Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


What does it mean "it should"? If it "should" and it doesn't then it's a bug. If the turn ends when game designer (certain individual known by the name Norm Koger) intended, then it's the game working as advertised. Case closed.

O.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


Ilkka's Decision in the North is among the most ridicolous TOAW scenarios I've ever seen.

Sorry if I appear rude I am just being honest and direct here... I said so much directly to Ilkka in mails several times anyway, during testing of his scenario many years ago, so it's not like he does not know what i think of it.

So, I am sorry I can't and won't discuss further based on anything from scenarios like DITN - the very example of how TOAW scenarios should *NOT* be made (in my opinion of course).

If you think DITN is fine scenario design, we really have nothing to discuss, we may agree to disagree and go on our merry ways, with absolutely no hard feelings on my part whatsoever...

Funny thing you say yourself *exactly* what makes this scenario ridicolous in my eyes - "mixture" of miniscule 1-1 Finnish ski battalions on one side, and 32-25 German *DIVISIONS* on another. Skewed movement factors and strengths. Et cetera et cetera.

Can you say "bad scenario design"?

If your 1-1 Finnish ski battalion screwed your Panzers you have to ask what purpose does Finnish ski battalion have in any such scenario at all? What did you want to do with it as operational level commander? If the scenario designer gave you this "tool" (mighty 1-1 Finish ski battalion) it also means he gave you the possibility to screw up your infantry *division* movement and plans with it. If you accept to play scenario as skewed as this, you also have to accept any result that will come of it.

In other words: Garbage in - garbage out

I'd personally take DITN as prime example why funny "mixtures" and half assed approaches do not, and should not work in subtle world of operational warfare scenario design TOAW intends to portray.

Again sorry if I came accross as being rude, just saying directly how I see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
Had a very good PBEM of DITN a couple of years ago, and I strongly disagree about its quality. Not perfect but good. I've heard this "it's the scenario's" -fault argument before many times, but especially in this case it's BS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Scenario is Finno-centric to the extreme - that may be the main reason you like it

Oleg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

I wouldn't agree with you Oleg. Situation in which one independet marginal attack stops whole operation elsewhere and results in early turn end often happened in every regular scenarios (scenarios which comes with a game).

What's "marginal attack"? If it's really so marginal then leave it for the last phase in your turn, for when you are sure there will be no other phases, or you don't really need more phases. Otherwise it's *bad operational planning* and you deserve to be punished. There is a reason why all good offensive operations had to stick to very precise timetable, otherwise they would turn into shambles real fast. If you miscalculate, and turn ends sooner than you expected - well, too bad, war is hell, grind your teeth and soldier on (or whine on the boards, choice is yours).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I agree 100% with Oleg and have stated it myself many times in the past. TOAW is an operational game, and complaints about its "inability" to model multi-year campaigns are misguided. Some may like or enjoy the attempts to make the game something it's not -- and great if they do -- but it was never intended for this role and it's doubtful that the engine ever will suffice for that purpose.

The greatest aspect of TOAW as a game is the very aspect condemned in this thread: The issues of time management placed on players involved in operational planning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic
Ok. At the end it don't need to be marginal. I used marginal just to emphasize eventual frustration that can occure affter you lose a turn. But take for example Middle East 73 scenario. How can you explain that attack at Golan stops other attack which is occuring at same time on Sinai?! These two attacks are totaly INDEPENDET! Maybe it is planned that they start at same moment but both attack have independet goals and independet progress. Can you imagine that attack on Sinai, which is going as planned in every way, has to stop just because second attack have difficulties to break through defensive line?

quote:

Same situation I had playing other scenarios (Kharkow 42, Crusader 41...). This doesn't depend on scope of scenario (small or huge) and that is not issue here. Issue is that you have two or more INDEPENDET attacks and that one of them screws others. This can be true for division level as well as for company level attack (vietnam scenarios).

quote:


I like TOAW and I played it a lot but TOAW is not perfect and there is a space for improvement (underestimated SAM performances for example...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
The problem is that the current system has nothing to do with real world tactics and strategy. In fact much of the time is just a bad idea to think in terms of real world operations amd instead play the game. In Descision in the North Finns are to stay out of attacks simply because they have a chance of interfering with the much more important activities of Army Group North. In World War II the Finns were active in the defence of tehir country but here they are essentially paralyzed because Finnland is just not worth enough in terms of VPs to risk fighting with them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

People try to fumble with TOAW turn phases, trying to squeeze as many as possible, oftenly with no understanding of what goes on "behind the scene", very oftenly playing very badly designed scenarios to begin with and complain when things don't turn out 100% perfect as they imagined. Well that's war. Dice and rnd number generator are not always your friends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

But 95% of what is wrong with TOAW, or what people *perceive* is wrong with TOAW can be tracked down to BAD and DISASTROUS and STRANGE and FUNNY scenario design. People doing things this game was never meant to do. People making skewed scenarios. People having no idea at all about stuff like movement rates, unit sizes etc. I could name 4-5 scenario designers whose work is just pure rubbish (Ilkka, incidentally, would not be one of them, DITN is just exceptionally bad scenario from him). I won't do that cause I don't want to turn this thread into endless flame war.

Yes, some scenarios from the stock game were rubbish too.

For example Korsun 44 scenario (I think this one came with TOAW 1 and went all thru the series). Turn length here was something like 6 or 12 hours, and ground turned to mud like before the game even started. Movement rates for TANKS then bogged down to like 3 hexes per turn.

Squeezing more than one phase from any given turn in this scenario was simply impossible. This scenario seemed to depict fight between tired three legged elephants stuck in mud, not the modern mechanized campaign it meant to be. Just totally totally badly designed scenario, and that's all.

I can imagine people getting frustrated by it and taking it out on GAME instead of SCENARIO designer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I first got aggravated by it while playing Ilkka's Decision in the North -- a scenario at a perfectly reasonable scale that covers the operations of Army Group North plus the Finnish front. Some little ski battalion up above the Arctic Circle would take a poke at some Russian border patrol -- and Manstein's panzers hundreds of miles to the south would come to a screeching halt.

Ilkka's Decision in the North is among the most ridicolous TOAW scenarios I've ever seen.

Sorry if I appear rude I am just being honest and direct here... I said so much directly to Ilkka in mails several times anyway, during testing of his scenario many years ago, so it's not like he does not know what i think of it.

So, I am sorry I can't and won't discuss further based on anything from scenarios like DITN - the very example of how TOAW scenarios should *NOT* be made (in my opinion of course).

If you think DITN is fine scenario design, we really have nothing to discuss, we may agree to disagree and go on our merry ways, with absolutely no hard feelings on my part whatsoever...

Funny thing you say yourself *exactly* what makes this scenario ridicolous in my eyes - "mixture" of miniscule 1-1 Finnish ski battalions on one side, and 32-25 German *DIVISIONS* on another. Skewed movement factors and strengths. Et cetera et cetera.

Can you say "bad scenario design"?

If your 1-1 Finnish ski battalion screwed your Panzers you have to ask what purpose does Finnish ski battalion have in any such scenario at all? What did you want to do with it as operational level commander? If the scenario designer gave you this "tool" (mighty 1-1 Finish ski battalion) it also means he gave you the possibility to screw up your infantry *division* movement and plans with it. If you accept to play scenario as skewed as this, you also have to accept any result that will come of it.

In other words: Garbage in - garbage out

I'd personally take DITN as prime example why funny "mixtures" and half assed approaches do not, and should not work in subtle world of operational warfare scenario design TOAW intends to portray.

Again sorry if I came accross as being rude, just saying directly how I see it.

Oleg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
The problem is that the current system has nothing to do with real world tactics and strategy. In fact much of the time is just a bad idea to think in terms of real world operations amd instead play the game. In Descision in the North Finns are to stay out of attacks simply because they have a chance of interfering with the much more important activities of Army Group North. In World War II the Finns were active in the defence of tehir country but here they are essentially paralyzed because Finnland is just not worth enough in terms of VPs to risk fighting with them.

We have another clear example of accusing the game engine for what is clearly fallacy of scenario design.

Interesting, I'd agree with everything you said above, and nearly everything Colin said about DITN before you.

But contrary to you two I see that as BAD scenario design, not the bugs in the original game. Can't you see everything you say essentially points out that DITN is screwed scenario?

O.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
I think nobody is claiming that every turn should go 100% perfect, and there shouldn't be any randomness, but that there are some really stupid things happening: One offensive gone bad (note: nothing wrong with that) turning another offensive to a failure without any rational connection,

quote:

or a operationally swell situation, like the start of the Barbarossa, turning into a joke , because the Axis didn't manage to do anything else but lightly probe Soviet lines for a half-week, thanks to a dice roll.

quote:


Oh and Emir obviously means two separate offensives at different parts of the front triggered at the same time...

quote:


Almost all the original scenarios were rubbish, so if you use them as an example naturally the scenario design is to blame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko]


But 95% of what is wrong with TOAW, or what people *perceive* is wrong with TOAW can be tracked down to BAD and DISASTROUS and STRANGE and FUNNY scenario design. People doing things this game was never meant to do. People making skewed scenarios. People having no idea at all about stuff like movement rates, unit sizes etc. I could name 4-5 scenario designers whose work is just pure rubbish (Ilkka, incidentally, would not be one of them, DITN is just exceptionally bad scenario from him). I won't do that cause I don't want to turn this thread into endless flame war.

Yes, some scenarios from the stock game were rubbish too.

For example Korsun 44 scenario (I think this one came with TOAW 1 and went all thru the series). Turn length here was something like 6 or 12 hours, and ground turned to mud like before the game even started. Movement rates for TANKS then bogged down to like 3 hexes per turn.

Squeezing more than one phase from any given turn in this scenario was simply impossible. This scenario seemed to depict fight between tired three legged elephants stuck in mud, not the modern mechanized campaign it meant to be. Just totally totally badly designed scenario, and that's all.

I can imagine people getting frustrated by it and taking it out on GAME instead of SCENARIO designer.

Oleg

quote:



You'd have to play real real real bad for this to happen in DNO. I'd even go ahead and say it's downright impossible. Still, hey - it was a historic possibility. Offensives more carefully prepared than Barbarossa bogged down before they started because of this or that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Hm. I don't mean to imply anything but how come this thread is turning into TDG vs The World (with me representing The World ).

You TDG guys started out many years ago on a noble mission of producing high quality TOAW scenarios but, with some exceptions, quickly turned into "TOAW Whiners Club Supremo"...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I said it once, and I'll say it again. Offensive B will not "turn into failure" if you ordered it AT ALL. Did you ever have some attack you actually ORDERED not play out because something else "ate" your time?

If you wanted to kick off the attack A, hoping you'll have another phase to trigger attack B, and your hopes went into wind, then there NEVER was attack B except in your dreams.

Why didn't you order both attacks in the same phase if they are so important to you?

That is some operational planning, schedule considerations, with small dose of good (or bad) luck - exactly like it happens in war.

If the attack is triggered, the attack will happen. Do you mean to say otherwise?

If the attack is *NOT* triggered, the attack does *NOT* exist (except in players head). You might have luck to trigger it later in the same turn, you might not. Life's rough.

quote:

You'd have to play real real real bad for this to happen in DNO. I'd even go ahead and say it's downright impossible. Still, hey - it was a historic possibility. Offensives more carefully prepared than Barbarossa bogged down before they started because of this or that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Hm. I don't mean to imply anything but how come this thread is turning into TDG vs The World (with me representing The World ).

You TDG guys started out many years ago on a noble mission of producing high quality TOAW scenarios but, with some exceptions, quickly turned into "TOAW Whiners Club Supremo"...

Okay, I'll let that one stand on its own merits. The next one I won't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Hm. I don't mean to imply anything but how come this thread is turning into TDG vs The World (with me representing The World ).

You TDG guys started out many years ago on a noble mission of producing high quality TOAW scenarios but, with some exceptions, quickly turned into "TOAW Whiners Club Supremo"...

Okay, I'll let that one stand on its own merits. The next one I won't.

Oh I'm scared

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Hm. I don't mean to imply anything but how come this thread is turning into TDG vs The World (with me representing The World ).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
I think I was pretty clear that I meant offensives triggered at the same phase. Why you have so hard time to understand it, and why you keep on mentioning attacks that never happened, beats me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
Haha, as Colin and co. well know I have nothing to do with TDG, so you are wrong there buddy.

It is sad to see you ran out of other arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
I think I was pretty clear that I meant offensives triggered at the same phase. Why you have so hard time to understand it, and why you keep on mentioning attacks that never happened, beats me.

Let me get this clear. You ordered the attack, as in plotted it on the map, and it never happened???

I've never ever seen this, and I played TOAW for many thousands of hours thru many years. Every attack I ordered, actually happened in the game. Some attacks took more time than I expected, but they did happen.

O.

quote:

The fact is that what happens to a unit on one side of the map should not be able to exert this instantaneous affect on units on the other side of the map. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Swedish ski battalions of Bolivian infantry brigades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Hm. I don't mean to imply anything but how come this thread is turning into TDG vs The World (with me representing The World ).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
You TDG guys started out many years ago on a noble mission of producing high quality TOAW scenarios but, with some exceptions, quickly turned into "TOAW Whiners Club Supremo". You wanted TOAW to handle all sorts of funny and downright ridicolous ideas this game was never intended to work with. It never occured to you to actually analyze your own scenarios and their compatibility with the game system, *as Norm intended it to be*?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

The fact is that what happens to a unit on one side of the map should not be able to exert this instantaneous affect on units on the other side of the map. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Swedish ski battalions of Bolivian infantry brigades.

Ah, but it doesn't, really (have an effect), unless you make it that way. All you need to do is (1) make sure you move all essential moves before you engage in combat; (2) have a good feel for what kind of attack will exhaust a turn; (2) make sure you declare all essential attacks before you order an attack subject to (2) above. If you follow this formula, you are assured of making all your attacks in a given turn. You are not necessarily assured of multiple attacks, but you are assured of at least one.

quote:


The reason for the semi-random turn ending has everything to do with your ability to exploit combat realistically. As such, it is one model for depicting that facet when you are playing at the proper scale. Once you get beyond the appropriate scale of simulation, you lose the essence of the model. The model is central to Norm Koger's game and his design intent. It is the single most important thing about the game. It's what makes TOAW such a good simulation even though it is IGO-UGO.

quote:


Oleg is correct that all scenarios must appreciate this dynamic if they are to be valid TOAW scenarios. There is no TOAW to be a fan of if you abolish the end-of-turn model. It's a given. If you want to do something else, you need to find another game b/c it's not TOAW.

quote:


Play and design operations, at the smaller time and distance scales. Those will generally be better games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

The fact is that what happens to a unit on one side of the map should not be able to exert this instantaneous affect on units on the other side of the map. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Swedish ski battalions of Bolivian infantry brigades.

Ah, but it doesn't, really (have an effect), unless you make it that way. All you need to do is (1) make sure you move all essential moves before you engage in combat; (2) have a good feel for what kind of attack will exhaust a turn; (2) make sure you declare all essential attacks before you order an attack subject to (2) above. If you follow this formula, you are assured of making all your attacks in a given turn. You are not necessarily assured of multiple attacks, but you are assured of at least one.

The above is true - though I don't think its particualrly relivent to the point.

It does however note another aspect of early turn ending that I feel is a weakness in the model. You mention that all attacks should be done with a good 'feel' for whether or not they are going to cause early turn ending. I agree completely. Its critical in TOAW to have a good 'feel' for your units. A new player often makes the mistake of thinking that very high proficiency units like varous SS formations are good to attack with - in reality its often the worst thing you can do with them since they are simply not going to break off, and if the defenders hold, large amounts or the entire turn will be used up. So the current model rewards the idea that elite units are bad to attack with.

The problem with this is it makes the game that much more punishing to new players or players that are not experts on the TOAW eccentricies. This is hardly a good thing for the game in general. Nor do I particularly think that Norm sat down to make it intentional that elite units should not be used early in the turn. Its a side effect of what was created and probably was not really exploited by players until they had had many years of experience with TOAW and had come to realize that some units should never be attacked early in the turn and that some units should never be used in attacks not on the basis of any kind of historical validity but simply because TOAW will punish you if you do it this way by sucking up the rest of your turn.

quote:


The reason for the semi-random turn ending has everything to do with your ability to exploit combat realistically. As such, it is one model for depicting that facet when you are playing at the proper scale. Once you get beyond the appropriate scale of simulation, you lose the essence of the model. The model is central to Norm Koger's game and his design intent. It is the single most important thing about the game. It's what makes TOAW such a good simulation even though it is IGO-UGO.

I don't at all concede to the idea that early turn ending is the single most important feature of the game and that we don't have TOAW if its modified in any way.

Its certianly important that some kind of random stop event takes place for units some of the time - otherwise its far to easy for us to set up and exploit attacks. But that can be handled on a formation by formation basis with a fair amount of validity.

quote:


Oleg is correct that all scenarios must appreciate this dynamic if they are to be valid TOAW scenarios. There is no TOAW to be a fan of if you abolish the end-of-turn model. It's a given. If you want to do something else, you need to find another game b/c it's not TOAW.

Its not a given - early turn ending is not some sacred cow that we can not modify in any way, any more then the rather half hazard naval model we have is the epitomy of TOAW design, and changing it would some how ruin TOAW or make it substantially some different game.

One might as well argue that the fact that people can cheat was part of Norms deeper philosophy and tinkering with that fundementally destroys the TOAW experience.

quote:


Play and design operations, at the smaller time and distance scales. Those will generally be better games.

The problem has almost nothing to do with time and distance scales. In fact the smaller time and distance scales make this problem worse not better. Fall Grau's Division sized units and 50km hexs does not really suffer to badly from this. The size and scope of the scenario means that generally your not doing all that many attacks in most turns and early turn ending is more of a nuissance then something thats really breaking the scenario.

Its when one has regiments and battalions by the hundreds and are attacking along a slew of critical roads - which have to be cleared themselves and their shoulders have to be widened for the offencive to work that the problem really gets highlighted. Such scenarios involve very heavy use of support elements and careful positioning of units to accomplish ones goals and a single case of bad luck when some Enginier Battalion refuses to give and the attacking regiment refuses to break off causes everything to to suddenly and abruptly come to a grinding halt. In such a scenario Early Turn ending causes a great deal of frustration and makes play balancing the thing significantly more of a crap shoot since very large amounts of luck are deciding what happens to a great many units.

Possibly what you mean is that all TOAW scenarios should have only a few dozen pieces a side and should only cover a single attack. In such a case TOAWs turn ending model works fine at whatever scale one opts to use from corps down to companies and 50km hexs or 2.5 km ones because so few units are involved. Its also worth noting that longer games in terms of the total number of turns actually played tend to allieviate the problem. If I only have 8 turns in a scenario having any one of them abruptly end is an absolute disaster - if I have 100 turns then my turn endings and my opponents turn endings will tend to equal out (presuming players of roughly equal skill) and pure chance will be factored out.

So as it stands the best TOAW scenarios should have no more then a few dozen pieces a side at any given time and should be as long as possible. That is the ideal scenario in terms of how the current model works.