Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III is the next game in the award-winning Operational Art of War game series. TOAW3 is updated and enhanced version of the TOAW: Century of Warfare game series. TOAW3 is a turn based game covering operational warfare from 1850-2015. Game scale is from 2.5km to 50km and half day to full week turns. TOAW3 scenarios have been designed by over 70 designers and included over 130 scenarios. TOAW3 comes complete with a full game editor.

Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM

User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Lava actually does make a good point. MOST people that buy the game do play mostly against the AI. At least if the distribution is anything like in Board Games. At one point Strategy And Tactics Magazine feed back suggested that fewer than 20% of the games they sold got played anything but solitaire. An interesting stat would be How many people even visit forums let alone actually play PBEM vs how many games are actually sold. My guess is that if sales where restricted to the "TOAW (oranygame)Comunity" There would not be enough money to make it worthwhile to the publishers. In my own real world contacts I know 5 guys that have bought TOAW in some morph. I make six, of those I have played hotseat with 2 and PBEM with 1 and he was one of the same guys I played hot seat with. The ballance have all only played the game vs AI. NONE have joined a club or post on boards. ALL have exactly the same complaints about the game that I do e.g. too much information presented in a format that renders it useless, to all but the anal retentive and not enough hard information. For what it's worth these guys are all Hard core Historical Board and or Miniature gamers they are with the exception of 1, all much more hardcore computer gamers than I am. I think of my self as a hardcore Wargamer that plays Computer wargames when something better isn't happening.

I don't know about wargamers, and unfortunately I can't remember where I read it (perhaps Gamespot) that industry-wise (computer game industry, including wargaming) the figure was at 70% AI players about 10 years ago. That same 70% played AI, and AI alone. If the figure were as high as 80% truly, then that would show you that of that 70%, and some of the remaining 30%, were obviously people who had played both ways. Of course to read some of the forums at websites, particularly this website, and more particularly, more unbelievably, with the game WITP (surely the awfullest example of a game to play through PBEM in the history of mankind) you wouldn't know of many AI players by the vocalness of PBEM'ers . All it shows me is the guys who don't play AI are more vocal, perhaps even more outgoing, but then again they have to be to get a game.
Guest

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Guest »

ORIGINAL: Mantis
In my experience, the bigger scenarios cannot be played vs the PO, as it is not intelligent enough to deal with the variables such a scenario offers. Lava, to which scenarios are you referring?

That post was by me, not Lava.

I was refering, mainly, to the large East Front ones. Has anyone ever played even half of the turns of Fire in the East? What about one quarter of them? Thing is, if you want to spend the amount of time necessary to co-ordinate 1,500 units effectively on an attack across a 200 hex front, you are going to have to need about 12 hours each turn. Most players will just switch off their higher brain functions and start shuffling units forward, essentially playing lots of very small scenarios. Those who can bear to focus their whole energy on the game will burn out after ten-twenty turns (by which time they've lost their job and are entering divorce proceedings).
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

ORIGINAL: Siberian HEAT
ORIGINAL: Lava

The guy gives the game a 2/5 for interface. He's joking right? The guy most not know how to use a mouse.

First of all, thanks for reading my article. But please take another look at my ratings. I gave interface an 11/15, and Documentation is what got a 2/5. I'm pretty good with a mouse. [:D]

[X(]

Sorry about that..

Ray (alias Lava)
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

Hi!

I like the large "whole war" games vs the AI. I don't mind moving hundreds of units all over the map, but the thing that drives me crazy is when the game goes into "brain dead" mode calculating supplies and reinforcements. If the game can't cope with the number of units and events it has now, how can it hope to cope if you allow even more.

@Nemo69. Yes, I realize that most dudes presently playing the game are PBEMers.. I'm just one of those people who do not.

@Charles_22. Your remark about the vocalness of PBEMers as opposed to peeps like me that play vs the AI, is why I am posting.

Ray (alias Lava)
Guest

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Guest »

ORIGINAL: Lava

I like the large "whole war" games vs the AI. I don't mind moving hundreds of units all over the map, but the thing that drives me crazy is when the game goes into "brain dead" mode calculating supplies and reinforcements. If the game can't cope with the number of units and events it has now, how can it hope to cope if you allow even more.

Well, I expect that since the game will be designed for the current level of technology, and (hopefully) the supply model will be changed, the algorithyms for this will be different and it should go faster.
@Nemo69. Yes, I realize that most dudes presently playing the game are PBEMers.. I'm just one of those people who do not.

I'll note here that if Matrix wants to sell to new people, rather than just existing TOAW players, they'll have to improve the AI.
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner

ORIGINAL: Lava

I like the large "whole war" games vs the AI. I don't mind moving hundreds of units all over the map, but the thing that drives me crazy is when the game goes into "brain dead" mode calculating supplies and reinforcements. If the game can't cope with the number of units and events it has now, how can it hope to cope if you allow even more.

Well, I expect that since the game will be designed for the current level of technology, and (hopefully) the supply model will be changed, the algorithyms for this will be different and it should go faster.

I sure hope so. Dis is my biggest beef with the game.

You can do all kinds of changes, add more realism, better this or that, but if the game comes to a staggering halt.. well, it just kinda makes you want to look elsewheres.

Mind you, ALL things considered, even this one, I still think TOAW is the best wargame every made.

Ray (alias Lava)
User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Mantis »

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner

That post was by me, not Lava.

I know that. I was using your statement as a sort of supporting argument to the fact that a PO cannot possibly manage large scenarios. That's why I asked Lava specifically which scenarios he plays vs. the computer. Here's Lava's statement:
For me, while there may be lots of nits and pixs, I like playing BIG games, and about the only problem I have here is that I would like to finish some of these scenarios in MY LIFETIME.
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

Hi!

Well, the last large scenario (the whole war) I played was, I believe, War in Europe Ver 3. I'm sorry I can't remember exactly the specifics (cause I'm an old man with a bad memory.. and its been awhile), but at some point the game always would grind to halt, requiring a minimum of 20-30 minutes to process a move.

I remember that the game was not finished, having, for example forces that would not disappear after their country was conquered (Iran I think it was). I messed around with the editor and even vastly simplified the replacements, but the game always hit "the wall".

I also remember reading something about how this long process was "game" related (supply) as opposed to processor speed. But I'm not sure to tell you quite honest.

But to be quite frank, I am not sure why you are so interested in "what" scenario it is? Is there or is there not scenarios that get bogged down in the supply/reinforcements phase? That is the issue.

Ray (alias Lava)
User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Mantis »

No, I was curious as you mention that you play pretty much exclusively vs the PO, and I have been playing TOAW solid for about 5 years now. I have just over 500 scenarios in my folder, and I don't know of a single scenario that could be termed 'monster' and is playable vs. the PO. I wanted to know if you knew something I didn't... ;) (If there was a monster that could be played vs. the PO, my next post on here would be several days from now... [;)]
User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Mantis »

(BTW - I tried WiE as well, but there were too many errors, much like you describe. I believe I was playing an earlier version, however).
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

Hi!

Indeed, the scenario itself had lots of errors. Do you think that this problem of having to wait long periods of time is more scenario specific or is a part of the game?

I do remember playing an "all of WWII" scenario that was abstracted so as to keep the numbers of different equipement down (all tanks were PzIV's, for example), and it ran quite smoothly.

Now I will say without hesitation that I am not an expert at this game, just love playing it, but it seemed to me that the major source of the problem "appeared" to be the quantity of units in the scenario.

Ray (alias Lava)
Wolfie1
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Blackpool, England

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Wolfie1 »

Ray (Lava) One question - why do you insist on playing the AI? I play a number of wargames (ACOW, Campaign Series, WitP) and only play the AI enough to understand the mechanics, nothing beats the challenge of a Human opponent, I think things will change in 5-10 years but at the moment if you have internet access I don't see the point of playing an AI. Sorry if I've missed a major point.
Image


Teamwork is essential - it gives the enemy someone else to shoot at.....
User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Mantis »

Ray - I think the errors are all design-related. The 'wait time' is something that could have been easily handled with events (capture of objective X = surrender of certain formations, and the beginning of the next part of the scenario). Events are quickly exhausted for scenarios of this nature, and it's likely that the designer didn't have enough of them available to invest them in this type of operation. It *could* be done, however, and have the game flow more smoothy, but likely the author chose to use them for other purposes.
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

ORIGINAL: Wolfie1

Ray (Lava) One question - why do you insist on playing the AI?

Well..

For a number of reasons. Primarily, nobody's feelings get hurt. (The AI doesn't have feelings.) This goes for both winning and losing. I remember once stomping a couple dudes at Gamespy playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg. They threw a huge tantrum and accused me of cheating. And come to mention it, another reason is.. cheating, especially with PBEM. (I think that's high on a lot of people's lists to get improved here.) And the last reason is... I just play for fun, to relax. Competitions, clans, la de da..., they are just too up tight for me.

Ray (alias Lava)
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

ORIGINAL: Mantis

Ray - I think the errors are all design-related.

Yea, I thought you'd say that.

The events in the scenario (which was the last I remember playing and trying to get to work), was a nightnare. Like I say, I'm not a expert by any means, so it was really difficult for me to figure out what a lot of the things were trying to do. One event, leading to another, which then took you to yet another and so forth; in what appeared to be no logical order. If I remember correctly there were somewhere around 400 events and even they did not complete the scenario.

I did, however, love his map and OOB. Tried to "finish" off the events, but it didn't make any difference.

It's been awhile since I've played the game. Your post almost motivates me to go back and completely redo the events, but I think I'll just wait for the new version of the game.

You all seem to have plenty of experience and are right up to date, so, looking forward to the Matrix edition.

Ray (alias Lava)
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: Lava
ORIGINAL: Wolfie1

Ray (Lava) One question - why do you insist on playing the AI?

Well..

For a number of reasons. Primarily, nobody's feelings get hurt. (The AI doesn't have feelings.) This goes for both winning and losing. I remember once stomping a couple dudes at Gamespy playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg. They threw a huge tantrum and accused me of cheating. And come to mention it, another reason is.. cheating, especially with PBEM. (I think that's high on a lot of people's lists to get improved here.) And the last reason is... I just play for fun, to relax. Competitions, clans, la de da..., they are just too up tight for me.

Ray (alias Lava)

Aw, how horrible. you're the antithesis to the ol' mantra Once you start PBEMing you'll never go back. I've never done it, but played enough hotseat to know better. Sounds like that ladder stuff is more of a job, than fun.
User avatar
steveh11Matrix
Posts: 943
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:54 am
Contact:

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by steveh11Matrix »

I'm with Ray (Lava). I play games as games, to be enjoyed, to relax; not to get tense, angry and over-competitive. I have never had a good experience in PBEM, and only once had a good experience in MP at all (which was playing Naval Gunnery Combat, for those enquiring minds out there). I now play against the AI exclusively, except in such cases (such as Computer WiE) where there isn't one...

I do sometimes enjoy playing Face-to-Face, but that's mainly for the social aspect, which is almost entirely missing from PBEM play.

Games/Scenarios which are designed for PBEM play only hold no interest to me. Those which are heavily biased that way are of little interest. Fortunately TOAW is sufficiently flexible to avoid this in the main; with the only exceptions being those scenarios specifically designed that way. I would contend that these scenarios are only part-finished, I'm sure the scenario designers would disagree! [;)]

As for the ratio of MP vs SP gamers, in the hobby as a whole I feel certain I'm in the majority, but I'm prepared to believe that this is different for TOAW, subject to confirmation. The game is now quite old, only the real enthusiasts will be still playing it, and that subset may not be representative of the full variety of players who find it at Matrix.

As for how vocal each group is: I agree that as a group MP players must, virtually by definition, be more talkative than SP players. I'll continue to try to correct the impression that's therefore given that SP play doesn't matter, because, you see, it really, really does.

Steve.
"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
nemo69
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:31 am
Location: Nowhere to be seen
Contact:

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by nemo69 »

ORIGINAL: Lava
ORIGINAL: Wolfie1

Ray (Lava) One question - why do you insist on playing the AI?

Well..

For a number of reasons. Primarily, nobody's feelings get hurt. (The AI doesn't have feelings.) This goes for both winning and losing. I remember once stomping a couple dudes at Gamespy playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg. They threw a huge tantrum and accused me of cheating. And come to mention it, another reason is.. cheating, especially with PBEM. (I think that's high on a lot of people's lists to get improved here.) And the last reason is... I just play for fun, to relax. Competitions, clans, la de da..., they are just too up tight for me.

Ray (alias Lava)



I think you're misrepresenting PBEM and the gamers that use it.

It's not only (and by far) about competition, clans, ladder stuff and so forth. It's mainly about playing with someone. I've been playing PBEM for a couple of years now (after getting tired of the useless P.O.) and I'm nearing the hundred game mark. A fair number of these were not reported on any ladder as my opponents didn't care or because they were playtests. Cheating is definitely not an issue because I trust my fellow gamers and same goes for winning or losing: I've taken the hell out of some, I've been badly mauled in turn - no big deal in the end and I've never seen anyone get mad because of this. Of course, you'll always find the (very) small residual percentage of morons as in everyday life but on the whole you gain a finer understanding of the game and you get to know a fine group of like-minded people.
That said, the programmed opponent obviously needs some improvement (fact is it's barely usable in its present form).
Fais ce que dois
User avatar
nemo69
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:31 am
Location: Nowhere to be seen
Contact:

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by nemo69 »

ORIGINAL: Charles_22


Aw, how horrible. you're the antithesis to the ol' mantra Once you start PBEMing you'll never go back. I've never done it, but played enough hotseat to know better.
Hotseat is not PBEM - you're way too familiar with your opponent [;)]
Sounds like that ladder stuff is more of a job, than fun.
The other way round.

<edited because of a typo>
Fais ce que dois
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Nice analysis at Strategy Zone

Post by *Lava* »

ORIGINAL: Nemo69

I think you're misrepresenting PBEM and the gamers that use it.

No, not at all.

As a matter of fact I'm not representing or misrepresenting anything or anyone, just stating my preferences and my experiences.

You know, when I was a kid, we used to play cowboys and indians. It didn't matter who "won", it was all about having fun. As I became an adult, entering into a "competitive" society, I felt I needed to "prove" something, but I left that to my public life. In my private life, I enjoyed playing with others, but all too frequently ran into those "grogs" and "rule lawyers" that just really turned me off. One had to be really carefull about picking your "friends" such that gaming was a matter of fun, not a competition of who ow3ed who. I am quite sure that one can easily find good, fun opponents to play PBEM and have no doubt there are lots of people who enjoy doing so. Kewl, but I just can't be bothered. When I sit down I want to play.. not pour over a single move of a game which might stretch for weeks, if not months. As a mature adult (also known as an old fart), I find myself leaning more and more towards the "kid" viewpoint. If it's fun, who cares who wins.

As for the AI in TOAW, I think it does a reasonably good job. If the scenario isn't sufficiently challenging and I like it, well, I know how to use the editor enough that I can give it a little help.

Ray (alias Lava)
Post Reply

Return to “Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III”