anybody in here???

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Veer

You mean that cool map they showed in Battle of the Bulge (1965) with all the little men and wooden tanks didn't exist. [:(]

Yeah. Also, if you're fond of that film, you might be disappointed to learn that Bastogne isn't in Southern California.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I get your emotion Curtis. Well I can tell you right off the bat that if you attempt a Pearl harbor attack using 'Countdown to Infamy' with TOAW3 you see an amazing thing -the IJN planes actually attack their own ships! I'll have to check 'War in Europe' again but I believe the entire German army doesn't show up. I'll check again. Bit rot? Am I really the only one who has posted problems using COW scenarios with TOAW3? Because everyone I've ever played pbem with seems to accept this as common knowledge.

I'll repeat: Almost all the TOAW III scenarios are just ACOW scenarios that have simply been converted to TOAW III. But they were true ACOW scenarios. Just because a scenario has an ACOW version on RD doesn't mean it ever saw any ACOW development. Many of them are old TOAW I scenarios that have just been converted to ACOW without any designer input. Such scenarios are very likely to have major problems - under ACOW. I don't know what the background of those two are, but I suspect they're quite old. There are also no guarantees that the scenarios ever worked correctly under any version.

Regardless, no scenario should ever have units attacking their own units. That would have to be a code bug or bit rot - but this is the only time such has been reported. And, until I see it with my own eyes, I remain highly dubious.

Now there was an issue, if I recall, with converting small ACOW scenarios to Huge ACOW scenarios, and all TOAW III scenarios get converted to the ACOW huge standard. I forget what the issue was, but there were error messages generated to alert the converters of the events that had issues. Regardless, neither of the above two scenarios appear to have been using the small ACOW version.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
The graphics do kinda hurt the eyes. Little sprites with figures of soldiers and vehicles like they use in the Forge of Freedom and Crown of Glory would be a huge improvement. And the interface, yeah, very tedious and clunky.

Sprites are for kids!

Eisenhower wasn't looking at sprites and neither was Rommel. Rather, looking at maps with MILITARY SYMBOLS representing the units.

Sprites are appropriate for tactical level games like Steel Panthers and the like but,
otherwise they are... childish!

Switch to 3D mode and units are displayed with 3D icons of men, guns, or vehicles.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

In retards to that RBC issue, thanks for the tip on the artillery, though unfortunately we usually don't have artillery around to do this work-around.  Also it seems now like that artillery issue is another exploit to work around the game to eliminate the entire RBC which seems to be yet another un-thought out mechanic.  Grrrr..

It also works with air units - or any ranged unit that can reach the target. And RBCs are essential. Otherwise enormous units could be badly delayed by vaporous ones.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
The graphics do kinda hurt the eyes. Little sprites with figures of soldiers and vehicles like they use in the Forge of Freedom and Crown of Glory would be a huge improvement. And the interface, yeah, very tedious and clunky.

Sprites are for kids!

Eisenhower wasn't looking at sprites and neither was Rommel. Rather, looking at maps with MILITARY SYMBOLS representing the units.

Sprites are appropriate for tactical level games like Steel Panthers and the like but,
otherwise they are... childish!

Switch to 3D mode and units are displayed with 3D icons of men, guns, or vehicles.

Doh!? I obviously need to play this game again; must've been 2006 in Dominica last time I played it.

[desert]

Hey, about that moderator thing mentioned in the first few posts - what happened to JAMiAM?

He hasn't posted in like, a year! But he's been online recently according to his profile...

[V22 Osprey]

wow...heh....yea I thought TOAW III was best wargame ever made?

From all I've heard around the Matrix forums this game is sooo awesome.But now I know the truth.[:'(]Even the players themselves dont even like the game.[8|]

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey
From all I've heard around the Matrix forums this game is sooo awesome.But now I know the truth.[:'(]Even the players themselves dont even like the game.[8|]

Truth? Depends on who you listen to . . . players or malcontents. You have to experience the game before you can post an informed opinion about the truth.

Some like the game, some don’t . . . there’s room for everybody on this forum.

Regards, RhinoBones

[V22 Osprey]

Well, I actually do have the game, thank you very much.[:'(]

I like TOAW III, just couldnt get into it like my other games.I was just pointing out that it seems its not so perfect as everyone said before I got the game, thats all.

[hellfish6]

There's nothing that compares to it... no other game lets me invade Cuba or fight WWIII. If there was, I might be playing that.

[desert]

"or fight WWIII"

Flashpoint Germany, World in Conflict. [;)]

But yeah, it's true. In fact, it gives me an idea for a thread.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: desert

"or fight WWIII"

Flashpoint Germany, World in Conflict. [;)]

But yeah, it's true. In fact, it gives me an idea for a thread.

Flashpoint Germany was unplayable for me... WiC... seriously?

[el cid]

The first forum I joined was "the Blizt", then "warfareHQ", which later became "gamesquad". Then it was Matrix.

Is still visit these, and post form time to time, but I have found more action in other forums from Spain, which is where I live. Just last week a tournament started in one of them (A TOAW tournament with a twist), and probably there has been over 100 post in just this last week.

The thing is that more and more forums appear and people tend to disperse.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll repeat: Almost all the TOAW III scenarios are just ACOW scenarios that have simply been converted to TOAW III. But they were true ACOW scenarios. Just because a scenario has an ACOW version on RD doesn't mean it ever saw any ACOW development. Many of them are old TOAW I scenarios that have just been converted to ACOW without any designer input. Such scenarios are very likely to have major problems - under ACOW. I don't know what the background of those two are, but I suspect they're quite old. There are also no guarantees that the scenarios ever worked correctly under any version.

Regardless, no scenario should ever have units attacking their own units. That would have to be a code bug or bit rot - but this is the only time such has been reported. And, until I see it with my own eyes, I remain highly dubious.

Now there was an issue, if I recall, with converting small ACOW scenarios to Huge ACOW scenarios, and all TOAW III scenarios get converted to the ACOW huge standard. I forget what the issue was, but there were error messages generated to alert the converters of the events that had issues. Regardless, neither of the above two scenarios appear to have been using the small ACOW version.

While my experience with these scenarios is real, I'm not sure that you aren't right; that by loading CoW scens in the editor and saving them they may be fixed. There are certain other factors contributing to my lack of enthusiasm. The pbem experience, while it opens the possibility of many more opponents, is extremely cutthroat as these people are faceless entities(not the fault of Matrix). Any game that wants to exploit pbem play is going to have to be extremely cheat/loophole-proof. Because even if most people haven't discovered gamey advantages. The sheer knowledge that such game tricks are out there can dissuade me from playing. Computer games rely on code as opposed to rules to enforce civil gameplay, which makes game design that much more difficult for the programer. Of course, the 500lb gorilla which I haven't acknowledged is that these scenarios i mentioned really rely on a realistic naval model. This is still considered the big 'niche' interest. People like me should probably refrain from haunting the matrix website. Perhaps there could be a 'we'll call you if something you're interested in develops' list, thus allowing us to forget about the game completely until then.

[desert]

WiC... seriously?

Ain't nothing wrong with RTS.

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL: el cid
The thing is that more and more forums appear and people tend to disperse.

That's true. As far as I know, Toaw has a german, a french and a chinese forum, also. There must be more (as the one you quote), but I'm not aware. The german and french forum don't see a lot of activity, but the chinese one seems to be doing pretty well.
But on most of these people seem to visit the Matrix forum, giving it a unifying characteristic. One would expect more activity. Perhaps the lack of someone to trigger it; after all, it was exactly what this thread did.
Dispersion is part of the cause, for sure. Gamesquad ASL forum seems to be the point of conversion of all ASL enthusiasts and it sees A LOT of activity... much older game than Toaw. But there is a lot of inducement to this activity.

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: desert

WiC... seriously?

Ain't nothing wrong with RTS.

Agreed, I need a break from hardcore wargames every once in while.

Plus the graphics on the RTSs nowadays are stunning.

[Obsolete]

Plus the graphics on the RTSs nowadays are stunning.

I heard that expression over 20 years ago....
[8|]

[desert]

They didn't have RTS 20 years ago...

[Anthropoid]

I really enjoyed TOAWIII a lot during the phases I played it. It was an amazing game, and I although it could be frustrating, my take on it was that it was not 'bugs' but simply that the game was meant to have some degree of 'uncontrollability' to reflect fog of war, and limited battlefield control.

To me, TOAWIII is an example of a _true_ hardcore wargamer game. The focus is on the mathematics, the geometry, the technology and to an appropriate extent the psychology of warfare. No Hollywood glitz or glitter, just TO&Es, terrain effects, tactical dynamics . . .

It was very engrossing. I can remember spending many hours straight on several days in a week over several months-=-=-perhaps alternating game time sessions between this game and a less demanding game like Civilization or Railroad Tycoon or Pirates!-=-=-=-STUDYING the Barbaross mega-scenario in the stock TOAWIII offering. That to me was one of the stunning things about that game. There were literally HUNDREDS! of scenarios in there, all of them worked, all of them had their hooks, all of them had something interesting about them. You could play even the simpler ones three or four times, and try slightly different approaches and explore how big of magnifying effects slightly different approaches would create. It was (actually I guess I should say IS) more of a sandbox warfare simulation engine than a "game" really. The PI for the scenarios that were designed to accomodate him, was actually pretty good if you turned up the difficulty.

Oh yeah! BoonieRats and those other Vietnam scenarios!! I _LOVED_ those!! Those are by far the best Vietnam war simulations/games of which I'm aware. I had the gigantic two piece Vietnam hex map game set up in my room as a teenager for many months, and those TOAWIII scenarios were the closest thing that I've ever seen come to that degree of detail.

My only real problem with TOAWIII was not that it was not a superlative product, a superlative piece of art; it was that it was so damn hard, as in difficult, challenging, demanding of time and mental energy to play it well, let alone to master it. The only game that comes close is WiTP, but then I think because WiTP is about one specific period, and has so much more of the 'flavor' and 'characters' (both the pilots, leaders, ship commanders, AND the vessels and units themselves) of the story, that somehow it works out to feel a bit less like a very challenging homework exercise.

Playing ToAWIII was almost NEVER easy. Fun, challenging, rewarding, engrossing, compelling, time-sucking, a blast? Yes to all. But 'easy' no, almost never. I think that that is why it did not become my main game, and why I eventually stopped playing it. It is just not something to relax with before bed time.

ADDIT: I agree with MacGregor about the cheat-proof issues. I had one or two incredibly fun PBEMs with TOAWIII. Then I joined one of those ladder sites and had one or two more good matches. Then I encountered the cheaters. The guys that just do _SO_ incredibly well against you that it is inconceivable that they were actually dealing with the same FoW as you, the guys who you check and see they reloaded five or six times, etc., the guys who will only play ONE scenario, the one they seem to have memorized, and also seem to cheat with . . . oh yes, the "win" all the time . . . woo hoo!

I think that was just about the time I quit playing it. The prospect of being involved in a big community of TOAWIII enthusiasts, all playing sportsmanlike and not cheating is a really appealing prospect. But given how permeable the game is to cheating and how much it relies on an honor code among players, I don't know if such a thing is possible as the game works today.