What to change ?

[lancerunolfsson]

Why not allow both?

Ben try expanding on that philosophy;^) For instance let a guy like me see numbers on units that mean something when I have a unit spotted on "THE SORT OF KIND OF FOG WAR" setting. Then let some one else not even know where their own units are (very realistic serious) on the "SUPER DUPER ULTRA MEGA FOG OF WAR" Setting. Of course there are guys out there that don't want to know where their own units are but they do want to know how many cans of spam each guy has in his rucksack, I'm not sure what you call that.

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson
I think Ben would actually like this as a feature of the game;^)

Not at all. The player should be placed in the same position as his historical counterpart. Getting burned after bullying down that road too quickly is part of that.

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

I think the need for additional events would be reduced if the event engine was rationalized a tad.

Naturally that would help. But more events is much easier to do.

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson
Ben try expanding on that philosophy;^) For instance let a guy like me see numbers on units that mean something when I have a unit spotted on "THE SORT OF KIND OF FOG WAR" setting.

You could just play 'Korsun Pocket'. I hear that game even calculates the combat odds for you.

Seriously, though, you're right that EVERY facet of the game should be edittable. A designer could set the default level of information in a scenario, which the players could then modify when they start up. If you like, you could even have all the information you like while your opponent goes by instinct. I've heard that the US Army ran a game along those lines- and the latter guy won.

Of course there are guys out there that don't want to know where their own units are but they do want to know how many cans of spam each guy has in his rucksack, I'm not sure what you call that.

That would be squad level gaming.

[lancerunolfsson]

I've heard that the US Army ran a game along those lines- and the latter guy won.

Of course that can happen I think we have all been in the situation in some game we have played that some oponent does so consistantly badly that we even try throwing them bones. A lot that can be based on simple tactical ineptitude. In Miniature and Board games each of the players usualy have all the info most of the time except what the dice are going to do. Yet I still run in to a player occasionaly that has no concept of flank security. Or any other number of basics. That are true no matter what game you are playing at what level of FOW. What is frustrating is playing a game that is so minutae driven that an oponents units perform so much better because of a clinical understanding of internal game mechanics that he is at an advantage inspite of a rough parity or even inferiority at tactical or strategic principles!! Ironically complex attempts at "simulation" modeling are far more likey to exacerbate rather than amelorate this problem. Now interesting point the in TOAW you actually do get a pretty acurate read on what unit strenghts are in scenarios prior to WWII. I am real comfortable with the level of information I am getting in Tannenburg or Mons. Now when the tanks and air start showing up things go south real quick. Some of this does go directly to Norms somtimes bizzaire interpretations of what is important about unit strenght such as valuing rate of fire in AT over raw punch. Now real world an ROF of 20 rounds per minute is swell if you can punch your targets but useless if you can't. Better then an ROF of 1 round per minute if your shot hits and don't bounce!

[Crimguy]

Looks like Ben's played some TOAW ;-D

I'm pretty excited to see it coming. I agree with virtually all of ben's comments, but do think the numbers should be a bit more "firm" on the counters.

Really, all I want is a more comprehensive manual, no cd requirement, and maybe a bit more ability to move entire formations as a group. Lots of things in TOAW left me scratching my head, and that manual spent a good 2 months next to my toilet[:D]

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson
Of course that can happen I think we have all been in the situation in some game we have played that some oponent does so consistantly badly that we even try throwing them bones. A lot that can be based on simple tactical ineptitude.

This isn't the case here. The fact is that having all the information leads you into making calculations about what you and your opponent can achieve rather than just doing what seems like a good idea based on your experience. The latter's a more effective method most of the time.

What is frustrating is playing a game that is so minutae driven that an oponents units perform so much better because of a clinical understanding of internal game mechanics that he is at an advantage inspite of a rough parity or even inferiority at tactical or strategic principles!!

Mm. If you give him more information about the units, this will only get worse. Conceal that information and he'll have to switch off his targeting computer and rely on the force. Notably, the best TOAW player I've encountered in PBM (Colin Wright) is one of those people who plays the game as if it were a real battle.

Ironically complex attempts at "simulation" modeling are far more likey to exacerbate rather than amelorate this problem.

Ah, no. Complexity isn't the problem. The problem is transparency. A transparent system leads players to play it as a game rather than as a battle. I might even go so far as to argue that the player shouldn't be able to see ANY numbers. Just go on the unit size icon and the health indicator.

Now real world an ROF of 20 rounds per minute is swell if you can punch your targets but useless if you can't. Better then an ROF of 1 round per minute if your shot hits and don't bounce!

It's never that simple. 20 rounds per minute gives you a lot of die rolls.

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

and that manual spent a good 2 months next to my toilet[:D]

Yeah. Not a great manual- but passable toilet paper....

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
Notably, the best TOAW player I've encountered in PBM (Colin Wright) is one of those people who plays the game as if it were a real battle.

I wonder if this Colin dude has ever played against any ladder leaders of SZO. Might get his a** whupped.

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Keke
I wonder if this Colin dude has ever played against any ladder leaders of SZO. Might get his a** whupped.

I seriously doubt it. I've played JAMiAM. Some novel ideas- but not spectacular.

Colin just spends so bloody long on each turn that he doesn't seem to make operational errors.

EDIT: wow, another censored forum.

[lancerunolfsson]

What is frustrating is playing a game that is so minutae driven that an oponents units perform so much better because of a clinical understanding of internal game mechanics that he is at an advantage inspite of a rough parity or even inferiority at tactical or strategic principles!!



Mm. If you give him more information about the units, this will only get worse. Conceal that information and he'll have to switch off his targeting computer and rely on the force.

What I'm talking about here Ben is Stuff like mastering Supply soaking attacks and working the the game for maximum combat rounds. NONE of that has any thing to do with SIMULATING anything it is pure game mechanic. Given that your preference seems to lean toward simulation rather than game you should not like this stuff.

But I think it cuts to a core issue between us. You want a good simulation so you look at TOAW and see what you think will make it in to a good simulation. I want to play a GAME which has some elements of uncertanty, incorperates managebly defined risk taking and rewards actions like not leaving my flank in the air but does not require me to figure out that as a consequence of moving Field Kitchen in France that is ambushed by partizans that it is going to prevent a major offensive in Russia from happening. And that Is EXACTLY what can happen in TOAW with the way the combat impulse system works.

TOAW really has a lot going for it both from the game and simulation stand point. But sometimes it ain't real good at either. Reading Heats lists of requested Changes and Bug fixes at WFHQ really points this out well. And I'll have to say i am in concurence with almost all of them.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner

EDIT: wow, another censored forum.

If you mean my post, it was self-censored. Test: ass. [:D]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

What I'm talking about here Ben is Stuff like mastering Supply soaking attacks and working the the game for maximum combat rounds. NONE of that has any thing to do with SIMULATING anything it is pure game mechanic. Given that your preference seems to lean toward simulation rather than game you should not like this stuff.

But I think it cuts to a core issue between us. You want a good simulation so you look at TOAW and see what you think will make it in to a good simulation. I want to play a GAME which has some elements of uncertanty, incorperates managebly defined risk taking and rewards actions like not leaving my flank in the air but does not require me to figure out that as a consequence of moving Field Kitchen in France that is ambushed by partizans that it is going to prevent a major offensive in Russia from happening. And that Is EXACTLY what can happen in TOAW with the way the combat impulse system works.

TOAW really has a lot going for it both from the game and simulation stand point. But sometimes it ain't real good at either. Reading Heats lists of requested Changes and Bug fixes at WFHQ really points this out well. And I'll have to say i am in concurence with almost all of them.

I agree. Most frustrating thing about TOAW at the moment is that most of the time it feels like fighting the game system, not the battle/campaign at hand.

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Keke
If you mean my post, it was self-censored. Test: ass. [:D]

No, my post. I said a word much worse than 'ass'.

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson
What I'm talking about here Ben is Stuff like mastering Supply soaking attacks and working the the game for maximum combat rounds. NONE of that has any thing to do with SIMULATING anything it is pure game mechanic. Given that your preference seems to lean toward simulation rather than game you should not like this stuff.

Right- but neither of these things have anything to do with the amount of information available to the players, and everything to do with the structure of the game. I certainly would advocate reforming the supply and round systems to make them more realistic.

I think you're mischaracterising my position (this seems to happen a lot).

TOAW really has a lot going for it both from the game and simulation stand point. But sometimes it ain't real good at either. Reading Heats lists of requested Changes and Bug fixes at WFHQ really points this out well.

Mm. The fact that TOAW is the best game of its type says more for the lack of other games covering this area than it does about TOAW.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Ben Turner
The fact that TOAW is the best game of its type says more for the lack of other games covering this area than it does about TOAW.

Is there any competition at all? I mean there are no games of similar type actually...

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Keke
Is there any competition at all? I mean there are no games of similar type actually...

There you go. There is nothing of the scope of TOAW. That's what makes it a great game.

Sort of like if someone had come up with the Brewster Buffalo in 1918. One can at least hope that someday, someone will build a P-51 Mustang.

[Capitaine]

The discussion here is reminding me why I had to stop playing TOAW... [:(]

[lancerunolfsson]

I think you're mischaracterising my position (this seems to happen a lot).

Ben we do that to each other some how you totaly miss which issues I am talking about at which times. Hint I talk about more than one thing!!

[lancerunolfsson]

The discussion here is reminding me why I had to stop playing TOAW.

I hear you I haven't even played the game solitair in 18 months. On a certain levle the more you know about how the game is doing things the more scruewed you feel.