What is DF???

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Heh heh. It's been mentioned. Prepare to get crucified. [:D]

Seriously though, even at a multi-kilometer hex size, you can get infantry units with longrange equipment capable of multi-hex indirect fire; and yet, because of the fact that only artillery and HQ can conduct such missions, those units aren't able to use their weapons! If that were fixed, not only would it improve operational scenarios, but it would make tactical scenarios as simple as editing the calendar code.

Oh I was serious. Poor White Rabbit has been harping on this for years and being ripped down about it for years. [:D]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Thanks! I get really annoyed when people suggest I try playing around with the scenario/equipment editors; I have been, and its irksome to do so. Frankly, although I love TOAW, I think the code is mangled and over-complex, the designers clearly aren't exactly sure how it works, and everyone is afraid to poke too deeply in case it collapses; as an example, consider the whole attrition multiplier/divider setting thing... did you know it affects artillery differently than normal units? Who would have known! It's not in the manual! Nobody knows why! But it does, so if you think TOAW is giving you too few casualties, and you adjust the slider scale, then all the sudden you have to go in and edit all the artillery in the equipment database... and before long, you come here wondering what the hell all these values are. At that point, you meet Jamiam who tells you that its all very complicated, and assures you that you can't possible be smart enough to comprehend what he does for a living. Granted, he can be helpful, but I get the impression that he deliberately limits his help, much like a math teacher who won't just give you the answer.

LoL...am I really that bad?

Anyhow, you are incorrect on your attrition divider claim. The attrition divider acts the same over all combats, but - and this is the point that you may have misinterpreted - changing it from the default will generally have a proportionately larger affect on soft targets, than it will in anti-armor combat. This is a simple consequence of the fact that there are more losses taken by soft targets during both bombardment and direct AP than are suffered by armored targets, leading to a greater likelihood of deployment-based disentrenchment results earlier in the turn, and the cascading effects that subsequent attacks being progressively more deadly will produce.

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Would you guys consider revealing exact formulae? There are a lot of intelligent scenario designers who want to help this program succeed, but sometimes we feel like the programmers are deliberately avoiding specific details which would help us to help you! I know there are complicated technical details involved, but some of us have studied complicated technical subjects. [;)]

While I sympathize with your request, there is an issue of IP rights, which are still held by Take Two. They would be violated if exact formulae were revealed. I don't need to go into depth on the full story behind the acquisition of the publishing rights of TOAW by Matrix, but where earlier versions of TOAW and TOAW III share common code base, we are not at liberty to reveal any IP. We own the changes, but the base remains under Take Two's control. Most of the actual combat-related formulae and algorithms for TOAW III are unchanged from CoW, so we can't reveal anything that wasn't already in the public domain, whether in the manual or printed by authorized sources and past holders of the IP rights.

This is the main reason for me being big on giving out as much conceptual information as I can, even though it often seems evasive by those seeking specifics. I trust you'll understand.

[vahauser]

AdamRinkleff,
 
I, personally, don't think TOAW is well suited for either very small scales (under 5km hexes) or very large scales (larger than 25km hexes).
 
Steel Panthers is at the 5-minutes per turn scale and it is a lot of fun.  It might be my favorite game of all time.  But it is designed to be tactical and not operational. 
 
Somebody posted that TOAW prefers regiments as the basic unit (with battalions and divisions being acceptable).  This makes a lot of sense since the game was designed to be operational in scope and scale.
 
5-minutes per turn and individual squads and teams is exactly what Steel Panthers does well.  But not TOAW.
 
Anyway, I think that if you want to tinker with the BioEd, then you can experiment with all sorts of unit variations.  For instance, if you want to make machineguns be active defenders and give them a larger DF value, then you can create a BioEd equipment slot called "HMG (active)", or something like that.  Of course, that might play havoc with the way the game engine treats force densities in the hex, but it might work for a specific scenario you are designing.
 
The WW2 database I'm working on is more concerned with "getting the numbers right".  I'm more interested in making sure that the aircraft ranges are accurate and consistent, that tank Armor ratings are accurate and consistent, etc.  As far as values and ratings I don't understand (like tank DF ratings), I tend to leave them alone.  And since I don't fully understand the way the game engine handles passive and active defenders in a hex, then I tend to not mess with the DF values assigned to passive defenders either.
 
However, I will say this.  In the wargame companies I've worked for, developing ratings and rules, I've usually had to warn my employers about the dangers of "compression" of ratings at the low end.  TOAW also suffers from this.  "Compression" is where the difference between a 1 and a 2 is big.  If you have a rating scale that goes from 1-100 (for instance), then the difference between a 1 and a 2 is not big.  But if your rating scale only goes from 1-10 (for instance), then the difference between a 1 and a 2 is big.  TOAW has many ratings like that (compression at the low end).  I've been working on Armor ratings for AFVs lately and a whole bunch of WW2 AFVs have Armor ratings that cluster in the 1-3 range (in TOAW terms).  This creates problems when trying to assign an Armor rating to a "borderline" AFV, that could be either a 1 or a 2 (for instance).  If the ratings scale were more granular, then this would not be such a big deal.  But "getting the numbers wrong" in the case I just described could mean future problems with scenario play balance.  Compression at the low end is problematic.  [If I could get away with it, and not create huge game-engine problems, I would double or triple the range of Armor ratings (from 1-20, which is the current range of WW2 AFVs, to 1-50 or so), but I don't think I can do with the Armor ratings what I did with the air ratings.  Oh well.]
 
In any event, I'm more interested in the active defenders.  Seems like the passive defenders are treated like targets if the active defenders aren't able to protect them.  Conceptually I can see why TOAW did what it did.  I probably would have done things differently if I'd been working with Norm. [As an aside, I live in Austin and I think Norm used to live here in Austin as well (as I recall, he didn't live too far away from me).  Back when Norm was first developing TOAW in the 1990s, I thought about contacting him, but other projects diverted me. . .]  So, my main interest in working with the BioEd on my WW2 database is with the active defenders.
 
But if you decide to mess around with changing passive and active defenders around, I'd like to see the results of your work.

[ColinWright]

Oh I was serious. Poor White Rabbit has been harping on this for years and being ripped down about it for years. [:D]

Getting 'ripped down' is good for White Rabbits. It's sort of like roughage in their diet.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

...As far as values and ratings I don't understand (like tank DF ratings), I tend to leave them alone. And since I don't fully understand the way the game engine handles passive and active defenders in a hex, then I tend to not mess with the DF values assigned to passive defenders either...

That's a good idea. TOAW works in strange and mysterious ways, and any time you play with some value, it's a good idea to test the actual effects.

For example, in an effort to get a more reasonable simulation of the attenuation of air superiority as range increases, I experimented with units composed of mixed 'long-range' and 'short-range' Bf-109's. The results got very weird. It didn't work. Why, I dunno -- but the moral is test if you have any doubts at all about the potential effects. I've had several things like that. It's all sort of like propitiating the volcano god. Don't just assume you can chuck in a random virgin once a year and everything will be fine.

[Adam Rinkleff]

But if you decide to mess around with changing passive and active defenders around, I'd like to see the results of your work.

Well, one thing I've decided should be done, and you'll see it in the handful of scenarios I've made, is that all immobile heavy equipment should be an "active defender" -- I got really sick of seeing heavy artillery units auto-retreating endlessly before mechanized and cavalry units. Via this change, if the artillery gets exposed, it can be more easily destroyed and won't auto-retreat like passive-defenders normally do. It would be nice, however, if units could have separate AP values for ranged and 'direct' combat. Of course, with a DF of 1, the artillery is fairly weak at defense, which is probably why most passive defender guns have that value. Frankly, I wish there were a way to turn "retreat before combat" off entirely.

As for whether TOAW models well at the tactical level, I don't think anyone is asking for big changes to accomodate this; simply allow people to change the calendar to a smaller level, allow them to select a hex size of 1km or 0.5km (even if its just the old 2.5km hex with a different name), and allow all units (not just artillery/hq) to make long-range attacks with ranged equipment. That's all we are asking for!

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

equipment types are classed as "passive defenders"

This is a whole different issue, but I hate how every "active defender" takes up a "concentration slot" -- like, maybe I want a unit to be an active defender and actively take fire, but maybe its a small unit and I don't think it should make the hex crowded... the point is, can we please have a way to edit how many active defenders can fit into a hex?

That would be useful for several things.

Oh, and could we please have the ability to reduce the time of a turn, like to 5 minutes; and then, um, could we have something where all units, even infantry, are capable of long-range fire... cuz then we could do tactical scenarios.

You can already do tactical scenarios. You just need to buy a tactical game first.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: vahauser
However, I will say this.  In the wargame companies I've worked for, developing ratings and rules, I've usually had to warn my employers about the dangers of "compression" of ratings at the low end.  TOAW also suffers from this.  "Compression" is where the difference between a 1 and a 2 is big.

Fortunately, AP strength in TOAW is measured in 1/8ths (which you can see in the BioEd).

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

As for whether TOAW models well at the tactical level, I don't think anyone is asking for big changes to accomodate this; simply allow people to change the calendar to a smaller level, allow them to select a hex size of 1km or 0.5km (even if its just the old 2.5km hex with a different name), and allow all units (not just artillery/hq) to make long-range attacks with ranged equipment. That's all we are asking for!

Such changes won't make a tactical model work, however. You'd need a line-of-sight model for a start.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: vahauser
However, I will say this.  In the wargame companies I've worked for, developing ratings and rules, I've usually had to warn my employers about the dangers of "compression" of ratings at the low end.  TOAW also suffers from this.  "Compression" is where the difference between a 1 and a 2 is big.

Fortunately, AP strength in TOAW is measured in 1/8ths (which you can see in the BioEd).

And, in addition, the displayed combat values are only for human consumption. It's the unscaled equipment values that are used for combat resolution - and they tend to combine into gigantic values for most units.

[Adam Rinkleff]

Such changes won't make a tactical model work, however. You'd need a line-of-sight model for a start.

It'd work alright for .25km-1km scenarios. I'm not talking about making a first-person-shooter. If someone wanted, I'm sure they could create a percentage chance for a unit to be visible to the enemy, based on terrain; so units in hills would tend to be out of LOS, whereas units in the open would be visible; that would loosely and easily replicate LOS. Some people seem to enjoy wasting their time, coming up with endless excuses for why things won't work, rather than coming up with solutions.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
Some people seem to enjoy wasting their time, coming up with endless excuses for why things won't work, rather than coming up with solutions.

Or, fitting square pegs into round holes, for that matter. There are three basic solutions to that situation though. Drill out the hole so that the square peg fits. Lathe the square peg so that it is round. Re-engineer your design to use only square pegs for square holes, and only round pegs for round holes. In all cases, some work is involved. The first two, you lose some material. In the last case, you often have to go back to the drawing board, and you often find it best to choose one (sq/sq,rd/rd) or the other - but not both - for your project...[;)]

[Adam Rinkleff]

How hard could it be to edit the calendar function, so that people can select a one-hour turn, instead of a six-hour turn? It seems as simple as dividing movement points by six, combat losses by six, supply consumption by six, and editing the calendar so that it goes from 12:00 to 1:00 instead of 12:00 to 18:00. As for creating 1km hexes, instead of 2.5km hexes, pretty much all you would have to do is multiply movement points by 2.5, and divide the allowed number of active defenders by 2.5.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

How hard could it be to edit the calendar function, so that people can select a one-hour turn, instead of a six-hour turn? It seems as simple as dividing movement points by six, combat losses by six, supply consumption by six, and editing the calendar so that it goes from 12:00 to 1:00 instead of 12:00 to 18:00. As for creating 1km hexes, instead of 2.5km hexes, pretty much all you would have to do is multiply movement points by 2.5, and divide the allowed number of active defenders by 2.5.

You'll probably get this. I think OPART won't work particularly well at that scale, but several others want it, and I can't see why it should matter to the rest of us.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You'll probably get this. I think OPART won't work particularly well at that scale, but several others want it, and I can't see why it should matter to the rest of us.

Colin,

It will matter to the rest of us because valuable time will have been spent by the programmer/developer satisfying the needs of the few to accomplish something that will likely not work well in the first place since TOAW was never intended for such small scales.

This is why I think that prioritizing the "wishlist" is so important. So that the most pressing needs of the many are addressed first, and so on down the wishlist until the luxurious desires of the few are finally addressed.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Such changes won't make a tactical model work, however. You'd need a line-of-sight model for a start.

It'd work alright for .25km-1km scenarios. I'm not talking about making a first-person-shooter. If someone wanted, I'm sure they could create a percentage chance for a unit to be visible to the enemy, based on terrain; so units in hills would tend to be out of LOS, whereas units in the open would be visible;

We're at 250m per hex. You've got a unit with an 88mm gun on the plain. To the north is a steep hill. Behind that hex- well within the 88mm gun's range- is more flat plain, in which are some enemy tanks.

Your simple solution has the 88mm gun firing through or over the hill and wreaking havoc on the enemy tanks.

Some people seem to enjoy wasting their time, coming up with endless excuses for why things won't work, rather than coming up with solutions.

There's a reason for this. Matrix is not Microsoft. The number of full-time employees devoted to TOAW III is exactly zero (0). We have to rely on the part time exhertions of two employees and a number of volunteers. As such, we have to pick and choose which improvements are both valuable and easily made. In my view (and, it must be said, the view of a great many others), changing the game to include the hugely complex world of tactical combat is not one of these improvements. You're free to disagree. However, I won't tolerate your dismissing me as a nay-sayer and timewaster.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff


Oh, and could we please have the ability to reduce the time of a turn, like to 5 minutes; and then, um, could we have something where all units, even infantry, are capable of long-range fire... cuz then we could do tactical scenarios.

..go play with the BioEd, [8D]

..a useful scale is to give infantry, with ranged weapons, is 2 hexes, up to an ER capable of 4. What you have to decide tho is 'real' range, or tested range.

..Real range is the actual battle-field usage, given dust, smoke, nerves, poor optics, accuracy drop as troops tire, dirt in the barrel from low quality powder etc..max about 100m, blind firing beyond that once battle is joined..

..Tested range is what happens in nice quiet enviroments, done by first class shooters, on a shooting range somewhere, and unfortunately are the numbers you'l get hit with, along the lines of pooeee, you know nothing the x lbr Napoleon had a range of y miles which is also true, but only if you can see the damn target, and at that distance are sure it's enemy..

..mind you, i've only looked at possibilties from 1500 BC to about 1850 AD, beyond the black powder age i don't reckon it's feasable as a general setting, but can be done in very tailored scenarios..

[Adam Rinkleff]

In my view (and, it must be said, the view of a great many others), changing the game to include the hugely complex world of tactical combat is not one of these improvements.

But nobody has asked you to change the game to include the hugely complex world of tactical combat; all we have done, is ask for you to make some very simple and exceedingly superficial changes to the calendar, and the little button that lets you pick hex sizes. In your opinion, the game won't work at this level, and it won't be worth playing; however, clearly, people disagree. Of course, nobody can force you to do anything.

I won't tolerate your dismissing me as a nay-sayer...

You are a naysayer, and you are saying nay, and you are also grossly exaggerating what people are asking for.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

But nobody has asked you to change the game to include the hugely complex world of tactical combat; all we have done, is ask for you to make some very simple and exceedingly superficial changes to the calendar, and the little button that lets you pick hex sizes.

I'd say it's a slippery slope. TOAW was originally designed around certain campaigns in the middle of the 20th century; these were the test-bed for the way the game works. This has been steadily expanded to include officially every campaign small or large between 1900 and 2000 and beyond. There has been quite a bit of work on trying to get the game to work at the extremes of these scales, despite the number of known problems with the basic model which have yet to be addressed. Add yet another extreme- tactical scales- and you will find the efforts of the design team being drawn inexorably in this direction. We will see demands that the game cope with the mechanics of streetfighting in modern day Mogadishu. I think there are higher priorities.

You are a naysayer, and you are saying nay, and you are also grossly exaggerating what people are asking for.

I think you know not what you ask.