Matrix Games Forums

Can anyone tell me if they have played the full barbarossa scenario and if so is it any good. Also are there any pbem players that have played this scenario . Thinking of purchasing this game but I am unsure if there are any gamers who would play the barbarossa full scenario. Guys let me know.

Cheers

The full barbarossa campaign is also the reason for me to buy the game (while I doubt that anyone has comleted it yet .. besides some beta testers maybe).

A question here: Does the operation map also include the caucasus area in one?

And are later builded units hardcoded or are you able to create new divisions on your own? I never played the original game.

You can edit any and all the scenarios that come with the disk, plus all scenarios designed for the Century of Warfare in all aspects dealing with the map, units, intangibles, etc. up to a nearly unlimited extent.

ORIGINAL: JMS2

You can edit any and all the scenarios that come with the disk, plus all scenarios designed for the Century of Warfare in all aspects dealing with the map, units, intangibles, etc. up to a nearly unlimited extent.

But to be clear for VZ, there is as yet no possibility of directly altering the OOB in-game. Only through pre-existing events.

Which Barbarrosa scenario? There are 2, one is the "classic" version, the other is a user scenario. Both are enjoyable (played through with COW, not TOAW III yet) and I would definitely be down for a PBEM game.
There is also a scenario covering the entire 4 years of the war in the East which is PBEM only.

Bossy what do you mean by COW, not TOAW III ?

Does this mean that the full eastern barbarossa scenario id pbem only ?

ORIGINAL: loveman1

Bossy what do you mean by COW, not TOAW III ?

Does this mean that the full eastern barbarossa scenario id pbem only ?

CoW refers to The Operational Art of War: Century of Warfare. It was the last in the line of TOAW games that was released by Talonsoft/Take Two, in 2000.

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

Which Barbarrosa scenario? There are 2, one is the "classic" version, the other is a user scenario. Both are enjoyable (played through with COW, not TOAW III yet) and I would definitely be down for a PBEM game.
There is also a scenario covering the entire 4 years of the war in the East which is PBEM only.

Actually, there are three. One classic, and two TOAW III.

There are/were more than 2 Barbarossas for TOAW - pesonally I remember at least 4 versions that I have tried (there was fifth as well, but frankly I am not sure if it was entirelly different or just a sub-version of one of the mentioned 4 scenarios)
 
*THE* Barbarossa scenario to make all other Barbarossas look childish in comparison, is McBride's DNO (Drang Nach Osten) - absolutely by far the best, most detailed, and most realistic rendition of Barbarossa for TOAW engine. Once you try DNO you won't need another Barbarossa for TOAW, ever.
 
Unfortunatelly, this scenario, along with some other of my faves, is not included in TOAW 3 distribution [:@] [:@], for reasons discussed elsewhere (try recent multi-page thread about TOAW 3 scenarios [:(])
 
Oleg

ORIGINAL: loveman1

Bossy what do you mean by COW, not TOAW III ?

Does this mean that the full eastern barbarossa scenario id pbem only ?

It is called Fire in the East I believe and yes, it is designed for PBEM only. If you buy the game and want to give a PBEM game a go, I'm down. [:)]

I like the "classic" Barbarrosa scenario, always found it entertaining and a relatively quick play. Then again, I'm not one to get too hung up with extreme "realism," especially with this title.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Once you try DNO you won't need another Barbarossa for TOAW, ever.

Unless you want to be able to play each turn in under four hours.

Unfortunatelly, this scenario, along with some other of my faves, is not included in TOAW 3 distribution

So convert it yourself from the COW version. Not a complicated process by all accounts.

One scenario on the subject which I found highly interesting was Bob Cross' "Soviet Union 1941". I think this scenario really understands the fundamentals of the campaign in a way that a lot of other scenarios have failed to grasp. Also at 50km/hex it is very manageable. Great for new players.

Unless you want to be able to play each turn in under four hours.

Then do not even start Barbarossa on the *operational* level [:D] Play some smaller operation in TOAW, play GG World at War (great game BTW) or something. If you want 20-minute turns for Barb you'd be playing "East Front flavored" version of some generic and unrealistic "anonymous heroics" (to borrow the term from TOAW 3 team themselves [:D]).

So convert it yourself from the COW version. Not a complicated process by all accounts.

That's not the point.

But since you seem to be constantly picking my posts to dissect them with your childish and pointless remarks, let me, for a change, try to explain what is my point.

Unlike many, I had, I think, very modest and realistic expectations of TOAW 3. I didn't expect some huge changes, rewrite of the whole engine or some such. I expected:

a) Latest patch + Norm's unpublished patch(es)
b) XP compatibility out of the box
c) Smallish update to graphics and interface
d) Serious scenario selection made by dedicated professionals, and I mean THE Best of THE Best TOAW community ever produced, culled, selected, tweaked, updated and polished, and PLAYTESTED. Say, 30-40 scenarios but really the ones to be worth a lifetime of playing.
d1) Dozen or so completely new, never seen before, scenarios thrown in for a good measure.

Is THAT too much to ask? Frankly I don't know of anyone on this board who had more modest expectations than me [8D]

Since a) and b) are "given" and self-understanding in this project right from the start, and C) is debatable (one man's nice GUI is other man's nightmare), that means I would consider 40 bucks a fair price for what was always the most important element in TOAW "universe" - *scenarios*. Good, chosen, polished, tweaked and (some) NEW scenarios. That is ALL I asked for.

In this aspect I am sorely disappointed by TOAW 3 and whoever had his say in scenario "selection" process, including my mate Daniel, who I have utmost respect for, as scenario designer. Same old crap, most of which was obviously never playtested (not under TOAW 1, not under TOAW 3), proficiency values all over the place (I just opened couple ME scenarios to see prof. values in range from 8% [:D][:D] to - 100% [:D][:D][:D][:D]), ridicolous maps, wrong OOBs, etc etc.

Yes, that's 8% to 100%. Whoever spent 2 minutes playing TOAW knows what utmost importance proficiency levels have in this game, and how insane values like those cited work in the game. I think I had every right to expect I won't be seeing amateurish efforts like that in this, *ultimate* version of the ultimate operational game.

As final insult - some of the best scenario designers decided to pull their work - I won't speculate as to why, and I will not speculate about the possibility of it's release on the later date. For THIS release, we had every right to expect the best of the best, when it comes to scenarios, period!

In other aspects it's merely a medium sized patch for TOAW CoW - which in itself I am OK with (since I never wanted, nor expected anything more than that).

Oleg

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As final insult - some of the best scenario designers decided to pull their work - I won't speculate as to why, and I will not speculate about the possibility of it's release on the later date. For THIS release, we had every right to expect the best of the best, when it comes to scenarios, period!

In other aspects it's merely a medium sized patch for TOAW CoW - which in itself I am OK with (since I never wanted, nor expected anything more than that).

Oleg

Oleg,
Please read Daniel's interview.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles ... 680&page=1

There wasn't time to develop any new scenarios. Everybody that created a scenario that was included is going to get a free copy of TOAW. We're hoping that, combined with a more vigorous Elmer, will lure back several of the designers. I'm hoping that we'll see several new and updated scenarios before too long.

Ralph

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

That's not the point.

Then what is the point? If you want to play DNO in TOAW III, you can. It's not difficult. If you don't, why are you complaining?

d) Serious scenario selection made by dedicated professionals, and I mean THE Best of THE Best TOAW community ever produced, culled, selected, tweaked, updated and polished, and PLAYTESTED. Say, 30-40 scenarios but really the ones to be worth a lifetime of playing.

This is just about the least important aspect. I already have access to all the scenarios on the internet- and I do NOT need someone else's opinion of what qualifies as "the best of the best". I like how you capitalise "playtested". Not a genuine consideration judging from your taste in scenarios.

d1) Dozen or so completely new, never seen before, scenarios thrown in for a good measure.

This will almost certainly come- at a later date. However, you have to realise that Matrix is running a business, not a charity. They wanted to establish that they could make money out of the game before adding to the risk involved.

Anyway, you WILL see new scenarios because TOAW can now do more things. One single feature- the doubling of the event limit (quadrupling or more would have been nice but...)- massively expands the potential of the game.

Yes, that's 8% to 100%. Whoever spent 2 minutes playing TOAW knows what utmost importance proficiency levels have in this game, and how insane values like those cited work in the game.

This is a stupid remark. Both values have their place in TOAW design (though more moderate values are more common), and I have used values ranging that widely within a single scenario myself. I know several examples of proficiency being set too high or too low for the unit in question, but there is no proficiency setting which is fundamentally wrong.

In other aspects it's merely a medium sized patch for TOAW CoW

If it's a patch then COW was just a tweak.

This is just about the least important aspect. I already have access to all the scenarios on the internet- and I do NOT need someone else's opinion of what qualifies as "the best of the best". I like how you capitalise "playtested". Not a genuine consideration judging from your taste in scenarios.

If it's "about the least important aspect" for you leave it at that. Why do I have impression you follow me around this board, replying point by point to everything I post, usually not making much sense, but - I give you that - efficiently provoking me to reply further? Look I didn't mention BioEd nor TDG not one time iny my above post, shouldn't that be enough for you to leave me alone? [;)]

To me, as I already explained, scenario selection and tweaking IS (or rather, should have been) THE most important aspect of TOAW 3, and the one that failed badly.

This was the ideal opportunity to introduce some order, some basic criteria to really chaotic world of TOAW scenario design. This was the opportunity to clear out the ridicolous and amateurish, but it wasn't used. I am not saying my own criteria for scenario selection is fair, or best - but as I said ANY criteria is better than no criteria at all. I could live even with your criteria for scenario selection, for example. It would tell me at least something, and with some basdic good will I think you'd make solid selection.

What do you want to imply by "my taste in scenarios"?

This is a stupid remark. Both values have their place in TOAW design (though more moderate values are more common), and I have used values ranging that widely within a single scenario myself. I know several examples of proficiency being set too high or too low for the unit in question, but there is no proficiency setting which is fundamentally wrong.

*Abso. Lutely. No. Way.*

Trained baboons with clubs are at least 15% (not 8%), chimpanzees - being more intelligent and having more of a team spirit - would be close to 20%, and 100%..... well, pick your favorite Best Unit Ever, any war, any army, any century and it's not 100% proficient, perhaps not even 90% in TOAW terms. Generaly speaking, far too many TOAW scenarios are replete with fanboyism where scenario designers award ridicolous prof. levels to units of their country/choosing/preference (see Finnish scenario designers for examples of this epidemic for instance [:D]) but anything above 90% bears scrutiny, and if abused - downright elimination of the scenario from the list of playable ones. I am serious. (Not to mention, some designers assign 90+ prof. levels to units that have never seen combat?!? Hello?)

Norm himself wrote useful advice about assigning prof. levels to units long ago, and examples he used (say ranging from worst Italian WW2 units to best German WW1/2 units) were from 50% to 85% IIRC (don't jump on my face if I am wrong here I have to check to be sure). Anyhow, the suggested range in proficiency was not all that big, as prof. level has *enormous* influence on the unit survivability and combat efficiency.

Oleg

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
This is a stupid remark.

Let's stay away from personal remarks, please. We have no problem with spirited debate, as long as it stays clean.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
But since you seem to be constantly picking my posts to dissect them with your childish and pointless remarks, let me, for a change, try to explain what is my point.

And ditto for you. Thanks. [:)]

Regards,

- Erik

Oleg,
You are absolutely right about the proficiency settings. I had to go in and fix all the proficiency settings in the classic Desert Storm scenario to get that to play anything like historical. And the changes made an enormous difference. This was no small task, byt the way, given the more than 1000 units in the scenario.

I have a copy for my own personal use, but I think I posted it somewhere.

I also tried to rewrite the scripting for the Iraqi PO to execute a fighting retreat, which was all but impossible with the ACOW engine. Hopefully, it may be possible with TOAW3.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
If it's "about the least important aspect" for you leave it at that. Why do I have impression you follow me around this board, replying point by point to everything I post,

At the moment, I'm reading every post on the main board and replying whenever I have anything relevant to add. Since you're dispensing an unusually copious quantity of vitriol, I find myself responding to you quite a lot. Helps that you're wrong, too.

*Abso. Lutely. No. Way.*

Trained baboons with clubs are at least 15% (not 8%), chimpanzees - being more intelligent and having more of a team spirit - would be close to 20%, and 100%..... well, pick your favorite Best Unit Ever, any war, any army, any century and it's not 100% proficient, perhaps not even 90% in TOAW terms.

What the hell do you know? Ever designed a scenario? I assume not. Units with little or no training, no moral commitment to what they're doing, no cultural background of warfare and with bad tactical doctrine and leadership would rate around the 8% figure.

100% I have used for static fortress units in a number of cases, because if they retreat they evaporate. A figure in excess of about 85% wouldn't be appropriate for a mobile unit because such units cannot be used on the attack.

Generaly speaking, far too many TOAW scenarios are replete with fanboyism where scenario designers award ridicolous prof. levels to units of their country/choosing/preference (see Finnish scenario designers for examples of this epidemic for instance [:D])

Yes- I agree completely.

Norm himself wrote useful advice about assigning prof. levels to units long ago, and examples he used (say ranging from worst Italian WW2 units to best German WW1/2 units) were from 50% to 85% IIRC (don't jump on my face if I am wrong here I have to check to be sure).

Norm's figures were written when TOAW was first released and were not based on a complete understanding of how the game plays. I have the chart here. I'll take the example of two ratings which are the same on this chart- Italian and Japanese forces in the Second World War. Both are rated at 60%.

In actual design, I would rate ordinary line Italian units at 35 or 40%. About a 10% variation depending on the quality of the unit. This produces Italians that behave about right.

Japanese units I would give at least 70% proficiency. Higher proficiency means units will stick to an attack or defence for longer- and that is exactly how Japanese units behaved. One can represent the deficiencies of Japanese tactics better by arming the units with light rifle squads or whatever.

In any case, 50% to 85% was clearly not the limit of the range of proficiencies intended by Norm. Very many units on both sides of his Korean War scenario have 33% proficiency.

prof. level has *enormous* influence on the unit survivability and combat efficiency.

Yeah. Just like real life, then.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
This is a stupid remark.

Let's stay away from personal remarks, please. We have no problem with spirited debate, as long as it stays clean.

I didn't say anything about Oleg. I was talking about his remarks. If I'm not allowed to say anything is stupid then you can censor the word.

Anyway, editted my last post to remove a remark which could be construed as personal.