What new scenarios would you like to see?

[Hellen_slith]

That's nice to hear....I never could get the no-cd patch to work, and I've always worried that my CD would someday no longer work.

I also hope there are more small-to-medium sized scenes, 10 to 20 movers, possibly there could be some sort of mechanism where multiple scenes could be "linked" into a larger campaign, that is, the next scene in a "series" startup depends on the last scenes' outcome.....

Well, looking forward to the "ME" edition!

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: Hellen

That's nice to hear....I never could get the no-cd patch to work, and I've always worried that my CD would someday no longer work.

I also hope there are more small-to-medium sized scenes, 10 to 20 movers, possibly there could be some sort of mechanism where multiple scenes could be "linked" into a larger campaign, that is, the next scene in a "series" startup depends on the last scenes' outcome.....

Well, looking forward to the "ME" edition!

WHAT HE SAID..... !!!!!

HELLEN's (cough) idea of being able to (LINK) game scenarios thru the 'editor', using some sort of 'attach' file..........

Can you imagine all of a designers' tactical scenarios linked so as to be played one-after-the-other in order to achieve victory?

SWEET!

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Sorry to all you anti-huge scenario guys. No surprise I'd like to see a comprehensive WW2 scenario. Either in one scenario or two connected by TOs. While I'm at it, how about a comprehensive 'War on Terror' scenario starting on 9/11 that would encompass the entire middle east and southern asia that would allow several options(and consequences).(Hmmm...Indonesia?) Maybe a series of scenarios is in order. A working naval representation would make scens like 'Malvinas' much better.

BTW- I'm dying to help an experienced scenario designer with any scenario. This way I could learn scenario design more gradually. Send me a message if you're interested.

Oh, I'm not anti-huge... although I can see how it could have been read that way. I actually enjoy the CNA scenario quite a lot. That one is, however 'large', manageable due to it's relatively small front. But I'd just like to see more emphasis (read: >none) on the smaller to medium size ones! Diversity is the key. [;)]

Steve.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You don't have to. However, I'd suggest you to check out games like HTTR ot WITP. You might be surprised...

I did look at the latter. Looks like a good game- but not as interesting as TOAW, and if I got a new game I would end up wasting lots of time on it rather than working. Does it have an editor?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

While I'm at it, how about a comprehensive 'War on Terror' scenario starting on 9/11 that would encompass the entire middle east and southern asia that would allow several options(and consequences).(Hmmm...Indonesia?)

I don't think TOAW's really an appropriate model for this.

BTW- I'm dying to help an experienced scenario designer with any scenario. This way I could learn scenario design more gradually. Send me a message if you're interested.

Scenario designers usually need help with two things; research and playtest. The former probably won't help you learn, but the latter might. You'll get to see the design process in action.

Really, though, the best way is to learn by doing. Take some small battle which you can get some good information on, and make a scenario. It'll be very sketchy, but you'll improve fast.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You don't have to. However, I'd suggest you to check out games like HTTR ot WITP. You might be surprised...

I did look at the latter. Looks like a good game- but not as interesting as TOAW, and if I got a new game I would end up wasting lots of time on it rather than working.

LOL isn't that the whole idea of gaming? [:D]

Speaking for myself, WITP is the only game, ever, that might out-do TOAW in how many hours I burned playing it. HTTR game system is the best operational level simulation ever made. It's better than TOAW hands down, although TOAW has special place in my heart no matter what.

Both games have editors. But compared to TOAW editors are too specialized and relatively rarely used.

In WITP people use the editor mostly to correct what they perceive as historical inaccuracies (like, "F6F's maneuvrability should be 32 NOT 31!!"), rather smallish in the "big picture".

Similarly in HTTR, you get practically all scenarios covering all historical and "what if" possibilities of Market Garned so the area potential scenario makers could cover is rather limited.

HTTR is evolving to become a proper "serial" of games. Next one is COTA (Conquest for the Aegean) should be out any day. New games are planned to cover North Africa, East Front, Bulge, Pacific jungles, the usual stuff... as I said - the best operational level system ever made. It's not turn based so old grogs need to adapt...

Oleg

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Sorry to all you anti-huge scenario guys. No surprise I'd like to see a comprehensive WW2 scenario. Either in one scenario or two connected by TOs. While I'm at it, how about a comprehensive 'War on Terror' scenario starting on 9/11 that would encompass the entire middle east and southern asia that would allow several options(and consequences).(Hmmm...Indonesia?) Maybe a series of scenarios is in order. A working naval representation would make scens like 'Malvinas' much better.

BTW- I'm dying to help an experienced scenario designer with any scenario. This way I could learn scenario design more gradually. Send me a message if you're interested.

See here, this is the opportunity of your life:

http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1130230303

Check the resources link for ODD for the mapping program if you need it.
TO&Es can be found here:

US: http://orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/013_usa/__usa.htm
Japan: http://orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/014_japan/__ighq.htm

This should be enough research to get the map, OOB and TOE info, which are the basics, and from there, start playing with the different levels and events.

[macgregor]

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

While I'm at it, how about a comprehensive 'War on Terror' scenario starting on 9/11 that would encompass the entire middle east and southern asia that would allow several options(and consequences).(Hmmm...Indonesia?)

I don't think TOAW's really an appropriate model for this.

I think I'm going to be sick. TOAW is probably the MOST appropriate model for this. I suppose we should just continue to imagine fighting the damn commies!(Hell! Grab a couple liberals -they're close enough!) Of course there's always the Jerries! "The two best wars this country ever fought were against the Jerries. I say get them on the other side of the fence where they belong...". Just where do you get off telling me (or anyone else) what's 'appropriate'?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
HTTR is evolving to become a proper "serial" of games. Next one is COTA (Conquest for the Aegean) should be out any day. New games are planned to cover North Africa, East Front, Bulge, Pacific jungles, the usual stuff... as I said - the best operational level system ever made.

Mm. The problem is they could release a dozen of these packages and still not really approach the scope of TOAW.

It's not turn based so old grogs need to adapt...

Well I've played real time games from Paradox... so long as it has a 'pause' button I'll be OK.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I think I'm going to be sick. TOAW is probably the MOST appropriate model for this.

I don't think so. The War on Terror, while it contains military elements, isn't really decided by warfare. It might well be decided by where troops are deployed- but I think you'd be better off coming up with a pen and paper (read: notepad and MS Paint) game. That way you can have more than 500 events.

Just where do you get off telling me (or anyone else) what's 'appropriate'?

I was just trying to save you a lot of heartache. Feel free to make your War on Terror scenario. I just think you would be a lot better of making up the system for yourself. If you like, you can use TOAW for whichever walkover of an invasion the American player wants to make.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
HTTR is evolving to become a proper "serial" of games. Next one is COTA (Conquest for the Aegean) should be out any day. New games are planned to cover North Africa, East Front, Bulge, Pacific jungles, the usual stuff... as I said - the best operational level system ever made.

Mm. The problem is they could release a dozen of these packages and still not really approach the scope of TOAW.

Depends. HTTR/COTA series provide rich, very well researched, high quality scenarios. TOAW, despite being perhaps my favorite game of all times, IMO suffers terribly from very bad scenarios, on average. Unlike TOAW with its many quirks (just take a look at this thread [;)]) HTTR/COTA engine is very stable, in a sense that when you enter basic values (TOE & OOB) game usually works "on its own" after that.

In TOAW, getting TOE and OOB right is just the beginning of work for scenario designer. Many don't realise it but that's how it is.

Maps in HTTR/COTA are simply beautiful - no hexes... most realistic maps in any commercialy available wargame, bar none.

I haven't played a single scenario in HTTR/COTA that I would say was "bad" or "filler" or "sub par" - they were all very good or excellent, or at least good. With TOAW I've seen so much garbage I get dizzy just thinking of it (not trying to be confrontational or start a flame war just telling it like it is [;)])

So, by the time Panther games release dozen or so of these "packages" HTTR/COTA will get very close to TOAW in terms of how many hours I burned playing them.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I feel sorta bad for this last post, where I discuss game that is not TOAW on this board... not very nice, but I really do hope you check out HTTR/COTA for yourself [;)]

Now to post something on-topic, ie. "what scenarios would I like to see in TOAW". In fact I'll continue in the same vein, and say I prefer quality scenarios, regardless of the battle they are depicting. Both COTA and TOAW are good examples of this. In fact, finding well done scenario about some battle I know very little about, stirred my interest for that battle, so it worked in reverse of usual wargaming logic.

Wargaming logic is usually: I am interested in battle A therefore I want my favorite gaming engine to cover battle A.

My logic, that applies to both TOAW and COTA: if the scenario is very good, it will motivate me to learn about the historic battle and thus perhaps learn something new.

There are many cases when excellent TOAW scenario made me do my own research to learn more... Unfortunatelly, there are much more numerous cases when bad scenario about the battle I know well made me sick [;)] LOL

O.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Depends. HTTR/COTA series provide rich, very well researched, high quality scenarios. TOAW, despite being perhaps my favorite game of all times, IMO suffers terribly from very bad scenarios, on average.

That's a good point. For me, though, the main interest is in the designing itself. Playing other people's scenarios comes in second.

This is reflected by what I'm looking for from an updated TOAW; a sophisticated tool for designing wargames.

As to your concern over discussing a game which isn't TOAW, I wouldn't worry about it. It's all comparative and quite relevant.

[macgregor]

I don't think so. The War on Terror, while it contains military elements, isn't really decided by warfare. It might well be decided by where troops are deployed- but I think you'd be better off coming up with a pen and paper (read: notepad and MS Paint) game. That way you can have more than 500 events.

quote:

Just where do you get off telling me (or anyone else) what's 'appropriate'?

I was just trying to save you a lot of heartache. Feel free to make your War on Terror scenario. I just think you would be a lot better of making up the system for yourself. If you like, you can use TOAW for whichever walkover of an invasion the American player wants to make.

Alright. In that case I understand. Certainly not in TOAW's present state would it do a scen like this justice. If however, there was better representation of naval and strategic warfare it could work. BTW I think that the options should be more than just military, or invasions for that matter, and that the consequences of military action should make no invasion a 'walkover'. They certainly haven't in Iraq. With enough events, terrorism could be portrayed, as well as waning political support. Portraying this war in TOAW could at least be informative of the present situation, if not the future.


_____________________________

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
BTW I think that the options should be more than just military, or invasions for that matter, and that the consequences of military action should make no invasion a 'walkover'. They certainly haven't in Iraq.

Sure, but the current situation in Iraq can't really be modelled in TOAW. The invasion can be done quite well, but that's largely a foregone conclusion. That's the walkover I was referring to.

With enough events, terrorism could be portrayed, as well as waning political support.

TOAW has an excellent and flexible operational model; any campaign or conflict which was decided by operational warfare can be done very well in TOAW. Politics and terrorism, however, could be done just as well by rules you come up with yourself.

[L`zard]

pst deleted

[David Heath]

ORIGINAL: JMS2

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Lava
Yep a little,

But you have to admire these guys for keeping the torch lite.

Absolutely... But these games are now Matrix games. So those guys, "development managers", "beta test leaders", "scenario compilers" or whatever they are called, are working for Matrix right now.

It would be nice and civil if they would post their announcements, recruit beta testers and whatnot, here, not elsewhere, or at least here first.

I think Matrix bosses oughta make them do so.

I know communities like SZO did a lot to keep the flame alive, but to find crucial announcements being posted on SZO board and NOT here, by a guy Matrix chose as "team leader" or whatever, seems very unprofessional and rude. Just my opinion.

O.

Let me check the NDA... no, no clause forcing us to post exclusively on Matrix forums, too bad, it's called Freedom of speech...

Come on guys lets calm this down here and now. Look there not now nor will there be a clause forcing anyone to post here first or for that matter at all. The team the has been put together to work with us not under us. At the same time I would find it very helpful if you guys would also please post the information here at the same time anywhere else. Thanks guys.

[L`zard]

"work with us not under us. At the same time I would find it very helpful if you guys would also please post the information here at the same time anywhere else. Thanks guys. - David Heath"

Oleg;

I'm pretty sure that 'EVERYONE CONCERNED' wants this game to come to fruition, eh?

"All we need is Love..." or at least some space to work it out.

To the best of my understanding, 'other board' members are NOT official, excepting Brian King.....others, Daniel McBride inclusive, are semi-official and working with Matrix out of love of the game.

A little time, a little space, and an inclination to pay for the ToaW: ME version will make any 'reasonable individual' happy in the end, eh?

Cliques are the last thing neccesary to see all our hopes materialized.

As far as I can tell from watching ALL the pertinant forums, as soon as anything that looks like 'new info' is developed, it is posted here.

Research and comment there to, is being requested in other places. This does NOT mean that Matrix execs are not in the loop, eh?

Relax, it will all be well in the end..........

[nelmsm1]

Not to get back on topic but I would like to see a hypothetical scenario where Germany achieves it's goal during the Battle of the Bulge and the American/British make a separate peace with Germany and Germany devotes it's entire army to stop the Russians in 1945.

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: nelmsm

Not to get back on topic but I would like to see a hypothetical scenario where Germany achieves it's goal during the Battle of the Bulge and the American/British make a separate peace with Germany and Germany devotes it's entire army to stop the Russians in 1945.

I think what would be more interesting would be to take the operational-level game of the Bulge, presume a German victory there, shift the map NW and game out the ensuing battle for Antwerp.

Steve.