World at War 1939-1945 PO Version

[thomasharvey]

World at War 1939-1945 with full PO.

This scenario covers ALL of WW2 in Europe and Asia. The Axis is best as the PO since they have a good offensive for Europe all the way into Russia. The naval air works in all areas until 12/7/41 after the attack at Pearl Harbor. The game engine seems to get overpowered with the entire globe at war at sea. It then defaults to fighters on air superiority and all bombers on combat support. The PO does land and sea action correctly but needs a little help with the naval air going forward from 1941.

[Jemus]

I am sorry, this is definately a dumb question, but I am not a native speaker and I can't find an answer with google aswell:

What does "PO" mean?

Thanks a lot!

[Hellen_slith]

Programmed Opponent

The game does not have an "AI" built in ... the scenario designer "programs" a side (or both sides) to perform in the game, thus "programmed" opponent.

[Jemus]

Thank you very much!

[jupiter999]

I also want to join in and ask a dumb question (sorry~):

ORIGINAL: thomasharvey
The PO does land and sea action correctly but needs a little help with the naval air going forward from 1941.

What should I do about the "little help" if I play against PO?

[thomasharvey]

ORIGINAL: jupiter999

I also want to join in and ask a dumb question (sorry~):

ORIGINAL: thomasharvey
The PO does land and sea action correctly but needs a little help with the naval air going forward from 1941.

What should I do about the "little help" if I play against PO?

I have noticed a connection between sea transport and interdiction under PO control. The Japanese use a lot of sea transport in the early months of their war. During this period of heavy sea transportation the PO controlled air missions, including the air assistant, are set on only air superiority for the fighters and only ground support for the bombers. Normal air to ground interdiction is not set nor is sea interdiction. Further, the PO will not assign an air strike against ships nor air fields that it would normally do. Therefore either fall back and avoid sea combat while the Japanese PO is using sea transport or stop the Axis PO turn before it finishes and then click off the PO player and set all axis naval aircraft manually on Sea interdiction or normal interdiction. Click end turn with the axis PO off. Do your turn and then when it is the Axis turn starts click it on PO.

I am making the Pacific at War scenario with limited sea lift for the Japanese which gives the PO some interdiction and sea lift. I will also amend the other scenarios the same. That way it works better without facing all or nothing for either.

The allies use more sea lift than the Axis so with amending the scenarios limiting sea transport to alternate turns, interdiction can then be available to the PO. It is essential to sea combat, but is not essential for ground combat.

[jupiter999]

Not 100% sure what you mean, but I think I'll understand better when I dive into the scenario. Thanks again for the reply.

[thomasharvey]

As the allies it is easy at the start. There are few units and not much to worry about. The Axis PO will show you how to attack and has the burden of attack at the start. Gradually you gain more skill and can handle larger numbers of units later.

Good luck.

[macgregor]

To me, this scenario is the pinnacle of scenarios, and the direction toaw should take. It gives me reason to think an entire Grand Strategy game could be developed from this scenario alone.

Of course it may need a few things like allowing more than 2 players to play pbem at once: some sort of host file that each player can update independently. Submarine warfare. Perhaps new ideas on formation, that would allow special units like subs at sea go invisible and decline combat. You could add various depths(deep/combat/surface) and altitudes for aircraft(high/low) and of course an ASW value.

Certainly graphics along with adjustments to some of the values. 240 and 120 cannot be the value for ALL torp and dive bombers. Ships at sea are spotted too easily -especially by air units. I mean, do we want to make an operational level combat sim or don't we?

I figure a game like this that has been around since the 90s, and this essential for tacticians, has got to look for it's next step at some point. This is what I'd like to see developed. I know some people prefer smaller scales, and toaw will always have them. But a Grand strategy...up to 8 player mp game ww2, ww1, Napoleonic, ancient, modern, would really rock in my opinion..

[macgregor]

My many thanks to Thomas Harvey for this fantastic scenario! If there are any people who really enjoy this scenario like me, I invite you to visit my discord server where we play this with 2 simultaneous instances of the game; one Europe and one Pacific. If you post interest I will send you an invite.

[Curtis Lemay]

I'll give a small glimpse of what the development plans were for TOAW before I started the Hierarchy module. Nine modules planned. We are now seven years into the first one. I don't think the others will each take quite as much time as the first one, but it will be a long project.

[macgregor]

Thanks Bob! You've been awesome. And that looks fantastic. I can't wait.

I just had an exchange with CplGAC and I realize: not all players care about large scenarios, or even multiplayer. Their main concern is improving smaller scale battles, however large they may be. I guess this is the luxurious conversation of a game so versatile. I'm embroiled with CFNA now with Nemo, very much enjoying it

Unless you reach the point where you must eliminate large-scale scenarios for the sake of smaller scale battles, I can only appreciate and enjoy the work you're doing. There are grand strategy games. Not that many and not that detailed.

What makes toaw so special to me is the detail from the small scale battles that then gets to be used in large scale scenarios. Going all the way back to Norm Koger's work. It's not just a game. It's a real simulator.

I really miss getting together with a gang once a week to play World in Flames, Terrible Swift Sword, Hell's Highway, etc, in the same way my parent's generation did with Bridge, Mah jong, etc.

I guess I prefer the teammate dynamic, the conversations. I'd drive a good distance to find a game. Now I can play with folks from all over the world while never leaving my living room. What strategy games offer that? Not many yet.

HOI4 is everything I don't like. In fact, while I like the real-time dynamic, connecting computers, schedules and time zones is still a nightmare. Turn-based games are more practical.

[macgregor]

I'll give a small glimpse of what the development plans were for TOAW before I started the Hierarchy module. Nine modules planned. We are now seven years into the first one. I don't think the others will each take quite as much time as the first one, but it will be a long project.

This is a really nice group of objectives. It's giving me hope. I wish you all the best. Naturally, as I see issues with the game we're playing, I'm curious how far along you are. Is it too early assess still?

[Curtis Lemay]

I'll give a small glimpse of what the development plans were for TOAW before I started the Hierarchy module. Nine modules planned. We are now seven years into the first one. I don't think the others will each take quite as much time as the first one, but it will be a long project.

This is a really nice group of objectives. It's giving me hope. I wish you all the best. Naturally, as I see issues with the game we're playing, I'm curious how far along you are. Is it too early assess still?

Only the first module has been worked on. Progress on that is displayed publicly here:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 0#p5201780

[macgregor]

I was looking at it. I'm looking forward to it, however long it takes. Godspeed. Perhaps the best help I can offer is no help. Give you space to create. My only expertise is in playing toaw4; which though I've never playtested, I'd be happy to volunteer. I think you have enough experienced playtesters already.