Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase

[Cabido]

Lobster, I shouldn’t even bother to give you an answer, but here we go.

Any “spacial unit” design choice (like squares, circles, hexes) for games IS arbitrary from the standpoint of reality, even if logic from a game standpoint. We have to choose a minimal discrete spacial unit, after all, to move pieces around and track positions. But nothing in reality leads us to the conclusion that we have to use 4, or 6, or 8 points to encircle, as directions to move etc. But after choosing, we can abstract from it (it is done, in the game), in order to try a better representation of reality and escape the imprisonment to this arbitrary number (4, 6, 8 or whatsoever) that has no logical link to reality, which is, ultimately, what we are trying to model, even if in an imperfect way.

Quoting Curtis:
“(Don't think of the hex as something monolithic - it's actually a huge tactical battlefield). ”

There are two ways of looking at it. Either all rules are hex based, being the hex the smallest unit on the game logic, or the hex has it’s own internal logic that must find continuity in adjacent hexes; it can’t suddenly be broken by hex borders, as if part of two different universes. It’s a design choice. We can’t shift between one paradigm and the other whenever convenient to justify game mechanics results.

Now, my real answer: I have designed graphics for this game (a lot of work involved, believe me), I have tried to help other people whenever I felt able to, and I have suggested (suggested, I said) changes I think could make things better (yes, this hex game can be made better). There are a lot of such suggestions around. All that is because I don’t like the game! This must be the typical behavior of a troller!

Perplexity is my feeling about your inability to read and interpret. My english may not be perfect, but I think the context is clear enough. Where did I say hexes or RBC should be extinguished? Read my posts on this thread with suggestions before reacting like an offended child. I suggested solutions that are HEX BASED and assumes the possibility of RBC. You may not like my suggestions (it’s your right), but they turn to dust your conclusions.


Curtis and sPzAbt653, I have already written an extensive text on it and won’t do it again. I just don’t have the time. If you don’t want to see the inconsistencies, who am I to convince you. I have structured the test in such a way as to analyse the encirclement and pursuit dynamics as represented in the game, not the combat results. The unit could stand the attack, could evaporate on the first round, etc. That would be a discussion about the combat engine, which in my opinion, apart from possible bugs, does a decent job. But movement, chase and encirclement dynamics must be consistent.

Aren’t the panzers designed to encircle squads? Won’t go into it. But I was able to encircle and eliminate the squads (ALWAYS), if the unit can be divided by 6. Divided by 3 (the limit the game imposes, if we have all the equipment on a single container, the counter), we can’t encircle, but will eventually kill. This is treating the hex as something monolithic, which Curtis said we shouldn’t. The logic is completely hex based and not based on area, equipment density and mobility. Ok, this is a design choice, but I suggested that, if it is so, at least allow division by 6, so that we won’t need a second unit to close the gap, even if one single unit could deal with the situation.

And sPzAbt653, AP strength is the factor the game uses, and it is pretty high here, if you agree or not, so the results wouldn’t change much if I used any other equipment. So, from a game mechanics standpoint it is an adequate unit to do the test. But damage isn’t the main issue here. The point is the capacity of these tanks to overrun and contain the little infantry unit, even if they don’t get a kill.

As for taking half a day to go around these squads?

Finally, the RBC chasing. Are they like cats? It would depend on features in the terrain and posture. Moving at high pace and keeping cohesion on arid terrain with a 5km radius hex... they would be visible. If hiding, on the few topographical features available on desert terrain, tanks could loose track of them, perhaps, but that should be dealt with in the combat resolution engine, since they would be more static.

Shadrach, thanks for your support. You really understood my intentions.

Gliz2, I must agree with your perspective here.

But even for those who disagree (like Curtis and sPzAbt653), I must say that disagreement is part of the game. This is a forum for a small community, if compared to other modern computer games. Insulting isn’t the way to go, in my opinion. Apart from people here in this forum, nobody in this world gives a shit for what is written in these threads. We can’t find a better way to expel people from this community than by verbal aggression here and then, the last one will have a desert to preach within, without opposition.

I think it can be a good use of my time to write long texts to suggest improvement on this game, even if they aren’t accepted or even read. But I consider a waste of my own time to have to write even a short text to react to insults.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

Where did I say hexes or RBC should be extinguished?

My question too. I never said that. But if you want to say I said something go ahead.

ORIGINAL: Cabido

You may not like my suggestions (it’s your right), but they turn to dust your conclusions.

Again, I never said that but if you want to say I did go ahead.

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Curtis and sPzAbt653, I have already written an extensive text on it and won’t do it again. I just don’t have the time. If you don’t want to see the inconsistencies, who am I to convince you. I have structured the test in such a way as to analyse the encirclement and pursuit dynamics as represented in the game, not the combat results. The unit could stand the attack, could evaporate on the first round, etc. That would be a discussion about the combat engine, which in my opinion, apart from possible bugs, does a decent job. But movement, chase and encirclement dynamics must be consistent.

You made a small scenario whose outcome is sure to support your claims as though that is how an RBC will always turn out. It's not conclusive.

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Aren’t the panzers designed to encircle squads? Won’t go into it. But I was able to encircle and eliminate the squads (ALWAYS), if the unit can be divided by 6. Divided by 3 (the limit the game imposes, if we have all the equipment on a single container, the counter), we can’t encircle, but will eventually kill. This is treating the hex as something monolithic, which Curtis said we shouldn’t. The logic is completely hex based and not based on area, equipment density and mobility. Ok, this is a design choice, but I suggested that, if it is so, at least allow division by 6, so that we won’t need a second unit to close the gap, even if one single unit could deal with the situation.

Tanks are made to be supported by infantry, not operate independently especially against infantry. German tactics were a tripod, not a pole.

A more simple solution that would fit with the games static, as opposed to dynamic, data structure would be to allow for different ZOC. Sticky ZOC would not allow units to pass from one ZOC to another. Doing so during a retreat would cause elimination. Elastic ZOC would be as it is now. No ZOC is explains itself and we also have that already.

ORIGINAL: Cabido
And sPzAbt653, AP strength is the factor the game uses, and it is pretty high here, if you agree or not, so the results wouldn’t change much if I used any other equipment. So, from a game mechanics standpoint it is an adequate unit to do the test. But damage isn’t the main issue here. The point is the capacity of these tanks to overrun and contain the little infantry unit, even if they don’t get a kill.

A buttoned up tank has very poor visibility at best even without dust. If the tanks are fighting infantry with no support they are most certainly buttoned up. Have you ever tried to look out the ports of a buttoned up tank?

ORIGINAL: Cabido
As for taking half a day to go around these squads?

Finally, the RBC chasing. Are they like cats? It would depend on features in the terrain and posture. Moving at high pace and keeping cohesion on arid terrain with a 5km radius hex... they would be visible. If hiding, on the few topographical features available on desert terrain, tanks could loose track of them, perhaps, but that should be dealt with in the combat resolution engine, since they would be more static.

Again, buttoned up tank, infantry. Chasing cats might be easier.

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Shadrach, thanks for your support. You really understood my intentions.

Gliz2, I must agree with your perspective here.

But even for those who disagree (like Curtis and sPzAbt653), I must say that disagreement is part of the game. This is a forum for a small community, if compared to other modern computer games. Insulting isn’t the way to go, in my opinion. Apart from people here in this forum, nobody in this world gives a shit for what is written in these threads. We can’t find a better way to expel people from this community than by verbal aggression here and then, the last one will have a desert to preach within, without opposition.

If by verbal aggression you mean calling something by what it appears to be, then ok. BTW, this forum has survived more 'verbal aggression' than you can possibly imagine. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Cabido
I think it can be a good use of my time to write long texts to suggest improvement on this game, even if they aren’t accepted or even read. But I consider a waste of my own time to have to write even a short text to react to insults.

Again, if you try to tell people that game designers are using arbitrary methods for their creations you have in one stroke insulted legions and I will be quick to defend them.

[Cabido]

You really don't understand what you read, do you Lobster?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A more simple solution that would fit with the games static, as opposed to dynamic, data structure would be to allow for different ZOC. Sticky ZOC would not allow units to pass from one ZOC to another. Doing so during a retreat would cause elimination. Elastic ZOC would be as it is now. No ZOC is explains itself and we also have that already.

If you paid attention you would see that this takes care of Shadrack's goose chase problem without affecting RBC or going through endless programming hoops attempting to cover every situation. It also requires only two units instead of the three you show in your scenario. It also gives scenario designers flexibility in their scenario design. Something I always campaign for.

[Shadrach]

Let it go Cabido mate, it's just not worth the time... I am sure the people who actually have some power over this have seen our view on it, and there's not much more to be said to influence them by now.

I just need to comment this and I'll let it go:

ORIGINAL: Bamilus
Tl;dr: Game manual sucks for new players and they easily get frustrated because game is incredibly complex and requires a totally different paradigm from nearly every other hex based wargame, so a lot of complaints come from misunderstanding of game mechanics or from misunderstanding of design decision. However, due to lack of concise information, this is understandable.

Well, as a new player to TOAW (but not new to hex-based wargames), I actually found the manual pretty damned good. All it relative, and I've seen some really horrible manuals (Graviteam -- looking at you here). Slick presentation, and it covers the necessary bases. If anything, it could easily go into even more detail on how the underlying mechanics work, but it does a good job nonetheless.

[Lobster]

Read the above. Don't be so quick to judge. [:D] Instead try to come up with solutions that will be simple and give scenario designers the flexibility they deserve for all the work they do providing these free scenarios to people.

[sPzAbt653]

I have structured the test in such a way ...

And several of us have explained why you are wrong. And we fairly quickly proved that the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Jack, Bob and I don't need to be convinced of anything, we've worked for years taking direction from others on how to improve or 'fix' things. This isn't one of those things.

EDIT: Not that we are the only ones, there are several others, those mentioned are the ones that I saw participating in this particular thread.

[Bamilus]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

Let it go Cabido mate, it's just not worth the time... I am sure the people who actually have some power over this have seen our view on it, and there's not much more to be said to influence them by now.

I just need to comment this and I'll let it go:

ORIGINAL: Bamilus
Tl;dr: Game manual sucks for new players and they easily get frustrated because game is incredibly complex and requires a totally different paradigm from nearly every other hex based wargame, so a lot of complaints come from misunderstanding of game mechanics or from misunderstanding of design decision. However, due to lack of concise information, this is understandable.

Well, as a new player to TOAW (but not new to hex-based wargames), I actually found the manual pretty damned good. All it relative, and I've seen some really horrible manuals (Graviteam -- looking at you here). Slick presentation, and it covers the necessary bases. If anything, it could easily go into even more detail on how the underlying mechanics work, but it does a good job nonetheless.

I guess I'm glad the manual helped you, but the manual is basically just a glossary of rules and other than the new supply system, it never really explains things that well.

Now, after playing the game for awhile, the manual is a great reference, but starting with the manual just adds confusion because there's a big difference between explaining the details behind complex supply calculations or the time stamp system and actually showing players how to use that knowledge.

Myself and countless others achieve a decent understanding of the system from the manual, but something like in DC:Barbarossa manual that actually explains how to use this knowledge (through examples and tips) would work wonders. I've read so many stories of people who read the manual, then try the game and get frustrated because the optimal way to play the game is entirely different from any other wargame ("you mean I have to plan my moves first and plan my attacks, but then perform all my attacks at the end"?).

Also, as Lobster said, there's ton of stuff in the manual that is contradictory or ambiguous.

As a reference guide, the manual is very good. As a way to actually get you into the game and playing it in a successful way, it's not good. You can understand all the thousands of rules behind the super complex systems, but until you are shown how to actually play, it doesn't matter.

I'm sure there's people much smarter than me who read the manual, played the first tutorial, and totally understood the supply system and how to plan out their turns to fit in 7-8 combat rounds before the turn is over. I guess I just wasn't one of them.

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I have structured the test in such a way ...

And several of us have explained why you are wrong. And we fairly quickly proved that the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Jack, Curtis and I don't need to be convinced of anything, we've worked for years taking direction from others on how to improve or 'fix' things. This isn't one of those things.

Proved? You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. Anyway, do it as you wish.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I have structured the test in such a way ...

And several of us have explained why you are wrong. And we fairly quickly proved that the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Jack, Curtis and I don't need to be convinced of anything, we've worked for years taking direction from others on how to improve or 'fix' things. This isn't one of those things.

Proved? You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. Anyway, do it as you wish.

Please don't think this is an insult or poking with a sharp stick. But yes, proved. Those of us who have been around for a long time know that in order to get a change in fairly anything in this game you have to prove your point with "rigorous testing" (Bob's words). While changing a portion of the game for a handful of scenarios might seem like a good thing it could also prove to have a negative impact on an even larger number of scenarios. I don't know how many scenarios are out there for TOAW but I would wager it's well over 1 thousand. You can't weigh the impact of a change on a few when so many have been made. That's thousands and thousands of man hours of work to create free scenarios for us to play that's at risk. You can't just shrug that off as if it were nothing. Now that would be an insult.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
"...[t]hat's thousands and thousands of man hours of work to create free scenarios for us to play that's at risk. You can't just shrug that off as if it were noting. Now that would be an insult."

Hey you guys....can't we just get along together? I didn't see any hint of any insulting going on in what he said.

[altipueri]

I gave up playing table top wargames 50 years ago because, as a 15 year old, all I saw most evenings was old men arguing about what was or was not fair or realistic.

Those old men were probably 29 or 30 and will now be really old men, like me at 65 and playing games!

[larryfulkerson]

...like me at 69 and playing games!

[Shadrach]

ORIGINAL: altipueri
I gave up playing table top wargames 50 years ago because, as a 15 year old, all I saw most evenings was old men arguing about what was or was not fair or realistic.

Congratulations Sir, you win the thread! [:D][:D][:D]

[Hellen_slith]

Just chiming in here, w/ my two pfennigs, but there is a good use for such tactic (for the RBC unit)....I think Larry may have noticed, that some of my cav recon units are somewhat adapt at "leading" some of his units into a wild goose chase ... which I plan, hopefully to my advantage (slim, albeit, but every advantage that I can find against Larry is an advantage to be used!)

Answer is simple: don't chase.

[mussey]

I couldn’t help myself. I chased the goose. Got burned. Lord help me.