Matrix Games Forums

In any case, this is one of my favorite scenarios since it is so unique. Assuming that this is a bug, would anyone know how to fix it?

ORIGINAL: Dr_Talon

True, although Yugoslavia was unusually complex, no?

You're right. It was especially so from the "Chetnik" side of view. The creator unfortunately had to lump them all together into the Axis,which isn't really historically accurate.

ORIGINAL: Dr_Talon


True, although Yugoslavia was unusually complex, no? I'm sure that there could be good scenarios done on the wars that I mentioned,or the Soviet-Afgan war. The Lithuanian resistance against the Soviets was pretty clear-cut, from what I understand.

I'm pretty sure that the Soviet-Afghan war saw lots of different flavours of Afghan resistance who would be quite happy to kill one another- as in fact they promptly did as soon as the Soviets disappeared. Are continuing to do, now that I mention it.

Anyway, the trouble is that most guerrilla movements are pretty feeble. In most cases, it would be an exaggeration to put a guerrilla unit on the map. How many Soviet soldiers were actually killed by the abovementioned Lithuanian resistance, for example? Guerrillas are romantic and they're "cool" in a TOAW scenario, but normally the scenario is going to be less realistic for including them on the map. After all, you don't have a unit for the local gendarmerie which are primarily responsible for suppressing them, nor indeed is the designer going to want to get into the dirty business of actually fighting a guerrilla war- which tends to involve killing civilians as much as it does killing enemy soldiers.

ORIGINAL: MilanceMileIde12


You're right. It was especially so from the "Chetnik" side of view. The creator unfortunately had to lump them all together into the Axis,which isn't really historically accurate.

Even lumping the Axis together is problematic. The Italians and Croats, for example, had decidedly divergent goals. At a minimum, one would need a long list of house rules for how the various units could be handled.

I think one word would suffice. Abstraction.

There are many ways to abstract partisans, including using the on map counters and the unseen events to recreate various partisan problems, but as stated when you get into some problematic areas, you will need more than 2 players, which TOAW does not support. So that leads back to using abstraction as best as possible.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

I think one word would suffice. Abstraction.

There are many ways to abstract partisans, including using the on map counters and the unseen events to recreate various partisan problems, but as stated when you get into some problematic areas, you will need more than 2 players, which TOAW does not support. So that leads back to using abstraction as best as possible.

Absolutely. It doesn't work great in strategic scenarios, but for a campaign the guerrilla event effect is pretty good. In effect, it means you can't count on controlling any part of the map you're not physically holding down- or at least have visited recently. One can even consider a 100% guerrilla effect: if you're not at least adjacent to the hex, it belongs to the other force.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Even lumping the Axis together is problematic. The Italians and Croats, for example, had decidedly divergent goals. At a minimum, one would need a long list of house rules for how the various units could be handled.

Yeah. It sometimes happened that the Italian army helped the "Chetniks" against the Croatians. The "Chetiniks" were only supposed to be (loosely) allied with the Axis until the Allies came and liberated the country (which never happened,of course). Even while allied with the Germans,they were mostly fighting the Croatians. Then there's the problem that the central "Chetnik" command couldn't possibly control all the little units dotted all over the countries. Yugoslavia in WWII could only be accurately depicted in it's own game,even then.