have a way to compensate for the antecipated knowledge players have of the value of each kind of equipment and its role on the war being fought.

So I'm waiting to try the most seriously done scenarios, like the one Grymme is doing at the moment, to see how they run.

My final word is: if you're after a game to make you feel playing history, go for Toaw. Hundreds of scenarios made along the last ten years will keep you busy for other ten years; if you want something more casual, with some civilization like feel, yet with the potential to be historically faithful, if more hardcore scenario designers decide to get seriously into it's editor, go AT. It also has a random game option which makes the day for some... not for me.

Toaw would just be the perfect game if its editor allowed the designer to set relations between equipments and between equipments and terrain like AT, but nothing is perfect.

Oh, the supply system in AT is really fun, since you have to distribute supply among HQs, allowing to stockpile in a region in detriment of the other and creating a further (and fun) challenge for players. That's the only gameplay feature I prefer in AT.

AT falls short in other aspects as well, like the lack of railroads and few kinds of terrain. This can be changed in the editor, but most scenarios will show only one kind of road, a lot of open plains and some hills and mountains.

A wargame is made by the game programmers and the scenario designers. Toaw has had good programmers and PLENTY of serious designers and I think that made Toaw the reference it is today.

[Templer_12]

@damezzi,
what a graet reply. Thank´s a lot!
It help´s.
So I found a Demo to The Operational Art of War Vol I.
Not bad but how TOAW I compare to TOAW III?

And also Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets takes my interest now.
How this compared to TOAW II and AT?

Huh, huh I´m helpless [:(]

[damezzi]

I can't really say, there are better persons here to make a comparison between Toaw I and III.

In relation to Kharkov... well, I never played Kharkov, but then it's theatre specific, like WitP, in fact (even if to a greater extent). Those use to be more detailed on the specificity of each battle and time period. Toaw and AT are from another category; they are universal engines, able to represent dozens of different battles from different time periods. They will never be as detailed as WitP, for instance.

One of the reasons I like Toaw is that I'm not specialized or specially attracted to a particular period or battle. I don't know one tenth of what some here on the forum know about WWII, for example. I have a greater interest on the geopolitical aspects of conflicts and Toaw let us play with the military aspect of multiple conflicts while reading about (or not) their geopolitical characteristics.

If you are of the kind that loves a determinate theatre, maybe something more specific will satisfy you. The thing is that, even the WWII addicts seem to go around, try other WWII specific games, and then, at some point come back to Toaw. We see a lot of people returning, since, due to its flexibility it serves as a central point: one goes around, plays with other games until bored and come back to the one which has a different flavour with each scenario, even if some key elements remain the same and feel the same in every scenario.

As I said, AT has potential too, but we'll have to wait to see if it can bring to light a considerable number of scenarios so well done as Toaw ones.

If you want a universal engine, Toaw and AT are the only ones I know, so that you have your choices narrowed. If you want a specific theatre engine... well, take your time, mainly if you're interested in WWII. It's better to begin with what exactly interest you in terms of period.

[cesteman]

I have Kharkov and I have to say I like it. What it lacks is scenarios to play Head over the Run5 forums for more info.