The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (Full Version)

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



Message

Emx77 -> The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 12:43:39 PM)

As I can see that many other people expressing their opinions about TOAW improvements I would also like to see if something can be done with a way in which engine decides how much turn can be used after the attack is executed? Many times I was frustrated by fact that some minnor battles ended turn too early.

For example let say that your primary objective is to take a well defended hex X. During previous turn you made preparations and moved necessary units to adjacent hex. You know that would be impposible to take it in just one attack but your units have full amount of action points and there is a big chance to take that objective during the same turn with multiple attacks. However you have forces accross a map and with some distant unit you want to probe a enemy line at hex Y. You set your units on min losses tolerance, in attack planning dialog time expanded pane shows that all attack will take approx. 10% of turn time, but after resolving attacks your probe attack take much more then 10% resulting in early turn end. Pretty frustrating as you have just used one attack for main objective and you lossed a whole turn becouse a sideshow battle. This situation is not a rare case, it happenes often (maybe you not losse your whole turn but much of it).

What is problem here is that this two battles are completily INDEPENDENT! Why then we have to losse a whole turn because one of them take more time then it is predicted?! It make no sense. In reality commander of operation would be informed that probing attack at loaction Y is not going as planned and will issue order even to stop attack or to countinue it, but this wouldn't interfere with attack on main objective X. These attacks are far away one from another and they are completily independet of each other.


I wonder if would be possible to avoid this? My suggestion would be to somehow "freeze" all units where attack need more rounds to be resolved. Engine can put them in "melee" state or something like that, so players can't issuing order to them until attack is resolved but can move or give orders to other units which have unused action points during a same turn.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 1:41:49 PM)

This has been discussed both here and at the Strategy Zone forums. Try, for example, here. It's an interesting discussion.

Steve.



Pippin -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 8:05:31 PM)

quote:

I wonder if would be possible to avoid this?


When I did play TOAW ladder rated games, the whole point was to exploit this. People would take a totaly useless unit, and sacrific it in the middle of the opponent's path/road. Thus ensuring his turn would end instantly and giving the defender a free round.

Not very fair, but that's how it was done.




steveh11Matrix -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 8:29:14 PM)

Keywords/phrases: "Not very fair" and "exploit". In general, I find this to be a good idea, but I'm dismayed at the exploitation of it. Just another reason NOT to play MP.

But it's very fully discussed over at the SZO forum.

Steve.

<Edited for Typo>



JJKettunen -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 8:32:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

When I did play TOAW ladder rated games, the whole point was to exploit this. People would take a totaly useless unit, and sacrific it in the middle of the opponent's path/road. Thus ensuring his turn would end instantly and giving the defender a free round.

Not very fair, but that's how it was done.




What?! Now could you tell me in detail how useless units when put to the path of the attacker can ensure instant turn ending?

(or are you just making random guesses about the game engine?)



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 9:25:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

I wonder if would be possible to avoid this?


When I did play TOAW ladder rated games, the whole point was to exploit this. People would take a totaly useless unit, and sacrific it in the middle of the opponent's path/road. Thus ensuring his turn would end instantly and giving the defender a free round.

Not very fair, but that's how it was done.




As described, your example sounds a lot like the Spartans at Thermopylae (or wherever). I suppose they weren't useless but they certainly weren't very numerous, and they did cause 'early turn ending' for the Persians, giving the rest of the Greeks time to assemble.

There certainly is a problem with early turn ending -- but I don't think this is it. On the whole, I think the idea proposed to confine early turn ending to the formation concerned is the way to go. Aside from the other advantages mentioned, formation-specific turn ending would encourage players to avoid unnecessarily combining units from more than one formation in an attack, which would be a good thing.



Pippin -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 10:34:24 PM)

quote:

What?! Now could you tell me in detail how useless units when put to the path of the attacker can ensure instant turn ending?

(or are you just making random guesses about the game engine?)


Take a weak Italian scout car, and place it in the midst of the entire British 9'th Amry. What happens? The army should steamroll over it. But thanks to a cleaver player setting fight to death on the scout-mobile, the entire turn is burned off for brits, buying the Italians another turn.




JJKettunen -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 10:42:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Take a weak Italian scout car, and place it in the midst of the entire British 9'th Amry. What happens? The army should steamroll over it. But thanks to a cleaver player setting fight to death on the scout-mobile, the entire turn is burned off for brits, buying the Italians another turn.


The scout car would be overrun by any decent size unit of the 9th Army without any loss of combat turns.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/20/2005 10:59:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

What?! Now could you tell me in detail how useless units when put to the path of the attacker can ensure instant turn ending?

(or are you just making random guesses about the game engine?)


Take a weak Italian scout car, and place it in the midst of the entire British 9'th Amry. What happens? The army should steamroll over it. But thanks to a cleaver player setting fight to death on the scout-mobile, the entire turn is burned off for brits, buying the Italians another turn.




The only thing I can think of is that you are not selecting the unit to attempt an RBC with care. You want to hit it with something BIG. If you try something small first and fail, it seems to confer an immunity against further attempts unless you manage to achieve an RBC somewhere else. When an RBC fails, I often find myself hunting around the battlefield for another RBC to perform so that I can take another whack at the Italian scout car or whatever it is. Not exactly realistic -- but your problem does have a solution.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/21/2005 11:47:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

What?! Now could you tell me in detail how useless units when put to the path of the attacker can ensure instant turn ending?

(or are you just making random guesses about the game engine?)


Take a weak Italian scout car, and place it in the midst of the entire British 9'th Amry. What happens? The army should steamroll over it. But thanks to a cleaver player setting fight to death on the scout-mobile, the entire turn is burned off for brits, buying the Italians another turn.




The only thing I can think of is that you are not selecting the unit to attempt an RBC with care. You want to hit it with something BIG. If you try something small first and fail, it seems to confer an immunity against further attempts unless you manage to achieve an RBC somewhere else. When an RBC fails, I often find myself hunting around the battlefield for another RBC to perform so that I can take another whack at the Italian scout car or whatever it is. Not exactly realistic -- but your problem does have a solution.


Again, keywords are "Not exactly realistic".[:-]

Steve.



Grisha -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/21/2005 7:38:46 PM)

quote:

quote:

The only thing I can think of is that you are not selecting the unit to attempt an RBC with care. You want to hit it with something BIG. If you try something small first and fail, it seems to confer an immunity against further attempts unless you manage to achieve an RBC somewhere else. When an RBC fails, I often find myself hunting around the battlefield for another RBC to perform so that I can take another whack at the Italian scout car or whatever it is. Not exactly realistic -- but your problem does have a solution.

Again, keywords are "Not exactly realistic".


Not quite true, since this was how the Red Army mired the German offensive, Zitadelle. The continuous counterattacks on German flanks really put a dent into German planning cycles. This in combination with very formidible defenses took the wind out of the German offensive.



JJKettunen -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/21/2005 8:40:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grisha
Not quite true, since this was how the Red Army mired the German offensive, Zitadelle. The continuous counterattacks on German flanks really put a dent into German planning cycles. This in combination with very formidible defenses took the wind out of the German offensive.


Or one could say that in the situation where the defender had all the advantages, including manpower, he threw his reserves to the battle in piecemeal fashion, which only slowed down the Germans who didn't have enough troops to cover the flanks of any breakthroughs, but it didn't result in nothing decisive like would have been possible with a well concentrated effort (note I speak of the southern part here only).

Also these continous counterattacks have nothing to do with insignficant attacks burning down the whole turn in TOAW nor the imaginary problem of ant units stopping big offensives.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/21/2005 9:51:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

What?! Now could you tell me in detail how useless units when put to the path of the attacker can ensure instant turn ending?

(or are you just making random guesses about the game engine?)


Take a weak Italian scout car, and place it in the midst of the entire British 9'th Amry. What happens? The army should steamroll over it. But thanks to a cleaver player setting fight to death on the scout-mobile, the entire turn is burned off for brits, buying the Italians another turn.




The only thing I can think of is that you are not selecting the unit to attempt an RBC with care. You want to hit it with something BIG. If you try something small first and fail, it seems to confer an immunity against further attempts unless you manage to achieve an RBC somewhere else. When an RBC fails, I often find myself hunting around the battlefield for another RBC to perform so that I can take another whack at the Italian scout car or whatever it is. Not exactly realistic -- but your problem does have a solution.


Again, keywords are "Not exactly realistic".[:-]

Steve.


On the other hand, I can think of several examples of very small forces significantly delaying much larger ones -- admittedly under specialized circumstances. Rauss, in his mmoir of the Eastern Front, recounts what I recall as about a full day of delay imposed on his panzergrenadier brigade by one KV obstinately sitting atride the only usable road through a swamp. In Market Garden, I think the British armor was held up for some time in its final rush to Arnhem by one German assault gun.

So one wouldn't always want small units just brushed aside. They can indeed hold up the parade.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 12:31:58 AM)

quote:

So one wouldn't always want small units just brushed aside. They can indeed hold up the parade.


Yes Collin but what we are talking about here is the sturm gun in Belgium that holds up the army in the Philipines:^)



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 10:39:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

quote:

So one wouldn't always want small units just brushed aside. They can indeed hold up the parade.


Yes Collin but what we are talking about here is the sturm gun in Belgium that holds up the army in the Philipines:^)


That is indeed the problem. I'd be proud to come up with a rationalization for that -- even a lame one.

Personally, I liked some of those ideas about early turn ending being decided for each formation -- if one of its combats drags out, its turn ends. What I particularly liked about the concept is that it would encourage players to maintain some formation integrity. You'd be a fool to use one battalion for division 1 and two from division 2 if three battalions all from division 1 could be used and only division 1 need risk early turn ending. I realize cooperation levels are intended to encourage this behavior, but these can be hard to manipulate in design.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 2:40:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

quote:

So one wouldn't always want small units just brushed aside. They can indeed hold up the parade.


Yes Collin but what we are talking about here is the sturm gun in Belgium that holds up the army in the Philipines:^)


No that is a problem of bad scenario design. TOAW was never NEVER intended to cover "campaigns" stretching from Phillipines to Belgium. Some designers chose to do it anyway, but then ridicolous results are to be expected occassionally.

Oleg (founding member of "Keep TOAW Operational Level Game" club)



Emx77 -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 3:12:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

quote:

So one wouldn't always want small units just brushed aside. They can indeed hold up the parade.


Yes Collin but what we are talking about here is the sturm gun in Belgium that holds up the army in the Philipines:^)


No that is a problem of bad scenario design. TOAW was never NEVER intended to cover "campaigns" stretching from Phillipines to Belgium. Some designers chose to do it anyway, but then ridicolous results are to be expected occassionally.

Oleg (founding member of "Keep TOAW Operational Level Game" club)


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). As far as I remeber if there was armor unit involved in combat (as attacker or defender) chanches were bigger for an early turn ending.

Emir



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 3:42:48 PM)

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 [:D] (or whine on the boards, choice is yours).

As all IGO UGO games TOAW is far too kind to the attacker anyway. You may plan your attacks with total freedom, no fear of SNAFUs, smart enemy reactions and such. All you have to worry about are enemy units with zombiefied tac defense orders which - compared to the real world - is next to nothing.

So yes, even if some small unit ocassionaly screws up your perfectly planned attack (which was, apparently, NOT so perfectly planned after all) I think it's fair, and realistic (within the scope this game was *intended* to work).

O.



JJKettunen -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 4:23:52 PM)

So Oleg, you're totally happy with a sudden turn ending without a proper reason after a first set of (recon) attacks in either GiO or DnO? [;)]

(it has happened to me [:@])

(in both scenarios I should add [:@])



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 4:35:16 PM)

GIO and DNO... if I got a dollar every time those two get mentioned... I'd have couple dollars now I guess [:D]

GIO and DNO are extreme examples in any case. Incredibly huge scenarios, pushing the envelope of TOAW engine further than many, including Norm himself, ever planned, or thought possible. The fact that they, kinda, work, and that we (myself included) love them, should not be mis-used to have them two appear in every argument on this board. They are simply extremes, and lets leave it at that.

Having said that...

What's "recon attack" anyway? It's either "recon" or "probing attack". If it's recon - then there is no combat, and your turn will not end prematurely. If its "probing attack" then yes, there should be possibility of "probing attack gone wrong" which will screw up your day - please take apologies from STAVKA that your SS uebermensch got stopped by unexpectedly fierce defense of some "marginal" Soviet unit, or, in case of GIO, accept apologies from OKH because some German unit decided to... you fill in the rest [;)] Of course, it never happened in real war, right? [:D]

Personally, I never trigger any "marginal" attacks and/or attacks that took many MPs for units to get there, in first, or even second round of fighting in my turns. Thats what I call "operational planning". Of course, sometimes my "important" attacks take too long so there is no second or third phase at all - which is what happens on the battlefield in real life, and I can live with that.

O.



JJKettunen -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 4:52:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

GIO and DNO... if I got a dollar every time those two get mentioned... I'd have couple dollars now I guess [:D]

GIO and DNO are extreme examples in any case. Incredibly huge scenarios, pushing the envelope of TOAW engine further than many, including Norm himself, ever planned, or thought possible. The fact that they, kinda, work, and that we (myself included) love them, should not be mis-used to have them two appear in every argument on this board. They are simply extremes, and lets leave it at that.


What? I thought it was Mellenthin who gets mentioned in every discussion...[;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Having said that...

What's "recon attack" anyway? It's either "recon" or "probing attack". If it's recon - then there is no combat, and your turn will not end prematurely. If its "probing attack" then yes, there should be possibility of "probing attack gone wrong" which will screw up your day - please take apologies from STAVKA that your SS uebermensch got stopped by unexpectedly fierce defense of some "marginal" Soviet unit, or, in case of GIO, accept apologies from OKH because some German unit decided to... you fill in the rest [;)] Of course, it never happened in real war, right? [:D]

Personally, I never trigger any "marginal" attacks and/or attacks that took many MPs for units to get there, in first, or even second round of fighting in my turns. Thats what I call "operational planning". Of course, sometimes my "important" attacks take too long so there is no second or third phase at all - which is what happens on the battlefield in real life, and I can live with that.

O.


Bit busy at the moment so a short answer for what's a recon attack is: Those minimize losses attacks which gets any reserve units of the opponent moving and drain the supplies. I'll get back to this later.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 4:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

What? I thought it was Mellenthin who gets mentioned in every discussion...[;)]



Mellenthin would make me go to early retirement [;)]

O.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 6:30:06 PM)

Oleg, can I join your club please? [:)]

However, I too would like to see the random early turn end being restricted by formation, rather than being 'across the board', and having it selectable by the scenario designer.

Steve.



JJKettunen -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 6:59:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

However, I too would like to see the random early turn end being restricted by formation, rather than being 'across the board', and having it selectable by the scenario designer.


I agree.



JJKettunen -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 7:15:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Personally, I never trigger any "marginal" attacks and/or attacks that took many MPs for units to get there, in first, or even second round of fighting in my turns.


Nobody with enough experience does that. When I say that turns ends without a proper reason, it means that all the attacks were planned carefully.

Btw, in GiO it would be the Soviet troops in their very first turn attacking the Finns for the very first time, when they suddenly find that they can do no proper full scale attacks during the first half-week anymore (this when there should be at least 80% of the turn left).



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 7:47:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
Btw, in GiO it would be the Soviet troops in their very first turn attacking the Finns for the very first time, when they suddenly find that they can do no proper full scale attacks during the first half-week anymore (this when there should be at least 80% of the turn left).


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.



Capitaine -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 7:51:38 PM)

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.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 8:00:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
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.


Exactly [&o]

That is what makes TOAW so unique, subtle and fun. Otherwise, you'd have "click and attack" with every unit, once per turn - if you want that play Panzer General.

And if you want "Phillipines to Belgium within single turn" play the game in my sig (which is IMO excellent, otherwise I would not be putting it in my sig).

Oleg



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 8:05:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

quote:

So one wouldn't always want small units just brushed aside. They can indeed hold up the parade.


Yes Collin but what we are talking about here is the sturm gun in Belgium that holds up the army in the Philipines:^)


No that is a problem of bad scenario design. TOAW was never NEVER intended to cover "campaigns" stretching from Phillipines to Belgium. Some designers chose to do it anyway, but then ridicolous results are to be expected occassionally.

Oleg (founding member of "Keep TOAW Operational Level Game" club)


Bad scenario design certainly is at the root of a lot of faults that are often blamed on the program itself; however, things don't need to reach from Belgium to the Phillipines for the early turn ending to get absurd.

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.

...right. As it is, one finds oneself not proceeding with operations of subsidiary importance in Iowa lest they cause early turn ending in Idaho. It's ridiculous.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/22/2005 8:22:41 PM)

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 [:D]

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



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.09375