East & West Front 1942-1945 scenario

[requiem72]

Thanks
You saved my day.
And Rommel´s a...[:D]

I really, really like it.
If this scenario evolves into an enlarged version of EA, it would be a dream come true.
Count me in for any kind of playtesting.

[USXpat]

Cool - glad that helped some, again sorry for the errors. 

Axis PO version - second draft, is approaching completion.  Testing/refining this weekend. 

Several years ago when first starting this, I did look at a division level 1939-1945 scenario but the unit count for the Allies, applying to a very similar structure as this scenario, exceeded 2k - largely between Russian units destroyed in 1941, France and Minor Nations.  There is room for refinement and consolidation here, so I will look at it again... but that would truly be a monster and would have to be isolated solely to a pbem version.  Expanded parameters would help out a lot.  My feeling at the time was - that if something like that were to be attempted than it would be best directed to a full-scale European - Pacific scenario, but again, contemplating significant expansion of the game engine.  Either way, will focus on getting this one in a better state.

[USXpat]

Quick question for the Event Engine Variable -- are the limits 0/99; 0/100; or 0/999?  

[sPzAbt653]

Variable Value Trigger. Limit increased to a max of 999.

(From the 3.4 What's New, I guess that is the EEV).

[USXpat]

Yeah, that's what I saw - wanted to make sure I was interpreting it correctly.  Thanks!

[USXpat]

Quick update - Axis PO version is about to go into testing.  Almost out of events between implementing a slightly simplified strategic warfare component that is tied to the EEV and setting up a "mostly" historic opening and use of the TO disbands.  Should have just enough to make something interesting out of the naval component and then maybe a few more formation orders.  The "best of" changes will be rolled over and integrated into the PBEM version.

The "strategic warfare" component consists of the Wehrkreis System, a number of Industrial and Logistical "Abstracts".  As these are destroyed, disbanded and in some cases, simply attacked (for temporary damage) - they will increase the EEV - producing incremental losses to Axis Supply, Replacements, ZOC Hex Costs, reduction of Rail Transport, reduction of Supply Radius, and at the extreme - Pestilence.  18x Wehrkries disbands cost between 1 and 4 EEV; 24 logistical abstracts count for 2 EEV each; 12 Axis industrial abstracts count for 2 to 4 EEV; 4 more count for 6 to 14 EEV.  These can be bombed for roughly 1/2 damage - but on a turn by turn basis (out of events). 

Not pegged to the EEV, the Axis receives periodic boosts to its replacement rates and supply levels.  The net effect is that these should be all be fluctuating, particularly from 1943 onward.  It should have the Axis player seriously debating how many air units to keep in Germany... and the Allied Player doing everything possible to establish air supremacy, get forward air bases... etc.  It's probably not scientific-exact... but it should capture the essence of this element of the war with reasonable and realistic effects. 

For the PO version, the Axis will be keeping the current progression on the Caucasus oilfield repairs.  The PBEM version will see the repair progression become somewhat slower.

Lendlease disband cadres are now distributed for arrival between Murmansk (Dec - Feb), Kandalaksha (Oct, Nov, Mar, Apr) and Archangelsk (Spring/Summer).  If the Axis hold these locations, then these units will (unfortunately) simply be delayed until the Soviets recapture them.  (Sorry, about out of events and didn't want to rearrange the Allied formation/unit structure...). 

The Soviets have had about 18 militia divisions added as garrisons to various cities - bringing the Allied unit count to 1999 - so no units will divide.

Both PBEM and PO versions will start with the Allies moving first.  Turn 1 starts with a cease fire for any redeployments.

This is the second draft for the PO - and it should have a pretty good opening.  Karelia, AGN/AGC/AGS and the Balkans should be reasonably challenging.  I had to cheat to get the proper effect in Italy -- with prestaged deployments of German forces.  North Africa is likely to be a weak PO.  France...  hard to tell, some parts likely to be very easy, some parts likely to be very hard.  Germany itself... should be pretty darned hard to take. 

Either way, it is doubtful that I will start working on an Allied PO until either a) we get a TOAW 3.5, or b) the Axis PO version is performing to expectations.  So, a few more days for the Axis PO... and then a new PBEM version a few days after that. 

[USXpat]

Third Reich 42-45 Axis PO version is now available for download under a "beta advisory".

http://www.wargamecollege.net/2012/01/reich-1942-1945-po-version-beta/

Probably still a few errors with it, but lots of adjustments and proofing of the events and some important event loops (thanks again Telumar - really gives strategic bombing a nice touch!)  The blog has quite a few notes especially on the EEV - Strategic Warfare component.  Still about 45 events remaining - in case anything's broken or other items are deemed essential.  Over 100 apply to formation orders & disbands, so a lot of those will be available for additional elements in the next PBEM version.

Very important to note that Entrenchment rates have been reduced to 10%.  Depending upon terrain, it is still surprising how fast units can dig in.  This increases the value of engineers.  It is not common for the PO to dig in units - seen it happen, but not often enough.  Impact is that you can try to dig in, but there's not much guarantee that you will get to "(D)efend" status.  Makes terrain more important.  Also bears upon whether you really want to attack with a unit that has an entrenched or fortified status.

About 200 events are used for the Strategic Warfare component - covers the Wehkreis system, Logistical and Industrial Abstracts. 

As for actual play - Offensives phase in roughly according to historic schedule, typically giving the PO a 1 week handicap.  This is not to say that all sectors of the map are going to be quiet, or that some other than historical efforts may be attempted by the PO.  It starts out with a fairly slow tempo, but by Turn 10 or so... you'll be covering quite a bit of the map - good to make use of the map bookmarking. 

I'm close, but not completely satisfied with the PO and its performance at least through about Turn 15, and for the most part, up to Turn 30 - but that is entirely subject to how you conduct everything.  I've not really played past T30 -- especially for watching (over and over and over) the PO's performance and tweaking it to perform better. 

It was my intention to use all five objective tracks - but the "Copy 1 to 2, 1 to 3, etc." being a global thing... was a deterrent.  Numerous factors involved - # of units per formation, # of formations per area; frontage in an area; and distance between objectives, for starters.  Ralph's notes seem to indicate fewer objectives spaced further apart leads to the PO performing better.   I think that leads to fewer trigger points and a failure of the PO to respond to breakthroughs & exposed flanks. 

His notes indicate that all of a formation's objectives should be at least 4 hexes apart, that being used to determine "front" and objective ownership.  The more formations that have overlapping "objective areas" should help offset "large gaps" between the lines, unless... all or most of those formations have been eliminated.  With a few thousand more events... heh, it would be possible to divert other units/formations to take their place...

North Africa, France and possibly the Balkans really should make use of multiple objective tracks - but there needs to be an easy way to edit objective tracks, too - like "clear x formation's objective track 2... 3... 4..." - because after setting up 383 formations on five objective tracks with an average of 20 objectives each... is F'n insane.

Anyways - onto updating the PBEM version and then possibly a new project.

[sPzAbt653]

... fewer objectives spaced further apart leads to the PO performing better. I think that leads to fewer trigger points and a failure of the PO to respond to breakthroughs & exposed flanks.

If you read his notes again on this part, I think I understand it to say that Elmer searches a radius, and enemy units within that radius affect his decisions, so the above quote may not be true.

I think there are two things that have a larger effect on this aspect of the PO. The first is a change that was made from earlier versions concerning the fact that Elmer would move his units too much, shuttling back and forth between the same hexes and in the process wasting supply and readiness, and suffering disengagement attacks. In the current version this has been adressed and Elmer is much better in keeping still, but the new behaviour has the adverse side effect of keeping Elmer in place if units are surrounded/flanked and in contact with enemy units. I imagine this would be very difficult to reconcile with Elmer, as the human in the same situation is faced with a complex decision (is it more important to attempt to hold the area for a few turns, is help on the way, can we break out on our own, where is the best point to attempt a breakout, etc.).

The second point is that while Elmer identifies that he is in trouble and will move some units to combat the threat, often he does not actually combat the threat. It may be that Elmer is correct in these decisions (based on combat odds maybe?), but I often feel like he could have easily broken an encirclement or closed an open flank but for some reason he doesn't.

[sPzAbt653]

... but the "Copy 1 to 2, 1 to 3, etc." being a global thing...

Its certainly great to have 5 Tracks, but the implementing of them is quite rigid. Maybe Ralph has something in the works, but maybe we need to come up with a suggestion. I've thought about it a couple times but it is complicated. A 'Copy All' section with the choice of '1-5 to 1-5' instead of only track '1 to 2-5', and a separate 'Copy this Formation' to 'That Formation'. A separate 'Erase All' objectives, and a separate 'Erase This Formation' objectives.

[sPzAbt653]

The more formations that have overlapping "objective areas" should help offset "large gaps" between the lines, unless... all or most of those formations have been eliminated.

One of the Wise Men has said that the PO is always defeated by concentrating on one area and eliminating its units there, creating an advantage for the human player. I think this is correct as far as the PO does not see the strategic situation, that is up to the programmer.

[sPzAbt653]

... setting up 383 formations on five objective tracks with an average of 20 objectives each... is F'n insane.

Indeed, something around 80,000 for D21. And they've had to be edited a few times. It only takes a couple days. [:(] The price of the monsters. After that, it makes working on a small scenario very simple. [:)]

[USXpat]

Definitely agree on the objective tracks.  Need a menu similar to the Force Edit - where you can adjust by Force, Formation or Unit - but at this level only really need a Force Copy 1 to 5 and a Force Erase 1 to 5 with a "Are you sure you want to Delete....?" (ha) - and a Formation Copy to 1 to 2... Erase 1, Erase 2...  Anything along these lines would be a big, big help. 

A few things with regards to Elmer's responsiveness but somewhat theoretical. 

When looking at objectives, Elmer actually draws a line between them, and then draws another line perpindicular to the first objective passed in. HE ONLY DOES THIS IF THE OBJECTIVES ARE MORE THAN 3 HEXES APART. If they're 3 or less hexes apart, he does a circle of 1/2 the PO Radius instead. - Ralph

My interpretation of this - though not good at geometry, is that it will take a smaller breakthrough to elicit a response from Elmer when the radius is "4" then if it was "8" - implying that it may recognize a threat sooner.  This is very problematic if there is only one formation concerned with an objective within that radius.  If there are multiple formations concerned with objectives in that radius - the response is a bit more distributed and easier for Elmer to handle.  Also, it might be necessary to examine whether the simple ownership of a hex influences response. 

General theory is that more formations with overlapping or contiguous objectives helps Elmer respond... always exceptions.  Under this format, the greater the penetration, so also the greater the response - unless the breakthrough is channeled along a very narrow column in its penetration.

There is a very distinct gap between what I can mentally visualize with respect to how Elmer does work and setting up the Formations, their Order settings and Objective Tracks in relation to those of others that should be a mathematical solution of sorts.  There should be a formula or algorithm for this. 

If a unit/formation is destroyed completely - that puts a distinct hole in Elmer's defense.  If objective tracks could be implemented by formation vs. global - a partial fix is possible.  Lots of event overhead though...

And you're right - there's not a whole lot one can do about a player concentrating a mass of force against one small area.  To a certain extent this is reasonable and appropriate and is what we have to anticipate in designing these things.  Far too many variables ranging into too many extremes, suffice that we should attempt to address about 80% of the possibilities and not worry so much about the extremes.  A lot depends upon how we view our game time with the PO - whether we only play the PO or more often play PBEM resorting to PO play in the off-time and such. 

I'd say my #1 interest is to see TOAW survive, revive and thrive as having played so many different wargames, I still think TOAW has the best overall game play.  If it gets some updates to expand its capabilities - both in game parameters (map, units, formations, events, multiple EEV's) and PO processes - perhaps some "faster thinking/turns" - it will continue to be the best war game, potentially the most complex and detailed one, too. 

It is all the quest for the ultimate wargame experience... heh...

[sPzAbt653]

When looking at objectives, Elmer actually draws a line between them, and then draws another line perpindicular to the first objective passed in. HE ONLY DOES THIS IF THE OBJECTIVES ARE MORE THAN 3 HEXES APART. If they're 3 or less hexes apart, he does a circle of 1/2 the PO Radius instead.

Thanks for posting this. I don't really understand it, but I can say that up until this change we had the objectives for most formations in D21 two hexes apart, in order to prevent the human from easily getting behind Elmer. Once the above change was in place (without our knowledge) we noticed that Elmer wasn't doing well at all (not a fluke, playtesting had been ongoing for several years). We were then put on to the above statement, so we went thru all formations and tracks and set them to 'more than three hexes apart'. Voila! Elmer is much better now. So whatever the above means, it means business.

Its problematic if you want a unit to hold a fort at Sevastopol until the position becomes untenable, at which point you want the unit to retreat to Sevastopol, two hexes away. The scenario programmer may be able to figure out a solution, though.

[sPzAbt653]

... we should attempt to address about 80% of the possibilities and not worry so much about the extremes.

Agreed. If you are taking on the PO and do something unreasonable (moving twenty German divisions into Finland to attack Leningrad from the north) you might expect unreasonable results (Elmer not being able to call on units from other areas that now don't have to be so highly defended). The scenario designer can take this into account, but how many situations are they/we expected to provide for? 80% sounds reasonable. [:)]

[USXpat]

Just for easy reference -- http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2601549 - Ralph's notes regarding Elmer.

---

Funny, I just started a new D21 for something different and because it has been extensively tested, but just noticed the new version available. I played the old version several months back through mid-42, but got sidetracked between work and the 42-45 scenario. I have the Axis objective track display on and can see immediately the differences you made.

I see what you mean re: having any units in (149/150, 270) pull back if seriously threatened by say an attack or enemy ownership of (149, 271). In a case like that, I'd tend to simplify the situation and concentrate them in closer proximity to Sevastopol. Or, if the intention is to really emphasize a tough fight and there are enough formations remaining, divide the formations into 2 or more so that each has a "simpler task" - a distinct objective hex and a specific order.

Dang complicated... ownership calculation is based upon # of hexes owned vs. # of units; and all calculations for Elmer's response are based upon the Strategic Bias setting. Moreover Strategic Bias is modified by Loss settings if I understand correctly. But, it seems that wherever allowed or able to do so, all units will gravitate toward the highest # objective in their track. Other option is to simply put units that you definitely want in a hex "regardless" is to set them to static.

Anyways... Chain of Command and Order of Battle are closely related but in TOAW terms, it seems to me to more important to define the purpose of each unit/formation based upon function than by OOB or CoC standards. Leastwise, PBEM games are much easier to structure than PO based versions in that all we have to do is give the players the units and formations to divide up how they want. For the PO - even if an Army was very large, the individual units within the Army served different functions where the Editor only allows us to give it and everything in it "1 set of orders".

In a lot of ways though, I think it is more interesting and allows for greater creativity to design PO versions as ultimately we are talking about units/equipment forming OOB's based upon TO&E's. If the total equipment remains the same - it should not matter too much how many actual units or formations we "create" out of them, provided that it has some historical or doctrinal basis. Elmer can only work with the tools that he's given - so, appropriate to provide a number of different tools - based upon what is expected/projected.

German PO is even more interesting - in that it was part of their doctrine to create ad hoc units to deal with various situations. So - there we can pull an infantry battalion along with an engineer, an AT company and maybe even an artillery battery from each division in a corps -- only minimally dilute the parent units, but add a brigade or near division-level reserve to its arsenal to "help provide defense in depth" for example.

As humans, we know when to breakdown a division into regiments or brigades, but even with Screen Orders, the PO doesn't know when it is really appropriate to do it - though simply doing it helps cover the gaps. So, in this regard, it seems worthwhile to provide an extra level of design on behalf of the PO - understanding the PO's strengths and weaknesses.

[USXpat]

Working with these monster scenarios really puts designers at a handicap with respect to the game engine parameters - units/formations/events - and PO limits in not being able to define "formation-specific strategic bias" and requiring 1 event per formation order. With nearly 400 formations, that lets us have 2 orders per formation... spanning 100+ turns. So, we're pushing the envelope - and yet in most cases it still performs pretty darned good.

I really hope 3.5 or at least some other later version expands upon the parameters. Long while back there was a discussion as to How big is too big? Gets pretty funny... Estimating TR42-45-Axis PO could take 120-160 hours to play - PO turns averaging about 30 min. But... if it were possible to do the whole of WW2 at division level - I think a lot of people would still be up for that.

Imagine D21 at the same level of detail - for the whole of WW2... that would be cool. It doesn't matter whether it is practical or not... ha!

But, what we need to do as a community is come up with a way to be able to farm WOW Gold from TOAW 3+... Just imagine what the games of the future will be like... as long as the world doesn't implode, and with the unemployment rate at a mere 8.2% (ahem)... the only thing we will be able to do (and afford) is TOAW.

[requiem72]

Running into a bug again
on T25 Allies receive US warships, but they cannot move out of the staging area.
we keep on playing/testing

[USXpat]

Hi Requiem, unfortunately no fix for that one, will be remedied in next set of files though - setting the arrival of the ships on the other side of the staging area.   Will try to come up with something for those who have been playing as some sort of amends for these mistakes.  May take a few weeks though. 

Am actively playtesting, making fixes and taking notes on how to simplify all phases of putting a scenario together and testing it.  My first time through the editor in setting up events, despite efforts to be efficient, resulted in an organized mess. 

[USXpat]

Headbanging... against spiked walls... ha.   Further testing yields strangeness in the strategic warfare department. 

Case 1.  Target A if destroyed will increment the EEV by +2.  In reality, if destroyed by a ground unit - does increment the EEV by +2; if destroyed by an air unit - does NOT increment the EEV by +2... does nothing at all.

Case 2.  Target B if destroyed will decrease Theater Recon by 2.  In reality, this works regardless of whether an air or ground unit destroyed it.

Case 3.  Target C if simply attacked will increment the EEV by +2 for 2 turns.  In reality, works regardless of whether an air or ground unit attacked it.  Further, this is repeatable.

In effect, where the air war is concerned - suppression does work as intended, but destruction does not.   I've tested at length that the dedicated bombing of a target will eliminate it - and with a number of variables (AA/Interceptors/Escorts/Weather).  The presence or lack of these will make it correspondingly more difficult or easier and generally feels about right.  The destruction by an air unit however does not trigger any Variables.  Hopefully will find a fix by tying the Variable to another event.

Lots of testing and finding other smaller issues needing refinement.  The biggest of these involve what we were discussing - regarding formation objectives and radius.  Relative to a "certain radius" of the last defined objective, units will advance to contact if enemy units are detected.  On the other hand, if there are no units within that radius, they stick pretty close to that last objective.  One or two hexes can mean quite a bit of difference in PO behavior.  The radius is a variable.  Think there is a general consensus that the PO performs best under "Limit Losses" & "Aggressive" and/or "Beserk" strategic bias. 

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the formations that did advance to contact did so when there was a unit 1-4 hexes away; and those 5+ hexes away stayed in place.  Will try to confirm. 

[USXpat]

Axis PO Beta version 1.4 http://www.wargamecollege.net/Third Reich 42-45 Axis PO v1.4.zip - (about 1.5 Mb) available with a few more fixes (US navy now deploys outside staging area).  Probably not 100% yet, but very close.  The PO in some areas is definitely lacking.

The new PBEM version is going to take a bit longer.  Well over halfway through the edits.  In spare time, I've looked at the possibility of the 39-45 scenario at this scale and it simply is not viable - combination of needing more events and units.  Will re-evaluate if TOAW 3.5+ expands the parameters. 

The other potentially large scenario I've considered is a TOAW version of the "Greyhawk Wars" - using BioEd to redefine equipment and such.  But then...  I'm just an old guy wasting too much time on old things... and should look at doing something smaller but in greater detail, perhaps.  Perhaps.  Still a bit to do on this project, but too much monotony is not good.