Caen expansion - Helpful suggestions

[SelfLoadingRifle]

Let me get one thing out of the way right now. The T.O.W. series of games are very good indeed. However, some things are still wrong and need putting right. They are as follows.

1) Installing, patching and saving games. When I first started playing T.O.W. I got into all sorts of problems getting patched games to run and successfully saving games; all because the instruction manual failed to mention that you should right-click and use the 'run as administrator' option. If I had problems with this, other people will have as well. This should be very simple to correct. PLEASE PUT THIS RIGHT.

2) The scenarios themselves: A previous poster commented that some of the scenarios had a distinctly 'Command & Conquor' feel about them, in that only one exact course of action permitted victory. He also stated that instead, scenarios should reward proper tactics. I make no apologies for repeating this. If this advice is too late in the day for the Caen expansion, please, please think long and hard about the Korea game.

3) Incomplete rules/instructions: For example in the real-life battle of Kursk, the mine was one of the most significant weapons used. At one stage, German soldiers were lifting/disarming them at a rate of one a minute per man. Consequently, one would have expected a whole section dedicated to them in the instruction manual. ALMOST NOTHING WAS PRINTED, except the statement that minefields existed!! One presumes that engineers would be able to clear them, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate how this should be done. Posters on this forum have indicated that minefields can be cleared by concentrated artillery, but that is all that I have been able to find. PLEASE PUT THIS TO RIGHTS.

4) Poor briefings: It is very hard to formulate a plan without the right information. Objectives should be clearly marked and visible on the map at the set-up stage of the game. Being told (for example) in mid-scenario, that a smoke barrage has been allocated to you is just not good enough. Again you need this kind of information in the set-up stage. The briefing itself should contain; the overall situation, ground, situation enemy forces, situation friendly forces and mission as the bare minimum. Execution, service support plus command and sigs can also be included. A nice touch would be a graphic showing key features, known enemy positions and lines of approach. (Needless to say, intelligence can be wrong!) PLEASE IMPROVE THE BRIEFINGS.

My remaining points concern tweaks to the game itself.

5) Tanks should be able to operate in both open (tank commander exposed) and closed (hatches battened down) mode.

6) Foward Observation Officers (FOOs) should be represented in the game. Ditto pre-determined fire plans. The existing off board artillery system is IMHO too simplistic.

7) Enemy Scrim (camo) nets: Currently these are visible, even at considerable range, giving a clear indication that something is hidden underneath them. The whole point of these nets is that they make what they are covering INVISIBLE... especially when grass, leaves etc have been added.

These points are meant to be constructive. T.O.W. has such wonderful potential and could be a world-beater. Let's extract the digit and (finally) get it right!

Best regards,

SLR:)

[sand digger]

Agree with most of what you say but FOO's add an unnecessary complication to any game, their survival is too crucial and is a distraction that adds nothing to the game play. On the camo nets, could not agree more. Plus the fixed and obvious defences are terrible and are the worst feature of the game, you can tell straight away what they are designed to protect eg tank or gun. Plus they are always in view even if none of your forces have LOS , ridiculous.

[HARI SELDON]

While I am interested in this expansion, I will pass unless 1c upgrades TOW2-kursk to the newest version of the TOW3-Korea engine.

Their business model is to release an upgraded version in a new game each year and they expect us to purchase an expansion pack (Caen & Centauro - adding value to an obsolete version of the game). They fooled me enough - I've purchased all TOW, TOW2-Africa, & TOW2-Kursk games and expansions and none of them have been updated with any engine enhancements. I won't get fooled again.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

FOO's add an unnecessary complication to any game, their survival is too crucial and is a distraction that adds nothing to the game play.

FOOs may indeed be a complication but their survival and function have always been crucial in real-life, both in the '40s and indeed today and for that reason I would like to see them included.

.

In general, for off-map artillery I would like to see:

1) Accurate fire with FOOs spotting and much less accurate or scattered fire if FOOs become casualties or are unable to observe.

2) The player to have control over pre-determined fire plans; in other words to be able to set WHERE and WHEN.

3) Indirect fire for on-map mortars ONLY if the PTN/COY/BTN Commander can spot for them.

4) The ability to shift fire within certain limitations.

By the way, I couldn't agree with you more about the fixed defences:eek:

Development team please, please take note

SLR:)

[sand digger]

Can see what you are getting at SLR, another way to approach the situation though is to not reveal any map detail until it can be physically observed by your forces. By 'map detail' I mean any man made feature such as defensive works that would not ordinarily appear on a map. That would go part of the way to address your concern, it would make recce a more realistic part of the game too.

I played CM and found managing the FOO a PITA a lot of the time. In CM it was often impossible to know at the outset what a FOO could observe once he reached a chosen spot due in part to the lack of a contour overlay. His loss simply due to bad luck could also drastically affect the outcome of a battle, there is enough of that sort of chance thing in games already without adding more.

[Von Fauster]

...

7) Enemy Scrim (camo) nets: Currently these are visible, even at considerable range, giving a clear indication that something is hidden underneath them. The whole point of these nets is that they make what they are covering INVISIBLE... especially when grass, leaves etc have been added.

SLR, I agree with the vast majority of your post. On this point (and I guess the FOO too) I would just like to toss out my experience and what I do. First, on a number of occasions, I have totally failed to see the scrim nets and been completely surprised. In the heat of battle at near ground level pushing forward they are easy to miss when located properly and one has the icons turned off. To help facilitate the FOO, I generally only allow myself a top-level flyover as though I were in a Storch doing recon or spotting. I feel this is a reasonable balance between FOO and tactical information.

As an aside, many years ago, I was in a mech infantry division. We spent a great deal of time out in the field (downrange they called it). I use to hate putting those damn nets up everytime we stopped. It being a government operation, naturally the nets were green camo and the terrain was a light brown to red. We stuck out like sore thumbs. I can't tell you how many times I heard "Had this been an actual combat situation, you would be dead!"

Keep up the fight mein herr!

von Fauster

[liquidcactus]

While I am interested in this expansion, I will pass unless 1c upgrades TOW2-kursk to the newest version of the TOW3-Korea engine.

Their business model is to release an upgraded version in a new game each year and they expect us to purchase an expansion pack (Caen & Centauro - adding value to an obsolete version of the game). They fooled me enough - I've purchased all TOW, TOW2-Africa, & TOW2-Kursk games and expansions and none of them have been updated with any engine enhancements. I won't get fooled again.

i couldnt agree more, this is a very frustrating aspect of these awesome games.. i only own TOW2 kursk, after i purchased it when it was first released, i was very naive and assumed all these great fantastic new patches etc would come out for it and make the game bigger, better and badder.. but this isnt the case... a patch or 2 then move on to the next installment of the same engine...

I didnt exactley have a porblem with this at first because i didnt think i would have to pay 4 caen. Great games, but ****.. alot more attention to detail with patches etc before pumping out more games that are so good yet seem to lack so much ! - still deciding on caen