God TOW is awful

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by PFMM:

Let me put it this way, if you design a scenario in Combat Mission with as many tanks as Theater of War, would it be any different?

If the scenario involved clearing a town of enemy forces, the answer it 'yes' it would be different. In CM, all the armor in the world doesn't do you any good if the enemy is really dug in and you have to clear a town without wasting much time. Armor was not able to clear towns without infantry support. In TOW, infantry has virtually no cover in urban terrain. That's not an oversight, it's a huge flaw as it renders infantry superfluous. I don't even bother moving most of them any more in the few games that I still play while I wait for the patch.

That brings up another issue I have with TOW: no time limit. I know that this is a plus for some players, but it's not really very realistic. In the real world, there usually are time constraints. Commanders don't have all the time in the world to get their units into place 'just so' prior to making their move. They often had to do the best they could under the time constraints and finish the mission.

[Oudy]

Jeff

If you are placing your own troops for initial deployment, you have to use placeholders. In the Mission Tree under ArmyComposition you will find Placeholders. You must have one for each of your initial units.

Wherever you place enemy troops or reinforcements is where they will spawn.

Hope that helps.

Oudy

[PFMM]

Mannheim Tanker, it might be a fair point if we actually had villages, woods and proper visibility concerns for tanks in Theater of War.

We don't. Half a dozen buildings all within line of sight of each other would provide no cover to infantry even in Combat Mission, especially versus a dozen tanks. The woods in Theater of War are little more than scattered woods in Combat Mission. And lastly, if one does tests, in Theater of War a moving tank spots just as well as a stationary one. Not so in Combat Mission.

I would advise you play Combat Mission's 'Taking the Train' scenario and you will see a game where infantry matter not one bit, AT guns are killed without firing a shot and infantry are slaughtered and sent packing by mass tank fire.

I agree about the time limit matter, but you can produce time limits in custom scenarios. My biggest issue is as far as I can see there is no clock on display. What?!

Still, hope is the last to die.

[ChrisND]

Mission time is good, as long it isn't horribly over-done. Many a mission in Combat Mission was simply ruined because of a horrible scenario time limit, forcing people to do everything at a sprinting pace.

[John Kettler]

PFMM,

The Russian squad breakdown you give may well work in the game, but is wholly unlike how the Russians actually used a squad in combat. Even in the 1980s, the Russians fought a squad as a single entity deployed in combat line, with each man's position therein and role clearly defined, to include the man with the squad LMG and the guy with the RPG-7. Western style intra squad fire and maneuver was simply not practiced. When the Russians maneuvered per se, the maneuver was that of an entire company. When you get really good, try running the Russians that way. Should be interesting! The info is straight out of a 1980 DIA manual on the Soviet Motor Rifle Company.

Jeff Duquette,

Hello. Long time no see!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 22, 2007, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by Oudy:

Jeff

If you are placing your own troops for initial deployment, you have to use placeholders. In the Mission Tree under ArmyComposition you will find Placeholders. You must have one for each of your initial units.

Wherever you place enemy troops or reinforcements is where they will spawn.

Hope that helps.

Oudy

Thanks. That was helpful. Don't think I would have figured that one out.

=================

Hey John. How goes the behind armor effects battle

[Jim Cobb]

I actually think ToW would work better with smaller scenarios - a couple of platoons and a vehic;e or two. The innovative mechanics cry for micromanaging; they're a waste otherwise. I'll micromange 25 units but anymore makes the game a pause dance and might as well have been WEGO or turn-based.

[thewood]

Hey, get back to reviewing games and stop playing them!

[z1812]

Hi All,

Smaller scenarios might work much better notwithstanding the LOS and other issues. I did try to make a tiny one with the editor but for now I have stopped work on it as I find the editor too difficult to use.

I see potential in this game and will wait to see what develops.

Regards John

[Jim Cobb]

Originally posted by thewood:

Hey, get back to reviewing games and stop playing them!

SMILE when you say that, pilgim!

[hobo]

I agree with Normal Dude on time limits in CM. I want time to scout the area and then perform my mission. With CM it was guess the best axis of attack and go without any real clue what lay ahead.

- Hobo

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by Jim Cobb:

I actually think ToW would work better with smaller scenarios - a couple of platoons and a vehic;e or two. The innovative mechanics cry for micromanaging; they're a waste otherwise. I'll micromange 25 units but anymore makes the game a pause dance and might as well have been WEGO or turn-based.

Yup...Although it's also nice to have the option for a larger scenario if a person is so inclined. As I recall Close Combat used to have a limit of 12 or 15 units total per side per scenario. This seemed to work pretty well.

I think a players tendency toward feeling a bit overwhelmed -- or the tendency toward conducting a continual pause fest -- is the preception that ones units are constantly on the verge of, or actually taking off or spining about on their own initiative. I can see the need for this loss of player control for units under fire or when morale breaks, but I don't see the logic for this sort of behavior as a default thing.

My initial excitement about the HOLD command has dwindeled as I have played a few more scenarios. I keep seeing men or vehicles wondering off, or spinning around on their own. I feel like I have more control by using HOLD. But as I say I am still seeing stuff wondering about even when under a HOLD command.

[ May 18, 2007, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[franz]

totally agree. TOW might be a good game if the scenarios and number of units in each game were a LOT smaller/less. Then you could actually control the game properly and enjoy it at the same time.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Mission time is good, as long it isn't horribly over-done. Many a mission in Combat Mission was simply ruined because of a horrible scenario time limit, forcing people to do everything at a sprinting pace.

Agreed. I guess my point is that there should be some time pressure on the commander. At present you can take all the time in the world.

I keep seeing men or vehicles wondering off, or spinning around on their own.

There's little you can do about the rotating to face unseen targets (see the other thread on this), but HOLD should keep your men in place. While under that command, the only reason your infantry will move about is if a tank comes in close proximity to them, in which case they scramble to move out of the way. That's actually quite sensible!

[pad152]

I gotta say, this game takes some getting use too, it takes losing several battles before you find out what you can do with your units and what you can't. It's not CM or Soldier Heroes of WWII, it's something in the middle and yes you have to micro-manage the hell out of your units. Then you have that magical battle where everything comes together and you just have blast.

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by Oudy:

Jeff

If you are placing your own troops for initial deployment, you have to use placeholders. In the Mission Tree under ArmyComposition you will find Placeholders. You must have one for each of your initial units.

Wherever you place enemy troops or reinforcements is where they will spawn.

Hope that helps.

Oudy

Oudy:

I was playing with the editor today and noticed that I could position new units directly from the map in the scenario editor. Moreover if I add a new unit to a group, the unit will appear at something like X=1024 and Y=720 -- or some such thing. You will see a little red symbol appear on the map as soon as you add a detachment or tank to a group. You can highlight the new unit with a mouse box. Than click on the unit and drag it to whatever position you like on the map. I just did this with the "Steel Torrent" scenario and it seemed to work pretty slick.

[ChrisND]

YEs, people may have been missing that because the pieces are very small.. zoom in to see them better.

Which goes to show we REALLY need a better guide to the editor, if we are having to discover single things like this.

[Tontoman]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Russkly:

Infantry seem to have little chance against tanks, even when the latter are moving slowly through a village and the former are 'hidden' around (obviously not 'in') buildings and are armed with AT weapons. The tanks always spot them and kill them.

I'd go even further and say that in the vast majority of scenarios, infantry is unneeded. Go ahead and try this in any scenario where you get some armor: park your infantry in the rear and order them to 'Hold Position'. Finish the scenario without your infantry, only using your armor. You can nearly always manage just fine without the infantry, even when assaulting hamlets and villages. Your uberpanzerinfanterielazer can handle any enemy grunts that venture into LOS.

Seriously. At least this solution does away with having to micromanage infantry (one of my pet peeves). And before someone gripes and says that I need to spend more time with the game, I have spent many hours playing it, trying out differenct tactics, hoping that I'm missing something here. The learning curve really isn't that steep once you realize that rapid pausing and micromanagement of orders can get you the results you are seeking. The game really isn't that difficult, guys. The fact that you can beat many of the scenarios with a few tanks shows the flaws in the game balance.

IMO, reducing the spotting ability of tanks and the ability of infantry to take advantage of cover and concealment would go a long way towards fixing the imbalance - and restore a lot of the fun that I can see lurking beneath the surface of this game. This game is so close to actually being fun that it's frustrating. So much potential squandered... </font>