Help for a potential player

[miral]

Up front, my question: With the FITE part of TOAW III can you play the tire four years of the Russo-German War or only selected parts of it?

For many years I have sought a very good, very detailed game of this Front. When I stumbled on some of the FITE AARs I thought I was there. Incredible zooms, from continental to local, gorgeous units and maps and the Eastern Front on regimental scale!

But then one of the people in the AAR I was reading mentioned that he wished the designer would extend the scenario through 1942! Was this only the specific scenario he was playing or is there a 4 year camgaign game for FITR? I will buy it in a minute if there is. Thanks to any who answer.

If you have the time and generosity I would also appreciate any more detailed information on TOAW and FITE; the adds are kind of vague.

[macgregor]

There are many great eastern front scenarios, in every variety of scale(5km per hex to 50knm per hex) and length. Myself I play more Europe Aflame. Many last the entire war and then some. I almost posted earlier but thought you'd get a more detailed response from some of the eastern front aficionados.

[philturco]

FITE was intended to cover the full campaign up till 45 but experienced players have found that A Russian retreat ASAP to about the Smolensk area allows them to dig in fortify a defensive belt that extends north and south to the Baltic sea and the Black sea. By the time the pursuing axis forces arrive in strength its too late to crack this line and it turns into a war of attrition that stops further progress. The game in theory extends till 45 but its really over once winter of 41 occurs. I'd like to see a rule adjustment to either prevent a wholesale withdrawal or inability to build a "maginot line defense" thats so extensive and strong and yet is constructed in a couple of months by a confused and panicked army under a sky full of axis bombers.

[Menschenfresser]

FitE is the entire Russo-German war (1941-1945). There are no shorter versions at the moment. The map covers everything from Norway down to Turkey & Greece and from somewhere west of Berlin to Gorky. It's the entire thing, in all its glory. Each hex is 10k across and for the most part the unit scale is regimental for the Germans and divisional for the Soviets...although there are plenty of smaller units in there. Each turn is a week long, which means there are around 400 turns (if you play the whole thing). I've never heard of anyone making it to the end. The Soviet OOB consists of 2000 individual units while the Germans have a few less--maybe around 1800 or so. TOAW3 has a limit of 2000 units per side so this scenario just about maxes it out.

There are other east front scenarios as macgregor said which cover parts of the war in more detail. Drang Nach Osten, for instance, by Stauffenberg covers only Barbarossa at the same scale. Therefore it can pack in more detail than FitE due to TOAW3 limits.

TOAW on the other hand is a complex system that I none of us can really sum up. Scenarios range from beer & pretzel types to complex operational treatments like Drang Nach Osten. There are even some (like Europe Aflame which attempts to portray the entire war in Europe at 20k per hex) that add in strategic elements. TOAW wasn't designed for high level command and control decisions so its a bit of stretch some times. And there are scenarios that focus on small unit battles. That said, TOAW's engine is best when used at a middle scale (5-10k per hex and a half week to a week per turn).

One really defining factor of TOAW are the units themselves. Instead of having counters like with boardgames where your unit is just a 5-4. TOAW's units are comprised of individual equipment. So say if you were designing a scenario and you wanted to make an infantry regiment, you have to add in all the equipment that such a regiment had: rifle squads, half tracks, AT guns, HMGs, AA, mortars, artillery, etc. From all this equipment, TOAW formulates an attack and defense strength. But it doesn't stop there. When one unit attacks another, it isn't just a 5-4 unit attacking a 2-3 unit. Individual equipment fires at each other causing casualties. These casualties, along with supply loss, degrades the units over time.

It has its weaknesses. Everyone knows the naval aspect of the engine is just above worthless. Basically ships are just floating artillery platforms and were designed more or less as such. I don't think Norm really meant there to be a lot of ship to ship combat in this game. And some consider the air war kind of dorky (best word I can think of). The air war is complex enough, but it is still a mystery to get right...even with players who've been at the game for a decade.

This might sound like a lot, and it is, but what little I've said had barely just touched the surface. TOAW is one hell of a complex game.

Hope this helps

[miral]

Thanks to all for your very helpful replies. I believe I've found my East Front game!

Re the Russian fallback strategy. This is, of course, what the Russians should actually hae done, rather than stay west and get slaughtered by the millions. But when you say experienced players have found that this always wins for the Russians are you talking about games between 2 people or does the Russian AI also use this strategy? And I believe a way to get around this, even if the Russian AI is programed to do it is to impose a drastic house rule on oneself, although it could only be used if playing the Russian side vs the Nazi AI. That is, as the Russian impose the same restrictions on yourself through say the middle of 1942 that Stalin did on his generals. Simply do not retreat but stay and fight in the West. Your losses will be huge but then this will make for an exciting challenge in the last months of 1941. This will mirror the historical accuracy of what happened, give the Germans AI a chance, and then, just as Stalin started to trust his generals as the war went on and give them greater leeway, remove the restrictions on yourself and I would think the game would even out.

If the Russian AI is not programmed to always perform the retreat strategy then the game should be well balanced when playing solo.

In all events, thanks for the replies, and the game sounds wonderful. Of course it must have its irritation and flaws - all games do - but from I've heard and the screen shots I've seen it looks far better than anything yet done on the period.

[Menschenfresser]

Since you mention the AI, I might as well add that too. The AI is known as Elmer (named I think by Norm). TOAW's AI is known as the Programmed Opponent. I believe the reason it is called that is because the core engine has no innate notion of where to send its units. It knows how to fight, encircle, hold, etc on a unit level. But it doesn't know what it should be doing over the long haul. It is up to scenario designers to set up what are called 'objective tracks' for the PO (Programmed Opponent) to follow. Each formation can have up to 32 of these objectives and it will attempt to take them in order.

What I am stabbing at here is that TOAW's PO is pretty poor when it comes to large scale maneuvers as each formation of units is just blindly plodding along from one objective to the next. On the other hand, if units are stacked face to face, it can handle beating the crap out of you fairly well. But it can't handle open space whatsoever. It can't handle retreats at all. And it even has a difficult time attacking across large swaths of land.

Many scenarios do not have objective tracks set up at all. Fire in the East is one of them. Without objective tracks, units will not move very far from their starting positions. They have no reason to as they are already in possession of everything they have been told to possess. In other words, FitE is PBEM only. I suppose someone could come along one day and program objective tracks into FitE, but first the OOB would have to be altered. A good example might be: imagine you halt the German advance north of the Pripet marsh while allowing them free range in the south. The German PO will continue to speed east in the south although his flank is completely exposed. AGS would race all the way to Stalingrad even if the AGC never made it past Minsk.

But there are a few scenarios that really shine when played against Elmer. They are usually small scenarios centered around a contained battle for clear, singular objectives.

[Grognard]

From its first incarnation I have regarded TOAW as the gold standard of operational games (with the MAJOR exception of the lack of HQ subordination flexibility) (MAJOR!!!). And as I've gotten under the hood and fooled around with scenario creation that respect has only grown.  And that learning curve has also revealed some limitations of the game engine - most of which lie in the scope of the scenario. 
 
Excuse my sarcasm guys but it's called (T)he (O)perational (A)rt of (W)ar. Emphasis on "Operational". Barbarossa thru Dec '41 or Jan '42 is OK - That operation ceased (arguably) with the Russian counterattack in Dec. Doing the whole war until '45 is just an ego trip and a waste of time. You can't get around the hardcoded limits you'll see in a four year war (2000 Sov Div/Ger Rgt units is NOT enough), not to mention equipment transitions which exceed available slots in the unit roster. 
 
 I have yet to see a Barbarossa I respect in all its elements -OOB/events/reinf/TO&E/map. The only one I haven't seen AFAIK is McBrides DNO. Hopefully I will be posting mine within a year. BTW it will be ACOW because from what I've read here TOAW III is just an expensive patch with some extra eye candy. Fix/change HQ subordination and I'm a buyer - "D-Day America Invades" had an elegant HQ span system.  'Scuse the rant & guess my point is - keep the scenario within the intended scope and let the politicos deal with strategy.

[sPzAbt653]

I assigned objective tracks to the Soviet side in FitE so I could play solo as the Germans. I think it plays reasonably well, and models the type of army that the Soviets had, a big lumbering force. The best thing is it will never retreat from the frontier, giving me the oppurtunity to simulate the '41 campaign. I sent my .sce file to the original designers in case it is ever made possible to copy objective tracks from one file to another, then they would have the option of using them in FitE.
Programming the German side would be a different story, and it would be complicated as I think all three tracks should be used. It also takes a long time, as there are thousands of objectives involved. But for someone like me, who only plays solitaire, it's a must to have Elmer active.

[jmlima]

I think that it is also fair that besides the glories, some other issues like the arcane supply system , and threads like these ones:

tm.asp?m=1760885&mpage=1&key=

tm.asp?m=1604814

are pointed to a potential newcomer. I would appreciate it.

[loveman2]

FITE I have been playing this for years it wont let you down[:)]

[miral]

Again, thanks for the excellent. I'm getting much more coherent and to the point information here that I've gotten on other game forums when asking about a game I'm considering buying.

One final question. This may seem like heresy to most players but...being a very ooold game player (Avalon Hills Gettysburg in 1960 was my first), I actually enjoy playing games like FITE by playing both sides.

Can FITE be played hot-seat, so I can do this? It certainly solves the bad AI problem. Thanks again. Will check out the websites mentioned.

[Sker]

ORIGINAL: miral

Again, thanks for the excellent. I'm getting much more coherent and to the point information here that I've gotten on other game forums when asking about a game I'm considering buying.

One final question. This may seem like heresy to most players but...being a very ooold game player (Avalon Hills Gettysburg in 1960 was my first), I actually enjoy playing games like FITE by playing both sides.

Can FITE be played hot-seat, so I can do this? It certainly solves the bad AI problem. Thanks again. Will check out the websites mentioned.

Every sigle scenario in TOAW can be played hotseat. It will be a huge task try to do that with a monster scenario like FITE, but anyway you can try to do it. But in my experience the best is always to play against a human opponent.