Matrix Games Forums

Norm has never, at any time I am aware of and through all of his patch notes, even alluded that the turn ending mechanism was defective, bugged, unrealistic, or the slightest bit in need of help. It's not like Norm pushed the game out the door and just turned away. There were numerous editions and patches.

Oleg is right that apparently some of you just don't see the premise of the game and this feature. Likely, it's because you don't want to and you want to play the way you want to play, not the way the game is designed. And who is doing the "deifying" here? It's those who want to change the fundamental nature of the game's combat system, simply because they want to design and play scenarios that in their opinion -- very subjective -- they should be able to create. If you don't understand what the time usage feature is about, then you don't know as much about the game as you think you know. At least in my opinion.

I don't have much interest at this point in revisiting TOAW, but I'm sure Matrix would not alter the fundamental nature of the game so drastically as you all suggest. The "formation by formation" rubric you tout is the very kind of behavior the time usage rule is meant to stop. Limit your scenarios to smaller operations, and you will have better results. Not even then will everyone be happy, but then there's a point when you decide perhaps you just don't like a given game and you move on. Maybe that's your angle. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
To say that some unit was held up by some enemy unit 300 miles away is gross exaggeration, or malice, or failure to understand basic principles of this game.

I understand the principle of the game. What I've been trying to explain to you for the last three pages is that this principle is wrong and should be fixed.

I don't suffer from this kind of problem all that much, because I do appreciate how the game works. I also appreciate that I have to go to work tomorrow morning. Some unpleasant facts of life cannot be changed- others can. TOAW's early turn ending model falls into the latter category.

You're free to intensely dislike his chosen method, and propose alternatives, but when you use ridicolous or malicious arguments like above I can't let it pass unchecked.

How was my argument malicious? Because I was daring to criticise Norm? Norm Himself has repeatedly modified his design- so it can hardly be perfect.

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Norm has never, at any time I am aware of and through all of his patch notes, even alluded that the turn ending mechanism was defective, bugged, unrealistic, or the slightest bit in need of help.

He also hasn't said that the naval engine is flawed. Not that I can recall anyway.

OK... so who wants to simulate the battle of the Coral Sea using TOAW? Norm hasn't said that the naval engine is flawed, therefore it must be perfect.

It's not like Norm pushed the game out the door and just turned away. There were numerous editions and patches.

Including some unreleased. Hell, Norm has publically stated that he wanted to go even further than what's contained in 1.07. He never said what he wanted to change, but clearly he felt the game needed some serious work.

Finally, our suggested fix, which I'm glad to see you've at least noticed, is more resource-heavy than the alternative

The "formation by formation" rubric you tout is the very kind of behavior the time usage rule is meant to stop. Limit your scenarios to smaller operations, and you will have better results.

You don't follow the TOAW community at all, do you? The very large scenarios are typically the most popular ones. Small scenarios are OK- but TOAW is capable of so much more. Sort of comical, really. On the same thread I'm arguing with you and Oleg about how we must change Norm's perfection despite the fact that (in addition to making it a better simulation) it will make the popular scenarios much more playable, and with Lava that we shouldn't turn TOAW into a populist game to appeal to the masses. The common factor is that you both want to limit what TOAW can do.

Really, this is pretty incredible. Can't be Norm's fault- his design is perfect. Must be Ben's fault. Obviously he's a bad designer.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

You're free to intensely dislike his chosen method, and propose alternatives, but when you use ridicolous or malicious arguments like above I can't let it pass unchecked.

How was my argument malicious? Because I was daring to criticise Norm? Norm Himself has repeatedly modified his design- so it can hardly be perfect.

I said "ridicolous OR malicious". I'd personally say it's ridicolous, and since you deny being malicious, "ridicolous" seems to be your pick as well [;)] So we agree? LOL

Also, I hope you and Colin will finally stop using most childish argument (no it's not even an "argument") that all those who like the game the way it is, are somehow deifiying Norm, turning him into super-human being, personality cult or whatnot.

I said it repeatedly - though you refuse to accept it - that Norm is not perfect, his design may not be perfect, but it's HIS design, his game system, as coherent as it may be, he is the only one to make a call whether something works right or not.

You know, a movie may have only one director, and it's he who makes a call. Not much use in "democratizing", say, Hitchcock movies, turning them into open source projects where everyone will have his say - end result would be incoherent garbage.

Way I see it, it's either Norm - with all his imperfections - or total dissaray and chaos. That's my very personal opinion on design and development of this (and almost every other) wargame. (BTW totaly unrelated to the "early turn end" issue.) But you're free to try, by all means...

PS. Off topic. Ever asked yourself why the most successful strategy games are usually designed by ONE man? You know like Norm Koger's TOAW, Gary Grigsby's <insert name of any GG game here>, Sid Meyer's Civilizaton (or Gettysburg or any other title), etc etc etc.

Oleg

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Norm has never, at any time I am aware of and through all of his patch notes, even alluded that the turn ending mechanism was defective, bugged, unrealistic, or the slightest bit in need of help.

He also hasn't said that the naval engine is flawed. Not that I can recall anyway.

Dude, that much is obvious.

It's not "flawed", it's just so very basic, as is fitting for the game originally meant to portray mechanized land campaigns in WW2 period (later expanded to cover whole century).

It is you and Colin who constantly whine on this "flawed" argument, without realizing that portraying Jutland was neven NEVER the intention of TOAW at all. So it's not flawed. It's just not there. BTW - this much was said by Norm himself in his posts many months ago.

O.

It's not "flawed", it's just so very basic, as is fitting for the game originally meant to portray mechanized land campaigns in WW2 period (later expanded to cover whole century).

Given this case it is highly ironic that the engine seems to work much better for WWI than WW2. Many fewer egrigious turn endings etc. in the earlier period;^)

The "formation by formation" rubric you tout is the very kind of behavior the time usage rule is meant to stop. [:)]

How?

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Norm has never, at any time I am aware of and through all of his patch notes, even alluded that the turn ending mechanism was defective, bugged, unrealistic, or the slightest bit in need of help.

He also hasn't said that the naval engine is flawed. Not that I can recall anyway.

Dude, that much is obvious.

It's not "flawed", it's just so very basic, as is fitting for the game originally meant to portray mechanized land campaigns in WW2 period (later expanded to cover whole century).

It is you and Colin who constantly whine on this "flawed" argument, without realizing that portraying Jutland was neven NEVER the intention of TOAW at all. So it's not flawed. It's just not there. BTW - this much was said by Norm himself in his posts many months ago.

O.

First off, we don't 'whine' any more than you 'squeal.' So try to keep a civil tongue in your head.

Secondly, we ARE discussing possible revisions to the game. Presumably, such revisions are to be improvements. As you yourself admit, TOAW doesn't do much to model naval warfare. It does have ships, so presumably the possibility of there being campaigns involving water was admitted. Since the more interesting campaigns tend to be those where BOTH sides have armed forces, it follows that a reasonable model for naval warfare would be an eminently desirable addition to TOAW.

So what the fuck? It would seem that you refuse to admit the desirability of any change at all -- on the very forum where change is being discussed. TOAW would seem to be necessarily perfect as is -- that would seem to be your position. Why perfect? Because it was designed by El Norm.

Right...

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


...Way I see it, it's either Norm - with all his imperfections - or total dissaray and chaos. That's my very personal opinion on design and development of this (and almost every other) wargame. (BTW totaly unrelated to the "early turn end" issue.) But you're free to try, by all means...


Oleg

Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer...

Anyway, your argument would have some validity if Norm had either declared his work finished or was still directing it. However, neither is the case. Norm can't continue -- gives his blessing to his successors. Talonsoft has started a forum to discuss what changes would be desirable. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING.

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

It's not "flawed", it's just so very basic, as is fitting for the game originally meant to portray mechanized land campaigns in WW2 period (later expanded to cover whole century).

Given this case it is highly ironic that the engine seems to work much better for WWI than WW2. Many fewer egrigious turn endings etc. in the earlier period;^)

Probably the generally lower movement rates. If you're only going to get two-three rounds anyway, turn ending on round one is less important.

I must agree with Oleg. TOAW served its design and purpose, and still does to this day. TOAW was never intended to simulate naval engagements, or the bombing of the Reich, etc. It is mainly a land warfare game. It is hex based because that's what war board gamers grew up with, and are familiar. I think Norm identified the market, designed a game that met most of the community's desire, and delivered a game that was unprecedented, and seldom surpassed.

However, all games are flawed in one way or another. It's an inherent problem for the designer (and publisher) who must make decisions about weighing playability, realism, etc.

Can there be improvements or upgrades to the "existing" TOAW? Probably.

But I think that Matrix has some very capable group of designers, programmers and testers. And they do listen to the community.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Has anyone considered the affects of introducing a 'delay x phase' command would be? It could probably be put on the attack planning dialog, and I think that it might resolve some of the issues mentioned here.

It would allow you to coordinate things like 'a probing attack with these units, followed by the main punch by these units.

Thoughts?

Ralph

Functionally, how would this differ from simply not making the attack until a later round? If the attack is to be launched in the SAME round, then launching it later will simply increase the amount of time it takes for all attacks to be resolved in that round.

As I see, currently the problem is that everyone has to wait around until all attacks have been resolved. The problem is that if one attack turns out to eat up the whole turn, everyone's turn is over.

If the attack hasn't started yet, then nothing happens, although you can't make any changes to the units.

Adding a Delay until turn X option would allow people to plan around the system somewhat, and add another level of meaningful decisions. I'd think that a common scenario would be to attach a remote until to pull the reserves, then attack with force the main place that you wanted to attack. With a 'Delay' option, you could potentially plan most of your attacks. It actually makes sense to me too, to be able to plan out the attacks that way.

No, this doesn't 'fix' the perceived problem, but it does allow people to do much of what they want to do without major changes.

Ralph

ORIGINAL: geozero

I must agree with Oleg. TOAW served its design and purpose, and still does to this day. TOAW was never intended to simulate naval engagements, or the bombing of the Reich, etc. It is mainly a land warfare game.

Right. So let's model some mainly land-based campaigns. Seelowe's a good one- oh, wait, that involves naval warfare.

I'm not asking for TOAW to be able to model the battle of Midway. I'm asking for it to provide realistic results to impact on the land warfare.

However, all games are flawed in one way or another. It's an inherent problem for the designer (and publisher) who must make decisions about weighing playability, realism, etc.

All games are flawed, but some are more flawed than others.

But I think that Matrix has some very capable group of designers, programmers and testers. And they do listen to the community.

Right! So what changes would you like to see? Personally, I think formation-by-formation early turn ending, a better supply model, and more realistic naval results would be good changes.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

If the attack hasn't started yet, then nothing happens, although you can't make any changes to the units.

Adding a Delay until turn X option would allow people to plan around the system somewhat, and add another level of meaningful decisions. I'd think that a common scenario would be to attach a remote until to pull the reserves, then attack with force the main place that you wanted to attack. With a 'Delay' option, you could potentially plan most of your attacks. It actually makes sense to me too, to be able to plan out the attacks that way.

No, this doesn't 'fix' the perceived problem, but it does allow people to do much of what they want to do without major changes.

Trying to get a better idea of what you want here. You want to restrict user input to the first combat round, with things being automated based on his orders after that? That would be interesting- sort of a move in the direction of WEGO without having to do too much work on the system.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: geozero

I must agree with Oleg. TOAW served its design and purpose, and still does to this day. TOAW was never intended to simulate naval engagements, or the bombing of the Reich, etc. It is mainly a land warfare game.

Right. So let's model some mainly land-based campaigns. Seelowe's a good one- oh, wait, that involves naval warfare.

I'm not asking for TOAW to be able to model the battle of Midway. I'm asking for it to provide realistic results to impact on the land warfare.

A bit of a Straw Man argument here: if you want to model Seelowe in TOAW you start with the RAF and RN defeated, and work on from there.

In general, I'd say that TOAW focusses primarily on land warfare and that therefore any use of naval forces in a scenario should be restricted to their use in support of the land campaign. If you want to model the PTO in WW2, play WitP. Then you can bitch about the poor land model... [;)]


I tend to agree that

Right! So what changes would you like to see? Personally, I think formation-by-formation early turn ending [and] a better supply model

would be good changes to aim for, though. [:)]

Steve.

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

A bit of a Straw Man argument here: if you want to model Seelowe in TOAW you start with the RAF and RN defeated, and work on from there.

Great. One doesn't even need TOAW for this simulation. The Germans win every time.

In general, I'd say that TOAW focusses primarily on land warfare and that therefore any use of naval forces in a scenario should be restricted to their use in support of the land campaign. If you want to model the PTO in WW2, play WitP.

I don't, but I do like to play land campaigns where naval warfare has an impact. This can't always be done using events.

Anyway, you're right in that TOAW shouldn't be made into a detailed naval model. That's not what it's for. I just want it to produce realistic results from naval warfare to impact on the land campaign. I don't really want to have to think about naval strategy. I do want to be able to ask the navy to interfere with the seaborne supplies of my opponent.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

A bit of a Straw Man argument here: if you want to model Seelowe in TOAW you start with the RAF and RN defeated, and work on from there.

Great. One doesn't even need TOAW for this simulation. The Germans win every time.

Hmm....depends on the supply assumptions, but broadly, yes.

In general, I'd say that TOAW focusses primarily on land warfare and that therefore any use of naval forces in a scenario should be restricted to their use in support of the land campaign. If you want to model the PTO in WW2, play WitP.

I don't, but I do like to play land campaigns where naval warfare has an impact. This can't always be done using events.

I think that, in such cases, trying to use TOAW is a mistake, like using a hammer to drive a screw - you can do it, but it's harder and the results aren't as good. [:)]

I really do think that for these truly combined-arms-at-the-operational-level situations a standalone game is required, that can take due account of the actual situation. Trying to bend TOAW to fit simply isn't going to work.

Mark you, if Matrix were able to kinda-sorta fit the WitP Naval-Air model into a TOAW setting, it really, really would be good. [:)]

Anyway, you're right in that TOAW shouldn't be made into a detailed naval model. That's not what it's for. I just want it to produce realistic results from naval warfare to impact on the land campaign. I don't really want to have to think about naval strategy. I do want to be able to ask the navy to interfere with the seaborne supplies of my opponent.

Something like stopping supply from getting into Sevastopol or Leningrad when you've laid siege on the landward side, for example? Yes, I think I would certainly agree with you there. I'd even go so far as to allow for naval interceptions, if they could be programmed in easily and bug-free, and without unforseen complications. But to me at any rate TOAW is primarily a game of operational warfare on land, and that is where it's emphasis should remain. I see tweaks to the naval side as being of relatively low priority. Doesn't mean I can't see their utility, just that there are other things to do. Like stopping the silly-end-of-turn, for example.... [;)]

Steve.

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

I think that, in such cases, trying to use TOAW is a mistake, like using a hammer to drive a screw - you can do it, but it's harder and the results aren't as good. [:)]

In this case, we don't have a screwdriver. I'm asking that we be given one.

Mark you, if Matrix were able to kinda-sorta fit the WitP Naval-Air model into a TOAW setting, it really, really would be good. [:)]

Well, I haven't played WitP- but I wouldn't go that far. I'd prefer it if any future naval system in TOAW not require the player to pay too much attention. The game is, after all, primarily about land warfare. I just want a naval engine which allows proper simulation of land campaigns which are affected by naval warfare.

I don't think there's a great deal of difference between our positions at this point.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Well, I haven't played WitP-

You should try WITP. I shudder at the thought of what "smart" suggestions would you and Colin have regarding "deeply flawed" LAND combat model in that game [:D]

Oleg

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
You should try WITP. I shudder at the thought of what "smart" suggestions would you and Colin have regarding "deeply flawed" LAND combat model in that game [:D]

Probably. It's only a guess- but I suspect that WITP struggles with things like the operations in the Philippines. I assume it can handle fighting on smaller islands.

Btw, you should go work for the BBC. They use quote marks in inappropriate places too.