Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I've just noticed various newbies saying 'I don't get how to...'

What they don't 'get how to' is read. They are usually too lazy to take the time to find the information themselves. One of the most common 'I don't get how to' is control the pop up when you are hovering over the map. Or how to get the right click menu. Both very simple but very commonly asked about.

This is a simple game. There isn't much reading to do. It's more along the lines of a Sim City game than a Victoria 2 game or GG War in the East game. Not a lot of rules.

Maybe you're right. Certainly some of the complaints seem to suggest the poster must have real problems figuring out door knobs.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

Sure, and when the division HQ is overrun subordinate units will receive orders from who?

With your approach one may also ask why to distinguish between evergreen and normal (mixed) forests? Movement penalties and combat modifiers are the same. Why stick with two tiles?

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

Sure, and when the division HQ is overrun subordinate units will receive orders from who?

With your approach one may also ask why to distinct between evergreen and normal (mixed) forests? Movement penalties and combat modifiers are the same. Why stick with two tiles?

Hey. Telumar you are a genius. We wouldn't even need to make a new tile. Just do away with the useless redundant evergreen tile and make it a bridge tile by reworking effects. [:D]

Reassigning units between formations is critical. There are endless support units in every battle. Headquarters do die. Subordinate units can become too numerous due to changing circumstances. I could come up with a dozen reasons why to allow reassignment but only a couple why NOT to allow it.

And it wouldn't be the same as what we have now. You could actually restrict it in some fashion. Or better yet, allow the scenario desgner to restrict it. Why, it might even mirror real life. Imagine that.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I think what most people want to see is a hierarchical OOB with assigning/reassigning units between formations.

That seems to me to get us right back where we are now. Tie units down with a hierachy, then release them with reassignment. So, you can still send units all over the map regardless of assignments - it just adds a bit of overhead work to then reassign them to nearby formations.

This is valid -- if there are no restrictions and/or if the designer cannot control the effect.

That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment? If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment?

Well, considering you will not entertain the possibility there can be no discussion with you about any of this. Before a serious discussion can be had there has to be some willingness on your part, doesn't there? All we get is smoke.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

Until you are willing to seriously give this some consideration all of this is more useless banter.

Imagine, if you will, if you could come up with a workable system for TOAW. One that would not just be useful for the theatres you are a fan of, but for all theatres and times covered by the game. What would you do?

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment?

Well, considering you will not entertain the possibility there can be no discussion with you about any of this. Before a serious discussion can be had there has to be some willingness on your part, doesn't there? All we get is smoke.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

Until you are willing to seriously give this some consideration all of this is more useless banter.

Imagine, if you will, if you could come up with a workable system for TOAW. One that would not just be useful for the theatres you are a fan of, but for all theatres and times covered by the game. What would you do?

I'm with Panama in this. We had the OOB/hierarchy/assignment discussion before.

Just two things before we leave the battlefield to Colin and Bob again [;)]. Bob, imagine there is volume based supply (which you said you will advocate/push for it). And a hierarchical OOB. That doesn't ring any bells about further possibilities of a hierarchical OOB, doesn't it?

I also think Elmer could benefit from it. I.e. he would not only check formation by formation, but "down" the OOB hierarchy for things like i.e. wether he is flanked or not.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

Yes but -- unless I missed something -- you're setting up a straw man. No one proposed that it be totally free.

I'd say it's fairly obvious that there should be a cost. Make it something like embarking, in that a unit can only do it if it hasn't expended movement points, and something like entrenching, in that it consumes the rest of the turn for that unit. Hopefully, of course, the designer could set that cost as a percentage for each force. Like, it'll cost 0% of your move, or 10%, or 50%, or 100%. Alternatively, the cost could be expressed as a decline in readiness and/or supply -- which seems more appropriate, actually. Getting to know the quartermaster at XII corps. Learning never to try sending a request to General Stickinbutt that isn't on the proper form...

It's possible it would all just be too hard...but that's an unknown. There's certainly no reason to dismiss the idea in principle. And it would make our forces look more like forces. After all, right now 'Transcaucasus Front' is just an agglomeration of various support units plus some divisions that moved around a lot. It has no relationship to its subordinate armies at all.

And the idea here is simulation. I see other needs that are even more imperative, but this'd be in my top twenty.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment? If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

(just my 2 € cents)

Well, referring to other computer games, instead of boardgames who for reasons of their own are developed in a very different way, if you look at V4V / W@W, you could re-assign almost to your heart's content, but, given that there is only a finite amount of supply, the more units an HQ had, the more supply it would require, this in turn restricted supply to your other HQ's, with the consequence that, at some point you would have one functional HQ and several non-functional ones. Also, there was a limit to how many units an HQ could handle efficiently, that is, a regimental HQ could only handle x number of units, a divisional one could handle y, hence putting an effective limit onto the number of units you could pass to one HQ.

In there, there were several benefits of having a unit assigned to a particular HQ, one of them, given that the games modelled some significant individual commanders having a unit assigned to one of those commander's HQ would give it some bonuses , etc.

Of course, in the end, it's all down to the objectives of TOAW development, if you're looking to have a game that is aimed at newbie's, then these ideas are pointless and will indeed only add 'headaches' to game play, if you're aiming some notches higher then it's a different ball game and you need to consider things like these. If you try for both, then you probably will end up pleasing none of the two groups.

I don't know about anyone else, but one of the things I feel that needs to be focused on is making the game flexible. That flexibility can be used by scenario designers to make scenarios simple, for newcomers, to complex, for grognards.

When people argue that something will make the game too hard then make that something optional for the scenario designer. Why does everything have to be mandatory? If this game engine is a game design tool then make it that. Sheesh. IMO everything in the game engine should be optional or adjustable by the guy making the scenario. If you are a scenario designer who wants to make a scenario for new players then you can leave out the things that you feel would make a scenario too complex for a beginner. If you want to make a scenario for hardcore wargamers throw in all the bells and whistles available.

The hierachy and reassignment ideas can be optional just as the new supply rules are. Just as the png graphics are. Just as supply levels are. I can go on and on. But just dismissing something out of hand because one person thinks it would make the game 'too hard' is not rational.

Having said that, it all comes down to a progarmming problem for Ralph or whoever else has to muck through the code. I don't know if the code looks like a plate of spaghetti or if it's orderly. If Ralph says something is impossible or far too hard, so be it. I'm just one of the end users.

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
That's all I'm saying. Everybody seems to want a hierachy and reassignment. But what are the effects? What does the hierachy actually do, and what are the limits on/consequences of reassignment? If it's totally free, then you can, just as I said, still scatter your units all over the place - so long as you reorganize them after. That just adds a headache to game play.

(just my 2 € cents)

Well, referring to other computer games, instead of boardgames who for reasons of their own are developed in a very different way, if you look at V4V / W@W, you could re-assign almost to your heart's content, but, given that there is only a finite amount of supply, the more units an HQ had, the more supply it would require, this in turn restricted supply to your other HQ's, with the consequence that, at some point you would have one functional HQ and several non-functional ones. Also, there was a limit to how many units an HQ could handle efficiently, that is, a regimental HQ could only handle x number of units, a divisional one could handle y, hence putting an effective limit onto the number of units you could pass to one HQ.

In there, there were several benefits of having a unit assigned to a particular HQ, one of them, given that the games modelled some significant individual commanders having a unit assigned to one of those commander's HQ would give it some bonuses , etc.

Of course, in the end, it's all down to the objectives of TOAW development, if you're looking to have a game that is aimed at newbie's, then these ideas are pointless and will indeed only add 'headaches' to game play, if you're aiming some notches higher then it's a different ball game and you need to consider things like these. If you try for both, then you probably will end up pleasing none of the two groups.

Referring to historical reality, HQ's that were overloaded with units started having problems managing everything.

So one could simulate all this by penalizing formation proficiency and/or supply past a (designer set) ceiling. In fact, this seems better than my previous suggestions.

Of course, this wouldn't do anything about 'units getting transferred all over the map.' But inasmuch as units benefit from being close to other units of the same formation and its HQ, this would seem to be a bogey man. Units and formations are going to want to stay where they are. They're only going to get transferred when there's a real need to do it -- again, as in real life.

ORIGINAL: Panama

I don't know about anyone else, but one of the things I feel that needs to be focused on is making the game flexible. That flexibility can be used by scenario designers to make scenarios simple, for newcomers, to complex, for grognards.

When people argue that something will make the game too hard then make that something optional for the scenario designer. Why does everything have to be mandatory? If this game engine is a game design tool then make it that. Sheesh. IMO everything in the game engine should be optional or adjustable by the guy making the scenario. If you are a scenario designer who wants to make a scenario for new players then you can leave out the things that you feel would make a scenario too complex for a beginner. If you want to make a scenario for hardcore wargamers throw in all the bells and whistles available.

The hierachy and reassignment ideas can be optional just as the new supply rules are. Just as the png graphics are. Just as supply levels are. I can go on and on. But just dismissing something out of hand because one person thinks it would make the game 'too hard' is not rational.

Having said that, it all comes down to a progarmming problem for Ralph or whoever else has to muck through the code. I don't know if the code looks like a plate of spaghetti or if it's orderly. If Ralph says something is impossible or far too hard, so be it. I'm just one of the end users.

Hear hear. This game is supposed to be a tool box. The fundamental attraction is that you can shape it to simulate things as you think best.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yes but -- unless I missed something -- you're setting up a straw man. No one proposed that it be totally free.

I'm just saying that no one ever specifies just what the hierarchy is supposed to effect, and just what the limits on reassignment are supposed to be. If it does nothing, and there are no limits, then it's just chrome. I like chrome, mind you, but there's so much we need that isn't chrome.

I'd say it's fairly obvious that there should be a cost. Make it something like embarking, in that a unit can only do it if it hasn't expended movement points, and something like entrenching, in that it consumes the rest of the turn for that unit. Hopefully, of course, the designer could set that cost as a percentage for each force. Like, it'll cost 0% of your move, or 10%, or 50%, or 100%. Alternatively, the cost could be expressed as a decline in readiness and/or supply -- which seems more appropriate, actually. Getting to know the quartermaster at XII corps. Learning never to try sending a request to General Stickinbutt that isn't on the proper form...

It's possible it would all just be too hard...but that's an unknown. There's certainly no reason to dismiss the idea in principle. And it would make our forces look more like forces. After all, right now 'Transcaucasus Front' is just an agglomeration of various support units plus some divisions that moved around a lot. It has no relationship to its subordinate armies at all.

Let's just take reassignment. Can we allow any at all without designer intervention? How does the designer specify just what is possible and what is not? (This has been discussed elsewhere in some detail).

Note that it makes a big difference what the size of the units are as to whether they can be reassigned or not. Armies, Corps, and Divisions tend to get easily reassigned. But inside the division, or lower, it's another story. You don't see regiments reassigned between divisions much and swapping battalions between regiments is rarer still. However, divisions and above often have "attached" units of various sizes that can come and go.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So one could simulate all this by penalizing formation proficiency and/or supply past a (designer set) ceiling. In fact, this seems better than my previous suggestions.

I prefer effects to the Formation parameters better than any other idea I've heard.

So, if the Formation has a command radius (set by the designer - default = unlimited) of, say, 4 hexes, and the units in the formation are spread over 8 hexes, then Formation parameters are scaled by 1/2, or 1/SQRT(2), or such.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So one could simulate all this by penalizing formation proficiency and/or supply past a (designer set) ceiling. In fact, this seems better than my previous suggestions.

I prefer effects to the Formation parameters better than any other idea I've heard.

So, if the Formation has a command radius (set by the designer - default = unlimited) of, say, 4 hexes, and the units in the formation are spread over 8 hexes, then Formation parameters are scaled by 1/2, or 1/SQRT(2), or such.

Sommat like that. Assuming this means you're not opposed to the idea in principle, the next step would be to look at what would be involved from a programming view to implement the change at all. Then we can work out what penalties would be both reasonably accurate and practical to implement.

I'll note that the deleterious effects I've read of relate not so much to distance as to simply having too many units under command. Specifically, Sixth Army began to suffer from a problem with controlling all the corps that were transferred to it -- at least, so Glantz says. Distance should be self-penalizing -- after all, presumably much of the point to being in the same formation is to improve cooperation with adjacent units. Why would someone assign a unit to a given formation if it's actually wandering around with other folks entirely?

There's probably some unspeakably dull manual somewhere that recites the problems that arise and recommends limits.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note that it makes a big difference what the size of the units are as to whether they can be reassigned or not. Armies, Corps, and Divisions tend to get easily reassigned. But inside the division, or lower, it's another story. You don't see regiments reassigned between divisions much and swapping battalions between regiments is rarer still. However, divisions and above often have "attached" units of various sizes that can come and go.

Well, there you are. The truth of this depends on the army you're referring to.

The British can drive you mad. Everything from battalion on up was subject to continual reassignment. Try tracking a few battalions through the war. Some are homebodies -- but some go off to a different formation every few months.

Conversely, the Germans might not have formally reassigned units -- but they were very prone to forming mission oriented task forces made up of this and that. A battalion of 24. Panzer attached to 398.Infanterie and reinforced with the engineer battalion from 305. Infanterie. Wouldn't bother them at all.

I throw my 2 cents in the V4V pile as what should be used as a template for a TOAW supply/subordination model. There need not be any penalty for attachment, if a player chooses to spend three hours attaching and reattaching units, who cares? A division HQ can have 8 battalions subordinated to it, or 6 battalions, whatever the designer desires. A corp HQ can have 3 division HQ's plus 4 battalions of units directly attached, or whatever the designer chooses. The designer can easily choose to avoid the entire situation by attaching no units to any HQ, in which case all units trace supply normally, as TOAW does now. This allows all previous scenarios to remain unchanged and playable. V4V only allows attachment during the morning turn, but TOAW has different scales. So allow attachment only on every 4th turn, or 3rd or 5th, whatever the designer chooses. Individual units attached directly to higher HQ's such as Army or Corp can reattach to any other HQ at any time. The supply system automatically adjusts and will result in very realistic on map situations. You can ship three more divisions to Africa, but no supply will be available for them as all available HQ's are at their maximum attachments already. Move the LIV Corp from Sevastopol to Leningrad and you will need to attach it to 18th Army or it will be drawing supply from 11th Army in the Crimea (we all know the TOAW result of such an extended supply line). Its all very simple and elegant and doesn't require all the brain twisters that are being batted about. Its a matter of convincing Ralph to put in three years of programming and hair pulling. For what its worth, I'll contribute anything to the cause that I am capable of.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Its a matter of convincing Ralph to put in three years of programming and hair pulling.

Afraid it's not that simple, Steve. Matrix is going to want thier coins from his efforts (even if he's not paid that much) so it's all about how much code it takes to get this done.

I DO appreciate the idea of getting this thing under one umbrella (definitions, always definitions!) so that Ralph could put some sort of list together, but off hand, 'heirarchy' is something that's going to wait for ToaW IV, unless I miss my guess!

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Its a matter of convincing Ralph to put in three years of programming and hair pulling.

Afraid it's not that simple, Steve. Matrix is going to want thier coins from his efforts (even if he's not paid that much) so it's all about how much code it takes to get this done.

I DO appreciate the idea of getting this thing under one umbrella (definitions, always definitions!) so that Ralph could put some sort of list together, but off hand, 'heirarchy' is something that's going to wait for ToaW IV, unless I miss my guess!

I for one have no particular problem with paying for a 'TOAW IV.'

I'm just mildly apprehensive as to what I'm going to get.

In general, I'd vote for something that is as open-ended as possible -- that let's designers decide what they want as opposed to having it imposed on them.

...and of course, the ability to port scenarios over. Some revision is okay -- but I wouldn't want to have do maps, OOB's, and deployment from scratch.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Let's just take reassignment. Can we allow any at all without designer intervention? How does the designer specify just what is possible and what is not? (This has been discussed elsewhere in some detail).

Note that if designers find that the mechanism doesn't meet their needs for a particular scenario, they can always disallow it.

I disagree with several things in the game -- so I don't use them. Bocage, for example. AT rifles would be another. Doesn't really matter why -- I'm able to avoid employing them, I wish to avoid employing them, and I do.

So long as the designer has control over whether a mechanism can be employed, it can't really do much harm to add it. Some kind of tertiary or even greater formation structure only has to be good enough to meet somebody's needs -- it doesn't have to meet everybody's. If it produces unreasonable effects in your scenario, don't use it.