micromanagment and solutions.

[Iamstrategygame]

as I see it the micromanagement can be reduced with better UI. For example we need a button that tells us where all the artillery, army, HQ, etc. We need a button telling us which unit are not moved. We need a button that allow us to DIG in for lets say all HQ or tactical reserve all artillery. We need a button that help us sort air unit by between high and low. I can think of a lot.

I think this game is very very good, but for something this complex we don't have enough button to help us navigate the game. I just spend two hour digging in and putting artillery in tactical reserve. and 1 hour check and rechecking to making sure every unit is moved.

Right now I am dis-pointed with the game. With a game of such a complexity there is not enough button to cover all the necessary micro management aspect, I hate searching and doing things that are meaning less.

I think I will get Gary Gatsby East Front when it is on promotion. Lets just hope that game satisfy my Eastern Front world war 2 craving!

[Shadrach]

If you think you will have less micro-management with "War In The East" by The Great Gatsby (sic) you are in for a surprise! [:D]

[Iamstrategygame]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

If you think you will have less micro-management with "War In The East" by The Great Gatsby (sic) you are in for a surprise! [:D]

that game doesn't look all that complicated? But is there more micromanagement?

[larryfulkerson]

But is there more micromanagement?

I own WITE and have played it more than once and
I agree that there's a huge amount of micromanagement
going on under the hood. Not as much as WITP-AE
but more than TOAW IV.

[sPzAbt653]

we need a button ... We need a button ... We need a button ... We need a button ... I can think of a lot.

Suggest that you start with something you can manage, that is why there are so many scenarios, and there are probably more East Front scenarios than any other conflict. Many different sized scenarios, you need to pick one you can handle. You should NOT start with D21 or FitE, these are scenarios of the highest complexity level are intended for the most advanced players. What you see as micromanagement the rest of us see as a challenge, and one happily accepted many times over many years by many of us.

[Iamstrategygame]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

we need a button ... We need a button ... We need a button ... We need a button ... I can think of a lot.

Suggest that you start with something you can manage, that is why there are so many scenarios, and there are probably more East Front scenarios than any other conflict. Many different sized scenarios, you need to pick one you can handle. You should NOT start with D21 or FitE, these are scenarios of the highest complexity level are intended for the most advanced players. What you see as micromanagement the rest of us see as a challenge, and one happily accepted many times over many years by many of us.

I only like big scenarios. I like the operational aspect of big wars of maneuver, the buildup of forces based on your own intelligence and estimations. Seeing your handwork getting paid off as you maneuver your forces meticulously across the battlefield. Small scenarios are like panzer corps. Once you figure out the opening moves through trail and error, that's the end of the game. The replay value of huge scenario is infinite, you never get the same game!

[altipueri]

I think you should go naval and play War In The Pacific.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Iamstrategygame

I only like big scenarios. I like the operational aspect of big wars of maneuver, the buildup of forces based on your own intelligence and estimations. Seeing your handwork getting paid off as you maneuver your forces meticulously across the battlefield. Small scenarios are like panzer corps. Once you figure out the opening moves through trail and error, that's the end of the game. The replay value of huge scenario is infinite, you never get the same game!

Ah yes. WitE is a great example of a game that has exact movements carefully calculated for the Axis on turn one. On the Soviet side any production has been reduced to a cooking recipe. No surprises in this one except for the few random outcomes. The joy of playing it was ruined fairly early on. Money down the toilet.

[r6kunz]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Iamstrategygame

I only like big scenarios. I like the operational aspect of big wars of maneuver, the buildup of forces based on your own intelligence and estimations. Seeing your handwork getting paid off as you maneuver your forces meticulously across the battlefield. Small scenarios are like panzer corps. Once you figure out the opening moves through trail and error, that's the end of the game. The replay value of huge scenario is infinite, you never get the same game!

Ah yes. WitE is a great example of a game that has exact movements carefully calculated for the Axis on turn one. On the Soviet side any production has been reduced to a cooking recipe. No surprises in this one except for the few random outcomes. The joy of playing it was ruined fairly early on. Money down the toilet.

Hi Iamstrategygame,
Thank you for your input into TOAW. FitE may be your cup of tea.
But my experience with FitE is similar to Larry Fulkerson. A lot of individual subunits in large TOAW scenarios are abstractly portrayed in FitE. My eyes sort of glaze over looking at the mass of units on the FitE map. I was approached to join the development FitE team for the Road to Minsk, to Smolensk, Kiev... scenarios. These would be based on my TOAW III Road to Moscow series I-VIII.
I tried, but I could not get my head around the game mechanics.

We are not talking big bucks to buy FitE; let us know what you think
Cheers
RAK

[Iamstrategygame]

ORIGINAL: r6kunz

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Iamstrategygame

I only like big scenarios. I like the operational aspect of big wars of maneuver, the buildup of forces based on your own intelligence and estimations. Seeing your handwork getting paid off as you maneuver your forces meticulously across the battlefield. Small scenarios are like panzer corps. Once you figure out the opening moves through trail and error, that's the end of the game. The replay value of huge scenario is infinite, you never get the same game!

Ah yes. WitE is a great example of a game that has exact movements carefully calculated for the Axis on turn one. On the Soviet side any production has been reduced to a cooking recipe. No surprises in this one except for the few random outcomes. The joy of playing it was ruined fairly early on. Money down the toilet.

Hi Iamstrategygame,
Thank you for your input into TOAW. FitE may be your cup of tea.
But my experience with FitE is similar to Larry Fulkerson. A lot of individual subunits in large TOAW scenarios are abstractly portrayed in FitE. My eyes sort of glaze over looking at the mass of units on the FitE map. I was approached to join the development FitE team for the Road to Minsk, to Smolensk, Kiev... scenarios. These would be based on my TOAW III Road to Moscow series I-VIII.
I tried, but I could not get my head around the game mechanics.

We are not talking big bucks to buy FitE; let us know what you think
Cheers
RAK

thank you for taking my suggestion into consideration. I am sorry for my hard criticism. I want to say TOAW 4 is one of the best hex based turn strategy game ever made. Shame it is not perfect, LOL!