Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

The author is Trey Marshall - hardly the stray designer.

Anyway, we saw the example of CM2. When people didn't like continuous time they reintroduced the option to play WE-GO. I never saw a reason for TOAW to have the option of playing using normal turns - the way GG's WitE and WitW are played. The engine works up to a certain point, but simple workarounds would make bigger and more complex scenarios manageable.

But, no. As I said, the turn-burn feature apparently is holy - it doesn't matter that since TOAW's inception it has been a constant struggle to tweak it.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Anyway, we saw the example of CM2. When people didn't like continuous time they reintroduced the option to play WE-GO. I never saw a reason for TOAW to have the option of playing using normal turns - the way GG's WitE and WitW are played. The engine works up to a certain point, but simple workarounds would make bigger and more complex scenarios manageable.

But, no. As I said, the turn-burn feature apparently is holy - it doesn't matter that since TOAW's inception it has been a constant struggle to tweak it.

Using movement as combat in a turn based IGOUGO operational level game is anything but normal. That's because merrily moving units through a space where a combat is taking place as though it was a stroll in the park is viewed by most designers as large departure from reality. Each piece moved is a adventure in time travel and any combat that happened before that piece was moved didn't happen because it has minimal effect on any subsequent pieces moved. I understand they are trying to replicate some of the sweeping movements that took place on that front. But what you end up with is some things that simply could not happen in a historical or real world context. While that's true of most if not all turn based games movement as combat is one of the most egregious design decisions. It does have it's place for instance in tactical level games like Steel Panthers.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

But, no. As I said, the turn-burn feature apparently is holy...

Not only not holy, but fixed by the Battlefield Timestamp feature.

There are a lot of board war games that use movement as combat so your opinion on this is just another opinion that is biased against this mechanism, there is nothing wrong with movement as combat and as a prime example of how successful and realistic all you have to do is play WITE 2, hands down the best and most detailed Eastern Front war game ever produced.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Using movement as combat in a turn based IGOUGO operational level game is anything but normal. That's because merrily moving units through a space where a combat is taking place as though it was a stroll in the park is viewed by most designers as large departure from reality. Each piece moved is a adventure in time travel and any combat that happened before that piece was moved didn't happen because it has minimal effect on any subsequent pieces moved. I understand they are trying to replicate some of the sweeping movements that took place on that front. But what you end up with is some things that simply could not happen in a historical or real world context. While that's true of most if not all turn based games movement as combat is one of the most egregious design decisions. It does have it's place for instance in tactical level games like Steel Panthers.

Astute observation I have barely ever considered. Some some food for thought at least. Would movement penalty through such "battlefield hex" be acceptable?

What comes to TOAW and "time/turn burn" feature, how about this for the solution: instead spending large % of the turn to conclude every planned combat in progress, how about only smaller % of it? Say, there is a big, lengthy battle and a smaller short duration battle. Player clicks on the button (forgot the name of it) to start both of them. Smaller battle concludes, but bigger battle is flagged as on going and player can't do a thing about it, except maybe commit more force to it (perhaps an armour division that drove over a battalion along the way in the smaller battle). Could this work? Or is it already in TOAW4? (I've got TOAW3)

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

What comes to TOAW and "time/turn burn" feature, how about this for the solution: instead spending large % of the turn to conclude every planned combat in progress, how about only smaller % of it? Say, there is a big, lengthy battle and a smaller short duration battle. Player clicks on the button (forgot the name of it) to start both of them. Smaller battle concludes, but bigger battle is flagged as on going and player can't do a thing about it, except maybe commit more force to it (perhaps an armour division that drove over a battalion along the way in the smaller battle). Could this work? Or is it already in TOAW4? (I've got TOAW3)

That would be a nice addition.

Here is an example of extreme detail in a digital wargame. Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943 by Graviteam in todays (3 December) patch.
2) Added simulation of the defeat of internal organs when shrapnel and bullets hit the soldier.

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

What comes to TOAW and "time/turn burn" feature, how about this for the solution: instead spending large % of the turn to conclude every planned combat in progress, how about only smaller % of it? Say, there is a big, lengthy battle and a smaller short duration battle. Player clicks on the button (forgot the name of it) to start both of them. Smaller battle concludes, but bigger battle is flagged as on going and player can't do a thing about it, except maybe commit more force to it (perhaps an armour division that drove over a battalion along the way in the smaller battle). Could this work? Or is it already in TOAW4? (I've got TOAW3)

TOAW IV feature: Battlefield Timestamps:

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

Provided only a minority of battles are long-lasting, the turn continues undelayed and the long-lasting battles are tagged with a "Battlefield Timestamp".

I think a lot of folks need to give this a try in TOAW IV, it really does address the vast majority of the downsides for that feature, while keeping the best parts of it.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

There are a lot of board war games that use movement as combat so your opinion on this is just another opinion that is biased against this mechanism, there is nothing wrong with movement as combat and as a prime example of how successful and realistic all you have to do is play WITE 2, hands down the best and most detailed Eastern Front war game ever produced.

There are a lot of board war games that don't use movement as combat so your opinion on this is just another opinion that is biased against TOAW mechanism, there is lots wrong with movement as combat and as a prime example of how unsuccessful and unrealistic all you have to do is play WITE 2, hands down the worst and most least detailed Eastern Front war game ever produced.

See how that works. [:D]

I care about how time and space works in a wargame. If you don't then play those with combat as movement.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

But, no. As I said, the turn-burn feature apparently is holy...

Not only not holy, but fixed by the Battlefield Timestamp feature.

See? As I pointed out, religious beliefs are involved.

BTW, I'm about to play your "Cobra" scenario [:)] CfnA gave me months of fun back in the day.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Anyway, we saw the example of CM2. When people didn't like continuous time they reintroduced the option to play WE-GO. I never saw a reason for TOAW to have the option of playing using normal turns - the way GG's WitE and WitW are played. The engine works up to a certain point, but simple workarounds would make bigger and more complex scenarios manageable.

But, no. As I said, the turn-burn feature apparently is holy - it doesn't matter that since TOAW's inception it has been a constant struggle to tweak it.

Using movement as combat in a turn based IGOUGO operational level game is anything but normal. That's because merrily moving units through a space where a combat is taking place as though it was a stroll in the park is viewed by most designers as large departure from reality. Each piece moved is a adventure in time travel and any combat that happened before that piece was moved didn't happen because it has minimal effect on any subsequent pieces moved. I understand they are trying to replicate some of the sweeping movements that took place on that front. But what you end up with is some things that simply could not happen in a historical or real world context. While that's true of most if not all turn based games movement as combat is one of the most egregious design decisions. It does have it's place for instance in tactical level games like Steel Panthers.

Fine. Now go to the WitE 2 forum and post this [:D] I'll be there.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

BTW, I'm about to play your "Cobra" scenario [:)] CfnA gave me months of fun back in the day.

While this AAR is for the D-Day version, I still recommend it. First link is a detailed playing of the first turn (sort of a tutorial on round management for TOAW):

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1546619

Second is the continuation to the end:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1726673

No movement as combat with hexes tens of miles across and how can units in one hex shoot at a unit in another hex reliably? If they move into the enemy hex, is the enemy already in that hex just going to wait for them to finish moving it or might they attack the enemy when they are moving in?

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen
Battle Isle 2 was first. Why did you skip Battle Isle 2? I dare to argue that Battle Isle 2 was the revolution, and if I want to be mean (maybe I do), I could claim that Panzer General is Battle Isle 2 with Second World War skin. Just look at it and try to argue it's not the case.

I forgot about Battle Isle. I played a MSDOS Demo of BI2 a long time ago, but never bought the full game.

Battle Isle itself seems to be a spiritual sequel to the Japanese game Nectaris:

http://nectaris.tg-16.com/

While PANZER GENERAL is inspired by the Japanese game series Daisenryaku (which the PG staff admitted to playing).

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No movement as combat with hexes tens of miles across and how can units in one hex shoot at a unit in another hex reliably? If they move into the enemy hex, is the enemy already in that hex just going to wait for them to finish moving it or might they attack the enemy when they are moving in?

If an hex is tens miles across then we are talking about events covering at least a week ("Europa" had 16 miles/hex, two-weeks turns).

And I see nothing strange to be in a position and see the enemy approach. When Barbarossa or Fall Gelb were launched, the German divisions didn't stop at the first sight off the enemy only to wait for "the next turn" before attacking.

I don't understand all the hate "movement as combat" gets. Rommel reached the Meuse at Dinant and attacked - starting his own personal conquest of France well in advance of the German timetable. The same he did as soon as the first truck of the D.A.K. disembarked in North Africa.

True, games that have a "travel" and "combat" mode are more realistic, but once you enter combat you attack. Even continuous time wargames, like "Command Ops 2", follow this basic rule.

ORIGINAL: Rosseau

Good video, thanks.

I have also gotten funny looks when I tell people about all the ACW battlefields I've visited. Some may think it's kind of creepy, but I say, "If it was you who fought and died there, wouldn't you want someone to have remembered?"

I also suspect visiting the WW2 sites in Europe would seem much less odd. And I admit, wargaming fueled my interest in the ACW sites. I didn't go there just to honor the dead, but also to see where they fought.

Josephine Baker as they call in France as a nationalist to resistance. Emmanuel Macron honored her recently in Paris. I hope more than political show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xP_T_dvncQ

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If I try to explain what type of games I actually play eyes will tend to glaze over and I'll get odd looks. So I'm not sure the more general acceptance of gaming as a hobby extends to traditional wargames.

Just show them this video. Besides I've seen many youngsters play Warhammer miniature games on the tables and read stories about them getting excited about BattleTech even.

ORIGINAL: kam99

I bought Shadow Empire when it first came out but I just couldn't get to grips with it.

I realise I am probably missing out and wish there was an easy route for a novice to get into it.

At least YouTube has a bunch of videos that go to details about the game, starting here.

Many thanks, much appreciated. I will watch those videos.

From my observation, with all the advances, something critical is always missing because of limited development time/programmer abilities. Very frustrating.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No movement as combat with hexes tens of miles across and how can units in one hex shoot at a unit in another hex reliably? If they move into the enemy hex, is the enemy already in that hex just going to wait for them to finish moving it or might they attack the enemy when they are moving in?

If an hex is tens miles across then we are talking about events covering at least a week ("Europa" had 16 miles/hex, two-weeks turns).

And I see nothing strange to be in a position and see the enemy approach. When Barbarossa or Fall Gelb were launched, the German divisions didn't stop at the first sight off the enemy only to wait for "the next turn" before attacking.

I don't understand all the hate "movement as combat" gets. Rommel reached the Meuse at Dinant and attacked - starting his own personal conquest of France well in advance of the German timetable. The same he did as soon as the first truck of the D.A.K. disembarked in North Africa.

True, games that have a "travel" and "combat" mode are more realistic, but once you enter combat you attack. Even continuous time wargames, like "Command Ops 2", follow this basic rule.

No real time movement game allows a piece to move through another piece as if it were not there.

Movement as combat:
Two units are the same number of movement points from an enemy unit and the location it occupies. Unit 1 moves and attacks the unit removing it from the map. Unit 2 moves through the location the enemy unit used to be expending the same number of movement points as Unit 1 to get there moving through the location the enemy unit used to be in. You don't see a problem with that? Not even Rommel could move one of his units through a location occupied by the Allies as if they weren't even there. [;)]

There's a lot about the GG War in the Whatever games I really like. And I would play them endlessly except for the combat as movement decision. That break from the real world is too much for me. You like it. Good for you. It gives Matrix/Slitherine more money for other games. I'm all for that. [8D]

Oh, and going into the fanboi den to point out the discrepencies in time and space is really great advice. [:D]

It doesn't matter what method you use. It doesn't matter, there's nothing to counter the discrepencies introduced with turn based games. The Command Ops system comes about as close as I know to a war game being a model of the real world when large numbers of troops are involved. That system could even be used for a larger scale game using operational level units.