Two questions on the new version

[Skanvak]

So I have installed last version. The change looks goods so far.

1/ What is the ANT ATTACK TACTICS? please don't use cryptic or hermetic name thinking every one knows it. We play between freinds and don't know what this refer to. Please explain in common language.

2/ I have look a classic TOA scenario and the sea appear to be "flat GREY", is it working as designed? If so it is ugly.

[Oberst_Klink]

There you go lad -

Ant unit attacks
The smallest and least valuable units, usually with nothing but passive equipment, are subdivided and employed alone in attacks repeatedly. The attackers thereby receive the above benefits while risking hardly anything. The impact is that powerful, healthy stacks of defenders can be decimated and redlined at little cost if exposed to attacking units. The fact that this is well known by most players and excessively exploited by them gives the game system a big realism hit.

from one of Curtis Le May's aka Bob Cross' articles

Plenty of graphic mods around or you can chance to the previous version's graphics, too.

Hope that helped.

kLiNk, Oberst

[Skanvak]

Thank you.

I think the above benefit are Artillery support or other such things? When can I find this article?

For the graphic, my question question more is it normal? It look like a something is buggy.

[Oberst_Klink]

a) http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread. ... it-attacks

b) post a screenshot and we might tell; and the sea is grey'ish blue

[Skanvak]

Thank you,

I understand the Ant units tricks now. I wonder if the solution is not a bit too drastic but, a good one.

ok, I have check again the screen shot on matrix site and the sea is correct. One tip, it look far better with hex on. I still think it could have been imporved though.

[macgregor]

Thank God someone showed me how to disable a lot of the apparent 'improvement'. All these pop-ups made it almost impossible to play the game. Water is still a map feature, and it's still just for aesthetics. This game is approaching SPWAW without all the fancy graphics. Perhaps it's a more serious, 'West Point style' approach. How nations such as the US or UK who have relied on seapower to conduct any 'operations' for centuries can be effectively represented without credible naval representation is a mystery to me. As long as everyone is content that this is a game and not a serious simulation, it's all good I suppose.

[Oberst_Klink]

Naval units or campaigns, as well as strategic aerial warfare were never the main focus of the game. They can be simulated splendidly with the help of events and theatre options. For shorter scenarios or medium length, it's also not an issue using one capital ship per counter and the escorts bundled in another counter, too. They support the initial landings and won't stay at sea with their ammo already consumed for long anyway. One could argue to introduce "tender" oder "supply" ships - but that's like if I ask the developers of harpoon to include proper land units for amphibious assaults. As far what the graphics etc. is concerned... most "kids" of generation iPhone or PSP think the graphics are "lame" and so ooooollld

kLiNk, Oberst

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
As far what the graphics etc. is concernd... most "kids" of generation iPhone or PSP think the graphics are "lame" and so ooooollld

kLiNk, Oberst

There also may be a cultural thing going. I heard somewhere years ago that Americans like primary colors and Europeans like more subdued colors. I don't know if anyone has done any studies to prove that, but I suspect that there may be some truth to it from the games I've played.

[macgregor]

I love how matrix has managed to reduce the expectation and change the mission for TOAW. It's cool I suppose. My demographic has been anything but quiet and I do believe there will be a game that offers slightly more detail than Strategic Command-Global Conflict. I do resent being lied to when first joining Matrix about how this game would develop, but I imagine the rest of you are rather content with the limited scope of the development. all I can say is have fun.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I love how matrix has managed to reduce the expectation and change the mission for TOAW. It's cool I suppose. My demographic has been anything but quiet and I do believe there will be a game that offers slightly more detail than Strategic Command-Global Conflict. I do resent being lied to when first joining Matrix about how this game would develop, but I imagine the rest of you are rather content with the limited scope of the development. all I can say is have fun.

I'm sorry you feel lied to. Feel free to check back to see if it becomes a game you like. The game is still being actively developed, and a future version may be more to your liking.

Feel free to post well worked out suggestions in either the scenario design or the support forum for discussion and possible eventual inclusion.

Ralph

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I'm sorry you feel lied to. Feel free to check back to see if it becomes a game you like. The game is still being actively developed, and a future version may be more to your liking.

Feel free to post well worked out suggestions in either the scenario design or the support forum for discussion and possible eventual inclusion.

Ralph

I'm sorry too Ralph. What I've come to understand is that programmers of this genre do not grow on trees. I suppose I would've bought the game anyway, just as the 5 previous TOAW products. I'm a little surprised that no one has stepped forward offer to do a naval 'mod' on this game. I imagine that under the right circumstances that would be okay with Matrix.I know I'm not alone in wanting the scope to include naval combat, though perhaps more so than previously thought. Alas, I am incapable of offering such a mod myself. I'll survive. Unfortunately, I won't likely be playing this game, which I otherwise might enjoy.

[rich12545]

I've been buying TOAW editions for a long time.  Never thought a full naval strategy would work all that well with it.  The game was designed to be ground combat and the naval would detract from that imo.

I never bought the Strategic Command Global Conflict because it didn't have the level of detail I wanted.  BUT I did buy the other ones, SC2 WaW PDE PT, because they did.  They come with full land and naval and are very good games.  Perhaps, macgregor, those might work for you.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

... I'm not alone in wanting the scope to include naval combat ...

+1

EDIT: Not saying that TOAW should lose its land combat orientation or centeredness. Just wishing for greater naval combat detail, more realistic integration with land combat, and in general less naval combat abstractedness.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

I've been buying TOAW editions for a long time.  Never thought a full naval strategy would work all that well with it.  The game was designed to be ground combat and the naval would detract from that imo.

I never bought the Strategic Command Global Conflict because it didn't have the level of detail I wanted.  BUT I did buy the other ones, SC2 WaW PDE PT, because they did.  They come with full land and naval and are very good games.  Perhaps, macgregor, those might work for you.

That's right. Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem. This is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, selfish attitude toward this game I've encountered since being one of the first people to post on this forum. What a crock! Who would tell the programmer NOT to do work on the game unless he was setup by the programmer? David Heath is an idiot for letting this happen. As some know, I enjoy posting and I will do my utmost to expose this over-priced turd for the sham it is.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
... As some know, I enjoy posting ...

And on occasion I enjoy clicking the little green block button.

Begone, macgregor!

[rich12545]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
That's right. Improving the naval combat model would 'detract' from the land. Your species should have remained on all fours and we wouldn't have this problem. This is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, selfish attitude toward this game I've encountered since being one of the first people to post on this forum. What a crock! Who would tell the programmer NOT to do work on the game unless he was setup by the programmer? David Heath is an idiot for letting this happen. As some know, I enjoy posting and I will do my utmost to expose this over-priced turd for the sham it is.

And this is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, VERY selfish attitude toward this game that could, if implemented, make it something it's not and ruin it.

I've been reading your whining periodically over the last few years. This game has been out for more than 10 years and is a classic the way it is. Hey, if you don't like the game then go look for a different one. But stop cluttering up the forum with your adding an additional facet that would take tons of dev time and probably wouldn't fit. Leaving naval and air as abstract is fine.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: rich12545
And this is the kind of utterly bogus, lazy, VERY selfish attitude toward this game that could, if implemented, make it something it's not and ruin it.

I've been reading your whining periodically over the last few years. This game has been out for more than 10 years and is a classic the way it is. Hey, if you don't like the game then go look for a different one. But stop cluttering up the forum with your adding an additional facet that would take tons of dev time and probably wouldn't fit. Leaving naval and air as abstract is fine.

That's even better than 'detract'. 'Something it's not'that will 'ruin it'. May I ask that unless your name is Norm Koger ...what exactly qualifies you to make such an outlandish and preposterous statement? I'm sorry. We've had this conversation before, and I realize it ends up with more people saying stuff like 'Don't improve the naval aspect please!'(is that you Ralph?) It's like a bad dream. But fortunately for me, one I only endure by choice.

[Skanvak]

TOAW is definetly not a naval wargame. And as far as I know no pnp mixe naval and land well. Even if it is a failure (don't argue with me on that) WitP is pearhaps the only one that does both, but the game is so slow.

We will need another game for that not just a patch, period.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

TOAW is definetly not a naval wargame. And as far as I know no pnp mixe naval and land well. Even if it is a failure (don't argue with me on that) WitP is pearhaps the only one that does both, but the game is so slow.

We will need another game for that not just a patch, period.

So we'll just equate any improvement with 'making it a naval wargame'. LMAO at the absurdity.

[rich12545]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
That's even better than 'detract'. 'Something it's not'that will 'ruin it'. May I ask that unless your name is Norm Koger ...what exactly qualifies you to make such an outlandish and preposterous statement? I'm sorry. We've had this conversation before, and I realize it ends up with more people saying stuff like 'Don't improve the naval aspect please!'(is that you Ralph?) It's like a bad dream. But fortunately for me, one I only endure by choice.

You keep whining about improving the naval aspect in TOAW. Yet I've never seen a post where you say how or why. All you do is complain and start flame wars like this one.

Just in case nobody told you, this is an operational level game. It typically covers individual battles. How many individual battles in the last 100 years are equally divided between naval and ground assets where each is just as important? I suppose there are a few but I can't think of any offhand.

Why don't you go to the Carriers at War forum and demand they include ground forces? That would make as much sense as coming here and demand a game that depicts ground battles include naval forces.