TOAW - A Pain in the Butt

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: kondor999
With about 400 units, you're talking a full-time job there.

I'm playing a game of FITE with Dave right now and there's 1,000+ units for each side and my first turn to him took me about 24 hours to do because there was about 5 combat rounds. But it was a micromanagers labor of love.

These guys are on turn 76 so far.
http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthre ... 84&page=52
http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthre ... 86&page=16

I do want to put in the capability to allow 'Elmer' the AI to take over some of the formations. I'd love to play some of the monster scenarios, but I don't have the time. I figure that if I give the big orders and he carries them out, we've got a chance against 'them'[:D]

Ralph

Apparently you made the writer of this AAR a very happy player, it's in German:

"Ich möchte mich nun an dieser Stelle bedanken, so einen Support habe ich noch nirgends von einem Entwickler bei einem Computerspiel erlebt!"

[Zaratoughda]

kondor..... just wanted to mention that I decided to take the plunge and get KP.

I have a couple of SSG games, Decisive Battles of the ACW and Halls of Monetezuma, and they use a command control system where you give orders to your HQs and then the units move based on the orders and, although this is interesting, it doesn't give you much to do ("You have just won the battle of Bull Run", "But, I didn't do anything").

So, I had some apprehension on their WW2 Decisive Battles series. I had DLed the demo to The Ardennes Offensive at one point and it looked interesting but, it would blow up on me during the first turn. However, after your comments I decided to take another look.

Appears that KP is the classic in the series and after that BiN and then BiI, with AtD being an add-on to KP. KDotD, is their newest game but the game system is significantly modified based on their Battlefront game. Matrix, had a sale and was selling KP for just $20 and you got TAO with it and then there were the scenarios on Run5 so, decided to take the plunge. If I want to go beyond that, probably BiI as it allows for much bigger maps and there are bigger scenarios to DL.

The thing that hits you first.... the SMALL HEXES AND COUNTERS <g>. Sheesh, musta been real difficult until they put in the magnifiying glass. But, there isn't that much information on the counters (one suggestion I made to Ralph amongst the many for TOAW, to have an option to have the unit designations on the counters instead of the combat values which, don't mean that much... KP kinda has this), with most of the information avalable on the side or via right click.

Otherwise, kinda reminds me of the V for Victory games. Around the same scale and more of a fun game than trying to include every detail possible. With the 'steps', almost like a board game with back printed counters, but of course a lot more than that given the powers of the computer. Relative to the VfV games, they seem more 'pleasant' while KP is more of a 'war'. I prefer the KP combat system to the plotted and WEGO of the VfV games but, both are interesting.

Tried the 'Assault on Gela' scenario in the Husky DL as a start and, was a bit scary running into the HG division there but, after getting the mechanics down I needed to get over 100 points for a overwhelming win and, ended up with 604. So, guess I get to jack up the AI if I want (of course, I am not a novice to wargaming).

Anyways, IMO the wargame that is coming down the pike that everyone will want is WitE (and it has totally free movement and that is almost scary to me but.... should be fun to play) but, KP is a welcome addition to my collection.

Thanks again for the response!

Zaratoughda

P.S. Yeah, will try Patton's conquering of west Sicily as a second scenario.

[erichswafford]

Z- You got the right one in many ways, because they've come up with a few GREAT scenarios for it re: the Eastern Front (or, as I like to call it - The ONLY Front [;)] ).

Check out these gems on this page: http://www.ssg.com.au/?page=scenarios

http://www.ssg.com.au/?page=customscena ... rkov-italy
http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios/Moscow.htm
http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios/OTMoscow.htm
http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios/TAO5.htm

You probably should have started with Battles in Normandy, since it's the most novice-friendly. SSG is famous for the quality of their AI, and you'll be amazed at how good it is at simulating a human - or better. My game of Gold-Juno-Sword on BiN with me as Germans was going great - I was counterattacking and then the damn AI outflanked me to the west and rolled up my flank. It transpires that this was exactly what the British were trying to do with their recon-in-force at Villers Bocage - but ran right into Michael Wittman and, later, Panzer Lehr. I was dumb enough to leave that left flank unprotected - having reassigned those units for my daring little dash to the sea - and the AI made me pay. Great stuff!

Re: your problems with tiny icons, don't forget you can change the res from 1280x1024 down to 1024x768. If you have a smaller screen, that will really help. Or just get a huge monitor. I happen to use a tablet PC for all my 2D wargaming needs, so I use 1024x768 (1280 is just too tiny).

Anyway, I've actually gone back to playing TOAW quite a bit. The "Road to Moscow" series of eastern front scenarios by Rob Kunz is especially awesome. I really like how you can break down your divisions to 3 regiments. What a nice way to provide additional flexibility.

In the end, there's no complete replacement for TOAW3. It's still the most accurate IMHO, particularly vs. a human. But SSG's Decisive Battles series has great AI, a slick UI and it plays fast. It also gives reasonably historical results and rewards proper strategy. And it feels much less generic than, say, Advanced Tactics WWII (which is still a fine game - just not enough scenarios).

Really, the 2 series complement each other. I don't think of them as competitors. I actually have a Typhoon scenario loaded up on Battles in Italy (On to Moscow 1.02) and TOAW3 (At the Gates) - simultaneously - just to see which feels more accurate. I'll let you know!

[Heldenkaiser]

ORIGINAL: Karri
Okay....so what happens at the portion where the two theathers meet? What about air units? Naval units? Say I have two theathers that meet at hex x. I then have units in hex z and y. I first use the whole turn to attack the enemy in it's hex which is in theather z, these units now have zero movement. I then expoit the attack by moving units from theather y which have not moved at all. This would make no sense. And do remember that the theathers HAVE to meet somewhere.

Actually I can think of a number of possible solutions:

1. Theater boundaries are fixed and units deployed to one theater cannot cross them.

2. Theater boundaries are fixed, but can be adjusted by the player between turns.

3. Theater boundaries can be crossed by units only at the cost of losing all their MP for this turn.

4. Live with the problem. Theater boundaries would not normally be in strategically important areas, so the results of cross-theater combats would be at best strategically peripheral.

There is any number of unrealistic things in the way TOAW currently works (as in every wargame, they're all abstractions, and any good solution to one problem creates new other problems). For instance, much as I admire the 10-rounds per system and the fact that units cause turn burn when participating in combats after having moved, there is no solution in TOAW to the problem that a unit can expend all its MP to block the retreat path of an enemy unit that loses a combat, and as long as it does not itself participate in that combat it will not burn the turn! But in reality that unit wouldn't even have been there by the time the combat was resolved, so how could it block the retreat? That is a problem much more important and universal than the one discussed above.

I do like the "theater" idea. For me too the fact that everything happens at once across the entire board is the greatest fun-killer in huge scenarios. Also the greatest chance to mess everything up. [:D]

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser
Actually I can think of a number of possible solutions:

1. Theater boundaries are fixed and units deployed to one theater cannot cross them.

2. Theater boundaries are fixed, but can be adjusted by the player between turns.

3. Theater boundaries can be crossed by units only at the cost of losing all their MP for this turn.

4. Live with the problem. Theater boundaries would not normally be in strategically important areas, so the results of cross-theater combats would be at best strategically peripheral.

1. Not good, in games where you would have theathers you would also need the capability to move units between them.

2. Does not solve the problem.

3. Would solve the problem, but would make little sense. As in move this hex lose all MP, move this hex lose 1 MP.

4. Which is what we are doing right now

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

2. Theater boundaries are fixed, but can be adjusted by the player between turns.

As I've said throughout this thread, if and when multi-player support is added this will be possible. See item 1.14 in the Wishlist.

For instance, much as I admire the 10-rounds per system and the fact that units cause turn burn when participating in combats after having moved, there is no solution in TOAW to the problem that a unit can expend all its MP to block the retreat path of an enemy unit that loses a combat, and as long as it does not itself participate in that combat it will not burn the turn! But in reality that unit wouldn't even have been there by the time the combat was resolved, so how could it block the retreat? That is a problem much more important and universal than the one discussed above.

But we'd like to fix that issue. See item 7.20 in the Wishlist. The presence of one problem is no reason to add more of the same.

[damezzi]

[/quote]

I happen to use a tablet PC for all my 2D wargaming needs, so I use 1024x768 (1280 is just too tiny).

How is it to use a tablet PC for gaming? Do you get a closer feel to boargames? What about hotkeys? I imagine you use the graphical interface all the time, since a virtual keyboard doesn't seem to make sense here.

[erichswafford]

I happen to use a tablet PC for all my 2D wargaming needs, so I use 1024x768 (1280 is just too tiny).

How is it to use a tablet PC for gaming? Do you get a closer feel to boargames? What about hotkeys? I imagine you use the graphical interface all the time, since a virtual keyboard doesn't seem to make sense here.

It works really well, and I always have the pop-up virtual keyboard if I really need it. I haven't had a real problem with just using the GUI, however.

The pen interface is ideal for wargaming and I can fold up the computer so I can hold it like a book while I recline on the sofa after a long work day. I *hate* sitting at a desk for hours while at home. After using the tablet, I could never go back to that.

I must admit that I've tried many different tablets and I keep coming back to this increasingly old Toshiba M200 of mine. You can pick them up on eBay for about $300 these days, and I've just never found one that was better. It's chief advantage is the 1400x1050 screen, which is unmatched on even the latest designs - which are all 1280x800. The higher res allows me to see a lot more of the game, at least if it uses the standard windows interface (TOAW3) or 1280x1024 (which also works well).

I did upgrade mine as far as it could go, with a Pentium M 2.1Ghz (which required a very complex BIOS flash - and I upgrade BIOS all the time), 2gb RAM and a 320gb 7200rpm drive. That has certainly perked it up, but I really wish Toshiba would come out with basically the exact same model but with a Core2, etc. When dealing with a Tablet, seemingly small interface details become crucial. The M200, for instance, has shortcut buttons for the ESC key and one which pops up the Task Manager - both really important if you need to bail out of a full-screen program that won't respond, for instance - or if you want to skip opening movies, etc. That one tiny detail (when missing) makes a lot of tablets a nightmare to use.

[Panama]

Probably getting in here a bit late but it would seem to me what the OP is talking about is a wargame with no structure. No phases, just do what you want and then based on what happened at map point A you can do this at map point B even though they should have been taking place at the same time. Absolutely no structure, no rhyme or reason, just do what you want when you want in whatever order you want and time be damned.

If you want to play a 'game' do it this way. There are plenty of them out there I suppose. If you want to play a historical representation do it a very different way and make time play a factor. While an hour is passing in New York the exact same hour is passing in Paris.

Sorry, but being a 60 yr old who has been playing wargames since age 10 I'm kind of perplexed why someone would want to do it this way. Maybe I've become a grog in my old age. [:D]

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Panama
...being a 60 yr old who has been playing wargames since age 10....

Hawaii has an active volcano that has bored a path to the ocean and as a result there is molten lava flowing into the water where the lava is solidified into 'rocks'. If you're 60 and rocks are being 'born' as we speak then you're older than some rocks. LOL.

I'll be 60 next March and I've always thought of it as 60 trips around the Sun.

[erichswafford]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Probably getting in here a bit late but it would seem to me what the OP is talking about is a wargame with no structure. No phases, just do what you want and then based on what happened at map point A you can do this at map point B even though they should have been taking place at the same time. Absolutely no structure, no rhyme or reason, just do what you want when you want in whatever order you want and time be damned.

I think the point I've tried to make (possibly also the OP) is that the combat rounds system is a bit too granular.

While playing, I have the impression that I'm doing one of those stop-motion animations where you move some tiny piece on the characters a tiny bit, and repeat a hundred times just to provide the illusion of motion. Why there has to be 10 phases - I don't know.

Having so many *potential* rounds means that any wargamer is going to inevitably try to maximize what gets done each turn, and so the game devolves into something more like a puzzle than a true representation of operational warfare. I find myself doing and thinking things that I seriously doubt are realistic. I think the game, in its current form, has a special appeal to programmers and people who enjoy Sudoku.

Still, I enjoy TOAW3. While playing, I get a feel for planning that I don't get with other games. Maybe I just need more practice.

I pulled this from one of Lemay's excellent tutorials, because (unfortunately) it's a good example of what I'm talking about:

I always calculate the ratio of the unit’s remaining MPs to its initial MPs. If the resulting fraction is smaller than the fraction of the turn remaining, I don’t use it in an attack that round.

Now that's an example of micromanagement using information that would *never* be available to a real commander. And that's my real problem with TOAW3. This is operational warfare - not a mathematical exercise. I think a great solution would be to provide some sort of indicator on the unit to indicate if it has exceeded the above calculation and so could be considered "late".

Actually, I think that would solve a lot of problems. The most time-consuming aspect of play seems to be this need to laboriously check individual units to see if their inclusion in an attack is going to delay things. It's be nice to see some sort of visual indication that a unit was "running late".

[erichswafford]

oops

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: kondor999
While playing, I have the impression that I'm doing one of those stop-motion animations where you move some tiny piece on the characters a tiny bit, and repeat a hundred times just to provide the illusion of motion.

Good description...I think it's accurate. I think this is why I enjoy those slide show movies that I post from time to time...it puts into faster motion what happens on the map and I can envision what happens better.

ORIGINAL: kondor999
I think the game, in its current form, has a special appeal to programmers and people who enjoy Sudoku.

Wow you're right. I'm a retired computer programmer and I guess I AM trained to see how all the little steps contribute to the final product. Also, I played 'board games' for many many years before computers were invented and had to do physically what the computer does for me now. Maybe that explains the allure that computer wargames provides for me. ???

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: kondor999
I pulled this from one of Lemay's excellent tutorials, because (unfortunately) it's a good example of what I'm talking about:

I always calculate the ratio of the unit’s remaining MPs to its initial MPs. If the resulting fraction is smaller than the fraction of the turn remaining, I don’t use it in an attack that round.

Now that's an example of micromanagement using information that would *never* be available to a real commander. And that's my real problem with TOAW3. This is operational warfare - not a mathematical exercise. I think a great solution would be to provide some sort of indicator on the unit to indicate if it has exceeded the above calculation and so could be considered "late".

Actually, I think that would solve a lot of problems. The most time-consuming aspect of play seems to be this need to laboriously check individual units to see if their inclusion in an attack is going to delay things. It's be nice to see some sort of visual indication that a unit was "running late".

So um......I use the attack planner to do the calculating for me. Sometimes it's the only way to see what the computer considers as available for attacking 'this' round and what is too late to be used yet.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: kondor999
I pulled this from one of Lemay's excellent tutorials, because (unfortunately) it's a good example of what I'm talking about:

I always calculate the ratio of the unit’s remaining MPs to its initial MPs. If the resulting fraction is smaller than the fraction of the turn remaining, I don’t use it in an attack that round.

Now that's an example of micromanagement using information that would *never* be available to a real commander. And that's my real problem with TOAW3. This is operational warfare - not a mathematical exercise. I think a great solution would be to provide some sort of indicator on the unit to indicate if it has exceeded the above calculation and so could be considered "late".

Actually, I think that would solve a lot of problems. The most time-consuming aspect of play seems to be this need to laboriously check individual units to see if their inclusion in an attack is going to delay things. It's be nice to see some sort of visual indication that a unit was "running late".

I think it's there in 3.2 If you're at least 1024x768, the circle of stars turns colors indicating how much of the turn has gone by and how much will be burned by combat this turn.

For 3.4, I also added next and previous buttons to the combat planner so that you can walk through the combats and potential combats and review them, adding in direct support, etc. The space bar hides the dialog and shows the map for that combat.

Ralph

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: kondor999
I think the game, in its current form, has a special appeal to programmers and people who enjoy Sudoku.

Wow you're right. I'm a retired computer programmer and I guess I AM trained to see how all the little steps contribute to the final product. Also, I played 'board games' for many many years before computers were invented and had to do physically what the computer does for me now. Maybe that explains the allure that computer wargames provides for me. ???

I think that's the group that all turn-based games appeal to[:D].

I like TOAW because the mechanics of play are very simple. Left-click select, right-click move. Where to move is pretty complicated, but the basics are pretty simple.

[Panama]

I think Sudoku is as much fun as repeatedly dropping a 50 pound rock on my toes. I don't program. I've done physical work all my life. Didn't want the academy, didn't want OCS, didn't want NCO school but they made me 'volunteer' anyway. So, I probably fit your pigeon hole about as well as a square peg in a round hole. But, I do like TOAW. There are play aids so see if you should attack with something or wait. You don't have to move your units a bit at a time unless you want to make a job out of the game (some do).

I play it because I enjoy wargames and I love history. I understand that time has to be taken into account if you want to portray a real physical object in a turn oriented setting. Or any other for that matter. That's why to do it in a fashion that ignores one of the most basic physical laws is total science fiction. Might as well go play...hmmm. I can't think of any Science Fiction or Fantasy game that ignores time. [:D]

In any event, I don't begrudge anyone doing what they like if it does no harm to anyone. And I'm sure Ralph is quite capable of programming this game so it stands on it's head and spins while twirling hula hoops. I just hope the core of the game is not made so it can't be played in it's present basic state.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Panama
In any event, I don't begrudge anyone doing what they like if it does no harm to anyone. And I'm sure Ralph is quite capable of programming this game so it stands on it's head and spins while twirling hula hoops. I just hope the core of the game is not made so it can't be played in it's present basic state.

Not going to happen. I like TOAW. I DO want to bring out more information so that it's better presented but not cluttered (talk about a fine line.) Some people will like the changes, and some won't. [8|] For example, 3.4 has 'tool-tips' that are optional, they bring out information on what the terrain effects on combat are, and some other information, some of the beta testers hate them. I find that they make me pay more attention to the effects of terrain on combat.

I'm trying to not break the scenarios, they've lasted this long, so there's a good core engine that produces reasonably historic results, but I do want to refine it, 3.4 for example has a 'simplified' supply model, ans also accepts the old supply model. The new one shouldn't break anything, but some people will prefer the old model. There are some combat tweaks that may change some scenarios, but I believe it will be for the better.

I also want to improve the AI. I'd love to eventually be able to give directions the way that they are now because Elmer can't recognize what's in the documentation or remember multiple plays, but have Elmer recognize chokepoints and enemy deployments better and react at a strategic level to enemy moves better. I know it's possible, but it's also not trivial.

If I do anything really radical, it will be be a new product.

Ralph

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: kondor999

I pulled this from one of Lemay's excellent tutorials, because (unfortunately) it's a good example of what I'm talking about:

I always calculate the ratio of the unit’s remaining MPs to its initial MPs. If the resulting fraction is smaller than the fraction of the turn remaining, I don’t use it in an attack that round.

That may be paranoia on my part. I really need to make rigorous tests to see if there really is a problem. Right now, I just "feel" that there is one, and I haven't had time to make tests.

Now that's an example of micromanagement using information that would *never* be available to a real commander. And that's my real problem with TOAW3. This is operational warfare - not a mathematical exercise. I think a great solution would be to provide some sort of indicator on the unit to indicate if it has exceeded the above calculation and so could be considered "late".

Real commanders do know if a unit is late or not - and that does figure into their planning. There is an indicator in the game: The Attack Planner squares, and the Stars. I just don't trust them completely, at the moment.

[Zaratoughda]

Hmmm... I was asking if there were any OTHER scenario sites for DL and, I guess not. I had found that site even before buying and the scenarios available for KP was one of the reasons I decided to go with that. Have of course DLed and insalled all those that were available and had AI and were for KP.

The thing is, you would think there would be a lot more scenarios for these games but there isn't, very much unlike TOAW. Not sure why. Maybe the editor is not as good I dunno.

BiN would be more of a possibility except I have the V for Victory games and I liked what I had with Utah Beach and have since gotten America Invades which is along the same lines except different scenarios.

As far as the AI is concerned.... left a HQ unprotected in playing the initial Husky scenario and, the AI swopped in and took it out <g>. Gotta give it credit for that. But, otherwise I was watching the VP and it said I needed over 100 for an overwhelming victory and was over 600 so... maybe it was just that scenario will have to see.

It appears my version of KP is STUCK on 1024x768. Have played around with some things, what is in the init file and whatever, but have not been able to change that. Kinda strange but that is the lower resolution so whatever. Posted on the SSG forums but no big deal.

Started trying the Veiliki Luki scenario and it looks interesting will give it some more play... assuming I can find the time.

Thanks again for your response on this. IMO KP is a very player oriented game and is a lot of fun!

Zaratoughda

P.S. Oh, I brought up the Sicily scenario in TOAW as a comparison to what I had with the user developed Husky scenario for KP and... the Sicily scenario is JUST the entire campaign no smaller scenarios like you have in KP. I didn't see the distance scale listed anywhere with KP so with the two maps almost exactly the same size it looks like it is the 2.5 KM/hex like with Sicily.