Don't get me wrong:

[Sfox28]

Hey folks, don't get me wrong about TOW...I love it to death and I consider many of the changes to have been good ones and to make several more will only enhance it! But one thing at the moment that is just killing me is the "BATTLE TO THE LAST MAN"! There has to be a way to stop things so that both sides can keep some sort of cadre of troops alive! A limit to your losses & or surrender of so many men needs a trigger for withdrawl! I saw were someone was trying to do something like this...but I noticed it was a beta and all it seemed to have was the surrender of troops and not a trigger for fleeing the battlefield.....[LIKE CLOSE COMBAT DOES]!!!

Need it badly, the battles (even though they are extremely fun and correct) take forever, and ever and ever etc, etc and end up with NO way you can get past a battle with any sort of cadre. Wait, I already said that...LOL! Anyway, what do you think gang...and how can we remedy this ASAP or I'll have to hibernate with this game again for several months. It's just way too tiresome to fight a good clean battle ( that was micromanaged for hours) and then just have to turn it on to double speed just to get a result of 1 or 2 things left standing. As it stands now, everything but the end makes sense. We need immediate Help!!!!! LOL!

[CeltiCid]

Agree. Same for multiplaer games...

[Sfox28]

CeltiCid, I can just imagine how crazy it is for multiplayer games. I was also thinking, last nite, after my post...that maybe it's because there are only a few battles within a whole campaign and there is the NEED for counterattacks.

But NO...this morning, after further review I still stand by my inital remarks. My reason for stating the obvious was in playing the campaign PANZER LEHR. It was hard enough to defeat or throw back (wait, defeat has to be it because a non-destroyed tank does not retreat) the Brit hord of Cromwells to finally realize that I was supposed to counter-attack a British position over the hills with very meager forces (Infantry and an AFV-if your lucky). This is something I don't think the germans would have done considering their defensive posture. It was hard enough to ward off all the tanks and the endless air attacks to warrant a imediate counter-attack.

What say you-all?

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by Sfox28:

CeltiCid, I can just imagine how crazy it is for multiplayer games. I was also thinking, last nite, after my post...that maybe it's because there are only a few battles within a whole campaign and there is the NEED for counterattacks.

But NO...this morning, after further review I still stand by my inital remarks. My reason for stating the obvious was in playing the campaign PANZER LEHR. It was hard enough to defeat or throw back (wait, defeat has to be it because a non-destroyed tank does not retreat) the Brit hord of Cromwells to finally realize that I was supposed to counter-attack a British position over the hills with very meager forces (Infantry and an AFV-if your lucky). This is something I don't think the germans would have done considering their defensive posture. It was hard enough to ward off all the tanks and the endless air attacks to warrant a imediate counter-attack.

What say you-all?

I think that you are right...

One of the main problems with RTS games around is making difficulty sliders right. While ToW is all around fun game the Russian developers as it seems still lack the finesse of Creative Assembly.

Right now I am playing A THIRD campaign in MTW2!!!

A third! I played with Turks, then with Moors and now with Byzant. All on Very Hard / Very Hard difficulty sliders!!!!

But it all seems manageable if you do things logically! That is brilliant when developers actually get it right!

Now, I don't know how it is now since I still didn't found time to play it. And don't know if they have change it... but playing ToW on EASY was really hard for me...

When i got stuck in Dunkirk scenario in German campaign I simply deinstalled the game.

So my suggestion to developers is like this: make those difficulty sliders logical please.

So EASY should be EASY not HARD. Normal should be Normal and not SUPER HARD etc...

Maybe attrociuos mission design has to do with this but knowledge of history goes well here.

I don't remember that Germans had so many losses even during Kursk like they have it now. Post communistic propaganda had trupeted that Germans lost bigger numbers during Kursk but later I have found out that that was not true at all! Even at Stalingrad numerically Russians lost more men then Germans.

Now we have battles where German can lose 90% of tanks and personnel. Even those bloody Napoleonic battles were not so bloody!!! Nor WW1.

Did developers actually read real life stories of combat experience in WW2?

So basically when designing a mission it has to have in mind what players get's and what are his means to achieve victory. Don't make a game where there is only possible solution to end the mission. Maybe he can use some other weapons or some imagination to achieve good results.

Same on difficulties - if game is set on EASY then give bloody advantage on player. I don't know how... make AI has lesser weapons than player. Normal - put the same amount. And HARD put bigger number for AI.

Now we have totally wrong concept of battle. I know that on focal points it was assumed that you as attacked must have advantage of 3:1 in number of forces to achive breakthrough and this game concept that you are Leonida at Thermophilae and you face swarms of enemys and when you end the battle you see that your 5 tanks has destroyeed 29 enemy tanks, 130 soldiers etc... so all are heroic victories lol not even battles with equal forces.

Game is RTS and that add much to frustration of the player as he cannot be everywhere at the same time and he get's slaughtered. I didn't say that you should not have losses but...

Of course game should be not too easy but developers obviously wanted to give challenge to the player and they thought "hey let's make it too easy that would be wrong in the start". But some balance is needed. Because it is just one step from fun to frustration.

One question, what does sliders mean at all...? What EASY, NORMAL and HARD means? bonuses? forces?

[SlapHappy]

Well, let's compare some things about TOW and one of it's inspirations....Close Combat (as stated by the developers).

TOW and Close Combat have roughly the same allowable number of units in the game. Close Combat was 15 total units per side. So let's say ten 9-10 man squads and five vehicles with 4-5 man crews. That's about 125 personnel per side. TOW has a limit of 250 overall units in-game. So thats basically 125 x 2 opponents or 250. Roughly the exact same unit total count.

Now let's examine the map sizes.

Close Combat 5 maps were roughly 500 meters x 500 meters. TOW maps are 2km x 2km (max). So TOW maps are roughly 4 times larger than Close Combat.

However, I would argue that the battlefield is AT LEAST AS LETHAL as Close Combat if not more so even over the greater ranges. So it's a question of scale-lethality.

Now is Close Combat lethality under-modelled or is TOW lethality over-modelled? That is a question that may get many differences of opinion.

[ February 07, 2008, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: SlapHappy ]

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Well, let's compare some things about TOW and one of it's inspirations....Close Combat (as stated by the developers).

TOW and Close Combat have roughly the same allowable number of units in the game. Close Combat was 15 total units per side. So let's say ten 9-10 man squads and five vehicles with 4-5 man crews. That's about 125 personnel per side. TOW has a limit of 250 overall units in-game. So thats basically 125 x 2 opponents or 250. Roughly the exact same unit total count.

Now let's examine the map sizes.

Close Combat 5 maps were roughly 500 meters x 500 meters. TOW maps are 2km x 2km (max). So TOW maps are roughly 4 times larger than Close Combat.

However, I would argue that the battlefield is AT LEAST AS LETHAL as Close Combat if not more so even over the greater ranges. So it's a question of scale-lethality.

Now is Close Combat lethality under-modelled or is TOW lethality over-modelled? That is a question that may get many differences of opinion.

Some good points for debate... but just a quick reply - I remember that tank in CC 3 was aiming at 800 metres and that was not all. Are you sure that 500x500 metres is the scale for Close Combat?

[SlapHappy]

I was referring to Close Combat 5. It is possible that CC3 scale was larger, but I thought the scale was basically the same for all the games in the series. The game was heavily modded (most versions) is it possible bigger maps were implemented?

[SlapHappy]

OK. See the linked MOD for CC3. Read the description text.

BTW, this is a STAND-ALONE GAME. You don't need CC3 to play it! Might be worth checking out as it sounds rather interesting......

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=178

[SlapHappy]

Apparently Close Combat: Road to Baghdad supports bigger maps...as does this particular mod.

But all my comments above were related to playing the standard CC3,4, and 5 games.

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Apparently Close Combat: Road to Baghdad supports bigger maps...as does this particular mod.

But all my comments above were related to playing the standard CC3,4, and 5 games.

Thanks.

The reason I was asking because in my head bells 800 metres because I know that my Tiger didn't wanted to shoot on IS122 on 800 metres. But maybe you are right maybe it was much less...

Even so I was very suprised that Tiger found the target "too stark" lol so basically all those games are not quite realistic and we could find lot's of things if we try...

But this could be interesting discussion...

Anyway maybe I'll have to dig that book by Raus "panzer operations" etc... to see some tactical situations...

[Sfox28]

Guys, great discussion on the post of TOW I made.

I agree with everything that is stated above. I myself, have been around a long time and was an original play-tester for the board Squad Leader & Advanced Squad Leader Avalon Hill game. I've played Close Combat (all 6 of them...Cross of Iron as the last one...and I consider it the best of the lot) since they first came out and I feel that TOW can be the best of all! It just needs some adjustments. Other than my first stated pet peeve, I guess the next one would be having to micromanage my Armor. The Infantry seems to work well, but I have to stay on my AVF's to stay in the spot I want...like to maintain an ambush point! Other than what I have stated in my previous posts...the natural changes have been well recorded by others. Eg:Infantry in buildings, smoke, mortars...etc...etc. Anyway, I hope the people that made this game (TOW) as well as the many Modders that are out there, help us all out with the "Wonderful" basic game that TOW really is and can be. Mahalo, for all the great comments guys and keep them coming!

[Hellmut]

Respect to you Sfox28

Squad leader was the start of it all for me as a spotty teenager in the 80's

Like you i went through the close combat series (not 1 or COI though)

Just wondering about this game at the mo, i'm 50/50 about buying it. I would respect your opinion as a fellow wargamer on this

[track]

At minimum AI should be able to fight at static positions on it's own. It should do the following without separate orders:

- Seek cover when under fire

- Pick up ammo and weapons from nearby bodies (if needed)

- Fall back towards cover if taking lot's of casualties

- Surrender if it just gets too much

It sounds like a serious design flaw if the player is expected to be acting as each and every soldier on the battlefield.

[Stoppelhopser]

Sfox28 : I salute you for being a Squad Leader Board Game tester. For me that was the beginning of tactical gaming in the late 80s. I just lent my copy to a friend for him to read the rule book.

Hope to have some classic board game sessions later this year.

track:

Your minimum AI ability list is sensible and I fully agree.

I am used to be fascinated by whatever tactical game I bought before (CC series, CM series) and would play it for months inside and out.

TOW I haven't had for long and somehow that fascination does not show up despite lovely vehicles and graphics. Maybe its old age though and not the game?

[theBrit]

Originally posted by track:

At minimum AI should be able to fight at static positions on it's own. It should do the following without separate orders:

- Seek cover when under fire

- Pick up ammo and weapons from nearby bodies (if needed)

- Fall back towards cover if taking lot's of casualties

- Surrender if it just gets too much

It sounds like a serious design flaw if the player is expected to be acting as each and every soldier on the battlefield.

Gets my vote, this should be the bare minimum!

[BrassEm]

Would you rather be rolling die for cardboard chips than TOW?????

[ February 08, 2008, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: BrassEm ]

[Hpt. Lisse]

Hellmut - even with the new uber-patch, which has helped a great deal, TOW is a (narrow?) pass for any Squad Leader fan. SFox28 is correct when he says that this game just doesn't quite 'gel' yet in the manner that MTW2 or Combat Mission did.

The level of micro-management required to get your troops/AFV's to be effective simply becomes more work than fun - and your efforts are often in vain. In the new Panzer Lehr campaign, where you defend against the Allied forces in Normandy, a large number of Panzer shreck/faust teams are under your control to help ward off waves of Allied armor. But those Cromwell IV's shrug off the 8.8 cm HEAT projectiles with ease (even rear hull/turret hits); blowing a track off is considered a lucky shot, whereas in Combat Mission, that AFV would be fortunate to survive a direct hit at all. Forget pause-time chores like getting the ammo carrier to drop his 'shreck rounds in the trench, move your operator over to pick them up, and then proceed to re-load the weapon...

There are many elements that TOW gets right - the inf. vs. inf. small arms balancing seems about there (though remember, a rifleman could be standing on a dead light MG42 soldier, and won't pick his weapon up until told to do so.) The AFV vs. AFV is getting there (though again, a Stug IIIG that has been ordered to 'not move' won't rotate in place to defend itself from an enemy tank just outside its field of fire.) But the biggest problem is combined arms battles, which highlights the weaknesses of the game in its current state.

I would even go so far as to say that some of the disappointment you hear echoing around the forum is because TOW falls JUST short of being a fun & realistic wargame. GI Combat, for example, never even came close. I suspect that TOW II in a year or two will be where you want to spend your time and money.

[Sfox28]

Some really great comments guys...and we're all hitting the nail on the head about the flaws and things we think need change. The basic fact is...This CAN BE the best WWII simulation (game etc) ever. Helmut and Stoppelhopser, thanx for the compliment about the SL and ASL playtesting.

It was an interesting time and we all knew, at the time, that it would only get better over the years and develop into what it is today and can be in the future. I still have all the board SL & ASL stuff (all of it)pretty much hermetically sealed in a gaming closet I have...LOL! I can remember using "Dental Floss" to check our line of sites.

I agree with BrassEm though....."Would you rather be rolling die for cardboard chips than TOW?????"

That's were time and computers have payed off! It was really hard to get people to play...because it was face to face and you usually had to stop the game to go to work or whatever and then you had to make sure the table was steady and didn't have any little animals, like "Kittys", who want to eat the counters and play mess-up with all the stacks of "chips" that were on the large table, that they wanted to lay on! LOL! So, you all have it much better than it ever was. Just think when VR (Virtual Reality)really kicks in...you will be able to BE that MG man or the panzerfaust young soldier, almost, right there on a battlefield that looks and feels like you were really there! Alas, for me I may not make it that far...then again I may, but one thing is for sure...I've been on a real battlefield and it wasn't too much fun. Shiszer, (sp) I shouldn't have said that...it may give away my age. But then again if I was a old "playtester"...ahh, let's just forget this dumb story and talk about what a great game we do have and all the ways we can make it better. That's what forums are really for.

Stoppelhopser, buy the game...it will be worth it.

What is also interesting to me...is that I didn't get off on many of the Battlefront CM series because of the 1 to 2 minute...move stop and move again style. I also wasn't to enamored with the stick man infantry. Oh well, that's why we evolve. I have a slightly off topic question that maybe anyone can help with. I already installed (straight) into the game the JSH mod. I would like to know, first...do the single player games and some campaigns pre-uber patch still work??? Now, the second part...Should I install the TOW Mod installer? Will I have some problems because JSH is already in game?

I'm finally getting, how to use the Mission & Campaign editor. I used it to help me get through the "Impossible" Panzer Lehr "mousetrap" mission. I gave myself 2 Tigers to go along with the 5 PzIV's that come in as reserves. That is...if you get that far. I always play on the 2nd hardest level. I've been learning how to use that editor because I thought I was getting 2 Tigers...but what I got were just the crews and tanks...somehow I didn't know I had to add the ammunition.....ROFLOL!

Sorry, about the long post...Mahalo, and later for now.

[Tankbuster]

Honestly, I think people are missing the fact that we should be enjoying the game on the EASY level here. Yes, I said EASY. I know that goes against the macho male uber elite I CANNOT BE BEATEN BY A COMPUTER types on here, but lets face it, if you have to play it on MEDIUM and it whips your A$$ so much you have to edit the mission to give yourself some extra uber Tigers then you may as well face the truth that the AI OWNS. We all know that HARD level is meant for people who don't mind wasting hours playing against the BORG where 'Resistance is Futile' and you will die horribly, be assimilated and work for the 1C programmers until you are relieved from your pointless virtual existance by your mom bringing you chocco crunchies for breakfast, but, hey, thats life.

Join the dark side brothers and play on EASY, that way you get to waste the AI in something close to historical accuracy and still retain something more than 2% of your original troops.

DISCLAIMER: This has been an IRONIC post by someone who does play on EASY and seriously enjoys this game. It should in no way be taken seriously, unless you want to win the war

[Sfox28]

Buster, not sure were you were going with your post, but yes easy is maybe the way to go and I can assure you that I'm in no way a macho game player. Have you tried the Panzer Lehr campaign with the batttle "Mousetrap" yet? As far as adding 2 Tigers to the mix...I was goofing around trying to learn the Mission Campaign editor. What is interesting, is I haven't played it yet.

If your wondering about beating the AI on the medium level...I basically did that on the second try. I just found it a bit tough to mount a counter-attack against the British Infantry & Anti-tank forces just over the hill with only 1 half destroyed AFV. Besides, most of the post is about getting SOME things worked out for the BETTER. Note...I stress...Better because the game is good and just needs adjustments. So let's talk about that and not be so negative when it comes to peoples taste's. I still need some help re-my above question..."[maybe anyone can help with. I already installed (straight) into the game the JSH mod. I would like to know, first...do the single player games and some campaigns pre-uber patch still work??? Now, the second part...Should I install the TOW Mod installer? Will I have some problems because JSH is already in game?]" Many Mahalo's for any answers to my question. And NO Tankbuster...I'm not "Ripping" you.....LOL!

[boog2006]

Hello.

Sfox28, I'm the person who made the surrender test mission.

All of the complaints here have their answer in mission building. Even some of the micromanagement issues can be addressed by making good choices in the builder.

We all know by now the kind of mission the developers like to make, and they are all too difficult and fight to the death. It doesn't have to be that way.

Improving TOW in the ways described will be a matter of community mission building, I think. Missions need to be made to meet different expectations. For example, simulating an escape route is fairly easy and has been done already. (Action at Yanvo {spelling?}). The developer-created missions don't have that feature, but that's a matter of choice in the mission building.

The serious user-generated missions are very good, but there are only a handfull to this point. Take IL-2 series where there are well over a thousand user-generated missions and campaigns. My surrender test was not just "a beta". It was meant to be a guide for future mission builders for implementing this feature in their work. (BTW, if anyone has seen it and has any thoughts on it, feel free to post in my topic in the mods forum.) Perhaps on day there could be a library of general trigger schemes to accomplish various tasks like retreats and surrenders, etc.

I've built missions for Silent Hunter III, Il-2 series, and now TOW, and TOW probably is the most detailed and elaborate in terms of what can be done. There really is more possible than assaults on trenches or armored charges. The problem is, the TOW mission building process is quite complex. I understand that.

I think that a mission building forum would be great for idea sharing, and to generate interest in building. Perhaps if people could collaborate and work together in small groups...

Most of the tools are right here already. So, before talking about what developers should do with TOWII, remember, sometimes it's user- generated content that makes a title great.

[Tankbuster]

Hi Sfox28

Not having a go at you at all in that post so don't take any offence. It was a general dig at the state of the AI and the way in which all levels of ToW gamer are affected by the AI basically being borked. I have actually found that playing on Easy gives you the most realistic game, anything above that and the Borg AI will annihilate any chances of veteran troops getting any further than 3 missions in a row. It will only be worth playing on higher levels when the AI are evenly matched and you don't have to nurse them around the battlefield constantly.

They could learn something from the Faces of War programmers about AI. Patched up that game has some of the best WWII RTS AI I have seen. The AI takes cover, sorts which weapons and ammo it needs for a given situation and will defend itself well without your direct control.

[Manx]

boog,

i agree with your comments above 100%.

My only concern about user created stuff for TOW is that it might be the complexity of the editors that will put many off making maps and missions. It's a time consuming process and how many have that time to spare? I would guess that most ppl will only ever touch the QBG and they would be happy enough with that.

Myself, i hope to start mission making in earnest sometime in March when i should be finished doing a research project for the company i work for, but in the meantime i have been messing around with the mission editor, playing around with triggers, and just generally seeing what can be done.

[Sfox28]

Great posts guys. Boog...I saw your mission surrender piece...downloaded it but have not yet implemented it. But I'm sure I will soon if I learn how to process real mission building. You really have your head together about doing things with the editors. I'm a bit older than most of you guys and have decent computer skills but nothing compared to all the modders that I've seen in many games. I have the whold series of IL2 and enjoy it imensely. I've also been with the Silent Hunter series since the begining and love that game. Have you noticed that I'm in a pattern. WWII is my fav area, and has been for quite some time. The Close Combat series is another one of my favorites...since the beginning.

As far as mission making and getting involved into TOW's mission building I would be a novice, but I'm trying to learn the process as best as I can. I'd like to do something, or more...but I get stuck with some of the involved triggers and map making tools. Would like to stay in touch with you and see if I could learn some things and help the overall community myself.

Hey Buster, good posts also and I think you are right about the "Easy" level and I'm going to give that a go. Yeah, the state of the AI is q

[Sfox28]

Sorry, something happened and I poped the above blog before I was finished. Don't know why that happened, but anyway.....(Buster) the state of the AI IS quite messy to say the least. It's also quite true that if we could take some of the best things from other games and use them in TOW things would be a lot better. In building fighting would be one of them as well as good cover. Close Combat does a good job of that. A KEY issue for me is for AFV's and sometimes Infantry to stay were I put them. I put them there for a reason...CC uses a "AMBUSH" mode or position and things STAY were you want them...LOL!

Manx, I agree with the complexity issue for modding. That's what makes it tough for me as my computer skills just arn't enough to really blast through TOW's programing!

One more thing FOR THE THIRD TIME!...LOL! I would like an answer to my almost original question: ..."[maybe anyone can help with. I already installed (straight) into the game the JSH mod. I would like to know, first...do the single player games and some campaigns pre-uber patch still work??? Now, the second part...Should I install the TOW Mod installer? Will I have some problems because JSH is already in game?]" PLEASE, someone give me an answer.....LOL! Mahalo.....