TOAW Wishlist: What would you like to see changed or enhanced...

[CyberGeneral]

just imagine TOAW, you PLAN your moves just as you are used to but don't know what will be the outcome, say you order your PzD to break through at position Blah Blah Blah...Blah Blah Blah

All those in favor of We-Go are ignoring initiative........The attacker (that would be the one that is trying to take points away from the defender) would naturally be the one with initiative as the defending force (that would be the one awaiting to see the results or planning outcomes) reacts to what the attacker takes (or dosen't take) ....For all those scratching heads, that would be: Player 1 attacks (having initiative), player 2 reacts (awaiting results).........Which only leeds me back to my wish of:...

***If I had a wish***..... (Ooohhh Jomby!)..... One wish would be (for use as a game design) for an Event Engine Trigger/Event that by taking a certain objective, a Theater Option would appear to switch player 2 to the "player 1" position, thus reversing Initiative.......Thus player 2 would:
1. take an objective
2. turn would end
3. Theater Option would appear next turn
4. Whereby player 2 could choose when to reverse ininiative...........

In a HAND-IN-HAND "wish" that would HAVE to go with this idea, I would VERY MUCH like to see the "Game Automatic Bookkeeping" (which always occurs at the beginning of 1st player's turn) happen instead at the ENDof player 2's turn.......This has 2 effects....Player 2 PLUS player 1 would not be able to find the outcome of the Automatic Bookkeeping (thus elliminating the possibility of player 1 opening & opening a file as many times as needed to produce a better outcome (as in: "My whole division is reorganizing!!!...WELL,.. I,ll just reopen that file again....YES!..that's better)...........Plus as in the 1st "wish" above, the 2nd player by hitting the theater option would be able to resume without sending the file (email).........

YESSSSS!!!.....Perhaps only a wish****

 

[Kraut]

All those in favor of We-Go are ignoring initiative........The attacker (that would be the one that is trying to take points away from the defender) would naturally be the one with initiative as the defending force (that would be the one awaiting to see the results or planning outcomes) reacts to what the attacker takes (or dosen't take) ....For all those scratching heads, that would be: Player 1 attacks (having initiative), player 2 reacts (awaiting results).........Which only leeds me back to my wish of:...

NO, not at all! The attacker would have the initiative during the first turn, because player two would be surprised by the attack, but nothing will stopp player two from plotting a counterattck during the next turn!
Than, if both players were plotting attacks, hoping for deep penetrations, both forces would probably meat midway in a furious meeting engagement

This is WeGo, there no longer is a player one/ player two siituation!

 

[CyberGeneral]

Most (if not all) in a WE-Go situation would attack...attack...attack...I know I would........The best defense is an offense.....

In a We-Go situation, the terminology of "slug fest" would put putting it mildly.....

Koger had it correct when (playing against AI) initiative is decided per turn........Another way to look at it is: The 1st player has the ability to knock out movement points, retreat and or rout the defender (which in this case is player 2/ or player lacking initiative) before player 2 can react (or play out his turn).

 

[17poundr]

NO, not at all! The attacker would have the initiative during the first turn, because player two would be surprised by the attack, but nothing will stopp player two from plotting a counterattck during the next turn!
Than, if both players were plotting attacks, hoping for deep penetrations, both forces would probably meat midway in a furious meeting engagement

This is WeGo, there no longer is a player one/ player two siituation!

Its true that in toaw there is nothing really to compensate for a massive panzer breakthrough, something that slices like a hot knife through butter when working...
Also the effects of Panzer shock at least in the early years of ww2, (But we were told in the Finn army that it can occur even to modern troops, who will be dead troops soon) have not been put in. Also panzer reserves that are supposed to go through the division that made the initial brakethrough. This was standard practice in ww2, the divisions that fanned to the enemy rear destroying supply, command and control. And only then cand the opponent hope to do something about it!

 

[Redwolf]

Most (if not all) in a WE-Go situation would attack...attack...attack...I know I would........The best defense is an offense.....

In a We-Go situation, the terminology of "slug fest" would put putting it mildly.....

Koger had it correct when (playing against AI) initiative is decided per turn........Another way to look at it is: The 1st player has the ability to knock out movement points, retreat and or rout the defender (which in this case is player 2/ or player lacking initiative) before player 2 can react (or play out his turn).

In WEGO, this can adequately be modeled by initiative bonus values for one side (or parts of ones side's force). Such a bonus would make his forces follow his orders closer, while the other side with the negative bonus would have his forces react more on the SOP/MicroAI settings, all that while those two forces are in contact with each other. If you let the enemy disengage you lose the bonus.

The bonus can be given at scenario start time, earned by good combat results, or can come out of an event engine.

 

[Kraut]

Most (if not all) in a WE-Go situation would attack...attack...attack...I know I would........The best defense is an offense.....

In a We-Go situation, the terminology of "slug fest" would put putting it mildly.....

Koger had it correct when (playing against AI) initiative is decided per turn........Another way to look at it is: The 1st player has the ability to knock out movement points, retreat and or rout the defender (which in this case is player 2/ or player lacking initiative) before player 2 can react (or play out his turn).

Maybe you should play Combat Mission (demo available at battlefront.com) to really understand what WeGo means, it's certainly not both players doing nothing but continuously attacking (the soviet tried that in 1941, the results are well known). In WeGe there would be no more 'player 1 knocks out player two's movement points'-situation, because both forces move simultaniously!

WeGo is totally different from your old style I-Go-U-Go playing style, many gamey situations would simply be impossible (such as player twos embarked units end the turn sitting in a train, get attacked by PL1 the following turn and spend another turn with zero movement points)

In a WeGo game there would be a TacAI that will take control over your units in the middle of the turn, for example if you have ordered a recon unit to scout along a road and in the middle of the turn this recon runs into an enemy unit the TacAI will decide what to do (based on your orders). Maybe it will try to fight it out, or retreat to avoid a battle, maybe it will set up a road block to prevent the enemy from advancing or it will try to find another, unprotected way to its original destination. These TacAI descisions would be based on your orders, whether you have ordered an aggressive recon, or a stealthy mission, maybe even based on the moral and fanatism of the recon unit. Just as in real life, you as a commander give out orders and that expect your units to carry them out as good as possible.

 

[CyberGeneral]

Though I think "that" game would also be fine, I also believe "that" game (The We-Go) is NOT ACOW........I (and perhaps others) play this "Operational Art of War" because of cutting my teeth on games such as Avalon Hill, Strategy & Tactics, Etc.....In these there is player 1 followed by player 2.......I STILL appreciate this system in a game and therefore place all my time in this great, fun, exciting, aggrivating (need I go on) game system.......I've tried the other games (computer) out there and nothing yet compares.......

As for Initiative: Braunschweig comes to mind as a good example: the Axis attack to take Stalingrad....Some time after around turn 30 the initiative switches as the winter sets in.......Going back to the original thread start (this one was started in 2002!) of a "wishlist" for Norn Koger to change, It would be nice to have a player 2 switch to player 1 along with any initiative switch in a game.........

 

[Redwolf]

I didn't claim superiority of one system over the other.

All I said is that I know how most OpenSource developers think and I know for them the WEGO system will be the more attractive options. That kinda rules out a straight TOAW clone built by an OpenSource team.

 

[17poundr]

Though I think "that" game would also be fine, I also believe "that" game (The We-Go) is NOT ACOW........I (and perhaps others) play this "Operational Art of War" because of cutting my teeth on games such as Avalon Hill, Strategy & Tactics, Etc.....In these there is player 1 followed by player 2.......I STILL appreciate this system in a game and therefore place all my time in this great, fun, exciting, aggrivating (need I go on) game system.......I've tried the other games (computer) out there and nothing yet compares.......

As for Initiative: Braunschweig comes to mind as a good example: the Axis attack to take Stalingrad....Some time after around turn 30 the initiative switches as the winter sets in.......Going back to the original thread start (this one was started in 2002!) of a "wishlist" for Norn Koger to change, It would be nice to have a player 2 switch to player 1 along with any initiative switch in a game.........

Hear hear! I started hex based one turn at a time when my dad got me a game called 'Armour at Prokhorovka' for my ninth birthday. Maybe some of you can remember it, it would make a good game for the pc.
it's all on that one day when the ss tanks collided with the fifth tank army rushing to give re-inforcements, resulting in the biggest clash of armour in history.
I was hooked for life, very fast I found out a firm called Avalon Hill. (Such a shame they didnt make the transition to the pc succesfully). A game on the Barbarossa had me pulling my hair out in rage, as the Soviets managed to get endless units no matter how much I destroyed them. My father commented: 'Now you know how Guderian felt'.
That just brought living military history infront of my eyes.
My late teens were spent in the winter months, either playing the amazing 'Panzerkrieg! 'Von Manstein on the southern steppes of Russia'.
An exellent game, with features yet to be seen on pc strategy games. (I acnowledge that my experience on operational games on the pc are PG one and two, and then TOAW, which i still have a fruitful relationship with!
Then there was the nail biter... Squad leader the board game from AH... still nothing that comes up to it in the pc realm.
Steel panthers wore out after ten battles, Close Combat was pretty good, but even that lacked in tacktical aims: It always boiled down to 'Kill all enemy troops, or take enough flags and you win.
None of the multitude of tactical missions on AH's Squad leader, that might have as the scenario objective: See that you get three squads alive to the south before the last turn!
To: an endless amount of different scenarios with truly different aims!
I thought it was a very good introduction to Infantry tactics in general.
So back to in my oppinion the best pc wargame so far. TOAW. It was a success why was there so many follow up's?
And as we can see people with the love for the game and the skill and patience for research have given us a plethora of scenarios.
I just wish that some more detail would be added in the elusive TOAW2 that we all are debating here.
I can but pray Norm Rogers wakes up to our hour of need, and with any luck having read or heard about some of the very good suggestions here, gives us a precious gem to cherish for the next years to come. Norm: WE SALUTE YOU!

 

[tigersqn]

It would be nice to have a player 2 switch to player 1 along with any initiative switch in a game.........

It would certainly have the potential to make the game more dynamic.