I REALLY want to like this game but

[doomtrader]

We have designed the RR supply system that way as we think this works best.
Luckily the game gives you the possibility to change those rules if you don't like the original design

[gravyface_]

For everyone complaining about the AI, I've yet to play a strategic "sandbox" WW2 game (including Strategic Command 1, 2, and all the spin-offs; Commander: Europe at War) where England, the US, etc. get their timing right or make a concerted amphibious assault. It's either sporadic "raids" or they leave all their transports vulnerable without air superiority and they're easy pickings for a handful of fighter units in France.

What I would like to see is a form of "strategy scripts": basically (whether done by text editing or a UI-led macro recording over a map) game users all over can essentially craft strategic/operational plans as a particular country at a high level, export this strategy script, and share it with the community. Basically give you the best of both worlds: "human inspired" AI, while being able to play solo.

So for instance, you'd load up the game into a "strategy script mode": just an empty map, but you can select objectives for your forces and also influence or control the production of units and specify the year (some production projections would be useful so you know how long it would take to build/buy a dozen landing craft, etc.) that you'd like this to happen. Kind of like planning Overlord: they had a time table to work with, knew what they'd need as "conditionals" (air superiority, landing craft, fuel stocks, ammo stocks, etc.), and then chose a date when the weather/tide/current was ideal. You could even have diplomatic conditionals (i.e. if Hungary is not axis by X date, declare war and invade with x armoured, y infantry) too.

Obviously the AI would still have to make tactical choices but if the strategic/operational plan was a useful "crutch" or "nudge" in the right direction, could really help focus the AI's efforts, while providing new challenges for solo play, with unlimited scripted options.

[Grimnirsson]

What I would like to see is a form of "strategy scripts"

Isn't that how 'Elmer' works in TOAW?
Called PO (Programmed Opponent) and not AI for that reason?

[gravyface_]

ORIGINAL: Grimnirsson

What I would like to see is a form of "strategy scripts"

Isn't that how 'Elmer' works in TOAW?
Called PO (Programmed Opponent) and not AI for that reason?

Could be. Could never get that game to install on my Windows ME (*shudder*) box back in the day. Sounds about right though: was it any good?

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: NumdydarSeriously, every game I have played on this scale has had RRs to be a major source of supply for units. So I am a little stunned that this game at this scale treats RRs as nothing more than a super transport system. Also, if people are going to claim that RRs could not supply the number of troops involved due to rail capacity, loading/unloading capabilities, etc. then please explain how an entire tank corps can be transfered from the end of France to the bowels of Russia in a week and then be fully combat ready at the start of the next week. Of course that is soooo much more realistic than, what, transporting supplies from the nearest city to the rail head? Really? Give me a break.

Please read the points being made, the lack of rail capacity examples in previous posts refer to recently captured territory, where in the game, rail suffers little damage on capture and repair is too quick. You questioned the realism of the game and one item that would make it more realistic, is a longer delay before captured rail can be used, and more damage on change of control, particularly in the USSR.

The Germans could and did move large numbers of units on their established rail net from East to West and back, throughout the war (whether the game allows this too quickly is another question), what they could not easily do was establish a rail based supply system into recently captured areas, relying heavily on truck and even horse carts. Even the allies in France 1944 were dependent on truck transport, the US running the 'Red Ball' express truck supply all the way from the coast to the German border, in late 1944.[:)]

[gravyface_]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: NumdydarSeriously, every game I have played on this scale has had RRs to be a major source of supply for units. So I am a little stunned that this game at this scale treats RRs as nothing more than a super transport system. Also, if people are going to claim that RRs could not supply the number of troops involved due to rail capacity, loading/unloading capabilities, etc. then please explain how an entire tank corps can be transfered from the end of France to the bowels of Russia in a week and then be fully combat ready at the start of the next week. Of course that is soooo much more realistic than, what, transporting supplies from the nearest city to the rail head? Really? Give me a break.

Please read the points being made, the lack of rail capacity examples in previous posts refer to recently captured territory, where in the game, rail suffers little damage on capture and repair is too quick. You questioned the realism of the game and one item that would make it more realistic, is a longer delay before captured rail can be used, and more damage on change of control, particularly in the USSR.

The Germans could and did move large numbers of units on their established rail net from East to West and back, throughout the war (whether the game allows this too quickly is another question), what they could not easily do was establish a rail based supply system into recently captured areas, relying heavily on truck and even horse carts. Even the allies in France 1944 were dependent on truck transport, the US running the 'Red Ball' express truck supply all the way from the coast to the German border, in late 1944.[:)]

As for the Red Ball Express, this was primarily because all the rail interdiction performed in the spring leading up to D-Day pretty much wiped out all the locomotives, railheads, and switching stations in Normandy and beyond; took a while for ports large enough to hold ships capable of transporting new rolling stock and repair the infrastructure.

I would suspect scorched earth policies on both sides would've severely hampered rail nets in recently captured areas.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: NumdydarSeriously, every game I have played on this scale has had RRs to be a major source of supply for units. So I am a little stunned that this game at this scale treats RRs as nothing more than a super transport system. Also, if people are going to claim that RRs could not supply the number of troops involved due to rail capacity, loading/unloading capabilities, etc. then please explain how an entire tank corps can be transfered from the end of France to the bowels of Russia in a week and then be fully combat ready at the start of the next week. Of course that is soooo much more realistic than, what, transporting supplies from the nearest city to the rail head? Really? Give me a break.

Please read the points being made, the lack of rail capacity examples in previous posts refer to recently captured territory, where in the game, rail suffers little damage on capture and repair is too quick. You questioned the realism of the game and one item that would make it more realistic, is a longer delay before captured rail can be used, and more damage on change of control, particularly in the USSR.

The Germans could and did move large numbers of units on their established rail net from East to West and back, throughout the war (whether the game allows this too quickly is another question), what they could not easily do was establish a rail based supply system into recently captured areas, relying heavily on truck and even horse carts. Even the allies in France 1944 were dependent on truck transport, the US running the 'Red Ball' express truck supply all the way from the coast to the German border, in late 1944.[:)]

To help move matters along. Here is several articles about rail capacity on the German side. To quote one,

The columns continued to run from the border in decreasing numbers until finally stopped on 5 August 1941.{9} By then, the rail lines were completed beyond Minsk, and the Germans would be operating from rail heads approaching Smolensk.

Please note that the article is discussing railheads as they approch a city, not that they are currently at a city.

http://militera.lib.ru/h/stolfi/11.html

Here is the other aeticle

http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

In neither of these does there seem to be any lack of rail capacity for supplies, especially after 1941 for the Germans by rail.

In response to doomtrader, how exactly will the editor allow RRs to provide supply versus cities. I would not want to have eaxh rail hex to be changed to a major supply source by itself, but rather require the rail hex to have to trace to a major city and then it could be a major suppy source.

[gravyface_]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: NumdydarSeriously, every game I have played on this scale has had RRs to be a major source of supply for units. So I am a little stunned that this game at this scale treats RRs as nothing more than a super transport system. Also, if people are going to claim that RRs could not supply the number of troops involved due to rail capacity, loading/unloading capabilities, etc. then please explain how an entire tank corps can be transfered from the end of France to the bowels of Russia in a week and then be fully combat ready at the start of the next week. Of course that is soooo much more realistic than, what, transporting supplies from the nearest city to the rail head? Really? Give me a break.

Please read the points being made, the lack of rail capacity examples in previous posts refer to recently captured territory, where in the game, rail suffers little damage on capture and repair is too quick. You questioned the realism of the game and one item that would make it more realistic, is a longer delay before captured rail can be used, and more damage on change of control, particularly in the USSR.

The Germans could and did move large numbers of units on their established rail net from East to West and back, throughout the war (whether the game allows this too quickly is another question), what they could not easily do was establish a rail based supply system into recently captured areas, relying heavily on truck and even horse carts. Even the allies in France 1944 were dependent on truck transport, the US running the 'Red Ball' express truck supply all the way from the coast to the German border, in late 1944.[:)]

To help move matters along. Here is several articles about rail capacity on the German side. To quote one,

The columns continued to run from the border in decreasing numbers until finally stopped on 5 August 1941.{9} By then, the rail lines were completed beyond Minsk, and the Germans would be operating from rail heads approaching Smolensk.

Please note that the article is discussing railheads as they approch a city, not that they are currently at a city.

http://militera.lib.ru/h/stolfi/11.html

Here is the other aeticle

http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

In neither of these does there seem to be any lack of rail capacity for supplies, especially after 1941 for the Germans by rail.

In response to doomtrader, how exactly will the editor allow RRs to provide supply versus cities. I would not want to have eaxh rail hex to be changed to a major supply source by itself, but rather require the rail hex to have to trace to a major city and then it could be a major suppy source.

From When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (by David M. Glantz and Jonathan House; excellent book by the way).

Much of the Soviet self-destruction focused on transportation and electrical power. Railroad locomotives and locomotive repair shops that could not be moved were frequently sabotaged, a fact that proved important in the winter weather, when German-built locomotives lacked sufficient insulation to maintain steam pressure... Moreover, the successful evacuation of the Soviet railroads forced the Germans to commit 2,500 locomotives and 200,000 railcars to support the troops in the East. This, in turn, meant that the Germans had to convert large portions of the captured rail network to their own, narrower gauge, instead of using the existing, broader Russian gauge.

That, my friend, is a lot of work. So for every city you capture, you can count on having to essentially rebuild the entire stretch of railroad from point A to point B, not to mention procure additional German locomotives and railcars, which could take a considerable amount of time in and of itself. See, once the gauge is converted to German gauge, any Russian trains are effectively useless unless they in turn are converted. So places like Kharkov that changed hands several times would see the same amount of rail work completed multiple times on multiple occasions.

Now factor in Partisans and air interdiction and you can see how/why rail supply wasn't always a sure thing.

[Rasputitsa]

I don't want to get into a quoting war, mainly because I am on a campsite and don't have access to the books and limited access to the internet, the memory alone is not up to it. Supply in the game has always been an issue for me, but I think that it is glaringly obvious that the Germans lacked full supply (they had to choose between ammuntion and winter clothing) as they moved deeper into Russia and the game makes it too easy to capture cities and rail supply into the depths of Russia in the middle of winter.

To return to the main thread 'wanting to like the game', remembering that the game is covering WW2 from Northern Norway to North Africa, from the Atlantic to the Mid East. To get a game system to handle these extremes is a huge challenge.

I can't speak for others on what's to like about the game, but the game has many options in settings and mods to provide for most needs.

I like the game, because of its flexibility and the uncertainty that it throws up, are these things always highly accurate and completely historically correct, maybe not, but it can be very enjoyable to be faced with situations that you don't encounter in other games (accepted that they have to be reasonble alternatives).

The scale is Strategic and Operational, at a high command level, the detail is not so impotant, as the decisions are more to do with - should I attack Spain, or Turkey, land in Normandy, or Calais, or Norway, or Corsica, will I attack in 1941, or 1942 and so on. Will I concentrate on Air builds, Armour, how much sea transport will I need in 6 month time.

On this scale the game has to work on generalisations and some of the detail is going to be lost, how much that ruins your enjoyment of the game is up to personal taste. Personally I get more out of the game than I lose and the more I learn about the working of the game, the more I can adjust it to my needs. My modding skills are limited, but I have been able to change the look and working of the game, others have been able to create full scenarios and I am sure that there is more to come.

Combat becomes a way to resolve your strategic decisions, obviously you want this combat model to be a accurate as possible for ground, air and naval combat and still get an AI that can keep up. The more complicated you make it, the harder it is for the AI to function credibily. Put too many detailed changes into the game and the system will collapse.

The AI can be made to understand and react to the importance of cities on the map, it's much more difficult for it to come up with a strategy to cope with railheads, which may appear anywhere on the map. Not ideal, but I can accept that, as many historical events were based on the need to hold, or capture, certain city rail hubs, Kharkov, Rhzev, Stalingrad and Moscow itself.

There are the needs of solo players (needing a competent AI) and those using PBEM, who need a more detailed game, making the balance even more difficult.

We can continue the discussion on Rail, etc., but I am experimenting with adjustments to all aspects of supply (rail/air/sea/city), looking for the right balance, as I see it, but that will probabily not satisfy others with different views. The main point is the game allows me to do this, which is a big plus over many other titles.

Even though it is far fom perfect, I really like this game.[:)]

[gravyface_]

Dude, go enjoy the outdoors! Put away the Internet. [:-]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: gravyface_
Dude, go enjoy the outdoors! Put away the Internet. [:-]

Good advice, but it's OK, I'm getting out and about as well, best of both worlds.[8D]

[Grimnirsson]

Sounds about right though: was it any good?

I have the current 3.4 version and am still learning the game, but yes I can say it's great. A true sim with a staggering amount of scenarios on about every war you can imagine. Highly recommended!

[gravyface_]

ORIGINAL: Grimnirsson

Sounds about right though: was it any good?

I have the current 3.4 version and am still learning the game, but yes I can say it's great. A true sim with a staggering amount of scenarios on about every war you can imagine. Highly recommended!

I meant the Elmer mode you were speaking of.

[Numdydar]

Unfortunately there are too many other options for games that work better than ToF at the moment. That do not require a lot of effort on my part to 'fix'. So I will be hopeful that an expansion (or even a completly revamped new version) will be developed at some point. I will check back now and again to see if anything is different. I am really glad that others are willing to put the time into this as hopefully that means that there are maybe future patches, etc. versus the game being left in its current state.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Unfortunately there are too many other options for games that work better than ToF at the moment. That do not require a lot of effort on my part to 'fix'. So I will be hopeful that an expansion (or even a completly revamped new version) will be developed at some point. I will check back now and again to see if anything is different. I am really glad that others are willing to put the time into this as hopefully that means that there are maybe future patches, etc. versus the game being left in its current state.

your statement is total poppycock

I have been playing the game vanilla, with no mods, quite successfully and with great fun, both solo and multiplayer. The best WWII strategy game available. Witness my and others' AARs for examples of how fun the game is.

You started this thread complaining about the ease of SeaLion. Well, DON'T DO SEALION! Why try to stress the AI to breaking point? Why not play the game in a more historical, realistic fashion?

Naval game doesn't work? Wrong again. It's quite fun, especially the convoy raiding and ASW.

For would-be buyers of the game, do not be dissuaded by this thread.

[Numdydar]

Wow! nice reply. So I make my opnion known and give exact details about my issues with the game and because you like the game so much, my opnions are 'popycock'? I also guess you missed the point where I said the game in multiplayer would work much better and be far more enjoyable.

If the game is supposed to be an ACCURATE or even a REASONABLE approximation of WWII, then ignoring the possible of Sealoion because it 'stresses the AI to the breaking point' is absurd. Other games going all the way back to Avalon Hill's Third Reich allow the ability of launching Sealion in a realistic manner versus what happens with ToF. Just beacuse the game does a poor job of being able to handle it is not a reason for me to 'make up house rules' just so the game does not break. Like I said there are many other games that I do not have to 'fix' in order to get a reasonable approximation of WWII in the ETO.

And I am sorry the naval game IS busted if the AI is putting the majority of its ships in single ship fleets. I will agree with you that the naval combat and raiding is fun when the AI does this because you can't get hurt and they get slaughtered as detailed in my OP.

If the devs chose not to address these issues that is fine by me as it is their IP and budget. So if they have the time and monies to further patch the game, great. I will certainly try it out again. If they can't due to time and budget constraints then I will just move on. No big deal to me [:)]

I will also admit that ToF is vastly imporved over ToW. maybe when they come out with ToD (Time of Distruction [:)]) the game will be once agin vastly imporved. I would certainly buy a new version of the game if one was made (or an expansion).

I am glad you love the game so much and you love playing it. However, I do not due to the issues I have outlined. So we will just have to disagree on this. However, that does not give you any reason to disrespect my opnion just because it differs from yours. I hope you can be more reasonable in your replies going forward.

[Grimnirsson]

I meant the Elmer mode you were speaking of.

The games I played vs Elmer were tough, but I'm learning the game mostly via PbEM with my partner now, she's into wargames as well, call me a lucky guy .
If you are interested in how the PO works I would suggest you jump over to the TOAW folder here on matrix, there are a lot of veterans of the game explaining everything in detail.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Unfortunately there are too many other options for games that work better than ToF at the moment. That do not require a lot of effort on my part to 'fix'. So I will be hopeful that an expansion (or even a completly revamped new version) will be developed at some point. I will check back now and again to see if anything is different. I am really glad that others are willing to put the time into this as hopefully that means that there are maybe future patches, etc. versus the game being left in its current state.

I have many games on the shelf which I should really like, but don't, as whatever the developers were working at, doesn't work for me. There are few enough companies working in this field as it is, so any support given is not wasted, if it helps keep this corner of the industry going.

There are more accurate games and there are fun games, ToF is in between, I think accuracy is often won at the cost of flexibility. To get a responsive AI, the games have to work within fairly narrow limits, restricting the player to the same limits. There are times when that cost is worth paying to get a more accurate game, but also it's just as rewarding to have more uncertainty and flexibility in the game, each game fills a different need.

It's all fantasy in the end, no real commander knows the position of all his forces all the time, exactly how far each of them can move, exact condition of each unit, weather effects everywhere - for each turn period, exact odds for combat, either before, or after the event, etc., none of it is really accurate to the real events. The only certainty in war is uncertainly and I find that in ToF.

I like not being trapped in a rigid framework and if I don't like some aspect of this game, it often can be changed with in-game preferences. If I don't agree with some design decisions, I can change them (mostly by small file changes - computing degree not required), which is refreshing, but you have to be able to use the flexibilty and work the changes, no pain no gain. I don't look on it as 'fixing' the game, more as an opportuny to possess a game that can be tuned to my taste. Equally I recognise that some players will not expect to have to do this, but I have also enjoyed the game from ver. 1.00 and the mods and adjustments are enhancing the experience. Even the 'best' games are considered as broken, from time to time, on their respective forums, gone are the days when games were just published, it is now always an evolving process of update and mods.

Most of my interest has been in making the game more realistic, more competent modders are achieving even more. I am not concerned so much by the often random results, as to my mind, many stranger events have happened in reality. You mentioned the Red Sea convoy and lack of response from the Allies. In reality there were wide variations in performance, the British, from Malta, were very active in interdicting Axis convoys in the Mediterranian, but then quite ineffective in attacking the 'Channel Dash', when operating from home base, with all the advantages that should bring. History is full similar incidents, the USN did not spot an enormous 6 carrier fleet approaching Hawaii, with obvious ill intent, the Germans did not see the 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk, during its 200 mile approach march and many more. The moral being that in war, s**t happens, and I see that as a contribution to realism, even if it is by omission, rather than design. Real war is chaotic, it doesn't roll along with neat odds calculations.

I don't think it's so much that the devs choose not to address these issues, more an uncertainty as to how some changes will affect the overall performance of the game, some things they have changed quickly, others not, I am not competent to judge. They have shown an eagerness to respond to forum comments, but are understandably not prepared to immediately make changes that might cause problems in other areas.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinion and all of this discussion should not be about fixing the game one way, or other, but in finding the preferences and options where we can all win and this game has more preferences and options than most. I would argue the merits of any case, but never object to an alternative option for anything, there is often room in this game for more than one solution.

Live long and prosper.[:)]

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner


Well, DON'T DO SEALION! Why try to stress the AI to breaking point? Why not play the game in a more historical, realistic fashion?

Naval game doesn't work? Wrong again. It's quite fun, especially the convoy raiding and ASW.

So the Royal Navy doing nothing to defend the channel or British beaches is ok with you. If protecting the channel is to much "stress" for the AI, then I could only imagine how bad the AI really is.

[gwgardner]

I just get so tired of guys who play the game to test its limits, rather than enjoying its many, many great features. Then they judge the game on those fringe aspects, rather than the many great features.

Play the game through, an entire campaign scenario, ALL aspects, then give your definitive opinion.