The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021

[Fred98]

TOAW IV
I heard of TOAW and TOAW II. Both had good names among wargamers.

TOAW III was released and I got the game. I was busy playing other wargames at the time so I put it aside. The audience of those other wargames dispersed and TOAW IV was announced about the same time.
I used TOAW III, as a tool to learn the game system as I looked forward to TAOW IV.

In traditional wargaming, a unit is either alive or dead. Then some computer wargames use the idea of “steps”. If a unit is in combat, it might take a step loss rather than be totally destroyed. Over time the unit gets weaker.
The TAOW series has a great feature. Each unit has an assigned number of men, weapons and equipment. A unit takes losses due to attrition or due to combat and the numbers reduce. I understand that the developers worked hard to make the losses as authentic as possible based upon all the variables. I think it works very well thank you!

There is a problem:

It’s a wargame. I need to know the attack vales and defence values, of each stack on the map. The values are available for each individual unit but there is no short cut way to find the values for a stack.
I am aware there are number of different types of attack and defence values, there should be a way to display them all, hovering over a hex. A modern digital wargame should include that.

The time stamp. This is a terrific feature I think unique to this game!

In a traditional game, I am going to attack some enemy units and keep units in reserve to use in the break through. In TOAW IV, the battle hex is given a time stamp. If a turn lasts (say) 6 hours, the computer does a calculation using the units involved and determines that the break through battle lasted (say) 3 hours. My break through units have 20 movement points. So they use 2 points to reach the break through hex. Then they lose 10 movement points because the battle lasted half a turn. They now have 8 movement points to use in the break through. Great idea!

There is a problem: The units at the back of the map, in no way related to the battle, also lose half their movement points. This is poor implementation. Inherently it ignores human nature.

[sPzAbt653]

There is a problem: I need to know the attack vales and defense values, of each stack on the map.

No problem. You set your counter display values in the Player Options. There are many to choose from, and once set you can cycle thru them using the 'M' key.

[sPzAbt653]

There is a problem: The units at the back of the map, in no way related to the battle, also lose half their movement points. This is poor implementation. Inherently it ignores human nature.

This really isn't the place, there is plenty of help available on the TOAW Forum. But for anyone's benefit that stumbles across this:

A turn in TOAW consists of ten rounds that the player controls. Beginners some times make the mistake of setting a few combats and then hitting the 'execute' button to run those attacks, and then get upset when the combat takes 50% of the turn and they hadn't moved their other units yet. Actually, its an awesome feature of TOAW that is sometimes misunderstood and inappropriately criticized. But when players learn to use it they will understand that it is excellent implementation of battlefield management. And the Timestamps let the player know exactly what is going on on the map.[:)]

Remember earlier board games that would have several combat and/or movement 'phases'? [&o]

[ernieschwitz]

There is a problem: I need to know the attack vales and defense values, of each stack on the map.

I don't see the problem. You want realism, you got it. In reality, no-one knows the exact strength of a units attack and defensive abilities. I think the problem is that you expect the best of both worlds.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Fred98

There is a problem: The units at the back of the map, in no way related to the battle, also lose half their movement points. This is poor implementation. Inherently it ignores human nature.

Time is time. I don't live in Europe. But when an hour passes in North America and hour also passes in Europe. If you choose to let your reserves sit idle for half a day how is that the fault of anyone but you? IGOUGO turn based games have a difficult time emulating the passage of time. You start your turn on Monday morning and progress to Monday night. Then the clock rewinds for my turn and it's Monday morning again.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Fred98
...
In traditional wargaming, a unit is either alive or dead. Then some computer wargames use the idea of “steps”. ...

'Steps' (or progressive losses) are not a computer thing, they have been around boardgames for decades. Computers merely made them more granular, instead of a unit suffering a step loss, that usually was 50% or sometimes 2/3 of its force, it gets progressively weaker as its component units are lost in combat or attrition.

Back to the topic of the thread, this is a good example of not innovating but using the technology available for better representation of the intended effect.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

There is a problem: The units at the back of the map, in no way related to the battle, also lose half their movement points. This is poor implementation. Inherently it ignores human nature.

This really isn't the place, there is plenty of help available on the TOAW Forum. But for anyone's benefit that stumbles across this:

A turn in TOAW consists of ten rounds that the player controls. Beginners some times make the mistake of setting a few combats and then hitting the 'execute' button to run those attacks, and then get upset when the combat takes 50% of the turn and they hadn't moved their other units yet. Actually, its an awesome feature of TOAW that is sometimes misunderstood and inappropriately criticized.

Exp. when the whole of D-Day is delayed due to a single combat in Italy which lasted for an unexpected number of turns. [8|]

"The troops were already on the ships. The paratroopers had boarded the planes. The armada was ready to be launched. The element of surprise was waning. And everybody was asking 'What about the firefight between a couple of platoons just outside Frascati? Is it still ongoing? The window of clear weather promised by the meteorologists is ticking down...!' But, no: unfortunately for the Allies, the commander of the German company garrisoning the small village just south of Rome knew his stuff, and the whole Sixth of June was spent with the troops' ears glued to the radios, hoping for a decisive breakthrough by the reinforced British battalion in Central Italy."

[Erik Rutins]

In TOAW though, it's the player's choice which attacks to do first and with what settings to limit or allow delay. In choosing that from your example, he's basically saying I'm not launching D-Day until I see how things go in Italy. In most TOAW scenarios, it's nothing like that extreme, but they key to me is that the player does have agency. Once you learn how to manage the system, I think it adds realism and rarely results in big surprises as far as time lost.

[Lobster]

This is no longer the case. People who develope the game actually do listen to the users. Sometimes. There is still the problem of a failed check. [;)]

14. Your Entire Force Movement
Allowances Are Adjusted

After combat, all of your units will have their
remaining Movement Allowances adjusted to
reflect the Median Tactical Round needed to
resolve all Normal Attacks. Note that this omits
bombardments, unless the round only included
bombardments – then the round advances to the
median-length bombardment.
Example: If the Median Tactical Round was
Round 7, all of your units will have their Movement
Allowances limited to no more than 30% [(10-
7)*10%] of their full Movement Allowance.
...
Note that by advancing to the MEDIAN
instead of the MINIMUM combat length the
game retains a requirement for a level of skill in
marshalling the player’s combats. Players still need
to try to minimize the number of combats that last
multiple rounds to get the best amount of combat
exploitation. But now a single slip-up or bad break
won’t ruin an entire player-turn.

But this begs the question, why would you not start landing your troops at the start of the turn?

[Erik Rutins]

Yes, that was an adjustment in TOAW IV if I recall correctly? It makes it much easier to avoid surprise delays.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Back to the topic of the thread, this is a good example of not innovating but using the technology available for better representation of the intended effect.

That's my attitude towards TOAW's future: It doesn't need innovation, but expansion. The basic system is perfectly servicable. Imagine if it could be applied to so many other topics!

[pz501]

Not trying to be rude, but could we maybe confine the TOAW discussion to the dedicated TOAW Forums?

My impression was that this thread is intended to be a generalized discussion of the state of digital wargames. So far it's a really enjoyable topic to read (for me anyway) and while I can't speak for anyone else, I'd like to see it continue without getting side-tracked or hung up on specific games.

Just a suggestion guys, that's all.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: pz501

My impression was that this thread is intended to be a generalized discussion of the state of digital wargames. So far it's a really enjoyable topic to read (for me anyway) and while I can't speak for anyone else, I'd like to see it continue without getting side-tracked or hung up on specific games.

I would think that real examples enlighten and focus the discussion rather than side-track it.

[gamer78]

Technical side of wargames or the about the variety of conflict is the discussion really? Ejército Popular de La República army in Spanish Civil War isn't popular here. https://www.hqwargames.com/index.php/es ... o-popular/

But only game engine and scenarious has variety in here is all about TOAW. But for modders and designers for hobby, all other professional work goes to WW'2 and Pacific it seems.

[pz501]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: pz501

My impression was that this thread is intended to be a generalized discussion of the state of digital wargames. So far it's a really enjoyable topic to read (for me anyway) and while I can't speak for anyone else, I'd like to see it continue without getting side-tracked or hung up on specific games.

I would think that real examples enlighten and focus the discussion rather than side-track it.

You couldn't be more correct.

I was only trying to point out that in my view this is a really good and informative thread, and I think it would be a shame if it turned into a second forum for any game or system that already has a dedicated section of it's own on these pages.

I'm also not trying to infer that anyone is trying to make this a TOAW thread. Please don't take it that way. This is the internet, and I think everyone has experienced a thread being started and over time losing objectivity or focus. I'd prefer that doesn't happen here, but if it does that's life.

I do recognize that you personally have a lot of time and effort invested in TOAW, and I hope that things work out for you given all of the problems and issues that have arisen with TOAW development of late. I'm not trying to attack or belittle your advocacy one bit.

[RFalvo69]

I'll give a practical example of the TOAW problem which, I believe, is in topic - because it is about how NOT to use modern computer power. Well, at least IMHO.

Just look at the scenario "Sicily to Brenner Pass 43-45" in TOAW IV. It covers the Western Front from Husky to the German surrender in one day turns (remember, Erik, what I told you a few posts ago? give to the players WitE3 with one day turns and they will play it)

I launched it, and it is what I feared: simply because it was possible to do it it was done. Was it also sane? WitE uses one-week turns and no scenario in Grigsby's game is as big as this one. And in Sicily to Brenner you must hope, even with TOAW IV's method of patching the turn-burn, that nothing dire happens in a single fight around, let's say, Florence, or the whole of the Western Front takes a hit.

("Down with WitE 1&2 and WitW!", BTW: obviously they "don't understand the awesomeness of this TOAW feature, possibly misunderstanding it and unfairly snubbing it.

Right? [;)])

What's happening here?

Let's step back to 1998. TOAW comes out, with a very, very flexible editor but also some words of warning by Norm Koger: the system was built for "units with reasonable OOBs" but also (and this somehow fell through the net) "for reasonable pairing of time and space by the scenario designers". Pairing of the extremes, in short, was not suggested and could lead to "serious distortions in the realism of the scenario".

TOAW was designed for the "OPART100" version of the .exe. Norm, back then, provided a OPART300 experimental .exe, the key word being "experimental". What, I believe, some people missed (and are still missing) was how TOAW was built for the aforementioned reasonable pairings of turn length/hex size/unit size - running under OPART100.

The "turn burn" feature of TOAW worked as long as Norm's warning were followed. It worked long as the scenario allowed for the player to always have full comprehension of the situation. It was a workaround designed to simulate a realistic tempo on the battlefield in absence of true continuous time (for some reason I always associated it with a totally different workaround: the "residual fire" rule in ASL). If you wanted to see how the attack in the north went before committing the rest of your troops, these troops had less "time" to move and act.

When this was achieved, the emergent result was that the average wargamer's mind was able to keep what happened on the battlefield under control. This is why the "turn burn" mechanic worked: because the whole of the battlefield was easily in the player's mind, with, if needed, quick checks in the various area. Even "monster" scenarios like (warning: fan service [:D]) Bob Cross' "Campaign for North Africa" were playable - because it was easy to keep the situation of your troops under control (I have this clear memory of playing CFNA 40 around 2000, while I was renovating what had been my father's restaurant. I played 2-3 turns every evening and it was very relaxing).

All the above leads to some questions:

- If this feature created by Norm is the cats ass, why no one else ever used it in its designs? Why WitE 1&2 and WitW, the current pinnacle of wargaming ever (or so I'm told), still use this prehistoric idea of moving and attacking with the units one at the time (not to mention every other hex'n'counter game sold here and elsewhere)?

- Why, in TOAW IV, we are still trying to tweak it so not to have a stubborn English company near Pisa delaying, you know, OVERLORD?

- And why we have scenarios like "Sicily to Brenner Pass" or, God forbids, "Directive 21"? These are examples of what "Jurassic Park" tried to teach us: "Just because you can do it this doesn't mean that you must do it." They symbolise what Norm Koger, cosplaying as Michael Crichton, tried to warn us about: "TOAW works as long as turn length/hex size/unit size are reasonable" - in an engine originally born for OPART100. And "reasonable" =/= "doable".

Of course there are people who play these scenarios. After all I once met a guy that played 3D Chess on multiple chessboards. The TOAW IV AARs subforum is full of people who tackle, let's say, "Nach Frankreich 1940t". No doubt about that. Pity that an operational study with 6 hours turns/2.5km hex/company-battalion of the crucial events between Dinant and Sedan on May 12nd-14th 1940 - something TOAW was born to portray - screams for its absence. OTOH we have a couple of hundred of version of "Barbarossa" and "East Front 1941-45" - because you can do it.

Fact is, I would gladly tackle "Sicily to Brenner" in a "WitW way": i.e. without the turn-burn rule at all and by just moving and attacking with the units (posture, events and the rest included). Basically, being able to conduct a desperate retreat as the Germans without having to worry that a platoon of Panzergrenadiers eating at "La Buca di Sant'Antonio" in Lucca (very good place BTW: if you visit Lucca, go there) is paralysing my I SS Panzer Korp relief attack against Metz.

But you can't have the option (about which I dream since TOAW I) of moving and attacking "WitE/W way"). Do you know why? Because the turn-burn feature is holy [&o]. If you don't like it you "don't understand it and are inappropriately criticising it" (a very unfortunate judgement that, if true, would reflect very badly against a lot of contemporary designers from across many publishers).

Notice how the above judgement is not mandatory. First, what is asked for is simply an option, not a definitive change of the game. Second, by simply stopping and gathering their own thoughts, people could instead point out a real problem: how the balance of the scenarios could be thrown out of whack. True, but there are two answer to this. First: on the other side a squad from the 101st Airborne Division found a good bistrot where eat in Paris (I suggest "Le Corail" in Rue Lafayette) was, once upon a time, enough to stop Market Garden - now, no more; so both sides would be gratified by a more relaxed approach.

But, second, we are already having a lot of scenarios potentially out of whack - because they were designed for earlier versions of the game. I guess that Bob will be able to answer to this question better than me, but, how many scenarios in TOAW IV were either rebuilt/created from scratch for the new new iteration of the game vs. the piles of old scenarios that were just thrown into the mix without being specifically tweaked for the new iteration?

I see that I wrote a long post but the TL;DR is brief: I think that the turn-burn feature of TOAW works very well for the kind of use Norm Koger originally envisioned for his engine. Nothing however, in design, is absolute (this small gem actually comes from my eldest daughter). The turn-burn feature is not holy at all, and loses its positive design effect once the TOAW engine is used beyond the originally envisioned confines.

But let's not throw away the baby with the water. TOAW allows a lot of things - from the scenario creation itself to the event engine, and more, and these things works.

Again: the turn-burn feature is not holy. There are reasons why, after almost 25 years, other designers never adopted it in their games - and we are still tweaking and patching it so that it can fit in holes that were never meant for it. I would just like for people to stop and think why.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I'll give a practical example of the TOAW problem which, I believe, is in topic - because it is about how NOT to use modern computer power. Well, at least IMHO.

Just look at the scenario "Sicily to Brenner Pass 43-45" in TOAW IV. It covers the Western Front from Husky to the German surrender in one day turns (remember, Erik, what I told you a few posts ago? give to the players WitE3 with one day turns and they will play it)

I launched it, and it is what I feared: simply because it was possible to do it it was done. Was it also sane? WitE uses one-week turns and no scenario in Grigsby's game is as big as this one. And in Sicily to Brenner you must hope, even with TOAW IV's method of patching the turn-burn, that nothing dire happens in a single fight around, let's say, Florence, or the whole of the Western Front takes a hit.

As Lobster's post indicated, the "Turn Burn" issue was addressed in TOAW-IV via the Battlefield Timestamp feature:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4274372

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I'll give a practical example of the TOAW problem which, I believe, is in topic - because it is about how NOT to use modern computer power. Well, at least IMHO.

Just look at the scenario "Sicily to Brenner Pass 43-45" in TOAW IV. It covers the Western Front from Husky to the German surrender in one day turns (remember, Erik, what I told you a few posts ago? give to the players WitE3 with one day turns and they will play it)

I launched it, and it is what I feared: simply because it was possible to do it it was done. Was it also sane? WitE uses one-week turns and no scenario in Grigsby's game is as big as this one. And in Sicily to Brenner you must hope, even with TOAW IV's method of patching the turn-burn, that nothing dire happens in a single fight around, let's say, Florence, or the whole of the Western Front takes a hit.

As Lobster's post indicated, the "Turn Burn" issue was addressed in TOAW-IV via the Battlefield Timestamp feature:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4274372

No, it wasn't. Unless the "battlefield timestamp feature" (why we needed it BTW?) allows me to move and play the way I move and play in GG's WitE/W (pro tip: no, it doesn't).

[Lobster]

Combat as movement is a basketload of inconsistencies. I'm assuming what's being attempted by using that kind of system is modeling the flow of battle that was the East Front. Combat as movement is something I avoid like the plague on the operational or strategic level. Best left for tactical games and checkers. Granted, nothing about igougo can mimick time and space like the wego method.

Another problem with most digital wargames that attempt to model real world campaigns is the perfect first move anality. The first move is played again and again and again until the individual playing the first move has it down perfectly. With a digital game some variety should be introduced to prevent that first move attempt at perfection. You have a computer game, make it harder on people so the first move perfectionists are eliminated.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
Just look at the scenario "Sicily to Brenner Pass 43-45" in TOAW IV. It covers the Western Front from Husky to the German surrender in one day turns (remember, Erik, what I told you a few posts ago? give to the players WitE3 with one day turns and they will play it)

Yes, that's true, if you build it, players will come.

I will say that as TOAW is in effect a construction kit, the experience of playing it can vary very widely by scenario and the choices each scenario designer makes. I've tried scenarios that I simply could not get through because of poor choices and others that I've enjoyed greatly, all in TOAW. Sounds like this particular scenario is just not for you.

Let's step back to 1998. TOAW comes out, with a very, very flexible editor but also some words of warning by Norm Koger: the system was built for "units with reasonable OOBs" but also (and this somehow fell through the net) "for reasonable pairing of time and space by the scenario designers". Pairing of the extremes, in short, was not suggested and could lead to "serious distortions in the realism of the scenario".

TOAW was designed for the "OPART100" version of the .exe. Norm, back then, provided a OPART300 experimental .exe, the key word being "experimental". What, I believe, some people missed (and are still missing) was how TOAW was built for the aforementioned reasonable pairings of turn length/hex size/unit size - running under OPART100.

I wouldn't say it was designed only for OPART100. I think it was mainly that there was concern initially about whether the 300 scenarios would really perform well and whether people would want to play scenarios that large, but certainly a lot of great large scenarios were made over time.

The "turn burn" feature of TOAW worked as long as Norm's warning were followed. It worked long as the scenario allowed for the player to always have full comprehension of the situation. It was a workaround designed to simulate a realistic tempo on the battlefield in absence of true continuous time (for some reason I always associated it with a totally different workaround: the "residual fire" rule in ASL). If you wanted to see how the attack in the north went before committing the rest of your troops, these troops had less "time" to move and act.

I agree that when you have a scenario in TOAW trying to have a split front or very different operations on the same map, it creates more issues. I do agree with Bob that TOAW IV moderates this issue to a great degree, but I still think the scenarios that tend to do best in TOAW focus on one front.

- If this feature created by Norm is the cats ass, why no one else ever used it in its designs? Why WitE 1&2 and WitW, the current pinnacle of wargaming ever (or so I'm told), still use this prehistoric idea of moving and attacking with the units one at the time (not to mention every other hex'n'counter game sold here and elsewhere)?

Actually, the delay feature in WITE2 which adds a delay cost to a hex as more combat happens there, is similar in concept though different in execution and it is a nice enhancement over WITE1. The TOAW IV implementation is better than previous versions for a "global" delay, but I think overall the per hex implementation of delay is more player friendly.

- Why, in TOAW IV, we are still trying to tweak it so not to have a stubborn English company near Pisa delaying, you know, OVERLORD?

I agree that such a scenario is not in TOAW's sweet spot, though a player that is used to working within the system can still have a lot of fun with a split front scenario, I just think it's harder to design for within TOAW.

Of course there are people who play these scenarios. After all I once met a guy that played 3D Chess on multiple chessboards. The TOAW IV AARs subforum is full of people who tackle, let's say, "Nach Frankreich 1940t". No doubt about that. Pity that an operational study with 6 hours turns/2.5km hex/company-battalion of the crucial events between Dinant and Sedan on May 12nd-14th 1940 - something TOAW was born to portray - screams for its absence. OTOH we have a couple of hundred of version of "Barbarossa" and "East Front 1941-45" - because you can do it.

What can you do - wargamers love monster games! [8D]

Fact is, I would gladly tackle "Sicily to Brenner" in a "WitW way": i.e. without the turn-burn rule at all and by just moving and attacking with the units (posture, events and the rest included). Basically, being able to conduct a desperate retreat as the Germans without having to worry that a platoon of Panzergrenadiers eating at "La Buca di Sant'Antonio" in Lucca (very good place BTW: if you visit Lucca, go there) is paralysing my I SS Panzer Korp relief attack against Metz.

I suppose a version of TOAW that made this mechanic optional could be made, but I think much of the TOAW community would keep it on at all times.

But, second, we are already having a lot of scenarios potentially out of whack - because they were designed for earlier versions of the game. I guess that Bob will be able to answer to this question better than me, but, how many scenarios in TOAW IV were either rebuilt/created from scratch for the new new iteration of the game vs. the piles of old scenarios that were just thrown into the mix without being specifically tweaked for the new iteration?

That's a good question - I had to step away from TOAW IV early on due to family issues that were taking up most of my time, but I know that new scenarios were made for it as well as old ones being included. It is certainly true that over time, if a designer does not keep their scenario up to date, between all the changes in the TOAWIII and IV versions it could certainly become unbalanced or to some degree broken.

I see that I wrote a long post but the TL;DR is brief: I think that the turn-burn feat[ure of TOAW works very well for the kind of use Norm Koger originally envisioned for his engine. Nothing however, in design, is absolute (this small gem actually comes from my eldest daughter). The turn-burn feature is not holy at all, and loses its positive design effect once the TOAW engine is used beyond the originally envisioned confines.

I agree with you on all of that in principle, but I'd suggest that overall TOAW as a system holds up quite well and with the improvements in TOAW IV, the turn burn concerns are less of a concern outside of specific scenarios.

Regards,

- Erik