Message for Ralph Tricky

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is about on a par with declaring that man can't fly and therefore refusing to look up as a jet roars overhead.

Plenty of TOAW scenarios that work fine outside of the limitations you've listed. And that's discounting what future features may be on the drawing board.

MS Excel with VBA

I disagree here. Any good operational Napoleonic or Civil War game needs to have line, column and square formation, and facing as well.

Heck even in the old paper war game days SPI's Terrible Swift Sword and Wellington's Victory had line, column, square and unit facing.

I am not sure if the GDW and OSG have facing in their games, but OSG is the prime standard for Napoleonic games. I would also say Dave Powell and his work on the Gamers (and now MMP) series for the Civil War is another board war game standard.

[Zovs]

This is OSG, this game is a Corps level game so I doubt it has formation types or facing.

https://napoleongames.com/products/high ... kremlin-ii

This one is at 450 meters a hex and most likely has formations:

https://napoleongames.com/collections/g ... nst-russia

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

My MS Excel game "worked fine". It wasn't a simulation. If you want simulation, stick to what TOAW was designed for (which you can find in the Volume I manual)

If it models reality enough, it's a simulation.

I eagerly await you making my housekey into a better screwdriver.

What does a screwdriver have in common with software?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

I disagree here. Any good operational Napoleonic or Civil War game needs to have line, column and square formation, and facing as well.

Heck even in the old paper war game days SPI's Terrible Swift Sword and Wellington's Victory had line, column, square and unit facing.

Those were tactical games. Once you get above those scales, the battles can be treated operationaly.

SPI's "Napoleon's Last Battles" and OSG's "Napoleon at Leipzig" had no such tactical features.

And, of course, Civil War battles had no such formations as well. West End Games' Shiloh and Chickamauga games had no such tactical features. Plus, both were in very heavily wooded terrain, blunting the need for ranges.

And my Soviet Union 1941 and Germany 1945 games are at 50km/hex, corps/army scale. They simulate those campaigns as well if not better than anything.

Even naval warfare can be done if properly constrained. Find a better simulation of Pearl Harbor that the one that comes with TOAW. Naval warfare is a big subject and we're not fully there yet. But we will be.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I eagerly await you making my housekey into a better screwdriver.

What does a screwdriver have in common with software?

[Lobster]

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Simon Edmonds]

Hey Lobster. I have been banging my head against that brick wall for a couple of years now. Yesterday one of the bricks fell out. Message to all head bangers (tongue in cheek) Dont ever give up.

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Those were tactical games. Once you get above those scales, the battles can be treated operationaly.

Actually Terrible Swift Sword (and the following titles: A Gleam of Bayonets', Bloody April, Drive on Washington, Pea Ridge, Rebel Sabers, and Wilson's Creek are all part of the Great Battles of the American Civil War produced by SPI from 1976 - 1980) are grand tactical, regimental-level simulations during the civil war. Each hex ranges from 100 to 200 yards (91 - 182 meters) and there is ranged musket and rifle fire as well as ranged cannon fire.

Likewise Wellington's Victory is a grand tactical simulation at 100 yards with each unit a battalion.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And, of course, Civil War battles had no such formations as well. West End Games' Shiloh and Chickamauga games had no such tactical features. Plus, both were in very heavily wooded terrain, blunting the need for ranges.

You must not understand how the Civil War was fought, of course both sides used formations, both line and column that was standard. I can't believe you have never seen a painting of Pickett's charge.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And my Soviet Union 1941 and Germany 1945 games are at 50km/hex, corps/army scale. They simulate those campaigns as well if not better than anything.

Nope, Warplan has that beat I am afraid.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Even naval warfare can be done if properly constrained. Find a better simulation of Pearl Harbor that the one that comes with TOAW. Naval warfare is a big subject and we're not fully there yet. But we will be.

I know your not serious. The obvious one that comes to mind is War in the Pacific Admirals Edition.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

I know your not serious. The obvious one that comes to mind is War in the Pacific Admirals Edition.

One of these days I'll get up the nerve to buy that one. [;)]

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Simon Edmonds

Hey Lobster. I have been banging my head against that brick wall for a couple of years now. Yesterday one of the bricks fell out. Message to all head bangers (tongue in cheek) Dont ever give up.

Considering my age I'll think it's a brick but it will actually be a tooth. [:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Those were tactical games. Once you get above those scales, the battles can be treated operationaly.

Actually Terrible Swift Sword (and the following titles: A Gleam of Bayonets', Bloody April, Drive on Washington, Pea Ridge, Rebel Sabers, and Wilson's Creek are all part of the Great Battles of the American Civil War produced by SPI from 1976 - 1980) are grand tactical, regimental-level simulations during the civil war. Each hex ranges from 100 to 200 yards (91 - 182 meters) and there is ranged musket and rifle fire as well as ranged cannon fire.

TSS was at 120 yards; GoB was at 125 yards; BA was at 115 yards.

Meanwhile, West End Games Shiloh was at 190 yards; Chickamauga was at 270 yards. Significantly larger scale.

Likewise Wellington's Victory is a grand tactical simulation at 100 yards with each unit a battalion.

OSS Napoleon at Leizig was at 480 meters. Far larger.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And, of course, Civil War battles had no such formations as well. West End Games' Shiloh and Chickamauga games had no such tactical features. Plus, both were in very heavily wooded terrain, blunting the need for ranges.

You must not understand how the Civil War was fought, of course both sides used formations, both line and column that was standard. I can't believe you have never seen a painting of Pickett's charge.

They did not use square or column as a combat formation (only for movement).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And my Soviet Union 1941 and Germany 1945 games are at 50km/hex, corps/army scale. They simulate those campaigns as well if not better than anything.

Nope, Warplan has that beat I am afraid.

I don't know anything about Warplan, but that's very unlikely.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1893814

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Even naval warfare can be done if properly constrained. Find a better simulation of Pearl Harbor that the one that comes with TOAW. Naval warfare is a big subject and we're not fully there yet. But we will be.

I know your not serious. The obvious one that comes to mind is War in the Pacific Admirals Edition.

You can't be serious.

https://crossrl1.wixsite.com/my-toaw-si ... arbor-1941

[cathar1244]

I like how the links to Ralph's blog end up in China. Apparently someone there liked the domain name. [:'(]

Cheers

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Zovs

I know your not serious. The obvious one that comes to mind is War in the Pacific Admirals Edition.

One of these days I'll get up the nerve to buy that one. [;)]

I bought War in the Pacific years ago and played for about an hour before realising that I'm not interested enough in patrols and spare parts and things for me to enjoy it.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


You can't be serious.

https://crossrl1.wixsite.com/my-toaw-si ... arbor-1941

With the right events you could probably use this map to "simulate" the holiday I took on Oahu with my parents in 2001. Only one counter. One hour turns. VPs awarded for converting various hexes. Important to bring your counter back to your supply point in Honolulu once per day or movement will be greatly reduced. You'd probably want to use rail hexes to simulate bus routes.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

...

I bought War in the Pacific years ago and played for about an hour before realising that I'm not interested enough in patrols and spare parts and things for me to enjoy it.

Can't believe you did not have hours of enjoyment playing Nimitz assigning individual pilots to squadrons. How many nights must Nimitz have spent wondering which of Jim Doe or John Doe was more better suited to a fighter-bomber squadron. Not to mention individually loading each landing ship before an invasion.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Even naval warfare can be done if properly constrained. Find a better simulation of Pearl Harbor that the one that comes with TOAW. Naval warfare is a big subject and we're not fully there yet. But we will be.

I know your not serious. The obvious one that comes to mind is War in the Pacific Admirals Edition.

You can't be serious.

You guys should accept that different people like different things and have different understandings of what they want of their games. For some Memoir 44 is a great game, for some the OCS series is a great game. Both can enjoy their game and feel it's the better at doing something.

Having said that, to argue that they both are simulations of operational warfare is a stretch. Yes, the same units are on the map, yes, there's a map and yes, there are structures of decision making and battle resolution. One, as good a game as it is, is not a simulation of operational warfare.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

...

I bought War in the Pacific years ago and played for about an hour before realising that I'm not interested enough in patrols and spare parts and things for me to enjoy it.

Can't believe you did not have hours of enjoyment playing Nimitz assigning individual pilots to squadrons. How many nights must Nimitz have spent wondering which of Jim Doe or John Doe was more better suited to a fighter-bomber squadron. Not to mention individually loading each landing ship before an invasion.

Seriously? It gets down to that level of detail? [X(]

[Zovs]

@Lobster: Yes, its pretty insane, too much micromanagement for me. (WitE2 is just about right for me)

@jmlima: Yes, your correct. My main point is that no one game system can be all for everything, eventually something in the system breaks down. At one point I owned over 500 board war games covering everything from single man action to armies and from 5 meters a hex to 100 mile hexes and covering combat from 1066 to 2100. Literally no one system can be all that and its good to have diversity in war games with some specializing in one topic. For example War in the East 2 is the most realistic division level operation east front gaming system out there. Steel Panthers is still the best squad level game and JTS are the best and most detailed operational games out there especially the the Campaign series which covers warfare from 1700 to 2025. In my opinion of course.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: jmlima
For some Memoir 44 is a great game,

For me right now it's a good game because my son is old enough to enjoy the little plastic pieces without swallowing them and the movable hex tiles without breaking them. The cards are no good as those would get destroyed still.

A few years yet before we can start to look at playing it.

[cathar1244]

@Ben

How did your Excel game work out -- encounter any limitations on numbers of graphical objects that could be used?

Cheers