Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

[jungelsj_slith]

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.

[jungelsj_slith]

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

[jungelsj_slith]

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.

[jungelsj_slith]

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.

[Oleg Mastruko]

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.

[golden delicious]

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.

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.

[golden delicious]

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.

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.

[jungelsj_slith]

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.

[golden delicious]

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.

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?

[jungelsj_slith]

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.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

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.

One has to be careful. At a certain point, one switches from an operational simulation to a very, very large tactical simulation. Ten years down the line, will you be arguing for or against modelling every single soldier on the battlefield?

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
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.

Again, allied fog of war is a different topic. We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what I'm roleplaying, or what particular level a specific player is interested in. I don't care about specific rifle squads in TAOW - but they're there, and I can examine their weapons, and they contribute to the realistic modeling of a simulation.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

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.

One has to be careful. At a certain point, one switches from an operational simulation to a very, very large tactical simulation. Ten years down the line, will you be arguing for or against modelling every single soldier on the battlefield?

If it could be done, why wouldn't you? I'm not controlling that soldier, but he does exist. In a modern simulation, platoons and even squads can become independent maneuvre elements. It's not a realistic simulation to abstract them as a company and pretend that they move around in that mass down the streets of fallujah, or wherever else.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Again, allied fog of war is a different topic. We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what I'm roleplaying, or what particular level a specific player is interested in. I don't care about specific rifle squads in TAOW - but they're there, and I can examine their weapons, and they contribute to the realistic modeling of a simulation.

They should be there, but the player shouldn't really be able to call up such detailed information instantaneously. I recall that in the old game Borodino, one had to request battle reports from the corps, which would then be delivered in real time (or not, if the message didn't get delivered).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy
It's not a realistic simulation to abstract them as a company and pretend that they move around in that mass down the streets of fallujah, or wherever else.

If it's the steppe between Stalingrad and Kalach then it is [:D]

HTTR/COTA series is somewhat CPU intensive and certainly more CPU intensive than, say, TOAW or any other turn based game. At one point you have to decide whether you will use your "CPU budget" and more importantly "human usability mental budget" or "GUI budget" to handle individual people, platoons, companies or, say, regiments. I say - regiments all the way (for Soviets, battallions for Germans). For East Front's massive operations that's the only way to get realistic historic results.

HTTR/COTA engine will have it's own issues to solve - and I hope I'll help solving them as part of the team [8D] - as it "spreads out" to cover both "platoonisation" (as part of modern DDT series) and "regimentification" I argue about (as part of "true operational" EF series). I'd hate for it to become tactical or grand tactical game a la Combat Mission, because on tac level - Germans always win.

I haven't met one single tactical level EF game that I liked. Close Combat 3 was fun, as was Talonsoft's East Front 2, but both were quite gamey, and neither gave an answer "how the hell did the Uber Germans lose this war?". True op level should give answer to that. To achieve this on platoon level you need a Cray supercomputer, so obviously something's gotta give.

O.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

If it could be done, why wouldn't you?

Because at the level of the individual soldier simulation gets filled with many, many problems. Do we simulate the soldiers having a call of nature, reading letters from home- or murdering some civilians? How do we simulate the impact this has on his fighting potential?

Also this level of detail makes scenario design impossible. Who wants to volunteer to map every bloody tree in Normandy?

I'm not controlling that soldier, but he does exist. In a modern simulation, platoons and even squads can become independent maneuvre elements. It's not a realistic simulation to abstract them as a company and pretend that they move around in that mass down the streets of fallujah, or wherever else.

Ah, well, I'm thinking about simulation of conventional warfare. Professional simulation of modern so-called "low-intensity" warfare would have to consider all sorts of things which aren't important to historical simulation.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

True op level should give answer to that. To achieve this on platoon level you need a Cray supercomputer,

Well, by 2020 you'll be able to do it on your PC.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
If it's the steppe between Stalingrad and Kalach then it is [:D]

No, it isn't. Regiments did not move as clumps, in any battle. The independent maneuver element of World War II was a company.

HTTR/COTA series is somewhat CPU intensive and certainly more CPU intensive than, say, TOAW or any other turn based game.

Quoted from what I previously said "The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release. " If the performance isn't there to do it, then it can't be done. If it can, it should.

At one point you have to decide whether you will use your "CPU budget" and more importantly "human usability mental budget" or "GUI budget" to handle individual people, platoons, companies or, say, regiments. I say - regiments all the way (for Soviets, battallions for Germans). For East Front's massive operations that's the only way to get realistic historic results.

I'm not saying that the operations should be smaller in size. The operations should be what they were - and units should be companies.

I haven't met one single tactical level EF game that I liked. Close Combat 3 was fun, as was Talonsoft's East Front 2, but both were quite gamey, and neither gave an answer "how the hell did the Uber Germans lose this war?"

Those games have nothing to do with the overall war. They represent tactical battles, not operations. Why would you expect a tactical simulation to answer the questions of operational/strategic problems? Combat Mission simulates tactical battles quite well - and hopefully Combat Mission: campaigns will simulate operational movement well. Close combat was a great game, too. None of these games attempted to explain the outcome of the war, nor should they be expected to be. If you're not interested in tactical simulation, then I would certainly see why you wouldn't enjoy those games.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Again, allied fog of war is a different topic. We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what I'm roleplaying, or what particular level a specific player is interested in. I don't care about specific rifle squads in TAOW - but they're there, and I can examine their weapons, and they contribute to the realistic modeling of a simulation.

They should be there, but the player shouldn't really be able to call up such detailed information instantaneously. I recall that in the old game Borodino, one had to request battle reports from the corps, which would then be delivered in real time (or not, if the message didn't get delivered).

Allied fog of war is a seperate issue. Allied fog of war is a seperate issue. Allied fog of war is a seperate issue. Allied fog of war is a seperate issue. Allied fog of war is a seperate issue. [:)]

We agree about the simulated part of it. This is all that I'm saying.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Because at the level of the individual soldier simulation gets filled with many, many problems. Do we simulate the soldiers having a call of nature, reading letters from home- or murdering some civilians? How do we simulate the impact this has on his fighting potential?

If it isn't feasible then it shouldn't be done. I'm saying that if it's feasible "if it can be done", then why not do it? Why have a level of arbitrary abstraction if it isn't needed?

l, I'm thinking about simulation of conventional warfare. Professional simulation of modern so-called "low-intensity" warfare would have to consider all sorts of things which aren't important to historical simulation.

Ok. But what does this have to do with what we're talking about?