Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
Morgan Ohlson wrote:
> I'm still wondering if games like TOAW COW is really simulating
better
> compared to other TB's like Pantzer General or War Engine?
>
> Why should a generic pack simulate at a lower accuracy? Isn't that
the
> real benefit of computers that all necessary settings can be made,
for
> instance in a scenario set-up screen!!!???
>
> Morgan O.
At the risk of rising to the bait: TOAW COW *is* a generic wargame
(just like the War engine), where a lot of the settings and chrome for
a scenario are made on the level of the scenario.
However, some elements such as combat model and supply model have a
certain set design which can only be tweaked by parameters.
Other examples: the Panzer Battles series.
"Isn't that the
real benefit of computers that all necessary settings can be made, for
instance in a scenario set-up screen!!!???"
A generic wargame which offers all the setting you might want to
simulate any conflict would in effect be a development kit to allow you
to develop a *game*. COW allows you to develop *scenarios* based on the
underlying game engine.
A wargame which is designed specifically for the conflict and period it
simulates will (or : should) have a combat/supply model (etc) geared
towards that specific battle.
Example: The ACW from Sumter to Appomatox; Uncommon Valor; Strategic
Command.
IMO there is no real way to have a userfriendly generic wargame which
allows you to create scenario;s which are actually accurate, realistic
and fitting to the specific situation you want to model.
TOAW-COW comes closest for WW2 to modern, but I would not want to try
and get a ACW scenario out of it. And HTTR and Battles in Normandy are
a lot better than the same scens in TOAW.
Panzer General is superb fun, but only has a passing resemblance to a
wargame simulating battles in WW2.
Just my 2 cents.
von Schmidt
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram