Matrix Games Forums

Hi guys,
I am having some trouble to find a scenario to start with. First i played Korean War scenario as North Korea, at first it was OK, but when American reinforcements came it became a stalemete. Then i decided to give a try to Fall Weis as Germans, but turn 2 calender said "Germans advances slowly". That demoralized me and i quitted. So can you give me a couple of easy scenarios to start with? I prefer WW2 as Germans, or post-WW2 as Americans.
Thanks in advance.

Kasserine 43 s/b a fairly easy win as Axis and has a tutorial. 2 Weeks in Normandy 44 is useful experience defending as Axis.

http://www.the-strategist.net or http://www.theblitz.org feature ladders with game statistics, and in Rugged Defence's case good search facilities to select scenarios. Both can show you what scenarios have been played and statistical win/lose per side.

ORIGINAL: Metalist

Hi guys,
I am having some trouble to find a scenario to start with. First i played Korean War scenario as North Korea, at first it was OK, but when American reinforcements came it became a stalemete. Then i decided to give a try to Fall Weis as Germans, but turn 2 calender said "Germans advances slowly". That demoralized me and i quitted. So can you give me a couple of easy scenarios to start with? I prefer WW2 as Germans, or post-WW2 as Americans.
Thanks in advance.

Try my State Farm '79 or 48.Pz.Korps... You find them, together with a tutorial at the Gefechtsstand.

Klink, Oberst

I also recommend the Oberst's 2 scenarios - short, small number of units, well-balanced, fun.

And good ol' K43 -- the first time I ever won against the PO was playing the Axis in this old favorite. Strongly second the recommendation.

As for TWIN (2 Weeks), for a beginner, it can be challenging -- you have to do a lot correct to win as the Allies. I'd suggest Road to Rimini, play as Allies, (WWII Med folder). And go over to GameSquad, and check into the AAR on Rimini that General Staff posted a while back. Very detailed, very helpful into how and why to do.

Don't overlook Balkans 12 or Balkans 13 in the Classic folder -- short, small number of units, no air, limited naval. I've enjoyed playing either side.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Metalist

Hi guys,
I am having some trouble to find a scenario to start with. First i played Korean War scenario as North Korea, at first it was OK, but when American reinforcements came it became a stalemete. Then i decided to give a try to Fall Weis as Germans, but turn 2 calender said "Germans advances slowly". That demoralized me and i quitted. So can you give me a couple of easy scenarios to start with? I prefer WW2 as Germans, or post-WW2 as Americans.
Thanks in advance.

Try my State Farm '79 or 48.Pz.Korps... You find them, together with a tutorial at the Gefechtsstand.

Klink, Oberst

Klink ; may be I am so kind of a stupid but can not find these two scens on your site

As for TWIN (2 Weeks), for a beginner, it can be challenging -- you have to do a lot correct to win as the Allies. I'd suggest Road to Rimini, play as Allies, (WWII Med folder).

Don't overlook Balkans 12 or Balkans 13 in the Classic folder -- short, small number of units, no air, limited naval. I've enjoyed playing either side.

See tm.asp?m=2231803 and Post #9. There are links to both AARs (Rimini & 2WIN, not sure how applicable nowadays with new assault ratio rules in TOAW III v3.4) plus some S&T for Rimini and Balkans 12. I've always meant to get around to Balkans 13 but never did yet, as well as some of the other Todd Klemme WWI scenarios (Mons 14, Marne 14, Serbia-Galicia 14, Brusilov 16).

Is it me or does the Mons 14 scenario end on the first turn?

Depends which side you're playing.[;)]

But it's not as one-sided as one might think: http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/Opera ... 0&ladder=4

It's not that it's unbalanced, I meant that the scenario ends on the first turn. I'm trying to play againt the PO and no matter what side is chosen, the game just displays the entente victory screen on the first turn.

Apologies for misunderstanding. Yes, I tried every which way too, and I posted as bug after some testing- see tm.asp?m=3171578&mpage=1&key=.

For Mons 1914 you must use the old turn rules since there are no german units on the map at the start of the game and that is an automatic victory under the new turn rules.

ORIGINAL: shunwick

For Mons 1914 you must use the old turn rules since there are no german units on the map at the start of the game and that is an automatic victory under the new turn rules.

Thank you. Are there any other scenarios that should be used with the old turn orders?

Any scenario that does not specifically state to use New Turn Order or new Supply Rules should not use those settings. They have not been designed with those features in mind. Any scenario that has been updated to use those features should say so in the briefing. It also follows that any scenario that uses a version prior to 3.4 will not be using 3.4 or later features.

I don't think it should be as 'hard and fast' as that. I don't believe a lot of scenarios were consciously and specifically designed with Old Turn Order as a paramount consideration in mind pre-v3.4 either.

So I'd be tempted to use the New Turn Order wherever you can for the obvious Player 1/2 imbalance benefits. Scenarios that seriously suffer balance-wise from this (I don't think there'll be many) will show up over time.

Taken to its logical conclusion this approach to v3.4 changes means only playing scenarios with the specific TOAW version they were designed in/under, and that's just not tenable for the game system, since it would mean not playing a huge number of scenarios under TOAW III (v3.4). Besides a lot of TOAW I scenarios were ported to ACOW or TOAW III with no changes, and they still seem eminently playable, including other Todd Klemme scenarios.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Any scenario that does not specifically state to use New Turn Order or new Supply Rules should not use those settings. They have not been designed with those features in mind. Any scenario that has been updated to use those features should say so in the briefing. It also follows that any scenario that uses a version prior to 3.4 will not be using 3.4 or later features.

Ok, so what about the Classic Folder? All of them do not have version info, but I'd would think that matrix games would have updated those. Right?

ORIGINAL: PEWPEW
Ok, so what about the Classic Folder? All of them do not have version info, but I'd would think that matrix games would have updated those. Right?

No, not to my knowledge. They worked fine under Old Turn Order (for the most part, and players/designers will quibble about which do/don't).

New Turn Order removes some inequities in TOAW's UGOIGO system, to the benefit of the system as a whole IMO.

Metallst, it is hard to have a good TOAW experience in any scenario against the PO (computer). That doesn't mean you can't. Especially if you're just starting out, it can be fun. And since Matrix took over TOAW dev the computer has gotten much better. Don't be afraid to dabble with the larger scenarios. Definitely try some of those listed above.

I know every veteran players says this about every single wargame on the planet, but you'll have a lot more fun if you jump into a PBEM game. Find an opponent and ask for a small scenario. Usually players will have one or two they like even if they're the type that prefers the bigger ones. If they're like me, they always enjoy PBEM-ing a scenario they've never played before, which gives you a better chance to stand on two feet. Just ask your opponent to comment heavily on the play.

I don't believe a lot of scenarios were consciously and specifically designed with Old Turn Order as a paramount consideration in mind pre-v3.4 either.

True, but neither were they palytested and balanced for post 3.4, and that is the major consideration. The difference between old and new Supply and Turn Order is significant.

So I'd be tempted to use the New Turn Order wherever you can for the obvious Player 1/2 imbalance benefits. Scenarios that seriously suffer balance-wise from this (I don't think there'll be many) will show up over time.

Certainly, every players choice to do what they want. I'm just recommending the obvious to what some are missing by automatically using either or both of these parameters with every scenario they play. I've designed some post 3.4 scenarios that specifically state to not use either of them, as they break the scenario.

... a lot of TOAW I scenarios were ported to ACOW or TOAW III with no changes, and they still seem eminently playable ...

True, while others are not. Its beyond most of us (other than the original designer) to determine what changes will make what positive or negative effects to any particular scenario.

... but I'd would think that matrix games would have updated those. Right?

No. Matrix doesn't touch the scenarios, it is up to the original designer to make changes, or someone else may ask the original designer for permission to make changes. Either way, the scenario briefing will hold the key as anyone that takes the time to update a scenario will catalogue the changes there.

New Turn Order removes some inequities in TOAW's UGOIGO system, to the benefit of the system as a whole IMO.

Its absolutely a beneficial improvement - to scenarios designed with it and New Supply. Otherwise, you are putting Fuel Injection on the '67 Camaro, so you better know what you are doing or something could go wrong.

I'm just saying that I've seen some players using these new parameters with older scenarios and then finding some obvious things go wrong. What about what isn't obvious, like player 2 getting full recovery in a scenario that was never playtested like that. Or when one side has significantly reduced supply and the player doesn't realise to switch between New and Old Supply during the game to see if there is any difference. ??

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

[Scenario Changes-3.4 and NTO] No. Matrix doesn't touch the scenarios, it is up to the original designer to make changes, or someone else may ask the original designer for permission to make changes. Either way, the scenario briefing will hold the key as anyone that takes the time to update a scenario will catalogue the changes there.

[New Turn Order] Its absolutely a beneficial improvement - to scenarios designed with it and New Supply. Otherwise, you are putting Fuel Injection on the '67 Camaro, so you better know what you are doing or something could go wrong.

I'm just saying that I've seen some players using these new parameters with older scenarios and then finding some obvious things go wrong. What about what isn't obvious, like player 2 getting full recovery in a scenario that was never playtested like that. Or when one side has significantly reduced supply and the player doesn't realise to switch between New and Old Supply during the game to see if there is any difference. ??

I totally agree with everything you've said (and Mons 14 is a case in point of an old (unchanged) scenario rendered unplayable using NTO), to include the above excerpts. The only thing I'd take issue with is that though new changes are significant, they're largely much softened in smaller scenarios. Given the context of the thread, I'm just wary of scaring off potential new players if they get the impression Matrix- or others- haven't done due diligence before release to ensure scenarios are forward compatible.

There was a major effort to contact designers to permit inclusion and provide an opportunity for upgrade to incorporate game engine changes. Some agreed to inclusion without upgrading, others did (some) upgrading, others gave permission for others to make changes. Most old scenarios, including classics, made it into TOAWIII- and therefore 3.4- with or without changes (mostly without), because to exclude scenarios without changes would have made for a small scenario universe, a major reason for purchase.

I'd suggest the longer and bigger (# units) the scenario, the more pronounced the differences between OTO and NTO, and other 3.4 changes will be. But the differences are virtually impossible to quantify because each game will almost always play out differently, so we'd now be entering the realm of statistics and playtesting each scenario multiple times. To some extent the statistics- at least on win-loss and objective/empirical player perceived balance are out there: http://www.the-strategist.net or http://www.theblitz.org feature ladders with game statistics, and in Rugged Defence's case good search facilities to select scenarios. Both can show you what scenarios have been played and statistical win/lose per side (though these too are now skewed by results from earlier TOAW versions).

But I'd agree with everything said by sPzAbt653, save my caveats. The answer may be in just playing as Menschenfresser says- look at the stats, find a small scenario (scale, turns, # units) and post for an opponent- here or at The Blitz say. Someone will pick up the challenge and help you along. The more you play the more you get a 'feel' for various aspects of the system, what works and what doesn't and when particular scenarios are just 'broken', whether by inept design to start with or cumulative changes to the game engine without corresponding changes to the scenario to take advantage or compensate.