Reckall

There are so many conceptual errors in your approach to that review that it would need not a post but a paper to detail them all. Basically: 1. You have repeatedly admitted that you didn't read the review - but you still express a general judgement about it, based on the context (it is on a blog), the low mark, and the fact that it is the first review for the guy that wrote it. None of these bases are valid. The context: there are good blogs and bad review sites. There are good fanzines and bad professional magazines. At the end of the day, only a detailed checking of the factual contents of the review with the reality of the reviewed product can determine the quality of the former. You failed to do that. The reviewer: it is his first review (for that site). So what? "Duel" was the first movie for a dude named Steven Spielberg. Again, only a factual analysis of the contents of the review vs. the reality of the reviewed product can give us a measure of the quality of the review. You failed to do that. The low mark: you are a beta-tester for CM:SF, so I really hope that you will read the reasons behind the low mark, that you will retain the ones that you feel that are valid, and that you will try to address them in future patches. Instead, you do not even seem interested in understanding the *why* behind the low mark - substituting it with with your (respectable but still only personal and unsubstantiated) "feelings" ("vanity piece"... "first review...") 2. You are a beta-tester for CM:SF, under an NDA. Sorry, but dismissing a bad review without being factual is conflict-of-interest at is basic level. Everybody is entitled to defend his work - factually. Should the reviewer write "you cannot play with Syrians in CM:SF - this sucks!" you have all the rights to point out that this is not true. About grayer areas you could explain why your "vision" of the game was different from the one expected by the reviewer. But, in order to do this, you still have to know *what* the reviewer wrote and *why*. Instead you choose to attack the piece and the reviewer "on general terms". This behavior only gives points to the reviewer, since everybody just wonders: "If the content of the review is bad, why isn't he attacking *that*? Couldn't it be because he has no actual ammo against the facts presented in the piece?" This, especially, in a situation where basically everybody is agreeing with the review in the first place. Which leads to: 3. It is nice to read how everybody is working hard on CM:SF so to polish it and give us an improved product in a week /a month /an year... which leads to the question "why it wasn't published next week / month / year, then?" Were I a "beta-tester" for CM:SF, one of the buggiest games I have seen, not only I would keep very quiet about my role, but also I wouldn't go around to teach others how to do their jobs. I really hope that your efforts at beta-testing will show more sense that your efforts at "reviewing the reviewers". Vince P.S. Oh, BTW, I'm a professional reviewer for gaming magazines, here in Italy, since 1989. I gave 9/10 to CMBO version 1.0 when it was published seven years ago. I'm waiting for patch 1.02 before writing the review of CM:SF. This is all the slack I'll give to the game.

This reminds me of the "Armored Task Force Engine", which is based on the JANUS engine used as a training tool by the US Army. There are many similarities between CotA and ATF, in the way they do manage the simulation of a conflict in real time with order delays, "battle drills" for managing subordinate units etc.

BTW, any discussion re: TOAW as a "game" is founded on a wrong assumption. TOAW is a tool to design games, as MS Word is a tool to write documents. Only once you have the the end product (the unique, completed scenario) you can start reasoning on the quality of that specific simulation. Games like Steel Panthers or CM allow you to design scenarios of varied nature, but the core rules do not change very much. TOAW, instead, is designed so to program your own rules. This is why one statement made earlier: "Game design is a process in which an intelligent person with a clear thesis about the key aspects of some strategy game subject, models those key aspects, and puts control over them in the hands of the players. Leaving the outcome to their respective wits and getting his own tush off their table - but having selected the key variables and parameterized their control." ...Actually applies well to TOAW's scenarios. You do your research, design the scenario in a way that it reflects your opinion on key variables, inform the players about them (usually in the accompaning doc - some are dozens of pages long) and then leave the outcome to their wits. Let's make an example of a scenario portraying the encirclement at Stalingrad. You do your research and you discover that basic attrition level for the tropps in the kessel is too low - even after factoring in the scarce supplies. Why? Because, you read, of the of the unusual impact that diseases had on the troops in this specific occourrence. So you put an higher attrition coefficent for the Germans in the scenario and warn the player about it: Rule 12. The German troops will suffer 20% more attrition than usual, thus simulating the increased losses due to diseases. The player will then tailor in his strategy that the surrounded troops' strenght is declining faster than in other scenarios, and so time will run out earlier for them. And so on. Some scenarios at divisional-corps levels have overstack penalities after TWO counters are stacked, not ten. It is the most basic error that a TOAW newbie can fall for: "the scenarios do seem varied, but the core rules are the same!" No. Fact is: each scenario is almost like an unique boxed wargame - whose inner workings and rationales must be understood before planning even the first step of your strategy. This is what makes TOAW so replayable, longeve and fascinating after all these years.

But "history" is not an exact science. History is "a game just played once", as someone once put. We all know, for example, the historical result of "Barbarossa", but we will never know how the end result "actually was against the par": were the Germans exceptionally unlucky, and so stopping at the very gates of Moscow could have happened "one Barbarossa in ten"? Some could feel so. Others could feel that the Russians were the unlucky ones, and that the "real par" would have been a deadlock at Smolensk - and so on. Not many people do realize that sometimes historical events happen in a wild way due to imponderable, contingent factors not different from rolling "3" on 3 six-sided dies on a single, important launch. If you are portraying such a case, then agonizing over "the historical result" would actually be agonizing over "something outsided the expected historical result". Of course others could disagree. So, like an historian, a scenario designer with the right instruments will be able to make his call - I only expect from him some rationale behind his decisions. This usually becomes less true at a more tactical level, where there are, for example, enough reports of PzKw IVs vs. T-34s to have some more statistical detailed data to start with. But, for that, you need real, concrete data anyway: so, scenarios like WWIII in the '80s are not usually supported by a vast experience in real confrontations - and open to many calls. This is what makes the debates about "doctrine" so fun in some forums (this is also why a wargame published in the '30s showing the aircraft carrier as the "Queen of the Sea" would have been derided)

Regarding TOAWIII, I should ask to JasonC which is the last version that he tried, since the game went a long way in these nine years - and it is still going. Anyway, the purpose of the game is to represent the problems that a commander could face at operational level: what's the strength/proficiency of my divisions, how the road/rail net is helping/hindering my advance, what about the air power factor etc. In this it surely works beautifully, and it is a great game. I understand how, by involving too many factors in the combat calculations, you risk to increase the end margin of error. So, if your data about the impact of a certain weapon in combat are slightly off, and your proficiency model is slightly off too, the end result is exponentially off. However, it is also worth mentioning how the above factors *which in TOAW can be manipulated* also grant flexibility to the scenario designer, who can tweak them (and many others, like special events, pre-determined variations in supply over time so to simulate contingent factors, attrition and MANY others) so that the end result reflects his view of the battle (BTW: of course one expects that the designer will conduce some tests on his scenarios - which is what happens: no one in the TOAW community puts together some units and wild calls and labels it "a scenario"; this is why, for example, the very intensively tested "Campaign for North Africa" serie by Bob Cross simulates so well the ebb and flow of the operations in that theater). It is also worth noticing how, in the wargaming world many whines about how "something is not realistic" often boil down to "this thing doesn't portray MY vision of what is realistic". For every NATO/WP "expert" sure that "whoever thinks that the war would have lasted more than a week is an idiot" you will find a NATO/WP "expert" quoting number and facts re: "any cretin can see how it would have developed into a months-long attrition war". [H.G. Welles wrote a very funny tale on this phenomena, called "A Moth" ( http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/W/WellsHerbertGeorge/prose/stolenbacillus/moth.html ) Just read the first part and you will understand what I mean ] So, fine: this is what a flexible tool is for. If you do believe that the Rumanian Army at Stalingrad was exceptionally unlucky you can tweak things in TOAW (and other games) so that the rout result is at one end of the bell curve. If you instead think that the result was just what expected, you can put it at the center of the bell curve in your scenario - and so on. This is one of the things that TOAW allows you to do. Re: Panzer Campaigns, I have some of the titles, and I have still to see someone pointing a gun to my head and forcing me to play the ENOOOOOOOORMOUS full campaigns. They are there for those that really want them, but each game usually is broken down in dozens of small to medium scenarios. I just finished playing the German Breakthroug at Vyazma in Moskow '41 (small scenario) agains a friend: we finished it in an evening and we had a blast. Other scenarios, like Salerno, Crete and Anzio, are small enough to allow you to play the full campaign in a reasonable time - so even that can be done. And Normandy '44 is basically about the various sub-operations: the rules themselves state that the full campaign is more a tool for scenario designers. However, everyone is entitled to his opinions, of course, but I would suggest to ask around for a compendium of them before making your call. I could point you to people able to "explain" how CM basically ruined forever the reputation of serious wargames [ August 15, 2007, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Reckall ]

Well "offensive" may be a big word, but I noticed that in North Africa the earlier start date is December, 1940 - with the "O'Connor Raid" and Operation Compass, I presume. So, no possibility to play the Italian advance to Sidi El-Barrani in September, 1940 (when the English for a while actually feared that the Italian Army could reach Alexandria). I know that there should not be many differences between Sept and Dec. 1940, but there could be climatic factors to consider, and maybe slight differences in the OOB. Hey, it was one of the very few times we actually gained some ground! (meanwhile, we will keep the curtain down on Operation Compass )

Actually, to see what a properly equipped and motivated Italian soldier could do in WWII, you only have to consider the U.S. Army

From the CMAK blurb: "Experience combat in a full 3D battlefield as machinegun tracers arc overhead and exploding artillery shells shake the earth! Watch the famous Deutsches Afrika Korps storm the fortress of Tobruk, or help the US and british forces defend against powerful German counter strikes at Anzio. Fight with the elite German Fallschirmjäger units in Crete, or follow General Patton's sweep across the island of Sicily." I belive that "Run like hell during the O'Connor Offensive! Throw away your rifles and embrace the invaders at Gela! Manage to do your best and still lose at El-Alamein!" wouldn't have been such a seller...

Italian OOB should be divided between "regulars" and those who defected to the Allies after the fall of Mussolini's regime on Sept. 8th 1943 (partisans and regular units joining the Allies). Partisans attacks on German columns in the forested mountains of Central Italy could become hairy very quicly

My mother father served in WWI against the Austro-Hungarians in the "Alpini" and got two Silver Medals. He was then wounded in the back in 1918 and spent the rest of his life with a bullet in his spine (he could walk, but not even bow to tie his shoes). He met my Grandma, who served as a nurse in the hospital, and they fell in love and married. It could seem a romantic story if you have not lived throug it, I belive. My mother still cannot see the Alpini on TV without crying. My father's father served in the Bersaglieri in North Africa, somewhere in the '30s. His regiment WALKED from Tripoli to Abissinia when it was reassigned to the latter. He came home in 1939, never to return in the army again.

Tacops 4, IIRC, published by Battlefront, at ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/guides/TacOps_v4_User_Guide.zip

[spoilerS] I played the tutorial without looking at the manual, and moved my main infantry platoon along the left edge, and the supporting units (mortar and MGs) in the center. The tanks moved to the center too, occasionally area-firing to harass the defenders. When the infantry reached the bushes on the upper left, they ran in the woods and then advanced cautiosly taking the defenders in the flank. Meanwhile, the tanks knocked out the AT gun and showered fire on anything moving. Result: Russian IMMENSE victory on turn 11 on 25+ THEN I readed the .pdf manual, and discovered that the plan was actually to attack using a human wave. "Expect casualties!" Well, thanks! Not a difficult tutorial, all in all. Maybe the Russian units did a little too well, and were a little too cool and coordinated under fire for Russian infantry circa 1941 - but maybe it was the vodka factor

I did a search on this board for info regarding CM2, and I did come up with a lot of posts saying that for info about CM2 you need to do a search on this board. So,I did a search on this board for info regarding CM2, and I did come up with a lot of posts saying that for info about CM2 you need to do a search on this board. So... Anyway, you got it, I belive!

- The ability to install CM2 and CM1 together, so to have a unified database of vehicles and buildings to fish from when you create scenarios (this ability could be extended to CM3 and CM4 too... it would be the logical transposition of Squad Leader's interconnectivity). - City fightning, city fightning, city fightning!! (detailed buildings, demolition charges, tanks destroying walls...) - Snow of different depths. - Terrain which gives cover but little protection (sunflower fields...) - Animation of infantry attacking tanks!!

...Of course courtesy of yours truly http://www.kwvideogiochi.kataweb.it/kwvideogiochi/homepage/recensioni/kwv_recensioni_leggi/1,1953,PC,00.html?RecId=14&sezione=Recensioni