Matrix Games Forums

Greetings,
I dont really know if the two titles are comparable or not, but since I'll finally get a proper credit card in a few days, I can buy a game or two for myself for Xmas:)
Anyway I wondering if I should go for Advanced Tactics: WW2 or TOAW3.
Any comments are welcome, and if anyone has both of the games I'd like to give some pros and cons for both (or a small comparison).
Thanks a lot,
Jadam

ORIGINAL: jadam12

Greetings,
I dont really know if the two titles are comparable or not, but since I'll finally get a proper credit card in a few days, I can buy a game or two for myself for Xmas:)
Anyway I wondering if I should go for Advanced Tactics: WW2 or TOAW3.
Any comments are welcome, and if anyone has both of the games I'd like to give some pros and cons for both (or a small comparison).
Thanks a lot,
Jadam

Well, I have both...

Advanced Tactics have some interesting production model. I really didn't have time to play much AT so i cannot say that I have figured the game completely.

I found that this HQ system and supply system in AT is not so intuitive and could have been simpler and at the same time rich...

Again, I think that AT is great game but generic. For instance you have Rifle II squad, Light tanks etc... all unit's have some % of chance to kill another.

It is nowhere near TOAW in terms of historical authencity.

For instance TOAW simulates all equipment in division, regiments, or brigades etc... Simplified and not so correct 100% but it does a good job at this.

While in AT you will have "divisions" compromised of 2 Light tanks, 10 scouts and 1 Flak 2. something like that.

So, AT is not really comparable to TOAW, that was cheap marketing trick I think.

Still both games are great, but I must say TOAW is masterpiece and AT is not that good game all around. Fun yes but not that great.


Just my 2 cents.


Mario

I've only just glanced at Advanced Tactics.

From this, I'd say that game is quicker to learn and play but seems to have less depth and fewer options for the designer, and probably less realism. I find a couple of the features interesting, such as the variable chain of command and the option to have as many as nine players.

I agree with GD on that one. I hate to trash games that people put hard work into but for me AT lost my interest within a month. Hope this helps! Cheers.

Of course it helps! Every comment is appreciated.
I've checked the AAR forum of TOAW and there are some monster scenarios covering the entire war (or entire eastern front).
My question is: how accurately can TOAW model such largescale operations? What's with production/reinforcements? And since I mainly play against the AI, are those larger scenarios playable against AI opponent? How good is the AI btw?
Thanks

I have both and am playing both.

I disagree that AT has less depth for the designer - virtually everything is designable - you can make Panthers and T34's and AT+ Rifle squads if you want to put the work into it, but the game out of the box uses generic units. 

There are multiple ways of doing almost everything - eg production can be from factories at cities, or scheduled arrival, or through card driven events using or not using "Political points".

Supply is quite intuitive IMO, and considerably superior to TOAW's because it has to be produced and gets used up.

It does quite a good game at a high level - grand operational perhaps, and is perhaps closer to a "top down" design rather than the "bottom up" design of TOAW (ie it seems more to have been designed to achieve effects and what constitutes the units is less important, whereas TOAW seems to bedesigned more to achieve units, and then the system designed to allow those units to achieve effects...just my take on things)

TOAW of course famously lacks any sort of playable production system - production has to be pre-programmed. It is normally alterable through theatre options, but the degree of change available is severely limited. As a result the grand campaigns such as FITE and EA are a bit "forced"...they arent' quite comfortable in TOAW IMO......that doesn't stop me playing and enjoying them (I'm playing 2 games of FITE PBEM & 1 of Trotsky's war vs the AI), but they arent' quite right IMO. AT is streets ahead in this respect.

The one thing AT lacks is fixed unit composition - a unit is nothing more than a holder for any number of sub-units - quads if you will.  You can move sub-units in and out of units as yuo see fit....so the 15th Pz division might start a game with 3 light tanks, 20 infantry and a half track, but next turn you can get rid of those and put in 12 level bombers if you want....or a battleship (if its at a port) - ther are no constraints.

If there was the ability to design "fixed" unit compositions, along with some ability to alter them for a cost, the game would be much more grogly.

But it's pretty good right now anyway.

ORIGINAL: jadam12

Of course it helps! Every comment is appreciated.
I've checked the AAR forum of TOAW and there are some monster scenarios covering the entire war (or entire eastern front).
My question is: how accurately can TOAW model such largescale operations?

So-so. On paper you can sort-of do monsters, but TOAW events are often global. This means that if you have a 300 hex front you can't differentiate between conditions at the two extreme ends. That's not to say that you could never have a good scenario of this size, but certain situations lend themselves to it more than others, and it's always going to be a design challenge.

When it comes to the PO, it's basically good but the larger the scenario, the more problems it will have, because it only works on a formation-by-formation basis. In other words, the AI doesn't do strategy- at all. That has to be roughed in by the designer and you can only have two or three different options.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

It does quite a good game at a high level - grand operational perhaps,

This seems to be the crux of the issue. AT is best at strategic or politically complex situations. TOAW is at heart an operational game which has in some cases been forced into a strategic mould.

The one thing AT lacks is fixed unit composition - a unit is nothing more than a holder for any number of sub-units - quads if you will.  You can move sub-units in and out of units as yuo see fit....so the 15th Pz division might start a game with 3 light tanks, 20 infantry and a half track, but next turn you can get rid of those and put in 12 level bombers if you want....or a battleship (if its at a port) - ther are no constraints.

Wow. Whilst variable unit composition is great, there do need to be limits.

Hi,

I own both of them.

For me, AT seems to be more suitable for strategic level scenarios, where a counter represents an army or corps. By all accounts, with AT scenario editor, you can create scenarios where counters are smaller units than that but in my opinion they don't play as well as similar ones made with TOAW. In fact, many AT scenarios included in the game or available at the AT Community Website (www.advancedtactics.org) are huge scope startegy level ones where you command entire corps or armies. But you will also get some division or regiment level ones. This said, my opinion is that with AT, you will never get scenarios that are as historical as the TOAW ones. You have a list of equipment in AT units but again it is not as detailed as in TOAW, and sometimes not realistic.

In terms of available scenarios, there are hundreds for TOAW available both with the game and on various websites. As for AT, there are just a few. But this is not necessarily a drawback at the moment, and it may change in the future since AT is a new game.

On the other hand, AT provides the player with a few things that TOAW lacks. For example, an AT scenario can have more than two forces (e.g. Axis, Western Allies, Russia) which are treated separately by the game engine. In TOAW, you can only have two (you can have e.g. Axis, Western Allies and Russia too, but the TOAW engine will reduce the naumber of forces used down to only two, which means that e.g. Western Allies and Russia will be treated as one force). Also, it seems to me that supply distribution is more realistic in AT than in TOAW since you can actually adjust supply level for a single unit while in TOAW, you can't choose a unit and give it more or less supply. There are some other tiny details like that which seem better programmed in AT.

When you finish your turn and are waiting for the computer to move its forces, in AT you can't see what's happening on the battlefield. You can only see a dark screen with some information that the enemy is conducting their operations (obviously, this may be changed in future patches). In TOAW, you can see the battlefield and depending on your recon level and distance from the front, you can actally see some of the enemy units moving and attacking yours, so you know what's going on.

Finally, when I'm playing TOAW, I have the impression that I'm taking part in a real military wargame simulation. When I'm playing AT, it always reminds me of Panzer General 1, which is not bad, but gives me the feeling that the game is rather generic and not detailed enough.

I hope this helps a bit.

Regards

When AT came out I looked at the screen shots and when I saw icons being used instead of military symbols, kinda turned me off, and I haven't looked at it since. Kinda reminded me of 'Axis and Allies' though one should realize there are lots of people that liked A&A and so I can understand there might be lots that like AT as well. Just, not my cup of tea to the extent TOAW is (yeah, I recently downloaded a freeware game called People's Tactics and that is generic and kinda nice but, does not go to the extent in size that AT does).

Someone mentioned this here in this thread, but IMO TOAW was initially targeted for 'operations' as opposed to 'campaigns' or 'wars', it's just that many of us here prefer the campaigns (FiTE) and wars (EA) moreso maybe than operations (Normandy, Market-Garden, etc).

But, the one problem I see with this, and I have mentioned this elsewhere in this forum, is TOAW is devoid of any chain-of-command. The use of colors to differentiate between commands to a large extent makes up for this but, there are some things it can't make up for, including visibility into your command, HQ bias and supply unit supply to subordinate units, etc.

IMO, would not be that difficult in the code to add the chain-of-command, by just adding the subordinate formations to the formation displays of the higher level formations. But, if the code is easy then still all the scenarios would have to be updated and that might just be a bear.

Also, if they put in chain-of-command, they might just go ahead and put in leaders while they are at it. Six of one half a dozen of the other for me on leaders, but the thing is, would mean we would probably not get any chain-of-command until a TOAW4, and IMO right now that is the main lacking that I have found in TOAW3, with other stuff being pretty minor relatively speaking.

DiT

DIT I can assure you AT is nothing at all like A&A - it's much closer to TOAW than A&A....and there's "NATO" mods around if yuo don't like the icons

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

When AT came out I looked at the screen shots and when I saw icons being used instead of military symbols, kinda turned me off, and I haven't looked at it since. Kinda reminded me of 'Axis and Allies' though one should realize there are lots of people that liked A&A

Yeah- Axis & Allies is a great game to play at home with a few friends. Really, a completely different category to TOAW.

Also, if they put in chain-of-command, they might just go ahead and put in leaders while they are at it.

I think leaders would make the game less realistic, not more. The player is the leaders.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Also, if they put in chain-of-command, they might just go ahead and put in leaders while they are at it.

I think leaders would make the game less realistic, not more. The player is the leaders.

This can be seen both ways. Currently, with T3, the player is not only the leader, he is every leader, from Churchill/Stalin/Hitler, all the way down to the individual batt/bgd/div commander (dependenant on scale). The addition of leaders would not, I hope, replace the fact that the player is the leader, but instead add another layer of depth the player's forces, much like breaking proficiency up into training/morale, or adding the chain-of-command.
Of course, just how leaders could/should be implemented is not an easy question; suggestions have been made, but whether these would truely add to/help the system, or simply be a waste of programming time is a highly contestable issue.

So, to be direct, I would have to disagree with your assesment of the effect on realism of adding leaders to the mix, Mr. Turner. Of course everyone (alomst everyone [;)]) is welcome to their opinions.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

DIT I can assure you AT is nothing at all like A&A - it's much closer to TOAW than A&A....and there's "NATO" mods around if yuo don't like the icons

Well, combat model of TOAW is better than AT - it is randomised but not so much like AT.
Look into manual of AT how combat works.
Compared to TOAW it is much more Risk than TOAW.


Mario

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

DIT I can assure you AT is nothing at all like A&A - it's much closer to TOAW than A&A....and there's "NATO" mods around if yuo don't like the icons

There's this website: http://www.mikekreuzer.com/mods.htm with a NATO mod.

ORIGINAL: Veers
This can be seen both ways. Currently, with T3, the player is not only the leader, he is every leader, from Churchill/Stalin/Hitler, all the way down to the individual batt/bgd/div commander (dependenant on scale).

Yes. However, unless you propose taking this power out of the hands of the player, there is no point in adding "leaders" who in reality were taking the same decisions as the player does in TOAW. While it would be interesting to do so, I doubt this feature is going to be available in TOAW for some time.

Then there's formation proficiency and supply. These can be used if necessary for certain leadership abilities.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

DIT I can assure you AT is nothing at all like A&A - it's much closer to TOAW than A&A....and there's "NATO" mods around if yuo don't like the icons

Well, somewhere's in between Axis and Allies and TOAW. If you say it is much closer to TOAW, I would not disagree with that, and in fact my original statement, was to get the more informed statement like you say it <g>.

But still, the point is valid, though again, A&A was a very popular game, with many people liking it. Just, not that historical, and the point has been made by others that AT is not as historical as TOAW.

DiT

If you look at War in Russia, they have leaders in there, and it doesn't take anything out of the hands of the players, instead they are mods to the combat based on how good or bad the leader is.

So, you can add leaders and it ends up being another factor to be dealth with, while also adding some color/historicity to the game.

They have leaders in WiR and in Steel Panthers... me personally I have never paid that much attention to them... maybe I should next time I play those games (plan to next time re WiR).

Oh.... but the big thing here (lol)... is IMO what TOAW really needs most is the chain of command, and none of you all have made any comments on that <g>.

DiT

P.S. Many of the scenarios I have played have leaders in there indirectly, naming HQ units or whatever after them. So, should be included, just a matter of how much effort for it re the effort and value of other possible enhancements.

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

If you look at War in Russia, they have leaders in there, and it doesn't take anything out of the hands of the players, instead they are mods to the combat based on how good or bad the leader is.

But where does this fit in in TOAW? If it's the leader of a unit, then improve the capabilities of that unit. If it's the leader of a formation, then improve the stats of that formation.

You could argue for the freedom to move these commanders around, but I suspect this would be even less realistic. Rommel dashes over from 7. Panzer to command 10. Panzer because that's where the breakthrough happens to have occured. I don't see it- it wouldn't happen in real life.

Oh.... but the big thing here (lol)... is IMO what TOAW really needs most is the chain of command, and none of you all have made any comments on that

Well, one of us commented at least;
"I find a couple of the features interesting, such as the variable chain of command..."

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

... seems to have less depth and fewer options for the designer ...

That part just has to be wrong. AT has a very powerful scripting engine; TOAW's little event editor just doesn't compare.