The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Of course, if you're concerned about high-proficiency units causing turn burn due to staying in the battle too long, you could do the smart thing and break them down into thirds, to get the 20% drop in proficiency. Use the unit in a minimize loss tolerance attack, so that it doesn't stay in too long. Then recombine it for your own defense, or for consolidating the unit for exploitation RBC's.

I have my doubts about this. First, you end up with a unit that is either half or a third as large as the parent unit. If the base unit for each side is a division, you're now sending brigades or regiments against enemy divisions. These are going to make better progress? Additionally, the manual says that formations with lots of subdivided units are more likely to go into reorg- so you may actually adversely affect the performance of the entire formation(if that's true).

[JAMiAM]

Play more, talk less, try things in ways that you haven't done before, and see for yourself what works.

You can believe me, or not. It's your choice. My play record, tells me what works, and what doesn't.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Play more, talk less, try things in ways that you haven't done before, and see for yourself what works.

I play plenty- but the sort of play I do is different from ladder play. Generally I don't subdivide units because it's typically not a good idea. It's been tried in Fall Grau, the scenario I'm mentally referencing most often in this discussion, and it didn't work so well.

At any rate, even if there are kludges that allow imperfect means of bypassing the effects, it's still a flaw in the game. What general ever reorganized his units to make them less effective?

[JAMiAM]

My apologies for my tone tonight. I should know not to post when I'm tired and in a rotten mood.

As to your final question, what I am suggesting is to reorganize your units (and methods) to make them more effective, not less. You, and others in this thread, are portraying high proficiency units as turn burners. I merely showed you how to avoid that result. If you want to bring up some other possible by-product of the technique, then IMO, you are simply arguing for the sake of argument, since neither of your objections in post #181 are directly relevent to the method I described. To think that I was advocating only attacking with the broken down units is silly. I was referring to only those units which you seem to have a problem employing otherwise. Likewise, to bring up the manual case of formational reorg is beside the point. My example suggests to recombine the forces whenever possible, before your turn end. Formational reorg is checked during the ABP, and in my experience has been more a function of total losses throughout the formation, than the number of sub-divided units in it.

TOAW has room for improvement, to be sure. However, in this particular issue - the use of high proficiency units - the problem lies with players not understanding how to optimize the usage of their forces, and not with the game engine.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Let me try this one more time. It's my turn. At one end of the front, I have my hugely important attack to take whatever. Half my army is going to break through, and then if I get a second round, I can advance to capture the game-winning hex.

At the other end of the front, I have an opportunity to make a low-odds attack that I think will consume many rounds even at 'minimize losses' to take a point of minor value.

What should I do?

Your kidding me right?

From an operational level, planning and execution would focus almost exclusively on the main attack. This is the really world, and how staffs function.

Have you ever served on a high level staff?

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In TOAW, I don't make the low odds attack -- of course not. I'm not stupid. In real life? Those guys can go knock themselves out -- it won't affect the big attack.

Really? So you are trying to say that a "minor" level operation would get the green light when the fate of the war (the example you made) is at stake? Hardly.

I'm actually a little baffled here. Are you making a large attack with your forces ordered to "ignore losses" and you think that the logistical, planning and execution of such an attack would not effect operations in other sectors or even theaters?

What may I ask do you base your "real life" judgements on?

Ray (alias Lava)

This isn't worth responding to.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Oh don't even get me started on proficiency values given by various scenario designers!!! [:@]

Couple pages ago in this thread Golden Delicious (is his real name Ben Turner?) rhetorically aksed why I stopped playing TOAW - then continued to make a point that most players stopped playing the game because of various "flaws" in the system, and if those flaws would be corrected, those disappointed players will be returning to the game.

Some wishful thinking Im afraid...

Anyway, perhaps the biggest reason why I stopped playing the game, were not "flaws" in the engine. I can't remember a single flaw or bug that really put me off TOAW. Some PBEM security related issues got on my nerves but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

I stopped playing because in growing number of scenarios there were less and less good, realistic and playable ones. Scenarios like McBride's Tobruk and El Alamein (and Wintergewitter, which was mysteriously pulled down from the web) raised the bar considerably. Laugahble scenarios, based around ridicolously faulty OOBs, bad maps, bad scales, etc etc. flooded the scenario depots, and after I played every of 20 or so really excellent ones, I simply pulled the plug on the game. Perhaps I managed to miss couple great scenarios, but having to sift thru tons of garbage to find good scenario, simply got too time consuming.

No deadly flaws for me sorry to disappoint you... [;)]

From TOAW ME I want more good scenarios, firmly anchored within confines of *operational art* if possible. Hire McBride, make him do dozen or so scenarios, include the latest patch, tutorials for new players, cuple smaller improvements (realistically achievable in relatively short development time), better PBEM security if possible, and you have a winner...

O.

Your criterion of what is 'good' speaks for itself.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Try some of the TDG scenarios. The current featured scenario, Campaign for South Vietnam, is particularly good. Jarek's Lodz is good too. Jarek has some other stuff in the pipeline, and he pretty much exclusively designs small scenarios on more "obscure" subjects. I find them a refreshing alternative to Daniel McBride's scenarios, which I do not enjoy. I do wish we had a few more scenarios up- but to a large extent, doing that while still retaining quality would be at cross purposes.

Must... keep.... mouth... shut... [:D]

Anyway why don't you like McBride's scenarios?

I think I loved one scenario from you, or was it Colin? Small, short and fun, obscure topic - Ecuador vs. Peru. It's either Colin's scenario which I played vs you, or your scenario and I played it vs Colin.

O.

It couldn't be either one. I've never played you, and I've never designed such a scenario. That rules out both possibilities. At least it does for me. I wouldn't be excessively surprised if you continue to insist one of the two must have been the case.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My apologies for my tone tonight. I should know not to post when I'm tired and in a rotten mood.

As to your final question, what I am suggesting is to reorganize your units (and methods) to make them more effective, not less. You, and others in this thread, are portraying high proficiency units as turn burners. I merely showed you how to avoid that result. If you want to bring up some other possible by-product of the technique, then IMO, you are simply arguing for the sake of argument, since neither of your objections in post #181 are directly relevent to the method I described. To think that I was advocating only attacking with the broken down units is silly. I was referring to only those units which you seem to have a problem employing otherwise. Likewise, to bring up the manual case of formational reorg is beside the point. My example suggests to recombine the forces whenever possible, before your turn end. Formational reorg is checked during the ABP, and in my experience has been more a function of total losses throughout the formation, than the number of sub-divided units in it.

TOAW has room for improvement, to be sure. However, in this particular issue - the use of high proficiency units - the problem lies with players not understanding how to optimize the usage of their forces, and not with the game engine.

Still. One wants SS Leibstandarte to be better man for man that Infantrie 326, right?

Now, if the 326th has 75% proficiency and SSLAH has 90% proficiency, you'll find that you're begging for early turn ending if you use SSLAH in any attacks that aren't gimmes. So you break it down. Now it's only 72% proficiency; in other words worse than the 326th.

The solution is just to scale down all the proficiencies. Go into the editor and drop all unit proficiencies for both forces by 10%. Now SSLAH is 80% and the 326th is 65%. No problem.

The proficiency thing is a red herring. It only came up because Oleg tried to argue that this wasn't the reason early turn ending was a problem in DitN.

[ColinWright]

Can't delete this, apparently, and it contains additions.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My apologies for my tone tonight. I should know not to post when I'm tired and in a rotten mood.

As to your final question, what I am suggesting is to reorganize your units (and methods) to make them more effective, not less. You, and others in this thread, are portraying high proficiency units as turn burners. I merely showed you how to avoid that result. If you want to bring up some other possible by-product of the technique, then IMO, you are simply arguing for the sake of argument, since neither of your objections in post #181 are directly relevent to the method I described. To think that I was advocating only attacking with the broken down units is silly. I was referring to only those units which you seem to have a problem employing otherwise. Likewise, to bring up the manual case of formational reorg is beside the point. My example suggests to recombine the forces whenever possible, before your turn end. Formational reorg is checked during the ABP, and in my experience has been more a function of total losses throughout the formation, than the number of sub-divided units in it.

TOAW has room for improvement, to be sure. However, in this particular issue - the use of high proficiency units - the problem lies with players not understanding how to optimize the usage of their forces, and not with the game engine.

Still. One wants SS Leibstandarte to be better man for man that Infantrie 326, right?

Now, if the 326th has 75% proficiency and SSLAH has 90% proficiency, you'll find that you're begging for early turn ending if you use SSLAH in any attacks that aren't gimmes. So you break it down. Now it's only 72% proficiency; in other words worse than the 326th.

The solution is just to scale down all the proficiencies. Go into the editor and drop all unit proficiencies for both forces by 10%. Now SSLAH is 80% and the 326th is 65%. No problem. I think people get hung up on those 'suggested' values Norm gave. 'If the average German division is supposed to be 75% percent proficiency, then I want the panzers to be 85% -- and so SSLAH has to be 95%.' Just drop everybody until the top unit is 80-85%. If your beloved German infantry are now an unimpressive 65%, learn to live with it. Take consolation in what you lowered their opponents to.

Anyway, the proficiency thing is a red herring. It only came up because Oleg tried to argue that this wasn't the reason early turn ending was a problem in DitN.

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: JMS2

Simplicity is not going to wash with the core gamers that are likely to be the bulk of TOAW buyers, so in the end, yes, profits are a problem for Matrix, because if the product is not up to scratch, nobody's going to fall for it.

Hi!

No, I think you guys are all missing my point.

I am not arguing for simplicity, what I am basically trying to say is to try to broaden the appeal of the game by including more scenarios and using some imagination.

But my basic complaint is, when you look at the TOAW section of the forums and you see the biggest thread on it having a conversation about how the game is "broken", it doesn't lend itself too favorably to people who have never played the game.

So, unlike you, I do believe that it not only depends on the product, but what the players have to say about it. And if the impression you are giving people is that it is broken, then you are doing Matrix and TOAW a disservice.

Just take a look at some of the subject lines in this section of the forum... you'd think the game was a complete disaster needing a total overhaul.

[:-]

Ray (alias Lava)

But Ray you are looking at just one forum, and one only recently dedicated to TOAW at that, opened because Matrix is going to update TOAW. What did you expect? a forum with only the good parts? a forum on how to design scenarios or how to play the game? those already exists, check http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... y.php?f=10 or http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl where for years TOAW has been discussed, many times quite vehemently.

On Matrix I expect subjects relating to improvements to TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
As for including Finnish front in Northern Barbarossa - that may work. But obviously, you need to do something to balance things somewhat. Say, McBride in his DNO used Regiments as basic German unit, and "amalgamated" Finns into divisions. Thus you get balanced units.

.... no. Daniel has regiments of Finns also. This scenario suffers a lot from the problem we're discussing, actually.

Anyway, if you like Daniel's design so much, how do you feel about his infantry battalions in West Africa in his Great War Scenario? Should he make them divisions? Would that be better design.

I don't think so.

and divided up his beloved Finns into smallest possible units ever, so the northern part of the map is full of "1-1" "ants" milling around Arctic doing funny things.

In the arctic, a ski battalion is a significant unit.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

it was stopped because of game mechanics. As it should be.

One could use this argument to justify a lot of things. Remember how with Volume I the AT algorithyms made it possible for Jeeps to knock out Tiger IIs? Well, the Tiger II wasn't knocked out by the Jeep. It was knocked out because of game mechanics, "As it should be".

A major change made to the original design, btw, because the players wanted it. Obviously, Norm's vision can be improved upon.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

From an operational level, planning and execution would focus almost exclusively on the main attack. This is the really world, and how staffs function.

The other attack would still go ahead. Are you saying that it wouldn't?

Have you ever served on a high level staff?

Are you going to tell me that you have? If we're going to talk about staff planning, that big offensive needed to be planned out in some detail a couple of weeks in advance. Of course in TOAW you can just muddle through.

Really? So you are trying to say that a "minor" level operation would get the green light when the fate of the war (the example you made) is at stake? Hardly.

Mm. Actually, it's common practice to keep up low level operations on secondary parts of the front to keep the enemy guessing as to your intentions. So your argument is nonsense.

Three real world examples;
a) Patton kept on fighting throughout 'Market Garden'. This wouldn't happen in TOAW.
b) In 1942-3 The Russians kept hammering away at the German line opposite Moscow even after they had switched their emphasis to the South. This wouldn't happen in TOAW.
c) In Poland, the Germans started up probing attacks against Warszawa whilst they were still exploiting their breakthroughs to the east and south. This wouldn't happen in TOAW.

There are dozens more. You're really seriously wrong.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Let me try this one more time. It's my turn. At one end of the front, I have my hugely important attack to take whatever. Half my army is going to break through, and then if I get a second round, I can advance to capture the game-winning hex.

At the other end of the front, I have an opportunity to make a low-odds attack that I think will consume many rounds even at 'minimize losses' to take a point of minor value.

What should I do?

Your kidding me right?

From an operational level, planning and execution would focus almost exclusively on the main attack. This is the really world, and how staffs function.

Have you ever served on a high level staff?

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In TOAW, I don't make the low odds attack -- of course not. I'm not stupid. In real life? Those guys can go knock themselves out -- it won't affect the big attack.

Really? So you are trying to say that a "minor" level operation would get the green light when the fate of the war (the example you made) is at stake? Hardly.

I'm actually a little baffled here. Are you making a large attack with your forces ordered to "ignore losses" and you think that the logistical, planning and execution of such an attack would not effect operations in other sectors or even theaters?

What may I ask do you base your "real life" judgements on?

Ray (alias Lava)

This isn't worth responding to.

The TOAW "God" has spoken.

[&o]

Wow man, you really do have an attitude. Just what TOAW needs, and just what I have been saying over and over again.

You guys walze in here, thinking now were going to have the game made the way "WE" want it, and if "we" don't get what "we" want, "we" will tell the world how crap the game is.

I don't call that being a "grog", I call that being destructive. And that kind of destructive, almost suicidal, attitude has become synonomous with "grogs" and wargames.

Good wargames are few and far apart, and thanks to "destructive grogs" they are becoming an endangered species.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It couldn't be either one. I've never played you, and I've never designed such a scenario. That rules out both possibilities. At least it does for me. I wouldn't be excessively surprised if you continue to insist one of the two must have been the case.

What is wrong with you? Take a chill pill dude...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Some PBEM security related issues got on my nerves but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

You should start a thread. Actually, these issues only matter if you don't trust your opponent.

Scenarios like McBride's Tobruk and El Alamein (and Wintergewitter, which was mysteriously pulled down from the web) raised the bar considerably.

Interestingly, McBride's scenarios are some of the ones which suffer most from early turn ending, which you attribute to bad design, because they are so large.

From TOAW ME I want more good scenarios,

Then let Matrix make a better TOAW.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Of course, if you're concerned about high-proficiency units causing turn burn due to staying in the battle too long, you could do the smart thing and break them down into thirds, to get the 20% drop in proficiency. Use the unit in a minimize loss tolerance attack, so that it doesn't stay in too long. Then recombine it for your own defense, or for consolidating the unit for exploitation RBC's.

Right. But we're not talking about how to play well here, are we?

Let's look at this. Your 100% proficiency unit is going to be some monster SS division or something- and you're going to split it up into three bits to use seperately?

This isn't realistic- not in the least. The fact that it's good play is neither here nor there. I'm not interested in discussing how to win at TOAW. I'm interested in discussing how to make a good simulation.

(through ignorance, or some mistaken ideal of what constitutes "realism" in an operational simulation)

This bothers me. You're at the top of the WHQ ladder- so obviously the game must be a realistic simulation. Actually, I disagree. You'd probably be a top-rated player regardless of what the game mechanics are- but the fact that you've figured out how to work the game does not mean the simulation is perfect.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Some PBEM security related issues got on my nerves but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

You should start a thread. Actually, these issues only matter if you don't trust your opponent.

Yeah, like guys in this thread? [:D] I see this thread is bursting at the seams from all this mutual trust and goodwill [8|]

Interestingly, McBride's scenarios are some of the ones which suffer most from early turn ending, which you attribute to bad design, because they are so large.

They work fine for me.

Wait... can it be because THE WHOLE GAME WORKS FINE FOR ME??? LOL [:D]

Oleg

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I have my doubts about this. First, you end up with a unit that is either half or a third as large as the parent unit. If the base unit for each side is a division, you're now sending brigades or regiments against enemy divisions. These are going to make better progress? Additionally, the manual says that formations with lots of subdivided units are more likely to go into reorg- so you may actually adversely affect the performance of the entire formation(if that's true).

Mm. When JAMiAM says something will work in the game, I believe him. He's thought a lot about this. However, the point here is to figure out how to change the system so he'll have to relearn it [:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava
You guys walze in here, thinking now were going to have the game made the way "WE" want it, and if "we" don't get what "we" want, "we" will tell the world how crap the game is.

Well, we already have TOAW. We're guaranteed a release of TOAW volume 1.07. You seem to be content to accept what we've already been promised. That's not good enough. I want MORE. You're the one who's being destructive- destructive of the possibility of improving TOAW.

Good wargames are few and far apart,

Right. We've got one in TOAW. You're telling us that a) it is not to be improved b) it's actually to be made less of a wargame so that more people will want to play it.

Can't you go onto the Battlegrounds forum or something and ruin their game? I quite like this one.