The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine

[geozero]

I disagree.

The "design" of the game mechanics would not be simply limited to an attack factor and a movement rate - I was making a simple analogy. Of course several different combat factors could be used to model a "type" of unit. Armor units would have armor attack and defense factors as well as infantry (i.e., hard and soft target, etc). Infantry would have no armor attack but could have armor defense to model AT weapons, etc. Much easier IMO than to dig out TOE's that may or may not be wholly accurate.

I do completely agree that gamers of a certain caliber (grognards) want the most historically accurate representation in their games. I think TOAW does a great job at this and I'm happy just the way it is actually... BUT, a simpler way of achieving the same end result as far as combat values, etc. is possible, and should be explored.

Making games so difficult makes them inaccessible to a great many new wargamers, my 17 year old nephew quickly got bored of TOAW. I think there is a market out there for TOAW type game systems, but a huge untapped market of new players wanting a simpler system. And simpler doesn't mean to degrade the game in any way.

[JAMiAM]

Why should I buy Norm Koger's Paper, Rock, Scissors, The Matrix Edition, when I already have two hands and an eight year-old daughter to play it with?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: geozero

The "design" of the game mechanics would not be simply limited to an attack factor and a movement rate - I was making a simple analogy. Of course several different combat factors could be used to model a "type" of unit. Armor units would have armor attack and defense factors as well as infantry (i.e., hard and soft target, etc). Infantry would have no armor attack but could have armor defense to model AT weapons, etc. Much easier IMO than to dig out TOE's that may or may not be wholly accurate.

Nonsense. Unless one can come up with an alright-ish TO&E in the first place, how can one even begin to work out accurate numbers for all these values? As several people have noted, getting the TO&E exactly right isn't terribly important. A best-guess is often good enough. And you'd need that much even for your system.

Making games so difficult makes them inaccessible to a great many new wargamers, my 17 year old nephew quickly got bored of TOAW.

I don't think this is because of the equipment structure. One can get into TOAW without ever seeing that underlying structure. I know I didn't understand it when I started; I just played it at the level of the whole units, disregarding equipment.

I think there is a market out there for TOAW type game systems, but a huge untapped market of new players wanting a simpler system. And simpler doesn't mean to degrade the game in any way.

It does. You make the point that most designers won't do enough research and get their scenarios just right. That's as maybe- but with the TOAW system as it is, at least some designers can get their scenarios to that standard (even if it does take four years).

I do agree that there's a larger market for simpler games. But I don't think TOAW should be playing to that market. It's power as a scenario creation tool really is unique.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I want historically accurate scenarios. That makes them fun. Balance isn't a huge issue so long as I'm fighting the same battle as my historical counterpart.

That depends.

A scenario which has only one correct path, that is, the historic re-creation and nothing more, has zero replay value for me.

I want options.. lots of options.. which allow me to explore different strategies.. not puzzles. That's what makes games fun for me.

Ray (alias Lava)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava
A scenario which has only one correct path, that is, the historic re-creation and nothing more, has zero replay value for me.

Well, that's something altogether different. Such a scenario does have merit- as a learning aid. It's not really a game.

I want options.. lots of options.. which allow me to explore different strategies.. not puzzles. That's what makes games fun for me.

Well someone at some point said that enjoyment in a game is derived from making decisions which have observable consequences. That's true enough. I just find those decisions more compelling if they fit into a historical context, rather than being purely abstract.

I don't want a scenario to produce a historical outcome no matter what. I want a scenario which can produce the full range of outcomes which were possible given the historical starting conditions.

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I want historically accurate scenarios. That makes them fun. Balance isn't a huge issue so long as I'm fighting the same battle as my historical counterpart.

That depends.

A scenario which has only one correct path, that is, the historic re-creation and nothing more, has zero replay value for me.

I want options.. lots of options.. which allow me to explore different strategies.. not puzzles. That's what makes games fun for me.

Ray (alias Lava)

Ditto.

[Fidel_Helms]

Geozero, have you played the SSG Decisive Battles of World War Two series that Matrix is publishing now? They are very overtly "boardgamey"- step losses, abstract combat and movement factors, etc. You can even see the dice roll. They're quite good, although I wouldn't really have TOAW imitate them.

[rhinobones]

To quote one of my favorite orators . . . “this is preposterous.”

There are several things here that need to be straightened out.

ORIGINAL: geozero

The object should be to create fun playable, balanced scenarios, not show off how many TOE books you may have.

I’m with Geo on this one. Showing off the knowledge to alright too, but it need not be an a criteria for judging a good scenario. In this case “good” equates to the above quote.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I want historically accurate scenarios. That makes them fun. Balance isn't a huge issue so long as I'm fighting the same battle as my historical counterpart.

First of all you do not have a historical counterpart. Secondly, this statement needs to be qualified, i.e. “According to Ben Turner . . . makes them fun“

Also, if you open your eyes a bit, there are things other than historical accuracy to make the gaming experience enjoyable, i.e. “fun.”

There appears to be little understanding or appreciation that others have an equal opinion to what constitutes a “good” scenario.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

What you've done is placed a set of decisions in the hands of the designer which he will screw up.

I bet that any scenario Ben Turner designed under these conditions would not be screwed up. And yet, somehow you know that everyone else would screw things up. With insight like that I would gladly pay you the big pounds to be my stock broker.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
In the game you're proposing, the unit would just get a crap rating. What would I learn from the scenario then?

First of all, Battle Fields is being designed with a simplified TOE just as Geo proposed. Hopefully in the near future we will see whether how these crap ratings work out. Once again, I bet that any scenario Ben Turner designed under these conditions would not contain units with crap ratings.

Secondly, who really cares whether you learn anything from a scenario? Is it not impossible for you just to enjoy a good match?

There is more, but I will cease for now.

Best Regards, RhinoBones

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Geozero, have you played the SSG Decisive Battles of World War Two series that Matrix is publishing now? They are very overtly "boardgamey"- step losses, abstract combat and movement factors, etc. You can even see the dice roll. They're quite good, although I wouldn't really have TOAW imitate them.

No I have not. Sadly, I do not have the time to play all the games I'd like to, plus run 2 businesses, enjoy my 3 month old baby, and design and test games. Oh, I forgot to mention that I'm trying to pitch 2 movie scripts also. I'll let you know if Paramount takes it. [:D]

But I am familiar with the concept. I think from what I know of those systems is that they fill a void, much like Grigsby's World at War. Great game, but too simple IMO.

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: geozero

I disagree.

The "design" of the game mechanics would not be simply limited to an attack factor and a movement rate - I was making a simple analogy. Of course several different combat factors could be used to model a "type" of unit. Armor units would have armor attack and defense factors as well as infantry (i.e., hard and soft target, etc). Infantry would have no armor attack but could have armor defense to model AT weapons, etc. Much easier IMO than to dig out TOE's that may or may not be wholly accurate.

I do completely agree that gamers of a certain caliber (grognards) want the most historically accurate representation in their games. I think TOAW does a great job at this and I'm happy just the way it is actually... BUT, a simpler way of achieving the same end result as far as combat values, etc. is possible, and should be explored.

Making games so difficult makes them inaccessible to a great many new wargamers, my 17 year old nephew quickly got bored of TOAW. I think there is a market out there for TOAW type game systems, but a huge untapped market of new players wanting a simpler system. And simpler doesn't mean to degrade the game in any way.

But then you are going one step back from TOAW, since you have to calculate all those ratings that TOAW, right or wrong, already has in the equipment database. Those games of AH and SPI did just that to reach their values, based on the work to Trevor N. Dupuy (admitted by Jim Dunnigan). With TOAW you can start out from an standard template without the need to first research the equipment.

Another issue would be that of the completion of the scenarios, but that's not going to change simply because less time is involved in researching a TO&E becuase the TO&E will have to be researched anyway.

[steveh11Matrix]

The other thing attributed to Dunnigan that ought to be remembered here is the Cow Effect: "It'll all Come Out in the Wash." In other words, simplify, simplify, design for effect, make the game accessible and yet model that which is actually necessary. This was for Game, not Scenario, design, but I fell the same principle holds.

It's a fine balance. Some of the time I feel that the TOAW scenarios I've seen go over the wrong side of that balance. OTOH it's different for everyone, so the scenario designer has to make his own judgement and stick with it. The successful scenario designer will have his reward in seeing his creation downloaded, played and talked about, the less successful one won't. Darwinian survival! [:)]

Steve.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

First of all you do not have a historical counterpart. Secondly, this statement needs to be qualified, i.e. “According to Ben Turner . . . makes them fun“

That would be why I prefixed the paragraph with "I want".

Also, if you open your eyes a bit, there are things other than historical accuracy to make the gaming experience enjoyable, i.e. “fun.”

Well, if it's not a historical scenario, you can cut out the 'historical' part. But accuracy is still important. How would "War of the Ring" be if the elves were crappy and Hobbits were the best troops?

There appears to be little understanding or appreciation that others have an equal opinion to what constitutes a “good” scenario.

The trouble is that while TOAW at present can make scenarios which satisfy their desires, Geozero's suggestions would make it totally impossible to make scenarios which would interest me. To put this in real terms, if Matrix took the equipment system out of TOAW (not that I think there's any danger of that), I would just keep on playing whatever the last version with that system was. What's more, I can think of several other designers who'd do the same. JMS and Fidel Helms have already posted. Colin Wright I am sure would go this route. Probably lots of others- including Daniel McBride- too. Figure something like half of the designing talent out there at present would drop out of the game system. And Geozero's one of the people who emphasises the need for more scenarios.

I bet that any scenario Ben Turner designed under these conditions would not be screwed up.

It probably would be. All these monstrously overrated British units. In TOAW, I plug in the numbers and the German battalion turns out to be better than a British battalion. In your hypothetical game, I happily rate the British one as 6 and the German one as 5.

That's just it- I'm not being conceited here. This change would make me a worse designer. I am outrageously biased, and TOAW helps to cure me of some of that.

I bet that any scenario Ben Turner designed under these conditions would not contain units with crap ratings.

What I meant by crap ratings was that the unit would be made a 1-1 or whatever. Not that it would be poorly modelled- though that'd be the case too.

Secondly, who really cares whether you learn anything from a scenario? Is it not impossible for you just to enjoy a good match?

Sure- but I'd rather scenarios didn't perpetuate existing misconceptions. Take Jim Dunnigan's (or Doug Bevard's) France 1940. The moral of the story is that the Germans had overwhelming material superiority and were destined for victory. As you and I both know, that's nonsense. Yet playing those scenarios reinforces the misconception.

[lok]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I am outrageously biased, and TOAW helps to cure me of some of that.

I, too am biased...and so is everyone else including Norm who defined the orginal ratings for the weapons database. We are relying on his numbers in our scenario design.
I personally enjoy looking up TOE's OOB's etc and building an army the "TOAW way".
At the same time, there are times I wish I had a lot of variables/ratings to adjust than what is presently available in TOAW. I can see the advantage of having a large number of fully adjustable (not just boolean flags) variables/ratings for each unit so I can micromanage every unit design to death. That means of course, an entirely new game.

I am happy with the TOAW weapons database but it would be nice if a few bugs (like SAMs) are corrected and some way of adding or editing weapons is added (e.g. setting the movement of different naval units). I'd be just as happy if we switched to 128 different ratings all fully adjustable from 0-255. (insert your favorite numbers)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: lok

I, too am biased...and so is everyone else including Norm who defined the orginal ratings for the weapons database. We are relying on his numbers in our scenario design.

Right. However, it's harder to be biased about the penetrative power of a 6 pounder shell than it is about the fighting ability of 7th Armoured Division.

Building the game up from the level of equipment removes a layer of subjectivity from scenario design. There are many layers left over- but it's an improvement on the alternative.

I personally enjoy looking up TOE's OOB's etc and building an army the "TOAW way".
At the same time, there are times I wish I had a lot of variables/ratings to adjust than what is presently available in TOAW. I can see the advantage of having a large number of fully adjustable (not just boolean flags) variables/ratings for each unit so I can micromanage every unit design to death.

I agree completely. Everything should be placed completely under the designer's control. The existing settings would just be defaults.

and some way of adding or editing weapons

We have this already with the BioEd. I'd like to see it integrated into the scenario editor and made more flexible, though.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: lok

I, too am biased...and so is everyone else including Norm who defined the orginal ratings for the weapons database. We are relying on his numbers in our scenario design.

Right. However, it's harder to be biased about the penetrative power of a 6 pounder shell than it is about the fighting ability of 7th Armoured Division.

Building the game up from the level of equipment removes a layer of subjectivity from scenario design. There are many layers left over- but it's an improvement on the alternative.

I personally enjoy looking up TOE's OOB's etc and building an army the "TOAW way".
At the same time, there are times I wish I had a lot of variables/ratings to adjust than what is presently available in TOAW. I can see the advantage of having a large number of fully adjustable (not just boolean flags) variables/ratings for each unit so I can micromanage every unit design to death.

I agree completely. Everything should be placed completely under the designer's control. The existing settings would just be defaults.

and some way of adding or editing weapons

We have this already with the BioEd. I'd like to see it integrated into the scenario editor and made more flexible, though.

Good discussion.

I'd suggest if it isn't possible to release an 'equipment editor' with TOAW ME, at least on the first go-around, serious review & correction of the obvious errors in the latest default equipment database should happen.

Would anyone from Matrix care to comment about this?

[stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Well, if it's not a historical scenario, you can cut out the 'historical' part. But accuracy is still important. How would "War of the Ring" be if the elves were crappy and Hobbits were the best troops?

lol! Not laughing at anyone mind, just struck me as hilarious. Best laugh all day thanks.

D.

[stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

One quick comment, aimed at nobody in particular, but when designers start designing scenarios based on how the game does work, as opposed to how they think it should work, then a lot of the complaints about "exploiting the engine" will vanish. For example, the dreaded, and oft-maligned "supply drain attack". If designers were to make their units start at 33% readiness, 1% supply, as a normal state, and adjust the supply stockpile rates, movement biases, and attrition divider settings accordingly, you will see that preparatory attacks will have substantially less effect. There is no golden rule that states that unit supply states must be <<<<<....this....>>>> big, or that. Some scenarios will play out better with high supply rates, and prep attacks, others will not. Design for effect, instead of some one to one relationship with some imagined "reality". At the end of the day, the operational focus of the game dictates that the primary gauge of whether one side or the other has won or lost is reflected in where the lines of counters stand on a virtual map, and how much "strength" each side has lost. Designers should keep that in the front of their minds, much more than whether 9th Bicycle Battalion had 6 25mm AT guns, or 12.



Edited for one focus too many

Glad I waded through to find that. Very nicely put.

D.

[Fidel_Helms]

JAMIAM wrote:

If designers were to make their units start at 33% readiness, 1% supply, as a normal state, and adjust the supply stockpile rates, movement biases, and attrition divider settings accordingly, you will see that preparatory attacks will have substantially less effect.

But then you'd have no ability to show losses of supply or readiness. You've essentially presumed total supply and readiness for both sides. You'd have no way to contrast the supply situation of two opposing forces.

[Hellen_slith]

when designers start designing scenarios based on how the game does work, as opposed to how they think it should work, then a lot of the complaints about "exploiting the engine" will vanish.

That's a mindful, and spot on I think....I'm hope I'm not off-base saying this, but Bob Cross's scenes of The Next War are brilliant examples of how to design scenarios based on how the game works. I can't get enough of playing these scenes, even though they aren't exact copies of the underlying boardgame, they WORK.

I think there is a disconnect between wanting historically perfectly accurate depictions of say, the 7-pound shell versus a horse-drawn wagon on an individual combat basis, versus the operational vagaries of what might have happened in any given situation taking into account the entire battlefield.

You just can't drill down into individual formations, what's next, drilling down to the one rifle unit that shouldn't have been where they were?

<shrugs> just my 2 cents

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Hellen

I think there is a disconnect between wanting historically perfectly accurate depictions of say, the 7-pound shell versus a horse-drawn wagon on an individual combat basis, versus the operational vagaries of what might have happened in any given situation taking into account the entire battlefield.

This line of argument misses the point. It's not either good OOBs or effective testing. Good scenarios should have both.

If anything, the contradiction is between large scenarios and effective testing. Yet those seem to be the most popular with players.