toaw evolution

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

By the way I strongly recommend to include in the new edition, if possible, the fantastic user-made (I forgot the name) database editor used i.e. to make the 19th century mod.

BioEditor, from Biohazard (I don´t remember his real name) and Tim Mc Bride.

In the interests of insuring credit goes were it is due I'll note that while Tim worked on many things in TOAW the Bioeditor was not one of them

[Mantis]

Jeremy - in response to your post about production, I mean something a little bit more than just equipment. I want to add to the OOB. As an example, let's take a generic 5 year war. A Red vs Blue type thing. I want the players to be able to decide to be tank heavy, and have several extra armored corps by the end of the scenario. The other player went for infantry, and has spent all his production on that (or whatever). I know that disbands can simulate production in the fashion that you mention, and events could even simulate giving the player a choice of what to build. But I want the player to actually form new units in scenarios where that would be reasonable, such as R vs B above, etc. I know that even this could be simulated with a chart to weigh production times, and a horde of events, but I was thinking something more along the lines of production ala Hearts of Iron or GG's World at War.

[Mantis]

(Truth be told, I really do hope that Norm can just make events unlimited. Hopefully there is no programming reason why this is not feasible. If we *do* have those kind of events available, then production (either method; units or equipment) becomes just another exercise using evil ed).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Mantis
As an example, let's take a generic 5 year war.

"Generic 5 year war" - ROFL [:D]

TOAW was originally never meant to portray any campaign lasting more than 8-10 weeks, in fact probably much less than that. And with good reason.

Some very inventive and stubborn people found a way to make scenarios last for couple months, and still play out very realistically, but anything longer than a year is just raping the system - pure and simple.

Yes I know gigantic projects like Europe Aflame and Fire in the East have their own following (and I expect to get some flak from their fans [;)]) but lets not get side tracked, at least not too much. EA and FITE do not produce results as good as your normal TOAW campaign.

Seriously guys, think twice before you make decisions that will alienate 80% of old TOAW crowd, just to be able to accomodate some ridicolous monster scenarios spanning 5 years and covering whole continents (something this game was NEVER meant to cover).

Edit: I noticed your WAW review just now and deleted my last, now irrelevant, paragraph. Missed your WAW post before, sorry.

O.

[Mantis]

Oleg - it doesn't matter that TOAW was not *intended* for scenarios like that. (I would agree with you!) What does matters is that it is being *used* for scenarios like that. The scenario development manager is famous for making the ultimate monster scenarios ever designed for TOAW. And as he was hand-picked for his postition, I'd say that speaks volumes about the fact that the monsters scenarios are quite relevant.

And no, I was thinking in my example above something more like the medium-small scenario Blitzkrieg. A limited production that allows you to customize your force with a few select units over the course of the game sounds like something I would be interested in playing. I can give the scenario oodles more replayability, simply because last game, I created 2 tank units which made me strong in the land battles; this game I want to make 4 infantry units during the course of the game so I can extend my front easier; next game I will create a new para unit with my production, and see how that changes things up...

Oleg, I am not positing anything that will affect people that do not like these changes at all - all the options I support can be toggled. Just like the current Air Staff Assistant. I don't like it, so I don't use it. Heck, I forget it's there unless I actually see it to remind myself. Anything that can be turned on or off, yet gives players and designers more flexibility, is a good thing. We want TOAW to appeal to more people, not a very specialized little slice of an already too-tiny genre. And you may find it interesting to note that many of the changes I support are ones that will not change the game for me one bit - I won't use them , but see the utility in the change. (The 'fixed combat rounds', for an example).

No problem with the WaW bit - what did you think of the review, if I might ask?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Mantis

Oleg - it doesn't matter that TOAW was not *intended* for scenarios like that. (I would agree with you!) What does matters is that it is being *used* for scenarios like that. The scenario development manager is famous for making the ultimate monster scenarios ever designed for TOAW. And as he was hand-picked for his postition, I'd say that speaks volumes about the fact that the monsters scenarios are quite relevant.

You mean Daniel McBride? I beg to differ. I absolutely love Daniels scenarios. They - at least the ones I love - present stretching the limits of TOAW engine but not raping it to cover 5 years of conflict. Daniel scenarios - for me - are still firmly in the "operational" segment, they are just very very big operational level scenarios. These are scenarios that are still too short to make much sense of, say, raising the production of some tank model or somesuch.

BTW my favorite TOAW scenarios by Daniel are Tobruk 41 - firmly within the operational level, DNO - again, for me, an operational level scenario, just exetremely big one, Gotterdammerung (ditto), and El Alamein - again one scenario firmly anchored within confines of the operational art.

And no, I was thinking in my example above something more like the medium-small scenario Blitzkrieg. A limited production that allows you to customize your force with a few select units over the course of the game sounds like something I would be interested in playing.

That sounds more like Panzer General to me [;)]

No problem with the WaW bit - what did you think of the review, if I might ask?

Good review [8D] Should have been even more favorable if you ask me. [:D] What amazes me with WAW is that with very limited, and very playable, and very addictive I might add, set of tools, you manage to play the game ("wargame lite") that usually ends up very very true to history. All major aspects of WW2 on strategic level are covered, from Arctic conwoys and importance of Lend Lease, to China, to marginality of North Africa theatre, and industrial behemoth thats is US - it's all there.

O.

[Mantis]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You mean Daniel McBride? I beg to differ. I absolutely love Daniels scenarios. They - at least the ones I love - present stretching the limits of TOAW engine but not raping it to cover 5 years of conflict.

Check out The Great War.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Mantis

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You mean Daniel McBride? I beg to differ. I absolutely love Daniels scenarios. They - at least the ones I love - present stretching the limits of TOAW engine but not raping it to cover 5 years of conflict.

Check out The Great War.

That one is an exception. I wanted to check it out merely to get some interesting historical OOB info, but I don't think I will ever play it. It is not operational in nature and I don't think it would play well in this engine.

O.

[*Lava*]

Hi!

I also believe that the first step is updating TOAW and putting it out on the street.

After that... everything is fair game, and hopefully, some creative people will take this engine and broaden horizons. So for me, the evolution of this game should be:

1. Update and publish.
2. Begin a stream of Battle Packs with new (well tested) scenarios/bug fixes (if required).
3. Take the engine forward with a new concept (hopefully on a strategic level) which uses the engine embedded in the heart of the game.

Ray (alias Lava)

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

I'm not sure I agree on the idea that its unfeasable from a progarming perspective. What I suggest is making a unit (call it a 'factory' unit) that disbands its contents to the replacement pool every turn. The programing is in place for unit disbands so the idea that a unit could be designed that simply automatically disbands every turn but does not vanish itself is not that far fetched.

The designer controls the contents of what the 'factory' makes in scenario creation and of course it does not replace what we have in the replacement system (in fact it works with the current replacement system since disbands go to replacements). Most smaller scenarios would not bother with such units at all but you can add them if you want to simulate the fact that Stalingrad made T-34's or that B-52's were made in Colarado (presuming that Colarado is on your map). They could also be added (just like reinfrocements) or disbanded to represent something like the Russians moving their factories during Barbarossa.

With such a system one actually has the capability of simulating the fact that Russia had huge production of infantry right after it was invaded (because they called millions of young men to the colours) but that their infantry production fell off after mobalization got well under way, while at the same time, tank production skyrocketed. In essence one could simply have 'factories' that make lots of infatry at start and withdraw them with the editor as the mobilization pool was tapped out.

At the same time one can either add 'factories' that make tanks and artillery or just keep upping the basic info in the replacement editor, presuming here that the standard replacement editor has no infantry units to be doubled and doubled again) by production increases, and all induction of new young men is handled with 'factories' in the scenario).

Agreed, this is totally feasible.

On the production side, the designer then merely needs to provide the player with gobs of different units whose TO&E is not filled out (having perhaps 1 squad present and that's it). This gives the player the "what-if" option to design his own OOB, knowing that he must select only a portion of the available units as he does not have the quantity of replacements to fill out all the units.

The whole down side to this is that the player is not able to merge different units or combine units together to build brigades, divisions or corps.

Thus you really need something which allows the player to determine his own production and unit building desires.

Nevertheless, the engine has immense possiblities, but I think this really needs to be explored in a whole new game. On a strategic level I think it is possible to make a game which would blow the likes of HOI right out of the water.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: Mantis

Jeremy - in response to your post about production, I mean something a little bit more than just equipment. I want to add to the OOB. As an example, let's take a generic 5 year war. A Red vs Blue type thing. I want the players to be able to decide to be tank heavy, and have several extra armored corps by the end of the scenario. The other player went for infantry, and has spent all his production on that (or whatever). I know that disbands can simulate production in the fashion that you mention, and events could even simulate giving the player a choice of what to build. But I want the player to actually form new units in scenarios where that would be reasonable, such as R vs B above, etc. I know that even this could be simulated with a chart to weigh production times, and a horde of events, but I was thinking something more along the lines of production ala Hearts of Iron or GG's World at War.

OK - personaly if what you describe has an on/off toggle in the scenario design utility then its all for the good. If some scenarios have production points but other more operational ones use some some other system I don't see the problem.

This is however beyond what I am personally interested in, which really is much more of a system that allows desingers significantly more power to deal with replacements on an individual level instead of being forced to increase or decrease every piece of equipment in the scenario by the same percentage Or we can pick a specific turn and have production of that piece of equipment completely start or stop on that turn irrispective of whats going on in the scenario. Basically currently what we have is an extraordinarly crude tool that designers have to bend over backwards in order to get around - and even then its always by sacrificing some other element.

Personally I'm not so sure I even want the players choosing whats actually being produced but as a rule I do want the designer to have that latitude. Generally equipment was increased or decreased because of a wide veraity of factors - usually because it was what was already available on the production lines and it was generally halted because it had been substantially outdated. I think the designer is in the best position to decide when individual pieces of equipment should increase or decrease in relavence.

[golden delicious]

On production, I've had quite a lot of experience with this through my Grand Strategy projects (see here: http://www.geocities.com/maldenhill/mygame.htm. The rules document contains the current industrial model I'm using in GS3 (though I'm giving it a major facelift at the moment)

If TOAW's going to have a detailed production model, it has to be done right. In the past I've had trouble with players having the prototype of a new tank be followed by an immediate massive production run, with all old models out of production overnight, among other problems. This really shouldn't happen.

As to unit composition, there have to be strict controls here, too. Imagine a France 1940 scenario where the French player has complete freedom to change his OOB. It won't be pretty.

If anyone (say, a Matrix Games programmer...) is interested in how I've dealt with production in TOAW, they should take a look at the rules document at the above link.

[LewFisher]

As suggested, have Norm improve the TOW engine; upgrade graphics and AI; and, as stated, Matrix put out a compehensive rules book.

I would then suggest "The Strategic Art Of War" using much of the TOW system but adapted to the strategic level. This would allow for longer, more indepth scenarios on a more strategic level.

This would satisfy the hardcore operational gamers but still allow for strategic scenarios. In additon, this way matrix could issue two games that would be in demand.