Sure. But its much quicker. And it has the advantage that both POs are equal skill. So crude approximations can be made quickly for the effect of various parameter changes. (And it checks out events and reinforcement schedules, too).
You're right about events etc.- but it doesn't test the meat of how the scenario actually plays.
Notably, there's no need to program the PO to test events. All the units can just sit there dumbly.
PO vs. PO tests are just a fundamental part of the design process that shouldn't be skipped.
I suppose you're right- for a scenario of this size. I've not seriously developed any scenarios of significant length which would need this kind of attention. One can quite easily skip through them to whatever feature you're concerned about.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
I would say that if one intends to write a P.O. at all it would make sense to run P.O. vs P.O. tests -- after all, the P.O. is there anyway.
Otherwise? If it works for Curtis, great. However, I can't see P.O. vs. P.O. concluding the design process. Hot-seating has its limitations as well -- the designer has certain expectations, and his play will tend to fulfill them. I definitely had an experience with a designer who shall remain nameless where I kept promptly breaking what all his preliminary work indicated was a reasonably balanced scenario.
At least in the final stage, one just has to find two reasonably skillful and evenly matched humans. It's not all that hard. No doubt either Ben is significantly better than me, or I'm significantly better than Ben -- I couldn't guarantee which is the case, but I doubt if we have exactly the same ability. It's just statistically unlikely.
However, either way, whichever of us is worse will win if play balance is a significant issue. It's close enough for government work -- and I don't think there's a complete substitute for it.
However, I can't see P.O. vs. P.O. concluding the design process.
I didn't say that. Rather it's a step in the process. The PO vs. PO tests can quickly make the cruder corrections. Then humans only have to refine the fine points.
However, I can't see P.O. vs. P.O. concluding the design process.
I didn't say that. Rather it's a step in the process. The PO vs. PO tests can quickly make the cruder corrections. Then humans only have to refine the fine points.
Oh well. I don't think we actually have an argument here. But I'm sure there'll be other opportunities.
Is there anyway to show enemy controlled hex’s in your rear area? I have just moved some air units forward and saw 2 patch of area now some 150kms in my rear that are soviet controlled. [:@] There are no enemy units in the area and it would appear that I missed them when moving forward. Also how does one convert super rivers hexes other than sending engineer units all over the place? I have sent units either side of the hexes but this has had no effect.
Thought for the day:
If you feel like doing some work, sit down and wait....... The feeling does go away.
It is difficult for any of us to judge FitE. Perhaps only Larry has played the scenario enough times and against enough people. The rest of us have played it only a handful of times, most of which never saw T100.
I can't find it now, but I think Colin said in this thread that the scenario might benefit from a later start date. I agree. Even having it start with the 41 attempt on Moscow would improve it drastically. Sure it would take that 'I can do anything I want feel' that FitE with a Barbarossa start has, but cutting out early 41 would trim that part which stresses the TOAW engine.
Personally, I'm weary of the thought of wading through Barbarossa to get to the late game. If you want Barbarossa, and you want it historically better than FitE, dig up Daniel's DnO.
It is difficult for any of us to judge FitE. Perhaps only Larry has played the scenario enough times and against enough people. The rest of us have played it only a handful of times, most of which never saw T100.
I can't find it now, but I think Colin said in this thread that the scenario might benefit from a later start date. I agree. Even having it start with the 41 attempt on Moscow would improve it drastically. Sure it would take that 'I can do anything I want feel' that FitE with a Barbarossa start has, but cutting out early 41 would trim that part which stresses the TOAW engine.
Personally, I'm weary of the thought of wading through Barbarossa to get to the late game. If you want Barbarossa, and you want it historically better than FitE, dig up Daniel's DnO.
A start in '42 at the start of Case Blau, with the other theathers becoming available gradually(exlusion zones, frozen, or whatever). Wouldn't have to spend 3-6 hours on the first turn either. A matter of research and some mroe research...
A start in '42 at the start of Case Blau, with the other theathers becoming available gradually(exlusion zones, frozen, or whatever).
If you did it right presumably you could make them available from the start. It's not like action in those areas would have been impossible.
Anyway, I think any scenario starting in early 1942 faces the same problem as a Barbarossa scenario (albeit on a small scale). The Germans had narrowly avoided disaster in the preceding winter and the Russians expected to be able to continue their success- hence offensives like Kharkov. A Russian player starting a 1942 scenario is going to put down a cast iron front instead of frittering troops away on ill-judged offensives.
...so start during the winter or earlier. The Russian has a genuine opportunity to do some serious damage to the German position, and it's up to him to judge how far is far enough. This introduces the possibility that he will overreach and be swept away.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
They were so disastrously unsuccessful that subsequent Soviet historians covered them up, but according to Glantz, Zhukov continued offensives against the Germans into the Summer of 1942. He kept hurling himself at Army Group Center.
In fact, a careful listing of Soviet offensive activity from June 22, 1941 on would probably show that the Soviets were usually mounting a major attack somewhere. I can think of only two periods where I think there was a pause: during the German drive on Moscow in late 1941 and while the Russians were waiting for the Germans to unleash Citadel in mid-1943.
Otherwise, the Russians were always mounting major offensives -- or trying to mount them. There seems to have been an imperative to that effect -- and it follows that trying to simulate the campaign without including that is going to be hard.
If one could come up with a workable mechanism for forcing the Russian player to replicate this behavior, then one could possibly have a scenario with historical forces capable of yielding historical results. Indeed, given that both pauses were followed by even more extensive offensive activity than before -- and indeed, were premised on the assumption that this would be the case -- one could allow the Russian to refrain from attacks, but the longer he refrains, the more attacks he has to mount in succeeding turns.
In other words, Stalin becomes external to the Russian player. He has to placate Stalin with continual attacks. Where he attacks, and what he does otherwise, is of course up to him.
If TOAW is to survive, apart from fixing the silly supply mechanics, this topic touches on one aspect that for this non-programmer seems easy enough to implement, and if done, it would be of very great importance.
Why cannot player one or both players in unison decide to create a new (sub)scenario of the one they're presently playing, with their present status, and post it for others to use as a brand new scenario, albeit with a history.
For example, Mensch you and I had a great FitE going up until the first mud, when I abandoned you. Why not allw for other people, if they like the "new" starting parameters, to take on from there?
This alone would make a lot more FitE games go the full (albeit genetically modified) distance.
Ralph, anywhere near doable? Create a modified sce file from a .pbl or .SAL?
And howdy to you DB! Oddly enough this was partially doable with COW. IIRC, you could simply change the file extension from .sal to .sce. And COW would recognize the save game as a scenario. However, the events might have been screwed up in doing this. Not sure. This was 'fixed' in TOAW3 because of the possibilities for cheating.
And howdy to you DB! Oddly enough this was partially doable with COW. IIRC, you could simply change the file extension from .sal to .sce. And COW would recognize the save game as a scenario. However, the events might have been screwed up in doing this. Not sure. This was 'fixed' in TOAW3 because of the possibilities for cheating.
If memory serves, the "clock" was reset to Turn 1 when you did this.
You do have to make some adjustments if you want the scen to reflect reality> For example - one of these days I'm going to hold the Stalin line[:D] I keep trying - so I don't hear many whines about retreating in the North w/the carnage going on in the South[8|]
ORIGINAL: parmenio
If memory serves, the "clock" was reset to Turn 1 when you did this.
Yes but this wasn't too serious a problem. One needs to edit the calendar, the to-from turns in the replacement schedule, the arrival turns of units and the activation turns of events.
I use this feature of COW quite extensively for my Grand Strategy project. The absence of it for TOAW III is a nasty drawback.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
ORIGINAL: parmenio
If memory serves, the "clock" was reset to Turn 1 when you did this.
Yes but this wasn't too serious a problem. One needs to edit the calendar, the to-from turns in the replacement schedule, the arrival turns of units and the activation turns of events.
I use this feature of COW quite extensively for my Grand Strategy project. The absence of it for TOAW III is a nasty drawback.
Item 5 in the 3.2 part of the "What's New.rtf":
5. <Shift><Ctrl>F4 will create an OOB dump, for the active side only. This may allow a functionality for creating derivative scenarios based on various points within a played game, AAR writing, unit sorting, etc. Be creative!
So, if both players do this, the result could be combined to form the final situation - and you go from there.
Ah, wasn't aware of that feature with ACOW, or with the v3.2 changes.
Now, would it be possible to automate the creation of a modified scenario (click-this-button or meny choice) for those players who really don't know about OOB dumps etc? Otherwise, seems you already need to be somewhat of a scenario designer to be able do this.
I really think this would be a change that could be of great importance.
5. <Shift><Ctrl>F4 will create an OOB dump, for the active side only. This may allow a functionality for creating derivative scenarios based on various points within a played game, AAR writing, unit sorting, etc. Be creative!
So, if both players do this, the result could be combined to form the final situation - and you go from there.
A world away from what you can do in COW. At present, I boot up the save and it's pretty much ready to go as a scenario for the following period.
I did try peicing together scenarios from dumped OOBs once or twice. Horrible. Required hours and hours of work just to get back to where I was at the start.
If you want to keep the "cheat prevention" that has hobbled TOAW III in this respect, you could just require both players to submit their passwords before the game would allow you to convert the save to a scenario. No need to code anything complicated.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
