Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Another Monster in the Works

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Another Monster in the Works Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Another Monster in the Works - 11/11/2013 12:32:35 PM   


Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
As continued development of TOAW has been announced... as we've all hoped, prayed, and sacrificed for, my hope is to bring a second project to completion.

A question though -- With a monster trying to cover as much detail as possible, when it comes to Rail and Sea Transport -- would you prefer for the distances involved to be tied to "real distances" or "simplified"?

Arguing with myself is NOT working.

Consider the following as a good example: If Gibraltar or the Suez is taken, should a unit from Australia be required to physically move from Perth all the way around Capetown per "real distance" or "abstracted to the shortest distance"?

It has an impact on the appearance of the map, authenticity and game time. With some features that may be under development - aspects of game play might also be impacted.

The difference is whether a unit being transported is able to embark, move and disembark in one turn or possibly spend several turns in transit -- which impacts allocations of both Rail and Sea Transport.

Rough inclination is knowing that there might be 20 people in the world who will even be interested in playing this - is that the realism is likely to win out, but given the amount of work involved either way, want to make sure.

Thanks you for any input!!!

Post #: 1
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 11/11/2013 9:35:38 PM   

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Don't know the scope of what you are doing, but if the British are shut out of the Mediteranean, they could ship units to the theater thru Basra. But to answer your question, there could be a route along the southern map edge that allows units to travel 'the long way'. It ain't pretty, but most of us monster players like realism.

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 2
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 11/12/2013 4:38:17 AM   


Posts: 3386
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
Wot 'e said

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 3
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 11/12/2013 7:42:16 AM   


Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
Thank you for the feedback. The map should be complete within 2-3 days. Other aspects of the scenario are still under consideration and I will likely have more questions.

The map as it stands is the 1942 - 1945 map plus: Spain and NW Africa, Eastern Africa, Iran and a section of the Soviet Far East. IF the scenario works as intended, consideration will be given to expanding it to cover Burma, China and the Pacific; with the "quiet area" truncated. This is a May 1939 - 1945 scenario, OOB & TO&E are complete minus a few odds and ends. Still a good bit of unit admin to do, but otherwise getting down to defining events.

It's big but it won't come close to challenging the new Fire in the East Team's creation. The vast majority of equipment is handled on a per nationality basis. A few simplifications have been applied such as some "most likely to remain neutral" countries sharing the same equipment pool or very similar equipment averaged as one line item (i.e. 100 vs 105mm howitzer).

Still a long ways to go.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 4
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 11/21/2013 4:18:22 PM   

Posts: 88
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
Abstracted or under player control, whatever would affect supply lines in a real world conflict to match -- as closely as reasonable -- what would happen in the real world. Without this, the strategic value of the Suez goes away, and that would be very damaging to realism.

There are always trade-offs. This applies in the real world, does it not? Ex: Two job choices could be equal, except one has lower pay, but a shorter commute. Is the higher-paying job going to be worth the longer commute?

When I developed a contact management system in a job long ago, there were so many trade offs for functionality vs. implementation time, I almost went nuts! Wanna configure a server -- even for a small business -- and you have trade offs galore. When there are a mere 2-3 important settings, and each affects the other to varying degrees, you can go nuts (and spend days) trying to fully optimize performance.

You just have to make an educated guess, sometimes.

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 5
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 11/23/2013 6:05:11 PM   


Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
Yes, I went with the "real distances" as closely as possible. Units moving to England from New York will embark and move one turn, then finish the journey and disembark the second turn.

Established sea lanes from NYC to Halifax to Reykvajik then to N. England/Norway/Murmansk; another lane from NYC straight to New England, and one more from Norfolk to Bermuda to the Antillies to Gibraltar/Casablanca.

One for all the way around Africa via Cape of Good Hope. One from Perth to South Africa; to Maldivies/Sri Lanka and then to the St. of Hormuz/Horn of Africa area.

And rail lines from Russia to the Soviet Far East and Turkmenistan. Probably not exactly but within about +/-45 km.

If the scenario works as intended, it may be expanded further.

Where most scenarios load instantly on my machine, this one takes 1-2 minutes for the 1st turn, then about 1 min per turn afterwards. Now into defining and testing events as I go. Still a lot to do but getting closer.

(in reply to rfrizz)
Post #: 6
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 12/12/2013 10:05:48 AM   


Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
Development continues on 1939-1945 scenario, getting closer to completion to the extent of doing 1939-1940 testing. I'm saving most of the "naval component" testing to do last as it will involve a lot of testing unto itself and with a decision of how prominent or not prominent it should be.

I'm interested in a range of opinions/considerations on the extent the naval component should be modeled. I know for starters, just mentioning "submarines" is going to bring up a slew of controversy. My consideration is based substantially upon coupled with the only way to advance TOAW's ability to cover the naval war with what I'm inclined to expect with the new beta -- is to test, play test, play, test, play, test, to develop and refine TOAW's naval component to be "all that it can be".

That's not to say perfect, but "close enough" - a more accurate reflection than typical to regular board games wherein a 3-3 unit is either at full strength or dead, or where when rolling 1d6 -- it's possible to roll a 3.5.

I agree with Commander Poirier's assertions and that a submarine's impact must be measured by far, far more than its weapon statistics. Modeling of the Air War from 1942-1945 shows significant progress that can be improved upon, so the same I think can apply to the naval war.

The problem comes with the cascading impact of If/Then's. That is... by including a submarine, then it is necessary to include destroyer escorts, corvettes, frigates, possibly even smaller craft. The line of thinking that 1 truck should be 1 truck has some bearing on this - as if we consider a Pz I armed with MG's and a crew of 4, then a corvette with 4x HMG's and 1x 4" gun with a complement of 60 is warranted. With Lend Lease, plus the shipping of American units to Europe, or Australian units to the Mediterranean -- presently is something mostly taken for granted. My feeling is that things get more exciting the extent to which the Allied Player becomes paranoid.

So, I'm looking for thoughts about how deep this should go -- understanding that the upcoming patch may have items in it that we have not seen before; and additional views of other considerations all of this brings up. I'm also open to keeping it simplified just out of consideration of how much work is involved in developing/testing whatever makes it in.

I see both sides and have argued with myself endlessly... back and forth. Any input greatly appreciated!

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 7
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 12/12/2013 9:26:49 PM   
golden delicious

Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline


Consider the following as a good example: If Gibraltar or the Suez is taken, should a unit from Australia be required to physically move from Perth all the way around Capetown per "real distance" or "abstracted to the shortest distance"?

Time is what matters, not distance. You can accomplish this in a small space on a TOAW map with lots of mandatory port stops along the way where the unit has to land and then re-embark. Each of these will add a turn to the journey. By having three land hexes with an anchorage at either end this can be done without a house rule, and can be made seem less abstract by adding real place names, e.g. Freetown, Cape Town etc.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 12/12/2013 10:27:53 PM >


"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 8
RE: Another Monster in the Works - 12/13/2013 9:03:10 AM   


Posts: 388
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
Thanks Ben, a good point and a good way to handle it. I probably should have made a new thread as I "added on" a question regarding the extent to which the naval war should be treated.

Movement wise... I set up the whole distance +/- 45 km for the sea and rail routes. Makes for extra overhead, but portions of it may tie into the second component I'm still debating back and forth - which ties into some things we might see with the new patch. So, the extent to which the naval components are represented will need ample late stage testing, and get implemented last.

I will probably go ahead and set up a full thread for the scenario to cover the full scope of it and some of the new design/event elements. I'd prefer for it not be taken seriously until it is actually done. I've entered the roller coaster zone again, but at this point it is not far from being pbem - playable and I have no real intent to add any meaningful PO to it.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Another Monster in the Works Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI