Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

As a player of both WitE and WitP AE (PBEM and AI), I read many times this statement. And never understood why the land model of the latter would not work in the Russian steppes [&:] Daily turns, you just need to decide what will be the speed of the different units and the size of hexes, and there go your counters, what's the problem exactly? If the variables are correct (as per real life), then the armored spearheads should be encircling let's say the Soviet armies deployed in the frontier districts (Barbarossa).

I mean, what cosmic force would stop any player from doing that? [&:]

Not practical? Maybe. Because players might not like daily turns, instead of the WitE weekly turns. But it can work, I'm convinced of that.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

As a player of both WitE and WitP AE (PBEM and AI), I read many times this statement. And never understood why the land model of the latter would not work in the Russian steppes [&:] Daily turns, you just need to decide what will be the speed of the different units and the size of hexes, and there go your counters, what's the problem exactly? If the variables are correct (as per real life), then the armored spearheads should be encircling let's say the Soviet armies deployed in the frontier districts (Barbarossa).

I mean, what cosmic force would stop any player from doing that? [&:]

Not practical? Maybe. Because players might not like daily turns, instead of the WitE weekly turns. But it can work, I'm convinced of that.

To be clear, I did not say it can't work. I think it can work. I am just wondering why WITP:AE engine was not adapted to ETO. It is like if Europe war is only a land war in so many games. And, if Pacific is only a naval war also...

Seems WITP:AE captures everything. Any plan for a WITP:AE number 2 by the way?

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Seems WITP:AE captures everything. Any plan for a WITP:AE number 2 by the way?

I don't think so. Mods add little extras, what ifs. But as you say, everything is already there.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

TOAW all eras (1400-2050)

What are the numbers about?

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Zovs

TOAW all eras (1400-2050)

What are the numbers about?

Centuries you can play

That is correct the years (roughly) 1400- 2050, so it covers a lot of eras, primarily focusing on the 19th through 21st centuries.

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Zovs

TOAW all eras (1400-2050)

What are the numbers about?

Centuries you can play

ORIGINAL: KingHart

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: KingHart

My choice:

Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

WITP:AE was released in 2009, and is basically an upgraded WITP, which IIRC came out in 2004. WITE / WITW are more recent games, with more advanced game engines. I am not sure if the land combat model for those games (both European-based games) would work in a Pacific-islands based game. I really don't have a problem with AE's land combat, other than wishing it could be regiment-based, rather than division-based.
My main reason for choosing WITP:AE as 'wargame that does it best' is that for the genre it represents (strategic WWII - Pacific), no other game comes close.

I agree with most of your statement, but not the highlighted portion. My understanding of the WITE/WITW engine(s) are that they extrapolate and summarize air combat. This is not done in WiTP:AE. The AE model is exquisitely detailed in aerial warfare, down to individual pilot stats for various activities (e.g., A2A combat, ground strafing, naval search, recon, etc.). So which is a more 'advanced' engine for resolving naval and aerial combat?

I agree with the supposition that large-scale ground warfare is 'average' in AE and it's not its strong point relative to other tactical wargames out there.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: KingHart

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e



I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

WITP:AE was released in 2009, and is basically an upgraded WITP, which IIRC came out in 2004. WITE / WITW are more recent games, with more advanced game engines. I am not sure if the land combat model for those games (both European-based games) would work in a Pacific-islands based game. I really don't have a problem with AE's land combat, other than wishing it could be regiment-based, rather than division-based.
My main reason for choosing WITP:AE as 'wargame that does it best' is that for the genre it represents (strategic WWII - Pacific), no other game comes close.

I agree with most of your statement, but not the highlighted portion. My understanding of the WITE/WITW engine(s) are that they extrapolate and summarize air combat. This is not done in WiTP:AE. The AE model is exquisitely detailed in aerial warfare, down to individual pilot stats for various activities (e.g., A2A combat, ground strafing, naval search, recon, etc.). So which is a more 'advanced' engine for resolving naval and aerial combat?

I agree with the supposition that large-scale ground warfare is 'average' in AE and it's not its strong point relative to other tactical wargames out there.

+1
Land combat in AE could be more sophisticated; but it's not the most important aspect of AE.

I wonder if the AE air combat model could be applied to GG's Eagle Day/Bombing the Reich.

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Zovs

TOAW all eras (1400-2050)

What are the numbers about?

Centuries you can play

Whuh? [&:]

Some years ago I had asked would it be possible to make medieval era units for TOAW3, and answer was it hasn't been done. I made a half-assed attempt and threw the towel. So has someone done it now?

I made a half-assed attempt and threw the towel.

I don't see what the trouble would be. You would have to make your own equipment, but many designers do the same for later periods. I saw a Phoenician War scenario, but the guy never released it to the public. Maybe that was you [:)]

The reality is, for TOAW you can design everything if you want, so there is no restriction.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I made a half-assed attempt and threw the towel.

I don't see what the trouble would be. You would have to make your own equipment, but many designers do the same for later periods. I saw a Phoenician War scenario, but the guy never released it to the public. Maybe that was you [:)]

Nah. Scenarios I had in mind were about medieval units clashing with modern/vanilla TOAW3 units. Stargate type thing. TOAW3 has some cavalry units with melee weapons by default, so I copied combat values for foot soldiers to make spearmen. In the end foot unit size of a brigade (4000 or so) kicked tank platoon out of the way.

Flashpoint Campaigns is really good, very lethal. Waiting for the next one. This could make for a very good WWII system.

I'm not familiar with this one, so I took a look at its forum. It looks like making scenarios other than NATO-WP would be difficult or impossible, is that correct ?

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I made a half-assed attempt and threw the towel.

I don't see what the trouble would be. You would have to make your own equipment, but many designers do the same for later periods. I saw a Phoenician War scenario, but the guy never released it to the public. Maybe that was you [:)]

Nah. Scenarios I had in mind were about medieval units clashing with modern/vanilla TOAW3 units. Stargate type thing. TOAW3 has some cavalry units with melee weapons by default, so I copied combat values for foot soldiers to make spearmen. In the end foot unit size of a brigade (4000 or so) kicked tank platoon out of the way.

Ok, lol, but that is just silly, I mean, that is not a game, that is just goofing off! But even at that, those results are bogus, being based on Foot Soldiers from the 20th Century to make Spearmen is wrong, you need to Edit a new category of Spearmen. I give you an example of that Zulu Battle where thousands of spearmen were held off by 150 riflemen. This is modeled in TOAW perfectly, but you can't use the stock weapons. They weren't designed for that. And making your own category of Spearmen, or anything else, is very easy with the in-game TOAW Editor.

[Deleted by Admins]

Flashpoint Campaigns does look nice, but without a TOAW-like editor I am out. However, I don't suppose that having an in-game Editor should be a requirement to get a good nomination for Best Ever. While an editor does count big to some of us, I would guess that many could care less about editing and have no interest in doing so.

However, due to the time that it takes to create these games, I kind of think that full modding is necessary these days, in order to allow the developers to develop and the rest of us who are so inclined to create content. I was looking at Command Ops and like what they are doing [oops, it's not a Matrix game]. If I understand their business model, it is to provide the base game free of charge [although I couldn't actually get the dl to work for me], and have the community work on scenarios and graphics that eventually make it to a DLC for a charge. I imagine I have that not totally correct, but something like that. SC3 is doing similar things. TOAW wants to do similar things.

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: larrybush

One weakness (my opinion only) for games without an editor is once you play through all the scenario's the thrill of the 'fog of war' is gone. As soon as you know the other sides deployment, size and objectives the scenario looses some of it's suspense.

For games with scenarios (particularly short scenarios), I get your point. But in grand campaigns (e.g., War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition), FOW starts on turn one and descends like a steel curtain for the balance of the war. Moreso if it's a PBEM campaign (versus AI).

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: larrybush

One weakness (my opinion only) for games without an editor is once you play through all the scenario's the thrill of the 'fog of war' is gone. As soon as you know the other sides deployment, size and objectives the scenario looses some of it's suspense.

For games with scenarios (particularly short scenarios), I get your point. But in grand campaigns (e.g., War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition), FOW starts on turn one and descends like a steel curtain for the balance of the war. Moreso if it's a PBEM campaign (versus AI).

+1

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: larrybush


Edit: Some reason I did reply to Chickenboy, meant to reply to Zorch!

An easy mistake to confuse the two of them. [:'(][:D]