Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: shunwick
Try the following house rules...

Brilliant! I'll have to make permanent note of those.

I have other games I make playable via house rules. If it is broke, do fix it!

Is there a thread anywhere where players' favorite TOAW house rules are suggested?

House rules rule!

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Guys,

You lose 1% supply for every movement point expended.  You lose 10% supply for every combat round you spend in battle.

Try the following house rules:

1. You may not move any ground unit under its own traction for further than you have supply.
2. You may not attack or limited attack with gound units that are Cherry Red.
3. Artillery (and this includes exotic artillery - aircraft) may not be placed in any of the support deployments if Cherry Red.

Have fun.

Best wishes,
Steve

That would be fine Steve but you have many who shun house rules, logic and history. They think three recon COMPANIES covering a 30km front can prevent an entire division from moving through their paltry picket line. The games allows it so, hey, it must be real, right? [:D]

People game systems. If the system lets you do it then it's ok regardless of how badly it portrays reality. It's a game right? Reality has no place in it.

Having said that #1 is arguable. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Panama
I have absolutely no need to do a test. It's a waste of time. If a unit is red it can move and fight forever. I don't give a hoot what shape the other guy is in. No unit on the planet, corp, division, brigade, squad, can go forever. There are no supermen and eternal motion machines. Everyone and everything has to stop for something. But not in TOAW.

I understand scale would make a difference. A one week turn would be different than a half day turn. But it's relatively the same.

It might be able to crawl forever, but any fight would be a very short affair.

TOAW is a simulation, and like any approximation it has his faults. Now let us consider what the supply achieves:

Does it force you (assuming there are enemy units) to watch your supply and advance along rail/roads?
Does it force you to rest your units in order to fight properly?
Does it cripple a unit on low supply?

Consider the 6th Army at Stalingrad, they had that 33% 1% situation for how long? And yet they still were able to hold they pocket for months. Now true enough tanks can't go anywhere without fuel, but if you have 100 tanks and one consumes 1l per km, with 10000l you can move the 100 100km, or move 50 200km.

Basically, while I agree that the logistics model is very rudimentary it isn't as broken as people like to claim.

If my tank battalion is behind enemy lines and there is a communitcations route of any length, no matter how convoluted, even it it passes through the entire length of the enemies country, that unit is in supply. It can go through the enemies capital and the tank battalion is in supply. It can crisscross the enemies country a thousand times to get supply to me. Well, if not broken then it's certainly surrealistic.

Perhaps matter transmission is used. [:D]

Lines of Communication
A Line of Communication is a path from one location to another.
Lines of Communication are blocked by enemy units, locations
adjacent to enemies and not occupied by friendly units, non-
Road Badlands terrain, non-Road Dunes terrain, or terrain that
cannot be entered by a normal Land unit.

Minimal Supply
Locations not otherwise Supplied, but able to trace a Line of
Communication of any length to any friendly Supply Point. are
considered to have Minimal Supply. Units in these locations receive
25% of the maximum possible resupply.

Too bad no one bothered to include hexes owned by the opposing player. That would have been a bit more tidy. It would keep that Soviet Ford from driving through Paris on it's way to Minsk to deliver supplies. [:D]

Try the following house rules:

1. You may not move any ground unit under its own traction for further than you have supply.
2. You may not attack or limited attack with gound units that are Cherry Red.
3. Artillery (and this includes exotic artillery - aircraft) may not be placed in any of the support deployments if Cherry Red.

I've considered this, but it is has a few weak spots. If my artillery unit moves 100 hexes it is at 1% supply. According to this house rule it cannot then fire. But by marching 100 hexes why can't I fire my artillery? I haven't used any ammunition in marching, in fact I've got a full load, I should be able to attack like nobodies business. Like wise if I fire my artillery until it is out of shells why then can't it move or move as fast as before?

Its kind of funny in the game. An artillery unit with a full load of shells represented by 100% supply can move at maximum speed. But after I fire all the shells then it moves much slower, you would think the opposite eh?

I don't think there is much to do until ammunition, fuel, rations, and maybe even spare parts are treated separately.

A question: are replacements for a unit affected at all by its supply status? Sometimes I blow up a unit in several punishing attacks, but next turn it has replaced most of its losses instantly, even though it is in the middle of nowhere.

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
A question: are replacements for a unit affected at all by its supply status?

I'd like to know the answer to that myself. I was thinking it was but I could be wrong. I frequently are wrong. I'm also thinking that the amount of supply getting to the unit ( 25%, 50%, etc. ) has something to do with how soon it recovers too. Which reminds me....see answer below.

ORIGINAL: Fungwu
Sometimes I blow up a unit in several punishing attacks, but next turn it has replaced most of its losses instantly, even though it is in the middle of nowhere.

I saw the formula for replacing equipment in units but that was several years ago. It had something to do with how many pieces of that equipment are needed and how many there are in the unit etc. The amount of units of some equipment needed is: [units assigned] - [ units lost ]. And this would always be a positive number. And the proportion of that equipment is [number of units lost] / [number of units assigned ] and the more units lost the higher this number ( factor ) would be. Something like that.

I looked on the R & D forum ( articles ) and it's not there anymore.

9.1.8 Replacements
Equipment losses are a fact of life on the battlefield. If these losses
are not replaced, your units will become less useful over time.
Your units are eligible to automatically receive Replacements
from your Force Equipment Stockpiles if they are understrength,
in Supply, and not Embarked on Ships or Trains

That replacement tank can get to you no matter where you are as long as you have a line of communications of any length.

Readiness Recovery (Advanced Rules)
Your units’ Readiness declines during movement and
combat. Unit readiness recovers at the beginning
of every Turn except the first. The amount recovered is based on
the Scenario’s time and distance scales, but will generally be approximately
the amount needed to fully recover from a maximum
movement. Units recover Readiness more slowly if they
have moved in the previous Turn, occupy a contaminated
location, or if they are Unsupplied.

It doesn't appear that supply has any effect on readiness unless you are in an unsupplied state.

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

A question: are replacements for a unit affected at all by its supply status? Sometimes I blow up a unit in several punishing attacks, but next turn it has replaced most of its losses instantly, even though it is in the middle of nowhere.

Considering how units that are encircled (not supplied) grow weaker and weaker, it is safe to assume not supplied units get no new equipment (or they would strength wouldn't decrease).

That is indeed what often happens, as the unit that is missing most equipment has the best chance to get resupplied.

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

I saw the formula for replacing equipment in units but that was several years ago. It had something to do with how many pieces of that equipment are needed and how many there are in the unit etc. The amount of units of some equipment needed is: [units assigned] - [ units lost ]. And this would always be a positive number. And the proportion of that equipment is [number of units lost] / [number of units assigned ] and the more units lost the higher this number ( factor ) would be. Something like that.

I looked on the R & D forum ( articles ) and it's not there anymore.

Larry, you mean the replacements and reconstitution article by 'General Staff'? It's attached (i overhauled the look a bit..), just rename the file extension to .zip.

Nice. Thanks. [&o]

Guys,
 
Regarding those house rules, I am not suggesting that they are a solution to anything.  I am merely saying try them and observe the results.
 
Best wishes,
Steve

Since nobody risked stating what are the intellectual challenges present in a Toaw game, from the point of view of experienced players, perhaps I can, at least, have some descriptions of different strategical approaches some players have used in different scenarios, just to know how the game dynamics can change according to scenario setups.

I want to know how the reality of different conflicts can lead to different gameplay. Obviously scale and balance between forces will have a great influence, but is it all? Will events, communication lines, terrain, weather, supply points, equipment type etc have a big influence on the way the game is played or will those variables only affect balance indirectly, preserving the player his dynamics of play whatever scenario he is playing?

I'm not sure if I could be clear, but...

I have a suggestion. Why don't you play the game?

I play the game but, sadly, I don't have enough time to play it frequently. I tried some small scenarios, but really can't say I comprehend what I was doing (before someone asks... yes, I read the manual). I have other games to choose from and, not having enough time to play more than one of them, I ask for help in forums trying to figure out what I will experience after investing my time on a game... to know if it fits my taste. Is it something so offensive? Most people in most forums like to share their experience, describe their tactical and strategical successes or failures. Is it so different here?

I would like to ask for excuse if my tone was offensive in some way. English is not my native language.

It's not offensive but you can only discover so much asking someone what something is like. You will never know for certain unless you experience it yourself. Play another person.

What is Antarctica like?
It's very cold.
How cold?
Very very cold.

That in no way tells you how cold it really gets. Believe me. It is COLD! But you'll never really know unless you go there.

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

Try the following house rules:

1. You may not move any ground unit under its own traction for further than you have supply.
2. You may not attack or limited attack with gound units that are Cherry Red.
3. Artillery (and this includes exotic artillery - aircraft) may not be placed in any of the support deployments if Cherry Red.

I've considered this, but it is has a few weak spots. If my artillery unit moves 100 hexes it is at 1% supply. According to this house rule it cannot then fire. But by marching 100 hexes why can't I fire my artillery? I haven't used any ammunition in marching, in fact I've got a full load, I should be able to attack like nobodies business. Like wise if I fire my artillery until it is out of shells why then can't it move or move as fast as before?

Its kind of funny in the game. An artillery unit with a full load of shells represented by 100% supply can move at maximum speed. But after I fire all the shells then it moves much slower, you would think the opposite eh?

Sorry Fungwu, I missed this post.

You lose 1% supply for every movement point expended. This is the basic fuel cost. Since movement equals time, it also includes food but the main component is fuel.

You lose 10% supplies for every combat round your unit spends in battle. This is the basic ammunition cost.

If you have a unit with 100 supply points and 100 movement points and you choose to move the unit its full movement allowance then it follows, from the above, that the unit’s carry capacity of 100 supply points must be comprised entirely of fuel. You have allowed no capacity for ammunition.

When your troops get to X they are knackered, out of fuel, and they have no ammunition since they didn’t carry any. The 1% supply they do have is made up of a few clips of rifle ammo, enough petrol for the portable generator, plus a few chickens and a goat that Corporal Smith liberated from the inhabitants of X and the surrounding area.

According to rule #2 they are not allowed to launch an attack and that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Your second point about an artillery unit with a full load of shells represented by 100% supply is the same kind of stuff. Not all of that supply is ammunition and TOAW leaves it up to you to decide how much is fuel and how much is ammo. And I freely admit that it is confusing and would be better if beans, bullets, and gas were in seperate streams.

Best wishes,
Steve

ORIGINAL: Panama

It's not offensive but you can only discover so much asking someone what something is like. You will never know for certain unless you experience it yourself. Play another person.

What is Antarctica like?
It's very cold.
How cold?
Very very cold.

That in no way tells you how cold it really gets. Believe me. It is COLD! But you'll never really know unless you go there.

More precisely:

What is Antarctica like?
It's very cold.
How cold?
Very very cold.

What do I need to to bring to deal with this cold weather?
I'm not willing to tell. Go there and find by yourself!

In fact I was able to find much more about other games... just by asking. If I had the time, I would play all of them, believe me. I have half a dozen of closed game boxes from ten years ago.

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

Since nobody risked stating what are the intellectual challenges present in a Toaw game, from the point of view of experienced players, perhaps I can, at least, have some descriptions of different strategical approaches some players have used in different scenarios, just to know how the game dynamics can change according to scenario setups.

I want to know how the reality of different conflicts can lead to different gameplay. Obviously scale and balance between forces will have a great influence, but is it all? Will events, communication lines, terrain, weather, supply points, equipment type etc have a big influence on the way the game is played or will those variables only affect balance indirectly, preserving the player his dynamics of play whatever scenario he is playing?

I'm not sure if I could be clear, but...

I only play Fite (and the mods), so nothing of it might be valid for the smaller scenarios. Anyway, as I mostly play ze Germans, the idea is to advance as fast as possible, destroying the Red army, while preserving the own forces. One is playing versus the clock, as unless the Wehrmacht manages to at least reach the historical lines, the situation will be grim (and the game likely lost).
Communications lines are the principal battlefields of the early turns, and the first hard decisions as well. There is a finite capacity to repair rail tracks, but to sustain the speed of the advance the mass of the units needs to be very close to the tracks. The Sovjet player knows that as well, so the question is where to advance, where to feint (to draw the Sovjet reinforcements away from the main route), where to fight, where to flank and surround the units.
The strategic choices can be corrected latter to a degree, but one has to decide pretty quickly which cities to take in hope of achieving parity.

Terrain plays a key role, as swamps, major rivers and woods need to be accounted for. Of course this also provides an opportunity, as those sectors can become avenues for advances, if a degree of surprise can be achieved.

Equipment plays a major role as well. Some German panzer divisions have close to useless tanks, while others have pretty decent ones. The Sovjet tank units can be either totally overmatching them (if they have KV-1 and T-34 in numbers) or be at a disadvantage, as they have lighter tanks.
This is only covering the opening moves.

Thanks madner. That's exactly the kind of example I need. I have read Fite AARs and sometimes the statement of players saying that he must advance quickly and that's it, lead us to the conclusion that one must only find the fastest way for each unit and avoid making a major mistake in unit distribution along the front and then just push where you have superiority using some combined arms where possible. You put it in a way that makes me imagine that there's much more to a fast advance than that.
Any further example would be welcome.

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

Thanks madner. That's exactly the kind of example I need. I have read Fite AARs and sometimes the statement of players saying that he must advance quickly and that's it, lead us to the conclusion that one must only find the fastest way for each unit and avoid making a major mistake in unit distribution along the front and then just push where you have superiority using some combined arms where possible. You put it in a way that makes me imagine that there's much more to a fast advance than that.
Any further example would be welcome.

PFrancis,

Every scenario is different. The American strategy in Vietnam in 1966 is completely different from the Axis strategy in the Soviet Union in 1942. WWI scenarios require different strategies to WWII strategies and to Cold War strategies.

There is one thing I would say. TOAW rewards people prepared to work at it and the more you put in, the more you get out.

It is possible to play TOAW almost superficially and players who do so are usually left wondering if terrain, supply, weather, and all the other stuff actually has that much of an effect.

But If you are prepared to put in the effort, to see past the hex grid to the terrain you troops are fighting in and to see past the counters to the troops who are cold, hungry, hurting, struggling, living and dying, then TOAW comes alive.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Steve