Forums - The elementar PROBLEM with the game

Pages: 1 2

I always felt that something was wrong with how the Tiller Operational Campaign games.

They look great (if modded), the rules are easy to learn and understand, the scale is huge and the details are great...BUT
Playing anything bigger then the "Getting Started" scenario usually gets me frustrated and bored after a few turns...why ?

The reason is that 75% of the time i spent ingame is either me "shooting" at the enemy hoping for a disruption or me enduring the "return fire" of the enemy...

What are we doing when we "Fire" ? We are not assaulting, its basically some kind of "attrition" that happens.

Now, in my opinion, the Tiller Operational Campaign Games would be vastly more "playable" if this "attrition" of troops in contact would be abstracted...possible by giving the player the option to choose "stances" for each division like -> No action ->Harass ->Aggressive Attacks

...or something like that. The player could concentrate on movement and assaults and would not be forced to fire 100 units manually and wait 5 seconds each time for the "return fire". Most of the time seeing results like "2 Men"...

I like such details but on this scale it makes the games borderline unplayable most of the time. More something to "look at" then to actually play.

Well if you like a game system or not is a very personal thing, there are lots of popular games that I have tried and they have not "floated my boat" and so I have dropped them.

The basic concept is that unless you have a massive superiority in numbers you will need to wear your opponents units down by direct/indirect fire/airstrikes until they disrupt at which point you can hopefully assault and advance into the hex they occupied and so forth and so on...………

It is a concept carried over from the old paper and cardboard board games.

In the end if it is to your taste then there should be something else out there that does? Smile

Gent:

If you only play in "phases" exclusively against the AI in TOC, you will have a totally different experience then if you play against a human opponent. Wink

Frankly, the few times I have played against the AI (Usually waiting for a PBeM turn), I have quickly become frustrated and bored with HAL's play since it cannot replicate the nuances of a crafty human opponent.

To each his own... either PBeM or solo play against the AI.

IMO, if you are playing exclusively against the AI... you are only experiencing a fraction of what the TOC game system can deliver!

It's like owning a high performance sports car, but only driving it around in third gear! Yikes

Hopefully, you'll give PBeM a chance? Idea2

- even if it's just one match. It's worth the time and play investment! Smile

(04-22-2019, 10:03 PM)Kool Kat Wrote: [ -> ]Gent:

If you only play in "phases" exclusively against the AI in TOC, you will have a totally different experience then if you play against a human opponent.

Frankly, the few times I have played against the AI (Usually waiting for a PBeM turn), I have quickly become frustrated and bored with HAL's play since it cannot replicate the nuances of a crafty human opponent.

To each his own... either PBeM or solo play against the AI.

IMO, if you are playing exclusively against the AI... you are only experiencing a fraction of what the TOC game system can deliver!

It's like owning a high performance sports car, but only driving it around in third gear!

Hopefully, you'll give PBeM a chance? - even if it's just one match. It's worth the time and play investment!

Well but thats true for all wargames. I know that playing against a human is a better experience but the issue i talked about in the first post is much of the same.

And thats the reason why i like to play in "Phases". I can play my turn and with "Fast AI" enabled it takes only two seconds for the AI turn even in large scenarios. Now without Phases...i would have to wait for two-three seconds after everything i do (move/fire) because of the Opportunity fire.

I would like to give PBEM a try but i could not play any of the larger or campaign scenarios that way because i dont wat to commit and then possible disappointing a opponent because i can no longer play (or just get bored after turn 30...). And thats the scenarios i like, the large scenarios with around 50 turns.

(04-21-2019, 07:43 PM)wiggum Wrote: [ -> ]I always felt that something was wrong with how the Tiller Operational Campaign games.

They look great (if modded), the rules are easy to learn and understand, the scale is huge and the details are great...BUT
Playing anything bigger then the "Getting Started" scenario usually gets me frustrated and bored after a few turns...why ?

The reason is that 75% of the time i spent ingame is either me "shooting" at the enemy hoping for a disruption or me enduring the "return fire" of the enemy...

What are we doing when we "Fire" ? We are not assaulting, its basically some kind of "attrition" that happens.

Now, in my opinion, the Tiller Operational Campaign Games would be vastly more "playable" if this "attrition" of troops in contact would be abstracted...possible by giving the player the option to choose "stances" for each division like -> No action ->Harass ->Aggressive Attacks

...or something like that. The player could concentrate on movement and assaults and would not be forced to fire 100 units manually and wait 5 seconds each time for the "return fire". Most of the time seeing results like "2 Men"...

I like such details but on this scale it makes the games borderline unplayable most of the time. More something to "look at" then to actually play.

Funny, you've hit right on the head at least as far as I'm concerned. Over the last few years I've been playing these games less and less. Not because they are bad designs (in fact they are some of the best researched and presented I've ever seen) but just because of the "shooting" aspect.

While firing individual units makes perfect sense to me at platoon and company levels (tactical), when the base unit and hex size goes above that threshold, as you say, it becomes more like work than anything else especially with larger scenarios.

The fix (again my opinion only) might involve having artillery still be able to shoot in it's own phase (airstrikes might be included also), and as suggested, have combat become a function of movement with units fighting in a way we now know as "assault". It simplifies the mechanics yes, but users could now concentrate on maneuver, rather than endlessly "firing" dozens and even hundreds of units before doing anything else. I agree, it's too much at times, and can get pretty boring after a few turns.

Tiller games appear to be all based on the same system overall with adjustments made to adapt to a particular era or scale. For Napoleonics, ACW, and similar eras this makes perfect sense, and as I said before at the tactical level for more modern titles it also works well. Anything above that (Panzer Campaigns, Modern Campaigns, WW I, etc) needs a new or revamped engine. I really doubt anything like this is going to happen anytime soon, and most likely never.

I just last week uninstalled my last remaining PzC and MC games, and kept the Napoleonic/ACW ones installed. While I really admire the dedication of the designers and developers of the PzC/MC series, with the considerable attention to detail, respect for history, and much improved graphics of late, I have no further intention of purchasing any more games in the series. I'd just be collecting rather than playing, and it just doesn't make any economic sense to me.

To each his own of course. I'm not trying to start any arguments or controversies here, and all opinions stated are mine alone. Everyone is free to pick and choose what works for them. I've made my choices, and I respect everyone else's even if they might differ. We're all members of the same Club after all.

Soapbox Mode is off now!

@2-81 Armor

Thanks for your thoughts on the issue.

Again, my idea would be a system like this:
1st -you select a bunch of units (dont have to be in the same hex !)
2nd -you set the "Stance" for them:

"Stay Put" -> unit does not cause attrition damage to the enemy units it can "hit" but does not use up ammunition and is harder to hit

"Harass" -> unit causes possibly only light attrition damage to the enemy units it can "hit" but does use only a average amount of ammunition and is a bit easier to hit

"Aggressive Attacks" -> unit causes possibly high attrition damage to the enemy units it can "hit" but does use a high amount of ammunition and is much easier to hit

3rd -you end your turn (if you are ready) the "shooting" is calculated and you get a window with a table that shows the results. You can set a threshold/filter for this statistic so lets say you set it to "Disrupted/Broken" and ">20 Casualties" and "Max Fatigue". Now you will see only units in that statistic that became either Disrupted/Broken, suffered more then 20 Casualties or became max. fatigued.

Of course you dont need to set it every turn...the setting is saved and of course there is a option to, for example, highlight all units set to "Harass".

Doesn't this sound like it would speed up the game brutally and making large campaigns less tedious ?

(04-23-2019, 04:58 AM)wiggum Wrote: [ -> ]@2-81 Armor

Thanks for your thoughts on the issue.

Again, my idea would be a system like this:
1st -you select a bunch of units (dont have to be in the same hex !)
2nd -you set the "Stance" for them:

"Stay Put" -> unit does not cause attrition damage to the enemy units it can "hit" but does not use up ammunition and is harder to hit

"Harass" -> unit causes possibly only light attrition damage to the enemy units it can "hit" but does use only a average amount of ammunition and is a bit easier to hit

"Aggressive Attacks" -> unit causes possibly high attrition damage to the enemy units it can "hit" but does use a high amount of ammunition and is much easier to hit

3rd -you end your turn (if you are ready) the "shooting" is calculated and you get a window with a table that shows the results. You can set a threshold/filter for this statistic so lets say you set it to "Disrupted/Broken" and ">20 Casualties" and "Max Fatigue". Now you will see only units in that statistic that became either Disrupted/Broken, suffered more then 20 Casualties or became max. fatigued.

Of course you dont need to set it every turn...the setting is saved and of course there is a option to, for example, highlight all units set to "Harass".

Doesn't this sound like it would speed up the game brutally and making large campaigns less tedious ?

It sounds like a good idea, and sort of resembles the way TOAW III and IV do it, with some refinement. I like it, but I don't think JT or WDS are in any position to make that sort of change. Would require a whole new system, and from what limited info I can gather, JT's time is mostly spent now with Gov't contracts, only now and then tweaking the PzC system. I don't think he'll be doing much more brand new work when it comes to commercial games. Why should he really? Could be wrong on this, and we can always hope. Maybe someday another developer or publisher will fill the gap.

@ Wiggim and 2-81 Armor Smoke7

Suggest you look for another game system to play! Smile

"Flashpoint Campaigns" - http://www.matrixgames.com/products/471/....Red.Storm

It allows players to set unit stances, has a sophisticated fog of war, and turns are conducted in phases.

Your wishes are already realized in the Flashpoint Campaigns game system - have fun! Big Grin

@ Kool Kat

Sorry but thats a little confusing. Why should i play another game ? I was just thinking about what would improve PzC in my opinion. Do you believe PzC is perfect ? I hope not. Then why cant we have a discussion about features that could improve PzC ? Also, PzC already has Phases. It has an AI. New features already got added in the past. So i dont see a problem when i play in Phases, use the AI and ask for (or think about) features to be included.
And Flashpoint Campaigns is a totally different type of game (scale).

Pages: 1 2