Local Force Limits?

[76mm]

Section 8.6.1 of the manual mentions something called "Local Force Limits."

Local Force Limits (“Grouping”) Up to nine units of all types may occupy any particular
location. In most cases, it is best to limit the number of units in a location to a smaller number. The precise limit depends upon the equipment assigned to the units involved, but a good rule of thumb might be to limit stacking to no more than three units of each type (Land/Sea/Air) per location.

There is no other mention of Local Force Limits or Grouping in the manual. How is this set and/or turned on or off?

In a scenario I'm playing around with, only 3 air units can occupy a single airbase, despite the fact that each air unit only has a handful of planes. Why? I assume it is something to do with this grouping, but I don't see how to change it...

[golden delicious]

"Local Force Limits" sounds like a weird way of saying "stacking limit". This paragraph is simply saying that you can technically put nine units in a hex- but doing so might not be a great idea.

The limit of 3 air units to an airbase is a separate limit. I would advise scaling your air units or the availability of airbases in line with this limit, since it's difficult to work around. However, you might want to look at using custom equipment with the aircraft carrier tag: each such equipment will allow a single air unit to be based in the same hex. I've not experimented with using this to have four or more air units in the hex, but I have seen it to limit a certain location to one or two hexes, and it's also useful to reflect the need for a ground establishment to arrive at newly captured bases before they can be put to use.

[76mm]

Thanks for clarifying that. So it sounds like "a good rule of thumb" should be read as "the stacking limit for air units is 3, despite the fact that hex stacking limit is 9". Clear as mud.

Again, other games (ahem, PzC) base stacking limits on the number of men/vehicles in the units in a hex, rather than on the number of counters.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Thanks for clarifying that. So it sounds like "a good rule of thumb" should be read as "the stacking limit for air units is 3, despite the fact that hex stacking limit is 9". Clear as mud.

I think the "rule of thumb" comment was meant to suggest that it isn't necessarily a good idea to put 9 units in the hex.

Again, other games (ahem, PzC) base stacking limits on the number of men/vehicles in the units in a hex, rather than on the number of counters.

Yeah I agree this is a superior model, I think the limit of 9 units is a product of
a) legacy of board game stacking limits
b) simplicity of data structures
c) simplicity of user interface (units are displayed in a 3x3 grid in some views
d) a failure to think through the implications

Ideally, one works around the stacking limit as a designer by making sure no "ant units" exist to fill up the hex artificially and that units in general are scaled and grouped to a level that's appropriate to the map scale. However it's all too easy for a hex to get "filled" with 9 odd fragments of units, then a friendly unit evaporates instead of retreating into the "full" hex.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I think the "rule of thumb" comment was meant to suggest that it isn't necessarily a good idea to put 9 units in the hex.

OK, but as far as I can tell the manual doesn't mention anywhere that only three air units can stack in a hex. Not helpful.

[Zovs]

AFAIK ever since 1998 and TalonSoft's first release of NK OAW it has always been 3 air units.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Zovs
AFAIK ever since 1998 and TalonSoft's first release of NK OAW it has always been 3 air units.

OK...and players are supposed to know that how? It's kind of funny how often the response to stuff like this is "It's always been like that...".

Well, so what? I was thinking that TOAW might be seeking new players instead of re-selling the game to the same aging group of gamers?

[Zovs]

All I know is that it has always been like that, I can’t recall if it was in the first TalonSoft manuals or not. From 1998 through about 2002 there were several versions out, the last being Operational Art of War, that was the last one before TalonSoft folded, the T got added around then. There was also a huge and active TOAW community at the Scenario Archive. Some time later Matrix picked up Norm and produced TOAW III. Then Ralph came along with IV.

I get what your saying Tom, but it seems like 80% of the old guard is gone, and there is and has not been a lot of new blood added.

We can only speculate on the later.

Glad to see Ben back but a lot are still missing from TOAW, I know of two that are into WITE/W and one or two others are into other games now.

IDK

[76mm]

I actually first bought TOAW probably in 2001 or 2002, and then bought another version or two, and then TOAW III, and now TOAW IV. Until TOAW IV, however, I spent very little time with the game because I hated the interface. And I understand that many of the old guard are gone. I see a fair number of new people pop in with various questions, but not many seem to stick around.

TOAW is an opaque, aging game engine which as a lot of very cool and unique features, but is not easy to pick up, especially when the dev seems happy that the manual has remained unchanged in 20 years and new players have no idea how things worked twenty years ago... Meanwhile, there seems to be some kind of development going on, but other than the command feature we've been discussing so much, there is absolutely no news about current priorities, timing, etc. It's as if they are trying to smother the game for some reason.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Zovs


Glad to see Ben back but a lot are still missing from TOAW, I know of two that are into WITE/W and one or two others are into other games now.

I'm actually surprised how many people show up that I know from when the old Matrix forum was around, in 2000, after Talonsoft closed their TOAW forum but long before Matrix bought the rights to the game.

There's Bob of course- but I just saw a post from Curt Chambers (Blitzkrieg 50, CSV, ODD). JM Lima I know from back then as well- there are probably others lurking about.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ieanwhile, there seems to be some kind of development going on, but other than the command feature we've been discussing so much, there is absolutely no news about current priorities, timing, etc. It's as if they are trying to smother the game for some reason.

I think the reality is there are very few resources for it and TOAW dev at this point is little more than a hobby project. Sales can't be more than a few hundred units.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ieanwhile, there seems to be some kind of development going on, but other than the command feature we've been discussing so much, there is absolutely no news about current priorities, timing, etc. It's as if they are trying to smother the game for some reason.

I think the reality is there are very few resources for it and TOAW dev at this point is little more than a hobby project. Sales can't be more than a few hundred units.

I would love to discuss the development plans, but Matrix has good reasons not to do that, as I've repeatedly explained:

1. We don't want people buying the games under the assumption that some feature will soon be added, only to find out that it's either years away or has been canceled.

2. We don't want the excitement about the game to skyrocket due to news about some new feature to occur long before its release - and then be old news when that release finally arrives. There's a golden moment for announcements.

I can't mention anything about sales except to say that I can't imagine Matrix is disappointed. [;)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I would love to discuss the development plans, but Matrix has good reasons not to do that, as I've repeatedly explained:

1. We don't want people buying the games under the assumption that some feature will soon be added, only to find out that it's either years away or has been canceled.

2. We don't want the excitement about the game to skyrocket due to news about some new feature to occur long before its release - and then be old news when that release finally arrives. There's a golden moment for announcements.

I can't mention anything about sales except to say that I can't imagine Matrix is disappointed. [;)]

I should add that my above post is not intended as a criticism. In fact although one can argue (can? does, repeatedly) about the direction taken, the fact that the series is still being moved forward after 22 years despite being a niche product to begin with is impressive.

I also don't disagree with either of your points above.

[sPzAbt653]

Section 8.6.1 - amended in the Civilian Manual to:

Up to nine units of all types may occupy any location [which may include a maximum of three air units].

the dev seems happy that the manual has remained unchanged in 20 years

I know this isn't true, but who is going to rewrite it? Nobody at Matrix is familiar enough with TOAW to undertake such a challenge. Bob doesn't have time for it and he shouldn't be the one to do it anyway because he speaks in an off-planet language [no offense]. Ralph isn't qualified either [little experience with the game]. I have determined on my own that the best we can do is what Don and I have done with the Civilian Manual Project. Everyone is encouraged to continue bringing items that need clarification to our attention and so we can continue to make changes such as the one seen above. Thanks [:)]

[Zovs]

For those that are using my formatted version of the Civilian Manual, that reference is for:

8.6.1.8. Local Force Limits (“Grouping”)