RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios



Message


mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (4/21/2019 10:38:01 AM)

quote:

If they exist at all they should spawn in the saves directory. There's a "before" one and an "after" one.
The crash log and toaw_log files should be found in the directory where the game engine lives. The root directory for TOAW IV.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 4/20/2019 10:16:05 PM >


Thanks Larry. I was wondering about that. They 'spawned' in a 2/4/19 CTD, but not my recent one last night. I'm going to post last night's episode with the crash log toawlog and see what the guys come up with. Thanks for all your help!




cathar1244 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (4/21/2019 2:19:37 PM)

Might be useful to have the computer play itself with the -original- Next War scenario to see if CTDs occur. I may be wrong, but the impression is that a lot of CTD activity is happening with the .21 version. If that is the case, these CTDs may not be specific to Next War Expanded.

Cheers




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (4/22/2019 11:54:02 PM)

I have not yet done any "scientific" studies, but for me, TNW (Expanded) seems to crash more often than, say, D21.

Not sure what is going on, but I did have two CTDs during my NATO turn 2 to Larry.

Turning off mini-map and air report seems to help, but that is just me, perhaps. I thought it was my CPU over heating, but it seems to occur more often when scrolling around the "small" map....

Not a game killer, but it is something that I keep aware of, so I just "save" a lot ;)

The naval still seems very herky jerky to me on my end, so I have not been using naval.

Otherwise ... tons of fun!!! Great scene!!!!
D




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/6/2019 9:21:46 PM)

Some observations:

Great scene for PBEM!!

Also,

Since the map and the OOB have been expanded, the number of turns should (I think) also be expanded.

As it stands, the game calculates VP and ends the game at the end of 17 turns of hostility (up to a max of 34 turns, iirc, if you play Tension full out Iron Man style).

I think it would be cool to EXPAND that :) and make an option, some sort of game event, whereby instead of that, NATO (and WP) must CHOOSE a theater option of "continue hostilities?" If both players agree, then they can keep playing the game.

Not sure the logic of it, but wouldn't it be something like,
IF both Player 1 and Player 2 choose "continue" theater option, the game will continue, OR game ends.

IOW, both players must vote "YES" to continue, otherwise the game ends like it normally does now.

And maybe make it a "house rule" that it works like Turn 1, an "inter-turn" type event that would allow more gaming action.

Ok, well, that was my thought and there you have it.

Can't wait for the Alpha! I hope it is soon!




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/6/2019 9:39:01 PM)

quote:

the number of turns should (I think) also be expanded.


That thought has crossed my mind as well, especially since adding a few more NATO goodies that arrive later in the game. Since Beta, a few US Natl Guard formations and the 12th USAF joined the orbat. So the US air forces presently in WG and UK (17th USAF, 3rd USAF) will be joined by the 9th and 12th. Both of these have about 500 aircraft each.




Shadrach -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/7/2019 11:12:30 AM)

Just a small thing: It would be nice if you could get the place-names correct for Norway (and Germany as well for that matter), with the use of the proper letters, æøå/öü.

For instance
Bodo = Bodø
Tromso = Tromsø
Vardo = Vardø
Dombas = Dombås
Röros = Røros (we don't use the umlauts in Norway after we threw out the Swedes [:D] )
Kragero = Kragerø
Tonsberg = Tønsberg
Floro = Florø
Maloy = Måløy
Honefoss = Hønefoss
(I think that's all of them)

In Germany there is for instance:
Lubeck = Lübeck
Gottingen = Göttingen
Saarbrucken = Saarbrücken
(and probably a lot more)

You have them correct for Sweden - and I can't just let that pass [:D]

You can get the letters to just copy and paste from here:
https://www.rapidtables.com/code/text/ascii-table.html

Also IMO it looks better on a map to use the local names instead of the "englishified" names, like:
Cologne = Köln
Turin = Torino
Or at least be consistent in the the usage, so if you must use Turin, also use Milan, Venice etc. But the local names are better I think.




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/7/2019 12:00:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

Just a small thing: It would be nice if you could get the place-names correct for Norway (and Germany as well for that matter), with the use of the proper letters, æøå/öü.

For instance
Bodo = Bodø
Tromso = Tromsø
Vardo = Vardø
Dombas = Dombås
Röros = Røros (we don't use the umlauts in Norway after we threw out the Swedes [:D] )
Kragero = Kragerø
Tonsberg = Tønsberg
Floro = Florø
Maloy = Måløy
Honefoss = Hønefoss
(I think that's all of them)

In Germany there is for instance:
Lubeck = Lübeck
Gottingen = Göttingen
Saarbrucken = Saarbrücken
(and probably a lot more)

You have them correct for Sweden - and I can't just let that pass [:D]

You can get the letters to just copy and paste from here:
https://www.rapidtables.com/code/text/ascii-table.html

Also IMO it looks better on a map to use the local names instead of the "englishified" names, like:
Cologne = Köln
Turin = Torino
Or at least be consistent in the the usage, so if you must use Turin, also use Milan, Venice etc. But the local names are better I think.



I continue to agonize over this. My ancestry is half English, quarter German, quarter Polish, so I am all mixed up on this. As an early design decision I went with mostly anglicized versions to allow me to quickly learn place names in conjunction with most American publications. But as I continue to tweak, I will revisit this my earlier decision.




cathar1244 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/7/2019 1:08:21 PM)

Mussey,

If you decide to do this. German umlauts can also be shown with an "e" following; thus, ae = ä.

One thing to be sure of is how it displays. Older versions of TOAW had issues with accented characters in placenames on the map display. May be fixed by now.

Cheers




Shadrach -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/7/2019 1:26:01 PM)

quote:

I continue to agonize over this. My ancestry is half English, quarter German, quarter Polish, so I am all mixed up on this. As an early design decision I went with mostly anglicized versions to allow me to quickly learn place names in conjunction with most American publications. But as I continue to tweak, I will revisit this my earlier decision.


Sure, that's perfectly OK. Besides, if taken too far you'd also need to use the special Polish characters like 'ł' [:D]

Not sure if using 'e' for replacement is good though, it would turn Köln to Koeln, Bodø to Bodoe, which just looks strange in my opinion, better to stick with just Koln then.

Yeah how the game displays stuff might be an issue, I've seen it doesn't handle all characters too well, but these are mostly extended ASCII.




larryfulkerson -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/9/2019 3:45:10 AM)

I've got bad news. I was almost done with my moves when the game went CTD. I lost all that work, a couple of hours worth. I was so discusted that I reloaded the moves and just ended the turn and sent that to Damon. The wind has gone from my sails. How about we start over or something? Got a new version for us to use?




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/15/2019 1:44:36 PM)

While Larry & Hellen battle it out in their AAR I've tweaked some things that will be included in the next release. I do not want to post too many refinements in their thread (as I've done in the past), so I will continue here. But I do have to acknowledge how important their feedback has been to me. A few changes that will be in the new release would have greatly changed the direction of their war, and I give my profound kudos for them for continuing under these circumstances. [&o]

Several changes have already been mentioned in their thread, and another one now:
- addition of Warsaw Pact paramilitary units to guard their cities, and border guard bn.s on the border roads.
- a new Event sequence for Warsaw Pact countries depicting the possibility they will not participate at the onset of hostilities, and for the possibility for revolt if NATO were to occupy one of their cities.

Chance of Non-Participation:
Upon open war, each Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact country has a chance their formations will not move (be garrisoned). E. Germany 5%; Hungary 10%, Czech. 15%; Poland 20%. If this triggers, then each of their Formations rolls a die to see if it is affected. The odds are somewhere between 10-50% (some formations are more loyal then others, like Airborne). If this happens the formation will either be permanently garrisoned, or garrisoned for 2-turns, or not affected at all. Thus, none, some, or all will be affected.

Chance of Revolt if NATO occupies a city:
- 50% chance the country revolts
- if so, Warsaw Pact suffers Shock -25% for 2-turns
- NATO receives 50 VP's
- Guerrillas will occur
- chance that each formation will be garrisoned similar to Non-Participation above. No unit will be disbanded leaving gaps in the Soviet lines.

Below is a crude flow chart. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated, especially the sequence logic as well as the percentages:



[image]local://upfiles/23116/D1E7E97A251F49B9A3CB804DB9ECF581.jpg[/image]




cathar1244 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/15/2019 5:01:04 PM)

The political events look really interesting. Suggest one for NATO as well; not all members were equally enthusiastic.

Cheers




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/16/2019 2:04:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

The political events look really interesting. Suggest one for NATO as well; not all members were equally enthusiastic.

Cheers


With the introduction of WP paramilitary, NATO will need to use more force to occupy a city. Another thought to make it more interesting is if I set the radius x1 hex of an occupied city, thus NATO doesn't need to actually take the city, just a surrounding hex. But balance this by having a 2-turn delay so that WP has a turn or two to counter-attack.

As for NATO, thus far:
- Norway: a chance a liberal government does not invite NATO forces into country, with another smaller chance it will become neutral.
- France: a chance it will not join NATO.
- Italy: a chance it will quit NATO.

Are there any others for NATO that are plausible?




cathar1244 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/16/2019 3:08:09 PM)

quote:

Are there any others for NATO that are plausible?


Canada perhaps. PM Trudeau (senior) got up to arbitrary and uncoordinated changes to the Canadian brigade structure in the 1960s. The result was that the Canadian brigade got so weakened that British Army of the Rhine had no suitable mission for it in the terrain the Brits were tasked with defending.

That is how the Canadians ended up in SW Germany, how NATO ended up feeling shorted in north Germany, and how the Second Armored Division got tasked with sending BRIGADE 75 as a reinforcement that eventually became Second Armored Divison - Forward, based in ... you guessed it ... north Germany (Garlstedt).

I think all the smaller members had potential to be shaky. A situation like the one D wargamed with the invasion of Austria may have offered loopholes for countries to "sit it out". I've also wondered what would have happened if the Soviets had stage managed an incident between the two German armies, and then let the DDR army invade Germany while warning the rest of NATO that it was a purely German affair and any interference would result in the use of nuclear weapons ... high risk but perhaps high reward as well.

Cheers




StuccoFresco -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/17/2019 7:40:01 AM)

France not partecipating doesn't seem likely to me, honestly. Also, it would damage NATO side too much in case of unfortunate roll.




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/23/2019 1:34:00 PM)

I believe this is called the KIEL canal.

SUEZ canal is in, like, California.



[image]local://upfiles/18399/98D635C8C24D4C4F9ABEFB53034D8A30.jpg[/image]




btd64 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/23/2019 1:46:12 PM)

Suez canal is the name of the terrain type....GP




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/23/2019 2:51:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

Suez canal is the name of the terrain type....GP


Other "canals" have simply terrain type, "canal". Why not these? Is there some special attribute to "Suez Canal" hexes that is different?

It just kills a bit of the immersion factor for me when the Suez Canal gets moved. :)




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/23/2019 3:51:23 PM)

Some observations from my and Larry's ongoing game (now in NATO turn 13...almost 2/3 done already!)

RE: Sweden. IIRC, there are quite a few objective point values there in Sweden that are assigned to Pact from the start. Just guessing, but are those points there to offset any NATO objective point values that arose from the addition of Norway and the new northern sector of the map?
If so, I think Pact is overbalanced. Perhaps those values are an artifact of map addition, but I would suggest looking at those values (for both NATO in Norway, and Pact in Sweden) to make sure that NATO is not losing too much in the exchange. Just from a glance, it seems to favor Pact, esp. if Sweden is considered "off limits".

RE potential "shock and awe" effects for both NATO and Pact: there has been a lot of discussion about those effects and how they should or might play out. Speaking as a purist, I would like to see this scene stick as much to the original boardgame as much as possible while you are revising the orbat. The Pact's shock and surrender effects can be tweaked later if need be if NATO is truly overpowered.

I don't think they are. In fact, I continue to maintain that NATO already has a hard enough time of it in the original, and by adding more map (more territory to defend for NATO) as well as massively more Pact forces (w/ all the firepower they have at their disposal from the new SSR districts) it is NATO that needs more Irregulars, not Pact. There are just as many (if not more) shock effects that Pact can cause. Will you be adding Irregulars for NATO to help them defend those hexes, too? If not, then I think the game will be tipped even farther toward Pact victories.

Well, that's my two cents!! Also, I'm sure you've seen these, but if not, they are fascinating reads, offering insight into the original designs and rationale for "The Next War" boardgame. Much of the discussion will seem dated, but there are tidbits buried in these articles that have helped my push with NATO so well into the Pact backfield. Interesting to see how some of their comments about strategies and tactics are still applicable to fire and movement in TOAW.

Link to articles about The Next War boardgame: "Moves" magazines volumes 41 and 42 at archive.org is

https://archive.org/stream/Moves39/Moves%2041#mode/2up

the part two of the article talks more about strategy and tactices, that is in issue number 42
Ok, well, back to the board!!




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/23/2019 5:50:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mussey
Any feedback will be greatly appreciated, especially the sequence logic as well as the percentages:



Not sure of the logic, but it looks very close to the original possibilities. I like that "if units will not move at first" there is chance they WILL activate a few turns later. Maybe an "on going" dice roll every turn, to see if garrisoned units activate later?

Seems pretty complicated to me. Maybe roll out Beta 2 under current logic, with only the new orbat changes, then tweak the logic after a few tests of that? :) that Beta 2, that is? :)

A guy can hope. :)




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/26/2019 2:53:05 PM)

I've returned from a short break.

In a dream, Marshal Tito appeared, deploring why he couldn't play. So below is the newest addition:
- If/when Austria is invaded, the Zone 1 for Austria and Yugoslavia is removed.
- There are increasing odds that Tito will join the Warsaw Pact.

- Austria surrenders 10%
- Graz occupied 5%
- Salzburg occupied 5%
- Klagenfurt occupied - 5%
- Villach occupied - 5%
- Italian x1 hex of 68, 198 - 5%
- Italian Alps passes x2 hexes of 58, 195 - 10%
- Udine occupied - 10%

Yugoslav forces will remain garrisoned unless one of the above occurs. A presumption has been made that a combination of Soviet pressure, the fear of losing possible NATO assistance, and going to war to unite the ethnic population would force Tito's hand. One third of its forces are available for war, the remainder are off-map committed reserves and the Greek border. The forces available are a bit neutered in regards to equipment and supply[x3 Inf Divs/x2 Arm Divs/x2 Inf Bdes/x6 air sdrns/multiple fixed paramilitary rgts]. HOUSE RULE, no forces from either side may move into Yugoslavia until she declares war.

This adds some more complexity to political and military strategy on both sides. I think Italy will now have to keep some forces along the border in the case Tito is enlisted.




[image]local://upfiles/23116/98AF9A19379D4CE4978A3587F996398F.jpg[/image]




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (5/26/2019 3:06:23 PM)

quote:

Seems pretty complicated to me.


My reasoning/logic/goal is to avoid an 'all or nothing' approach to to a possible revolt. For example, instead of Poland rolling a 2 and totally quitting the Warsaw Pact, now there are levels of non-compliance with only some formations possibly quitting, and if so maybe for only a few turns while reluctant officers/NCO's are replaced. I think this is more credible - keeping in mind its not easy gaming the probabilities of a revolt.

Game-testing should be very interesting! And yes, Beta 2 is so very close........................




larryfulkerson -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/4/2019 2:20:51 PM)

quote:

Beta 2 is so very close........................

Got a ballpark ETA for us for the next version. Me and Damon, rather Damon and I, would like to playtest it.




THM67 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/7/2019 1:51:58 AM)

I'd be interested to see if you would open Sweden/Finland eventually in the scenario, as that would provide the WP player an opportunity to gain a lot of VPs (you could off set them like Austria) and avoid screwing around in the mountains in exchange for the danger of adding two decently sized armies against you. Just a thought.




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/7/2019 3:44:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: THM67

I'd be interested to see if you would open Sweden/Finland eventually in the scenario, as that would provide the WP player an opportunity to gain a lot of VPs (you could off set them like Austria) and avoid screwing around in the mountains in exchange for the danger of adding two decently sized armies against you. Just a thought.


Good thought. I too had been rolling it over, but as of yet not sure how to wrap my head around this. I suppose Finland would lean to Soviets, Sweden to NATO. The logic for each would depend on the triggers. I see no Finland involvement unless coerced by the Soviets. I see no trigger for Sweden unless Finland were to join (maybe?) or direct Soviet attack on her soil.

Maybe others here have a better insight into this?




THM67 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/7/2019 4:28:06 PM)

quote:

Good thought. I too had been rolling it over, but as of yet not sure how to wrap my head around this. I suppose Finland would lean to Soviets, Sweden to NATO. The logic for each would depend on the triggers. I see no Finland involvement unless coerced by the Soviets. I see no trigger for Sweden unless Finland were to join (maybe?) or direct Soviet attack on her soil.


The way I've seen it done is that Finland does one of three things. The first is that Finland does not resist and lets the Soviet Union pass through (all armies withdrawn) and eventually pro-NATO partisans spawn, or Finland resists their neutrality being violated and their armies activated, or like how certain WP nations don't participate, Finland leaves their troops frozen in garrison. And since Finland almost certainly means the Soviets going through Sweden, the Swedes join NATO.




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/7/2019 7:28:13 PM)

YES!! Love the Yugo addition.

TITO!! TITO!! TITO!!

Not sure why, but TITO always was like, my hero way back when. He went his own way.

TITO!!




cathar1244 -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/8/2019 5:16:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith

YES!! Love the Yugo addition.

TITO!! TITO!! TITO!!

Not sure why, but TITO always was like, my hero way back when. He went his own way.

TITO!!


I thought it interesting that U.S. forces recreation services had agreements for U.S. service members and their families to vacation in Yugoslavia ... during the Cold War. Cold War had some odd aspects to it.

Cheers




Hellen_slith -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/10/2019 9:06:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

Beta 2 is so very close........................

Got a ballpark ETA for us for the next version. Me and Damon, rather Damon and I, would like to playtest it.


I second that motion. If I were a betting man, I'd wager on

that date that the scene begins on ... I think it is June 29th?

Not sure. I can't remember right now.

But June 29, 2019 would be a good release date.

The 40th Anniversary of ... Hostilities.

Sweet date. Sweet date. Or whatever date it begins, plus 40 years.

Love the Watchtowers grafx for EG and the Tito addition, too. Thanks!!

H




mussey -> RE: Next War 1979 - Expanded (Beta 1.0) play testers needed (6/11/2019 12:35:02 AM)

quote:

But June 29, 2019 would be a good release date.

The 40th Anniversary of ... Hostilities.


Very interesting, indeed....

I expanded the game turns + 1 more month, so a few more units will be added:
- several more US Natl Gd: 38th Div.; 39th Bde.; 49th Div. (all late-scenario)
- 9th US Inf Div (Ft. Lewis, WA) initially presumed for Pacific ops but realigned for NATO (mid-scenario)
- (the US units are the most difficult to predict arrival dates. Shipping is one issue, NATO or Pacific deployment another, and the reliable mobilization of Res. & N.Gd Units is another another).

I believe I'm ready for a dry run....

PS: Graphics by Cabido add an nice touch. Kudos.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875