TOAW IV features

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I would guess that the figures you're quoting pertained to moving through enemy territory - with the tanks unlimbered. In that circumstance, TOAW imposes hex-conversion costs. At a minimum, those costs will expend half the unit's movement allowance. That's far more than adequate to accommodate the issue you raise.

Actually, the only difference between a march where no enemy contact is expected, and one where there is, is that in the latter an "advance guard" is formed, and in the first case the wheeled vehicles are sent ahead to the next stop instead of travelling alongside the tracked elements.

The only circumstance where this might still be an issue would be moving behind your own lines, through your pre-converted grid. In those cases, tanks usually moved limbered - lifted on trucks. That allows faster movement with far less breakdown. You are also moving in much greater confidence from enemy attack.

I wouldn't say "usually". The Germans had early in the war in their "Leichte" Divisions, the "Panzer-Abteilung (Verlastet)" with the Pz.I and II transported on trucks, but that was the exception, and this is also dependant on road conditions.
Also, in TOAW, a unit could be moving over recently converted "friendly" hexes, well behind enemy lines. You won't see the tanks over trucks in those cases.
Anyway this is a moot point, because the tanks over trucks-thing is not modeled in the game, so we have to assume that all armoured movement happens over tracks or trains.

Usually, if available, units moved longer distance by rail, if they're moving by wheel/track you could assume that they're relatively close to the front, interested in not being noticed, and since we are in war, subject to air attack. Even without those threats the speed of the column would remain the same, because that's a technical question and not a tactical one.
Anyway , if in the example above, the units have to pay 2mp per hex because of hex conversion, yeah the problem is smaller but not completely solved.

I wasn't talking about the capacity of the units - but rather the capacity of the road itself. While the units might have to pull over and rest/refit, the road would be in continuous use. That very duty cycle would allow multiple units to use the road as if they were fewer units - especially if they are just sharing an intersection, and then spreading out to different end locations. Furthermore, under emergency conditions, both lanes of the road could be commandeered in the same direction for a bit - doubling capacity.

You can fiddle with the figures a bit, but it still turns out to be a huge number - far greater than normal usage.

Sorry, I disagree completely. There's no way that you would see two units using the same road with one advancing when the other stops. That's a recipe for disaster. I would say that for an "emergency" what changes are the interval between vehicles. But, again, I don't think those "emergency marches" occurred, armies had normal and "forced" marches, the latter with fewer stops.
But, again, since we don't have two march speeds in the game (actually that would be nice) we have to use the most common type.
I don't have a problems with the intersections, other than that's when traffic jams were very likely.

Sources vary, and they have to be put into context. My source said 322,000 motor vehicles crossed the border in June. Maybe your figures were for the entire campaign? Regardless, most of the vehicles would be in the rear areas, strung out in supply lines. I doubt there were ever even 100,000 front-line vehicles at any one time in Barbarossa.

yeah well, don't worry about that, was just a side note. Not gonna look now for that number, but I have one fresh in my mind for re-reading KH Frieser book of the 1940 campaign (great one BTW), where it says that Gruppe Kleist alone had over 41,000 vehicles. Also great traffic jam story there [:)]

Let's start with the fact that the units in that case violate the stacking limits for 10km hexes (250 vehicles). A panzer division would probably be modeled with from 400 to 500 front-line vehicles. So, regiments would be more appropriate for this scale. Regiments are going to be incurring stacking penalties if they move through each other - again, adequate for the issue if that occurs.

Yeah, with two divisions in one hex you get the red light here. The thing is, and my whole point, is that if you move one unit at a time you pay no penalty.

Even without that, three panzer divisions only amount to about 1500 front-line vehicles - easily within the 3 1/2 hour capacity of the road

.
More like 4000 total vehicles per division, I don't think we have to make a distinction between front-line and the others, to calculate how clogged a road should be.

The extreme examples you give are absurd, of course - and would have incurred plenty of stacking penalties regardless.

Yeah is a little extreme but not that rare, f.e. you could see something like that in the highway of AGC in the eastern front scenarios...

[Meyer1]

Perhaps this problem is better understood with some river crossings as examples (though is the same thing with the roads), that are historically realistic and could affect some scenarios deeply: take a look at the ss: after capture that highlighted bridge (well actualy the Germans own it here), and clearing the other side from the soviets, I could move an entire 2.Panzergruppe plus the 4.Armee over the Bug in one day or less. (this is DNO, 10km-half week)

Another example, and a decisive river crossing like the one over the Meuse at Sedan. Put a unit with major ferry ability over the river, and move the whole Gruppe Kleist in a few hours.

[sPzAbt653]

KH Frieser book of the 1940 campaign (great one BTW), where it says that Gruppe Kleist alone had over 41,000 vehicles. Also great traffic jam story there

Yes, over 200km all the way back to the Rhine. I understand the concern with the 'free' movement over roads that pass thru terrain in which motorized movement would not normally take place, but I think the traffic woes are represented in the traffic penalties, aren't they ? If the hex scale and unit sizes are proper, we get serious movement issues like in Autumn Fog and Nach Frankreich [sorry, those are two that come promptly to my mind].

In your above screenshot it looks like you might get 9 regiments across in 8 hours [one round in a half week turn], and if you could totally clear one hex per round and successfully move up 9 more regiments, that would be ... 12 divisions in one day? in the best of circumstances, not two armies. I say this because the other side is enemy occupied, so you can't move freely. Even if you remove all the enemy units, you still couldn't move two entire armies across in the turn - stacking and movement penalties would kill that. Or maybe I drank too much tonight

[sPzAbt653]

I have not read all of these posts on the matter, but has a solution been suggested ? I would think that if this were seen as being an issue in a scenario, that the designer could do something.

Autumn Fog uses restricted bridging capabilities, see this thread : tm.asp?m=2315141&mpage=1&key=?

Nach Frankreich uses a staggered deployment of units. For example, Kleist's units arrive on map as they historically reached their arrival point.

And in the screen shot below, the US Third Army's offensive in Lorraine in 1944 experienced serious movement restrictions over the Moselle, represented here by Rail Lines so that movement is restricted by the Rail Cap.

[Lobster]

First of all the bridge you use as an example didn't even exist in 1941 and I can't even find one there as late as 1955. But to get to your point. The maps in TOAW show only part of the road network. There are many more roads than you can see on the TOAW map. In areas where the terrain is restricted what is on the map may fairly represent the actual road net but not in all cases.

This is a 1940 German topo map of the area of the game map you have shown. Each grid is 10 kilometers. There are a plethora of minor roads. This is true of most of Europe including European Russia. They may be crappy roads but they are roads none the less. Because of this it would be incredibly difficult to determine how much can move where how fast.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Actually, the only difference between a march where no enemy contact is expected, and one where there is, is that in the latter an "advance guard" is formed, and in the first case the wheeled vehicles are sent ahead to the next stop instead of travelling alongside the tracked elements.

Of course there’s more difference than that. You have to carefully recon as you go to avoid ambush (not to mention mines) as you move, and you have to have the tanks unlimbered.

Regardless, the issue is that, in TOAW, movement through enemy territory comes with large conversion costs – minimum of half the unit’s movement allowance. That’s far more than enough of a penalty to account for any issues associated with such movement. That’s the bottom line: unless you’ve got hard evidence that units move too quickly through enemy territory, this is a non-issue. And here’s a hint: you won’t. If anything it’s the reverse.

I wouldn't say "usually". The Germans had early in the war in their "Leichte" Divisions, the "Panzer-Abteilung (Verlastet)" with the Pz.I and II transported on trucks, but that was the exception, and this is also dependant on road conditions.

The Germans definitely could move PzIII’s by truck. Regardless, this isn’t “1941 Germany Art of War”. The game handles more than a century of warfare (hey, that would be a good title!). Everybody moves tanks by truck whenever they can for good reasons: Fuel consumption, breakdown rate, and speed.

Also, in TOAW, a unit could be moving over recently converted "friendly" hexes, well behind enemy lines. You won't see the tanks over trucks in those cases.

All units moving through those hexes pay the conversion costs. Only in locations converted prior to the current turn can they avoid it.

Anyway this is a moot point, because the tanks over trucks-thing is not modeled in the game, so we have to assume that all armoured movement happens over tracks or trains.

There are two modes of movement: Through friendly hexes and through enemy hexes. They have very different rates. Perfectly reasonable to assume the former movement is limbered.

Sorry, I disagree completely. There's no way that you would see two units using the same road with one advancing when the other stops. That's a recipe for disaster.

Nonsense. Only idiots would stop a Corps to wait for a regiment to take a siesta. The unit just moves to the side of the road and lets other units pass. Obviously motorized units have to be able to pass foot units – they don’t get mixed up in the process. Are you seriously suggesting that units shouldn’t be able to move through another friendly on a road?

I would say that for an "emergency" what changes are the interval between vehicles. But, again, I don't think those "emergency marches" occurred, armies had normal and "forced" marches, the latter with fewer stops.

I didn’t mention “emergency marches”. I said that in an emergency they could use both lanes of the road for the same direction. That would double the capacity of the road.

More like 4000 total vehicles per division, I don't think we have to make a distinction between front-line and the others, to calculate how clogged a road should be.

Of course we have to make the distinction!! Only the front-line equipment is with the unit (or even modeled in the unit in TOAW). The bulk of the rest of the vehicles are strung out far in the rear, in the supply chain.

[Jakers123]

Don't know where to ask, so I'll try here, I am a more or less a new player of Toaw 3, the latest patch, and I was wondering how much will Toaw 4 be different from it? Would it be a whole different game, with hopefully new graphics (I think I read somewhere that it will be in 3d, can't find where) , bigger resolution and so on or will it just be a bunch of small changes and fixes that only experienced players would notice?

Here are some of the things that I, as a person who recently started playing toaw really struggled with, 1. probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game, even for a strategy, when I say that I am talking about the resolution which is painfully small, the terrain also looks bad because of it, there is some idiotic stereotype that you can either have good graphics, but not a good strategy or vice versa, bs, if toaw got a better resolution and new, more detailed textures, it would already look way, way better. 2. Layout is really, really bad. Strategies more or less are supposed to be hard, but because of this layout, where you have a ton of buttons that at first all look the same it is really hard for a new player to understand what's going on, even though its not, the fact there is no real tutorial also doesn't help, there is the tutorial scenario where you open a pdf. or something outside the game, but...why? Why not just create a small, simple tutorial level inside the game and change the awful layout and put buttons that aren't really needed to a drop down list or something like a majority of games do, for example there are some 4, maybe even more buttons that are about ,,show next unit/formation", why? Who needs that button when they can simply click all units on the map? It is just making noncomplicated things complicated. 3. Is weapon penetration considered? If not, it should be. The editor is a horror to figure out, again, a drop down menu of some sort would solve the problem. 4. there isn't a custom map maker where you could import real maps, so many scenarios that you can download have awful looking maps that aren't even slightly realistic, an awesome thing would be if you could import real maps and have invisible pixels on top of the map that would determine what kind of a terrain is it, so in the editor you'd for example find a part of the real map that is mountainous, then you would place there a ,,mountain brush" , and when you go with your units there, you would have the mountain effects, but you wouldn't see the low resolution pixels, but instead a detailed real map you imported.

[larryfulkerson]

probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game,

I concur, +1

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Jakers123

Don't know where to ask, so I'll try here, I am a more or less a new player of Toaw 3, the latest patch, and I was wondering how much will Toaw 4 be different from it? Would it be a whole different game, with hopefully new graphics (I think I read somewhere that it will be in 3d, can't find where) , bigger resolution and so on or will it just be a bunch of small changes and fixes that only experienced players would notice?

Here are some of the things that I, as a person who recently started playing toaw really struggled with, 1. probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game, even for a strategy, when I say that I am talking about the resolution which is painfully small, the terrain also looks bad because of it, there is some idiotic stereotype that you can either have good graphics, but not a good strategy or vice versa, bs, if toaw got a better resolution and new, more detailed textures, it would already look way, way better. 2. Layout is really, really bad. Strategies more or less are supposed to be hard, but because of this layout, where you have a ton of buttons that at first all look the same it is really hard for a new player to understand what's going on, even though its not, the fact there is no real tutorial also doesn't help, there is the tutorial scenario where you open a pdf. or something outside the game, but...why? Why not just create a small, simple tutorial level inside the game and change the awful layout and put buttons that aren't really needed to a drop down list or something like a majority of games do, for example there are some 4, maybe even more buttons that are about ,,show next unit/formation", why? Who needs that button when they can simply click all units on the map? It is just making noncomplicated things complicated. 3. Is weapon penetration considered? If not, it should be. The editor is a horror to figure out, again, a drop down menu of some sort would solve the problem. 4. there isn't a custom map maker where you could import real maps, so many scenarios that you can download have awful looking maps that aren't even slightly realistic, an awesome thing would be if you could import real maps and have invisible pixels on top of the map that would determine what kind of a terrain is it, so in the editor you'd for example find a part of the real map that is mountainous, then you would place there a ,,mountain brush" , and when you go with your units there, you would have the mountain effects, but you wouldn't see the low resolution pixels, but instead a detailed real map you imported.

Whether or not the graphics look bad is fairly subjective. What would your idea of acceptable graphics be for a '21st century' game? When you speak of what you would like to see can you give examples of what games are acceptable to you?

[larryfulkerson]

War in the East and War in the West come to mind.

[sPzAbt653]

Don't know where to ask, so I'll try here,

You came to the right place, check out Page 1, Post 1 for an idea of some of the improvements. Short answer: TOAW IV is not a whole different game, and it is not a bunch of small fixes.

To your specifics: 1. TOAW IV will have new Map and Interface artwork.

2. change the awful layout and put buttons that aren't really needed to a drop down list ... All of the awful buttons in TOAW III have corresponding choices in the available drop down menus or by right clicking on the selected unit.

3. You want a drop down menu for weapon penetration ? Not sure what you mean here, but I might guess that you are referring to some players desire to see more specific statistics on weapons systems ? TOAW gives a base rating for Armor and Anti-Armor to units as a whole, and to each individual piece of equipment. In the Manual you can find the procedure by which these values are applied.

4. A real actual historical map to play on ? Sounds like a job for Superman ! Do you know of this being a reality anywhere ? I'd imagine that it has been at least considered somewhere over the past 30 years of computer gaming, but I don't recall ever seeing anything about it.

And, welcome to TOAW III, and IV !

[Lobster]

Only difference between TOAW multitude of buttons and WitE multitude of buttons is the mouse over in WitE. Otherwise the both have a plethora of pushable points. Add to that the WitE overload of popup boxes with their endless icons that are meaningless until you mouse over and there is really no difference between the two UI. Perhaps WitE is a bit more interactive. Dunno, put that one in the arcade pile long ago. Don't go to those games much.

Decisive Campaigns has a more friendly interface than either WitE or TOAW. Still, lots of meaningless icons until you mouse over. But it has tabs that actually tell you what they are, unlike WitE. Lots of information presented in a meaningful way.

Bottom line, unless TOAW is fairly completely redone, you are stuck with what you have. I don't see Matrix investing that much time and effort into the game. TOAW4 was most likely the last hurrah for this game and unfortunately all these years of work have come down to not much. The chances for a TOAW5 and a compete rewrite are probably little to none.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Jakers123

1. probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game, even for a strategy, when I say that I am talking about the resolution which is painfully small,...

I'm always perplexed when I see these sort of remarks, since I'm not experiencing them. It must have something to do with the latest and greatest PCs. Perhaps it would help if we got a screen shot of what you're seeing.

I have seen some shots where the game appears in only one corner of the screen and I think in those cases the player is helped to resolve it via compatibility settings or such. Regardless, be aware that TOAW III has a feature that allows the player to temporarily reduce his screen resolution while playing. Perhaps that would help if no other fix can be found.

As to the buttons I can't imagine anyone being unable to decipher the buttons after about 10 minutes of use. Each one has a tool tip description if you hover over it. My copy of Word has way more but it doesn't keep me from word processing one bit.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Jakers123

1. probably the thing that I dislike the most about Toaw 3 is the fact that graphics look unacceptably bad for a 21.st century game, even for a strategy, when I say that I am talking about the resolution which is painfully small,...

I'm always perplexed when I see these sort of remarks, since I'm not experiencing them. It must have something to do with the latest and greatest PCs. Perhaps it would help if we got a screen shot of what you're seeing.

I have seen some shots where the game appears in only one corner of the screen and I think in those cases the player is helped to resolve it via compatibility settings or such. Regardless, be aware that TOAW III has a feature that allows the player to temporarily reduce his screen resolution while playing. Perhaps that would help if no other fix can be found.

As to the buttons I can't imagine anyone being unable to decipher the buttons after about 10 minutes of use. Each one has a tool tip description if you hover over it. My copy of Word has way more but it doesn't keep me from word processing one bit.

I totally agree with everything Bob says.

The basic layout of hexagonal turn based war games has not changed much at all in the 52 years I have been playing them. To my knowledge the current batch of the computer ones all have a way to adjust resolution including TOAW. And the biggest plus for TOAW is that it's scenarios can represent every conflict and do it well from the late 1800s covering modern weaponry, ie, indirect fire, to the present. The next iteration will include huge improvements to naval warfare. I challenge anyone to come up with a game that does things as thoroughly as TOAW4 will and does them as well as TOAW. For all but the most picky wargamers the UI is just fine.

Everything under the sun can be improved. But those same improvements can make half the people happy and half the people unhappy.

Anyway, to make a long ramble even longer it would help if you, Jakers123, could post some specifics and examples you see in other wargames that are not FPS or arcade.

[Rasputitsa]

Have come back to TOAW4 after sometime to be pleasantly surprised about what I had been missing. The choice of operating modes, the ability to set objectives and have Elmer do some of my work, whilst I can concentrate on the important bits. Much better and more realistic than shoveling dozens and dozens of counters around myself.

Sometimes Elmer does something I didn't want, just like an actual subordinate might do. Compared to the 'take your whole lifespan' monster games on offer, TOAW4 is a welcome relief and working well in a 21st century 'Windows 10' environment.

The UI is dated, but does the job, short on glitz, but functional, wish that some of the new games delivered as much old fashioned fun. [:)]

[Nicholas Bell]

Will we have the option of having no unit selected? My search attempts yielded nothing on this, but I may have missed it. I sure would appreciate being able to hit escape to un-select a unit to avoid a movement path being displayed for the last unit selected. Not to mention the errors I inflict upon myself.

Regarding, graphics. As a map designer for another company, I think the TOAW maps are excellent for a hex-based map, which is pretty much the default for a user editable map. Comparing this type of map to a hand-painted map like WitE or WitW is comparing apples and oranges. It would be neat to enable the use of a bmp/jpg/png map image in conjunction with the transparent hex based system necessary for maintaining terrain data. This would allow intrepid designers to paint their own maps or use real world maps. It's been done. although it would require quite a bit of recoding.

[larryfulkerson]

Will we have the option of having no unit selected?

I'm no expert but I think maybe the game engine always has a selected unit that it performs actions on. I'm not sure it's
possible not to have a 'selected' unit. With the current game engine.

[sPzAbt653]

It would be neat to enable the use of a bmp/jpg/png map image in conjunction with the transparent hex based system necessary for maintaining terrain data. This would allow intrepid designers to paint their own maps or use real world maps.

I found one example of this of this - tm.asp?m=1605901

Generally, for TOAW, we can use HexThingy or the ODD program to get the hex overlay, although both of those are separate files. These do, however, make it possible to have the designers map of choice display the appropriate hex overlay, which is then used as a guide to make the TOAW map.

With this process, my opinion is that there is no need to spend coding time on TOAW in order to allow it to lay a transparent hex grid over a map. It's only one step and can easily be done elsewhere.

[sPzAbt653]

An example using HexThingy. This program uses Google to overlay the grid, so its zoom-able and pan-able, etc.

[sPzAbt653]

And an example of using the ODD program to overlay a grid on an imported image file.