Jump to content


Photo

Armored Brigade


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,736 posts

Posted 16 November 2018 - 1420 PM

Shame about the campaign, but I like the idea of an editable database. I can put in stuff that interests me like 'Jagdchieftain' or MBT80.


  • 0

#22 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,593 posts

Posted 16 November 2018 - 1522 PM

 

The TOAW3 manual is in fact mostly adequate, the main amendments they put in a seperate PDF they create with every update.

 

 

They may be adequate for people who are familiar with TOAW. To this day, I still haven't understood the precise meaning of all those unit stats like proficiency, readiness, morale and quality.

 

When I asked the developers after release, it turns out even they don't really understand what these stats are. 

 

 

TOAW 4 has been developed by 2 guys, one of which has learned the ropes as he went to get the TOAW-3 he wanted, unfortunately it was hyped as something new but it's just a modernised (in terms of programming) TOAW-3.


  • 0

#23 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 16 November 2018 - 2225 PM

We planned the campaign for the release, but it turned out to be a far more time demanding endeavour than we initially planned (the idea is to have branching dynamic campaign rather than usual linear style) and we risked slipping into 2019.

So, campaign feature will follow soon (likely in next 6 months). Our main programmer and game creator is quality control freak so nothing is left to a chance.
  • 0

#24 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 16 November 2018 - 2231 PM

As for helicopter command, it is actually based on actual combat practice. The issue is players are used to games where ground commander can move helicopter around the map like they are ground units (alla Steel Panthers) but that don't bode well with historically accurate practices.
  • 0

#25 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,736 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0316 AM

 

 

The TOAW3 manual is in fact mostly adequate, the main amendments they put in a seperate PDF they create with every update.

 

 

They may be adequate for people who are familiar with TOAW. To this day, I still haven't understood the precise meaning of all those unit stats like proficiency, readiness, morale and quality.

 

When I asked the developers after release, it turns out even they don't really understand what these stats are. 

 

 

TOAW 4 has been developed by 2 guys, one of which has learned the ropes as he went to get the TOAW-3 he wanted, unfortunately it was hyped as something new but it's just a modernised (in terms of programming) TOAW-3.

 

 

I can understand why, they want to keep the ball rolling. And as far as a damaged equipment pile, and an improvement to naval combat, there is a fairly signfiicant step forward. Not that significant considering it took 20 years to do it, but still...

 

If you want ideas for campaigns, do ask here. I came up with some ideas for an abortive campaign for SB that never saw the light of day.


  • 0

#26 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,593 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0507 AM

Yes, but remember there weren't 20 years of developments, around 2003 or so the original developer (Norm Koger) moved to other things and TOAW was abandoned for all practical purposes, although the community was quite active in trying to get it do what it should.

 

Then, at some point (can't remember when) Matrix took over and put out Norm's half finished patch which broke more things than it fixed and there was a substantial effort to correct it and gather the community's best scenarios (TOAW-III, last updated in 2015).

 

As the original programming was anything but documented, a new, from the ground up effort has been undertaken to create TOAW-IV (whose rights are fully owned by Matrix in constrast to TOAW-III), but rather than create a 2018 level game, but what has been done is renew the old classic of 1998 fixing bugs and adding some features that the community wanted back in the day (ie 15 years ago), so I can understand that people are underwhelmed.


  • 0

#27 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,277 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0623 AM

 

As the original programming was anything but documented, a new, from the ground up effort has been undertaken to create TOAW-IV (whose rights are fully owned by Matrix in constrast to TOAW-III), but rather than create a 2018 level game, but what has been done is renew the old classic of 1998 fixing bugs and adding some features that the community wanted back in the day (ie 15 years ago), so I can understand that people are underwhelmed.

 

I don't have any problem with just remastering an old classic to get it to run on modern PCs with modern screen resolutions, fixing bugs, adjusting scenarios to new features and so on.

 

But what really annoys me is this level of laziness, when they don't even bother to update scenario descriptions. Like here.

So what does that mean, now? Is this scenario updated in any way to work properly with TOAW4? Do I have to spend hours myself finding that out? Has it even been updated since the first version of TOAW3?

yEXxcMV.jpg

 

Just for fun, I updated my TOAW4 installation right now to try out if they patched any of the problems I described in my earlier post. The scenario selection actually works now, but when I didn't have music before, now I don't have any sound at all.  :D


Edited by Der Zeitgeist, 17 November 2018 - 0624 AM.

  • 0

#28 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,736 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0741 AM

TOAW actually works flawlessly with old scenarios, ive ported across one I wrote for century of warfare, updated for TOAW III and it still works find. If anything the changes they have made have helped it.

 

Anyway, perhaps we should leave this for the TOAW thread rather than clag up the Armored Brigade one. Lots of good new wargames out there, which is a happy trend I didnt expect.


  • 0

#29 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,277 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0747 AM

Anyway, perhaps we should leave this for the TOAW thread rather than clag up the Armored Brigade one. Lots of good new wargames out there, which is a happy trend I didnt expect.

 

Yes, of course, I'm sorry. Armored Brigade doesn't deserve to be dragged into this. I'll stop now.

 

However, I'll be more than happy to supply additional tales of Matrix horrors in a separate thread, if there's any interest.  :)


Edited by Der Zeitgeist, 17 November 2018 - 0752 AM.

  • 0

#30 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,736 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0759 AM

The TOAW IV thread is here.

http://www.tank-net....c=42598&hl=toaw

 

Worth checking the Matrix forum as well. Im shortly to release Baltic Tempest, my TOAW scenario on there, when I can pluck up the courage to weather the criticism and humiliation. I mean its only been an ongoing process of 20 years, why should I be nervous or anything. :)


  • 0

#31 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,942 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0909 AM

 

 

I'm thinking about getting this, too. But after my recent bad experiences with Matrix releases, I'm probably waiting until it's available on Steam. 

OOC, what bad experiences were those?  I've had my eye on a few products of theirs over the years but the high prices have always kept me away.

 

 

Put shortly, it is the release of games in a state that would normally be called beta or early access, as full price or massively overprized products, combined with developers who are oftentimes unable to cope with any kind of criticism and a totally fanatical fanbase that tries to shield the developers from said criticism.

 

 

I was actually responsible for several additions of weapon loadouts to the Harpoon 2 DB and one downgrading of a base prior to CMANO. I share your criticism.

 

A huge problem is that one person in particular with control of the database, had a huge problem with the way the world really works. He would insist that only warloads that had actually been seen on an in service aircraft, almost invariably in peacetime, could be used in the game. The classic example was the 6xAIM-154 + 2 x AIM-9 loadout for the F-14 which he claimed was only ever done for publicity purposes and could not be used in reality because of bringback weight contstraints. Well, I found loads of photos of that loadout taken over many years and he would still not accept it, despite the fact that the dropping of surplus ordnance in the ocean to permit landing would be an operational decision, not a fundamental technical constraint. In wartime you almost always get aircraft with different loadouts to those seen in peacetime and, if the hardware exists to mount the weapon I see no problem with having that loadout in game - if nothing else you could label it as speculative.

 

His second huge problem was his almost evangelical belief that high sortie rates were impossibly despite huge amounts of historical evidence in the public domain that proved modern jet fighters did not require the pilot to go on a six week Snow Leopard watching trek in Tibet, or in the case of  bombers, meet someone special and raise a family to college age between sorties. I would describe this individual as a "contrarian". His attitude turned me off the H2 big time.


  • 0

#32 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,701 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0939 AM

I gave up on the Steel panthers due the pig-headed stubbornness of the design team on insisting "my data >>> your data" even if their data is very dated Jane's and my was original sources.

And the utter shit that was their infantry OOB organization "because having 6 various infantry companies per country would be confusing".


Edited by bojan, 17 November 2018 - 0940 AM.

  • 0

#33 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,736 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 0959 AM

 

 

 

I'm thinking about getting this, too. But after my recent bad experiences with Matrix releases, I'm probably waiting until it's available on Steam. 

OOC, what bad experiences were those?  I've had my eye on a few products of theirs over the years but the high prices have always kept me away.

 

 

Put shortly, it is the release of games in a state that would normally be called beta or early access, as full price or massively overprized products, combined with developers who are oftentimes unable to cope with any kind of criticism and a totally fanatical fanbase that tries to shield the developers from said criticism.

 

 

I was actually responsible for several additions of weapon loadouts to the Harpoon 2 DB and one downgrading of a base prior to CMANO. I share your criticism.

 

A huge problem is that one person in particular with control of the database, had a huge problem with the way the world really works. He would insist that only warloads that had actually been seen on an in service aircraft, almost invariably in peacetime, could be used in the game. The classic example was the 6xAIM-154 + 2 x AIM-9 loadout for the F-14 which he claimed was only ever done for publicity purposes and could not be used in reality because of bringback weight contstraints. Well, I found loads of photos of that loadout taken over many years and he would still not accept it, despite the fact that the dropping of surplus ordnance in the ocean to permit landing would be an operational decision, not a fundamental technical constraint. In wartime you almost always get aircraft with different loadouts to those seen in peacetime and, if the hardware exists to mount the weapon I see no problem with having that loadout in game - if nothing else you could label it as speculative.

 

His second huge problem was his almost evangelical belief that high sortie rates were impossibly despite huge amounts of historical evidence in the public domain that proved modern jet fighters did not require the pilot to go on a six week Snow Leopard watching trek in Tibet, or in the case of  bombers, meet someone special and raise a family to college age between sorties. I would describe this individual as a "contrarian". His attitude turned me off the H2 big time.

 

 

 

I gave a big list of suggested improvemnts to the early 1970's timeframe for CMANO and I got the impression they were not happy to be given a long list. They did make some changes however, not least to the range of the Yak28 and deleting the ECM upgrade from the Vulcan in absolute fairness.

 

Is that a fact with the F14? That will be useful to know, the F14 will be my next ride in DCS so its interesting to know what I can get away with. :D

 

Steel Panthers was fairly easy to edit using something called Mobhack. I re engineered the British orbat with it, put in jazzy stuff (that ws never actually bought in the event) such as Warrior Trigat and Apaches fitted with Helstreak. I think that allowed me to stick with it, long after it would have passed its sell by date. SP3 was my favourite, even if brigade level operations were a bit contrived.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 17 November 2018 - 1001 AM.

  • 0

#34 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,942 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 1010 AM

SP2 was my favourite. 


  • 0

#35 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,277 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 1129 AM

OK guys, I made a new thread (http://www.tank-net....showtopic=43629) to continue the non-Armored Brigade discussion. So let's take our DB2000 PTSD triggers over there.  :D


  • 0

#36 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,830 posts

Posted 18 November 2018 - 1636 PM

I gave up on the Steel panthers due the pig-headed stubbornness of the design team on insisting "my data >>> your data" even if their data is very dated Jane's and my was original sources.

And the utter shit that was their infantry OOB organization "because having 6 various infantry companies per country would be confusing".

I haven't looked at other games at Matrix.  I'm just doing development with one other guy.  Development is slow as it is a 3D game.  But with our game the user can modify the data.  

 

A number of years ago I made a proof of concept 3D model of a t-55 and could of gone on to make cold war models if there was any interest in a 3D tactical modern armor game.


Edited by Mobius, 18 November 2018 - 1653 PM.

  • 0

#37 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,736 posts

Posted 27 January 2019 - 0956 AM

I just bought this today, and I think its excellent. It reminds me of an unholy mix of Steel Panthers and CMANO, but actually rather more interesting than either.

 

If I can offer some criticism, id like to see NBC warfare modelled. I think the suppression it would bring would make it worth the extra effort. Ditto NBC recce.

 

Just having fun modding the hell out of the database. its like the days when I could mod Steel Panthers to my hearts content using Mobhack. Much fun.


  • 0

#38 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 03 February 2019 - 1031 AM

Chemical warfare would cause notable casualties only to the surprised or the unprepared troops, as the vast majority of tactical units of the era were generally well prepared with regards to equipment, training and operating under NBC conditions, and early in a war vigilance would be high that surprise is unlikely. The countermeasures a local commander could take (MOPP, dispersion, etc.) would all be in effect anyway since no sane commander would just assume chemicals would absolutely not be used, at least not early in a war. So, the primary effect of chemical strikes would be to slow everything down and generally reduce the effectiveness of both sides more or less proportionally, through degradation of fighting ability and manoeuvre.

 

Non-persistent agents really wouldn't be any different than any other sort of suppressive artillery fire, except likely less lethal and worse for morale on average, with prompt effects at all only against dismounted troops and non-protected vehicles, with penalties in regard to movement speed, visibility, aiming, and rate of fire. Persistent agents would, on the other hand, add contaminated areas, possibly as some kind of a passable obstacle.

Also, it is questionable if the tactical commander would be allowed to authorized any kind of NBC attack, hence switching to operational level which is well outside the scope of AB. Even the "tactical" nukes are actually operational-level weapons, generally controlled by no lower authority than division, and really have no role in "front-line" battles. Frankly, they aren't very effective at damaging typically spread-out, armored tactical units. If anything can survive a nearby nuclear blast, its an armored vehicle or troops in foxholes. A typical 5kT tactical weapon might have a prompt destruction radius of 500-1000m, depending on terrain. Even if your targeting is precise and timely, you're not likely to kill more than a company or two of tanks with that weapon. Far better to reserve those scarce assets for relatively soft, concentrated, high-value targets like HQs, supply depots, and assembly areas. Their main effect at the tactical scale would be to make commanders reluctant to collect their forces in too small an area. That is why towards the late '60 doctrines started to empathize more of a conventional conflict.

 

NBC can have a role in the game, but it is fairly limited and at this point definitely not worth investing the time. Maybe later (you will notice there are NBC systems on vehicles). And in theory, you can simulate chemical or even post-nuclear attack with local destruction feature, setting the map to bad ground conditions, setting the map environment to bad, day temperature to extreme hot, lower morale and/or training value etc.


  • 0

#39 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,736 posts

Posted 03 February 2019 - 1424 PM

If you do plan on modelling tactical nuclear weapons, ive a USMC manual from 1968 with unclassified wargaming data of the effects of various tactical nuclear weapons. I can be persuaded to dig it out and scan it if its something that would be of any use to you.

 

I could certainly see the point of simulating something like Davy Crocket, though I think it was slightly before this time period.

 

Im having fun modding it at the moment. Its a doddle to put together company teams. That really makes managing all the units a hell of a lot easier.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 03 February 2019 - 1424 PM.

  • 0

#40 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 942 posts

Posted 05 February 2019 - 0407 AM

49270393_1058342037660160_89954940815849
 
Community member "CCIP-subsim" is doing a super job with this Chechnya map mod, be sure to check it out!
 
You can download a current version here: https://bit.ly/2D0JKtv

Edited by Nikolas93TS, 05 February 2019 - 0741 AM.

  • 0