slbm

I have managed to finish the mission quite easily (much easier than any of the Polish campaign missions), acting similar to the scheme drawn by Normal. I used 2 Pz38s (attacking to the right) and 2 Pz IVs (to the left) to quickly engage particular AT guns from different directions and then withdraw to attack in other place. I handled those distant 75s with long-range fire and artillery support. My losses were one Pz IV and one Pz 38 immobilized (I also lost a crewmember and some infantry). This worked out quite well and I needed infantry support only to kill remaining gun crews and counterattacking French infantry. My losses were one Pz IV and one Pz 38 immobilized (I also lost a crewmember and some infantry). What is interesting however, I haven't encountered the French heavy tank. I wonder if its apperance is determined by the path you take while attacking? I also observed something like that in the next mission, where 3 T-34s counterattack against your right flank only, when you are trying to flank the Russians. If you proceed through the centre of the map, they don't come. Which is quite reasonable, I would say, because leaves you with a choice whether to attack frontally or try to outflank the enemy, but for the price of dealing with heavier resistance. Which was also surprising for me - after reading posts above - is that the mission ended unexpectedly for me. I've knocked out all the French 75 mm guns and tanks, but I have not manned them with my own troops. Neither have I killed all enemy troops. In fact most of the infantry in the last line of trench were still defending. I think that the victory conditions should be more precise - simple victory locations (flags) work much better. One more problem with mission design I encountered are reinforcement AT guns. If you get a truck towing an ATG you would expect it to carry its crew as well. Instead we get a gun itself and... a regular infantry squad. Weird... It is not only the question of gunnery skills, but also assigning a crew - you have to manually pick individual infantrymen and order them to man the gun. I think this should be changed for the sake of more pleasant gameplay, not mentioning some realism. Adam

Yes, I've also encountered such vehicles on several occasions (in German campaign), so I assume, that in the Polish missions there are some cleverly hidden AT guns preventing you from too smart flanking manoeuvres Earlier I simply did not know, that a unit can be positioned outside the playing zone. So thank you for your answer and watch out when playing Polish BTW: If a unit can be positioned in such a way, why do player's reinforcements appear out of nowhere? I think, they should enter the playing zone just as enemy vehicles do, perhaps they should be AI-controlled while approaching.

Well, so far I've only completed the Polish campaign and briefly looked on the first missons of Germany and France. The Polish campaign is, regrettably, in many aspects similar to that training mission. You get increasingly frustrated about tanks knocking out every AT gun before they get in effective range - no matter if the gun stands in clear field, behind a bush or in the prepared emplacement. After some time I realized, that I should consider ATGs useless and play with tanks only. Which is btw very unrealistic if we are talking about the defence of Poland... The problem with those missions, besides ATGs, is playing against crushingly superior forces - I mean numbers, not quality. It therefore takes a lot of save-and-loading before you manage to complete a mission and - in my opinion - makes the game much less pleasant to play. In general I think, that the game is good, but requires some key improvements. The most important are: mission "philosophy" (shifted towards more balanced forces like in Close Combat) and reworked spotting abilities of tank crews (I mean: significantly decreased - problem are not only ATGs but also infantry, which can't hide, even in waist high grass 100 m behind the tank). Adam

I'd love it as well. Shouldn't be too hard for developers if only they wanted... Curiously Sturmovik had both types of generators - quick and full. Why this very good idea was not forwarded along with the engine I have no clue.

I guess, that the game's creators assumed, that the mission builder will be better for users than quick battle generator or something like that. The point is however, that although the full mission builder has much larger capabilities, it also takes a lot of time to make even one mission with that tool (much more than to actually play it). Adam

There already is a waypoint order, though I think only for vehicles. Simply shift+click. I totally agree, it is really unrealistic, that you can tell who's the commander and who has a sniper rifle at a distance of 500 metres or so (especially if the enemy is not firing). The same should apply for tanks (as I've already stated above): initially it should only be "light tank", "tank destroyer" etc. Not knowing if you are dealing with - for instance - long or short-barreled Pz IV would make the battle more realistic and exciting. Provided of course, that the missions would be more balanced and you could actually fight at long distances. Adam

Yes, Mikoyan is right. Keeping your crews is crucial. It takes much save-and-loading anyway to win the third Polish mission, but without experienced gunners, winning it would be virtually impossible. Anyway, the "save-and-load tactics" as the only way to complete a mission is really getting on my nerves, as it is not what I would expect of a realistic war game. I have a feeling that, although the engine designers did their job well, the mission designers forgot, that this is not going to be another Blitzkrieg or BiA. Perhaps they wanted the game to be longer in terms of time necessary to complete all the campaigns? The irony is that game designers boast about "substantial increase of engagement ranges". That's surely a good thing, though of no use in campaings, as you are always outnumbered and usually outgunned, so you need to make an ambush and attack at point-blank range anyway. I think, that such a mission design kind of kills one of the main game's advantages. Adam

Well, I have only finished one campaign - the Polish - and I think you can always give it a try, it's just three missions anyway. It's quite hard, though the problem is not weapons as you suspected. You have access to very good Polish 7TP light tanks, which can effectively fight every enemy vehicle. It's not the quality then, but quantity which really is the problem. You are fighting against numerically superior enemy and it happens that you have to neutralize something like 20 enemy Pz IIs, Pz 35s and - the most dangerous - Pz 38s, with just four of five own tanks. It is pretty difficult to achieve and takes some save-and-loads. I would advise to take good care of your tank crews, since the third mission would be probably impossible to accomplish without experienced gunners.

That's great news Gnasher I'm a bit ashamed, that I'm only complaining and not making such a mission myself, though now I'm pretty busy with apartment renovation and hardly have time to get to the computer, much less to play. When I'm finished with that though, I'll try to make some missions on my own Adam

Yes, I agree that smoke would be very useful. I also thought about something else. I used to play Close Combat series a lot and now I am naturally comparing both games. After couple of days of playing ToW I realized what is the largest difference in gameplay for me. Obviously I consider the possible improvements I have mentioned above important, but that's something else. In CC there was no possibility to save game in mid-battle. In ToW it is, and it is very useful. At first I wondered how I could play without it in CC? I think the answer is, that the opposing forces were more balanced. I mean, that in Close Combat loosing one more tank did not mean, that you're going to loose the entire battle. In ToW, at least in missions I've already played (but not only, judging by some entries on this forum), loosing one vehicle is often disastrous (as you have for instance 4 7TPs against some 20 German Pz IIs and Pz 38s). And then you have to reload the game, which makes it - in my opinion - less pleasant to play. And less realistic, as it seems more like some FPP shooter, where you save-and-load until finally you manage to kill that goddamned enemy tank or whatever it is, which makes trouble. More balance could help that, though it would also make game shorter (in terms of time needed to finish all the campaigns). Nevertheless I would prefer it that way. Adam Edit: So basically I agree with FinnN - the philosophy of mission-creating should be changed. I also like your idea of dynamic campaign as you described it. But I don't know if it is possible within current game engine. Maybe only in ToW2? The good news however is, that there is a mission editor, and we should have many community-created missions, which will be more to our taste [ July 23, 2007, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: slbm ]

Well, I believe, just as some of you have already stated, that before adding new units, campaigns etc. it would be a good step to improve what already has been implemented. I like the game very much, but I believe that designers can introduce many solutions already tested in other games, like Close Combat series - and thus make the game more realistic on one hand and more user-friendly on the other. So for the sake of realism I'd like to have: - infantry, which can hide in the grass, bushes etc. and is not instantly spotted by vehicles' crews; - tank crews, which can button up/down, affecting own vulnerability and also spotting ability; - AT guns which can hide behind bushes, sandbags or smth. Now you can't really hide a gun and wait for the tank to approach. Also gun emplacements, as seen on the third mission of the Polish campaign, don't seem to give much protection, if any. - surrendering soldiers. For the interface I'd love to have: - Line of Sight/Line of Fire tool; - Possibility to target entire enemy infantry team, not only particular soldiers. Of course targetting enemy individual can be useful, if you want to take out enemy sniper, machinegunner or leader, however if you are attacked by a wave of infantry, it turns out to be of no use. - Enemy infantrymen should not be identified right away. Now if they are spotted, we instantly know who is a sniper, who is machinegunner and - which is the most surprising for me - who is a NCO. Presumably our soldiers have super-binoculars and they can see enemy insignia at 200 metres. Also vehicles should not be instantly identified (rather as a "light tank"/"tank destroyer" etc.; I doubt if a pinned down soldier sitting in a deep trench could tell a difference between Pz35 and Pz38 at 500 m. - ability to maintain formation. I would appreciate some of this features much more, than any new unit, campaign or mission. Adam

Hello. I have just purchased a copy of ToW and started playing Polish campaign. In first two missions I observed that my tanks and tankettes moving close to map's edge (or more precisely: gameplay area's edge) were often hit (and destroyed), although no enemy was visible. Closer observation revealed something like anti-tank gun fire coming from outside map (judging by tracers), though without any visible source. Has anyone experienced the same phenomenon? Does that hapen at all maps along all edges or only some of them?