Matrix Games Forums

Not to start a war or anything, but I'm a long time player of HPS campaigns series and unfamiliar with TOAW. I just took the plunge and find the game very enjoyable. I'd like to know why one would prefer TOAW over HPS stuff or vice versa. I mean as a game engine design how do they stack up against each other objectively speaking.

RedMike...out

The big advantage that TOAW has over the HPS games is playability, IMHO. HPS games will net you many well crafted scenarios, but the games are so huge that I've found them to be unplayable.

The only thing that really turned me off to panzer campaigns is the stock art. I just can't play a game like that anymore. It needs to be visually well designed and "clean."

"Volcano Man's" artpacks really helped with that, and I've actually found that with the smaller scenarios, PC is probably the most 'playable' wargame that I've tried. The main reason for this (compared to TAOW) is that I can select a specific group of units and completely play their entire turn before moving to the next group. This way, I can dissect a medium sized scenario into manageable chunks.

With TAOW, I have trouble with larger scenarios because I have to revisit the same units multiple times in the same turn, being careful to not attack with a unit that's low on movement points. (Since you'll lose attacks) I would love to see a version (option) of TAOW that allowed me to play through the turn of each unit individually. Definately less realistic, but so much more playable.

I would say my favorite feature of TAOW is the equipment lists - knowing that all of those things are working under the hood is just amazing. It pulls you in like no other wargame can.

This article by Glenn Saunders might help:
http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/what_vs_toaw.html

ORIGINAL: liuzg150181

This article by Glenn Saunders might help:
http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/what_vs_toaw.html

Glenn is HPS fanboi, thus our collective enemy [:D]

Even though I may disagree with some of the TOAW/TOAD dudes, when it comes to "TOAW vs HPS" battle we need to forget our differences, and all breathe like one comrades, in defence of our motherland! LOL [:D]

No kidding, TOAW IMO wins hands down, but I am definitely very biased here (and do no even try to appear objective and unbiased).

TOAW:
- flexible
- expandable
- almost unlimited replayability
- quality of the experience varies greatly, and depends on quality of the scenario being played
- lots of scenarios but also player needs to weed out the bad ones
- best scenarios (and there are at least 20-30 top quality ones) are as good and as worthy as separate full price wargames

HPS PzC:
- boring
- boring
- not fun
- too micro-manage-y
- ugly
- boring
- boring
- [>:]

Ok, I don't think we need to turn this into a bash-Panzer Campaigns thread, which is where it's heading. I appreciate discussing differences between systems, but it seems to always end up in one place as folks who have strong feelings one way or the other chime in. While that's fine elsewhere, we don't want to be seen as bashing anyone. I think that the thread from Glenn on HPS' titles and the interviews on TOAW III do a good job of laying out the features and differences.

Regards,

- Erik

Very good points from Molotov and Fidel - what to do with you Oleg? [;)]
 
I had to buy TOAW3 just to see what was different from my TOAW 1 and 2 and so far, have seen very little changed from those titles I bought all those years ago.
 
However, now that time has passed I've surprised myself in finding an annoying similarity between both TOAW and PzC.
 
And that is, the waiting game watching the AI speed through its turn in a manner that just boggles the mind and makes following what happened, where, very hard to follow.
 
The only way I've found to get through a huge PzC turn is to press F8 and have the AI whiz at lightning speed through go. F8 was a much needed addition to the series. But I really didn't realise that TOAW basically goes through fairly much the same, painful procedure, in conducting its turns until now.
 
Given my druthers, I'd put PzC above TOAW only because one can guarantee the qualifications and research behind the scenario design. TOAW makes it very hard to validate who designed what, with what research and why.
 
Another aspect of TOAW that has never realy sat well with me, is that IMO it seems much more accurate to abstract a unit's combat power and related strengths rather than saying to the gamer - this is X unit  - it has 122 trucks and 63 smg's. That's just too much TO&E minutae to guarantee as being accurate to a gamer in a given scenario.
 
TOAW 3 offers a huge load of scenarios - but as with TOAW 1 and 2 I sadly can't see much play coming out of it. Same with my PzC library now - superb campaigns and effort but I just don't have the patience right now to run through a campaign at battalion level with the AI firing and reacting to every move and then needing to whiz through its own offensive action.
 
Maybe the world is just getting smaller but it really was uncanny how similar I felt in frustration seeing both games side by side.
 
PzC Stalingrad did give me a bit of fun over the weekend with some very small scenarios taking 30 minutes each. Then I fired up the  huge "Don Bend" and just said "nup". So I fired up TOAW 3's Middle East 73 and after one turn of boredom went "nup" too. I headed off to Conquest of the Aegean - and after some play said "nup" to a 90 page TUTORIAL manual! Come on designers - what happened to the 16 page Avalon Hill classic, 250 unit counters in size? [;)]
 
Adam.

When Matrix starts putting out the same engine year after year for a different battle and charging $50 fopr it, then it will turn into HPS.
When it charges full price for games made 6 years ago it will turn into HPS sims.

That is also the day I will stop supporting Matrix. HPS is a company that has not modernized itself to the changing wargames enviroment.
They offer crusty old designs with poor interfaces and several things which make you scartch your head as a gamer.


I rarely badmouth an entire company but HPS games and buisness practices really make me angry.
When they finnaly move themselves into the 21st century I may take a look at their games again.

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
And that is, the waiting game watching the AI speed through its turn in a manner that just boggles the mind and makes following what happened, where, very hard to follow.

The only way I've found to get through a huge PzC turn is to press F8 and have the AI whiz at lightning speed through go. F8 was a much needed addition to the series. But I really didn't realise that TOAW basically goes through fairly much the same, painful procedure, in conducting its turns until now.

Adam,
There are some options in TOAW 3 that might help. SitReps give a printed log of the combat results that you can look at. You can add nodelay to the command-line to have the AI really zip.

Ralph

Can you slow the AI down?
It would be nice to actualy see its moves instead of a blur.

Sometimes I miss units moving due to it moving so fast.
Slowing it down would be a huge help.

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
When Matrix starts putting out the same engine year after year for a different battle and charging $50 for it...

Nothing like that's planned. $49 tops.[:-]

Seriously thougn, can we keep to discussing the merits of the games, instead of marketing strategies?

Thanks,
Ralph

Personally, I don't prefer one over the other.

They both provide different aspects of enjoyment for me in their own ways. I really enjoy the hps games played via tcp/ip or pbem -- especially the napoleonic games. Playing against the AI however bores me to tears.

Toaw provides many scenarios and plenty of customization which is hard to beat.


Btw, I'd recommend anyone that gets and hps game to buy it from nws-online as they are listed at $29.99 each as opposed the $49 on hps's site.

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Can you slow the AI down?
It would be nice to actualy see its moves instead of a blur.

Sometimes I miss units moving due to it moving so fast.
Slowing it down would be a huge help.

I'll see what I can do in a future release.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: liuzg150181

This article by Glenn Saunders might help:
http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/what_vs_toaw.html

Glenn is HPS fanboi, thus our collective enemy [:D]

LoL![:D]

Even though I may disagree with some of the TOAW/TOAD dudes, when it comes to "TOAW vs HPS" battle we need to forget our differences, and all breathe like one comrades, in defence of our motherland! LOL [:D]

Is HPS Nazi or what?[:D]
And what does that make of TOAW/TOAD dudes,Stalin and the Commies?[:'(]

No kidding, TOAW IMO wins hands down, but I am definitely very biased here (and do no even try to appear objective and unbiased).

TOAW:
- flexible
- expandable
- almost unlimited replayability
- quality of the experience varies greatly, and depends on quality of the scenario being played
- lots of scenarios but also player needs to weed out the bad ones
- best scenarios (and there are at least 20-30 top quality ones) are as good and as worthy as separate full price wargames

HPS PzC:
- boring
- boring
- not fun
- too micro-manage-y
- ugly
- boring
- boring
- [>:]

Where HPS products are concerned I own both Decisive Battle and The First Blitzkrieg,while Point of Attack 2 is on its way.I like Decisive Battle(though its lack of naval forces,UI,weird scenario backgrounds and dearth of it and the weapon datebase puts me off) but less could be said for the latter due to its rather simplified combat system. While i dont own any of the Panzer Campaign series,i do download their manual for reference and read extensively the comments and comparison of the series.
Panzer Campaign series may bear more complexity than The First Blitzkrieg by its much more intricated rules and system together with its grand-tactical approach,it stills feels a bit simplified as compared to TOAW3. However many ascepts in TOAW3 which are adstracted are represented in a more tangible manners in Panzer Campaign, partly due to the fact that TOAW3's focus is higher up in the command echelon(as in operational) than Panzer Campaign series(grand-tactical). Hence,i explains why one needs to micro-manage some many units in Panzer Campaign,considering that the organization is broken into smaller units with those with same composition grouped together.
I thought HPS system is more suitable for 19th century warfare and those prior to that era due to less complexity in the military system during that time.

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

When Matrix starts putting out the same engine year after year for a different battle and charging $50 fopr it, then it will turn into HPS.
When it charges full price for games made 6 years ago it will turn into HPS sims.

I feel this is a little unfair on two points. Firstly, HPS adds new features and upgrades to there combat engines with every release. And not only that they upgrade all previous game engines to incorporate these features. So if you bought the first game Smolensk back in 95 or whenever, today it would contain an upto date engine in it with many features not included in the orginal release.

Secondly, all the games do use the same engine and have the same feel. And yes it is based on an old model, but an "accurate" model of combat that was good 10 years ago is still as as good today. Why change things for the sake of it.

I personally have no trouble with the GUI either, which as with anything, is fine when you get used to it.

The one complaint about HPS PzC I would uphold is the poor unit graphics which are from the 80's. And while Volcano Mans graphic packs are certainly better on the eyes they only drag it into the 90's. (Note: This is only unit graphics, the maps and icon sets are fine.)

EDIT: P.s. I like the big campaigns as well, but then again I love WitP so what can I say.

How about tactically ? How does one playout compared to the other ? I'm looking for comments by experienced players with both systems.I'm very familiar with PzC/MC but not TOAW. I'd like to hear something about style of play between the two systems. Let's leave off the business model angles. That's an old old story.

RedMike...out

Regardless of the game company- be it computer or board games a series will eventually look and/or feel like its cookie cutter produced. A series gives you ease of play and familiarity when going from one game to another in the series. The down side is the perceived lack of innovation and lack of much of the pleasant discovery of a new great game- since largely you already know what you are getting. When a game company makes changes to tighten up a game series, folks then complain about the "rules creep" and/or leave the system for greener pastures.

The company has essentially two choices with some minor variations- Keep the system as it with its known and documented warts or make changes and risk alienating the customer base with changes that turn the game into something different or add unwanted levels of complexity.

My conclusion- its hard to have your cake and eat it too.

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Given my druthers, I'd put PzC above TOAW only because one can guarantee the qualifications and research behind the scenario design. TOAW makes it very hard to validate who designed what, with what research and why.

Excellent point.

Even though I absolutely hate PzC "gameplay" I must admit HPS research and resulting OOBs are perhaps the best in the industry [&o]

Too bad about the boring and uninspired gameplay though [>:]

Oleg

I like TOAW and PzC as designs equally.

If you really want to, you can praise and complain about both equally easily.

The key thing about TOAW (3 version or otherwise), is you get warfare from across the whole of the 20th century's more conflict heavy decades.

With HPS, they have picked a setting and or specific battle, and gone with it. Their games are basically battle specific. It was a business decision, and they like it.

If you have TOAW, you essentially own anything sold by HPS inside a single game. If you like TOAW3, there is probably little reason to buy anything from HPS to some extent. But, I could say the say about Schwerpunkt and SSG being redundant a bit as well.

I can't think of any computer wargame that comes with MORE wargame under the hood than TOAW3. About the only other computer wargame that covers ground as well, is Steel Panthers. And you would need to have Steel Panthers combine the sounds of SPWaW with the graphics of WinSPMBT and WinSPWW2 as well as all the content simultaneously, to be as complete as TOAW3.

Dollar for dollar, you'll be getting more wargame with TOAW3 than any one single HPS title. If HPS wants to blow away the market, they can release something called PzC Complete, and have it contain ALL their titles. The trick would be, they could only sell it for 60 bucks US like anything from Matrix Games.

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

With TAOW, I have trouble with larger scenarios because I have to revisit the same units multiple times in the same turn, being careful to not attack with a unit that's low on movement points. (Since you'll lose attacks) I would love to see a version (option) of TAOW that allowed me to play through the turn of each unit individually. Definately less realistic, but so much more playable.

Certainly an option I'd never take. Fine so long as one can turn it off- but I'd rather Matrix devoted their efforts elsewhere.

In the meantime, just avoid the very large scenarios. Plenty of good medium-sized ones.