Comprehensive Wishlist

Post discussions and advice on TOAW scenario design here.

Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM

User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

All of the turn based wargame, for that matter all the wargames, recognize that fact

Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

No. The old turn sequence was:

Movement Phase
Combat Phase
Mechanized Movement Phase

So, your armor got to move on after the combat.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Panama

7.20.4 After all such blocking enemy units are forced to move out of the way, if the defenders are still blocked, they can attempt to breakout via combat. The weakest blocking hex would be targeted for attack by the retreaters. Only one round of combat would be permitted. Only non-routed retreaters would be allowed to participate in the combat. (Alternate: instead of a combat round, a RBC would be attempted instead.)


If there are still going to be units blocking why bother to move any units back anyplace? Letting units that are forced to retreat attack a blocking unit doesn't sound like a realistic event anyway. Besides, it will just complicate an already complicated programming exercise.

The original objective was to prevent defenders from being blocked by ants. But remember that we've now implemented 7.19: RBC escape. So, That passage is now:

7.20.3 After all such blocking enemy units are forced to move out of the way, any remaining blocking units are then subject to item 7.19 above.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Hex ownership has some effect -- and the effect is often legitimate -- on supply and reconaissance. For that reason, it should perhaps be retained. However, at a minimum, designers should have the ability to dispense with its effects on movement.


But they have in 3.4.

XII.3 Enemy-Hex Conversion-Costs. Default is 100, where each enemy hex converted costs the moving
friendly unit the original 10% of its movement allowance (reducible by high recon levels, though). A value
of 50 would mean each hex costs 5% of the unit’s movement allowance (same effect of recon as above),
and a value of 200 would mean that each hex converted would cost 20% of the unit’s movement allowance.
A value of 0 would mean that there wouldn’t be any cost of hex conversion, no matter what the unit’s
movement allowance or recon level was. Actual cost to the unit is still rounded down. And there is still a
minimum cost of one, with the single exception for the setting of 0.

I've put this and other new parameters to use in my Leipzig 1813 scenario. Hex conversion is free. Also, there is no supply cost of movement. Units can't dig in at all.

And in CFNA, conversion now only costs 2.9% - works out to 1 MP for just about everybody. Supply cost of movement is 0.11 per MP. Readiness cost of movement is 0.29 per hex. Mobility is finally historical.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It would seem, though, that the terrain and defending status modifications to the odds of an RBC means that it is always possible an ant might stand. Is that correct?

That applies to RFCs, not RBCs (assuming you're talking about IV. 10).

The ant's chance of resisting an RBC should be in proportion to the overrun odds.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It would seem, though, that the terrain and defending status modifications to the odds of an RBC means that it is always possible an ant might stand. Is that correct?

That applies to RFCs, not RBCs (assuming you're talking about IV. 10).

The ant's chance of resisting an RBC should be in proportion to the overrun odds.

Ya know, it sure would be nice to get to try out all of this new stuff some day. [:D]
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

No. The old turn sequence was:

Movement Phase
Combat Phase
Mechanized Movement Phase

So, your armor got to move on after the combat.

The thing is, in the Mech phase no one was blocking retreat because other than over runs combat was over. That was the point. And over run was considered movement not combat anyway.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Now come on. I remember plenty of old board wargames that would not only allow such units to block the retreat, but would even allow those blocking units to add to the attack without penalty. And the blocked defenders would be totally destroyed. TOAW at least improves on that.

That's debatable. At least in the old wargames, your turn or phase was over. One could argue the attack had been delayed until the encirclement had been completed.

No. The old turn sequence was:

Movement Phase
Combat Phase
Mechanized Movement Phase

So, your armor got to move on after the combat.

That was one variation. Not all wargames were SPI wargames.

In any case, all units did all their movement for the phase before combat was resolved in the system you're referring to. Same point. In TOAW, a unit can expend no movement, allow others to expend all their movement to close the pocket, then attack, annihilate the 'surrounded' unit, and still have up to 90% of its movement left.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Panama



We need to incorporate more scenario designer tools to eradicate the generic nature of TOAW.

That's my opinion. One view of TOAW is that it's a finished system that you can take and apply to simulate any battle from Gargamela to Desert Storm. The other -- and the one I think is more viable -- is that it should be a tool box providing the designer with as many adjustable values as possible so that he can create what amounts to a system tailored to the peculiarities of what he is trying to simulate.

The two don't necessarily conflict. So long as everything comes with a default value, people can tinker or not tinker as they see fit. Like, that new optional supply system. Well, it won't particularly suit my needs in Orient. So I'll stick with the old system. I've never really played with the effects of the attrition divider, so I just leave that value at default.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

Regarding the 'time-stamp' idea, if my impression is correct, it would involve units being present in a given hex, yet not present in a sense -- which would obviously be somewhat visually confusing.

How about if we go for a simpler system? The minimum number of rounds is automatically determined by the movement left to all non-retreated adjacent units? You don't want a unit to delay an attack, don't move it adjacent to the hex to be attacked.

Or perhaps the timing could be determined by the greatest movement left to any one unit in each hex/left to any unit actually participating in the attack. That way you can pile units that will be traveling that way into the road hex in front of the unit to be attacked without fearing for the effect on the attack.

This last even creates the interesting phenomenon that blocking the retreat is that motorcycle company that got there with 70% of its turn left -- plus the Panzergrenadier you shoved in that has only 20% of its turn left. The attack goes off -- and the program looks at that hex and sees it happening after 30% of the turn is gone.

But come the retreat, it sees both the motorcycle coy and the PzGr bn. That could be seen as bad -- or it could be seen as the motorcycle coy. managing to hold on until the Pzgr. bn gets there. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Practically speaking, we'd probably want some way of retracting the last hex a unit moved. Else there will be lots of 'oh shit' moments. This will excite the cheat busters, but it wouldn't disturb me. Perhaps make that a design or play option as well. In an ideal world (for those who fret about cheating in the first place) the opponent could download a list of such 'take-backs' that were made.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?

The real problem is how people move their units. I know if I'm going to attack a hex. I know that if I move units to surround an opponent's unit and then don't use them in the attack, that I've done that. It doesn't take a an Einstein to understand that in real time the blocking units couldn't be there to block a retreat. I don't understand why a programmer and the people who decide what goes into the game need to go through contortions to keep people from doing this. I would much rather see the time spent on something of real value to the game. If people are going to do things that make no logical sense make them pay for it. If someone insists on blocking a unit's retreat with units that couldn't possibly be there in time to do so, make all the surrounding units take part. If they insist on doing illogical things then make it eat up their turn. I'll wager they will stop.

Of course the problem with that is that some people will stop playing because they might have to think more so give them a switch. Real world mode. Science fiction mode. Okay, maybe different names. Grognard mode. Casual mode. [:D]

ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Panama

...Grognard mode. Casual mode. [:D]


Yeah. On the other hand, it would be possible to get carried away. One does want to keep these sort of elaborations 'under the hood' in the sense of not involving elaborate bookkeeping for the player, and also fairly intuitively obvious in that one wants the unit that appears to be there to actually be there when one resolves the attack.

I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Panama

The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?

Something like that is already being saved for the PBEM playback. And I don't think every hex entered would have to be saved. Just the last one. Regardless, computers have lots of memory.
The real problem is how people move their units. I know if I'm going to attack a hex. I know that if I move units to surround an opponent's unit and then don't use them in the attack, that I've done that. It doesn't take a an Einstein to understand that in real time the blocking units couldn't be there to block a retreat.

Not true, since you don't know how long the attack will take to complete. The blockers don't have to be there at the start of the combat. Just at the end of it.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?

Something like that is already being saved for the PBEM playback. And I don't think every hex entered would have to be saved. Just the last one. Regardless, computers have lots of memory.

First, does the playback have every hex moved and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game? If I were you I'd ask Ralph about that before making that statement unless you've already seen the code and know that as fact.

Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex? It would have to save every hex as you moved because it couldn't possibly know which was going to be the last unless computers can now read minds. I don't think they can because mine would have locked up as soon as it got to page one of mine. [:D]

III, who's computer has lots of memory? Your's? Does that mean that, since your's has lots of memory, everyone's does? How many people do you want to risk locking out of the ability to run the game?
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

The real problem is how people move their units. I know if I'm going to attack a hex. I know that if I move units to surround an opponent's unit and then don't use them in the attack, that I've done that. It doesn't take a an Einstein to understand that in real time the blocking units couldn't be there to block a retreat.

Not true, since you don't know how long the attack will take to complete. The blockers don't have to be there at the start of the combat. Just at the end of it.

Somewhat true, not entirely. I know if I have a combat start on round one and I've moved a unit around to the opponents back hexes and all or most mp are used in doing so I stand an excellent chance of violating time.

I'm just trying to get people to think about other ways to get around this. There are people who play the game with computers that are not state of the art.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

The time stamp suggestion, for the game to 'remember' where a unit came from, seems to involve a lot of overhead. Each and every unit would have to have it's beginning turn location and every location it entered written to memory as well as how many movement points it had at each point. In a game where there are potentially four thousand pieces it seems rather cumbersome. Has anyone sat down and thought about how much memory would have to be set aside for this task?

Something like that is already being saved for the PBEM playback. And I don't think every hex entered would have to be saved. Just the last one. Regardless, computers have lots of memory.

First, does the playback have every hex moved and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game? If I were you I'd ask Ralph about that before making that statement unless you've already seen the code and know that as fact.

Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex? It would have to save every hex as you moved because it couldn't possibly know which was going to be the last unless computers can now read minds. I don't think they can because mine would have locked up as soon as it got to page one of mine. [:D]

III, who's computer has lots of memory? Your's? Does that mean that, since your's has lots of memory, everyone's does? How many people do you want to risk locking out of the ability to run the game?

I think Curtis has you here. TOAW is an ancient program -- and not particularly graphics intensive. Barring a user with a thing for cyber-antiques, or incredibly wasteful programming, I don't see how there could be a problem. Indeed, given the existence of the playback, it would seem the program already is keeping the data.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not true, since you don't know how long the attack will take to complete. The blockers don't have to be there at the start of the combat. Just at the end of it.

Leaving aside the mechanics of how to get what we want, this does create an interesting potential question: what if the mechanism we make creates the possibility that the surrounding unit may or may not have gotten into place by the time the defender breaks and retreats?

One could wind up with rather ahistorical incentives to weaken the attack -- lest victory come too soon. Something to bear in mind as we move towards a solution to this problem.

Part of the final package might require a means for the attacker to choose to delay his attack to a specified round. Like, you decide (quite realistically, by the way) that you don't want this attack to happen until round three, as only then can you be sure the encircler will be in place on time. But in TOAW, you have very little assurance that your round one attacks won't wind up eating 70% of the turn. You shouldn't have to choose between a weak attack on round one, hoping for the desired delay, and waiting unnecessarily because some battle 500 miles away went into overtime.

However, all this may get too complex -- both for the designer to program and for the player to keep track of what is going on. Perhaps needless to say, I'm fonder of the relatively simple solution I outlined above. In cases where the defender is surrounded, the round the attack happens on is determined by the time the last hex was occupied.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

I sometimes wonder if all this is even worth the effort. Because of a dearth of resources things get changed at glacial speed. [>:]
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Panama

I sometimes wonder if all this is even worth the effort. Because of a dearth of resources things get changed at glacial speed. [>:]

Yeah. I've even thought about investing whatever time would be necessary to acquire the necessary skills, crack the damned thing myself, and have at it.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Panama

First, does the playback have every hex moved...

Yes.
... and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game?


Except for the MP info. That would have to be added. Even in the worst case imaginable the total would be like 6,000 sub-divided units x maybe 100 hexes x 3 values = 1.8MB. Even ancient systems had 256MB of ram, and then there's virtual memory that uses the hard drive.
Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex?

It could just keep a running save of the last hex moved from. So, when the combat occurred, that hex would be the one in memory. Note that that would reduce the RAM need to 18KB. A truely trivial amount.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Part of the final package might require a means for the attacker to choose to delay his attack to a specified round.

That's not a bad idea. Of course, there's usually a suite of late units available to serve that purpose anyway. But, perhaps in some cases there wouldn't be just the right one around.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

First, does the playback have every hex moved...

Yes.
... and is it the same thing as saving that information during the game?


Except for the MP info. That would have to be added. Even in the worst case imaginable the total would be like 6,000 sub-divided units x maybe 100 hexes x 3 values = 1.8MB. Even ancient systems had 256MB of ram, and then there's virtual memory that uses the hard drive.
Second, how on Earth would the game know which hex was going to be the last hex?

It could just keep a running save of the last hex moved from. So, when the combat occurred, that hex would be the one in memory. Note that that would reduce the RAM need to 18KB. A truely trivial amount.

Cool. [8D]

I'm 61. Will I live to see it. [:D]
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”