Next version News (4.0)

[USXpat]

Telumar set up the most complicated event sequence for my last scenario, and tested true. The next project will likely consume about 2.5k events. I don't think it is difficult to use, but definitely "more options/parameters" would help. I appreciate every little minor enhancement.

The last project convinced me to stick to simple routines wherever possible. Simplification makes it easier to test A/B vs A-F+ variations.

The most complex event sequence/s are best to handle with the Event Engine Variable. While there is only "one variable that can be tracked at any given time" - in long scenarios it can be used multiple times provided the time frames of the respective "event sequences" don't overlap.

If you need to capture x points worth of cities for a country to capitulate, you can set EEV for that (loc 1 "x points", loc 2 "x points", etc.). Once it is "done", you can reset the EEV to 0 (or whatever) for the next EEV routine. The EEV can make super complex routines vastly easier, with each event being a simple A/B test.

It won't work if the 2 routines can be expected to overlap.

If we could have 2 or more Event Engines, that would be very, very cool.

[geozero]

I would beta test this

[Johan Dees]

Hi Generals,

First post here. I am new to TOAW, just got it, and played a little with it.
Since the sheer number of units, big maps, I like to see in a new version:

1. Ability to seek up a certain unit from a list and search box
2. Ability to rename a unit (give it a name easy to remember, and to follow it better)
3. Ability to draw on the map some symbols, like arrows, text, etc.. to lay out your own battle plan, and help to remember objectives on a large map.

Johan

[Pax25]

Great news. Even after all these years TOAW remains one of my favorite games. I seem to always come back to it.

[lcesar]

Excellent news, I'm looking forward for that.

[berto]

Could it be?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3575540

Last but not least we will be showing you a new incarnation of one of the most famous wargaming series. This operational level wargame will bring all the classic gameplay of the previous titles in the series and improves and enhances them. While we are not yet ready to officially announce the game, we are convinced that we can make a lot of fans very happy with this game.

[BigDuke66]

Oh here it comes guys hold your breath!!!

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Johan Dees
Hi Generals,

First post here. I am new to TOAW, just got it, and played a little with it.
Since the sheer number of units, big maps, I like to see in a new version:

1. Ability to seek up a certain unit from a list and search box
2. Ability to rename a unit (give it a name easy to remember, and to follow it better)
3. Ability to draw on the map some symbols, like arrows, text, etc.. to lay out your own battle plan, and help to remember objectives on a large map.

Johan

Hey there Johan dude. All great ideas. You are aware of the hotkey 'b' function to find cities and units right? or is it 'B'. not sure.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Oh here it comes guys hold your breath!!!

better not...

[Dr. Foo]

This is one game I still play. I have games less than a year old that I've given up on. But TOAW is one that I think I will play as along as I can get it to run! I look forward to 4.0.

Is there any thought of getting rid of the combat rounds?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

Is there any thought of getting rid of the combat rounds?

Why would anyone want to get rid of combat rounds? This is the most obvious part of the game that makes movement and time reasonable for a ugoigo turn based game. I guess you could make it like War in the East and throw time and movement out completely so it's more like a science fiction game. If you take out the combat rounds you remove the very thing that makes this game unique.

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
If you take out the combat rounds you remove the very thing that makes this game unique.

+1

[sealclubber]

Agree - the tactical round system is crucial. I think where the suggestion to get rid of them comes from is that the turn burn aspect of things. All the folks I tried to get interested in TOAW either got the turn system or didn't and most didn't. Those that didn't found it totally frustrating and gave up before really giving it a chance. I know we have the Max Rounds Per Battle scenario variable that can put a cap on how many can be burned, but it's not flexible enough. Perhaps there should also be a more intuitive correlation between loss tolerances and maximum rounds used?

I haven't really thought this through, but perhaps if you make attacks where everything is "minimize losses", 9 times out of 10 that attack shouldn't burn more than 1 tactical round, regardless of if the defenders inflict enough actual losses to force the attackers to retreat. Likewise "limit losses" should, 9 times out of 10, burn no more than 2 tactical rounds. "Ignore losses" should work as they do now - no restriction up to the MRPB. These are based on the assumption that there are no extra rounds being burned due to movement.

I use the 9 times out of 10 because an element of uncertainty is still important (no plan survives first contact).. and 9 times out of 10 can certainly be tweaked to say 7 out of 10 times.. or whatever.

The tactical round system still baffles many experienced players and makes PBEM scenario balancing all but impossible. More importantly, it reduces the entertainment value of the product considerably when you can only get 1 or 2 combat phases per turn because you tried to attack a weak but fortified enemy defender with all "minimize loss" attacks only to have it burn 4 tactical rounds and end your turn. Especially on large, multi-front scenarios (which seem to be the most PBEMed scenarios today).

[Lobster]

Too many people don't want to have to engage their brain when they play a game. It's 'too hard'. They don't want to bother to determine if it's a good idea or bad idea to include a unit in a combat because of how far it's moved that turn. They just want to move crap around and roll the dice.

Turn burn isn't the only reason a turn will end. A failed Force Proficiency test will also end the turn. If there is a lower MRPB this will become more likely if I recall since at the end of each series of combats this is done. So if either side has a lower Force Proficiency level that side will experience fewer combat rounds because of a greater chance of failing a Force Proficiency check if my reasoning is correct.

One thing that is a little irritating about the current system is that all combats across the board take the same amount of time regardless of how difficult or easy they are. You can have a difficult battle in one place and five hundred kilometers away have an easy battle but both battles end up taking the same amount of time because the difficult battle had a series of continues. Instead of battles ending when the difficult battle is ended perhaps all battles should end when they easy ones are over. Dunno, but something has to be better than the current system of all battles taking as long as the most difficult one.

[walkra]

Too many people don't want to have to engage their brain when they play a game. It's 'too hard'. They don't want to bother to determine if it's a good idea or bad idea to include a unit in a combat because of how far it's moved that turn. They just want to move crap around and roll the dice.

That's right!.

[sealclubber]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Too many people don't want to have to engage their brain when they play a game. It's 'too hard'. They don't want to bother to determine if it's a good idea or bad idea to include a unit in a combat because of how far it's moved that turn. They just want to move crap around and roll the dice.

I like the fact that you need to consider movement before making attacks. Operational warfare is largely about planning. That's actually the basis for my suggestion... the problem is you can plan out a series of moves to crack a weak point in a front and try to exploit it but... if that attack takes 4 rounds instead of 1-2 your entire plan goes out the window. If this consistently happens I think it just gets frustrating.

Turn burn isn't the only reason a turn will end. A failed Force Proficiency test will also end the turn. If there is a lower MRPB this will become more likely if I recall since at the end of each series of combats this is done. So if either side has a lower Force Proficiency level that side will experience fewer combat rounds because of a greater chance of failing a Force Proficiency check if my reasoning is correct.

This is my understanding of how it works. I also don't think a MRPB any less than 3 is actually a good thing, because sometimes you just gotta crack that hex _now_ and if it takes 10 rounds, so be it. I think having a degree of uncertainty in planned battles is a good thing, but I think that uncertainty is too high for an operational level game.

One thing that is a little irritating about the current system is that all combats across the board take the same amount of time regardless of how difficult or easy they are. You can have a difficult battle in one place and five hundred kilometers away have an easy battle but both battles end up taking the same amount of time because the difficult battle had a series of continues. Instead of battles ending when the difficult battle is ended perhaps all battles should end when they easy ones are over. Dunno, but something has to be better than the current system of all battles taking as long as the most difficult one.

Agreed but I'm not sure there is a solution here without breaking the phased combat system. For units that don't participate in combat, how many rounds of movement do you consume? If two battles occur, one taking 2 rounds and one 4 rounds, the system consumes up to 4 rounds from all other units to maintain the integrity of time. The big problem I have with WiTE is that it defies the reality of space and time and (for me at least) the entire game goes out the window as a result.

I really like TOAW. It's the most flexible wargaming system I have ever played, full stop. The combat phases adds a great abstraction for time. But I do feel the focus tends to be on he who controls tactical rounds best, which is not really what an operational level game should hinge on. I think giving the player somewhat more certainty (but not complete) over tactical round usage would be a good thing.

[Cfant]

The frustrating thing is e.g. in a WWII game: A 100 sovjet soldiers attack 10 german defenders in a village in farfarawayrussianprovince. The fight takes its time or the soviet small group fails its prof-check. And 8000 miles away the British say: "Oh, you heard of these 10 brave german defenders in Russia? Better stop our ongoing offense in Lybia against italian forces!" [:D] That's, of course, ridiculous.

An MRPB can help a lot. My suggestion: A failed prof-check only ends the turn for this certain force (all counters who are on "intern cooperation" with the failing counter), sending them in reorg for the ongoing turn, but no effect for all other formations. So the British could still kick Italians despite the 100 Soviets, who run away

[rjcme]

That´s the problem with the IGOUGO system. If only Matrix tried to limit its disadvantages...

[76mm]

Very good news, especially to hear that the UI will be updated. I've always been drawn to this game, but every time I try to get into the UI has been such a chore that I can't continue for very long...

Any chance that data import/export will be allowed? That would be awesome!

[Cfant]

ORIGINAL: rjcme

That´s the problem with the IGOUGO system. If only Matrix tried to limit its disadvantages...

TOAW does limit the disadvantages. Therefore we have the combat turn system [;)] Problem is, that a turn ending hits the whole troops of one side. I guess it's because TOAW was designed to allow single-battle-scenarios? However, if turn endings would only hit the concerning formation, it might be better, not only for big scenarios.