Supply icons

[EddieTheTrooper]

Hi!
Can someone explain to me what are those circle icons without a number in supply trace view? They look like supply source but apparently they are not. Cant't find any explanation in manual

[carll11]

I'm a relative TOAW newb but I am pretty sure they are supply indicators...theres a way I believe, to bring up the % of supply on top of them too..

[sPzAbt653]

You said you checked the manual, but for those that didn't:

9.1.7. Supply (Advanced Rules)

Supply Lines
The number in the marker is the location supply for that hex for the current side.

So for those hexes, you get zero! [The game isn't going to show '0', because you always get at least '1' when in supply].

Also, hexes that converted ownership during this player turn will not show a number, as they are not part of the supply trace until the bookkeeping phase.

[EddieTheTrooper]

Thank you for replies. Now i understand but one more question. What exactly are those numbers in circles. Beacuse I always thought they represent the number or percent of supply the unit in this hex will receive next turn. But I am playing right now scenario called Karelian Pine 1990 and everything with supply works opposite I thought it should work. For example this units in the north part of a map should have real problems with supply...

Screenshot_89.png (8.35 MiB) Viewed 393 times

And this ones, in the south, should be in relative good situation:

Screenshot_90.png (8.61 MiB) Viewed 393 times

But for some reasons units in the north were able to restock much more supply during next turns than those in the south. What I don't understand?

[sPzAbt653]

Well, the short answer for me is to assign homework :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhVdL9ukZa8

[MonkeyBrain3]

Well, the short answer for me is to assign homework :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhVdL9ukZa8

Well, your 10 reasons why you love TOAW should made sticky

Great job in Directive 21. Anazing piece of latest TOAW techology.

Can you say what you as scenario designer see in improving TOAW PO - can we discuss pro et contra 5 tracks used in D21?

Is there anything that could be improved in PO behaviour?

[MonkeyBrain3]

Lol but now I am hooked on WiTE 2 lol TOAW frankly now I am mostly barraging Soviets which is pretty boring in Dir 21 turn after turn lol.
And supply is attrocious so I am at turn 8 WiTE 2.

[sPzAbt653]

Directive 21 - is rather dated, I separated myself from it many years ago. An updated version can be found here:

Russo-German War 1941-45
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4693778

Russo-German War 'JanRoss' Variant
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5&t=387726

[sPzAbt653]

Can you say what you as scenario designer see in improving TOAW PO

[reposted from other threads]

For TOAW, Single Player Mode has two levels. There is Level 1, an AI, it is a written code program that is in place for every scenario and is not accessible to scenario designers [and well it shouldn't be]. Level 2 is separate, it is the Programmed Opponent [PO] that must be programmed by the scenario designer for every scenario in order to function. Level 1 won't really do anything unless given direction by Level 2. The amount of programming for Level 2 by scenario designers varies. It can range from just enough to allow the game to function [which for most players would not be considered a challenge], to full blown 'my programmed opponent will crush you'.

CIV estimates that 95% of all games are played solo, so these are valid concerns. Not all might be interested, but the Level 2 that I talk about above is fully accessible by all players in the Editor, and therefore there is the option to set up your own PO in a scenario that doesn't have one, or to modify one that is in place. Maybe one day I will make a video for this.

There are Objectives [five tracks available], Strategic Bias, Formation Orders and Loss Tolerance's. Each can be set, in order to adjust the PO. We can make it simple or we can go for complexity. For example, D21 went for complexity and there are an estimated 80,000 Objectives for the Soviet side, plus events to change the Strategic Bias [Aggressive to Neutral stuff], plus Formation Orders [which have to be there anyway but in some cases they switch by event], plus Loss Tolerance's, which are the same as Formation Orders in that they have to be there but can switch by event. There is no 'book' on how to achieve desired results, so once you do all that you have to playtest it repeatedly to see what happens and then make adjustments. In a small scenario it's quick and fun! In larger scenarios it is tedious, and boring, and never finished because there are so many variables. This is why some scenarios have no PO or PO for one side only [but most do have a PO].

[sPzAbt653]

Is there anything that could be improved in PO behaviour?

I imagine there would be, but without access to and an understanding of the coded part of the PO [Level 1 as described in the previous post] I could not comment intelligently.

On the other hand, for the Level 2 part the scenario designers are responsible, and it is not their fault that they do not know how to program the PO. There is no manual for that. I have always offered to look at any scenario and suggest possible PO improvements. Not that I am omniscient in these matters, but I am quite dedicated to solo play and I have a bit of practical experience in PO programming. Additionally, I had received a little direction from Ralph when he was here.

[sPzAbt653]

can we discuss pro et contra 5 tracks used in D21?

What is wrong with 5 tracks The more the merrier I think.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've had two thoughts on the PO. The first was to prevent the PO from moving a unit that is the last unit in an enemy ZOC - so that enemy unit won't be left behind to roam around in the PO's rear. That's been implemented. Jury is still out.

My other thought was that it would be useful to have a General Order that sets the formation's objective to the NEAREST enemy unit (no programmed objectives required). This would then be the default for each formation. So...a scenario would have a functional PO without any need for programming - and that PO might even work better than the one with geographical objectives programmed.

[MonkeyBrain3]

Thanks to both gents, very insightful, some matter for thinking here!

Now back to why we love TOAW - it keeps our mind off Pamela Anderson LOL

Last comment is comical but very nice discussion on PO, TOAW still have bright future.

In fact TOAW is like Altair Basic hehe by Microsoft.
One game dev ex Activision employee from very old days said:

"I would never imagine that Altair Basic developer will later buy Activision for 69 billions $'

so TOAW in that regard is very valuable IP, witn a respect in military circles.

NATO is interested to some degree - they are fascinated by TOAW. Well, I plan to visit NATO HQ some Gonzo Journalism a la James Bond khm khm or 'Fear and loathing in Las Vegas'

I will check on what expensive toys is NATO playing ))

Maybe to challenge some NATO General in a game of TOAW?

Bobby Fischer vs Spaski now that was chess match!

[MonkeyBrain3]

I've had two thoughts on the PO. The first was to prevent the PO from moving a unit that is the last unit in an enemy ZOC - so that enemy unit won't be left behind to roam around in the PO's rear. That's been implemented. Jury is still out.

My other thought was that it would be useful to have a General Order that sets the formation's objective to the NEAREST enemy unit (no programmed objectives required). This would then be the default for each formation. So...a scenario would have a functional PO without any need for programming - and that PO might even work better than the one with geographical objectives programmed.

Bob,

Both ideas are excellent. Well done

[Curtis Lemay]

Now back to why we love TOAW - it keeps our mind off Pamela Anderson LOL

Some of us are able to mult-task.

[MonkeyBrain3]

Now back to why we love TOAW - it keeps our mind off Pamela Anderson LOL

Some of us are able to mult-task.

LOL that made me good laugh

[rhinobones]

. . . prevent the PO from moving a unit that is the last unit in an enemy ZOC - so that enemy unit won't be left behind to roam around in the PO's rear.

I can see where this would be helpful in certain situations, but certainly not as a PO default command. There are just too many times when all units need to evacuate/exit a position. The designer needs to have better control over the PO’s actions so maybe making this a function of the “Screen”, “Independent” or a new formation order would be better implementation. Instead of a point defense the revised order would make an area/flank defense.

If there is only one unit in the hex does this order prevent it from withdrawing?

To a certain degree, stopping the Cheyenne player from running all over the PO’s backfield can be managed by the designer. Breaking large formations into component parts and assigning objective tracks which support one another helps to cover flanks. As an example, instead of making a single divisional level objective track, design supportive tracks for the HQ, artillery and maneuver regiments. It’s more work, but it should make the PO a more competitive opponent in the scenario’s initial stages.

. . . have a General Order that sets the formation's objective to the NEAREST enemy unit (no programmed objectives required). This would then be the default for each formation.

If I understand correctly this orders the formation(s) to advance toward the enemy without consideration for the planned (objective track) defense/offense. With this order as the default the history buffs are going to go crazy. The function needs to be event driven where it can be a general force order or formation specific as directed by the author.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

I can see where this would be helpful in certain situations, but certainly not as a PO default command. There are just too many times when all units need to evacuate/exit a position. The designer needs to have better control over the PO’s actions so maybe making this a function of the “Screen”, “Independent” or a new formation order would be better implementation. Instead of a point defense the revised order would make an area/flank defense.

If there is only one unit in the hex does this order prevent it from withdrawing?

To a certain degree, stopping the Cheyenne player from running all over the PO’s backfield can be managed by the designer. Breaking large formations into component parts and assigning objective tracks which support one another helps to cover flanks. As an example, instead of making a single divisional level objective track, design supportive tracks for the HQ, artillery and maneuver regiments. It’s more work, but it should make the PO a more competitive opponent in the scenario’s initial stages.

Again, this has been implemented, so people can see for themselves how well it works. Over the course of TOAW's lifetime, the PO has always been pretty boneheaded. Note that when the last unit in a hex departs, it usually suffers a disengagement attack. Then, since the PO moves formations one at a time, another formation often works past the same enemy position, ultimately suffering another disengagement attack on its last unit (or every unit, if it didn't start with units in the hex), etc. etc. After all that, the enemy is left behind to reoccupy an earlier formation objective - causing the PO to then backtrack to retake that objective - repeated over and over. It's such a mindless issue with the PO any solution is worth implementing. There is never a good reason to leave an enemy unit in the PO's rear.

If I understand correctly this orders the formation(s) to advance toward the enemy without consideration for the planned (objective track) defense/offense. With this order as the default the history buffs are going to go crazy. The function needs to be event driven where it can be a general force order or formation specific as directed by the author.

Those history buffs can use the other General Orders.

But, those designers who don't have the will to even program the PO will find their scenario to have a built-in functional PO - far better than exists now.

[sPzAbt653]

There are just too many times when all units need to evacuate/exit a position.

I'm not arguing this point, I'm just using it as a reference for the following comments. The PO is difficult enough to reconcile, cut off his units and now he has a serious problem. Which way does he go, and will anyone come to his rescue? Which is the best direction for success, and which units will have the best chance of making an effective path to freedom while the rest hold off the enemy? Is it better to hold out, or get out? Are we at Demyansk or Stalingrad, or Korsun or Falaise? Do we have enough units to assist the breakout from the outside without compromising the rest of our position? Humans have difficulty with these decisions.

For the nuts and bolts, originally the PO would move at will, and some may remember that indeed Elmer [the PO] would move quite a bit [some called it the 'pee-pee dance']. This was pretty degrading to his force and gave the human player an advantage even when the PO wasn't surrounded, so a change was made. Now we have an Elmer that quite often will sit in place and observe the situation, even when surrounded. [The chance that Elmer will move a unit out of an enemy ZOC has been reduced]. Maybe that could be looked at in the future.

[EddieTheTrooper]

Well, the short answer for me is to assign homework :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhVdL9ukZa8

Ok. I've watched the video and didn't find the answer. So again. If you look at the units on first screenshot, they are in bad supply situation, their supply lines are long and are coming through bad road. The supply levels are low and range from 1 where my recon is to 5 max so they should have real problems with restocking supply. But in my current game, they don't have problems with supply. They restock it very quickly.
Now, on the picture below, this are my southern forces. Their supply situation is good. They have good road and rail coming from supply source. The supply levels on hexes range from 38(which is max)to twenty something... so they should be in much better supply situation than those units in the north. But my infantry battalions, and artillery which I have stopped for 2 or 3 turn to restock supply receive almost nothing during this turns. Still don't understand. When I begun this scenario I assumed that it should be opposite than it is. I was sure my units in the north will have huge problems with supply(poor road far from supply source, low supply level on hexes) but my main punch from the south will not have this problems as huge as those units in the north. But everything is opposite. There is no answer for this in this video, or I missed it.