RE: 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

ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/25/2005 10:22:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

I thought true grognards were professional and mature.


God help us. They sound pretty damned dull. 'Professional'?



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 12:27:13 AM)

Obviously if one limits himself to a certain set of parameters with respect to scenario design, the flaws in the TOAW engine can be made to look less obvious. But the whole point of TOAW is that it can be used to simulate a wide variety of situations, not a specific few. That's the appeal of the game. I find arguments that scenarios like Decision in the North somehow go against Norm's intent to be a bit odd(to put it mildly), since AFAIK DITN was constructed by the out of the box software, without any BioEding and such. And certainly I would say that many of the game's global effects, such as shock, turn ending, guerilla effects, etc. cause problems in certain situations. It would really be all for the better if there were some way of localizing these effects.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 12:36:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I find arguments that scenarios like Decision in the North somehow go against Norm's intent to be a bit odd(to put it mildly), since AFAIK DITN was constructed by the out of the box software, without any BioEding and such.


DITN does not work well, and ridicolous stuff happens all over the place.

Whether it's because Norm made a game that's too limited in scope, or because scenario designer chose to ignore basic rules of TOAW scenario design, is up to anyone to decide for himself. My opinion is clearly presented in this thread...

Oleg



lancerunolfsson -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 12:38:14 AM)

quote:

Probably the generally lower movement rates. If you're only going to get two-three rounds anyway, turn ending on round one is less important.


Yup!!! ;^) Also since the formula for display unit strengths is based (I heard one time) largely on the soft factor. They do seem to be more accurate for purposes of planning attacks etc.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 12:44:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I find arguments that scenarios like Decision in the North somehow go against Norm's intent to be a bit odd(to put it mildly), since AFAIK DITN was constructed by the out of the box software, without any BioEding and such.


DITN does not work well, and ridicolous stuff happens all over the place.



I haven't played it myself, but the problem of high proficiency units causing early turn ending is one that I've encountered in other scenarios. But there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to have 100% proficiency units; nor does it strike me as completely unreasonable to want to include the Finnish front in a scenario which depicts the northern phase of Barbarossa.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 12:55:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

I think this is a key point Oleg is making - a number of scenarios, including some on the original CD, seem to ignore this. In the example of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, it simply doesn't make sense to simulate both the Golan Heights and Suez Canal fronts on the same map in the same scenario...


Ironically, Norm designed two scenarios which did exactly that.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 12:56:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

Yup!!! ;^) Also since the formula for display unit strengths is based (I heard one time) largely on the soft factor.


Solely. The first number on the unit is the anti-personnel strength, the second is the defence strength. Anti-armour can be seen in the top right hand corner window. Armour isn't shown- although an armoured vehicle's defence strength is based upon its armour value.

Note that both anti-personnel and defence strengths are used in both attacking and defending.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 12:56:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I haven't played it myself, but the problem of high proficiency units causing early turn ending is one that I've encountered in other scenarios. But there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to have 100% proficiency units; nor does it strike me as completely unreasonable to want to include the Finnish front in a scenario which depicts the northern phase of Barbarossa.


"High prof units" do not cause turn ending because they do something wrong or buggy. It's just another dice check. Sometimes it can go against you, which I take to be part of the game (or simulation). That's all there is to it.

As for including Finnish front in Northern Barbarossa - that may work. But obviously, you need to do something to balance things somewhat. Say, McBride in his DNO used Regiments as basic German unit, and "amalgamated" Finns into divisions. Thus you get balanced units.

DITN designer did just the opposite. Being the Finno-centric Finn (Keke don't kill me [;)]) he "amalgamated" Germans into "33-32" divisions (hell they are not really important anyway, yes?), and divided up his beloved Finns into smallest possible units ever, so the northern part of the map is full of "1-1" "ants" milling around Arctic doing funny things.

When you do something like that, funny results are to be expected, and obviously you'll have cases when whole turn ends because Finnish 1-1 ski batallion at Salla spent all its points on some marginal task. For me, that is fallacy of scenario design. For Colin and his buddies it's the fallacy of Norm's game system.

Oleg



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 1:06:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

"High prof units" do not cause turn ending because they do something wrong or buggy. It's just another dice check. Sometimes it can go against you, which I take to be part of the game (or simulation). That's all there is to it.


It's getting down into semantics, but the behavior of high proficiency units is counterintuitive at best. They cause early turn ending because they resolutely press on no matter what, eating up multiple rounds of combat despite their loss settings. Even absent early turn ending, I would consider this flawed. The best troops are those which you have the finest amount of control over. In TOAW, you have little more control over a 95% unit in combat than you would have over a 10% unit. It's for this reason that I consider 75-85% or so to be "true 100". These units can be made to break off an attack after one round or persist for several rounds. They are paradoxically far more flexible and useful than 100% units.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 1:12:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

DITN designer did just the opposite. Being the Finno-centric Finn (Keke don't kill me [;)]) he "amalgamated" Germans into "33-32" divisions (hell they are not really important anyway, yes?), and divided up his beloved Finns into smallest possible units ever, so the northern part of the map is full of "1-1" "ants" milling around Arctic doing funny things.


I was going to avoid responding to your specific points about DITN since I haven't played it, but the problem with high proficiency units is not occurring solely because of the unit scale. Earlier versions of Jeremy's Fall Grau had high proficiency German units that would inevitably cause early turn ending, despite the unit scales being symmetrical. In fact, the American units in that scenario are of significantly lower proficiency than German units, so if anything, the deck was stacked against involuntary multiple round combats by high prof units. Nevertheless, it happened.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 1:16:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
It's getting down into semantics, but the behavior of high proficiency units is counterintuitive at best. They cause early turn ending because they resolutely press on no matter what, eating up multiple rounds of combat despite their loss settings. Even absent early turn ending, I would consider this flawed. The best troops are those which you have the finest amount of control over. In TOAW, you have little more control over a 95% unit in combat than you would have over a 10% unit. It's for this reason that I consider 75-85% or so to be "true 100". These units can be made to break off an attack after one round or persist for several rounds. They are paradoxically far more flexible and useful than 100% units.


Fidel this is among the best posts I have seen in this thread so far (besides Capitaine's and my own posts that is [:D]).

But, what you posted here is something fundamentally different than what Colin asked for.

First, you need to attack with high prof units using "low casualty" setting or whatever it's called (one dot, I haven't played TOAW for some time now).

Secondly, I agree with you in that I'd love to see better control over "persistency" of attacks, perhaps having 5-dot system instead of 3-dot, and would like to see units following those orders more strictly. You'll still have turns ending quickly sometimes (depending on die roll), but high prof units would follow your orders to a letter, stopping their attack when ordered (more or less). That, IMO, would be welcome improvement.

O.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 1:54:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

But, what you posted here is something fundamentally different than what Colin asked for.


I don't really see how. Colin dislikes the effects of high proficiency units on early turn ending. Perhaps more to the point, he was using those effects to illustrate the problems with early turn ending. You responded by criticizing the design principles behind the scenario he mentioned.

As I've already mentioned(and I believe we agree now) including the Finnish front in a Barbarossa scenario which focuses on AGN isn't exactly an outrageous decision. Although I haven't played the scenario, I don't think that modelling the Finns at a lower unit scale than everyone else is necessarily a problem, either. See my comments about Fall Grau.

The real problem is that early turn ending is a global effect. The same problems crop up with the other global effects in the game. By them being global only, you either limit yourself to relatively small scale scenarios(in terms of both size and length) or you have to forego using these effects in many cases. That's really too bad.

quote:


Secondly, I agree with you in that I'd love to see better control over "persistency" of attacks, perhaps having 5-dot system instead of 3-dot, and would like to see units following those orders more strictly. You'll still have turns ending quickly sometimes (depending on die roll), but high prof units would follow your orders to a letter, stopping their attack when ordered (more or less). That, IMO, would be welcome improvement.


This would be nice. What would really be great is if you could edit this at the force or formation level in the editor. World War II Americans could be made to only attack on minimize losses. The Japanese would be limited to ignore losses.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:14:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I haven't played it myself, but the problem of high proficiency units causing early turn ending is one that I've encountered in other scenarios. But there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to have 100% proficiency units; nor does it strike me as completely unreasonable to want to include the Finnish front in a scenario which depicts the northern phase of Barbarossa.


"High prof units" do not cause turn ending


I had the impression you played this game a lot. Saying 'high-prof units do not cause early turn ending becasue blah blah blah' is the equivalent of claiming 'bumblebees can't fly because my equations show blah blah blah.' The fact of the matter is that bumblebees CAN fly and high prof units DO cause early turn ending; I was plagued with it in Fall Grau, checked through my stacks -- sure enough, some infantry division had made it to 97%. Jerked it out -- not more problems with early turn ending. You want to attack with 90+% proficiency units to prove me wrong, be my guest.
quote:






because they do something wrong or buggy. It's just another dice check. Sometimes it can go against you, which I take to be part of the game (or simulation). That's all there is to it.

As for including Finnish front in Northern Barbarossa - that may work. But obviously, you need to do something to balance things somewhat. Say, McBride in his DNO used Regiments as basic German unit, and "amalgamated" Finns into divisions. Thus you get balanced units.

DITN designer did just the opposite. Being the Finno-centric Finn (Keke don't kill me [;)]) he "amalgamated" Germans into "33-32" divisions (hell they are not really important anyway, yes?), and divided up his beloved Finns into smallest possible units ever, so the northern part of the map is full of "1-1" "ants" milling around Arctic doing funny things.


Again, you misunderstand matters. I was involved in an early playtest of DitN. At that time, the usual German unit was a regiment. Ilkka thought the resulting ability the Germans had to mass artillery was too great -- so he went to divisions. He probably IS Finno-centric -- but it wasn't as bad as you suggest.
quote:



When you do something like that, funny results are to be expected, and obviously you'll have cases when whole turn ends because Finnish 1-1 ski batallion at Salla spent all its points on some marginal task. For me, that is fallacy of scenario design. For Colin and his buddies it's the fallacy of Norm's game system.


This is an inane argument. The early turn ending has literally NOTHING to do with the disparity in unit size. One could have Finnish regiments and German regiments; early turn ending could still happen in the north and still halt the Germans in the south. It probably was caused mainly by Ilkka's ultra-high proficinecy Finnish ski battalions. Once I stopped attacking with those, no more early turn ending -- but certianly not because they were battalions -- because they were 95% proficiency.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:20:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I don't really see how. Colin dislikes the effects of high proficiency units on early turn ending.


I agree with "my high prof units should listen to my 'loss tolerance' orders more closely and stop attacking, instead of pushing the attack and eating my phases" part. That would be an improvement. I dislike most other parts of Colin's philisophy.

Even with said improvement you would still have situations where Unit A "stopped" Unit B on other side of the map because of unlucky "end turn" die roll and all other problems discussed in this thread. (Which is fine by me, but not by some other posters.)

quote:

As I've already mentioned(and I believe we agree now) including the Finnish front in a Barbarossa scenario which focuses on AGN isn't exactly an outrageous decision. Although I haven't played the scenario, I don't think that modelling the Finns at a lower unit scale than everyone else is necessarily a problem, either. See my comments about Fall Grau.


I haven't played Fall Grau, and I still do think DITN is deeply flawed scenario. [;)]

O.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:25:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This is an inane argument. One could have Finnish regiments and German regiments; early turn ending could still happen in the north and still halt the Germans in the south.


Yes and so what? I am OK with turn ending being in part controlled by die roll. Map-wide die roll if you wish. I am OK with that - was, am, and will be.

Using balanced units would make more sense anyway. In part because you will not be able to use inane argument "my panzer division is stoped because ski batallion did this and that". [:'(] It wasn't stopped because of ski batallion, it was stopped because of game mechanics. As it should be.

My point is that you may ask for high prof unit to follow your orders better (ie. casualty tolerance setting) - I agree with that, but not much else.

O.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:29:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:


"High prof units" do not cause turn ending


I had the impression you played this game a lot.


What a terribly wrong impression you had there... [:-]

Look I have no problems with you using mean comments like the one quoted above, I really don't. But it would be nice if you would not take things out of context, and reply to butchered parts of sentences.

O.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:35:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I don't really see how. Colin dislikes the effects of high proficiency units on early turn ending.


I agree with "my high prof units should listen to my 'loss tolerance' orders more closely and stop attacking, instead of pushing the attack and eating my phases" part. That would be an improvement. I dislike most other parts of Colin's philisophy.

Even with said improvement you would still have situations where Unit A "stopped" Unit B on other side of the map because of unlucky "end turn" die roll and all other problems discussed in this thread. (Which is fine by me, but not by some other posters.)

quote:

As I've already mentioned(and I believe we agree now) including the Finnish front in a Barbarossa scenario which focuses on AGN isn't exactly an outrageous decision. Although I haven't played the scenario, I don't think that modelling the Finns at a lower unit scale than everyone else is necessarily a problem, either. See my comments about Fall Grau.


I haven't played Fall Grau, and I still do think DITN is deeply flawed scenario. [;)]

O.



Let me try this one more time. It's my turn. At one end of the front, I have my hugely important attack to take whatever. Half my army is going to break through, and then if I get a second round, I can advance to capture the game-winning hex.

At the other end of the front, I have an opportunity to make a low-odds attack that I think will consume many rounds even at 'minimize losses' to take a point of minor value.

What should I do? In TOAW, I don't make the low odds attack -- of course not. I'm not stupid. In real life? Those guys can go knock themselves out -- it won't affect the big attack. The problem with the current early-turn ending mechanism isn't that it happens (better if it happens to my opponent instead of me, but never mind that). The problem is why it happens, and the contortions you go through to avoid it. You wind up doing totally unrealistic things to avoid early turn ending.

Imagine an Italian scenario, early 1943. The Germans are driving on the Anzio beachhead -- and they've lost a hex by Mount Cassino on the main line. Will they counter-attack to retake the hex on the main line? In the real world? Quite likely. In OPART-land? Maybe not. Maybe they don't want their big attack up by Anzio wrecked by some paratroops down by Monte Cassino banging away for half the turn.

All of these examples couldn't possibly involve faulty design. They are purely and simply illustrations of a faulty mechanism forcing unrealistic play. There's no historical reason those paratroops can't go knock themselves out. Why not? In the real world, it won't bring Tiger tanks by Anzio to a halt.



ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:41:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:


"High prof units" do not cause turn ending


I had the impression you played this game a lot.


What a terribly wrong impression you had there... [:-]

Look I have no problems with you using mean comments like the one quoted above, I really don't. But it would be nice if you would not take things out of context, and reply to butchered parts of sentences.

O.



In that case, I take it you grant that attacking with high proficiency units will often cause early turn ending. I had the impression that a while back you denied that attacking with high proficiency units would cause early turn ending.





ColinWright -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:49:17 AM)

Western Front, sometime in the summer of 1916.

Along the Somme, British troops are preparing for yet another monumentally bloody heave. Suddenly, a phone call from the French: they've had an unexpected success in a counterattack at Verdun. Halt the attack! The French might be able to recapture Fort Douamont! If the British go over the top a hundred miles away, it's sure to prevent them doing so!

Where are we? Why, OPART-land, of course...



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 2:50:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
In that case, I take it you grant that attacking with high proficiency units will often cause early turn ending. i had the impression that a while back you denied that attacking with high proficiency units would cause early turn ending.


Full paragraph, which you butchered when quoting, goes like this:

"High prof units" do not cause turn ending because they do something wrong or buggy. It's just another dice check. Sometimes it can go against you, which I take to be part of the game (or simulation).

I see nothing wrong here. That is how the game is designed.

Will it "often cause early turn ending" or not depends on whole bunch of scenario-related factors. I agree in that units (especially high prof) should be made to listen your orders (ie. loss tolerance setting) better, and that more (like, 5) loss tolerance settings could be good idea, and that is all.

O.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 3:48:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The early turn ending has literally NOTHING to do with the disparity in unit size. One could have Finnish regiments and German regiments; early turn ending could still happen in the north and still halt the Germans in the south. It probably was caused mainly by Ilkka's ultra-high proficinecy Finnish ski battalions. Once I stopped attacking with those, no more early turn ending -- but certianly not because they were battalions -- because they were 95% proficiency.



I think Oleg is thinking of a situation wherein a high proficiency "ant"(in relative terms) attacks a much larger unit. Say a battalion attacking a division. There would be little chance that the battalion could budge that division, but a high proficiency battalion would keep attacking anyway and cause the turn to end. However, this would be a matter of poor play, and not necessarily poor design.

However, you're right that the problem exists even with symmetrical unit scales. See Fall Grau- both sides have divisions, and the Germans even have a proficiency edge. Using those 100% SS divisions will end your turn practically every time.

In fact, thinking on this some more, the greater the degree of symmetry with regard to unit scales and proficiencies, the more of a problem this is likely to be. Most people aren't going to attack that Russian division with their elite Finnish ski battalion. However, with roughly equal unit capabilities, attacks are much more likely to require multiple rounds to resolve. The high proficiency unit robs you of the ability to control how many rounds you use at a specific point in time. Put them in the attack on the first phase on minimize losses, and they'll use six or seven rounds anyway. The only way they won't is if they defeat their target in a round or two- but this is unlikely to happen if the unit scales and proficiencies match up for both sides.



*Lava* -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 3:54:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Let me try this one more time. It's my turn. At one end of the front, I have my hugely important attack to take whatever. Half my army is going to break through, and then if I get a second round, I can advance to capture the game-winning hex.

At the other end of the front, I have an opportunity to make a low-odds attack that I think will consume many rounds even at 'minimize losses' to take a point of minor value.

What should I do?


Your kidding me right?

From an operational level, planning and execution would focus almost exclusively on the main attack. This is the really world, and how staffs function.

Have you ever served on a high level staff?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In TOAW, I don't make the low odds attack -- of course not. I'm not stupid. In real life? Those guys can go knock themselves out -- it won't affect the big attack.


Really? So you are trying to say that a "minor" level operation would get the green light when the fate of the war (the example you made) is at stake? Hardly.

I'm actually a little baffled here. Are you making a large attack with your forces ordered to "ignore losses" and you think that the logistical, planning and execution of such an attack would not effect operations in other sectors or even theaters?

What may I ask do you base your "real life" judgements on?

Ray (alias Lava)



*Lava* -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 3:57:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Using those 100% SS divisions will end your turn practically every time.


100% effeciency...

And we are talking realism here?

[8|]

Ray (alias Lava)



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 4:09:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

100% effeciency...

And we are talking realism here?

[8|]

Ray (alias Lava)


At what level do unit proficiencies automatically become invalid? There's no reason to reject 100% proficiency out of hand. Some units obviously do deserve to be at the upper end of the scale.

However, the most frequent cause of high proficiency problems in scenarios that I've played was TOAW's combat experience model. Since starting proficiency can vary by as much as 25% after first combat, any unit which is not veteran that has a proficiency of 75% or greater has the potential to become 100% after one attack. I would say that any unit with proficiency of 90% or above tends to cause more problems than it's worth on attack, so really you have to be careful with any untried units with proficiencies higher than 70. And that doesn't even take in the smaller incremental changes in proficiency that happen after veteran status is acquired.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 4:25:15 AM)

Oh don't even get me started on proficiency values given by various scenario designers!!! [:@]

Couple pages ago in this thread Golden Delicious (is his real name Ben Turner?) rhetorically aksed why I stopped playing TOAW - then continued to make a point that most players stopped playing the game because of various "flaws" in the system, and if those flaws would be corrected, those disappointed players will be returning to the game.

Some wishful thinking Im afraid...

Anyway, perhaps the biggest reason why I stopped playing the game, were not "flaws" in the engine. I can't remember a single flaw or bug that really put me off TOAW. Some PBEM security related issues got on my nerves but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

I stopped playing because in growing number of scenarios there were less and less good, realistic and playable ones. Scenarios like McBride's Tobruk and El Alamein (and Wintergewitter, which was mysteriously pulled down from the web) raised the bar considerably. Laugahble scenarios, based around ridicolously faulty OOBs, bad maps, bad scales, etc etc. flooded the scenario depots, and after I played every of 20 or so really excellent ones, I simply pulled the plug on the game. Perhaps I managed to miss couple great scenarios, but having to sift thru tons of garbage to find good scenario, simply got too time consuming.

No deadly flaws for me sorry to disappoint you... [;)]

From TOAW ME I want more good scenarios, firmly anchored within confines of *operational art* if possible. Hire McBride, make him do dozen or so scenarios, include the latest patch, tutorials for new players, cuple smaller improvements (realistically achievable in relatively short development time), better PBEM security if possible, and you have a winner...

O.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 4:41:48 AM)

Try some of the TDG scenarios. The current featured scenario, Campaign for South Vietnam, is particularly good. Jarek's Lodz is good too. Jarek has some other stuff in the pipeline, and he pretty much exclusively designs small scenarios on more "obscure" subjects. I find them a refreshing alternative to Daniel McBride's scenarios, which I do not enjoy. I do wish we had a few more scenarios up- but to a large extent, doing that while still retaining quality would be at cross purposes.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 4:46:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Try some of the TDG scenarios. The current featured scenario, Campaign for South Vietnam, is particularly good. Jarek's Lodz is good too. Jarek has some other stuff in the pipeline, and he pretty much exclusively designs small scenarios on more "obscure" subjects. I find them a refreshing alternative to Daniel McBride's scenarios, which I do not enjoy. I do wish we had a few more scenarios up- but to a large extent, doing that while still retaining quality would be at cross purposes.


Must... keep.... mouth... shut... [:D]

Anyway why don't you like McBride's scenarios?

I think I loved one scenario from you, or was it Colin? Small, short and fun, obscure topic - Ecuador vs. Peru. It's either Colin's scenario which I played vs you, or your scenario and I played it vs Colin.

O.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 5:01:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Anyway why don't you like McBride's scenarios?


Part of it is thematic- I'm not particularly interested in WWII Eastern Front(although I am playtesting Pelle's Petsamo scenario), which is the bulk of his output. But in general, I don't find the underlying design philosophy to be very inspiring. The maps and OOBs are apparently lovingly done, but the scenarios just don't click for me from a ludic point of view. I also find that they are too large to play intelligently.

quote:


I think I loved one scenario from you, or was it Colin? Small, short and fun, obscure topic - Ecuador vs. Peru. It's either Colin's scenario which I played vs you, or your scenario and I played it vs Colin.


That was mine. It's funny you mention that. I keep meaning to redo it at a smaller map scale. For me that scenario has not aged well. I'm not ashamed of it or anything, but I don't think it's up to the level of more recent stuff. But I've been busy the last few years and my sole TOAW Design work has been on an unfinished Argentina-Chile scenario which never really developed like I wanted.



JAMiAM -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 6:59:42 AM)

Of course, if you're concerned about high-proficiency units causing turn burn due to staying in the battle too long, you could do the smart thing and break them down into thirds, to get the 20% drop in proficiency. Use the unit in a minimize loss tolerance attack, so that it doesn't stay in too long. Then recombine it for your own defense, or for consolidating the unit for exploitation RBC's.

Needless to say, this is simply pointing out that a large part of the problems that players have with this game system is their own inability (through ignorance, or some mistaken ideal of what constitutes "realism" in an operational simulation) to make the engine work to suit their needs. The screwdriver is there. You just have to figure out which drawer in the toolchest it's hiding in and remember the golden rule..."lefty loosey, righty tighty"...[:D]



ralphtricky -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 7:28:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

If the attack hasn't started yet, then nothing happens, although you can't make any changes to the units.

Adding a Delay until turn X option would allow people to plan around the system somewhat, and add another level of meaningful decisions. I'd think that a common scenario would be to attach a remote until to pull the reserves, then attack with force the main place that you wanted to attack. With a 'Delay' option, you could potentially plan most of your attacks. It actually makes sense to me too, to be able to plan out the attacks that way.

No, this doesn't 'fix' the perceived problem, but it does allow people to do much of what they want to do without major changes.


Trying to get a better idea of what you want here. You want to restrict user input to the first combat round, with things being automated based on his orders after that? That would be interesting- sort of a move in the direction of WEGO without having to do too much work on the system.

I was thinking that at any time, you could set up an attack on a later phase, but it probably makes more sense to restrict it to the first phase only. It would add some options to scenarios that currently often only allow one phase, and remove some of the luck.

I also think that this was the wrong place to post this in. While it may or may not be a good idea, seeing the ideas flying around here, I don't think that it's going to help with the problem that some people are seeing.

Ralph




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9863281