Norm's next project after TOAW2?
MLHowe
hasn't made any commitments yet, what would people like to see him do?
fizzycyst
sra...@stella.nbi.dk
mlh...@aol.com (MLHowe) wrote:
> Does anyone know what Norm is planning to do next, if he knows himself? If he
> hasn't made any commitments yet, what would people like to see him do?
(OK, I know I am not displaying much imagination here :-) )
That one's easy. I want to see TOAW (I and II) expanded to cover the entire
20th century (and then some, back to 1860, maybe forward to 2010?) in one
game, with vastly expanded naval and air rules, an added grand strategic cum
political aspect, with such goodies as -submarines, -sea mines -naval supply
ships and real naval supply lines, -more cool events, -CNN and propaganda,
-sattelites, -computer vira, (..uh, no hold that one! I can see it now. "Yes,
that bug in TOAW III v.1.03.23 is just Norm's way of bringing the PO's
assault on your forces into your living room in a really cool way." ) -ICBMs.
-adjustable national production and supply emphasis. (Yes, I wish to
emphasize building my submarines at the expense of surface ships or civilian
automobile production, and I want to be able to change my mind in a few
months, too!) -multiplayer (more than 2!), -true neutral countries, -supply
centers with limited supply points, -research and development,
(Oh, yeah, I know you can already model some of this in TOAW vol.I as is, or
will definitely be able to in vol. II, but I want even more events than that.
And then some!)
(and a PO that thinks, and a partridge in a pear tree ;-D )
Well, you asked...
Regards,
Soren Rasmussen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rob
> That one's easy. I want to see TOAW (I and II) expanded to cover the entire
> 20th century (and then some, back to 1860, maybe forward to 2010?) in one
> game, with vastly expanded naval and air rules, an added grand strategic cum
> political aspect, with such goodies as -submarines, -sea mines -naval supply
> ships and real naval supply lines, -more cool events, -CNN and propaganda,
> -sattelites, -computer vira, (..uh, no hold that one! I can see it now. "Yes,
> that bug in TOAW III v.1.03.23 is just Norm's way of bringing the PO's
> assault on your forces into your living room in a really cool way." ) -ICBMs.
> -adjustable national production and supply emphasis. (Yes, I wish to
> emphasize building my submarines at the expense of surface ships or civilian
> automobile production, and I want to be able to change my mind in a few
> months, too!) -multiplayer (more than 2!), -true neutral countries, -supply
> centers with limited supply points, -research and development,
That is precisely the *type* of game I would like to see and Norm Koger
is precisely the developer I don't want to see do it.
Let's not forget that he seems to have trouble simply modeling proper
supply and air interdiction, among other things, in TOAW. I would hate
to see the convoluted garbage he would come up with in a game with the
above-mentioned complexity.
> (Oh, yeah, I know you can already model some of this in TOAW vol.I as is
Really? What version are you playing?
> or will definitely be able to in vol. II
Oh oh, the crystal balls are making their appearance again.
Rob
Douglas Henderson
frame from Megiddo to Medieval would be great (hey a guy can wish can't he!)
Thomas Davie wrote:
> In article <19990113063319...@ng09.aol.com>, mlh...@aol.com (MLHowe) wrote:
> >Does anyone know what Norm is planning to do next, if he knows himself? If he
> >hasn't made any commitments yet, what would people like to see him do?
> >
> >
> >fizzycyst
>
> 3 words; AGE OF ANCIENTS
>
> Tom
Thomas Davie
Degrelle44
other game, which would allow WWI scenarios. WWI is virtually non-existent in
computer wargaming. I think that's a shame.
--------
Remove "ZAP" from address when replying
sra...@stella.nbi.dk
Rob <rs...@gci-net.com> wrote:
> sra...@stella.nbi.dk wrote:
> That is precisely the *type* of game I would like to see and Norm Koger
> is precisely the developer I don't want to see do it.
> Let's not forget that he seems to have trouble simply modeling proper
> supply and air interdiction, among other things, in TOAW. I would hate
> to see the convoluted garbage he would come up with in a game with the
> above-mentioned complexity.
Well, Rob, I know you have a deep dislike of anything made by Norm Koger.
That's fine. Hopefully, there are other designers whose products you enjoy. I
would get pretty excited if *anyone* would attempt a game along the lines I
laid out, whether Koger or someone else. However, based on TOAW vol.I, I see
much potential in Koger taking a shot.
> > (Oh, yeah, I know you can already model some of this in TOAW vol.I as is
> Really? What version are you playing?
v1.05. No interdiction problem there. And good improvements in the supply
rules as well. I can certainly model propaganda effects using the event
engine. With the supply radius toggle I can model the increase/decrease of
supplies coming into say, Tobruk, if I want.
> > or will definitely be able to in vol. II
> Oh oh, the crystal balls are making their appearance again.
Why, we are talking about computer software! Nothing is certain or guaranteed
until it sits in your home and everything works (and not even then :-)). I
will concede that my use of the word 'definitely' was unfortunate. I suppose
vol. II might be sent out the door with no new events, no missiles, no
submarines. I obviously cannot know for sure, so let us see.
Soren
Falkon1313
mlh...@aol.com wrote:
> Does anyone know what Norm is planning to do next, if he knows himself? If
he
> hasn't made any commitments yet, what would people like to see him do?
Well, I'll throw in my agreements with what's already been said.
1. A multiplayer (by email) grand-strategic TOAW overgame including
research & development; production; inter-theater movement; strategic warfare
against the enemy's economy/supplies; diplomacy with allies and neutrals;
maintenance of inter-theater supply lines; and allocating theater intelligence;
as well as, of course, planning operations.
It could generate TOAW scenarios based upon the strategical situation and
operational plans of the participants. It would be a game in its own right,
with the players choosing whether to resolve individual operations at the
strategic level, or play them out in TOAW. Perhaps for each side one player
could be designated as a strategic leader, and other players could be delegated
to command individual theaters, allowing multiple operations to be played at
the same time.
Problems I foresee are the imbalance of operations using different scales,
and the fact that everything which might affect an operational scenario would
have to be determined in advance, before the scenario was created. And of
course, it would have a very limited audience (would really take a long time to
play!) Don't know if it's really feasible or not, but hey, we can dream.
Really, I think any good grand-strategic game would be well-recieved.
2. An Ancients-era WCS, or maybe an updated remake of Tanks. Or perhaps
a generic WCS that incorporates all the lessons learned from Tanks, and AoR, to
allow creation of any tactical scenario from ancient to future? heh. I don't
ask for much, do I? Nothing like the sight of chariots and elephantry
charging M1A2s and M3s....
Tmaturin
Doug Henderson wrote:
>AMEN! Something for the computer like the SPI Prestags series would be
>great. So, time
>frame from Megiddo to Medieval would be great (hey a guy can wish can't he!)
>
My two cents:
Anything Ancient to Renaissance. (I must confess that a Windows compatible AOR
2 would be perfectly acceptable).
Tom
Douglas Henderson
have said Megiddo to Thirty-years war.
Also, as long as we're wishing, not just Western forces. I want to pit Alexander
the Great against Sabutai, Cao Cao, and Yoshitsune while we're wishing.
Rob
> Well, Rob, I know you have a deep dislike of anything made by Norm Koger.
> That's fine.
You really shouldn't label every criticism I make as being of a
personal nature.
Let's just say that I have a jaded opinion of Koger games that is based
on mediocre products he's produced in the past - and TOAW is no
different.
> Hopefully, there are other designers whose products you enjoy.
No need to concern yourselves with my recreational opportunities.
FWIW, I happen to like Baldwin/Rakosky, Grigsby and Hamilton products.
Sid Meier is also responsible for having wasted a considerable chunk of
my time in the past, not lately though.
> I would get pretty excited if *anyone* would attempt a game along the lines I
> laid out, whether Koger or someone else.
Which is the same thing that was said about a year ago, namely, that at
least *someone* is doing an operational level game - and we would up
with garbage.
> However, based on TOAW vol.I, I see much potential in Koger taking a shot.
...more of the same as above...
The problem is, IMO, that as soon as one developer would start such a
game (strategic level, as previously described), it would discourage
other developers from doing so. This is why I would want the most
talented person doing it.
> v1.05. No interdiction problem there. And good improvements in the supply
> rules as well. I can certainly model propaganda effects using the event
> engine. With the supply radius toggle I can model the increase/decrease of
> supplies coming into say, Tobruk, if I want.
Well, as long as the cheerleaders are happy with the continuing
improvement of this beta product. I for one stated six months ago that
once this game reaches patch 1.14, I might consider installing it
again. I'm still waiting.
> > > or will definitely be able to in vol. II
>
> > Oh oh, the crystal balls are making their appearance again.
>
> Why, we are talking about computer software! Nothing is certain or guaranteed
> until it sits in your home and everything works (and not even then :-)). I
> will concede that my use of the word 'definitely' was unfortunate. I suppose
> vol. II might be sent out the door with no new events, no missiles, no
> submarines. I obviously cannot know for sure, so let us see.
Instead of hoping for missiles, submarines and such, you should instead
just be hoping that the basic surface combat mechanics are modeled
adequately. First things first.
After I bought TOAW, the first scenario I loaded was Fulda '55, or
whatever it's called. The jets sounded suspiciously like prop-driven
aircraft. Has this been fixed yet? Right off the bat, this told me one
thing about the game...half-assed.
Rob
mkt...@wavefront.com
> > Does anyone know what Norm is planning to do next, if he knows himself? If
he
> > hasn't made any commitments yet, what would people like to see him do?
>
>
> 20th century (and then some, back to 1860, maybe forward to 2010?) in one
> game, with vastly expanded naval and air rules, an added grand strategic cum
> political aspect, with such goodies as -submarines, -sea mines -naval supply
> ships and real naval supply lines, -more cool events, -CNN and propaganda,
> -sattelites, -computer vira, (..uh, no hold that one! I can see it now. "Yes,
> that bug in TOAW III v.1.03.23 is just Norm's way of bringing the PO's
> assault on your forces into your living room in a really cool way." ) -ICBMs.
> -adjustable national production and supply emphasis. (Yes, I wish to
> emphasize building my submarines at the expense of surface ships or civilian
> automobile production, and I want to be able to change my mind in a few
> months, too!) -multiplayer (more than 2!), -true neutral countries, -supply
> centers with limited supply points, -research and development,
>
> will definitely be able to in vol. II, but I want even more events than that.
> And then some!)
>
> (and a PO that thinks, and a partridge in a pear tree ;-D )
>
> Well, you asked...
>
> Regards,
>
> Soren Rasmussen
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Sounds like you want to see a remake of the poorly designed UMS II? Never
have I purchased a wargame that promised so much and delivered so little.
While we are at it, I would like to see Norm write a universal tactical
simulation similar to the disappointing Empire 2 (i.e., add LOS and improve
the AI).
Minnesota Dave
Vincenzo Beretta
mkt...@wavefront.com wrote:
> In article <77if0i$rho$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sra...@stella.nbi.dk wrote:
> > In article <19990113063319...@ng09.aol.com>,
> > mlh...@aol.com (MLHowe) wrote:
> > > Does anyone know what Norm is planning to do next, if he knows himself? If
> he
> > > hasn't made any commitments yet, what would people like to see him do?
> >
> > (OK, I know I am not displaying much imagination here :-) )
> >
> > That one's easy. I want to see TOAW (I and II) expanded to cover the entire
> > 20th century (and then some, back to 1860, maybe forward to 2010?) in one
> > game, with vastly expanded naval and air rules, an added grand strategic cum
> > political aspect, with such goodies as -submarines, -sea mines -naval supply
> > ships and real naval supply lines, -more cool events, -CNN and propaganda,
> > -sattelites, -computer vira, (..uh, no hold that one! I can see it now. "Yes,
> > that bug in TOAW III v.1.03.23 is just Norm's way of bringing the PO's
> > assault on your forces into your living room in a really cool way." ) -ICBMs.
> > -adjustable national production and supply emphasis. (Yes, I wish to
> > emphasize building my submarines at the expense of surface ships or civilian
> > automobile production, and I want to be able to change my mind in a few
> > months, too!) -multiplayer (more than 2!), -true neutral countries, -supply
> > centers with limited supply points, -research and development,
That would not be an "operational" wargame, but a "strategic". However, I agree
with many of your points. TOAW III should encompass TOAW I & II with improved
rules. Air and naval rules should definetly be expanded... a turn-based Harpoon or
a better 5th Fleet would do! :^D
Also, it should allow more than two sides (with neutral nations that may enter the
war with different alliances)
And it should also be backward compatible with all the scenarios already out for
TOAW... we don't want to lose all the good goodies available on the web, do we??
^______^
mjm
Just my comment.
Marcus
Tim McBride
Rob,
If you don't like Koger's games; quit posting about them.
Leave it be. Quit buying them. Let us have our discussions in peace.
We know your opinion on Koger and his games, past, present, and
future.
Regards,
Tim McBride
Support Our POW's/MIA's
Semper Fi!
Grifman
wrote:
>In article <19990113063319...@ng09.aol.com>, mlh...@aol.com (MLHowe) wrote:
>>Does anyone know what Norm is planning to do next, if he knows himself? If he
>>hasn't made any commitments yet, what would people like to see him do?
>>
>>
>>fizzycyst
>
>3 words; AGE OF ANCIENTS
>
>Tom
Well, at least once, I agree with you. :) Or, failing that, a
strategic level game of WW2 . . .
Grifman
Ami Abraham Silberman
I found Age of Rifles nearly
unplayable. (My big complaint was that troops hit in the flanks were
squashed like bugs, but, because of
the sequential play, and lack of reaction times etc., it was all to common
to break through an enemies
front, and hit troops in the flanks and roll them up. There were also very
weird casualty counts. Another problem
was that the command and control problems typical of the period (officers
failing to move their troops, or
deciding on their own objectives) weren't present at all.
NB., I haven't played it since the first year of patches.)
What I would like to see is TOAW applied to earlier campaigns. Perhaps with
a scale of between
1mile/4 hour turns/battalions (good for "the Waterloo campaign", or "The
seven days battle") up to
10mile/half-week/divisions (good for "the 100 days", "Sherman's march to the
Sea", Napoleon's
1805 campaign.)
Some things that would need to be different, and might need to be carefully
looked into:
1. Dynamic control of corps/armee makeup. Units did get transfered. It
should also be possible to
order an HQ unit to move, and have the corps follow.
2. Depending upon the time period, different supply paradigms. In the 30
years war (about the earliest
one could do this system with), and in the Napoleonic wars, most supply
during a campaign was by
foraging. During the War of the Austrian Succession (1742-1748) and the
Seven Years War, supply was
primarily by depot.
3. Tactical (combat result), Operational (faster movement), and Supply
effects of leaders.
4. Command and control problems. (Units, and even entire formations,
refusing to move, moving more
slowly than supposed to, or even going to the wrong location.) This is a
much bigger problem than
in 20th century warfare, and, judging form TAOR, an area that Norm hasn't
really addressed yet. Perhaps
it can be addressed by having a chance for a formation to act under the AI's
control every once in a while.
5. Siege warfare. This is particularly important in the period from
Marlborough through Frederick the Great.
Anyway, thats what I'ld like to see. Ah for the chance to be Marlborough,
Frederich the Great, or Kutuzov.