The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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).

Yes it does. "Turn Burn" was the issue where a combat in Florence burned up the turn on the entire Western Front. That is addressed by the Battlefield Timestamp feature. Now, that battle in Florence gets a Battlefield Timestamp and the turn continues, "un-burned".

It doesn't allow you to do the time-machine nonsense that GG's game does. That's a good thing.

[Fred98]

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

Thank you

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
No problem. You set your counter display values in the Player Options.

The discussion is "The State of Digital Wargames". Information should be easy to find at the click of a mouse. Your example is not actually wrong but it takes too long!

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz
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.

No, with fog of war I am happy with a good estimate. Strengths of friendly units should be pretty accurate. Enemy units less accurate. All at the click of a mouse.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
........the "Turn Burn" issue was addressed in TOAW-IV via the Battlefield Timestamp feature:

"The State of Digital Wargames". The Battlefield Timestamp is a great idea. Perhaps a future game may utilise it. Maybe limit it's effect to that hex or a radius of hexes around it.
.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Fred98

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
No problem. You set your counter display values in the Player Options.

The discussion is "The State of Digital Wargames". Information should be easy to find at the click of a mouse. Your example is not actually wrong but it takes too long!

What Steve was trying to alert you to was that there are "Stack" display options for the counters - that display the "Stack" strength in the hex.

See posts #13 and #15 in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4380544

[Fred98]

Simplify air support:

A separate box is used to represent each area of the map. Air units can be moved between boxes.

Within a box, your air units are moved between "air superiority", "ground support" and "rest".

All the units in "air superiority" fight each other. If you have poor air superiority any units assigned to ground support will perform poorly.

This saves having to assign specific air units to specific tasks all over the map.
.
The idea could be utilised to represent naval units across a map.

[GloriousRuse]

Fred's idea, conveniently enough, brings us back to the original topic of "why do things seem to advance slowly/stay board game like". It is, for certain games, a great way to handle airpower. Simple unit allocation allowing priority, with consequences, and direct effects on what you can do with airport on the ground. There is definitely the sort of game where that is all a player really needs.

It is also a very old idea. I can think back to Red Storm Rising (1989) that basically has players choose how much of their air force to commit in either North or South Germany boxes, the aircraft shoot it out with D10s based on some rather arbitrary aircraft ratings , and then the airspace is either superiority for one side or contested. Every broad ground support mission after that (or air mobile brigade/division going by air) has a chance to be shot down or abort the mission that changes based on the air status.

Simple, quick, you can do it dice and all in maybe 10 minutes. And really quite optimal for the game type, where you move entire divisions around by province rather than hex and the whole game is a middling number of turns long.

There are going to be digital wargames where that or something very similar is going to be the right answer. Does that mean a game using it is stagnating the digital wargame or is it using a convenient and easy mechanism? And, of course, if you want something more than arbitrary "my F15 is a 6 in the air superiority box this turn", well you have to start adding detail...

[sPzAbt653]

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

With over a thousand scenarios available, it doesn't seem very fair to trash TOAW for your personal dislike of one. Even that dislike is greatly misplaced, as there is a version of that scenario with half week turns.
tm.asp?m=3304909

As has been stated earlier, TOAW Scenarios are community contributions, therefore the quality varies. That said, it has occurred many times over TOAW's existence that someone expresses a desire for a scenario change and someone else takes up the assignment. Not always, but often for sure. So if you don't like it, you can probably get it 'modded', get a new scenario designed, or even do it yourself as the editor is fully available to everyone.

Also already stated, TOAW IV has mostly eliminated 'turn burn'. Your 'single combat in Italy which lasted for an unexpected number of turns' will now zero the movement of those involved while leaving the rest of the map alone. It's also worth mentioning, although it is more detail than most need or want, that the individual Scenario Designers control Extended Combats and Turn Endings to a large extent thru the multiple Proficiency Checks at the Unit, Formation and Force Settings. For example, if you want to keep a Force from displaying the maneuverability of a German Blitzkrieg you can setting lower proficiencies, and if you want to give the player maximum ability to use all ten rounds [actually you can mathematically only use 9] you can by setting higher proficiencies. Point is, sometimes a scenario may be designed to not let the player run thru every Tactical Round.

[sPzAbt653]

could we maybe confine the TOAW discussion to the dedicated TOAW Forums?

I did say that this wasn't the place, but lest any other forumite see the inaccurate criticism of TOAW, I thought a quick rebuttable was appropriate.

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Seriously if Spanish Civil War doesn't have any interest in any of the topics or engine discussion I lose interest what Americans think wargames about [:D]

[altipueri]

Wasn't the HQ games "Liebst" here or on Ageod forum; and he designed the Spanish Civil War game "Espana" ; English Civil War game ; Thirty Years War.

Also, there's a Spanish Civil War scenario in Hearts of Iron 2
----
If anything these days there is too much choice available to the relatively few people who like historical war games.
This tends to result in too much detailed discussion about how many angels you can get on the head of a pin, or whether some epaulette is the wrong colour.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

ORIGINAL: 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.

Seriously if Spanish Civil War doesn't have any interest in any of the topics or engine discussion I lose interest what Americans think wargames about [:D]

https://johntillersoftware.com/SquadBat ... ilWar.html

[jmlima]

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. ...

Community efforts are what they are. Some, for example, have zero testing, some are just bad ideas, some are full of misunderstandings, some are quite good. Point is, quality is highly variable.

Still, bringing this back to the OT, look at the CSV scenario for TOAW. There's some pretty good innovation in there, all done within the constraints of an engine that the scenario author cannot change.

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: gamer78

ORIGINAL: 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.

Seriously if Spanish Civil War doesn't have any interest in any of the topics or engine discussion I lose interest what Americans think wargames about [:D]

https://johntillersoftware.com/SquadBat ... ilWar.html

Just for curiosity for a knowledge was Durutti a faction while marching Zaragoza. Anarchichts should be a faction or not. whether in HOI or in Tiller games, I didn't yet play these games. Just historical question. [;)]

[Erik Rutins]

As a side note, for anyone wanting to see the state of digital wargaming advancing again, take a look at the just released Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive. I highly recommend it.

[RangerJoe]

Somebody must have a really tough job. Looking at and trying out every new game sold by this company . . . [;)]

[altipueri]

I have just bought:

WITE2
Valor & Victory
Decisive Campaigns - Ardennes
Shadow Empire

and a couple of DLCs


The State of Matrix should be better off at least.

[Rosseau]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

I have just bought:

WITE2
Valor & Victory
Decisive Campaigns - Ardennes
Shadow Empire

and a couple of DLCs


The State of Matrix should be better off at least.

Congrats Altipueri!

I would be curious to know what you think of Shadow Empire when you get a chance. It is the only Matrix game I have had a lot of trouble understanding. It could very well be my age, though!

Meanwhile, DC: Ardennes Offensive is quite a treat.

Best wishes!

[altipueri]

Hi Rousseau,
I don't expect to like it either. I've never been keen on space stuff be it films books or games.
Elite, Dune, Star
Wars, Star Trek are tedious to me.

I bought it because a reviewer I like recommended it and I saw it won an award and had quite a lot of forum activity.

My first ten minutes rather confirm my fears.
What I want is that update to Campaigns on the Danube.

[Rosseau]

Well, one thing I learned from others since Shadow Empire came out is that it requires a commitment of time to understand and enjoy it, and I was simply too tired to comply. But it appears overall a runaway hit!

Have fun,

Mike

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

I have just bought:

WITE2
Valor & Victory
Decisive Campaigns - Ardennes
Shadow Empire

and a couple of DLCs


The State of Matrix should be better off at least.

Thank you!

I will also confirm that whether Shadow Empire is your cup of tea or not thematically, don't give up on it quickly. It is worth some time investment to see all of its potential as a strategy/rpg sandbox, which is quite significant. I think it's an outstanding game.

Regards,

- Erik

[geforth]

Shadow Empire is actually one of the best 4x games I have ever played. Every part of the game is well developed and I especially love the resource system. It is not infinite and the system contains small production chains. Furthermore every playthrough is unique and you have to deal with problems and last but not least the wargame system is the icing on the cake.

I have only two wishes for the whole game: shorter ai times and maybe a dlc for space exploration.