Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: RedMike
For example, how is defensive fire handled ? Opportunity fire ? That sort of thing.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "defensive fire". In TOAW III, attackers and defenders fire at each other in combats initiated by the attacker. Both sides contribute supporting fire, from cooperative support assets, e.g., artillery, naval and air units within range of the combat. As bombardment occurs before direct AP and AT fire within a combat, it can often cause attacking units to break off their attacks, before they get a chance to engage and fire.

Opportunity fire is represented by disengagement attacks against moving enemy units which try to leave, or move through empty hexes in friendly zones of control. Also there are air interdiction attacks which can strike at moving enemy units, and can make semi-random attacks against spotted enemy units during his turn.

[RedMike]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: RedMike
For example, how is defensive fire handled ? Opportunity fire ? That sort of thing.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "defensive fire". In TOAW III, attackers and defenders fire at each other in combats initiated by the attacker. Both sides contribute supporting fire, from cooperative support assets, e.g., artillery, naval and air units within range of the combat. As bombardment occurs before direct AP and AT fire within a combat, it can often cause attacking units to break off their attacks, before they get a chance to engage and fire.

Opportunity fire is represented by disengagement attacks against moving enemy units which try to leave, or move through empty hexes in friendly zones of control. Also there are air interdiction attacks which can strike at moving enemy units, and can make semi-random attacks against spotted enemy units during his turn.

Yeah, I personally think I like the way TOAW handles it better than PzC. I find defensive fire in PzC/MC tedious to say the least.

I'm still perusing the TOAW manual getting the hang of things. How does one coordinate, or plan, an attack in TOAW ? There's an option to plan an attack.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: RedMike
I'm still perusing the TOAW manual getting the hang of things. How does one coordinate, or plan, an attack in TOAW ? There's an option to plan an attack.

Sections 10.5.1/2/3, and much of Section 13, (from 13.6 onward) contain important information on combat, while 16.4 shows the Attack Planning Window.

Admittedly, a lot to read and absorb, but after you've walked through it a few times, it should become second nature.

[henri511]

I appreciate all wargames, and in addition to TOAWIII, I bought in the past few weeks Battles in Italy, Battles in Normandy, The First blitzkrieg, not to mention HOMMV and others. And I haven't played the last 3 to any worthwhile extent yet, except for HOMMV...[8D]

What I DO find missing is good small scenarios with plenty of maneuver. that is why I started the "Nomonhan: a bridge too poor" thread that sort of went off the scale. I hope someone will upgrade that scenario in the near future.[8|]

Although I appreciate the large scenarios, I just can't play them because by the time I get to the 500th unit, I have forgotten what I did with the 203rd and all the ones before. With TOAW, this is compounded by having to take into account the need to conserve movement for future phases, which often means moving the same unit multiple times during the same move.[:(]

Although this is a bit less bad with PC, there are still usually too many units on he map. As someone mentioned, you can alleviate this to some extent by breaking up your force into "chunks", but you still have to move 500 units on every turn and remember what and where you moved each unit.

I bet Rommel never had the problem of saying "Now why the hell did I move the 21st Panzers there in the first place?..."[:'(]

What I would really like is a modern version of War in Russia, where the divisions were incorporated into Corps that were mostly the maneuver units.[:)]

BTW, for sure I will buy the updated version of the East Front/West Front series. I hope that they will add flanking fire, the most important missing feature of that series.

Henri

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
So it's sharply limited in its scope? So, as a designer, I should keep working with TOAW, where I have complete freedom of subject matter and of scale?

COTA editor is sharply limited in scope, indeed - but that's for NOW. As I said there are plans to "expand" the "estab" philosophy, to maintain just 3-4 separate estabs (as opposed to 1 game = 1 estab philosophy). If this plan comes to fruitition (and don't ask me about details) that means that using "West Front estab" that comes with the Bulge game, you would be able to build Norway scenario, for example. I am not the right man to comment on this, but you get the idea.

If you want to work as designer - you have even better choice - you do what I did, you join Panther scenario development team(s) (DDTs) and volunteer to work on well researched, hi quality scenarios with a dedicated group of people, in an environment where your scenario work will be recognised [;)] [8D] Had you been little faster you could have reworked your Leros scenario into interesting battle for COTA engine.

It's still not too late - North Africa is planned as next in the Med-Africa sub series - I am member of the NA DDT, I am sure you'd enjoy working with me developing scenarios..... [:o] You'd have to turn back your TDG membership card though LOL [:D]

I've played PCT multiplayer with Europa Universalis and Victoria.

Totally, and I mean TOTALLY wrong comparison. COTA plays *nothing* like the mentioned two. BTW EU and Victoria are not quite to my taste neither.

I wasn't too hot on PCT concept at first, but once you try it, there's no going back - all turn based games seem..... too easy, too unrealistic, too artificial. Warfare IS continuous time - and once you experience a game that does this right, without compromising realism, you can only say "that's it!".

3D graphics turn me off big time.

Big battleships in glorious Norm's 3D in DG give me *hard on* (now why is there no smiley with a hard on on the list if smileys here? [:D])

O.

[RedMike]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

The Panther games series is operational. Unit scale can get pretty small but it is operatioanl.
It is also the best wargame engine I have ever used.
Very fresh and quite amazing.

Took a look at this company. It strikes me that they're doing exactly the same thing you accuse HPS of- repeatedly re-selling the same engine tweaked for different battles. The only difference is that they haven't been doing it as long. I don't see any mention of a scenario editor here.

Anyway, it is good to see a game breaking away from the constraints imposed by boardgames. There are a lot of good, innovative ideas here. Unfortunately my experience with Paradox games tells me that the real time approach makes multiplayer if not actually impossible, certainly very tedious.

Airborne Assualt engine is in my opinion best operational level wargame available...period. Yes it has a scenario editor, yes it has a map editor. No it is not quite the same engine from last in series. Definitely improved system. Updated UI, AI, supply system etc. Does not leave the cookie cutter impression at all.Worth every penny.

Now back to TOAW manual...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

COTA editor is sharply limited in scope, indeed - but that's for NOW. As I said there are plans to "expand" the "estab" philosophy, to maintain just 3-4 separate estabs (as opposed to 1 game = 1 estab philosophy). If this plan comes to fruitition (and don't ask me about details) that means that using "West Front estab" that comes with the Bulge game, you would be able to build Norway scenario, for example. I am not the right man to comment on this, but you get the idea.

Well I'll reserve judgement until this feature actually appears.

If you want to work as designer - you have even better choice - you do what I did, you join Panther scenario development team(s) (DDTs) and volunteer to work on well researched, hi quality scenarios with a dedicated group of people, in an environment where your scenario work will be recognised [;)] [8D] Had you been little faster you could have reworked your Leros scenario into interesting battle for COTA engine.

At a guess, the "estab" for this wouldn't be available, since COTA is a 1940-1 game and Leros is set in late 1943.

I am sure you'd enjoy working with me developing scenarios.....

I remain sceptical.

Totally, and I mean TOTALLY wrong comparison. COTA plays *nothing* like the mentioned two. BTW EU and Victoria are not quite to my taste neither.

Don't get me wrong- I love those two games. I just can't stand to play them multiplayer.

I don't see why the PCT concept will be any less inappropriate for multiplayer in a different game. You will still have to wait around while the other guy does stuff and, worse, in this kind of environment if he pauses the game for a long period of time you KNOW that he's up to something serious.

Big battleships in glorious Norm's 3D in DG give me *hard on* (now why is there no smiley with a hard on on the list if smileys here?

I suppose ships look cool in 3D, but most of the action in 20th century naval warfare is so spread out that the 3D engine just seems like an excessive investment of time and energy.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: RedMike
I'm still perusing the TOAW manual getting the hang of things. How does one coordinate, or plan, an attack in TOAW ? There's an option to plan an attack.

You need to have advanced rules turn on too.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
At a guess, the "estab" for this wouldn't be available, since COTA is a 1940-1 game and Leros is set in late 1943.

Estab dude is usually ready to accomodate wishes from scenario designers, so he might have as well added the needed data for your scenario to the estab file (I don't know really, nor do I care, I am just speculating [:'(])

Don't get me wrong- I love those two games. I just can't stand to play them multiplayer.

I don't see why the PCT concept will be any less inappropriate for multiplayer in a different game. You will still have to wait around while the other guy does stuff and, worse, in this kind of environment if he pauses the game for a long period of time you KNOW that he's up to something serious.

You don't have to wait for anything. Both players enter orders, and watch the action unfold, in real time. Everything happens "as we speak". Both players can regulate the speed of the game (stop, normal speed, fast, extra fast), and the game plays in slower of two players' settings. Games usually play in normal or fast speed - first you both enter initial orders and start the game, then it usually plays in normal or fast speed.

Stopping the game, unless you have to go away from the keyboard, is considered bad manners and players do not do it without consulting their opponent first. If you need to tweak the orders or issue new ones, you reduce the speed to "normal" and do what you have to do. Events unfold all the time - it's like watching animated history map in some documentary, only you regulate the speed of the reproduction, and action on the screen.

I suppose ships look cool in 3D, but most of the action in 20th century naval warfare is so spread out that the 3D engine just seems like an excessive investment of time and energy.

Well, as FJ said, if you're content that your wargames look like Windows 3.1 applications, then of course 3D seems like "excessive investment". I do not share your opinion though.

As for naval warfare being "spread out" I would reserve that judgement for until the game engine reaches battles and wars that were actually fought "over the horizon" (which won't happen anytime soon). For as long as the engine stays firmly in the domain of "what you see is what you shoot at" I'd say it works - well, almost perfectly, and 3D has definite, and very realistic influence on the gameplay (ie it's NOT just eye candy). In other words, 3D helps in representing some of the real world problems admirals of the time faced themselves.

And yes ships look very cool.[8D]

O.

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

COTA is THE BEST currently available wargaming engine for operational level battles. Period. TOAW is (glorious) past, COTA is the future, no doubt about it, only questions are when will the majority of people notice it, and how fast relatively small Panther team can produce new games, scenarios, content etc.

Hey Oleg, I know this is OT, but what is so special about COTA (and HTTR)? Frankly, I've been lurking around those boards a bit and that game seems to just grab people and pull them in. I'm hesitant to put some money down as 1.I already have more games than I can reasonably expect to play in the next decade and 2. if I don't dig it I wont play it and there will be $40 down the drain. I bought WITP but I took one look at the manual and new I would never have enough time to give it a fair shot. I guess that's why TOAW is so appealing, I already know the system and I can just drop in and play competently. Is COTA/ HTTR like that?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Bossy573
Hey Oleg, I know this is OT, but what is so special about COTA (and HTTR)? Frankly, I've been lurking around those boards a bit and that game seems to just grab people and pull them in. I'm hesitant to put some money down as 1.I already have more games than I can reasonably expect to play in the next decade and 2. if I don't dig it I wont play it and there will be $40 down the drain. I bought WITP but I took one look at the manual and new I would never have enough time to give it a fair shot. I guess that's why TOAW is so appealing, I already know the system and I can just drop in and play competently. Is COTA/ HTTR like that?

It certainly needs some time to learn and adapt but once you cover the basic principles it's easy to play. CPU takes off the enormous load of micromanagement from the player. It is far less time demanding than WITP.

It's best to go to dedicated COTA forum to learn more [;)]

[Fallschirmjager]

Distant guns is one of the best looking wargames to come out in years. Not only in graphics but in detail, scope, ease of play and overall design.
From the early look of it it seems to be one of those classics that just screams well made in every possible way.

And it is the product of two old school wargame developers with limited resources and limited money and teams.

If everything works as planned I think everyone else will no longer have an excuse for their games to look and play like crap and hide behind the notion that they do not have the money or personel to come out with high quality games.

As for COTA, it is only the third game in the series.

Panzer Campaigns has what?...3 dozen or so releases over the last 11 years?

I don't think the system requirments have budged since the Windows 95 days.
I can see why people like the series, it is just not my cup of tea and I expect more from my games these days.
I just wish I had the balls to make the same game 30 or so times and charge $50 for it.

[Arckon]

Reading through this thread it has struck me that;

1/ All are wargaming fans (duh)
2/ As wargaming fans all appear to have bought multiple products from different designers/companies
3/ Buying different products is as it should be as all have strength and weaknesses, and provide many hours of enjoyment from your purchasing $$'s

Finally Red Mike glad a couple of people are answering your questions now, as yes this did get rather off topic for what you were wanting to know. Wish I could answer your question but I am new to TOAW III.

I am currently playing (no particular order):

SSG's 'Decisive Battles' vs AI
HPS 'ACW' vs PBEM
Panthers 'HTTR' vs AI (Learning)
Matrix Ed 'TOAW III" vs AI (Learning)

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: RedMike

How about tactically ? How does one playout compared to the other ?... I'd like to hear something about style of play between the two systems.
RedMike...out

I'll try Red Mike.

The biggest difference between the two systems is that PzC is IGO-UGO with the AI defending in your turn whereas TOAW is IGO-IGO-IGO-no more time left-UGO.

In other words in PzC you're able to move and fight instantaneously. The only hiccup to your plans before you push the fire or resolve assault button will be the AI roaring with ad nauseum defensive fire - or possible air interdiction.

In TOAW you must pre-plan all your combats. You may take air interdiction fire too as you move but until you press resolve combat, nothing else will happen. This can be enjoyable or frustrating given your tastes.

To elaborate - in TOAW you can't necessarily move and fight with every unit. Say you have sector of your line and create 2 attacks by assigning units to fight. If you press resolve combat before assigning attacks or other moves along the remainder of the front, you will use up simulated time and possibly only have 30% of your turn remaining to do everything else you wish. This -can- seem illogical. In PzC you get to move and fight with everything you desire until fate or action points stop a unit from continuing on.

In PzC Smolensk 41 for example, attack and fight from north to south, see your combat outcomes before fighting or moving more. In a TOAW scenario of the similar camaign , if you're impatient and like to see what your combats at Mogilev will produce - set them up and press "go". You may find that the turn ends there and then before you get a chance to do anything else!

In TOAW if you want to attack along a whole front, you need the patience to set everything up before resolving combat. This can nicely simulate some sort of "lack of command and control" - but it can be equally frustrating, confusing or boring depending on your tastes.

That's just one big difference between the two systems.

Adam.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: RedMike

How about tactically ? How does one playout compared to the other ?...
RedMike...out

Let's try another difference.

In PzC on the attack, you assign units and fire, you apply artillery separately, you call in air support yet again separately. Very neat and ordered.

In TOAW the moment you order a unit to attack, a list of attack options greets you. Limited, ignore casualties etc. Another option allows you to "plan" the attack out in which case units (land, air and arty) in range can be clicked on to join the combat - much like the Decisive Battles system allows.

In TOAW doctrine can be set to automatically call supporting units from outside the battle who upon seeing an attack in progress will move up as best able and possibly reinforce.

There's some nice things going on in TOAW but it all in all gave me a feeling of disjointed. You can absorb yourself in this action quite easily as I once did when TOAW 1 first came out - but PzC is just smoother running a campaign. IF...

IF there was just some way to not have PzC's AI fire up to three times with every unit at anything that moves in front of it and there was a much more intuitive way to bring corps comprising battalions to the front - PzC would be THE perfect gaming system. As it is, without these changes - campaigns just take an enormous amount of time to play and my hat is always off to the grognards who master the art.

Adam.

[Knu]

I actually enjoy HPS games very much, as I can run those games with an older computer. Also there is games/battles in their sortiment, which are not published in any of the games from any company. Like the American Civil War battles.

That series in my opinion is excellent and much better than Battleground series. I also don't understand the criticism, that HPS is milking an "old cow". In my eyes MatrixGames is doing the same, by re-publishing Battleground and Campaing series and more old games, like TOAW.

I probably will buy TOAW someday, just will wait to see the possible game ruining bugs. In the mean time I will plough my way through the Civil War battles.

[RedMike]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

ORIGINAL: RedMike

How about tactically ? How does one playout compared to the other ?...
RedMike...out

Let's try another difference.

In PzC on the attack, you assign units and fire, you apply artillery separately, you call in air support yet again separately. Very neat and ordered.

In TOAW the moment you order a unit to attack, a list of attack options greets you. Limited, ignore casualties etc. Another option allows you to "plan" the attack out in which case units (land, air and arty) in range can be clicked on to join the combat - much like the Decisive Battles system allows.

In TOAW doctrine can be set to automatically call supporting units from outside the battle who upon seeing an attack in progress will move up as best able and possibly reinforce.

There's some nice things going on in TOAW but it all in all gave me a feeling of disjointed. You can absorb yourself in this action quite easily as I once did when TOAW 1 first came out - but PzC is just smoother running a campaign. IF...

IF there was just some way to not have PzC's AI fire up to three times with every unit at anything that moves in front of it and there was a much more intuitive way to bring corps comprising battalions to the front - PzC would be THE perfect gaming system. As it is, without these changes - campaigns just take an enormous amount of time to play and my hat is always off to the grognards who master the art.

Adam.

Thanks Adam, very informative comments. PzC defensive fire drives me bonkers!!

[:D]

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Knu

I actually enjoy HPS games very much, as I can run those games with an older computer. Also there is games/battles in their sortiment, which are not published in any of the games from any company. Like the American Civil War battles.

That series in my opinion is excellent and much better than Battleground series. I also don't understand the criticism, that HPS is milking an "old cow".

Yes Knu, you are correct on all points.

As someone else rightly pointed out, using this theory Advanced Squad Leader had no right publishing fully priced modules to this day.

Glad you like the ACW games. I wrote the Getting Started manuals for Gettysburg, Penninsula and Shiloh [;)]

If you really want something enjoyable, buy HPS's "1776". Fully updated this is an absolute blast of a game in the musket era. HPS's "French and Indian Wars" is another class game for PBEM.

Adam.

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
It's best to go to dedicated COTA forum to learn more [;)]

I have but I guess I was looking to get a "feel" for the game before I buy it.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You don't have to wait for anything. Both players enter orders, and watch the action unfold, in real time. Everything happens "as we speak". Both players can regulate the speed of the game (stop, normal speed, fast, extra fast), and the game plays in slower of two players' settings. Games usually play in normal or fast speed - first you both enter initial orders and start the game, then it usually plays in normal or fast speed.

Given that "normal" is the lowest level above stop, I can imagine the game would really drag at that speed.

Well, as FJ said, if you're content that your wargames look like Windows 3.1 applications, then of course 3D seems like "excessive investment". I do not share your opinion though.

I'm content with the way TOAW looks- and that's more or less unchanged from how it looked in 1998. But even in those far off days Talonsoft felt the need to put in a pseudo-3D view, which looks awful.

I'm not immune to aesthetic considerations. I'm just really not keen on 3D graphics.