|
Obfuscation posted:Toaw barely works for WW1, stuff even earlier than that is not realistic or fun in the least Even for the new one coming out? I haven't read any beta test stuff.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Even for the new one coming out? I haven't read any beta test stuff. I mean, based on the stuff I've read on Matrix forums there are few big changes but it's still largely going to be the same game as it ever was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
I was in the beta, and it's gorgeous compared to TAOW3, but I had no idea what I was doing, even less so than 3. There's a lot of new mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I’ve never played the game, but I have always been turned off by its scope. It seems to me that something selling itself as capable of modeling every 20th century conflict is over stretching and thus cannot be good at simulating any of them. Looking at that scenario list with ACW scenarios for TAOWIV just exacerbates this impression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
when OPART 1 came out it only covered ww2 to korean war scenarios and that's what the engine works best with. the second one was late 50s to 00s and then 3 wrapped it all up into all of the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Why isn't the f-16a in the cold war db for command shame on you baloogan
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
its riiiight on the cusp, 1979 I think theres enough f-16 variants in DB3000 to make your head spin
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:its riiiight on the cusp, 1979 I think So, uhh... when is CMNAO: War In The Pacific being released?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
TOAW IV is out now — $40. Only via Matrix, no Steam, though it will be offered there sometime in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:TOAW IV is out now — $40. Only via Matrix, no Steam, though it will be offered there sometime in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
https://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup They're doing a live stream at 10 to promote it. In the meantime, they're broadcasting trivia questions of... questionable quality.  The one before was two questions in a row about concentration camps. :|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I’ve never played the game, but I have always been turned off by its scope. It seems to me that something selling itself as capable of modeling every 20th century conflict is over stretching and thus cannot be good at simulating any of them. The ACW scenarios (and really, a lot of scenarios) are third-party/user-created scenarios that they've ostensibly decided to package with the game since it's still compatible with the engine. You're right that it's bad, and you're right that TOAW doesn't exactly model every 20th century conflict well - there's a sweet spot: 1930s to 1950s, nothing smaller than regimental-scale, and nothing larger than corps-scale scenarios, but the majority of the game's material falls within that scale anyway, and I'd consider it a disservice to the game if you let yourself get turned off by the ACW outlier. I'd go so far as to say that even if you only played Eastern Front scenarios, you'd get hundreds of hours of gameplay out of it, and it does the Eastern Front better than WITE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
In the new Pearl Harbor scenario, scrolling the map from the Japanese fleet to Hawaii takes literally a minute. Scrolling the minimap instead cuts this down to 30 seconds or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Every time I have to use the Matrix site for a download I remember why the gently caress I want everything on Steam forever. Ed: Well, my laptop downloaded it in seconds. gently caress if I know why. CARRY ON Squiggle fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Nov 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Squiggle posted:Every time I have to use the Matrix site for a download I remember why the gently caress I want everything on Steam forever. lol the future
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Obfuscation posted:In the new Pearl Harbor scenario, scrolling the map from the Japanese fleet to Hawaii takes literally a minute. Scrolling the minimap instead cuts this down to 30 seconds or so. AND apparently they try to model naval warfare...  Do you see how it might appear that they are attempting to overstretch an engine?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Obfuscation posted:In the new Pearl Harbor scenario, scrolling the map from the Japanese fleet to Hawaii takes literally a minute. Scrolling the minimap instead cuts this down to 30 seconds or so. lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
there's a bunch of matrix/slitherine games on sale at humble bundle currently https://www.humblebundle.com/store/search?sort=bestselling&publisher=Slitherine%20Ltd. some of those discounts are pretty big like cmano for 20 quid (67% off)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Wargamer's reviews of grognard games continues to be hilarious:quote:Operational art (or in Russian оперативное искусство) is a level of war between and connecting the tactical battlefield with strategy where national level resources are managed to obtain long range objectives. Although used for centuries, it was Marshal of the Soviet Union (MSU) Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky (1893 – 1937) who codified operational art as a systemic concept in his Provisional Field Regulations of 1936. The Marshal was killed in the purges and his theories abandoned, but events like Desert Storm and the writings of MSU Nikolai Orgarkov (1917 – 1994) on the Revolution in Military Affairs gave the tenet a new and permanent lease on life. Thanks for the wikipedia history lesson, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
im shocked they didnt feel the need to include Tukhachevsky gassing peasants while working with the the cheka
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Man, some grog dudes are just so loving weird on some other sites. I never have much to offer beyond white-noise posts or sales info, but I really do appreciate this forum for the level-headed info you guys post here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Obfuscation posted:In the new Pearl Harbor scenario, scrolling the map from the Japanese fleet to Hawaii takes literally a minute. Scrolling the minimap instead cuts this down to 30 seconds or so. Let us know how that goes? TOAW is infamously not-good at simulating naval combat, so I'm interested in finding out if it's changed any.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
I've never played cmano. Is it at all accessible cause I'm a bad grog
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I've never played cmano. Is it at all accessible cause I'm a bad grog It is. I got into it because I watched Baloogan's videos and Yooper's Strike Commander LP and I knew at once that it was simple enough to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Let us know how that goes? TOAW is infamously not-good at simulating naval combat, so I'm interested in finding out if it's changed any. It has apparently changed dramatically, they make a big hoot about it in the marketing materials and manual; I never played TAOW3 so I couldn't say myself. Also, re the scrolling: you can double-click in the minimap to open a full-map-sized window to click around on. Edit: This user interface guide is extremely useful and should be included with the game, but whatever. Squiggle fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Nov 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I've never played cmano. Is it at all accessible cause I'm a bad grog
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
cool new Metroid game posted:the interface looks pretty poo poo but it's pretty simple to navigate and to move your poo poo around. the difficulty comes in figuring out naval and air tactics and in planning missions that don't suck balls. It's a pretty simple game, but I'd argue that the most off-putting thing is just the sheer amount of weapon types and sensors and whatever you have to wade through. It's daunting unless you're someone who subscribes to Jane's or something. I can't tell you the difference between a Sidewinder and an Exocet and couldn't give less of a poo poo... but thankfully the game is so extensively hyperlinked that you can just click on the system to see the database entry with everything laid out for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
cool new Metroid game posted:there's a bunch of matrix/slitherine games on sale at humble bundle currently https://www.humblebundle.com/store/search?sort=bestselling&publisher=Slitherine%20Ltd. some of those discounts are pretty big like cmano for 20 quid (67% off) Ooh, DC:Barbarossa at 60% off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
I've spent a little time with TOAW and it feels OK. The UI is better than I expected, but the layout feels kinda funky. I think it assumes you played TOAW III and understand what a lot of this poo poo means. It took me about 10 minutes of research to figure out what PO meant. Why can't they just call it AI like everyone else? The movement and combat order is going to take some getting used to as well. Can anyone recommend a good starter scenario? The handful I've pulled up have been monsters. They look to suffer the "lets model everything!" syndrome. Things that bug me so far :
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I've spent a little time with TOAW and it feels OK. The UI is better than I expected, but the layout feels kinda funky. I think it assumes you played TOAW III and understand what a lot of this poo poo means. It took me about 10 minutes of research to figure out what PO meant. Why can't they just call it AI like everyone else? The movement and combat order is going to take some getting used to as well. This is my first TAOW game, and I'm actually doing okay with it. The PO thing was dumb, but makes sense to me now - there's the actual AI, and then a scenario can have a "Programmed Opponent" that actually guide the AI in a specific way according to the designer's wishes. If a mission doesn't have a PO, that doesn't mean that the AI won't put up a fight - it just won't fight with the focus of an opponent that has specific objectives assigned. It seemed to have problems with the naval stuff, but a dev posted that they've spotted a bug that causes the Navy AI to more or less go to sleep, which they've fixed for the first patch. Good starters (the first three are tutorials" but really they're just regular, easier scenarios with some extra documentation wrapped around them): - Korea 50-51 - Tannenberg 1914 - Kasserine 43 - Cuba 62 (small landmass, not a lot of troops to control as US, gets your feet wet with amphib landings) edit: oh, and near as I can tell uberdude is debug mode. Dumb, dumb name. Squiggle fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
What cringey loss text? The one for Korea 50-51 is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
I don't recall which it was, I was flipping through scenarios to check them out and ran into a couple of wehraboo'ish ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Are you like me, and always wanted to play as a merchant corporation in Distant Worlds or Aurora4X? Then you're in luck, because Interstellar Trading Company is exactly that and I'm loving it. Space trading a la Patrician, with growing technology and the constant spread of humanity across the stars. It's marvellous! UI is still work in progress, but it's a lot better than a lot of what this thread is used to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Are you like me, and always wanted to play as a merchant corporation in Distant Worlds or Aurora4X? Then you're in luck, because Interstellar Trading Company is exactly that and I'm loving it. Space trading a la Patrician, with growing technology and the constant spread of humanity across the stars. It's marvellous! UI is still work in progress, but it's a lot better than a lot of what this thread is used to. Can I shoot stuff
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Squiggle posted:This is my first TAOW game, and I'm actually doing okay with it. The PO thing was dumb, but makes sense to me now - there's the actual AI, and then a scenario can have a "Programmed Opponent" that actually guide the AI in a specific way according to the designer's wishes. If a mission doesn't have a PO, that doesn't mean that the AI won't put up a fight - it just won't fight with the focus of an opponent that has specific objectives assigned. Right. AI is generic; PO is a version of the AI with specific actions/behaviors for the scenarios. There isn't a PO version for every scenario (though more will be added), but there are AI versions for most/all. This has been interpreted by a few on the Matrix forums as a TOTAL BETRAYAL because they were suckered into buying a 2-player game!!!!!!! I'm still futzing around with the Korea intro scenario and getting a feel for everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:Right. AI is generic; PO is a version of the AI with specific actions/behaviors for the scenarios. There isn't a PO version for every scenario (though more will be added), but there are AI versions for most/all. I did enjoy the meltdown thread. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:Right. AI is generic; PO is a version of the AI with specific actions/behaviors for the scenarios. There isn't a PO version for every scenario (though more will be added), but there are AI versions for most/all. Nah, without PO tracks the AI tends to do literally nothing. I also think that if Matrix is going to use a scenario list to market the game, they should say that bunch of them are pbem only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Obfuscation posted:Nah, without PO tracks the AI tends to do literally nothing. I also think that if Matrix is going to use a scenario list to market the game, they should say that bunch of them are pbem only. Agreed, that would've been smart - but that's still only 38 out of 280+ scenarios, so...enh. gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
To be fair, this is a genre where "Game doesn't have an AI" has happened before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Here's my review of Toaw IV: It's Toaw III, except with 3 major changes: -Improved UI and graphics. I like it, the UI looks way better now and is quite a bit more informative in general. My only small complaint about the new graphics is that formation highlighting is hard to see now, but that should be easy to mod. -The new battlefield timestamp system. A++, this is amazing in larger scenarios. The round system is still fairly opaque, but it's way better this way. -The new naval system with sea interdiction. Admittely I haven't tried this a whole lot, but I think pure naval battles will still be bad in Toaw. What the system does do is make naval landings way harder, and it should make Korea 51-type long scenarios with naval sideshow much more interesting. Overall, I was actually pleasantly surprised about how much the game has improved. While this new version is not a revolutionary improvement over the older one, I still think it was worth the price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 22:59
|
|