Matrix Games Forums

I guess I don't understand who the "linked scenarios" thing is directed at. Scenario designers? It seems to me that the game has everything one would need to create such scenarios already. You've got an event editor with Theater Options. So, you can vary the forces and their circumstances however you desire.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I guess I don't understand who the "linked scenarios" thing is directed at. Scenario designers? It seems to me that the game has everything one would need to create such scenarios already. You've got an event editor with Theater Options. So, you can vary the forces and their circumstances however you desire.

Almost but not quite I think. What the Linked Scenarios do is your exact losses carry on from scenario to another. Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over. You might still receive reinforcements and you often do, but if you left the first scenario your favourite unit badly mauled, chances are it may not recover to proper levels. Depending of course how the reinforcements are allocated, and the scope of each scenario.

So yeah you could sort of cover this quite nicely with Theater Options, like what I tried to think out loud there where you would select a Theater Option per your previous result. But it would not be an exact match for the exact losses carrying over. I think. As said haven't done any TOAW sceanrios, just played them.

Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over.

This idea is still beyond my comprehension - Why not just play the scenario ? Why bother a designer to break it up into individual days ? What is the difference ? If you play the full scenario you get losses carried over from day to day ?

It seems to me that 'linked scenarios' are a product of a game system that cannot produce the full scenario due to some limitation(s). And if you don't have time to play a full scenario, how do you have time to play the same full scenario but only when it is 'linked' ? And if you don't want to play the entire Eastern Front for 400 turns, then play the first 50 and quit.

I'm all about doing scenarios, but I have yet to see any reason why any of us should attempt to undermine TOAW's scope by creating 'linked' scenarios.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over.

This idea is still beyond my comprehension - Why not just play the scenario ? Why bother a designer to break it up into individual days ? What is the difference ? If you play the full scenario you get losses carried over from day to day ?

It seems to me that 'linked scenarios' are a product of a game system that cannot produce the full scenario due to some limitation(s). And if you don't have time to play a full scenario, how do you have time to play the same full scenario but only when it is 'linked' ? And if you don't want to play the entire Eastern Front for 400 turns, then play the first 50 and quit.

I'm all about doing scenarios, but I have yet to see any reason why any of us should attempt to undermine TOAW's scope by creating 'linked' scenarios.

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
I second Hawkeye's notion. Especially for beginners who're 'scared' of moving and managing more than 200 units splitting up a campaign is IMHO perfect. Even relatively short operations/campaigns, e.g. Kharkov '43 might be more enjoyable if I'd split it up into the Soviet initial offensive and 2nd scenario part dealing with Manstein's backhand blow. I now got a complete map *thanks to Rick* 2.5km hex to start various smaller scenarios relating to ALL 4 battles of Kharkov...

Klink, Oberst

Yes please!

The large scenario dilemma is not solely a beginner vs an advanced player thingie. It's also about how much time can you have for gaming.

I mostly shun the large scenarios for the reason I can only get so far, until I need to put it aside, and then after a month or three it is What the heck was I thinking there? moments all over the map.

So the concept of smaller 'linked' campaigns is very appealing to me.

[:)]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Say you had a set of linked scenarios to cover each day of the Battle for Arracourt in WWII. With Linked Scenarios, your exact losses from Day 1 to Day 2 (scenario 1 to 2) would carry over.

This idea is still beyond my comprehension - Why not just play the scenario ? Why bother a designer to break it up into individual days ? What is the difference ? If you play the full scenario you get losses carried over from day to day ?

It seems to me that 'linked scenarios' are a product of a game system that cannot produce the full scenario due to some limitation(s). And if you don't have time to play a full scenario, how do you have time to play the same full scenario but only when it is 'linked' ? And if you don't want to play the entire Eastern Front for 400 turns, then play the first 50 and quit.

I'm all about doing scenarios, but I have yet to see any reason why any of us should attempt to undermine TOAW's scope by creating 'linked' scenarios.

What if you did want to go through the entire East Front campaign at 5km per hex but didn't have 15 years to do it? [:D]

Yeah I think the key here is playing the entire front or not, if you are going do it, the linked system makes no sense, but maybe you want to play a prolonged campaign but limiting yourself to a certain part of the front.

ORIGINAL: Meyer1
...but limiting yourself to a certain part of the front.

Or units, say I want to play the Großdeutschland through the whole war, starting as a Regiment, later as a Division and then Corps, see as the OOB changes the different equipment, the different battles.. I can see that some guys may dig that.

When I started playing TOAW, I would have been in favor of the linked scenarios -- for example, playing Rob Kunz' Road series is great, but a linkage would make the player much more aware of the effect of losses/replacements/etc. You no longer can freely burn out units to grab a few last VPs, there is a cost in the next scenario.

But that assumption was based on my need, as a beginner, to keep the scenario scale small-to-medium. And the assumption that finishing a 40 turn scenario, then catching up with real life, and then starting a new 40 turn linked scenario, that I would recall all my experiences from the earlier scenario. And that second assumption is wrong. But the small/medium scale is great, as most players just do not have the time month after month to complete long (75 turns or more) scenarios.

And then I got into designing, ...just getting the damned scenario to work is very very tough. Adding in a whole other option about possible starting strengths/positions/statuses for units, plus supply status, VP standings, TO's used/unused, events fired and possible future effects. I think the linkage idea would have use only in certain limited situations.

But as Klink outlined, designing a scenario to last 70 turns, and then offering variants of it, is another approach that I think would help many players, and be feasible as a designer. Bob Cross does something like that with his Cobra/France scenarios. (I'm looking at that approach for another project if I can ever get the Damned Scenario That Just Will Not Balance to balance.) Add in Telumar's approach with EEV-generated Early Scenario Ends and/or player-toggled Theater Options to End Normally when they think 'the game is stuck' are very helpful as well.

I was more thinking of a linked campaign system for smaller scenarios. That was how I was envisioning it not like Panzer General with purchasing units with prestige there have been several war games with linked campaigns I find the larger\massive scenarios a bit tiresome IMHO they just don't interest me as much as a more focused scenario in the medium to small size.
I have been with TOAW since 1999 and I find my self wondering if Norm would not have been able to understand why designers/gamers would want to make a 19th century database/scenarios or a scenario based of of the lotr war for the ring or why designers would want to create their own equipment database.
In my opinion one of the things that has kept toaw alive all these years is the flexibility in the engine that drew a vast array of designers to make such a vast array of scenarios for it.











,

I really dig that!!!

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

ORIGINAL: Meyer1
...but limiting yourself to a certain part of the front.

Or units, say I want to play the Großdeutschland through the whole war, starting as a Regiment, later as a Division and then Corps, see as the OOB changes the different equipment, the different battles.. I can see that some guys may dig that.

Since that, other than this thread (thanks Bob), there no information about the state of the game progress, but considering that there are people converting scenarios to IV standard, I assume that the game is pretty much finished regarding the adding of new features (besides artwork and interface improvements).
So, it's a really long shot, but maybe for the future:

We need a setting for specialization for air units, as a way to simulate the training of the pilots. In WW2, for example, there were ground attack units that were using the same planes as the fighter units (think of the SG units in the Luftwaffe) but those units should be inferior to the dedicated fighter units(JG) regarding air combat, and superior and bombing operations, because of their pilots training.
And right now, correct me if I'm wrong, those capabilities are entirely dependant on the equipment features.

Hi!
Was there any idea to have TOAW with rivers only at hex sides like once intended?
GoranW

ORIGINAL: goranw
Was there any idea to have TOAW with rivers only at hex sides like once intended?

There is a fairly heated discussion of this topic in this thread:
Wish List
I hope very much that hexside rivers make it in at one point; where did you get that graphic?

Hi!
This is a bit down-graded part of a bigger map. It was ready for a patch but decided against.
I think it was around 2004. At least at that time I made maps and some scenarios and was
very interested in the question. Norm Koger would know about this.
One reason for or against hexside rivers could be that TOAW has
maps in quite different scales and that has importance for the consequences.
Graphically hexside rivers could be drawn with variance and beauty on a map. See War in the East 1.
GoranW

You don't have to explain to me why hexside maps are better, I get it.

But it sounds like Koger is not involved in this project, and whatever code he drafted for hexside rivers is not available. What a waste.

Does TOAW IV run on Windows 7 Professional? I’ve upgrade to this system and while all the other buttons work like the ones to register, game manual the EULA, etc, the quick start and the play game buttons don’t. I can click them with no effect. On the other hand the buttons work for “play on XP systems.” Is this what I need to do is to run the game? If there is a link that addresses this question you can post it, please. I didn’t see one when I searched.
Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Sertorius1

Does TOAW IV run on Windows 7 Professional?

How would I know that? [:D]

Do you mean TOAW III? [8|]

No. I mean TOAW IV.

ORIGINAL: Sertorius1

No. I mean TOAW IV.

OK, now I am jelous.

Another pipe dream while we wait for the beta test to end [:D]: would be nice to have the ability to select how a unit is going to divide, specially when we are talking about combined-arms units (usually brigade level or above).
To avoid to much micro-managing perhaps could be best to having that pre-defined by the scenario designer.

EDIT: related to this, but not exclusively, there's gotta be the possibility of unit's renaming while playing.