Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/14/2006 4:19:08 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
Adam Parker, those were excellent descriptions of how a turn and attack resolution in TOAW differs from PzC's.  I too am a long time PzC player.  (still am)

I learned a lot from those two simple posts above.

From what I deciphered, in TOAW its best to pre-plan all your attacks ... or at least most of the important ones ... before you hit the resolve attack button.  Does this mean I can preplan attacks then move units as needed (or visa versa) and I should get more actions (movement, attacks, etc.) within one Turn, than I would if I planned an attack - execute it - move some units - plan an attack - execute it - move some units - etc - etc -  ??

Thanks for the insight.

Hank

also - I can't critisize PzC like others here ... they just have a different philosophy on war game design than others. They put most their effort in battle research, OOB's, etc. ... than in fine tuning the engine (which they actually do thus the revision patches).  PzC's is a good IGO-UGO game ... like SSG's Battles in " " series ... but I've gone away from BiN due to burn out.  I play lots of games and find good and bad in all of them ... mostly good.  The one "con" about PzC's that I will say is that they are expensive ... especially if you want to collect many battles to add to your collection.  ... cha ching cha ching goes the cash register .... :)

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 61
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/14/2006 4:36:57 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You don't have to wait for anything. Both players enter orders, and watch the action unfold, in real time. Everything happens "as we speak". Both players can regulate the speed of the game (stop, normal speed, fast, extra fast), and the game plays in slower of two players' settings. Games usually play in normal or fast speed - first you both enter initial orders and start the game, then it usually plays in normal or fast speed.


Given that "normal" is the lowest level above stop, I can imagine the game would really drag at that speed.


It does not "drag", because normal is not the same as "real time", it's much faster than real time.

Whether the scenario "drags" or not also depends on the length of the scenario in question. I prefer smaller scenarios in COTA engine anyway, lasting for up to 3-4 days of "historic time" (which can be played in couple hours of "game time" (mix of normal and higher speeds in game)

I feel I can kinda predict your next comment/complaint and that is that COTA is too tactical for your taste, if scenarios last for "only" 4, or 10 days of "historic time". If you think that way, you're wrong. COTA's scenarios, varying from 1 to 10 days of "hostoric time" are perfectly balanced for the *operational* warfare feel of the game (perhaps still a bit on the lower, ie, tactical side of things). TOAW's mega scenarios, using corps sized units and lasting for 4 years () are the perversion of the term "operational" IMO, and usually quite ridicolous to play.

Oleg

_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 62
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/14/2006 5:29:05 PM   
BAL


Posts: 222
Joined: 9/1/2002
From: West of the Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

The one "con" about PzC's that I will say is that they are expensive ... especially if you want to collect many battles to add to your collection.


Have you tried ordering from NWS? PzC games there are $30 as opposed to $50 at the HPS website. For that matter, most any game is cheaper at NWS.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 63
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/14/2006 5:59:07 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I really enjoy the PzC series. The SSG games look fantastic but I prefer the gameplay of the PzC titles.

TOAW is the grandaddy of them all and for value for money it cant be beaten. The only problem I had with it is the way the turn mechanics play out. Thats just me though.


_____________________________


(in reply to BAL)
Post #: 64
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/14/2006 6:18:15 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I feel I can kinda predict your next comment/complaint and that is that COTA is too tactical for your taste, if scenarios last for "only" 4, or 10 days of "historic time". If you think that way, you're wrong. COTA's scenarios, varying from 1 to 10 days of "hostoric time" are perfectly balanced for the *operational* warfare feel of the game (perhaps still a bit on the lower, ie, tactical side of things). TOAW's mega scenarios, using corps sized units and lasting for 4 years () are the perversion of the term "operational" IMO, and usually quite ridicolous to play.


I agree. I thought you were the one who liked huge scenarios; Drang Nach Osten etc.?

I do prefer the operational scale- battalion or regiment units- but I have been known to play tactical games, and once I can rebalance it for TOAW III I'll probably release my company-scale Rhodes scenario.

I take it COTA etc. are at a fixed scale? That's a shame- but hopefully it can be fixed. I'll get one of this series this year anyway, it really does sound like they're moving wargaming forward.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 65
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/14/2006 8:18:07 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I agree. I thought you were the one who liked huge scenarios; Drang Nach Osten etc.?


It all depends on the "feel", and thats something you can judge usually only after some *playtesting*. DNO, again, feels right, and turn-wise it's not too long (last version I played had 36 turns IIRC). That's not too much, and considering most games are decided by turn 15-20 anyway, it feels like one enormously huge "operation", basically as upper limit of the TOAW engine as it stands. (In my opinion of course.) Since it's based on regiments (on the German side at least) it does feel like one huge inter-connected bunch of operation(s), so it's pushing the operational-level envelope, but still operational.

Normally though I prefer smaller scenarios, DNO is exception to the rule (as are some other big scenarios by Daniel).

For instance, I consider WITP, enormously huge wargame, as "operational" level wargame - it's just enormously huge operational wargame, but it's still operational (with some strategic elements like Japanese production - incidentally, something I could easily live without, and usually do on "auto pilot"), because the core of the game is still *planning operations* using op-level "tools". Enormously, frighteningly huge operational level wargame - but IMO still operational, not really strategic.

quote:


I take it COTA etc. are at a fixed scale? That's a shame- but hopefully it can be fixed. I'll get one of this series this year anyway, it really does sound like they're moving wargaming forward.


I am the one arguing fiercely for inclusion of Regiment (polk) level estabs in the East Front game in the series, at least for Soviets (so far most scearios are based around companies/battalion HQs which works for WF and Med/Africa but may be troublesome for EF).

True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 66
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 3:02:03 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It all depends on the "feel", and thats something you can judge usually only after some *playtesting*. DNO, again, feels right, and turn-wise it's not too long (last version I played had 36 turns IIRC).


Poor Oleg- so behind the times! Just opened to check. Seventy turns in a recent version.

quote:

I am the one arguing fiercely for inclusion of Regiment (polk) level estabs in the East Front game in the series, at least for Soviets (so far most scearios are based around companies/battalion HQs which works for WF and Med/Africa but may be troublesome for EF).

True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.


Good luck.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 67
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 5:58:11 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
" ...
From what I deciphered, in TOAW its best to pre-plan all your attacks ... or at least most of the important ones ... before you hit the resolve attack button.  Does this mean I can preplan attacks then move units as needed (or visa versa) and I should get more actions (movement, attacks, etc.) within one Turn, than I would if I planned an attack - execute it - move some units - plan an attack - execute it - move some units - etc - etc -  ?? 
..."
?

looking for an education
Hank

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 68
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 6:02:09 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
OOPS ... after that last post I found this one from molotov_billy? on another thread.  It sounds like part of the answer I was looking for.

Sorry... this is a little off topic ... but I'm desperate for knowledge.

"... snippet

The first thing you want to do is move all of your units. Move columns along roads, etc, even up to their maximum movement. If they're not attacking this turn, you can use their full movement allowance before you initiate any attacks.

You still have 100% of your turn at this point - only attacks reduce your turn time. Your first attacks should be with units that have their full movement allowance left, or very close to it. If you attack with a unit that has 80% of it's movement allowance, it will use up at least 20% of your turn. It can use more if attacks last longer. (the length of attack depends on a number of factors, including how many losses you allow.) Keep an eye on the circle of stars graphic on the right toolbar to observe how much of your turn is left. If you initiate an attack with a unit that has too few movement points (which will use up more of your turn), you'll see this in the graphic. For example, if you have 80% of you turn left, and you attack with a unit that only has 20% of it's movement points left, you'll use up at least 80% of you turn.

Artillery attacks by themselves don't do much damage. If you want to do a 'pure' bombardment, create an attack from one direct attack unit with "minimize losses", and add your artillery to that attack. I assume this has to do something with spotting.

Hope that helps.

snippet ... "

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 69
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 6:17:40 PM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

These are all tactical games, aren't they?


No. I consider a game like panzer campaigns to be far more tactical than HTTR/COTA. Panther game's engine is by far the most realistic operational level system that I've ever played. Gameplay reads exactly like operational level books that I've read about WWII.

With order delays, it's actually impossible to play in a tactical way.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 70
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 6:22:26 PM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

OOPS ... after that last post I found this one from molotov_billy? on another thread.  It sounds like part of the answer I was looking for.

Sorry... this is a little off topic ... but I'm desperate for knowledge.


Just think of it this way. If you execute attacks with units that have 80% of their movement points left, you'll end up with less than 80% of your turn left after the attack. I've noticed that most attacks on "limited losses" result in 10% to 30% useage of my turn, so I can get 3-4 attacks in each turn. So my turn goes something like this:

-Move all units as far as they need to go
-plan all attacks with units that have 100% of their movement
-execute
-move units forward if previous attacks open holes/etc
-plan all attacks with units that have about 70-80% of their movement (no units should have more than this after your first attack, since you've used 20-30% of you turn)
repeat
repeat
etc



(in reply to hank)
Post #: 71
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 6:33:04 PM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.


Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 72
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 6:56:50 PM   
pvthudson01


Posts: 464
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Chicago
Status: offline
I love TOAW's system because it provides the fun of making real blitzkrieg moves. I wont touch PZC, I got France 40 or whatever and it was so bad it has collected dust since I bought it. Battles in Italy, COTA, Korsun Pocket and TOAW are the ones I play right now. You also have the advantage with each one of those of really nice user created scenarios and better interface and manuals.  I still dont get the hype over Tiller games. However his best work was East / West Front and I cant wait for those to be re-released!

_____________________________

Matrix Member since 2003!

(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 73
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 10:02:06 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.


Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.



I posted lengthy arguments about this on Panther Games East Front DDT board (in the restricted, beta test area of the Matrix boards). I don't really think this discussion is in any way relevant for *TOAW* board

Anyhow.... Since Soviets realised that Germans are better at tactical level, for the most of the war they sought - and found! - a way to materialize their advantage on the next level, and that is operational. As end result, by 45., while still lagging behind on the pure tactical level (which every German fanboi will be happy to make big deal about) - Soviets truely excelled on the level we all here love so much, and that is operational. Soviet operations of 44 and 45 are true operational level masterpieces, that probably haven't been repeated ever since.

Now, to *materialize* this operational level thinking, we simply need MORE units, MORE territory, and a scale that is by a measure of degree bigger than what Panther games were (or are) up to now. Using company and battalion estabs may, and does, work well for Market Garden (HTTR) and COTA, and will work well for Africa, perhaps for selected battles in the Pacific as well, but it will NOT work well for EF. Sovs would be in disadvantage.

This is where, IMHO, Combat Mission makes a huge mistake. This game is true example of German fanboyism if there ever was any. By pitting battles on pure tactical level you always have tactical ubermensch Germans fighting quasi-equal number of n00b Soviets (or even Western Allies). Well, nice, but simply not realistic, and never gives any chance for Sovs to materialize what they were best at - op level planning and execution.

In short, that is why we need bigger base unit estabs for Sovs, for EF, in my opinion.

Oleg


_____________________________


(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 74
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/15/2006 10:19:14 PM   
hank

 

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline
Thanks MB ... I played around with this last night and i like it much better than the way I was playing before.  I'll tryout your sequence in the last post tonight.  Its a blast learning this game ... its a lot different from either PzC or BiN (which I enjoy also ... I'm just a hog when it comes to these games)  ... but I'm very interested in learning TOAW as much as possible due to its huge and continuous following ... like SPWaW has.

regards
Hank

I've been playing Rundstedts Plan Martin and Barbarossa to learn.  Both those sce's are fun to play ... Plan Martin is extremely enjoyable ... and even though its a hypothetical sce, the historical units are there to "what if" with.


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 75
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 12:16:12 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.


Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.


As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph



(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 76
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 1:42:10 AM   
ioticus

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 6/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph





That's awesome, because playing a good AI is my passion, a match made in heaven, if you will.

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 77
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 3:14:52 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.


I'm not sure that having the companies on the map is helpful when you're issuing orders to the regiments. If the player is commanding an Army or Army Group, he certainly wouldn't be aware of the locations of individual companies or probably even battalions. Perhaps the game could track them- but they shouldn't be visible.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 78
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 3:20:45 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As end result, by 45., while still lagging behind on the pure tactical level (which every German fanboi will be happy to make big deal about) - Soviets truely excelled on the level we all here love so much, and that is operational. Soviet operations of 44 and 45 are true operational level masterpieces, that probably haven't been repeated ever since.


It probably helped that the German operational method had been crippled in the meantime.

quote:

This is where, IMHO, Combat Mission makes a huge mistake. This game is true example of German fanboyism if there ever was any. By pitting battles on pure tactical level you always have tactical ubermensch Germans fighting quasi-equal number of n00b Soviets (or even Western Allies). Well, nice, but simply not realistic, and never gives any chance for Sovs to materialize what they were best at - op level planning and execution.


Well, balanced battles did no doubt occur occasionally. But you're right that if players wanted realism rather than balance then they should be playing many, many battles where hopelessly outnumbered Germans variously hold by the skin of their teeth or are totally overwhelmed by Soviet masses (after having been ground into a fine paste by however many thousands of artillery tubes).

But players, on the whole, don't care about realism. They want balance. And V-2 rockets.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 79
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 7:01:39 AM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I'm not sure that having the companies on the map is helpful when you're issuing orders to the regiments. If the player is commanding an Army or Army Group, he certainly wouldn't be aware of the locations of individual companies or probably even battalions. Perhaps the game could track them- but they shouldn't be visible.



Because it's far more interesting, and companies were the lowest size of independent unit. Regiments, divisions, and army groups clumped together into one massive unit is an unrealistic level of abstraction for the sake of simplicity. If you can model companies and make it just as simple, then why bother with the unrealistic abstraction?


< Message edited by molotov_billy -- 6/16/2006 7:10:35 AM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 80
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 7:09:19 AM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I posted lengthy arguments about this on Panther Games East Front DDT board (in the restricted, beta test area of the Matrix boards). I don't really think this discussion is in any way relevant for *TOAW* board

Anyhow.... Since Soviets realised that Germans are better at tactical level, for the most of the war they sought - and found! - a way to materialize their advantage on the next level, and that is operational. As end result, by 45., while still lagging behind on the pure tactical level (which every German fanboi will be happy to make big deal about) - Soviets truely excelled on the level we all here love so much, and that is operational. Soviet operations of 44 and 45 are true operational level masterpieces, that probably haven't been repeated ever since.

Now, to *materialize* this operational level thinking, we simply need MORE units, MORE territory, and a scale that is by a measure of degree bigger than what Panther games were (or are) up to now. Using company and battalion estabs may, and does, work well for Market Garden (HTTR) and COTA, and will work well for Africa, perhaps for selected battles in the Pacific as well, but it will NOT work well for EF. Sovs would be in disadvantage.

This is where, IMHO, Combat Mission makes a huge mistake. This game is true example of German fanboyism if there ever was any. By pitting battles on pure tactical level you always have tactical ubermensch Germans fighting quasi-equal number of n00b Soviets (or even Western Allies). Well, nice, but simply not realistic, and never gives any chance for Sovs to materialize what they were best at - op level planning and execution.

In short, that is why we need bigger base unit estabs for Sovs, for EF, in my opinion.

Oleg


Hmm. This is sort of all across the board and not really what we're talking about. Heh, not sure what to say.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 81
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 7:14:42 AM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph


Awesome. I really look forward to that - I'm glad you're into AI, because that's generally all I play against :)

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 82
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 7:18:23 AM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Now, to *materialize* this operational level thinking, we simply need MORE units, MORE territory, and a scale that is by a measure of degree bigger than what Panther games were (or are) up to now. Using company and battalion estabs may, and does, work well for Market Garden (HTTR) and COTA, and will work well for Africa, perhaps for selected battles in the Pacific as well, but it will NOT work well for EF. Sovs would be in disadvantage.



Ok I think this part is relevant. What I was trying to say is that the scale does get large enough for east front scenarios, but maintain the units as company level. This means more units of course, but you aren't commanding each company. The simplicity is retained but without a cost to realism. (armies moving around as clumps.)

Like I said, the only obstacle to that is performance. The engine is getting better with each release, so it seems likely that we'll eventually be able to play large east front scenarios at a company level.

(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 83
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 7:22:21 AM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

Thanks MB ... I played around with this last night and i like it much better than the way I was playing before.  I'll tryout your sequence in the last post tonight.  Its a blast learning this game ... its a lot different from either PzC or BiN (which I enjoy also ... I'm just a hog when it comes to these games)  ... but I'm very interested in learning TOAW as much as possible due to its huge and continuous following ... like SPWaW has.

regards
Hank

I've been playing Rundstedts Plan Martin and Barbarossa to learn.  Both those sce's are fun to play ... Plan Martin is extremely enjoyable ... and even though its a hypothetical sce, the historical units are there to "what if" with.




Great! I'm playing the smolensk scenario that came with the game, which is very manageable as a beginning scenario. Not too many units, and a lot of variety of equipment to try.

(in reply to hank)
Post #: 84
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 12:51:30 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Ok I think this part is relevant. What I was trying to say is that the scale does get large enough for east front scenarios, but maintain the units as company level. This means more units of course, but you aren't commanding each company. The simplicity is retained but without a cost to realism. (armies moving around as clumps.)

Like I said, the only obstacle to that is performance. The engine is getting better with each release, so it seems likely that we'll eventually be able to play large east front scenarios at a company level.


Well, number of units, ie number of counters is certainly a consideration (if not an outright limitation) for this engine. It all happens in "quasi real time". If there's too many of them you get cluttered screen even if CPU can handle all that. Besides, show me one Soviet commander with rank of polkovnik or above, who really ever cared about such trifling entities as companies when conducting operations?

In short - it would just clutter the screen, while providing nothing to the player or the game. Me sayz: give us northern wing of Uranus on Regimental level, and see Soviet angry collosus in action

Otherwise, you might get just another in the looong loooooongggggg string of games that favor Germans (because of designer's fanboyism or mistakes in design) so that players can only wonder "how come these ueber-guys ever lost a war??"

Op level planning is the answer to "why did they lose a war". Op level planning - always, and especially with Soviets - involves mass, concentration of strength etc. Finally, to get back on TOAW topic somewhat - many good TOAW scenarios put German batallions/regiments vs Soviet regiments/divisions, etc ie. a Soviet unit one level above the German, to get the good simulated effect. It's not the same as giving Soviets simply more batallions to work with, it shows different doctrines altogether.

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 85
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 1:46:05 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Because it's far more interesting,


...but unrealistic. At times, army commanders didn't even know where some divisions were- let alone individual companies. One persistant problem with wargames is that too much information is available to the player, especially about his own force.

quote:

If you can model companies and make it just as simple,


I did say the game could track the companies. But the player shouldn't ever see them. He certainly shouldn't be giving them orders. Typically, commanders only deal with units two levels below their own level of command.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 86
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 1:49:59 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Otherwise, you might get just another in the looong loooooongggggg string of games that favor Germans (because of designer's fanboyism or mistakes in design) so that players can only wonder "how come these ueber-guys ever lost a war??"


In an operational level game, this is fair enough. At that scale, historically the Soviet "player" was better.

quote:

Finally, to get back on TOAW topic somewhat - many good TOAW scenarios put German batallions/regiments vs Soviet regiments/divisions, etc ie. a Soviet unit one level above the German, to get the good simulated effect. It's not the same as giving Soviets simply more batallions to work with, it shows different doctrines altogether.


It strikes me that having larger units would make it harder to concentrate, not easier. The Soviet player has to divide units to spread out in quiet sectors.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 87
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 5:00:17 PM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

...but unrealistic. At times, army commanders didn't even know where some divisions were- let alone individual companies. One persistant problem with wargames is that too much information is available to the player, especially about his own force.



Who says that I'm an army commander? Since when do you play a specific commander in any of these games? Allied FOW is a completely different topic.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 88
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 5:04:10 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Who says that I'm an army commander?


Good grief. The person who designed the scenario when he decided to simulate an army-level operation.

Note that I only went up to army level to make my point about divisions. Corps commanders still would not be aware of the locations of individual companies. Uncertainty in war is a really big deal. Rommel spent much of May 1940 with only a very vague idea where the various components of his division were. The difference was that it didn't matter; whereas when this happened to his opponents it was a disaster.

quote:

Since when do you play a specific commander in any of these games?


I thought you were interested in realism? Where's the "realism" if the player is some sort of collective intelligence of the entire officer corps?

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to jungelsj_slith)
Post #: 89
RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC - 6/16/2006 5:05:21 PM   
jungelsj_slith

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Well, number of units, ie number of counters is certainly a consideration (if not an outright limitation) for this engine. It all happens in "quasi real time". If there's too many of them you get cluttered screen even if CPU can handle all that. Besides, show me one Soviet commander with rank of polkovnik or above, who really ever cared about such trifling entities as companies when conducting operations?


We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what the player cares about. Regiments don't move as clumps. They have forward units, they have rear echelon units, they have maneuvre elements - companies. That's all.



(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141