Doubts about TOAW

[PFrancis]

I've been reading about toaw on this forum and other places and can't decide wether to go for it.
The main point is that after playing some hex based wargames, I've noticed that generic wargames can have scenarios playing all alike with features like local terrain topography having very little influence over the battle.

I want to know about TOAW. How differently will scenarios play, if considered such things as terrain variety, strategic approaches, climate, time period etc?

I've read some AARs and I've got the impression that OOB and balance more or less define the results. Things like "On turn ?? you should be near ??, since you'll be forced to retreat after reinforcements arrive..." give me the impression that results are locked to more or less expected (historically accurate?) configurations based on scenario balance and OOB.

Will a good player make any difference at all, or a mediocre player (once he knows the scenario)can hold the ground forcing the results dictated by balance? How differently will a game play based on player approach and style (considering he has a solid knowledge of the game engine)? Do I have to expect that the same scenario will play and finish exactly in the same way if played by the same two opponents?

The reasons I ask those questions is that even if TOAW can make a good job reproducing historical results (I suppose it can, based on what I've read), I like games that play like... well... games. It's all about competition. I don't like to only administrate counters towards a predictable result.

Btw, I've seen that people play monster scenarios with thousands of units. At the same time, TOAW reproduces units details to individual squads. Considering it would be an gigantic task to administrate thousands of units paying attention to their individual configurations, I've asked myself if the details are merely illustrative or if they make any difference in game play. That is: when playing monster scenarios, do players take any advantage from paying attention to the composition of their units or just looking at the counter values is enough, so that knowledge of game mechanics will prevail over knowledge of particularities your army? Is it all reduced to a mere distribution of strength values over the map?

All this is to know if one can expect to use a great variety of approaches based on individual scenarios or should stick with two or three principles, using what one has at hands (in this case, after mastering those principles, players would be leveled). Considering the first hyphotesis is true, what would make a good TOAW player? Knowledge of game mechanics? Historical background? Analythical skills? Knowledge of the particular scenario? Reasoning capacity? Creativity?

Please pardon me for all those questions, but since I have little time to dedicate to learning wargames, I'm on a kind of a search for the definitive (for me, at least) operational scale wargame and, more than historical precision or number of scenarios available (on this point I know TOAW is almost unbeatable), I search a game in which experimentation and variety comes into play; in which I can try to beat my adversary using a new strategical approach, not only repeating actions based on a couple of principles.

Thanks for reading through it.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

Will a good player make any difference at all, or a mediocre player .../...Do I have to expect that the same scenario will play and finish exactly in the same way if played by the same two opponents?

Certainly not. I just came off playing Army Group South-Hungarian Campaign for the second time as the Axis and did well. Despite losing Budapest I managed to avoid total destruction of my troops. The first time I got smashed by a player who has equal knowledge of the game but who is more daring and ruthless in handling the Red Army. If I had played him again I would have come of better I'm sure.

I've seen AAR's of players revisiting a scenario they played vs eachother before and things go a different way. Because of the fluctuations in unit strength, allotted equipment, supply, proficiency and readiness may vary widely, different outcomes are possibl, even in scenarios which at first seem lop-sided

I've asked myself if the details are merely illustrative or if they make any difference in game play. That is: when playing monster scenarios, do players take any advantage from paying attention to the composition of their units or just looking at the counter values is enough, so that knowledge of game mechanics will prevail over knowledge of particularities your army? Is it all reduced to a mere distribution of strength values over the map?

Not at all... Every single bit of equipment/type of infantry squad in your unit is taken in consideration... Two units displaying a counter value of , let's say 4-4, may very well get that value (which is only an average or a pointer) from different kind of equipment.. I'd suffer a lot of damage in directing a 4-4 panzer unit towards an enemy unit getting it's 4-4 value from it's AT guns.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: PFrancis
I've read some AARs and I've got the impression that OOB and balance more or less define the results. Things like "On turn ?? you should be near ??, since you'll be forced to retreat after reinforcements arrive..." give me the impression that results are locked to more or less expected (historically accurate?) configurations based on scenario balance and OOB.

One of the outstanding features of TOAW III is the range of scenarios regarding both complexity and absolute size. As you mentioned there are scenarios which are huge and/or detailed in OOB. Many designers and players get a great deal of satisfaction from their efforts and playing TOAW at the campaign level.

However, if you take a look at the scenarios available for download at Rugged Defense, or the list of scenarios that are provided with the game, you’ll find that there are plenty of scenarios which are designed . . . well, primarily for fun. They come is all sizes and time periods. Suggest you take a look at the variety of scenarios available before you make a final decision on TOAW III.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Central Blue]

How differently will scenarios play, if considered such things as terrain variety, strategic approaches, climate, time period etc?

Quite a bit I think. I've owned all but one of the versions and have played the game for years. But consider that terrain effect depends on the quality of the map, so if you are playing a Normandy scenario without hedgerows. . . Or a Fulda Gap scenario without the Vogelsberg, Rhon, etc., they you can amuse yourself for hours by fiddling with the map in the designer.

The reasons I ask those questions is that even if TOAW can make a good job reproducing historical results (I suppose it can, based on what I've read), I like games that play like... well... games. It's all about competition. I don't like to only administrate counters towards a predictable result.

This is another issue that depends on the designer if you are playing against the AI opponent. Others have spoken to the point about playing humans.

[PFrancis]

Thanks for the answers, but please allow me to explore that further.

Not at all... Every single bit of equipment/type of infantry squad in your unit is taken in consideration... Two units displaying a counter value of , let's say 4-4, may very well get that value (which is only an average or a pointer) from different kind of equipment.. I'd suffer a lot of damage in directing a 4-4 panzer unit towards an enemy unit getting it's 4-4 value from it's AT guns.

I imagine so, but that is still a little superficial, after all, just with a glance at the counters and you can tell you have AT vs Tank. But suppose you have a 4-4 tank against another 4-4 tank; will the constitution of those units make any difference or would you just have two tanks units of same strength fighting against each other? Do those who play monster scenarios actually check the constitution of their units or what is printed in the counter says it all, for gameplay goals?

What about terrain effects? I'm kind of a map enthusiastic... one of the aspects I love about wargames is studying the map and plan according to terrain particularities, but in some wargames modifiers for terrain are so insignificant in relation to the other variables involved, that most of the time it's better to just ignore it in order not to sacrifice other bonuses.

One last question (for the moment, at least): I know that, in most wargames, finding opponents to play(PBEM) the most popular scenarios maybe easy. But what if I want to play those scenarios that aren't so popular? Will I find opponents to play those?

[L`zard]

@PFrancis..........

Pehaps you might view this: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread. ... ost1137799

[L`zard]

PFrancis....

As to terrain: tm.asp?m=2068229&mpage=1&#2068329 might help answer this question.......

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: PFrancis... suppose you have a 4-4 tank against another 4-4 tank; will the constitution of those units make any difference or would you just have two tanks units of same strength fighting against each other?

Besides the amount of equipment in your unit (be it a regiment, brigade etc) the supply level, proficiency and readiness of a unit will make the difference... also how well its formation or country handles distribution of supply
After a prolongued period of combat/offensive you'll have to allow your units to rest, rotate them with fresh ones where pssible

[el cid]

IN addition to what Silvanski said, the 4-4 vs 4-4 result will vary a lot depending on the composition of the units.

A percentage of the tanks of each unit will fire at the tanks of the other unit.

First the fire of an individual tank has to hit a given target (and this is done for each tank that fires). The likelihood of this happening depends on the terrain and on the taregtting capabilities of the tank.

The if is a hit, it has to check for penetration (wether the hit causes a kill or not). This depends on the cannon of the firing tank vs the armor of the receiving tank (and this is modified by defensive postion, terrain).

In the "campaing for north africa" scenario, the allies have Matildas, which have a very thick armor, and at the begining of the campain the germans are unable to destroy those tanks.

[Spook043]

Something I've discovered from this game, in how "equipment" affects a unit's ratings, was seen by choosing a "bookend" view of war periods.

For example, I chose a couple of the WWI scenarios -- the Marne and Tannenburg (both 1914) -- and set both on computer vs. computer (or "Elmer vs. Elmer") to see how each scenario played out. Both actually approached historical cases -- the Allies won at the Marne, and the Germans at Tannenburg. But when occasionally inspecting the unit attributes, I took note how the defense strength of an average combat unit (e.g., infantry) was typically much more than its attack strength.

However, my recent focus has been instead to refurbish a "1990's series" scenario originally done by Trey Marshall. It focuses on the Hof Gap region of West Germany in a hypothetical WWIII setting. For this setting, the combat units more typically have a larger attack than defense strength, contrasted to the WWI units of comparable size. This isn't overly surprising, because many of the various equipment items not only have greatly increased anti-armor and anti-personnel attack values, but also enhanced targeting abilities. In essence, the combat unit is more "lethal".

And the equipment types do make a big difference in WWIII anti-personnel and anti-armor fighting. In a WWI setting, it is extremely unlikely for a company-sized "cavalry" unit to hold up a regiment-sized attacker. But in the WWIII backdrop, a company-sized cav unit has a fair chance of repulsing even a regimental assault if it's made up of heavy-armored tanks and IFV's/CFV's (helicopter gunship support can help a lot too!!), set in a fortified stance or in favorable terrain. I've seen that frequently in the rebuild I'm working on. There's more work to do, but I think the scenario is getting more the feel for showing "AirLand Battle" concepts.

TOAW, even as TOAW III, still has some rough edges that I might chafe about. But it definitely has improved in showing the "tactical" impact of weapons systems, deployment stances, etc. to operational combat.