The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
I highly suggest the attitude disappear from these parts.....and quickly. Got it everyone?
The infantry doesn't change. We're the only arm of the military where the weapon is the man himself.
C. T. Shortis
C. T. Shortis
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
Hmm....depends on the supply assumptions, but broadly, yes.ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
A bit of a Straw Man argument here: if you want to model Seelowe in TOAW you start with the RAF and RN defeated, and work on from there.
Great. One doesn't even need TOAW for this simulation. The Germans win every time.I think that, in such cases, trying to use TOAW is a mistake, like using a hammer to drive a screw - you can do it, but it's harder and the results aren't as good. [:)]In general, I'd say that TOAW focusses primarily on land warfare and that therefore any use of naval forces in a scenario should be restricted to their use in support of the land campaign. If you want to model the PTO in WW2, play WitP.
I don't, but I do like to play land campaigns where naval warfare has an impact. This can't always be done using events.
I really do think that for these truly combined-arms-at-the-operational-level situations a standalone game is required, that can take due account of the actual situation. Trying to bend TOAW to fit simply isn't going to work.
Mark you, if Matrix were able to kinda-sorta fit the WitP Naval-Air model into a TOAW setting, it really, really would be good. [:)]Something like stopping supply from getting into Sevastopol or Leningrad when you've laid siege on the landward side, for example? Yes, I think I would certainly agree with you there. I'd even go so far as to allow for naval interceptions, if they could be programmed in easily and bug-free, and without unforseen complications. But to me at any rate TOAW is primarily a game of operational warfare on land, and that is where it's emphasis should remain. I see tweaks to the naval side as being of relatively low priority. Doesn't mean I can't see their utility, just that there are other things to do. Like stopping the silly-end-of-turn, for example.... [;)]
Anyway, you're right in that TOAW shouldn't be made into a detailed naval model. That's not what it's for. I just want it to produce realistic results from naval warfare to impact on the land campaign. I don't really want to have to think about naval strategy. I do want to be able to ask the navy to interfere with the seaborne supplies of my opponent.
Steve.
...too bad this board doesn't make it easy to select just part of a post to reply to.
Anyway, I agree with most of your conclusion, although I'd hardly assign improving the naval model/air model a low priority. There are just too many campaigns where this limitation hamstrings simulation with TOAW.
I don't expect an engine that will permit TOAW to simulate primarily naval campaigns. However, I do want air/naval warfare simulated well enough so that it can function reasonably well as a subsidiary part of the whole picture. A good comparision would be to the state of the way air combat is currently modelled with reference to land warfare. That has its flaws too -- but it more or less works as long as one stays focussed on the land combat. You can't do the Battle of Britain, you can do Kursk. If naval/air war could be brought to the same level of simulation, we'd really be cooking with gas.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: JMS2
Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.
Hi!
No, I think you guys are all missing my point.
I am not arguing for simplicity, what I am basically trying to say is to try to broaden the appeal of the game by including more scenarios and using some imagination.
But my basic complaint is, when you look at the TOAW section of the forums and you see the biggest thread on it having a conversation about how the game is "broken", it doesn't lend itself too favorably to people who have never played the game.
So, unlike you, I do believe that it not only depends on the product, but what the players have to say about it. And if the impression you are giving people is that it is broken, then you are doing Matrix and TOAW a disservice.
Just take a look at some of the subject lines in this section of the forum... you'd think the game was a complete disaster needing a total overhaul.
[:-]
Ray (alias Lava)
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: Lava
ORIGINAL: JMS2
Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.
Hi!
No, I think you guys are all missing my point.
I am not arguing for simplicity, what I am basically trying to say is to try to broaden the appeal of the game by including more scenarios and using some imagination.
But my basic complaint is, when you look at the TOAW section of the forums and you see the biggest thread on it having a conversation about how the game is "broken", it doesn't lend itself too favorably to people who have never played the game.
So, unlike you, I do believe that it not only depends on the product, but what the players have to say about it. And if the impression you are giving people is that it is broken, then you are doing Matrix and TOAW a disservice.
Just take a look at some of the subject lines in this section of the forum... you'd think the game was a complete disaster needing a total overhaul.
[:-]
Ray (alias Lava)
Sigh. Well, if I were Matrix, I'd quit using ColinWright as my ad agency. Might even want to think about putting a stop payment on that last check...
This is a FORUM. People say what comes to mind. If I want to promote wargaming, I'll go out and promote wargaming. However, that's not what I am doing at the moment.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
- JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
I thought true grognards were people who continuously complain about the games they love. [&:]
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
I thought true grognards were professional and mature.
JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.
- JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: geozero
I thought true grognards were professional and mature.
At least some of them have a sense of humour.
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
- golden delicious
- Posts: 4114
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: Lava
[Just take a look at some of the subject lines in this section of the forum... you'd think the game was a complete disaster needing a total overhaul.
The point of this forum is to discuss the potential changes Matrix may be making to the game.
When Matrix releases the game, I am sure they will list all the great fixes they've made. That'll be the time to tell people what a great game it is.
In the meantime, for those who want to see how awesome TOAW is, I suggest you follow the link in my signature line.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
I really do think that for these truly combined-arms-at-the-operational-level situations a standalone game is required, that can take due account of the actual situation. Trying to bend TOAW to fit simply isn't going to work. [:)]
Does anyone know of such a game (for the PC) that does a decent job in combined arms (land-air-naval)? Strategic and/or operational level (not tactical). WWII and/or Modern.
Any favorites or suggestions?
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
-
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: geozero
I thought true grognards were professional and mature.
God help us. They sound pretty damned dull. 'Professional'?
I am not Charlie Hebdo
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:17 pm
- Location: North Carolina
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
Obviously if one limits himself to a certain set of parameters with respect to scenario design, the flaws in the TOAW engine can be made to look less obvious. But the whole point of TOAW is that it can be used to simulate a wide variety of situations, not a specific few. That's the appeal of the game. I find arguments that scenarios like Decision in the North somehow go against Norm's intent to be a bit odd(to put it mildly), since AFAIK DITN was constructed by the out of the box software, without any BioEding and such. And certainly I would say that many of the game's global effects, such as shock, turn ending, guerilla effects, etc. cause problems in certain situations. It would really be all for the better if there were some way of localizing these effects.
- Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I find arguments that scenarios like Decision in the North somehow go against Norm's intent to be a bit odd(to put it mildly), since AFAIK DITN was constructed by the out of the box software, without any BioEding and such.
DITN does not work well, and ridicolous stuff happens all over the place.
Whether it's because Norm made a game that's too limited in scope, or because scenario designer chose to ignore basic rules of TOAW scenario design, is up to anyone to decide for himself. My opinion is clearly presented in this thread...
Oleg
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:56 am
- Contact:
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
Probably the generally lower movement rates. If you're only going to get two-three rounds anyway, turn ending on round one is less important.
Yup!!! ;^) Also since the formula for display unit strengths is based (I heard one time) largely on the soft factor. They do seem to be more accurate for purposes of planning attacks etc.
If you are near Medford Oregon Check out,
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)
http://lancerunolfsson.googlepages.com/home
(Also some free Downloadable Miniature Rules and a Free Downloadable 7YW Board Game)
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:17 pm
- Location: North Carolina
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I find arguments that scenarios like Decision in the North somehow go against Norm's intent to be a bit odd(to put it mildly), since AFAIK DITN was constructed by the out of the box software, without any BioEding and such.
DITN does not work well, and ridicolous stuff happens all over the place.
I haven't played it myself, but the problem of high proficiency units causing early turn ending is one that I've encountered in other scenarios. But there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to have 100% proficiency units; nor does it strike me as completely unreasonable to want to include the Finnish front in a scenario which depicts the northern phase of Barbarossa.
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:17 pm
- Location: North Carolina
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: sstevens06
I think this is a key point Oleg is making - a number of scenarios, including some on the original CD, seem to ignore this. In the example of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, it simply doesn't make sense to simulate both the Golan Heights and Suez Canal fronts on the same map in the same scenario...
Ironically, Norm designed two scenarios which did exactly that.
- golden delicious
- Posts: 4114
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson
Yup!!! ;^) Also since the formula for display unit strengths is based (I heard one time) largely on the soft factor.
Solely. The first number on the unit is the anti-personnel strength, the second is the defence strength. Anti-armour can be seen in the top right hand corner window. Armour isn't shown- although an armoured vehicle's defence strength is based upon its armour value.
Note that both anti-personnel and defence strengths are used in both attacking and defending.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
- Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I haven't played it myself, but the problem of high proficiency units causing early turn ending is one that I've encountered in other scenarios. But there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to have 100% proficiency units; nor does it strike me as completely unreasonable to want to include the Finnish front in a scenario which depicts the northern phase of Barbarossa.
"High prof units" do not cause turn ending because they do something wrong or buggy. It's just another dice check. Sometimes it can go against you, which I take to be part of the game (or simulation). That's all there is to it.
As for including Finnish front in Northern Barbarossa - that may work. But obviously, you need to do something to balance things somewhat. Say, McBride in his DNO used Regiments as basic German unit, and "amalgamated" Finns into divisions. Thus you get balanced units.
DITN designer did just the opposite. Being the Finno-centric Finn (Keke don't kill me [;)]) he "amalgamated" Germans into "33-32" divisions (hell they are not really important anyway, yes?), and divided up his beloved Finns into smallest possible units ever, so the northern part of the map is full of "1-1" "ants" milling around Arctic doing funny things.
When you do something like that, funny results are to be expected, and obviously you'll have cases when whole turn ends because Finnish 1-1 ski batallion at Salla spent all its points on some marginal task. For me, that is fallacy of scenario design. For Colin and his buddies it's the fallacy of Norm's game system.
Oleg
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:17 pm
- Location: North Carolina
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
"High prof units" do not cause turn ending because they do something wrong or buggy. It's just another dice check. Sometimes it can go against you, which I take to be part of the game (or simulation). That's all there is to it.
It's getting down into semantics, but the behavior of high proficiency units is counterintuitive at best. They cause early turn ending because they resolutely press on no matter what, eating up multiple rounds of combat despite their loss settings. Even absent early turn ending, I would consider this flawed. The best troops are those which you have the finest amount of control over. In TOAW, you have little more control over a 95% unit in combat than you would have over a 10% unit. It's for this reason that I consider 75-85% or so to be "true 100". These units can be made to break off an attack after one round or persist for several rounds. They are paradoxically far more flexible and useful than 100% units.
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:17 pm
- Location: North Carolina
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
DITN designer did just the opposite. Being the Finno-centric Finn (Keke don't kill me [;)]) he "amalgamated" Germans into "33-32" divisions (hell they are not really important anyway, yes?), and divided up his beloved Finns into smallest possible units ever, so the northern part of the map is full of "1-1" "ants" milling around Arctic doing funny things.
I was going to avoid responding to your specific points about DITN since I haven't played it, but the problem with high proficiency units is not occurring solely because of the unit scale. Earlier versions of Jeremy's Fall Grau had high proficiency German units that would inevitably cause early turn ending, despite the unit scales being symmetrical. In fact, the American units in that scenario are of significantly lower proficiency than German units, so if anything, the deck was stacked against involuntary multiple round combats by high prof units. Nevertheless, it happened.