ETA release & info update

[Mad Cow]

I am left wondering why Norm included naval units in the first place.

Considering that they are depicted at all shows something.

But the undermodelling makes me wonder if it was a late addition to the game that was sort of rushed or if it was left purposely vague.

I guess only Norm knows for sure, or TOTJB. [&o]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow

But the undermodelling makes me wonder if it was a late addition to the game that was sort of rushed or if it was left purposely vague.

Well, to my knowledge TOAW was basically designed around two campaigns; Korea 1950 and Normandy 1944. In both of those, one side had decisive air and naval superiority and both arms acted purely in support of the land battle.

I guess only Norm knows for sure, or TOTJB. [&o]

I e-mailed TOTJB when Matrix bought TOAW. He replied- but since he hasn't actually shown up here or at TDG since, I guess he's not into TOAW any more.

Besides, he was never as interesting after he started taking his medication.

[macgregor]

Alright. So it's the four of you against my idea of improving TOAW by the addition of 1 unit type, 1 weapon value, 1 air mission(naval interdiction),1 sea mission(tactical reserve) and the leeway to create weapons of varying speeds with the editor. I suppose if it's just me that wants a substantial improvement to the naval aspect Matrix only would have to worry about losing my business. It's Matrix's call. My acow works fine. I don't need another one.

Here's a sample of the kind of pieces I would like to make. Keep in mind the number of hits are crucial for determining survivability.

Chikuma

4/4 8"/50 x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 52
2/2 5"/40 DP x 4
2/2 24" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 26
4/4 25mm AA x 12
1/1 Engine speed 13
1/1 Engine speed 6

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Alright. So it's the four of you against my idea of improving TOAW by the addition of 1 unit type, 1 weapon value, 1 air mission(naval interdiction),1 sea mission(tactical reserve) and the leeway to create weapons of varying speeds with the editor. I suppose if it's just me that wants a substantial improvement to the naval aspect Matrix only would have to worry about losing my business. It's Matrix's call. My acow works fine. I don't need another one.

Here's a sample of the kind of pieces I would like to make. Keep in mind the number of hits are crucial for determining survivability.

Chikuma

4/4 8"/50 x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 52
2/2 5"/40 DP x 4
2/2 24" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 26
4/4 25mm AA x 12
1/1 Engine speed 13
1/1 Engine speed 6

..a purely naval (steam and later only, or galleys) game is easily built via the BioEd but using land move factors, and by recolouring "open" to "sea" of course..

..i suppose it would be possible to give the same attention to the land forces as is given now to the naval

[JMS2]

The problem I see with modelling naval warfare with TOAW is that is never going to be as realistic as the dedicated naval wargame and is going to be open to criticism forever. The problem goes beyond the modelling of the ships itself, starting with naval recon, submarines, logistics, ammo, magazine capacity,... I could go on and on. I believe it's in the manual that ships were added to provide sea based artillery support and little else beyond that.

[a white rabbit]

..i agree, even a changed .exe doesn't go all distance, there's no way to represent river currents for ACW Ironclads, smoke or any of the many interesting but purely naval things..

[macgregor]

Personally, I don't think I'm asking for that much. That the naval units do what the land units can do with a few additions. Much will be up to the scenario designer. All I'm asking for are the tools. Alot of tweaking will be required of the values to get the naval units to behave correctly, and player notes will have to be posted. Many land scenarios required multiple versions to arrive at some semblance of historical accuracy. I'm sure the same will be true about the naval units. In the end it'll work brilliantly(keeping in mind this is PBEM)
Thanks for the help White Rabbit, though I'm not interested in a pure naval scenario. If that were the case, I would get a naval sim. I'm looking foward to seeing your ancient weapons database, complete with velites ,elephants and Numidian cavalry. The scenarios I would like to work on would be 2 or 3 large scenarios interlocked with theater options to comprise ww2 in it's entirety and a 'what if' pitting the US and it's potential allies aginst an Islamic empire stretching from Morrocco to Indonesia (perhaps requiring more than one scenario as well). Beyond that, who knows. Until I'm told otherwise by Matrix, I'll continue to maintain my optimism, even without local support.
Here's another sample:

Zuikaku

4/4 5"/40 x4 guns
1/1 Engine speed 50
9/9 25mm/60 AA x 10
1/1 Engine speed 25
2/2 28/5" AA rockets x3
1/1 Engine speed 12
1/1 Flight deck
1/1 Engine speed 6

[Mad Cow]

I believe the best way to handle naval events in TOAW is via the Event Editor.

But I'm no expert.

[Mad Cow]

I've given it considerable thought and am thoroughly convinced it would work brilliantly.

I imagine Hitler said much the same thing when planning to invade Russia.

[:-]

[macgregor]

After this thoroughly brilliant critique by what are no doubt, wargame experts, I really would like to find another game that could better suit my needs. The problem is, there is no wargame as versatile as TOAW. Perhaps there's hope for Larry Fulkerson's clone yet. Once I can get a definitive word from a developer, I can be free to refocus my efforts elsewhere.

-Oddly enough, the argument you all make that TOAW should not try to take on too much as it might delay the release considerably is exactly the same argument I made to Matrix about WiF.
It appears I have lost both battles.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Mad Cow

I believe the best way to handle naval events in TOAW is via the Event Editor.

Mm. At present, the limitations of the Event editor make even this difficult. Of course, those limitations should be one of the first things dealt with by Matrix.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

After this thoroughly brilliant critique by what are no doubt, wargame experts, I really would like to find another game that could better suit my needs. The problem is, there is no wargame as versatile as TOAW.

Have you tried War In the Pacific? Ships, planes down to squadron levels, and troops down to battalions (in fact there's a couple companies running around). Karachi to San Diego, Tasmania to Nome, 60 miles per hex. Ammo for each 20mm AA gun on each of your ships tracked. Sail your fleet, sink the enemy carriers, and then land the marines to take away his atoll after a lengthy bombardment by your BB's and heavy bombers. Now, given the hex size, ground combat is very abstract as compared to TOAW but it provides an interesting balance considering it's attempting to simulate rather divergent arms of service (navy, army, air force). How successful it has done so has been debated on those boards but it's attracted a lot of people. But I would say the versatility is at least comparable to TOAW and probably much more so (I add the caveat since it's really not fair to either system to compare them, they're quite different games).

[macgregor]

Versatility is not compensatory with detail level. I like to play ww2 but then again modern to napoleonic as well. My friends are finally coming around to enjoying TOAW (coming over from World in Flames). There's something akin to 'rulebook fatigue' that sets in as people get older. I still haven't figured out how to get the pieces to do what I want in Pacific War. About the only game I might be willing to spend 100 bucks on is World in Flames if that ever gets released. Two reasons, 1-I know how to play and 2, I have friends that want to play.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Chikuma

4/4 8"/50 x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 52
2/2 5"/40 DP x 4
2/2 24" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 26
4/4 25mm AA x 12
1/1 Engine speed 13
1/1 Engine speed 6

I understand what you are asking for, but I don't think it is consistent with TOAW game play or design. For example, you do not produce:

4x4 Wheels
4x4 Truck chassis
4x4 Truck bodies

You get 4x4 Trucks.

While your concept seems interesting, it just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps you could achieve what you want from a different avenue of approach, like more differention of ship classes. TOAWs selection of ship classes is reallllllly basic.

I would also add that another problem with the ship model is the fact that TOAW treats "supply" for ships the same way it treats land forces (i.e., land based logistical points), which is really a poor way of modeling fleets. Transports ships should be able to serve as mobile supply points. This is the the actual way fleets were maintained at sea and is not modeled in TOAW.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Chikuma

4/4 8"/50 x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 52
2/2 5"/40 DP x 4
2/2 24" torpedoes
1/1 Engine speed 26
4/4 25mm AA x 12
1/1 Engine speed 13
1/1 Engine speed 6

I understand what you are asking for, but I don't think it is consistent with TOAW game play or design. For example, you do not produce:

4x4 Wheels
4x4 Truck chassis
4x4 Truck bodies

You get 4x4 Trucks.

While your concept seems interesting, it just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps you could achieve what you want from a different avenue of approach, like more differention of ship classes. TOAWs selection of ship classes is reallllllly basic.

I would also add that another problem with the ship model is the fact that TOAW treats "supply" for ships the same way it treats land forces (i.e., land based logistical points), which is really a poor way of modeling fleets. Transports ships should be able to serve as mobile supply points. This is the the actual way fleets were maintained at sea and is not modeled in TOAW.

Ray (alias Lava)

Exactly, this reminded me of War in the Pacific which is one of the reasons I recommended this. TOAW does not get this nitty gritty. Take a tank, it has an anti-armor value, an anti-soft value, and an AA value. You don't get information on how many actual AA machine guns the thing has or the calibre of the gun.

[macgregor]

I understand what you are asking for, but I don't think it is consistent with TOAW game play or design. For example, you do not produce:

4x4 Wheels
4x4 Truck chassis
4x4 Truck bodies

You get 4x4 Trucks.

With all due respect, I think we're comparing apples to oranges here. If for no other reason than than a capital ship's significance to the battlefield. I don't intend to model every ship, only CAs, BBs and CVs. Light cruisers, destroyers and submarines, would be listed and modelled according to class, but as one hit units. Much like they are now. This way the capital ship's escorts could be included in one unit.

Kongo

1/1 Kuma class lt cruiser
1/1 Matsu class destroyer
4/4 14" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 40
7/7 6" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 20
5/5 5" x 2 guns
1/1 Engine speed 10
1/1 40mm AA x 4
1/1 Engine speed 5
2/2 13.2mm AA x 4
1/1 Engine speed 3
I haven't decided exactly what modern ships I would make multi-hit(besides CVs). But the multitude of weapons and their significance to the battle has not diminished.

I would also add that another problem with the ship model is the fact that TOAW treats "supply" for ships the same way it treats land forces (i.e., land based logistical points), which is really a poor way of modeling fleets. Transports ships should be able to serve as mobile supply points. This is the the actual way fleets were maintained at sea and is not modeled in TOAW.

This is a valid problem. Ideally, I would like to see ship's weapons supplied the same as naval units are now, with only the 'hull' or 'speed' units requiring a land-based supply source (with realistic supply usage). Even if all the weapons including 'hulls' were supplied as naval units are now I'd be happy. I'd like to see mobile supply points for beacheads, though TOAW handles this OK by having set supply sources (kinda limits the invasion options though) I'd like to think that my ideas are somewhat practical. The concepts I'm adding are all used elsewhere in the game.

[macgregor]

Regardless of how much I've suggested, I don't personally think the game needs to change too drastically to begin to sell. It gives good representation to almost any conflict imaginable. Not perfect, but what game can claim that? My crazy twisted imagination tells me that as long as the new modifications were defined, and were to eventually be available when ready for a free patch download all the current players wold buy a copy. Plus all the people I see stumbling on to the website, looking for a copy. I like the fact that it takes some of the pressure off Matrix to meet all our expectations, while at the same time begins engaging all the players. Which I think is one of the real strengths of the game.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Regardless of how much I've suggested, I don't personally think the game needs to change too drastically to begin to sell.

Yeah. As far as sales are concerned, the problem is not in the way the game works but most likely in its image. Wargaming itself is something of an unsexy genre, and few people are keen to try an eight year old game. Dunno how Matrix plans to deal with this problem.

A fine game. Difficult to convince people that this is true, however.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Regardless of how much I've suggested, I don't personally think the game needs to change too drastically to begin to sell.

Yeah. As far as sales are concerned, the problem is not in the way the game works but most likely in its image. Wargaming itself is something of an unsexy genre, and few people are keen to try an eight year old game. Dunno how Matrix plans to deal with this problem.

A fine game. Difficult to convince people that this is true, however.

Well alot of gamers are daunted by this genre. They feel they need to know some history (which certainly helps), they don't like the symbols on the counters (what's the X in the box with the two vertical lines sticking out of it mean?), and find wargaming rules complex. It's been my experience since board games. Not to say there isn't a dedicated enough following to support some games but never enough to make a huge splash.

[*Lava*]

Hi!

While I don't know how many scenarios will be offered in the Matrix edition, but I think this will be a major selling point.

We must also remember that this game really has been out of sight for a long time, and there is a new generation of players out there. It's a classic. And like most classics, they sell for a long time with a little tender loving care.

Ray (alias Lava)