ORIGINAL: golden delicious
That's because they're paper games.
I don't play a lot of 19th century tactical games- but I recall there was one released in about 1988 where one had to issue orders and request reports from AI subordinates rather than just moving tiles around the map as though one were God rather than a general on a hill with a telescope.
Aren't there modern simulations that do this? Where your perfectly laid out plans fall over because one flank simply didn't know what it was supposed to do? If not then the industry really is worse than I thought.
Sounds like that's a no.
If my scenario is as good as the game it is based upon, that's a win. (And it's actually better because it enjoys TOAW's unit and combat details that paper games can never match).
Didn't Talonsoft release a tactical game more or less specifically for this subject? As I recall it had the same 3D icons from TOAW. You might want to look at that.
I don't want to have to learn - or purchase - some other game. I want to empower TOAW's scenario designers.
Sounds great. How does he model Hannibal living off the Roman countryside? Or are we talking about the first Punic war- are there rules that cause your units to attack when you're not ready because they want the glory of defeating Carthage before their year as Consul runs out? Or are you the consul and you only play one turn?
You can probably still find his scenario out on the web somewhere. Regardless of what or how he did anything, giving him the turn and hex scales he needed improves his design. They will empower other designs as well, like the ETO one I mentioned.
No you have chronic scope creep and you will never be able to model everything from a duel to an intergalactic war in a single engine with any kind of fidelity.
So...no expansion of TOAW's abilities at all - even low cost ones (which the above were).
Brace yourself for some heavy duty scope creep, Ben. I've already crossed the Rubicon on that issue.
