Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

TOAW IV Changes needed

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> TOAW IV Changes needed Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 7:37:04 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 240
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
Hi

I would like to see a few changes to TOAW IV

RBC
The RBC system is a cop out. Basically enemy units run away before combat which means you have to chase them all over the board. Here what it needs instead.
1 Organized Retreat after combat-enemy unit moves 1 hex back TOWARDS HQ
2 Disorganized Retreat after Combat-Enemy unit moves 2 hexes back towards HQ
3 Panic Retreat after combat-enemy unit fails morale check and retreats 2 hexes

Units Dividing
This needs to be out right removed from the game. I don't understand why an enemy unit divides into 3 regiments after being attacked. NO wargame that I know of has implemented such a silly system. The retreat after combat system proposed above will be more than sufficient

Inability to view enemy stacks
Why? Why do I even have to bring this up? What ever the manual says..it doesn't WORK!!!

Airpower
I switch airpower to manual control and guess what...its still doing its thing? This needs to be fixed

Scenario Weather
We should have the option of choosing historical weather. Why? Well apparently in most Russian scenarios all I get is MUD IN JUNE ..MUD IN JULY MUD IN AUGUST..MUD IN SEPTEMBER!!..oh yeah and the TGW scenario.. no snow in October, no snow in November and no SNOW IN DECEMBER , JANUARY AND FEBUARY!!!!Guess global warming is a thing in 1941-1942

Combat round
It doesn't make sense and it NEVER WILL make sense. If you were gonna redo the game and u wanted to attract more players instead of catering to the old I don't want change minority than this needed to go!. I know it cant changed so you do what I do use a work around. Ignore the combat rounds and just move your units as far as you can and it renders the entire combat round system absolutely worthless!!! For example in TGW scenario u can reach Minsk on 1 round of combat..what a joke!!

Its really hard to like this game because its broken on so many levels. I would not recommend this game to any one at this time.

< Message edited by osiris_slith -- 7/23/2019 7:42:36 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:00:52 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 4148
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
Nope, I don't agree and think your wrong on so many levels.

RBC has been in TOAW since the very first from TalonSoft in 1998 or so, and then carried on in COW and then in TOAW III and IV, so RBC isn't going away. You'll have to learn how deal with it and over come it.

Unit Dividing is one of greatest things about TOAW since 1998. When on the attack it gives you the ability to surround and on the defense the ability to defend more locations with other mixed arms units. So no its not gonna get removed.

It's called FOW, again its been part of the game from day one, if you don't like it turn it off or play the basic game.

Airpower works fine when human controlled you just gotta know how to use it.

The scenario designers set the weather, cause they can and then the engine takes over, no idea what your ranting on about global warming for.

Combat rounds make perfect sense if you read about it (there are several excellent posts here, but better yet you can learn how it works your self by playing the game and watching the rounds you eat up) and experience how to use them properly.

You seem to have an axe to grind. TOAW is one of the greatest war games ever, right under Steel Panthers.

But the greatest game is obviously ASL.

< Message edited by Zovs -- 7/23/2019 8:02:41 PM >


_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario creator

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 2
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:12:32 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 240
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
So your going to be rude..nice to know u have no manners. Your the typical problem of the player base. You are so blinded you don't see the inherent flaws in the game. Most gaming companies have moved past using hexes! This game needs a some changes and RBC is a cop out PERIOD!
The unit divide system makes no sense at all.
I understand dividing a unit on attack.
It makes ZERO ZERO sense for enemy units to divide into 3 pieces after being attacked and retreating into the same hex. What would make sense is for the enemy unit to divide into 3 units and retreat into 3 separate hexes simulating disorganized/scattered units..

As for the weather I have been to Russia 6 times..theres no mud in JULY!!!! You cannot claim for something to be accurate when its not. Almost all Eastern front board game represent weather way more accurately than TOAW IV!! that to me is a significant problem both as a player and scenario designer. I want snow in December in Moscow. not desert conditions!

As for combat rounds you ignore them cause they don't mean anything..the work around is so easy! In order words I can to minsk in less than a day according to toaw combat rounds...

< Message edited by osiris_slith -- 7/23/2019 8:19:34 PM >

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 3
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:18:29 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3179
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
*sigh*

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith

Hi

I would like to see a few changes to TOAW IV

RBC
The RBC system is a cop out. Basically enemy units run away before combat which means you have to chase them all over the board. Here what it needs instead.
1 Organized Retreat after combat-enemy unit moves 1 hex back TOWARDS HQ
2 Disorganized Retreat after Combat-Enemy unit moves 2 hexes back towards HQ
3 Panic Retreat after combat-enemy unit fails morale check and retreats 2 hexes
quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Units Dividing
This needs to be out right removed from the game. I don't understand why an enemy unit divides into 3 regiments after being attacked. NO wargame that I know of has implemented such a silly system. The retreat after combat system proposed above will be more than sufficient


Use the Battle Planner. No RBC. I got nothing for your retreat stuff. Units dividing. It happens. Units get split from each other in the chaos of battle. Cohesion breaks down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Inability to view enemy stacks
Why? Why do I even have to bring this up? What ever the manual says..it doesn't WORK!!!


View enemy stacks? You mean go through an enemy stack so you know exactly what is in it? Like the anti fog of war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Airpower
I switch airpower to manual control and guess what...its still doing its thing? This needs to be fixed


Are you talking about air strikes at combat resolution? Be specific please. When during the turn do air units go off on their own?

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Scenario Weather
We should have the option of choosing historical weather. Why? Well apparently in most Russian scenarios all I get is MUD IN JUNE ..MUD IN JULY MUD IN AUGUST..MUD IN SEPTEMBER!!..oh yeah and the TGW scenario.. no snow in October, no snow in November and no SNOW IN DECEMBER , JANUARY AND FEBUARY!!!!Guess global warming is a thing in 1941-1942


In Russia it rains in the summer. Storms turn roads to quagmires that can't be gotten through. Read up Barbarossa sometime and you'll see. If it doesn't snow in the winter it's something the scenario designer did. It isn't the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Combat round
It doesn't make sense and it NEVER WILL make sense. If you were gonna redo the game and u wanted to attract more players instead of catering to the old I don't want change minority than this needed to go!. I know it cant changed so you do what I do use a work around. Ignore the combat rounds and just move your units as far as you can and it renders the entire combat round system absolutely worthless!!! For example in TGW scenario u can reach Minsk on 1 round of combat..what a joke!!


TGW? 25 kilometers per hex. One week turns. The Germans did reach Minsk in one week. One turn game time. Read the scenario briefing. It's all there. Seems most of your problems with the game is a lack of understanding and not bothering to try and find out exactly what is going on. You actually have to think with this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Its really hard to like this game because its broken on so many levels. I would not recommend this game to any one at this time.


The game isn't broken. You are not bothering to read anything. Try some of the tutorials so you understand how the system works.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 4
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:23:18 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3179
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith

So your going to be rude..nice to know u have no manners. Your the typical problem of the player base. You are so blinded you don't see the inherent flaws in the game. Most gaming companies have moved past using hexes! This game needs a some changes and RBC is a cop out PERIOD!
The unit divide system makes no sense at all.
I understand dividing a unit on attack.
It makes ZERO ZERO sense for enemy units to divide into 3 pieces after being attacked and retreating into the same hex. What would make sense is for the enemy unit to divide into 3 units and retreat into 3 separate hexes simulating disorganized/scattered units..

As for the weather I have been to Russia 6 times..theres no mud in JULY!!!! You cannot claim for something to be accurate when its not. Almost all Eastern front board game represent weather way more accurately than TOAW IV!! that to me is a significant problem both as a player and scenario designer. I want snow in December in Moscow. not desert conditions!


Sid Meyers Civ games use hexes. Lots of new game use hexes. Units lose cohesion and sub unit lose track of each other. It happens. This is NOT 1941. In 1941 there were very few paved roads. Read up on Barbarossa.

Weather report for Moscow, Russia next few days. It's July and there is rain forecast EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!

https://weather.com/weather/today/l/34f2aafc84cff75ae0b014754856ea5e7f8ddf618cf9735549dfb5e016c28e10

I'm beginning to smell a bridge dweller.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 5
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:41:50 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3179
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
Don't worry about it Zovs. He was here last January too telling us how effed up the game was. Seem he still hasn't bothered to learn how it works.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 6
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:44:21 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 240
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
Hi Lobster

Point 1- I tried battle planner and basically by round 3 my units are all yellow or light green or spent. The losses are way too excessive even when the BP says chance of success are high and our losses will be low. So that forces one to opt for RBC instead because u suffer little to no losses..which is why the RBC needs to be revamped
Point 2-If I can see a enemy stack next to my unit why do I have to click on every unit to see whats in it? Why cant you see enemy stack composition when your unit is adjacent to one??
Point 3- I have airpower on manual and its still launching strikes during combat resolution etc This is a known issue under bugs
Point 4- That I know however I have basically the whole map covered in mud in July!! Its not some random sector here and there. That's fine. But in TGW in AGS in July basically the whole of southern Russia turns to mud!!
Point 5-As I said I don't expect the combat rounds to be changed but its a pity it wasn't replaced with something more realistic. I understand how they work but the implementation is poor. So maybe its not about removing combat rounds its about improving it.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 7
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:50:25 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 240
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
im not surprised by the attitudes here. How dare any one be critical of TOAW IV. You try to bring up issues and concerns and immediately u get put down and attacked killing any chance of a conversation which may give matrix some input and ideas on how to improve the game. Its no wonder these forums are dead. The level of arrogance, rude and bullying behavior is beyond belief.

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 8
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 8:50:49 PM   
RealChuckB


Posts: 284
Joined: 9/29/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith

As for the weather I have been to Russia 6 times..theres no mud in JULY!!!! You cannot claim for something to be accurate when its not. Almost all Eastern front board game represent weather way more accurately than TOAW IV!! that to me is a significant problem both as a player and scenario designer. I want snow in December in Moscow. not desert conditions!



German General Blumentritt during the fighting around Smolensk (July - September 1941): ""The heat is tremendous, broken by sudden showers; these turn the roads to clinging mud before the sun bakes them back into crumbling clay."
Look like none of your 6 trips to Russia happened in 1941 (and was around the spots with the most fighting back then, it's a huge country, for sure ...)

Try to lighten up a bit - your original message came over as a bit aggressive, such as calling a core game mechanic a "cop out", statements like "here what is needs instead", "this needs to be out right removed from the game", using of all caps (equivalent to yelling on the internet), "game is broken on so many levels" etc. (which is probably why Zovs also sounded a bit ... unfriendly)

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 9
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 10:32:26 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3179
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Point 2-If I can see a enemy stack next to my unit why do I have to click on every unit to see whats in it? Why cant you see enemy stack composition when your unit is adjacent to one??


You don't have to. If you had asked how you can see what's in a stack you would have gotten an answer. Right click the unit display panel in the upper right. All of your units will be spread out. Then mouse over the enemy stack. All of those units will be spread out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Point 3- I have airpower on manual and its still launching strikes during combat resolution etc This is a known issue under bugs


Yes. A known bug. No need to go on about it. It is very annoying, agreed. Very.

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Point 4- That I know however I have basically the whole map covered in mud in July!! Its not some random sector here and there. That's fine. But in TGW in AGS in July basically the whole of southern Russia turns to mud!!


Played 8 turns. The whole map was never covered in mud. A random tile here and there but nothing crazy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith
Point 5-As I said I don't expect the combat rounds to be changed but its a pity it wasn't replaced with something more realistic. I understand how they work but the implementation is poor. So maybe its not about removing combat rounds its about improving it.


It's the best I've seen time and space resolved in a turn based war game. The only way to do it better is Wego. I've wondered how crazy it would get doing it like Command Ops 2 and no hexes. It could work ok or it could be a nightmare.


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 10
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 10:33:29 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3179
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris_slith

im not surprised by the attitudes here. How dare any one be critical of TOAW IV. You try to bring up issues and concerns and immediately u get put down and attacked killing any chance of a conversation which may give matrix some input and ideas on how to improve the game. Its no wonder these forums are dead. The level of arrogance, rude and bullying behavior is beyond belief.


When you come out of the gate swinging what do you expect? You started rude and were responded to in kind. How can you be surprised by that?

< Message edited by Lobster -- 7/23/2019 10:34:05 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 11
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 10:36:35 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 4148
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
Thanks Jack for the warning about osiris_slith.

I was not being rude, you'd know if I was.

osiris_slith you obviously need to read these forums and the old TOAW III forums and even the manual most of your questions would be answered by these three data points alone.

But there is an even better way to learn the game, not playing with your self, you need to play other more experianced players, and then you see how broken your understanding really is.

The greatest teacher is playing the game and understanding how things work and don't.

I don't like any games (board war games or PC war games) that don't use hexes, I have been playing on hexes since 1976. In fact I was born in a hex. lol

Try PBEM for a few years.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario creator

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 12
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/23/2019 10:57:53 PM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 914
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: online
quote:

Units Dividing . . . why an enemy unit divides into 3 regiments after being attacked.



I think there is a case for improving the division of defeated units. These units always divide into three subunits of which one is under reorganization. Would be nice if sometimes the unit divided into two subunits and/or none of the subunits were under reorganization. Give the retreat function a little variability and make it possible for subunits to escape complete destruction.

Regards, RhinoBones


< Message edited by rhinobones -- 7/23/2019 11:02:33 PM >


_____________________________

Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 13
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/24/2019 12:56:49 AM   
76mm


Posts: 3720
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Give the retreat function a little variability and make it possible for subunits to escape complete destruction.

Would also be nice to be able to turn it off on a per side basis.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 14
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/24/2019 2:22:05 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 3179
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
You do realize that dividing units because of combat does have a reason. It's not a just because situation. It allows a unit, or at least some of it, to remain on the board even after taking some serious losses. Just like in real life terms. It's rare that a division is completely eliminated because of combat. About the only time that happens is when it is completely surrounded. Typically some combat effective part of it remains. The reason for dividing a unit into thirds is because the long standing practice of dividing a division into thirds. Three combat regiments. That's carried down to company level. So if you think of it like that three parts makes sense.

I'd like to see a unit's ZOC be limited according to a unit's size in relation to the relative average size of a scenario's units. If the average unit size is a regiment then that has the 'regular' ZOC. Anything smaller has a lesser ZOC.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 7/24/2019 2:26:57 AM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 15
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/24/2019 5:27:30 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8854
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

RBC
Basically enemy units run away before combat which means you have to chase them all over the board.

I agree that it is annoying, so it adds a bit of planning to a situation when you know it might happen. You can break down two of your units and surround the enemy and destroy it in hex. You can also exercise restraint and not RBC a unit all over the map [just stop!].

quote:

Units Dividing

As a Combat Result, always irritates the heck out of me personally, the last one to retreat gets the disengagement attack and then can't move or recombine or even dig-in, two usually go one way while the third goes another way leaving one susceptible to the RBC all over the map. Ughhh. However, others accept it as ok so I don't see it as being totally wrong, I just don't like it.

quote:

Inability to view enemy stacks

I seem to have said this a few days in a row - mouse over the stack and hit 'C'. Works for both sides.

quote:

Airpower

The Air Assistant working when it is turned off? I thought this was corrected. I'm sure someone else knows where the thread is.

quote:

Scenario Weather ... the TGW scenario

That would be my fault, because my design process is to 'rough-in' the weather and then adjust it during playtesting, but that TGW scenario I did a little different in that I designed it for someone else and I never playtested it, so the weather went unnoticed. I'll add it to my list of things to do, because the weather can be tested by running a hotseat game over night then checking the results and making adjustments. Thanks for pointing it out, by the way!

quote:

Combat round

Yeah, it's a big issue when people don't get it. I played for several years the way you describe [just ignore it, it's not needed]. Once you get it it's maybe like moving from checkers to chess, I guess. There are plenty of explanations, which one will make it click for you is impossible to tell. My contribution can be found here, if you haven't seen it already:
TOAW Tutorial - Tactical Rounds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA5kbyT_9SM

quote:

its broken on so many levels. I would not recommend this game

I'm not shy about being critical, but I can still edit and play scenarios to a reasonable level, so I would sort of compare it to buying a new vehicle that has some issues - it's nice but it leaves a little to be desired. Let's give the dealer some time and see if they can figure it out, meanwhile it still gets me to work.

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 16
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/24/2019 12:31:35 PM   
Bamilus


Posts: 477
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: The Old Northwest
Status: offline
I don't think anyone is being rude, but it's kind of insane to ask a 20 year old game that is already on life support to move away from hexes. That would require an entirely new game. Also, most wargames haven't moved beyond "hexes". The non-hex wargames I can think of are Steel Division, Close Combat, Armored Brigade, Command Ops, and a few others. The vast majority of grog-level wargames are still hex and will still be hex.

For the other changes, you just have to accept that this it TOAW and enjoy it or play something different. The game isn't for everyone, but I like it and how unique it is.

_____________________________

Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 17
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/24/2019 5:11:49 PM   
RealChuckB


Posts: 284
Joined: 9/29/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

I don't think anyone is being rude, but it's kind of insane to ask a 20 year old game that is already on life support to move away from hexes. That would require an entirely new game. Also, most wargames haven't moved beyond "hexes". The non-hex wargames I can think of are Steel Division, Close Combat, Armored Brigade, Command Ops, and a few others. The vast majority of grog-level wargames are still hex and will still be hex.

For the other changes, you just have to accept that this it TOAW and enjoy it or play something different. The game isn't for everyone, but I like it and how unique it is.


I agree and also think that you have to keep in mind what was the original design-thinking with respect to TOAW was: to create a sandbox-like model that would be flexible enough to re-create very different conflicts across a pretty substantial timeline. If you want to achieve that, hexes may be your best (and maybe even your only option). All the games you listed are realtime games that are simulating a very specific conflict that happened at one point in time and most of these are employing rather symmetrical forces. I can't think of any sandbox-type game that employs realtime but maybe I'm forgetting something?

If you don't want to go real-time, you basically have the option between hexes or area-movement (such as Matrix Games Drive on Moscow or Battle of the Bulge games) but that, of course, does not work at all for a sandbox engine, as the areas have to be very specifically set up and meaningfully designed for a specific purpose.

I think that some peculiarities and even weaknesses of TOAW are owed to this very open approach when TOAW was originally designed and yes, it's not all realistic to ask for major changes to the core engine, it's like looking at a semi-trailer truck and saying "yeah, that's all fine but it's not really fast and it can't swim - can we change these two things (but also keep the ability to transport a lot of stuff cheaply?"

< Message edited by RealChuckB -- 7/24/2019 5:12:55 PM >

(in reply to Bamilus)
Post #: 18
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/24/2019 11:25:45 PM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 914
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: online

quote:

The reason for dividing a unit into thirds is because the long standing practice of dividing a division into thirds.



What long standing practice are you referring too?

Agree that groups of three units has been used as an organizational structure, but lets not get hung up on the WWII division. Without getting into artillery and support units, we do know that historically nations had a wide variance in how maneuver units were organized:
- Late war German WWII divisions were reorganized with two regiments and those regiments sometimes had two battalions.
- US tank battalions in 1944 had four tank companies.
- 1914 German and Allied divisions had two brigades, each with two regiments. Each regiment had three battalions composed of four companies. These “square” divisions were reorganized as triangular divisions as the war went on.
- Union American Civil War regiments were composed of as many as 10 individual companies. Battalions were usually formed in the field as needed.
- Modern US divisions are composed of brigade combat teams, each having four or more maneuver battalions.
- A Roman legion was composed of 10 cohorts.

TOAW doesn’t do any of these structures justice. However, as suggested in a prior post, the scenario designer could be given the ability to define how units are subdivided by the player before, or the computer after combat. Also the probability that a unit will go into reorganization. I think it all depends on the era being modeled and the feel the author is trying to portray.

Regards


_____________________________

Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 19
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/25/2019 2:32:20 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8854
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Agree with Mr. Bones, and further - if a scenario has a unit that represents a Division, why as a result of combat does the division separate into Regiments that then retreat their own way? Did any wargame ever do this? Maybe it was one of Norm's revolutionary ideas that doesn't quite shake out.

By the way, I ran a Weather Test in TGW and there is plenty of Snow




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 20
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/25/2019 2:37:49 AM   
Zovs


Posts: 4148
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
My guess is that the idea is taken from The Europa Series, it was by GDW (and then GR/D), but it allowed certain (and only a few) divisions to be broken down for movement and combat (not as a result of combat).

I don't mind it, it's been like this for 20+ years and like how I think Jack pointed out, it allows part of a division to escape while other parts get destroyed.

Its' more realistic then in the old board war games where you took a 10-8 panzer division and then flipped it due to combat to a 2-8 and then the next flip it was gone.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario creator

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 21
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/25/2019 2:44:49 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8854
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Thanks Don, that adds to what I said about some people being ok with it, so it will be staying around so we must be prepared to deal with it.

More snow in TGW:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 22
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/25/2019 2:47:49 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8854
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
... and the snow lasted thru the winter I did see that there were some weather adjustments in v1.11, no idea if that addressed snow, but maybe the complainant was using an earlier version.

I did have a newer version from May that hadn't been posted yet, so that is now available here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4382985&mpage=1&key=�




Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 23
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/25/2019 2:24:59 PM   
StuccoFresco

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

The reason for dividing a unit into thirds is because the long standing practice of dividing a division into thirds.



What long standing practice are you referring too?

Agree that groups of three units has been used as an organizational structure, but lets not get hung up on the WWII division. Without getting into artillery and support units, we do know that historically nations had a wide variance in how maneuver units were organized:
- Late war German WWII divisions were reorganized with two regiments and those regiments sometimes had two battalions.
- US tank battalions in 1944 had four tank companies.
- 1914 German and Allied divisions had two brigades, each with two regiments. Each regiment had three battalions composed of four companies. These “square” divisions were reorganized as triangular divisions as the war went on.
- Union American Civil War regiments were composed of as many as 10 individual companies. Battalions were usually formed in the field as needed.
- Modern US divisions are composed of brigade combat teams, each having four or more maneuver battalions.
- A Roman legion was composed of 10 cohorts.

TOAW doesn’t do any of these structures justice. However, as suggested in a prior post, the scenario designer could be given the ability to define how units are subdivided by the player before, or the computer after combat. Also the probability that a unit will go into reorganization. I think it all depends on the era being modeled and the feel the author is trying to portray.

Regards


quote:

TOAW doesn’t do any of these structures justice. However, as suggested in a prior post, the scenario designer could be given the ability to define how units are subdivided by the player before, or the computer after combat. Also the probability that a unit will go into reorganization. I think it all depends on the era being modeled and the feel the author is trying to portray.


I agree completely.

Units splitting once is ok. Getting from divisions to companies or battalions is just a chore. Combined with RBC it makes for annoying games of whack-a-mole that multiplies the number of units on the map, cluttering it tremendously and making the turns longer.

Yeah, you can make encirclements, but not always every time.

Fragmenting units should be dependent on starting unit's size and allow for only one or two at best subdivisions. Just as RBC should be limited to a couple times; I chased small units for like 5 hexes multiple times before finally overrunning them.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 24
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/25/2019 2:57:48 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 4148
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
I just look and accept that RBC is very much like the old board war games concept of overrun.

I think what some folks miss is that a battalion, regiment, brigade or division even, each have a dynamic TOE's and various states of readiness, proficiency, and supply levels, not to mention other things like the attrition divider, shock, unit types, terrain, unit and formation proficiency. Hence in general if you have a shock level of 150 and a full strength division getting RBC on a lower class under strength division, regiment or battalion then the unit will be RBC'ed.

If you surround a unit you can still get a RBC in hex.

I guess I am just used to it since 1998 and have learned to adapt to use it and defend as best I can against it.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario creator

(in reply to StuccoFresco)
Post #: 25
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/26/2019 6:15:05 PM   
Hellen_slith


Posts: 697
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
SO many scenarios, so little time.

One of the things I would like to see incorporated in any update is some sort of installer that dumps all of the great user-created scenarios in their latest iteration into the directories that they belong ....

I know that it must be a chore to weed out all of the scenarios that might not be "worthy" of incorporation in any update or installer thing, but for me (a now technophobe) it is sometimes just too much for me to try to download and "install" all the worthy scenarios that are coming out now.

I appreciate all the work that goes into creating the new scenarios, but alas I will never be able to play them all (much less install them) so it would be a great help to me to have at least some sort of installer thing created. I used to be really good at computer stuff, but time has passed me by, so any help in that regard would be greatly appreciated.

Ok, well, thanks for reading!

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 26
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/26/2019 6:55:02 PM   
John T_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Stockholm Sweden
Status: offline

Can you affect the chance a unit will surrender, or evaporate?
apart from encirclement?


_____________________________

/John T

(in reply to Hellen_slith)
Post #: 27
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/26/2019 7:40:18 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3179
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
If a unit is in poor enough shape or small enough it can be killed off by fairly any kind of combat. Even disengagement.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to John T_MatrixForum)
Post #: 28
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/27/2019 2:10:51 AM   
Hellen_slith


Posts: 697
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John T_MatrixForum


Can you affect the chance a unit will surrender, or evaporate?
apart from encirclement?



You can disband a unit under the proper circumstance (thus putting its resources back into the replacement pool, iirc)

That would be affecting the chances 100 percent, if you have the opportunity to disband.

(in reply to John T_MatrixForum)
Post #: 29
RE: TOAW IV Changes needed - 7/27/2019 11:10:52 AM   
John T_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Stockholm Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If a unit is in poor enough shape or small enough it can be killed off by fairly any kind of combat. Even disengagement.


But there is none of the "fudge factors" (force characteristics) that the scenario editor can modify?
"Force Loss Intolerance" did sound promising but meant something else.

The thing I 'm looking for are something that makes a unit to evaporate before taking major losses.

Like having a factor to determine how large losses this unit will start to have a chance to evaporate.
Often Expressed as a percentage of losses sustained,
Iwo Jima Japanese will take 95% losses before thinking of surrender(or suicide).
while some Norwegian units surrendered in April 40 without being shot at.
Or the rather common event in 1940 of units surrendering just because they where surrounded.

That could be one way to handle the "whack-a-mole" syndrome
or just that I got better understanding of TOAW works to make units more fragile.
How well is the current model of evaporate documented?


But in general the game's mechanism of retreat are OK.

Cheers
/John

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> TOAW IV Changes needed Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.176