Matrix Games Forums

Now, Chuck, we certainly don't need it removed. That wouldn't be helping anyone.

ORIGINAL: hank

... OK, why not???  Why can't something that's suppose to indicate a result be accurate?

a) it's random
b) you should not be spoonfed this kind of information. Rommel did not have some computer printout telling him how an attack would go. He used his intuition.

And to reiterate, it's not innaccurate. It just does something other than what you thought it did. It's actually hugely valuable as it tells you at a glance whether you've screwed up and added a unit with 1 move point to an attack.

Building an attack based on these factors should be adequate for establishing an attack ... then roll the die.  Building in randomness to success or failure in an event is the only way to address unpredictibility which is what I suppose was the idea behind the readiness or proficiency checks but the result of these checks is overly severe ... turn ends prematurely and you have units not prepared for battle in the next turn.  (then, your opponent commences to ream you out during his turn - bend over ... its time for the finger wave)

Well such is life. Sometimes you get caught with your pants down.

(what if I like waiting for my last round to reset Air Assets a certain way?

Well, sometimes your flyboys aren't back from interdiction when the enemy counterattack hits. This kind of thing is needed to deal with the fact that real war isn't fought in turns.

... OK, example: I've built what i think is a successfull attack.  During resolution of the round I expect random results of the attacks I've planned. That's the unpredictability of war.  But to have something say you'll have more rounds coming in the turn, then suddenly there's not, is just not right ... any way you want to package it, its not right.

It doesn't say you have more rounds. It says the minimum amount of your turn which will be consumed.

Anyway, avoid attacking pure armour (especially entrenched) without armour of your own. That's the biggest cause of long-running attacks.

I'll go back and read up on supply again.  I'm sure I've been so frustrated with the other issues I've had with ToaW that I've probably missed something here.  But I know I've tried to follow the resupply rules and my units in many cases don't resupply even when I sit them on those little half moon circles for 4 or 5 turns in a row.  ... supply is definitely one of my least researched part of gameplay in toaw.

Some formations have very low supply levels. They'll recover supply very slowly- sometimes to the point where it is not really worth bothering.

except ... I've played several of the most popular games if this genre.  I've never had this much trouble getting the hang of the game mechanics.

My advice? Try not to sweat the game mechanics too much, if you can. If you try to figure out exactly how much supply each unit is going to get your head will explode. Just fight a scenario like it was a battle and things will work out OK.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

My advice? Try not to sweat the game mechanics too much, if you can. If you try to figure out exactly how much supply each unit is going to get your head will explode. Just fight a scenario like it was a battle and things will work out OK.

Yeah, as i posted at SZO/XG: Don't play the engine, play the game!

Things I'd like to see:
 
[ol][*]Air units fixed (the donut of death)
[*]Sea units fixed - they should operate much like air units IMO, ie have a fixed base, with chances of intercepting enemy sorties, etc.
[*]Long range artillery able to support an unlimited number of combats within range - I jsut found that in FitE, for example" there's a 12-range rail gun unit - it consists of about a handful of guns, but with a range of 12 hexes it can conceivably support a couple of dozen combats with 1/2 it's strength each - that's pretty damned good leveraging!! [/ol]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

My advice? Try not to sweat the game mechanics too much, if you can. If you try to figure out exactly how much supply each unit is going to get your head will explode. Just fight a scenario like it was a battle and things will work out OK.

Yeah, as i posted at SZO/XG: Don't play the engine, play the game!

Seems to me the two posts quoted above miss the whole point of this thread. Saying the game is great but should not be fixed seems to be missing the point.

TOAW IV is an incredibly exciting project. SSG & Panther games have leapfrogged TOAW in terms of quality and playability, now I want TOAW to leapfrog them and be the new standard for operational wargames. I agree with Hank's intent in his posts. TOAW IV should be a FIXED game. TOAW III is great as an improved version but all the stuff that's just wrong needs to be addressed before I'll consider buying another TOAW.

I want a TOAW version where combat odds & results make more sense. I want a TOAW version where I can easily tell if my assault units are getting supplied up. I want a TOAW version where the interface is more intuitve. I want a TOAW verison with improved maps. I want a TOAW version where the game makes sense after playing it 5 times, not a frickin' 100 times. I want a TOAW version where turn end does not depend on an unknown check affecting one part of the map.

All of these should be reasonably easy to do... may also be a lot of programming work if it means starting at ground zero... I'm willing to wait.

ORIGINAL: JSS

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

My advice? Try not to sweat the game mechanics too much, if you can. If you try to figure out exactly how much supply each unit is going to get your head will explode. Just fight a scenario like it was a battle and things will work out OK.

Yeah, as i posted at SZO/XG: Don't play the engine, play the game!

Seems to me the two posts quoted above miss the whole point of this thread. Saying the game is great but should not be fixed seems to be missing the point.

TOAW IV is an incredibly exciting project. SSG & Panther games have leapfrogged TOAW in terms of quality and playability, now I want TOAW to leapfrog them and be the new standard for operational wargames. I agree with Hank's intent in his posts. TOAW IV should be a FIXED game. TOAW III is great as an improved version but all the stuff that's just wrong needs to be addressed before I'll consider buying another TOAW.

I never said that the game should not be fixed - the combat round model maybe isn't the most important one to fix imo.

Don't like the SSG games very much, but what i have seen from the Airborne Assault engine of Panther Games is indeed great, there is a good chance that I will be a COTA owner after christmas..

TOAW IV maybe is just a dream, but here is one more man willing to wait.

ORIGINAL: JSS

Seems to me the two posts quoted above miss the whole point of this thread. Saying the game is great but should not be fixed seems to be missing the point.

Well, there are things that need to be fixed- hence my posts. I want to focus efforts on areas that deserve attention, such as a more complicated formation structure, a less absurd naval model, a better logistics model, etc, etc.

I'm sorry I haven't posted these things in detail in this thread, but it's just because we've gone over them so many times before, in threads that Ralph and JAMiAM have read. Saying them again here doesn't seem to have much point.

I want a TOAW version where combat odds & results make more sense. I want a TOAW version where I can easily tell if my assault units are getting supplied up. I want a TOAW version where the interface is more intuitve.

I don't see any of these as problems as things stand. Admittedly I'm not an authority on how intuitive the game is since I've been playing it a while, but I don't remember it being that hard to get into. I just went ahead and played without worrying about the immense detail. I lost against the PO a lot, but I got the hang of things after a little while.

Probably helps not to start with Fire in the East.

I want a TOAW verison with improved maps.

This would be a designer issue. I really doubt Matrix can afford to pay minimum wage for designers to rework each of the 200 or so maps included on the disk.

I want a TOAW version where turn end does not depend on an unknown check affecting one part of the map.

Well, it's not unknown. Anyway, I agree something has to be done. See my post in the thread linked to in the first post.

I love this game as is, the disply works for atop down game, evan as dated as it is, spending time there is not a priority for me, what would work is making the game go into other areas... small units and how they inter act, reactive fire etc, and taking it into other strategic areas.. giving a developement and reserch area for larger fite type scens..which is currently only marginally covered by events

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: hank

... OK, why not???  Why can't something that's suppose to indicate a result be accurate?

a) it's random
b) you should not be spoonfed this kind of information. Rommel did not have some computer printout telling him how an attack would go. He used his intuition.

Sounds like a compromise is in order. Maybe “Combat Reports” should be a designer enabled variable the same as “Theater Recon”. Events could even be used to adjust the accuracy of “Combat Reports” to evolve with the scenario developments.

Another way to go would be to add another “Fog of War” radio button that regulates the accuracy of the “Combat Reports”. Off, default, might be 50% accuracy and On might be 80% accuracy.

Expect the same could be done for the number of “Combat Rounds” remaining.

Maybe someone can add this to the Wish List being compiled over at TDG.

Regards, RhinoBones

Unless I get flamed or outright insulted I'm not going to rebutt any more.  (at least I'm going to try ... i hate being a complainer or malcontent and that's all I've been the last few days)
 
I think there's a lot of justification going on of game characteristics that could be improved but won't because many people (including developers) who've played hundreds or thousands of scenario's and learned all the little nuances and behind the scene mechanics, don't want it changed because they've learned to play a very complex strategy game.  (which puts them in an advantageous position against most opponents)
 
The things I think should be improved are being defended and won't be changed.  I'm told to play the game not the engine ??  Well, if I'm a MotoGP Superbike racer and I want to race, to I race based on what the bike can do or do I race based on track conditions?  Both!  The same applies here.  If I play the game ... and I set up a good plan with strong tactics; I expect to have setbacks because of my opponents tactics and the random variation of results (chance).  But I don't expect the game engine to take control of the results and prematurely end the turn because of some calculation I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER; which I don't unless I dig dig dig to try and find out the status of every unit on the map (that could take hours cosidering the abysmall user interface).  I've purposely attacked with units that have full MP's, in supply (as far as I know), yet some obscure proficiency/readiness check factor I'm totally unaware of ... ends my turn (leaving my balls exposed to a good thumping - ouch!!).
 
This is all explained thus:  "Well such is life. Sometimes you get caught with your pants down."  ... Hmmm??
 
I think I should only be caught with my pants around my ankles if I've done something goofy; not if some obscure factor I have no knowledge of or contol over occurs in the guts of the engine.
 
As far as Rommel goes.  He had the advantage of being there.  To overcome my lack of "immersion" in the situation sitting here at a keyboard should be offset by providing more info you "think" Rommel would have in the field.  I thought that's what "FOG OF WAR" was suppose to simulate; the inability for a commander to know where all the enemy units are and what the heck they're doing.
 
Sorry if I've rattled anybody's cage.
These are just my thoughts to help improve a game I see potentially as a gold standard of hex based strategy games. Alas, I have my doubts now.
 
[&o] 

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
Many beginners have requested such a feature in the past. I don't think it would have been added except for new players. If it isn't helping, perhaps it should be removed from the game in the next update.

it IS really helpful, not only for the beginners, it is an improvement and it would be a great mistake to remove it

ORIGINAL: hank

Fix indicators that lie.

Such as the circle of stars showing your usage of a turn for the current combat round. These simply don't tell the truth because of proficiency checks and other factors that you may or may not know is going to skew the results of the round (resulting in early turn termination ... when you had planned on some clean up activities for the next round - before the turn ends but you're screwed because the turn ended abruptly)

frankly, i don't really understand your complaint here, there are dozens of other strategy games and wargames out there in which you can get combat predictions before the battle is actually resolved, and in NONE of these games these predictions are 100% accurate, it is ALWAYS possible that the final result will be different

in fact, a prediction which would tell you the exact outcome of the battle would no longer be a prediction

besides, it would make battle resolution useless, what do you need battle resolution for if you can get the final result from the prediction, the whole beauty and excitement of TOAW lies in the fact that you never know the final result untill the battle is resolved, as is the case with other similar games AND as is the case with REAL battles...

don't take offence but i really think that your criticism stems from the fact that you've probably lost a couple of combat rounds against the PO and are frustrated by it... well, it DOES sometimes happen...[:D]

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006

don't take offence but i really think that your criticism stems from the fact that you've probably lost a couple of combat rounds against the PO and are frustrated by it... well, it DOES sometimes happen...[:D]

I had some really embarassing defeats against the PO when I started. I suspect most players will tell you the same thing.

ORIGINAL: hank

I think there's a lot of justification going on of game characteristics that could be improved but won't because many people (including developers) who've played hundreds or thousands of scenario's and learned all the little nuances and behind the scene mechanics, don't want it changed because they've learned to play a very complex strategy game.  (which puts them in an advantageous position against most opponents)

I think Ralph (the developer) is actually pretty new to the game.

I've purposely attacked with units that have full MP's, in supply (as far as I know), yet some obscure proficiency/readiness check factor I'm totally unaware of ... ends my turn (leaving my balls exposed to a good thumping - ouch!!).

To be clear here- is your turn ending because of a force proficiency check failed or because an attack lasted the entire turn? The former really is outside your control, and indeed outside the control of any player. It's also an essential part of the simulation. The only way to deal with it is to don't think of it as your turn ending early, but of the alternative being getting bonus rounds. Be prepared for your turn to end early! Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Sorry if I've rattled anybody's cage.

Not at all. A lot of people in your position find some aspects of TOAW frustrating. It's our job to try to make things easier.

no offense intended but you're wrong on most counts with this reply.

ORIGINAL: m5000.2006

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
Many beginners have requested such a feature in the past. I don't think it would have been added except for new players. If it isn't helping, perhaps it should be removed from the game in the next update.

it IS really helpful, not only for the beginners, it is an improvement and it would be a great mistake to remove it

ORIGINAL: hank

Fix indicators that lie.

Such as the circle of stars showing your usage of a turn for the current combat round. These simply don't tell the truth because of proficiency checks and other factors that you may or may not know is going to skew the results of the round (resulting in early turn termination ... when you had planned on some clean up activities for the next round - before the turn ends but you're screwed because the turn ended abruptly)

frankly, i don't really understand your complaint here, there are dozens of other strategy games and wargames out there in which you can get combat predictions before the battle is actually resolved, and in NONE of these games these predictions are 100% accurate, it is ALWAYS possible that the final result will be different

in fact, a prediction which would tell you the exact outcome of the battle would no longer be a prediction

besides, it would make battle resolution useless, what do you need battle resolution for if you can get the final result from the prediction, the whole beauty and excitement of TOAW lies in the fact that you never know the final result untill the battle is resolved, as is the case with other similar games AND as is the case with REAL battles...

******* No game I've played except TOAW will terminate your turn for reasons outside your control (which is in itself debatable). SSG's DBWWII games; PzCampaigns; etc. do not do what you say. DBWWII games now have a combat advisor but it doesn't give you exact outcomes because of the die rolls (but it won't terminate your turn prematurely with out hitting the "end turn" button.
**********

don't take offence but i really think that your criticism stems from the fact that you've probably lost a couple of combat rounds against the PO and are frustrated by it... well, it DOES sometimes happen...[:D]

******** OK M, that again is a false assumption on your part. I played the workshop over at SZO and had fairly good success irregardless of what I find to be engine problems with TOAW. And I've whipped the PO several times in various sce's.
********

I had to go back on me not replying any more. But instead of a direct insult ... this is a backhanded insult. Sorry, if you disagree but it is ... since you don't me from squat M.

ORIGINAL: hank

[...]No game I've played except TOAW will terminate your turn for reasons outside your control (which is in itself debatable). SSG's DBWWII games; PzCampaigns; etc. do not do what you say. DBWWII games now have a combat advisor but it doesn't give you exact outcomes because of the die rolls (but it won't terminate your turn prematurely with out hitting the "end turn" button.[/b]

of course that no other game will terminate your turn as TOAW doas becuase no other game is TOAW, you don't seem to realise that each game is different and there is no other game like TOAW, things like e.g. turn burning are exclusive characteristics of TOAW, and you won't find them in any other games - you either like it or not

actually, what you wrote above contradicts your own words, you write e.g. 'DBWWII games now have a combat advisor but it doesn't give you exact outcomes because of the die rolls' - that's it - this is the counterpart of TOAW's turn burning, it is also something that is beyond your control and is totaly unpredictable, and ALL strategy games and wargames have something like this - call it turn burning, proficiency checks, communication checks, dice rolls or random factor - it's essentially all the same, just different words...

there is absolutely NO GAME out there which gives you exact, accurate combat feedback before combat resolution phase


ps

and the name is not M, but m5000 [8D]

NO... I think it was you that missed the point.  And backhanded b.s. is uncalled for ...  MR. M5000.
 
I now know there's people here like at the Retort.  Masked and unmasked personal attacks are not very nice, Sir!  I thought most the people here were above this. 
 
"DBWWII games now have a combat advisor but it doesn't give you exact outcomes because of the die rolls (but it won't terminate your turn prematurely with out hitting the "end turn" button.[/b] "
 
... as I get ready to send this ... I'm wondering what's not accurate about the comment above? 

Mr. M5000's quote:

"actually, what you wrote above contradicts your own words, you write e.g. 'DBWWII games now have a combat advisor but it doesn't give you exact outcomes because of the die rolls' - that's it - this is the counterpart of TOAW's turn burning, it is also something that is beyond your control and is totaly unpredictable, and ALL strategy games and wargames have something like this - call it turn burning, proficiency checks, communication checks, dice rolls or random factor - it's essentially all the same, just different words..."
 
......... it's not a counterpart of toaw's turn burn ... its not even close.  And it is under my control because I can choose not to attack as the "combat adviser" advises ... .... its not the same at all ... there is no early turn termination or "turn burn" or whatever you want to call it in either Battle in Normandy (Italy) or PzCampaigns.
 
Lord!!!
What a freakin' side show this had become.
... For whatever I said to MR. M5000 to pisss him off, I apoligize.
 

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hi!

Personally, I'd like to see folks move on and create a strategy game using the engine. Historic battles (ala TOAW III.. improved) could be a major feature of that game.

Ray (alias Lava)

This is exactly what I would love to see and what I tried to express, in a rather clumsey manner, in the thread I started. I find every other grand strategy game I play leaving me cold when it comes to the manner in which combat is handled and I find that I admire TOAW's accessibility even more when I tackle other games that have very cryptic interfaces that lack the simplicity and ease of TOAW.

ORIGINAL: hank
[...]

a-a-a, temper, temper [:)]


turn burning, proficiency checks, communication checks, dice rolls, random factor or whatever else you call it are exactly the same thing - they introduce randomness and unpredictability into a game

the difference lies in the formula or mechanics behind a game - games like Pz Campaigns, TOAW, SPWaW or Decisive Battle Series each of them has a different set of mechanics

the problem is that the formula or mechanics behind TOAW does not appeal to everyone - fair enough - if someone doesn't like it, there are other games with different mechanics e.g. Pz Campaigns...


anyway, enough of this banter...

ORIGINAL: Procrustes

I've been playing this game for years - I think Matrix did a great job w/ TOAW3. Here are a couple suggestions that pop to mind first - hope they seem resonable.


-> I'd like a variable zoom on the map. The far-away view is generally too far-away and the normal display is often a little too tight to get the picture you want of the moves you are planning. (My work-around is to change the screen resolution on my monitor as I'm playing.)

-> A toggle for the victory hexes would be nice. They are too big most of the time - really mess up the map, especially in those scenarios with masses of them. (My solution was to delete the flags.bmp file - no more flags on the v-hexes, but they still have the points.)

-> The map could use a bit more of a facelift. I have a hard time telling roads from railroads, stuff like that. And some new terrain types would be nice, too.

-> I wish you could move and resize the windows (like the formation report, etc.), and sticky them places.

Best,

good suggestions, it would be nice to be able to change the scale of the map to some extent, i think it would be usefull especially in large scenarios like FitE...

ORIGINAL: Procrustes
-> The map could use a bit more of a facelift. I have a hard time telling roads from railroads, stuff like that. And some new terrain types would be nice, too.

There are some graphics mods available, give a look here.