Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You don't have to wait for anything. Both players enter orders, and watch the action unfold, in real time. Everything happens "as we speak". Both players can regulate the speed of the game (stop, normal speed, fast, extra fast), and the game plays in slower of two players' settings. Games usually play in normal or fast speed - first you both enter initial orders and start the game, then it usually plays in normal or fast speed.

Given that "normal" is the lowest level above stop, I can imagine the game would really drag at that speed.

quote:

The one "con" about PzC's that I will say is that they are expensive ... especially if you want to collect many battles to add to your collection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I feel I can kinda predict your next comment/complaint and that is that COTA is too tactical for your taste, if scenarios last for "only" 4, or 10 days of "historic time". If you think that way, you're wrong. COTA's scenarios, varying from 1 to 10 days of "hostoric time" are perfectly balanced for the *operational* warfare feel of the game (perhaps still a bit on the lower, ie, tactical side of things). TOAW's mega scenarios, using corps sized units and lasting for 4 years () are the perversion of the term "operational" IMO, and usually quite ridicolous to play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I agree. I thought you were the one who liked huge scenarios; Drang Nach Osten etc.?

quote:


I take it COTA etc. are at a fixed scale? That's a shame- but hopefully it can be fixed. I'll get one of this series this year anyway, it really does sound like they're moving wargaming forward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It all depends on the "feel", and thats something you can judge usually only after some *playtesting*. DNO, again, feels right, and turn-wise it's not too long (last version I played had 36 turns IIRC).

quote:

I am the one arguing fiercely for inclusion of Regiment (polk) level estabs in the East Front game in the series, at least for Soviets (so far most scearios are based around companies/battalion HQs which works for WF and Med/Africa but may be troublesome for EF).

True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

These are all tactical games, aren't they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

OOPS ... after that last post I found this one from molotov_billy? on another thread.  It sounds like part of the answer I was looking for.

Sorry... this is a little off topic ... but I'm desperate for knowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As end result, by 45., while still lagging behind on the pure tactical level (which every German fanboi will be happy to make big deal about) - Soviets truely excelled on the level we all here love so much, and that is operational. Soviet operations of 44 and 45 are true operational level masterpieces, that probably haven't been repeated ever since.

quote:

This is where, IMHO, Combat Mission makes a huge mistake. This game is true example of German fanboyism if there ever was any. By pitting battles on pure tactical level you always have tactical ubermensch Germans fighting quasi-equal number of n00b Soviets (or even Western Allies). Well, nice, but simply not realistic, and never gives any chance for Sovs to materialize what they were best at - op level planning and execution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I'm not sure that having the companies on the map is helpful when you're issuing orders to the regiments. If the player is commanding an Army or Army Group, he certainly wouldn't be aware of the locations of individual companies or probably even battalions. Perhaps the game could track them- but they shouldn't be visible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I posted lengthy arguments about this on Panther Games East Front DDT board (in the restricted, beta test area of the Matrix boards). I don't really think this discussion is in any way relevant for *TOAW* board

Anyhow.... Since Soviets realised that Germans are better at tactical level, for the most of the war they sought - and found! - a way to materialize their advantage on the next level, and that is operational. As end result, by 45., while still lagging behind on the pure tactical level (which every German fanboi will be happy to make big deal about) - Soviets truely excelled on the level we all here love so much, and that is operational. Soviet operations of 44 and 45 are true operational level masterpieces, that probably haven't been repeated ever since.

Now, to *materialize* this operational level thinking, we simply need MORE units, MORE territory, and a scale that is by a measure of degree bigger than what Panther games were (or are) up to now. Using company and battalion estabs may, and does, work well for Market Garden (HTTR) and COTA, and will work well for Africa, perhaps for selected battles in the Pacific as well, but it will NOT work well for EF. Sovs would be in disadvantage.

This is where, IMHO, Combat Mission makes a huge mistake. This game is true example of German fanboyism if there ever was any. By pitting battles on pure tactical level you always have tactical ubermensch Germans fighting quasi-equal number of n00b Soviets (or even Western Allies). Well, nice, but simply not realistic, and never gives any chance for Sovs to materialize what they were best at - op level planning and execution.

In short, that is why we need bigger base unit estabs for Sovs, for EF, in my opinion.

Oleg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Now, to *materialize* this operational level thinking, we simply need MORE units, MORE territory, and a scale that is by a measure of degree bigger than what Panther games were (or are) up to now. Using company and battalion estabs may, and does, work well for Market Garden (HTTR) and COTA, and will work well for Africa, perhaps for selected battles in the Pacific as well, but it will NOT work well for EF. Sovs would be in disadvantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

Thanks MB ... I played around with this last night and i like it much better than the way I was playing before.  I'll tryout your sequence in the last post tonight.  Its a blast learning this game ... its a lot different from either PzC or BiN (which I enjoy also ... I'm just a hog when it comes to these games)  ... but I'm very interested in learning TOAW as much as possible due to its huge and continuous following ... like SPWaW has.

regards
Hank

I've been playing Rundstedts Plan Martin and Barbarossa to learn.  Both those sce's are fun to play ... Plan Martin is extremely enjoyable ... and even though its a hypothetical sce, the historical units are there to "what if" with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Ok I think this part is relevant. What I was trying to say is that the scale does get large enough for east front scenarios, but maintain the units as company level. This means more units of course, but you aren't commanding each company. The simplicity is retained but without a cost to realism. (armies moving around as clumps.)

Like I said, the only obstacle to that is performance. The engine is getting better with each release, so it seems likely that we'll eventually be able to play large east front scenarios at a company level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Because it's far more interesting,

quote:

If you can model companies and make it just as simple,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Otherwise, you might get just another in the looong loooooongggggg string of games that favor Germans (because of designer's fanboyism or mistakes in design) so that players can only wonder "how come these ueber-guys ever lost a war??"

quote:

Finally, to get back on TOAW topic somewhat - many good TOAW scenarios put German batallions/regiments vs Soviet regiments/divisions, etc ie. a Soviet unit one level above the German, to get the good simulated effect. It's not the same as giving Soviets simply more batallions to work with, it shows different doctrines altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

...but unrealistic. At times, army commanders didn't even know where some divisions were- let alone individual companies. One persistant problem with wargames is that too much information is available to the player, especially about his own force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Who says that I'm an army commander?

quote:

Since when do you play a specific commander in any of these games?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Well, number of units, ie number of counters is certainly a consideration (if not an outright limitation) for this engine. It all happens in "quasi real time". If there's too many of them you get cluttered screen even if CPU can handle all that. Besides, show me one Soviet commander with rank of polkovnik or above, who really ever cared about such trifling entities as companies when conducting operations?