Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion

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 >> Mods and Scenarios >> Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 12:57:55 AM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

I would like to start a discussion on designing order of battles.

One of the things that I have noticed about wargamers is that most play the wargames as games versus simulations. I know that wargames are games, even so, I usually play them more as a simulation. This is due to my own military background. By simulation, I mean that I try to look at things such as command and control, logistics, etc. to help create more of a simulation. I try not to mix units of different commands as this is not practical in real life. I don't send units to run around deep behind enemy lines on suicide missions. Obviously, this makes it harder for me when playing an opponent that is playing a game (bless my heart).

As a scenario designer, I am always looking for ways to make wargames have more characteristics of a simulation. One of the things that I have found interesting about TOAW is its command & control ("C&C") rules like formation cooperation levels. I think that this is as an under utilized, wonderful tool. One of the things that I have found frustrating is its use of formation C&C checks, which can result in whole formations being screwed. To me, a more reasonable approach would be unit C&C checks where a single unit could fail but the rest of the formation could still be OK. Another factor that I have been frustrated by is that the feature of turning off C&C does not work as intended.

Note, I will complain about various functions, but this is still my favorite game. So, please do not take too much offense.

I hope to continue this conversation with ideas to create OOBs that encourage more simulation type of play.

Regards,
Mark

To be continued...

Post #: 1

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 9:04:09 AM

cathar1244

Posts: 1003
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline

I had a discussion with, I think, user Golden Delicious not long ago. The gist is that all of the editor controls have to be adjusted for effect.

This gets to your desire to "simulate" vs "play". A scenario designer has to consider time and space scales to determine control settings that make sense. While a battalion may "reorganize" for a day, the notion of an entire corps doing so over a three month time span is hard to swallow.

One thing I've wondered about for formations is reducing each formation to a single unit. It allows more control over individual units, but there are likely downsides as well.

Cheers

(in reply to Mark Breed)

Post #: 2

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 11:55:38 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

Formation reorganisation is dependent on Formation Proficiency; thus if you don't like it you could consider setting all formations to 100% proficiency. I don't think this eliminates the effect but it does make it less likely.

Anyway I'm not sure I dislike this, as it adds to the degree of "friction" in TOAW. One cannot necessarily count on units to be available for orders turn after turn after turn, especially if they've been involved in continuous heavy fighting for some time.

With regard to realism, as cathar1244 says the first rule is to design for effect. It's also a good idea to play to TOAW's strengths: while it might make a nice game of the Battle of Cannae it won't simulate it, not in the same way as it can simulate a 1940s land battle at regiment scale. For the record I think TOAW also performs better (from a realism standpoint) with lower movement rates and at a moderate unit density, where maintaining a continuous line of units (where appropriate) is pretty trivial, but stacking them 9 high ought to be the exception rather than the rule. This would help eliminate the suicide raid behaviour you allude to above. This is less of an immutable rule however and, again, design for effect- and test, test, test.

Obviously this narrows the field rather a lot in terms of the scenarios you can make- but ought to have a positive impact on their validity as simulations.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 2/4/2022 11:56:48 AM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to cathar1244)

Post #: 3

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 3:05:39 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

I had a discussion with, I think, user Golden Delicious not long ago. The gist is that all of the editor controls have to be adjusted for effect.

This gets to your desire to "simulate" vs "play". A scenario designer has to consider time and space scales to determine control settings that make sense. While a battalion may "reorganize" for a day, the notion of an entire corps doing so over a three month time span is hard to swallow.

One thing I've wondered about for formations is reducing each formation to a single unit. It allows more control over individual units, but there are likely downsides as well.

Cheers

One of the problems is that of players going into the editor and mucking about so the scenario is no longer a simulation but a game. Why do they do that? Because a simulation typically is more restrictive in what you ask a player to do and they get impatient with that and instead want to do what the game engine allows them to do without restrictions imposed by 'house rules' and editor imposed restrictions.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I�m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn�t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to cathar1244)

Post #: 4

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 3:55:13 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
One of the problems is that of players going into the editor and mucking about so the scenario is no longer a simulation but a game.

A problem? If you want a simulation, fine, you�re welcome to it. Same goes with those who want a game. I don�t see any problem with having both. People playing around in the editor and making a scenario which they enjoy is really something you need not be concerned with. No reason to be critical of what others enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Why do they do that? Because a simulation typically is more restrictive in what you ask a player to do and they get impatient with that and instead want to do what the game engine allows them to do without restrictions imposed by 'house rules' and editor imposed restrictions.

This part you�re just making up. I doubt that you�ve had any input from the people involved to support this contention. Funny face not included.

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 #: 5

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 5:05:24 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

A problem? If you want a simulation, fine, you�re welcome to it. Same goes with those who want a game. I don�t see any problem with having both. People playing around in the editor and making a scenario which they enjoy is really something you need not be concerned with. No reason to be critical of what others enjoy.

We've been over this ground and clearly I enjoy some not-very-realistic TOAW scenarios from time to time.

What I will say is that TOAW sometimes gets tied in knots because of being both: it's pretty good at simulating certain things and some people will get carried away trying to make it simulate other, very different things. Clearly one single engine is never going to be a realistic conflict simulator for all time periods and all scales, yet because TOAW can make games across the whole range sometimes people get carried away with unrealistic expectations.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 6

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 6:05:56 PM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

One idea I have to change the impact of C&C checks is when creating an order of battle it would be to have the units grouped in packets depending on the size of the scenario. For example, if you have 100 divisions, instead of grouping the units into formations of armies, I would create formations of say five or ten divisions. And, then, assign the divisions (using different counter or symbol colors) within those divisions to different commands.

For example, if you were going to create ten commands (armies), make "Formation 1" have ten divisions with ten different symbol colors. Do the same for "Formation 2" using the same ten symbol colors, and so on. Here is my attempt to illustrate with words:
Formation 1
1. Blue Symbol Division
2. Yellow Symbol Division
3. Red Symbol Division
and, so on.
Formation 2
1. Blue Symbol Division
2. Yellow Symbol Division
3. Red Symbol Division
and, so on.
Formation 3, etc.

So, when you deploy the divisions to their respective commands, the divisions that make up the first command has one division from each of the ten Formations created.
1st Army
Blue Symbol Division from Formation 1
Blue Symbol Division from Formation 2
Blue Symbol Division from Formation 3
and, so on.
2nd Army
Yellow Symbol Division from Formation 1
Yellow Symbol Division from Formation 2
and, so on.

By doing this method, when one formation fails its C&C check, each "army" has only one division reorganizing from an army. To me, this makes more sense than having an entire army failing its C&C check.

Feedback?

Regards,
Mark

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 7

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 6:35:57 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

By doing this method, when one formation fails its C&C check, each "army" has only one division reorganizing from an army. To me, this makes more sense than having an entire army failing its C&C check.

Unit Color has no impact on Failed Checks. When the Formation fails, all units in the Formation will be Unavailable for orders.

quote:

One thing I've wondered about for formations is reducing each formation to a single unit. It allows more control over individual units, but there are likely downsides as well.

This can be done, and in some scenarios probably should be done. Every scenario is generally different. We design for effect differently for each one depending on the desired effect [that is, to match history, generally]. For example, in Russian Campaign units are Corps sized. Each German Korps is a Formation [one unit per formation]. This allows for maximum flexibility. Soviet units are also Corps sized but each Formation is an Army with several Corps. This will cause some Armies to fail the check more often than the German units [in conjunction with Proficiency Settings].

(in reply to Mark Breed)

Post #: 8

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 7:14:30 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Oh my. Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed? My opinion is no less valid than yours. Funny face included.

_____________________________

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 9

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/4/2022 7:27:31 PM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

By doing this method, when one formation fails its C&C check, each "army" has only one division reorganizing from an army. To me, this makes more sense than having an entire army failing its C&C check.

quote:

Unit Color has no impact on Failed Checks. When the Formation fails, all units in the Formation will be Unavailable for orders.

sPzAbt653,

I believe that you misunderstood my explanation. The colored army is not the formation, "Formation 1" is the formation with different colored divisions in the formation. Those colored divisions will be assigned to different armies by symbol color (i.e. Blue Symbol Army, Yellow Symbol Army, etc.)

So, when "Formation 1" fails its C&C check, the ten different colored symbol divisions within that formation will be reorganizing and not any one individual army.

Regards,
Mark

< Message edited by Mark Breed -- 2/4/2022 7:34:02 PM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 10

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/7/2022 8:41:52 PM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

Next, I would like to discuss the rules for Formation Characteristics and Effects (rule 8.6.1), specifically Formation Support Scope and Unit Cooperation.

Formation Support Scope allows for four support levels with the Cooperation levels indicated below:
Internal = Units will freely cooperate (100% effectiveness) with units in the same formation. Limited cooperation (83% effectiveness) if the same unit counter color. No cooperation (67% effectiveness) with any other units.
Army = Units will freely cooperate (100% effectiveness) with unites in the same formation or same unit counter and symbol color. Limited cooperation if the same unit counter color. No cooperation (67% effectiveness) with any other units.
Force = Units will freely cooperate (100% effectiveness) with units in the same formation or same unit counter color. Limited cooperation with all other units. No cooperation (67% effectiveness) with any other units.
Free = Units will freely cooperate (100% effectiveness) with all units.

Given these parameters, it seems that Formation Support Scope rules work best for scenarios that are limited in scope (i.e. specific battles and smaller campaigns versus wars). I say this because with battles and small campaigns are less likely to see units being switched between formations. And, if you are using restrictive cooperation, it will encourage more realistic use of formations in the scenario. A designer can assist the player in keeping his units deployed based on formations by using both unit counter and symbol colors.

However, if you are creating a large campaign or war scenario, it is best to make all units Free Support as units will be able to more freely be sent to where the current strategic situation requires it. And, if making all units able to freely cooperate, you are still able to use counter and symbol colors to help players better organize their formations. A caveat to this is if you have multiple nations, it would be appropriate to use the Force cooperation level to show the difficulty of having different nationalities fight together.

Any comments or questions?

Regards,
Mark

< Message edited by Mark Breed -- 2/7/2022 9:21:47 PM >

(in reply to Mark Breed)

Post #: 11

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/8/2022 1:55:40 AM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Breed

However, if you are creating a large campaign or war scenario, it is best to make all units Free Support as units will be able to more freely be sent to where the current strategic situation requires it. And, if making all units able to freely cooperate, you are still able to use counter and symbol colors to help players better organize their formations.

I�ve used Free Support in a campaign scenario and the effects on strategically moving units among commands performed just as you described. Even though the scenario is hypothetical, the intent was to give the player complete authority on organization and in that respect, it worked very well.

Concerning counter colors (this and previous posts) my personal preference is for minimal color differentiation among formations. My suggest is that to look for alternative ways to get the desired effect without resorting to color coding. There are scenarios out there, you�ve seen them, that have what I call the �Christmas Effect�. As I say, it�s just a preference, and I appreciate the work which has gone into OOB design; I just would like for it to be easier on the eyes.

Regards

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Mark Breed)

Post #: 12

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/8/2022 6:42:14 PM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

rhinobones,

I do agree with you about the over use of colors, especially with the unit counters. It can be overwhelming. And, it can cause confusion if there are many different ones to both players when examining the map. In your above example, my first thought was that the tan/green shaded counters were surrounded by the red counters. When I work on designs, I try to keep the counter shades similar for each side. But, now I see where I need to look at keeping that even more limited.

I would prefer using symbol colors to help differentiate the formations within an order of battle. I just wish that there were more symbol color choices within the counter groupings.

Regards,
Mark

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 13

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/8/2022 11:20:38 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

You can make your own. I think somewhere on the forum Bob explains how to change the colors. But even if you change them the game engine still sees them as their original color. Your changes are just graphic and have no effect in the game program.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mark Breed)

Post #: 14

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/8/2022 11:39:26 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You can make your own. I think somewhere on the forum Bob explains how to change the colors. But even if you change them the game engine still sees them as their original color. Your changes are just graphic and have no effect in the game program.

Correct about modifying colors, but my understanding was that it would be good if there were more than five in a column. If a column had, say 10 icons, you could build 10 formations with the same cooperation setting and base color.

Regards

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 15

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/9/2022 12:39:10 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

I've asked about that very thing in the past. Also asked if each Force could have its own color chart instead of both sides using the same one. Don't think either will happen.

To avoid the rainbow affect I typically recolor the icons so they are all the same. Since the game still uses the original colors you can avoid rainbows and still have separate formations with the cooperation limitations.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 2/9/2022 12:41:48 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 16

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/10/2022 12:09:12 AM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

One of my wargame buddies has indicated to me that he actually likes it when I go into a scenario and recolor the units to show command structures (being careful to keep the same cooperation levels). As he pays more attention to the unit structure and thus maximizing his combat power, which also helps me by keeping my "OCD" in check.

Regards,
Mark

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 17

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/10/2022 1:32:57 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

I you are a fan of endless colors the Tiller games would make you happy. And this isn't even the worst, or best depending on your viewpoint. Rzhev 42:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Mark Breed)

Post #: 18

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/10/2022 1:38:57 AM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

Yes, I do remember that now. I worked as a scenario playtester for several of the Panzer and Modern Campaigns games. I really liked the way he had the order of battle editor set up.

Regards,
Mark

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 19

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/10/2022 7:59:19 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Correct about modifying colors, but my understanding was that it would be good if there were more than five in a column. If a column had, say 10 icons, you could build 10 formations with the same cooperation setting and base color.

Regards

Yeah, what's tricky here is that, for example, 5 and 65 appear to have the same background colour but in fact will not be co-operative. From memory the colour palette only went up to 59 in TOAW Volume I and this goes some way to explaining these duplicates.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 20

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/13/2022 3:53:09 AM

Mark Breed

Posts: 342
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Orange County, CA
Status: offline

Perfect example of how screwed up the C&C rules.

All these guerillas are unable to function for a solid week.

Regards,
Mark

Attachment (1)

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 21

RE: Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion - 2/13/2022 2:46:02 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Breed

Perfect example of how screwed up the C&C rules.

All these guerillas are unable to function for a solid week.

Regards,
Mark

Designer's fault for putting all of them in one formation and giving that formation a low proficiency.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Mark Breed)

Post #: 22

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios >> Order of Battle Design Concepts & Discussion

Page: [1]