Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Brett Turner -> Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/4/2013 12:58:44 AM)


This is a playtest thread for the beta test of Version 4.0 of Two Weeks In Normandy 44, a longstanding TOAW scenario which was included in the TOAW III package.

It covers the first two weeks of the Normandy campaign, with 1.5km hexes, in exactly 12 one day turns.

This version includes moderate OB changes, especially in the German coastal artillery, and is balanced for TOAW 3.4.0.202.

The scenario has previously been given good marks for balance, and I hope this version will carry on the tradition. The current version is fairly well balanced when the computer plays itself; each side wins about equally often. But it remains to be seen whether this continues to be true when those pesky humans get involved.

The full package for the current version of the scenario, version 4.0 Beta 1, should be attached to this message.

I would appreciate both single player and two player testing of this version. Various people have previous expressed interest in testing, and they will shortly be sent email links to this thread.

My current sense is that if the scenario is unbalanced when humans are involved, it is unbalanced in favor of the Germans. It is hard to get the programmed opponent to play the Germans well; it has difficulty maintaining a sufficient flexible defense to keep from getting surrounded. With a more competent German, it could be difficult for the Allied attack to keep moving. But we will see what the testing reveals.

Please post playtest results in this thread. I would be interested in at least a rough report of what happened, and a copy of the final map.

Thank you in advance,

--Brett Turner



Brett Turner -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/4/2013 12:59:31 AM)

File is attached to the previous post.



BigDuke66 -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/4/2013 7:33:14 AM)

Would you advise to use the AA-Patched EXE?



Brett Turner -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/4/2013 3:27:29 PM)

I don't have the AA patched exe myself. If the AA patch breaks something, I would want to know. Go ahead and use it, and give us a report.

The AA patch shouldn't have a huge effect, but it would be nice to have that confirmed.

--Brett



r6kunz -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/6/2013 4:56:08 AM)

Nice job on the update, Brett. I just finished three po vs po runs= two Allied marginal victories and one marginal German victory. Caen is the key, just like the historical situation. Looks like it is well balanced. I used the AA-Patch- only a few Allied planes were destroyed, but the Allied air marshal seems to be conservative in using air assets.
I had done a bit of modding of your Two Weeks300- mostly reducing the number of Allied DD-tanks the number that actually reached the beaches, and breaking down German divisional Flak units and distributing those AA-assets in the maneuver units.


I found your Two Weeks 300 challenging and instructive- I bought Zetterling's book and I saw you were spot-on with your German TOE. An interesting conclusion he makes concerning American close air support, and the relatively small effect it had on German losses- mostly inhibiting movement.

I am looking forward to my drive on St Lo and Caen...



Catch21 -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/7/2013 8:29:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brett Turner

My current sense is that if the scenario is unbalanced when humans are involved, it is unbalanced in favor of the Germans. It is hard to get the programmed opponent to play the Germans well; it has difficulty maintaining a sufficient flexible defense to keep from getting surrounded. With a more competent German, it could be difficult for the Allied attack to keep moving. But we will see what the testing reveals.


I don't look in here very much any more given current state of play with TOAW, but this scenario is one that even if I was in Yankees Stadium to watch Alex Rodriguez' last performance, I'd sit up and take notice as though- regardless of him- something exceptional and independently noteworthy was occurring somewhere else on the field. As always, thanks for this- IMHO- standout and sterling piece of work.

On play balance, and having played it long-time and extensively, IME between 2 reasonably competent players you'll almost always have a draw or marginal loss/win determined more by the vagaries of the RNG than anything else and usually in the last few turns, which is one reason I think the scenario has always been so nailbitingly brilliant.

I don't play TOAW any more given the above (World of Tanks these days I'm afraid), but for this against another old-timer I'd happily make an exception.

Again [&o]



Brett Turner -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/8/2013 5:10:04 AM)

Kunz, thank you. You can see Zetterling's point elsewhere if you look, Allied pilots kept claiming a gazillion vehicles destroyed, but then the tank recovery guys would go over the ground after the German retreated and find only a few vehicles which had obviously been destroyed from above. The number of actual vehicles destroyed by air was small--it was the threat from the air which mattered, especially in limiting daytime movement.

General Staff, thank you also. I worry that luck is too dispositive, especially luck in whether the Allies make their roll vs. force proficiency to get extra phases, but I don't know that I can do much about that.

I love your Fuller quote. I wish TOAW did a better job modeling supply problems---especially I wish it was harder to attack when low on supply.

--Brett Turner



Catch21 -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/8/2013 10:13:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brett Turner

I love your Fuller quote. I wish TOAW did a better job modeling supply problems---especially I wish it was harder to attack when low on supply.


On thanks you're very welcome. Why good folks like yourself (it seems to me) beat your heads against the wall trying to compensate for crippling flaws that should have been (fairly easily) solved years ago is just beyond me.[&o]

The quote. I pulled this out as a very applicable thought TOAW-wise back in the mists of time (TOAW I) many years ago, and I'd agree on supply, though it got revisited extensively in 3.4, whether enough I'm not sure, though it pales into insignificance versus the other major 2 (IL & AA).

But LoL- these days, and maybe someone at MG may stumble across, read this, and ruefully laugh also- it might be considered equally applicable to MG and TOAW development (or lack of) for some years also now.



Brett Turner -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/10/2013 1:31:18 AM)

My limited experience with 3.4, testing for this scenario, is that the big supply problem remains unfixed.

Distribution of supply is better, but it is still way too easy to attack without supply. Because of that, the pace of combat is too fast over time, at least in one-day turn, battalion unit scenarios. The German Army in Two Weeks melts away very historically, but it melts away about six weeks too soon.

Adjusting the attrition divider does not fix this. (I tried.) The problem is not that combat is too bloody; the problem is that units can attack every day, when in the real war they could only attack once every two or three days.

Also, because units are attack-effective even at low supply, you don't get the attack-pause-attack cycle which was common in the real war. SSG's Decisive Battles system, on the Commodore 64 in the late 1980s, did that much better than TOAW. Because units which were low on supply were useless when attacking, you *had* to pause realistically for resupply.

One small change---a minimum supply percentage to attack, separate for each side, adjustable by menu initially and by event in mid-game---would make Two Weeks a much, much better scenario.



Telumar -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/10/2013 10:03:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brett Turner

My limited experience with 3.4, testing for this scenario, is that the big supply problem remains unfixed.

Distribution of supply is better, but it is still way too easy to attack without supply. Because of that, the pace of combat is too fast over time, at least in one-day turn, battalion unit scenarios. The German Army in Two Weeks melts away very historically, but it melts away about six weeks too soon.

Adjusting the attrition divider does not fix this. (I tried.) The problem is not that combat is too bloody; the problem is that units can attack every day, when in the real war they could only attack once every two or three days.

Also, because units are attack-effective even at low supply, you don't get the attack-pause-attack cycle which was common in the real war. SSG's Decisive Battles system, on the Commodore 64 in the late 1980s, did that much better than TOAW. Because units which were low on supply were useless when attacking, you *had* to pause realistically for resupply.

One small change---a minimum supply percentage to attack, separate for each side, adjustable by menu initially and by event in mid-game---would make Two Weeks a much, much better scenario.


It may sound uncommon at first, but maybe it could produce the desired results: Lowering formation proficiencies and/or giving each side a 90% shock level might be worth a try.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/10/2013 10:49:50 AM)

quote:

Beat your heads against the wall ... compensate for crippling flaws !!


Excellent Mr. GS, I am inspired to write the tune for this killer new thrash song !! Look forward to bumping into you in the mosh pit. [8D]

I'll be sure to include 'Killer 3.4 Supply ... its alright, its ok, you can still get High' (High Supply, that is).




Brett Turner -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/11/2013 8:00:07 PM)

That's what I did: I reduced formation proficiencies.



r6kunz -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/11/2013 11:46:07 PM)

How about Formation Supply?



r6kunz -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/11/2013 11:58:24 PM)

On broader sense, no matter where, each side has a finite level of supply. The senior commander (you!) needs to allocate those supplies. In TOAW every unit can use the global supply level. No need to allocate or prioritize.
Do not misunderstand me. I think TOAW probably does the best job of of any game of giving a "feel" of historic situations. From Barbarossa to Dien Bien Pho. The end result is a historic experience for the players.
How have others handled this issue of supply?



governato -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/12/2013 12:54:11 AM)

There are tricks one can play with the event engine and support squads..in 'Europe44' activating the Invasion of Southern France option withdraws the HQ of another major US formation on the Italian front and replaces immediately with a new one..missing a lot of support squads. The supply rate of that formation is effctively cut by a large fraction for many turns. This works well at simulating the shifting of supplies between different armies.



Catch21 -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/12/2013 12:34:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ
How about Formation Supply?
How about Reorg? After all, isn't this supposed to simulate the effects of prolonged combat on readiness- like reduced/no supply? Any way(s) to increase likelihood?

Just a 0.02 thought...



r6kunz -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/12/2013 3:10:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GOVERNATO
There are tricks one can play with the event engine and support squads..in 'Europe44' activating the Invasion of Southern France option withdraws the HQ of another major US formation on the Italian front and replaces immediately with a new one..missing a lot of support squads. The supply rate of that formation is effctively cut by a large fraction for many turns. This works well at simulating the shifting of supplies between different armies.

Good suggestion! Incidentally, Europe44, excellent scenario...



Telumar -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/12/2013 4:31:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Staff

quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ
How about Formation Supply?
How about Reorg? After all, isn't this supposed to simulate the effects of prolonged combat on readiness- like reduced/no supply? Any way(s) to increase likelihood?

Just a 0.02 thought...



Hence my proposal for reduced formation proficiencies.



Telumar -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/12/2013 4:33:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

There are tricks one can play with the event engine and support squads..in 'Europe44' activating the Invasion of Southern France option withdraws the HQ of another major US formation on the Italian front and replaces immediately with a new one..missing a lot of support squads. The supply rate of that formation is effctively cut by a large fraction for many turns. This works well at simulating the shifting of supplies between different armies.


However, i may add that in a isolated theater like Italy in this case one could use the variable supply point feature of 3.4.



Telumar -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/12/2013 4:40:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

On broader sense, no matter where, each side has a finite level of supply. The senior commander (you!) needs to allocate those supplies. In TOAW every unit can use the global supply level. No need to allocate or prioritize.
Do not misunderstand me. I think TOAW probably does the best job of of any game of giving a "feel" of historic situations. From Barbarossa to Dien Bien Pho. The end result is a historic experience for the players.
How have others handled this issue of supply?


It's only partially related, but in Anzio 1944 i gave the German player the ability to accumulate/stockpile supplies by a TO; these supplies could be 'released' at a later point for a counteroffensive.

The procedure is simple. The TO reduces the overall supply level for some turns. After that a second TO is available which will 'release' stockpiled supplies. The suppyl level raises above the initial level (the level before the first TO) and falls thereafter by one point every turn until it reaches the normal level (as before the first TO).



Brett Turner -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/13/2013 4:34:48 AM)

Two Weeks uses two supply units, one for the US and one for the British, to model the abilities of both armies to give supply priority to different parts of the front. All units within 10 MP of the supply unit should receive extra supplies.

Is there any way to edit the supply advantage for being near a supply unit? My recollection is that the advantage was fixed, but that was several TOAW versions ago.

Hard to play supply games with HQs in Two Weeks, as only divisions have HQ units. The HQ is generally in a formation of division level assets, and each regiment is generally its own formation, without HQ.

Effective this version, Two Weeks uses variable supply points instead of force supply level additions to model the advantage of pushing the Germans back out of artillery range of the beaches. Each beach is at 50% supply until a designated city behind the beach is taken.



ogar -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/14/2013 12:36:19 AM)

My understanding is that a supply unit, in TOAW 3.4, 'extends' supply based on the supply radius.  So reducing/increasing that radius via events would reduce/increase the extension.  What I've found is that if a supply unit is within 2*radii of a supply point (big caveat follows), then the 100% supply circle is doubled from the supply point (goes out twice the radius) and then the reduction per the What's New document takes over.
Caveat - supply is calculated using motorized supply and assumes a 50% density in all hexes calculated.  So, supply radius 'goes further' along the roads, less in rough terrain.  My rule of thumb is 'use a motorized unit to estimate MPs; double the number of MPs spent from Point A to Point B; that's approximately what the supply unit calc uses.  And the supply unit 'extension' is only good for one 'extension'; daisy-chains do not work to triple or more the 100% circle.

So, you could rough up the terrain even more - more muddy patches, bocage, etc. - as that would reduce supply and increase MP in movement.

But supply alone may not be the problem here.  It seems that it's the Allies being able to attack, attack, attack.  And while low supply will help slow that, Elmer and most humans will continue to attack with low supply.

Here's a link to an AAR of Anzio 2KM where the Allied player went toward the worst terrain, paid no attention to supply (or rebuilding bridges), and attacked attacked attacked his way to victory.  (Link is to the German language forum; the screen shots are pretty self-explanatory, and Google translate can help - or amuse - if you need translation of the text.)

http://www.si-games.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26194

From my seat in the peanut gallery, I think you might have to look at reducing proficiencies - unit as well as formation - in addition to revamping supply. 



Brett Turner -> RE: Two Weeks In Normany, Version 4.0 Beta Test (8/17/2013 8:57:54 PM)

Yes, that's what I did, I slashed formation proficiencies considerably, especially for the British. I was able to balance it without messing much with unit proficiencies.

But the best solution would still be to make it hard to attack with low supply, and to have a "minimum supply to attack" setting.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125