Slitherine

quote:


You are confusing relief with altitude. The tiles in TOAW are only modeling relief (how "wrinkled" the terrain is). Terrain can be low in altitude and high in relief or vice-versa. There is no basis to assume that an open hex is lower or higher in altitude than any other open hex, or a hill or mountain hex, etc. There is one exception: The peak hex. That's the only feature in TOAW that models altitude in any fashion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

About half right. YOu've got a point about the hex conversion penalty -- but this is actually a problem when one is trying to model campaigns where either there really wasn't anything resembling 'hex ownership' (North Africa, for example) or where one side was going so hell for leather considerations of 'hex ownership' didn't slow them in the least (France in 1940, Barbarossa). Conversely, as it stands, one can run right along a completely ungarrisoned front -- if one 'owns' the hexes one will have all the benefits of this secure movement. If the enemy crosses over and attacks, you're magically deployed.

quote:

It'd be good if 'hex ownership' penalties could be adjusted from 0 to 100% of their current values for each force -- or even each army.

quote:

Alternatively, if the unit was motorized and one could have the option of choosing to stay in 'marching order' one's movement rate could be doubled.

quote:

Finally, and as yet a third alternative, 'hex ownership' would not be static, but would be recalculated each turn on the basis of the proximity of units from each side. Again ideally, this value could be scaled for each force, and there would be a 'neutral' type that could or could not impose movement penalties on either or both of the forces but where neither force would 'see' any enemy units. That is to say, it would be friendly for movement purposes for both sides but hostile for recon purposes.

quote:

quote:

For logistical reasons - and TOAW somewhat represents that via the supply penalty for units that have moved.

Now here I really can't see your argument. In what way does TOAW simulate the difficulties involved in suddenly changing an axis of advance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Oh, then tell me what isn't in Toaw.

quote:

Terrain modifiers are arbitrary numbers, ...

quote:

probability of hitting are arbitrary, and probability of spotting based on terrain are arbitrary too for sure and at the end, any of those events are random. Toaw is all based on arbitrary numbers (specified according to assumed averages) and random dice roll. Is there something more arbitrary and random than a quality check (which is based in strong arbitrary abstractions)?

quote:

quote:


You are confusing relief with altitude.

No, I'm not. If you read my last paragraph, you'll see that I suggest using your solution to simulate elevation, since then one would be able to look above any kind of terrain.

quote:

But you must admit that MOST of the time a mountainous region will block terrain; MOST of the time a hilly region will place some obstruction to the line of sight. Most of the time open terrain with some forest in the middle will have the line of sight blocked by it. Toaw is all based on average after all. Not always will it be easier for a primitive anti-tank gun to hit a tank in a forest than in the open, but most of the time... and that`s what Toaw model, not specific situations.
You may still have open terrain in different levels, for example, in which case forest or hill terrain, if in lower level, wouldn't block the view, but then, designers could use your idea to model it.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Curtis Lemay

quote:

Terrain modifiers are arbitrary numbers, ...

??  In what way?  The designer has full control of exactly what the terrain in each hex is.  And players know exactly what terrain is in each hex.

quote:

quote:

probability of hitting are arbitrary, and probability of spotting based on terrain are arbitrary too for sure and at the end, any of those events are random. Toaw is all based on arbitrary numbers (specified according to assumed averages) and random dice roll. Is there something more arbitrary and random than a quality check (which is based in strong arbitrary abstractions)?

But all of those things are random and arbitrary in real life, too.  They're supposed to be modeled that way.  Terrain isn't.  Think of how this will play out: players will not know whether they are on one side or the other of a "ridge".  That will be determined randomly - then vary from turn to turn, even.

quote:

quote:


You are confusing relief with altitude.

No, I'm not. If you read my last paragraph, you'll see that I suggest using your solution to simulate elevation, since then one would be able to look above any kind of terrain.

quote:

quote:

But you must admit that MOST of the time a mountainous region will block terrain; MOST of the time a hilly region will place some obstruction to the line of sight. Most of the time open terrain with some forest in the middle will have the line of sight blocked by it. Toaw is all based on average after all. Not always will it be easier for a primitive anti-tank gun to hit a tank in a forest than in the open, but most of the time... and that`s what Toaw model, not specific situations.
You may still have open terrain in different levels, for example, in which case forest or hill terrain, if in lower level, wouldn't block the view, but then, designers could use your idea to model it.

At 2.5km hex scale (and this is almost entirely what this will concern) how many cases of two open hexes separated by a single mountain hex can we expect?  This will primarily come down to just plains of open hexes.  And in those cases detection will be entirely random and arbitrary.  The figures I have show that the distance to the horizon for a 6-foot man is 5.3km.  So, on average, you shouldn't see very far, even over a billiard table.

I just see this as too much work for dubious benefit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

That doesn't mean they have control of the configuration of this specific terrain. A urban hex, for example, may contain single store buildings or two/three store buildings, may have broad streets or very narrow ones. All those characteristics would change completely the advantage or disadvantage of specific types of weapons, but Toaw uses an average, which means: what would be the average advantage of defenders on the average type of urban terrain if we consider random placement of equipment along this terrain, since we can't determine the exact position of equipment with relation to the terrain irregularities. The definition of this value is arbitrary adding to the generation of a value (after summed with other variables) which represents the probability of suffering casualties in combat.

quote:

quote:

But all of those things are random and arbitrary in real life, too.  They're supposed to be modeled that way.  Terrain isn't.  Think of how this will play out: players will not know whether they are on one side or the other of a "ridge".  That will be determined randomly - then vary from turn to turn, even.

The question is not if you're on one side or another of a ridge, ...

quote:

quote:


At the discretion of the designer.

So would mine solution. Designers would be able to establish a visibility diameter, that's the point. Terrain type would only serve as obstruction and if designers don't want them to obstruct, they can use the peak solution.

quote:

quote:

The figures I have show that the distance to the horizon for a 6-foot man is 5.3km.  So, on average, you shouldn't see very far, even over a billiard table.

The figure you quote will be valid for a perfect billiard table, which, as you said, is rare.

quote:

Most of the times you have a higher spot to send an observation team.

quote:

I can see a hang glider 7 kms away from my window with naked eyes. It's true they are at a high level, but considering you have a higher spot to compensate (which most 2.5 km diameter area will have), seeing a moving column should be a lot easier.

quote:

Not to mention observation tools, like the balloons used in WWI for artillery fire adjustment. Even if those would have to be represented inside the unit as reconnaissance asset, for them to have real effect, the chance to see further must exist.

quote:

But after all, this is just a game, and such a discussion don't have a point if the idea wasn't well accepted by someone on the designers team.

quote:

Maybe a simpler idea would be to boost theatre reconnaissance with a modifier for enemy units within a radio of high reconnaissance friendly units, to represent detached reconnaissance teams going to favorable spots or even adjacent hexes to detect enemy at farther distances. This modifier could be set by the designer and would be used only when desirable. So one would be able to set a high modifier for favorable (in terms of visibility) overall terrain configuration and a low or null one for unfavorable configuration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

That doesn't mean they have control of the configuration of this specific terrain. A urban hex, for example, may contain single store buildings or two/three store buildings, may have broad streets or very narrow ones. All those characteristics would change completely the advantage or disadvantage of specific types of weapons, but Toaw uses an average, which means: what would be the average advantage of defenders on the average type of urban terrain if we consider random placement of equipment along this terrain, since we can't determine the exact position of equipment with relation to the terrain irregularities. The definition of this value is arbitrary adding to the generation of a value (after summed with other variables) which represents the probability of suffering casualties in combat.

That's equivalent to saying that if I digitize a photograph, since there is a granularity to the pixels, I might as well randomly generate those pixels. While there is a limit to the information the terrain tiles can contain, they are not random or arbitrary. They are fixed and known. What you're suggesting will randomly generate line-of-sight effects - which will be unknown to either the players or the designers.

quote:

quote:

But all of those things are random and arbitrary in real life, too. They're supposed to be modeled that way. Terrain isn't. Think of how this will play out: players will not know whether they are on one side or the other of a "ridge". That will be determined randomly - then vary from turn to turn, even.

The question is not if you're on one side or another of a ridge, ...

Of course it is! You can actually see the ridge. You can know that if you stay behind the ridge you aren't visible. It isn't a random event. Again, this is the difference between the limits of pixelization and randomly generating the pixels. Players don't control the micro-movement of their units within the hex, but they do control their movements from hex-to-hex. They have to be able to make rational decisions about those movements.

quote:

quote:

quote:


At the discretion of the designer.

So would mine solution. Designers would be able to establish a visibility diameter, that's the point. Terrain type would only serve as obstruction and if designers don't want them to obstruct, they can use the peak solution.

It is not the same. The designer could not know which specific hexes would have line of sight. That would be determined randomly without knowledge of the players.

quote:

quote:

quote:

The figures I have show that the distance to the horizon for a 6-foot man is 5.3km. So, on average, you shouldn't see very far, even over a billiard table.

The figure you quote will be valid for a perfect billiard table, which, as you said, is rare.

So, 5.3km would be a best case average. The practical average would be much, much less. And that's just to see the horizon. Seeing cammo'd units at distance is far more difficult. Makes one wonder just why this is so important.

quote:

quote:

I can see a hang glider 7 kms away from my window with naked eyes. It's true they are at a high level, but considering you have a higher spot to compensate (which most 2.5 km diameter area will have), seeing a moving column should be a lot easier.

You can't be serious.

quote:

quote:

Not to mention observation tools, like the balloons used in WWI for artillery fire adjustment. Even if those would have to be represented inside the unit as reconnaissance asset, for them to have real effect, the chance to see further must exist.

I suppose that could be modeled via recon helicopters. Not a common issue.

quote:

quote:

But after all, this is just a game, and such a discussion don't have a point if the idea wasn't well accepted by someone on the designers team.

My influence is the same as yours - how persuasive I am to Ralph. And I will put your idea in the wishlist.

quote:

Maybe a simpler idea would be to boost theatre reconnaissance with a modifier for enemy units within a radio of high reconnaissance friendly units, to represent detached reconnaissance teams going to favorable spots or even adjacent hexes to detect enemy at farther distances. This modifier could be set by the designer and would be used only when desirable. So one would be able to set a high modifier for favorable (in terms of visibility) overall terrain configuration and a low or null one for unfavorable configuration.

But settle on just one.

quote:



In fact, even if this isn't exactly a negative characteristic of the game, I think that it would be better if some concepts weren't based in hexes adjacency, but in real distance. One example I think is really illustrative is intelligence in open terrain. A unit in flat arid terrain, for example, should be able to sight enemy much further than 2.5km...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

Now here I really can't see your argument. In what way does TOAW simulate the difficulties involved in suddenly changing an axis of advance?

The key word was "somewhat". To do more you'd actually have to have those columns of supply trucks strung out in the rear.

quote:


...I just see this as too much work for dubious benefit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Oh, you can't be serious. You're going into the realms of sophism with this analogy.

quote:

But stating that such a solution is arbitrary is stating that designers of such games like ASL and Lock'n Load can't see what you see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

One could also set out 'direction of supply markers.' This actually sounds interesting to contemplate.

So say if you anticipate advancing, you put your direction of supply marker somewhere out ahead in enemy territory. This costs you some of the supply benefits you get merely from being near the original point of supply -- but improves your supply over what it would be otherwise so long as you are actually advancing in the anticipated direction.

If, on the other hand, you figure on fighting it out right where you stand, you plonk that marker right where you are -- and improve your supply so long as you stay there.

You could even plan on a fighting retreat -- and put the marker where you plan to withdraw to.

quote:

TOAW is an operational level game. It will only suffer if we start trying to inject tactical-level considerations into it.

Take the defensive advantages conferred by 'hills.' I'd tend to take those to mean that the terrain is such that the defender can find a line across that hex that will offer him superior lines of sight, cover for his own troops, etc. I do not think the

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Thinking about it further, and more generally, TOAW could do with some attention to the need for planning and organization. Aside from what I've just mentioned, there are absurdities such as tactical parachute drops to close pockets that only emerged earlier that morning, artillery barrages that don't involve stockpiling shells, and no doubt other places where the system fails because it doesn't allow for the fact that a good deal of this stuff needs to be arranged ahead of time. Event mechanisms and house rules can jerry-rig solutions to some of this -- but the game would be better if the effectiveness and abilities of one's units were tied to how closely developments were conforming to one's expectations. The Allies are able to drop a parachute division at Arnhem because they've been planning to do so for two weeks -- they can't just land the division across the Rhine at Strasbourg instead on the spur of the moment without a sizable drop in effectiveness.

Indeed, as it is, it's hard to understand how the Allies could have so willfully overlooked the evidence that the remnants of two panzer divisions had decided to stop and catch their breath right outside Arnhem. Perhaps if it was not just a matter of switching to some other attractive locale but of having the dropping units much more likely to break up and go into re-org the obstinacy would be more understandable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

I know is on the wish list but I wanted to throw in an idea.

A lot has been talked about the rounds and how one unit in far away can spoil the turn, even for units 1000 km away. and I know in the wish list there is the idea that only units that did not finish their attacks will be in a state of continuing the attack.

Here is the idea: all the formation 8units tied to the same HQ) of a unit involved in an attack that has not finished will be set in the same state (could not receive new orders). This would represent the formation HQ involvement on the attack, being busy and not able to issue new orders to other units under its command.

What you would achieve with this is:
- bringing benefits to keeping formation together, and fighting together
- being able to design armies based on small formations vs large formations. The small formations will be much more flexible, and few units will be affected by attacks lasting too long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
TOAW is an operational level game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
TOAW is an operational level game.

Seen this written quite a few times and I do not believe that it is true. TOAW is an “Operational” game only in the sense that the word “Operational” is used in the game name. Fact is that TOAW is expansive enough to build scenarios from the tactical scale (squads, platoons, companies) to the strategic (Armies and Army Groups). Europe Aflame and the Grand War WW I scenarios are hardly to be considered as “operational” . . . neither are the numerous scenarios which model individual battles.

This is not to say that TOAW models all levels with perfect fidelity, we know it doesn’t, but within reasonable limits both the tactical and strategic levels can be modeled. Its time to drop this notion that TOAW is an “Operational” game and that no other level of combat can be modeled using the TOAW engine.

Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah. Generally speaking, the global turn-ending has got to go. The effect has been weakened, but that's not really the problem. The problem is the global nature of the effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah. Generally speaking, the global turn-ending has got to go. The effect has been weakened, but that's not really the problem. The problem is the global nature of the effect.

It think the risk of early turn ending is an important check on low-quality forces otherwise being able to function like surgical-strike elites. The problem is really only when the scope of the scenario gets extreme. To deal with that correctly, we'd need to be able to split the front up into sections or such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah. Generally speaking, the global turn-ending has got to go. The effect has been weakened, but that's not really the problem. The problem is the global nature of the effect.

It think the risk of early turn ending is an important check on low-quality forces otherwise being able to function like surgical-strike elites. The problem is really only when the scope of the scenario gets extreme. To deal with that correctly, we'd need to be able to split the front up into sections or such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
TOAW does nothing at all to simulate many factors that are critical on a tactical level. Line of sight, small arms weapon range, the importance of a 'we-go' system at that level, and some of the qualifications on unit control that exist at the tactical level all come to mind.

Nor does it offer many of the tools one would need for an adequate simulation on the strategic level. Production, the subtleties of national effort and expectations (the Second Front, Viet Nam), the need to engage in certain militarily inefficient but morale-raising activites (strategic bombing)...

You mistake the range. Within 'reasonable limits' part of the operational range can be modeled -- as it is, many situations contain critical elements TOAW can't handle -- even if they are approached at the operational level. By the time you reach anything that could be described as either 'tactical' or 'strategic' the deficiencies will be overwhelming. You can have a go -- but you can also have a go at using TOAW to model class control in an inner-city school.

As it is, OPART tends to start becoming a little implausible at both ends of its range -- that is to say, both at 2.5 km/hex and short turn lengths and at 50 km/hex and the longer turn lengths. It obviously functions best in the middle of the range it aspires to -- and is not really an adequate tool for simulation outside of that.

The game's name really is a giveaway. I think The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth), was explicitly disavowing any attempt to provide a simulation of warfare at either the tactical or the strategic levels. 'The Operational Art of War' -- why do you think he called it that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones




If I understand your post correctly, Europe Aflame and the McBride/Falotti renditions of The Great War are either Operational scenarios (which I kind of doubt), or they are strategic scenarios which are unplayable because TOAW does not “. . . offer many of the tools one would need for an adequate simulation on the strategic level. Production, the subtleties of national effort and expectations (the Second Front, Viet Nam), the need to engage in certain militarily inefficient but morale-raising activites (strategic bombing)... “ and that the “deficiencies will be overwhelming”.

quote:



Wow! Wonder if the people playing these scenarios realize that their enjoyment is completely misspent? They would be better off playing a scenario about class control at an inner-city school.

quote:



As for the tactical side of TOAW . . . one must wonder why a great number of calories were spent building a data base defining the characteristics of so many individual weapons and why the game engine counts the number of shots fired by these individual weapons, the number of individual hits and the probability that a single hit will kill the target. Come on . . . is this type of detail really needed for an Operational game? Of course not; basic attack, defense, armor and movement values would suffice. But, this level of detail is wonderful for the tactical scenario, it is good for the rivet counters and it is extremely good for the people that truly love to play/build war scenarios of any scale that contain the TOAW level of unit detail.

quote:



Writing that “The Norm . . . was explicitly disavowing any attempt to provide a simulation of warfare at either the tactical or the strategic levels” is smoke, mirrors and BS. You really have no knowledge of what The Norm was thinking and you prove this by making up words he never said publicly. “Explicitly disavowing” . . . did The Norm actually speak these words to you, or is this a fabrication purporting to be the truth?

As for the title, my guess is that he wanted to make a play off “The Art of War”, but since the title was already coined by Sun Tzu, he needed to make a slight alteration while retaining the flavor. The Strategic Art of War (TSAW), too hot. The Tactical Art of War (TTAW), too cold. The Operational Art of War! Ahhhhh, sounds and tastes just right. TOAW . . . it kind of rolls off the tongue. Good name for a war game. Sun Tzu is happy.

quote:



Of course if you have any first hand communication with The Norm about his intentions, feel free to share them with the forum. Otherwise, in spite of the game title, the evidence strongly points to TOAW being designed as a universal war game engine. Operational scale just happens to be the happy medium between tactical and strategic.

Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

If I understand your post correctly, Europe Aflame and the McBride/Falotti renditions of The Great War are either Operational scenarios (which I kind of doubt), or they are strategic scenarios which are unplayable because TOAW does not “. . . offer many of the tools one would need for an adequate simulation on the strategic level. Production, the subtleties of national effort and expectations (the Second Front, Viet Nam), the need to engage in certain militarily inefficient but morale-raising activites (strategic bombing)... “ and that the “deficiencies will be overwhelming”.

Wow! Wonder if the people playing these scenarios realize that their enjoyment is completely misspent? They would be better off playing a scenario about class control at an inner-city school.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Writing that “The Norm . . . was explicitly disavowing any attempt to provide a simulation of warfare at either the tactical or the strategic levels” is smoke, mirrors and BS. You really have no knowledge of what The Norm was thinking and you prove this by making up words he never said publicly. “Explicitly disavowing” . . . did The Norm actually speak these words to you, or is this a fabrication purporting to be the truth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Writing that “The Norm . . . was explicitly disavowing any attempt to provide a simulation of warfare at either the tactical or the strategic levels” is smoke, mirrors and BS. You really have no knowledge of what The Norm was thinking and you prove this by making up words he never said publicly. “Explicitly disavowing” . . . did The Norm actually speak these words to you, or is this a fabrication purporting to be the truth?

First paragraph on page 8 of the TOAW III manual;

"...The term is generally used to describe anything in the grey area between strategy [...] and tactics [...] Think of the operational level as a view of the battlefield on a scale just exceeding that at which differing ranges of various direct fire weapons are significant."

So, no, he didn't just pick the name because it sounded nice. He explicity stated in the manual that his intention was to exclude the strictly tactical and the purely strategic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
. . . he will now become increasingly angry and abusive as he attacks all criticisms of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
First paragraph on page 8 of the TOAW III manual;

"...The term is generally used to describe anything in the grey area between strategy [...] and tactics [...] Think of the operational level as a view of the battlefield on a scale just exceeding that at which differing ranges of various direct fire weapons are significant."

So, no, he didn't just pick the name because it sounded nice. He explicity stated in the manual that his intention was to exclude the strictly tactical and the purely strategic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I wouldn't (and didn't) say their time is completely misspent. However, I am sure that Curt (the designer of Vietnam and Erik Nygaard (who has essayed several 1 km/hex scenarios) would both agree that their tasks would have been considerably easier -- and presumably better executed -- if they had had a purpose-designed vehicle at hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Loll. Nevermind if it's explicitly called 'operational' -- and designed accordingly -- it's intended as a universal war game engine. That's obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
and since The Norm (genuflect three times) included the basic unit, map and time scales necessary for tactical/strategic scenarios development, my conclusion is that he had no problem with creativity at the upper and lower thresholds of warfare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
. . . he will now become increasingly angry and abusive as he attacks all criticisms of it.

Well, that’s not very civil. It appears that you are purposely attempting to provoke a response. Since you obviously prefer the low road . . . I instead prefer to take the high road and dismiss the provocation as grade school mentality.