Taking the system on faith

[Obsolete]

Recently I've been doing a lot of examination with the Combat Command II re-release project. Alright, I'm biased since I'm doing some heavy beta testing. However, it's allowed me to remember some of the strengths & weaknesses of TOAW.

In fact, I will try to do a few Africa TOAW scenarios before the end of the month. It's been too long and I don't mind playing at a different hex scale.

One comment from an older article at CombatSim mentioned:

This is where CC2:DF is superior to a game like TOAW since it has a transparent rules system. Everything is described in detail in the manual, and all of the tables that the computer uses to make decisions are available at the back of the manual. In contrast, the ‘blackbox’ nature of the TOAW system often leaves one to take the game system on faith that everything is behaving as it should.

I remember this line of critic back in the day, and I'm wondering does it still hold water for a lot of the TOAW grognards today? Perhaps asking in this forum is going to get another biased response (naturally). But I am curious, and I know there are some hardcore players here and want their opinion.

[el cid]

I personally would want to know the details of how the engine works, not only on combat but also on supply distribution (where does Formation efficiency comes to place, or the number of supply units still at had in an HQ unit).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

This is where CC2:DF is superior to a game like TOAW since it has a transparent rules system. Everything is described in detail in the manual, and all of the tables that the computer uses to make decisions are available at the back of the manual. In contrast, the ‘blackbox’ nature of the TOAW system often leaves one to take the game system on faith that everything is behaving as it should.

I suppose the author of this considered it to be criticism, but I take it as high praise. Real combat isn't decided by a roll on a CRT. Games that do are too simplistic. And they force gamers to make those CRT-based calculations - something real commanders don't do. TOAW models reality in that combat results are determined by hundreds if not thousands of individual random results of combat clashes of individual pieces of equipment. It means that TOAW commanders can only approximately gauge the chances of success - just like real commanders.

None of that is some black-box secret. It's all described in the manual. But there are so many factors taken into account that players are too overwhelmed to be able to calculate a cumulative odds value. But that applies to everyone. Even the most experienced players remain apprehensive about their combat plans. That's a good thing. If TOAW referenced a CRT it would take a big realism hit.

[Raver508]

Yeah I'm with you Curtis - I like the 'black box' feel of TOAW. Means that I have to play by 'feel' a bit, rather than sitting with my calculator and agonising over every move. But that's just me I suppose.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
None of that is some black-box secret. It's all described in the manual. But there are so many factors taken into account that players are too overwhelmed to be able to calculate a cumulative odds value. But that applies to everyone. Even the most experienced players remain apprehensive about their combat plans. That's a good thing. If TOAW referenced a CRT it would take a big realism hit.

[&o] Get Some, Bob! [&o]

[morleron1225]

I also agree with Curtis on this issue. Perhaps I'm simply biased as I keep coming back to TOAW no matter how many other games I get. IMHO, TOAW is still the best game of its type ever to be produced and, at least for me, a large part of the attraction is the fact that it is impossible to know with certainty what the results of an attack will be. As Curtis points out that is a fair representation of the reality of the situation on the battlefield. I'm hoping that the upcoming 3.4 release of TOAW III will correct some of the more bothersome issues with TOAW, and TOAW IV should be perfect. [8D]