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

golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 11:11:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

6th SS Pz Army units banging their heads against Elsenborn Ridge, Battle of the Bulge, WWII. Wrong unit, in the wrong situation, and too high a proficiency (think dedicated) to know when to break off and try something different.


Interestingly, this kind of thing does need to be modelled- and ultra-high proficiency is the way to do it in the game as it stands. Ideally, we'd be able to seperate just that dedication (Waffen SS, Japanese Army, Red Army) from training and experience in TOAW.



Emx77 -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/26/2005 11:57:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Yes, I agree - and they didn't "burn the turn out" in others, which meant that 5th PzA were able to punch a nice deep hole, but 6th SS PzA weren't. One formation vs another...have we heard this before? [;)]

Steve.

Yes, breaking down the timekeeping, on a formation by formation basis, is certainly a worthwhile potential enhancement to the engine. No argument from me on that.


[&o] Well that's what some of us are talking about here all the time. I just wonder how so many people have problem to understand this [&:]

Emir



JAMiAM -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 12:02:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Supply soaking is such a misnomer, based on incorrect assumptions. Supply level only directly accounts for a quarter, at best, of a unit's strength. It is the readiness hits to a unit that is much more telling, since that affects both the unit's Strength, as well as its Quality.


Right. The effect is the same.

quote:

The sequential attacking by assymetric forces - lesser forces in probes, and greater forces in attacks intended to take the hex - is reflective of the real world tactics of probing for recon,


This might be valid if you were making those probes for the purposes of recon. You're not. You're making them to drain the enemy's supply.


No, the effect is not "the same". It is manifold. There is, of course, the obvious disproportionate drain on the defender's supply state. The straight 10% supply usage per engaged tactical round is one of the weaknesses of the supply system in TOAW, but one that when you consider "normal" supply to be 1%, becomes moot. Further, as mentioned above, it directly contributes to no more than 1/4 of a unit's strength.

Other effects are the change in defender's readiness. This is entirely consistent with military operations. The "edge" or "shine" of a unit that is rested is quickly worn off in battle, and as the length of time that a unit is in a state of engagement, the less prepared its defenses usually become (barring the spontaneous creation of more suitable defensive positions, ala Monte Cassino, or urban destruction). Thus, when a unit, or multiple units over multiple series of attacks, continuously badger the defenders, then they wear them down and prepare for the commitment of the main force. This is a valid military tactic. In terms of the game engine, the lowered readiness of the defenders translates into lower combat efficiency, as well as the tendency to break off combat and retreat, since the unit's quality is lessened, and thus it becomes more likely to fail the morale checks. Valid military tactic, and the equivalent possibility for implementation through the game mechanics.

Another reason for launching the preparatory attacks is to draw in any reserves that may be lurking about. Please don't tell me that diversionary attacks, or recon in force type attacks, have no place in standard military tactics. If my attacks reveal large concentrations of enemy forces, I can better determine whether followup attacks should avoid, or target the hexes, as circumstances warrant.

Finally, after I've been able to identify the weaker spots in the defender's lines, and have caused them sufficient distress, then I can begin to more intelligently assign attacks with the purpose of taking the hexes, driving out the defenders, and creating opportunities for further advances and reinforcing the success. Again, the big picture of intelligent tactical doctrine, supplementing the operational aspects of the conflict, is retained. Please don't tell me that valid, historical, and successful military operations do not take all of these factors into account.



JAMiAM -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 12:24:32 AM)

One quick comment, aimed at nobody in particular, but when designers start designing scenarios based on how the game does work, as opposed to how they think it should work, then a lot of the complaints about "exploiting the engine" will vanish. For example, the dreaded, and oft-maligned "supply drain attack". If designers were to make their units start at 33% readiness, 1% supply, as a normal state, and adjust the supply stockpile rates, movement biases, and attrition divider settings accordingly, you will see that preparatory attacks will have substantially less effect. There is no golden rule that states that unit supply states must be <<<<<....this....>>>> big, or that. Some scenarios will play out better with high supply rates, and prep attacks, others will not. Design for effect, instead of some one to one relationship with some imagined "reality". At the end of the day, the operational focus of the game dictates that the primary gauge of whether one side or the other has won or lost is reflected in where the lines of counters stand on a virtual map, and how much "strength" each side has lost. Designers should keep that in the front of their minds, much more than whether 9th Bicycle Battalion had 6 25mm AT guns, or 12.



Edited for one focus too many



*Lava* -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 3:28:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Such condescending, arrogant conduct is unbecoming,


What a condescending, arrogant remark.


Hmm.. quite true.

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 3:43:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

One quick comment, aimed at nobody in particular, but when designers start designing scenarios based on how the game does work, as opposed to how they think it should work, then a lot of the complaints about "exploiting the engine" will vanish.

...snip...

Design for effect, instead of some one to one relationship with some imagined "reality". At the end of the day, the operational focus of the game dictates that the primary focus of whether one side or the other has won or lost is reflected in where the lines of counters stand on a virtual map, and how much "strength" each side has lost. Designers should keep that in the front of their minds, much more than whether 9th Bicycle Battalion had 6 25mm AT guns, or 12.


Excellent post.

I tried so many TOAW scenarios back in those days I started to "label" scenario designers like 5 minute after opening the scenario for the first time. One special group I labelled "TOE obsesive compulsives". For those scenario designers everything revolved about getting the most precise TOE data possible, everything else was secondary, testing, fine tuning and tweaking - what you call "design for effect" - was oftenly non existent. It was as if by enteriing picture-perfect, by-the-book TOE for some unit, everything else will function perfectly by itself.

O.



JMS2 -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 1:36:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMS2

But since you haven't bothered to read those 100 bugs,


Hi!

You mean like being able to destroy a bridge with artillery? To tell you the truth, that doesn't even enter on my radar.

I'll repeat my main premise. It is not necessary "the what", but the manner in which the discussions are being carried out. Guys are overblowing the problems, exaggerating situations (a jeep stopping a division.. [:D]), and basically acting like children who, if not pleased, are going to take their scenarios/expertise and go home.

It is meant to badger the producers into pleasing them to shut them up, knowing full well that many "fixes" create more problems than they solve. YOU may want that, I don't.

Such condescending, arrogant conduct is unbecoming, and is a really poor start for the creation of a new community here at Matrix games. But the truth be known, you probably aren't really interested in that either.

Ray (alias Lava)


Given that this communities have been alive for years elsewhere, and that you show a basic misunderstanding of the bugs, to the point of not being bothered to read them, yes, I agree with you, definitely you are acting in a childish, arrogant manner. Not the best for a "new" (new to whom?) community.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 2:52:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
The straight 10% supply usage per engaged tactical round is one of the weaknesses of the supply system in TOAW, but one that when you consider "normal" supply to be 1%, becomes moot.


Right. However, such a condition is not 'normal'. Clearly, since the game does not cover units with low supply very well, it was not intended that units would spend most of the game on low supply.

quote:

Thus, when a unit, or multiple units over multiple series of attacks, continuously badger the defenders, then they wear them down and prepare for the commitment of the main force.


Right. But that AT company or whatever ant unit you're using for these supply-draining attacks would, in reality, not draw the attention of more than a fraction of the force in the stack. Local units would fend them off, and the reserves within the hex would certainly not be engaged.

You're rationalising your own actions as being realistic. They're not. The reason you play the way you do is because it is the way to win at TOAW. As I have said about three times now, I am not interested in discussing how to win at TOAW.

quote:

Another reason for launching the preparatory attacks is to draw in any reserves that may be lurking about. Please don't tell me that diversionary attacks, or recon in force type attacks, have no place in standard military tactics.


They have their place. Probes reveal the strength of frontline forces, but since reserves wouldn't be called on to respond to a minor attack, the information you receive from them is a massive distortion. Diversionary attacks work by making the player think the attack is coming elsewhere. They don't need to be specifically modelled in the combat engine.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 2:57:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

One quick comment, aimed at nobody in particular, but when designers start designing scenarios based on how the game does work, as opposed to how they think it should work, then a lot of the complaints about "exploiting the engine" will vanish.


Hush, you. I've gone to considerable lengths to limit the number of ant units in my recent scenarios, by use of indivisible units and by consolidating smaller ones. Most of the other designers who's work I've playtested do the same (or I complain until they do)

This is a non-ideal solution. It should be possible to represent that individual AT company without it ruining the game. Hence, in my view, the game should be modified to prevent it from doing so.

quote:

Design for effect, instead of some one to one relationship with some imagined "reality".


I'm not interested in spending all my design time trying to compensate for the flaws of engines and players alike. I want to spend it solving problems of simulation. Perhaps my standards are unrealistic.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/27/2005 3:00:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I tried so many TOAW scenarios back in those days I started to "label" scenario designers like 5 minute after opening the scenario for the first time. One special group I labelled "TOE obsesive compulsives". For those scenario designers everything revolved about getting the most precise TOE data possible, everything else was secondary, testing, fine tuning and tweaking - what you call "design for effect" - was oftenly non existent. It was as if by enteriing picture-perfect, by-the-book TOE for some unit, everything else will function perfectly by itself.


Well, on the one hand, the OOB is just one part of good scenario design. On the other hand, there's nothing to stop a good designer getting the OOB right, scripting good events AND playtesting the scenario properly. Whilst a missing MMG here or there will ultimately not make much difference, a 1% difference in the strength of the entire force could totally change the way a scenario plays.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/28/2005 2:15:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
6th SS Pz Army units banging their heads against Elsenborn Ridge, Battle of the Bulge, WWII. Wrong unit, in the wrong situation, and too high a proficiency (think dedicated) to know when to break off and try something different.


Did this prevent breakthroughs elsewhere on the front? Was the decision to continue the attack being made by junior officers?

quote:


German 6th Army, struggling house to house in Stalingrad. Too stubborn to break off the attack, ordered by a stubborn commander (Hitler), to do what it shouldn't have done.


There you go. Following orders, not disregarding them.

quote:


The French Armies in Alsace-Lorraine, 1914. High proficiency units fed into the grinder, and wasted.


In accordance with French doctrine at the time, which emphasized the all-carrying power of the attack.

I think you misunderstand me on some level. I have no problem with high proficiency units persisting for multiple rounds of combat if ordered to do so. What I dislike is their tendency to do that regardless of whatever loss tolerance you have assigned them.



JAMiAM -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/28/2005 6:33:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms


I think you misunderstand me on some level. I have no problem with high proficiency units persisting for multiple rounds of combat if ordered to do so. What I dislike is their tendency to do that regardless of whatever loss tolerance you have assigned them.

Perhaps, I did misunderstand your point, because I don't see it as too much of a problem. I've given examples of how to largely avoid the occurrence, and play to minimize turn burn. Therefore, I see the problem as more of technical competence issue, or a stubborn refusal to work within the constraints of the engine, based on some preconceptions of what should constitute "realism" in an operational level game.

However, given what I think that you want, let me try to establish this as something concrete, and ask you if the following would make you happy?

Instead of attack duration being solely a function of the number of tactical rounds until ALL units committed to either the attack, or the defense, fail their morale check, you would rather have this...

The attack duration would be either of the following, designated by the attacker, and available as an option accessible in the attack planner:
1) Classic style. As above.
2) High Control. Attacks will continue until the first of the two following conditions occur:
A) All of the units of either the attacker, or the defender, fail their morale checks (note: same as "Classic Style"), or
B) All attacking units exceed their "attack duration setting" to be defined as the maximum number of tactical rounds a unit is allowed to attack in a single combat, and given by the formula:

D = T - ceiling[(S-100)/10],
where D = Attack Duration in tactical rounds, range of D = {0,1,2,3, ... },
and T = Unit Loss Tolerance Setting, equal to number of loss tolerance dots, i.e., range of T = {1,2,3},
and S = Shock Level of the Attacker.




Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/28/2005 7:19:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Perhaps, I did misunderstand your point, because I don't see it as too much of a problem. I've given examples of how to largely avoid the occurrence, and play to minimize turn burn. Therefore, I see the problem as more of technical competence issue, or a stubborn refusal to work within the constraints of the engine, based on some preconceptions of what should constitute "realism" in an operational level game.


You have a point here- to an extent. I still think that the way the engine functions and your workarounds are imperfect. They're not anything that will keep me from playing the game, but obviously they should be fixed. If there is an issue of player or designer competence here, it shouldn't be a surprise, given how screwy some of this stuff is. It's as if Talonsoft had released the manual only in Spanish. JMS, me, and a handful of other people would be the best players around. Similarly, it's possible to spend hours submerged in log files parsing the intricacies of how the engine works- but my ideal game would confer only a very small advantage on a player for doing that. Reading a book on a relevant campaign ought to be much more of an advantage.

quote:


However, given what I think that you want, let me try to establish this as something concrete, and ask you if the following would make you happy?

Instead of attack duration being solely a function of the number of tactical rounds until ALL units committed to either the attack, or the defense, fail their morale check, you would rather have this...

The attack duration would be either of the following, designated by the attacker, and available as an option accessible in the attack planner:
1) Classic style. As above.
2) High Control.


I think that option 2, whereby you select a maximum number of rounds, would be ideal in most situations. It would be nice to have the ability to utilize the current setup for some forces- say the Japanese. This would possibly entail creating a new value for the morale check which is separate from the unit proficiency. This would also allow things like Russians with modest proficiencies who nevertheless attack and/or defend relentlessly.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/28/2005 12:13:41 PM)

For me, the defining philosophy is not "What is the best way of gaming the engine?" but "What, given the military situation, is it that the Force Commander - the role in which I'm playing - should do?"

I find it difficult to believe that breaking units down in order to reduce their ability - not just their strength - is a sensible thing to do. But maybe I'm mis-reading "Proficiency" in this regard.

I believe that the situation should be relatively easy to determine: If I have recon specific units available, go and use those, but given the scale of the game > tactical, these units are likely to be subsumed into the larger units. (In other words, I don't usually expect to have recon companies modelled as separate entities, but to have them as part of the division which is.) Recon is worth doing. So, a probing attack with low casualty limits by only a part of the unit actually makes sense. It is not necessarily the correct thing to do in order to avoid an early turn end in TOAW, and it can punish the player who has attempted to do exactly what, as Force Commander, he should be doing. So, as a player, you're forced into gaming the system rather than directing your troops.

Note that TOAW is emphatically not the only, nor the worst, case of this. But we have an opportunity to improve things, why not try to take it?

Steve.



geozero -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 6:02:06 AM)

TOAW's greatest downfall is the scenario designer. As JAMiAM pointed out, too many scenarios have been designed with extensive TOE's that (while historically accurate)actually may hinder the play balance and experience.

Back in the old days of board wargames, OOB's were sometimes fairly straight forward and simply. The games typically played well, and were balanced. But the most important factor was that they were FUN to play, while maintaining adequate historical accuracy.

TOAW has always been perfect to capture and recreate so many great battles, but the dependence on the TOE's can drive some designers to focus too much on TOE detail and not on play balance and the "fun" factor. This is quite evident in that some scenarios play out much better than others. If TOAW's scenario design was not so TOE dependent, I think we would see better scenarios.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 2:46:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

If TOAW's scenario design was not so TOE dependent, I think we would see better scenarios.


If TOAW's structure was not built up from the level of individual peices of equipment, the model would lose a great deal of the flexibility and appeal it has today. I'd probably just stick with version 1.04.



geozero -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 6:33:11 PM)

quote:

If TOAW's structure was not built up from the level of individual peices of equipment, the model would lose a great deal of the flexibility and appeal it has today. I'd probably just stick with version 1.04.


I disagree. [:D]

To make an infantry unit in TOAW have a combat strength of 10 with a movement rate of 8 (for example), you'd have to research, and plug in all kinds of units variables (did it have 56 squads or 54, 16 AT guns or 12, 32 trucks or 100 horses, etc). You have to plug all these numbers which in many cases may not be accurate or even debateable among players and designers alike, all these numbers.

And then you could end up with gamey units. Why not just design a unit given it a combat variable and movement, BAM, that's it, done. Now test the scenario and see if it is balanced and plays well. The object should be to create fun playable, balanced scenarios, not show off how many TOE books you may have. [:D]



JMS2 -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 6:48:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

quote:

If TOAW's structure was not built up from the level of individual peices of equipment, the model would lose a great deal of the flexibility and appeal it has today. I'd probably just stick with version 1.04.


I disagree. [:D]

To make an infantry unit in TOAW have a combat strength of 10 with a movement rate of 8 (for example), you'd have to research, and plug in all kinds of units variables (did it have 56 squads or 54, 16 AT guns or 12, 32 trucks or 100 horses, etc). You have to plug all these numbers which in many cases may not be accurate or even debateable among players and designers alike, all these numbers.

And then you could end up with gamey units. Why not just design a unit given it a combat variable and movement, BAM, that's it, done. Now test the scenario and see if it is balanced and plays well. The object should be to create fun playable, balanced scenarios, not show off how many TOE books you may have. [:D]



Unfortunately, it's easier to find sources that detail the equipment available than sources that detail that the correct rating of a USMC regiment is 10-5.



geozero -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 6:51:34 PM)


quote:


Unfortunately, it's easier to find sources that detail the equipment available than sources that detail that the correct rating of a USMC regiment is 10-5.


That's where game design and playtesting comes in. That's how all those great AH and SPI board games were designed.



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 9:42:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

The object should be to create fun playable, balanced scenarios, not show off how many TOE books you may have.


Going to make two distinct arguments here;

a) I want historically accurate scenarios. That makes them fun. Balance isn't a huge issue so long as I'm fighting the same battle as my historical counterpart.

What you've done is placed a set of decisions in the hands of the designer which he will screw up. He'll rate this or that division however he wants on the basis of the various prejudices and misconceptions he has. Who would have guessed that, all things considered, a 1941 Soviet rifle division actually had a hell of a lot of firepower?

In the game you're proposing, the unit would just get a crap rating. What would I learn from the scenario then? That the Soviets took a beating because their divisions were crap. Actually, that's a gross simplification. Modelling the game this way forces designers and players alike to consider the real reason why the battle took the course it did, and how that can be changed in the game.

b) If you give a unit fixed ratings, then it becomes far harder to model attrition intelligently. An armoured division which has lost half its tanks will behave very different to one which has lost half its infantry, even though the two units might have the same numbers on the icon.

Further, the unit would behave differently in the first place under your system. If you have armoured divisions which are 6-4 or whatever and motorised divisions which are 4-4, then three motorised divisions will behave exactly the same on the attack as two armoured divisions. That's wrong. You could start adding in special rules for armoured units, but to what units are they applied? Panzer divisions obviously. What about a French tank brigade? What about some mechanised brigade which has two battalions of infantry and one of tanks. Whichever system you come up with, it will not be as flexible as the current system.

In conclusion, whilst you might feel that this change would make it easier for designers to produce fun games, it would mean that the current high standard of design achieved by a fair number of scenarios would be totally unachievable, because the whole system would be less effective.



geozero -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 10:23:38 PM)

I disagree.

The "design" of the game mechanics would not be simply limited to an attack factor and a movement rate - I was making a simple analogy. Of course several different combat factors could be used to model a "type" of unit. Armor units would have armor attack and defense factors as well as infantry (i.e., hard and soft target, etc). Infantry would have no armor attack but could have armor defense to model AT weapons, etc. Much easier IMO than to dig out TOE's that may or may not be wholly accurate.

I do completely agree that gamers of a certain caliber (grognards) want the most historically accurate representation in their games. I think TOAW does a great job at this and I'm happy just the way it is actually... BUT, a simpler way of achieving the same end result as far as combat values, etc. is possible, and should be explored.

Making games so difficult makes them inaccessible to a great many new wargamers, my 17 year old nephew quickly got bored of TOAW. I think there is a market out there for TOAW type game systems, but a huge untapped market of new players wanting a simpler system. And simpler doesn't mean to degrade the game in any way.



JAMiAM -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 11:01:54 PM)

Why should I buy Norm Koger's Paper, Rock, Scissors, The Matrix Edition, when I already have two hands and an eight year-old daughter to play it with?



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (10/31/2005 11:13:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

The "design" of the game mechanics would not be simply limited to an attack factor and a movement rate - I was making a simple analogy. Of course several different combat factors could be used to model a "type" of unit. Armor units would have armor attack and defense factors as well as infantry (i.e., hard and soft target, etc). Infantry would have no armor attack but could have armor defense to model AT weapons, etc. Much easier IMO than to dig out TOE's that may or may not be wholly accurate.


Nonsense. Unless one can come up with an alright-ish TO&E in the first place, how can one even begin to work out accurate numbers for all these values? As several people have noted, getting the TO&E exactly right isn't terribly important. A best-guess is often good enough. And you'd need that much even for your system.

quote:

Making games so difficult makes them inaccessible to a great many new wargamers, my 17 year old nephew quickly got bored of TOAW.


I don't think this is because of the equipment structure. One can get into TOAW without ever seeing that underlying structure. I know I didn't understand it when I started; I just played it at the level of the whole units, disregarding equipment.

quote:

I think there is a market out there for TOAW type game systems, but a huge untapped market of new players wanting a simpler system. And simpler doesn't mean to degrade the game in any way.


It does. You make the point that most designers won't do enough research and get their scenarios just right. That's as maybe- but with the TOAW system as it is, at least some designers can get their scenarios to that standard (even if it does take four years).

I do agree that there's a larger market for simpler games. But I don't think TOAW should be playing to that market. It's power as a scenario creation tool really is unique.



*Lava* -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (11/1/2005 12:45:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I want historically accurate scenarios. That makes them fun. Balance isn't a huge issue so long as I'm fighting the same battle as my historical counterpart.


That depends.

A scenario which has only one correct path, that is, the historic re-creation and nothing more, has zero replay value for me.

I want options.. lots of options.. which allow me to explore different strategies.. not puzzles. That's what makes games fun for me.

Ray (alias Lava)



golden delicious -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (11/1/2005 1:27:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
A scenario which has only one correct path, that is, the historic re-creation and nothing more, has zero replay value for me.


Well, that's something altogether different. Such a scenario does have merit- as a learning aid. It's not really a game.

quote:

I want options.. lots of options.. which allow me to explore different strategies.. not puzzles. That's what makes games fun for me.


Well someone at some point said that enjoyment in a game is derived from making decisions which have observable consequences. That's true enough. I just find those decisions more compelling if they fit into a historical context, rather than being purely abstract.

I don't want a scenario to produce a historical outcome no matter what. I want a scenario which can produce the full range of outcomes which were possible given the historical starting conditions.



geozero -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (11/1/2005 2:52:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I want historically accurate scenarios. That makes them fun. Balance isn't a huge issue so long as I'm fighting the same battle as my historical counterpart.


That depends.

A scenario which has only one correct path, that is, the historic re-creation and nothing more, has zero replay value for me.

I want options.. lots of options.. which allow me to explore different strategies.. not puzzles. That's what makes games fun for me.

Ray (alias Lava)


Ditto.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (11/1/2005 3:16:37 AM)

Geozero, have you played the SSG Decisive Battles of World War Two series that Matrix is publishing now? They are very overtly "boardgamey"- step losses, abstract combat and movement factors, etc. You can even see the dice roll. They're quite good, although I wouldn't really have TOAW imitate them.



rhinobones -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (11/1/2005 3:23:58 AM)

To quote one of my favorite orators . . . “this is preposterous.”

There are several things here that need to be straightened out.


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

The object should be to create fun playable, balanced scenarios, not show off how many TOE books you may have.


I’m with Geo on this one. Showing off the knowledge to alright too, but it need not be an a criteria for judging a good scenario. In this case “good” equates to the above quote.


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I want historically accurate scenarios. That makes them fun. Balance isn't a huge issue so long as I'm fighting the same battle as my historical counterpart.


First of all you do not have a historical counterpart. Secondly, this statement needs to be qualified, i.e. “According to Ben Turner . . . makes them fun“

Also, if you open your eyes a bit, there are things other than historical accuracy to make the gaming experience enjoyable, i.e. “fun.”

There appears to be little understanding or appreciation that others have an equal opinion to what constitutes a “good” scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

What you've done is placed a set of decisions in the hands of the designer which he will screw up.


I bet that any scenario Ben Turner designed under these conditions would not be screwed up. And yet, somehow you know that everyone else would screw things up. With insight like that I would gladly pay you the big pounds to be my stock broker.


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
In the game you're proposing, the unit would just get a crap rating. What would I learn from the scenario then?


First of all, Battle Fields is being designed with a simplified TOE just as Geo proposed. Hopefully in the near future we will see whether how these crap ratings work out. Once again, I bet that any scenario Ben Turner designed under these conditions would not contain units with crap ratings.

Secondly, who really cares whether you learn anything from a scenario? Is it not impossible for you just to enjoy a good match?

There is more, but I will cease for now.

Best Regards, RhinoBones



geozero -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (11/1/2005 3:27:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Geozero, have you played the SSG Decisive Battles of World War Two series that Matrix is publishing now? They are very overtly "boardgamey"- step losses, abstract combat and movement factors, etc. You can even see the dice roll. They're quite good, although I wouldn't really have TOAW imitate them.



No I have not. Sadly, I do not have the time to play all the games I'd like to, plus run 2 businesses, enjoy my 3 month old baby, and design and test games. Oh, I forgot to mention that I'm trying to pitch 2 movie scripts also. I'll let you know if Paramount takes it. [:D]

But I am familiar with the concept. I think from what I know of those systems is that they fill a void, much like Grigsby's World at War. Great game, but too simple IMO.



JMS2 -> RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine (11/1/2005 11:44:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

I disagree.

The "design" of the game mechanics would not be simply limited to an attack factor and a movement rate - I was making a simple analogy. Of course several different combat factors could be used to model a "type" of unit. Armor units would have armor attack and defense factors as well as infantry (i.e., hard and soft target, etc). Infantry would have no armor attack but could have armor defense to model AT weapons, etc. Much easier IMO than to dig out TOE's that may or may not be wholly accurate.

I do completely agree that gamers of a certain caliber (grognards) want the most historically accurate representation in their games. I think TOAW does a great job at this and I'm happy just the way it is actually... BUT, a simpler way of achieving the same end result as far as combat values, etc. is possible, and should be explored.

Making games so difficult makes them inaccessible to a great many new wargamers, my 17 year old nephew quickly got bored of TOAW. I think there is a market out there for TOAW type game systems, but a huge untapped market of new players wanting a simpler system. And simpler doesn't mean to degrade the game in any way.


But then you are going one step back from TOAW, since you have to calculate all those ratings that TOAW, right or wrong, already has in the equipment database. Those games of AH and SPI did just that to reach their values, based on the work to Trevor N. Dupuy (admitted by Jim Dunnigan). With TOAW you can start out from an standard template without the need to first research the equipment.

Another issue would be that of the completion of the scenarios, but that's not going to change simply because less time is involved in researching a TO&E becuase the TO&E will have to be researched anyway.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875