Strategic Layer in future games

[WillyPete2171]

I am a very big fan of the Theatre of War series. I'm glad there is a company out there like 1C that is dedicated to this type of war game! To me the ToW games are a more modern version of the Close Combat series, they basically picked up where Atomic left off.

With that said I'm now thinking about what I would like to see in future Theatre of War games. Kursk 43 shows us that graphics and game play are now top notch, but what next for the series? The last two Close Combat games used a strategic map layer, portraying the "bigger" picture of what was going on beyond one particular battle. I do like how it is currently in campaign games with each battle being linked by scenarios, but I think issuing orders to your units on a strategic map is better and more immersive than from playing scenario to scenario.

Instead of following say just one company level unit from scenario to scenario, with a strategic map each unit can portray a platoon to company sized battle group. A full battalion or more can be portrayed & controlled via a strategic map! It adds another dimension to the game.

Of course I wouldn't mind having the option of playing scenario driven campaigns, but I would like the series to adopt the startegic map. I believe its a great way to improve the game and keep the series fresh.

What do you guys think?

[WillyPete2171]

I am a very big fan of the Theatre of War series. I'm glad there is a company out there like 1C that is dedicated to this type of war game! To me the ToW games are a more modern version of the Close Combat series, they basically picked up where Atomic left off.

With that said I'm now thinking about what I would like to see in future Theatre of War games. Kursk 43 shows us that graphics and game play are now top notch, but what next for the series? The last two Close Combat games used a strategic map layer, portraying the "bigger" picture of what was going on beyond one particular battle. I do like how it is currently in campaign games with each battle being linked by scenarios, but I think issuing orders to your units on a strategic map is better and more immersive than from playing scenario to scenario.

Instead of following say just one company level unit from scenario to scenario, with a strategic map each unit can portray a platoon to company sized battle group. A full battalion or more can be portrayed & controlled via a strategic map! It adds another dimension to the game.

Of course I wouldn't mind having the option of playing scenario driven campaigns, but I would like the series to adopt the startegic map. I believe its a great way to improve the game and keep the series fresh.

What do you guys think?

Im surprised nobody has a reply to my comment... I thought it was a good idea. Anyway, for a perfect example of what I am talking about, and I just found out about this game today, is "Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943." I think its an amazing coincidence that I found a game with the feature I was talking about in the comment I made above. Kharkov 1943 has a "Strategic Layer" allowing you to move your battlgroups around on a strategic map, then you fight it out on game maps similiar to Theatre of War...

With that said, I still hope Theatre of War adds this in future games.

[Arzok]

I made a small campaign with a "strategic" aspect, for TOW 1.

But no comment was made, so I think this kind of campaign is not very interesting :confused:

[Nikki Mond]

Absolutely this strategic campaign concept would raise the bar. It really has not been done in the 3D game world since Medeval Total war.

Two things could make TOW X reign supreme and that is the strategic campaign concept and a polished improved version of the quick battle generator.

I for one will be getting AP K43 if made commercially accessable, and ofcourse TOW2K. Always room for 2 games.

[benpark]

It would be nice to have an operational map for the tactical battles to fit into, but that seems to be a very tough thing to get right (CMC, TW etc).

For it's faults, Close Combat had the best system and scale for doing this kind of thing. If it's simple as far as what the AI has to do, yet delivers things like tracked casualties, persistent damage on maps and supply it would fill a niche that hasn't been filled since CC or CM's operations.

[Tartari]

yes, it would be nice!

Bigger maps (4 x 4 instead of 2 x 2) would give more interest to battles and maybe easier to make by the devs...

[Panzerschlange]

It would be nice to have an operational map for the tactical battles to fit into, but that seems to be a very tough thing to get right (CMC, TW etc).

For it's faults, Close Combat had the best system and scale for doing this kind of thing. If it's simple as far as what the AI has to do, yet delivers things like tracked casualties, persistent damage on maps and supply it would fill a niche that hasn't been filled since CC or CM's operations.

At present this niche fills "Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943.":)

[himmelstoss]

yep, Achtung Panzer, does just that! i have tried the russian demo and it looks promising. but not knowing how to read russian it was somewhat of a challenge to understand a single thing, hehe! but it looks really great! it will be released on the 23rd of this month.

so, i will get both! ;-)

himmel

[Sneaksie]

At present this niche fills "Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943.":)

At present this is the official ToW2: Kursk 1943 forum. Please discuss any other games on their dedicated forums and don't try to disguise your advertising with fellow fan talk.

[alan123]

If you married TOW2Kursk with the last version of Close Combat 5, with its battle groups, force pools, strat map etc you would have the perfect game.

It would basically be CC5 in 3D.

Whether this would have market appeal is another question.

[freeeman]

you really cannot stop folks from comparing Kursk to AP.. can you?

The point is that AP has a strategic element that folks would like to se in T2K

thanks for what I am sure will be a great game

[alan123]

I think with a strat layer T2K would become a Cult Game and capture the whole CC community.

I cannot play the CC games anymore after playing the TOW games as the 2D CC experience just does not compare to the realism of TOW 3D, but I do miss that strategic element and sheer variety of maps, units and non linear game play.

Alan

[freeeman]

well, they do give linked campaeigns.. almost there.. IF they wanted to create a strategy game itwould be a new release.. I am not thinking the developer has interest.. but I am thankful for some fresh armore combat

[WillyPete2171]

I think with a strat layer T2K would become a Cult Game and capture the whole CC community.

I cannot play the CC games anymore after playing the TOW games as the 2D CC experience just does not compare to the realism of TOW 3D, but I do miss that strategic element and sheer variety of maps, units and non linear game play.

Alan

We share the same point of view. I often wondered why nobody simply outright copied CC, but of course update it to modern standards. Now that its 2010, its pretty amazing to think how far ahead of its time CC was in military gaming. Future TOW games could easily capture the CC community if done right. A good single&multiplayer game based on the old CC games couldn't possibly fail. With that said, I'm still very much looking forward to Kursk. Hopefully they are adding some last minute touches to straighten out how infantry is modeled in game...

[Knokke]

I agree with everything said above about close combat. CC2 was the greatest as far as the strategic layer was concerned. But even something "a la " CC4 or 5 would be awesome if it was implemented in ToW. Right now, it is more like CC3, with a succession of linear battles that gets boring very quickly. Even branching missions is far from being perfect to bring variety. At least, a strategic layer with battle groups, force pools, tracked casualties, persistent damage on maps and supply would be a welcome departure from the usual "resist against impossible odds" type of games we are used to in ToW. For now, like in CC3, the battles are linked only by the "scenario" in the briefing and the only result of a battle lost, is that you've to fight the same battle again on the same map (not even being forced to retreat to a previous map).

There should be a way of implementing something like this without falling in the trap of something caricatural like Total War. Close Combat has shown the way more than a decade ago, and its still our reference today. The best system in my opinion would be something like Close Combat 2. Nothing utterly unrealistic in it.

[Pilot37]

I have bought Actung Panzer and am finding it difficult to justify TOW Kursk...did anything improve from the last TOW in Africa (which I got bored of in 5 hours due to lack of tactics and wide open spaces)?

I tried the demo but didn't see anything new. AP Kharkov seems to have upped the standard...once you get used to the interface that is.

I have bought a lot of Battlefront stuff over the years since I discovered Combat Mission 1...so I only aim to encourage advancement!

[tdogg]

Dude, i've been dying for BF to add a strategic/ operational layer for years now...nice see others feel the same way.

It doen't matter if its TOW or CMX2 but this is a feature that has to be added to one of these games.

I'm glad that AP 1943 has come out and raised the bar. I bought the game for 16 bucks, best money I ever spent, awesome what the guys at graviteam pulled of on such a small budget. Now lets see if 1C and Battlefront can resond to the statment AP1943 has made.

[Knokke]

There is at least an hint in the config files of ToW2 africa that the devellopment team had been toying with the idea of adding some strategic layer to the game:

motorized vehicles have a fuel consumtion parameter (not working in the game yet, of course).

But there has been so many ideas that seems to have been dropped (like nurses, trains...)

[WillyPete2171]

I agree with everything said above about close combat. CC2 was the greatest as far as the strategic layer was concerned. But even something "a la " CC4 or 5 would be awesome if it was implemented in ToW. Right now, it is more like CC3, with a succession of linear battles that gets boring very quickly. Even branching missions is far from being perfect to bring variety. At least, a strategic layer with battle groups, force pools, tracked casualties, persistent damage on maps and supply would be a welcome departure from the usual "resist against impossible odds" type of games we are used to in ToW. For now, like in CC3, the battles are linked only by the "scenario" in the briefing and the only result of a battle lost, is that you've to fight the same battle again on the same map (not even being forced to retreat to a previous map).

There should be a way of implementing something like this without falling in the trap of something caricatural like Total War. Close Combat has shown the way more than a decade ago, and its still our reference today. The best system in my opinion would be something like Close Combat 2. Nothing utterly unrealistic in it.

I believ it was CC2 Holland that had a very interesting link of maps. One map even had a timer where you could blow the bridge... Its little things like that plus a strategic layer that would make future TOW games playable over and over agaoin.