ACOW - Matrix Style

[scout1]

Question for the community. Just where does ACOW fit in ? Operational level, Tactical level or strategic level ? I understand that scenarios that cover each of these probably exist, just curious as to where ACOW shines ?

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Question for the community. Just where does ACOW fit in ? Operational level, Tactical level or strategic level ? I understand that scenarios that cover each of these probably exist, just curious as to where ACOW shines ?

I think by definition it is Operational regardless of what kind of user scenario creation or modding occurs. I think the vast majority of the available scenarios would definitely be considered "operational" in any case.

[JAMiAM]

Not to sound too trite, but I think a clue can be found in the title of the game, The Operational Art of War: A Century of Warfare.

For that matter, for all those who want to recreate events outside of this set of parameters, i.e., ca. 1900 - 2000, at the operational level...yes, the system has proven remarkably pliable, especially in the hands of some of the very talented and imaginative scenario designers out there, but where it "shines" is precisely where you would expect it to...[;)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

but where it "shines" is precisely where you would expect it to...[;)]

Yeah. TOAW is basically optimised for the Korean War and the Normandy Campaign;
mid-20th century, 5-10km per hex, battalion or regiment scale, one side with total air and naval dominance.

The further one moves away from these standards, the more the designer will have to do backflips to keep the game working. One can stretch it a long way, but don't be surprised if things start to come apart at the seams.

[macgregor]

Yeah. TOAW is basically optimised for the Korean War and the Normandy Campaign;
mid-20th century, 5-10km per hex, battalion or regiment scale, one side with total air and naval dominance.

Maybe the AI is (because that's all it can handle), but the game? C'mon. Where do you get off saying that? Dream on buddy. You're clueless.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Yeah. TOAW is basically optimised for the Korean War and the Normandy Campaign;
mid-20th century, 5-10km per hex, battalion or regiment scale, one side with total air and naval dominance.

Maybe the AI is (because that's all it can handle), but the game? C'mon. Where do you get off saying that? Dream on buddy. You're clueless.

Where do you get off saying I'm "clueless"? I guess it's because you either neglected to actually read my post, or you were unable to understand what I was trying to say.

One can design scenarios which deviate from the above- often very successfully. My point- as should have been quite obvious had you actually bothered to read what I said- was that the quality of the simulation degrades as one moves away from this point. This really isn't debatable- you of all people are aware that the naval simulation is lacking, it has been proven that atomic attacks are scaled to a specific hex scale... etc.

[macgregor]

I find your use of the word 'optimised' to be audaciously presumptive. Personally I think the game handles 10km-25km per hex the best, and that it handles the air contest (and with modification the naval) quite well for a PBEM game. But I recognise this as my opinion, as that is the scale I prefer to play. Not the way the game was optimised. You're insinuating that the larger scenarios don't work as well, which simply is not true.And of course they take more work, but they don't require 'backflips'. I see the game as 'shining' precisly in the scenarios I like best. The opposing thumb was optimised for grabbing tree limbs, but I wouldn't suggest that's where it 'shines'. I hope the development team has higher aspirations for this game than you two.(and yes I know Jamiam is on the team)

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
The opposing thumb was optimised for grabbing tree limbs, but I wouldn't suggest that's where it 'shines'.

Absolutely, it really shines in releasing the safety...

I hope the development team has higher aspirations for this game than you two.(and yes I know Jamiam is on the team)

Jamiam isn't really that hidebound, you'd be surprised. A lot depends on how well the MGE is received.

[macgregor]

Absolutely, it really shines in releasing the safety...

...I think I can hear a few of them clicking now. For what it's worth GD, I don't think you're clueless. I see you as a skilled orator who's very cleverly attempting to undermine my efforts to get some improvements for TOAW. My guess is because you want the earliest possible release -precisly how I felt about WiF, which has no PBEM predecessor. I'm sure you have some improvements you want to see installed as well. If the improvements you desire are so minor, why not continue to enjoy the version you have?(I assume you have) Especially if it's 'optimised' precisly for the scenarios you prefer.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I find your use of the word 'optimised' to be audaciously presumptive. Personally I think the game handles 10km-25km per hex the best, and that it handles the air contest (and with modification the naval) quite well for a PBEM game. But I recognise this as my opinion, as that is the scale I prefer to play. Not the way the game was optimised.

S'not just my opinion though. I've discussed this with a number of other designers, and there's a general agreement. Further, I don't even have to argue that the game was designed around the Korean War: the scenario I'm refering to is available on every TOAW CD. As to the scale I prefer to play, I play all of the scales. I guess I have my reservations about 50km/hex, but there are some good scenarios at that scale.

You're insinuating that the larger scenarios don't work as well, which simply is not true.

It is true, though. At 50km/hex, the simulation is noticeably degraded. Still works- but not as well as at 10km/hex.

And of course they take more work, but they don't require 'backflips'.

They do if they want to make a decent simulation.

I see the game as 'shining' precisly in the scenarios I like best. The opposing thumb was optimised for grabbing tree limbs, but I wouldn't suggest that's where it 'shines'. I hope the development team has higher aspirations for this game than you two.

I'm actually talking about what the game does now. When it comes to what it should be- we've been over that, and that's definitely a matter for opinion.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

...I think I can hear a few of them clicking now. For what it's worth GD, I don't think you're clueless. I see you as a skilled orator

Thanks. You're certainly pretty impassioned and have the courage of your convictions.

who's very cleverly attempting to undermine my efforts to get some improvements for TOAW. My guess is because you want the earliest possible release

No, I want improvements in TOAW. Just different ones to what you're after. Given that Matrix is more or less on record as stating that there will be continual improvements after the initial release, gunning for that to be earlier or later doesn't make much sense.

-precisly how I felt about WiF, which has no PBEM predecessor. I'm sure you have some improvements you want to see installed as well. If the improvements you desire are so minor, why not continue to enjoy the version you have?(I assume you have) Especially if it's 'optimised' precisly for the scenarios you prefer.

Not really. To do some of my favourite scenarios really well, we need more and better events, quantified and more flexible supply and, yes, even better naval simulation.