TOAW4

[altipueri]

Thanks for this game Vic - I admire you one man + dog teams. You do have a dog don't you?

How about the base game having a choice of eras - ancient, napoleonic, civil war - even just these traditional ones?


Random scenario generation is a key to me liking a game. Do not consider dropping it.

[Ormand]

The "timing issue" is an interesting one! And, short of a "real-time" approach, there will always be compromises. For example, the fact that there are turns for each player during the same time period. The key is finding a nice playable balance to have a move-attack-exploit sequence that is needed in modern mobile warfare. Both the TOAW and ATG approaches can do this. TOAW is perhaps a bit more realistic, and, hence, strict, but also requires much more detail on the part of the player. In ATG, movement is combined with movement, thus it is difficult to think of movement being accomplished with movement points. To tell the truth, I am not so worried about the strict enforcement of time, such as forcing the expenditure of movement points so that blocking units are in place. Like I said, there will always be "timing" issues. As another example, consider tracked or wheeled units moving on a road in enemy territory. The first unit has to pay extra AP to enter enemy territory. But, following units don't. Thus, they can actually travel further than the first unit. The way I look at this is that you need a sufficient force to move and clear an area, and one unit would probably travel slower.

As for suggestions on what to do. Remembering stack points is good, although I do confess that I do see the AI conducting multiple attacks on the same hex. I suspect that this is less efficient than one larger attack that violated stacking limits. but ... Also, there is something to like about the move-attack at the same time. One thing I liked about the Panzer Gruppe Guderian system was overruns, which allowed you to take care of small blocking forces before the combat round, and during the exploitation phase.

One possibility for attacks is to impose, say, a 10 AP cost per separate attack on a hex for units that do not advance after combat into the hex, i.e., enter the hex later during the turn. Or some number that is based on how many rounds the attack lasts. One would still want to retain "overruns" on small forces that just get pushed aside. This would have some semblance of synchronicity and make it a bit harder to exploit a single breakthrough.

In general, to use mobile units, you have to have a pile of them ready, and plan the attack fairly carefully in order to be able to exploit a series of attacks.

[Bombur]

@Bombur,

I like the idea of adding the possibility to have "individual" subformations in ATG to allow for named Ships for example that can take damage. I added it to the list.

If you implement such a change, it would be much easier to simulate naval campaigns in ATG (for instance, the Pacific war). Do you see a way to increase the number of SFT in naval units? 8 ships/TF is not realistic. Of course it would be possible to have lots of 8 ship TF´s.

[Zaratoughda]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

ATG is more enjoyable
TOAW is more realistic

(hmmmm... Yeah, long post)

True.

But, how much more realistic is TOAW with the movement management system??

If one or more of your units doesn't get to move because of this, then that is an element of realism that is lost.

Also, units didn't just move a set amount in a given period of time. So, having a unit sit in the back and wait until you see how things go, and then move post haste to the front, isn't THAT unrealistic (you know, like that corps that Napoleon had double time, all day and night, to the battle at Austerlitz).

As I see it the allure of TOAW is it is a great game for scenario designers. Not sure why it is a better game than ATG is in this regard (maybe because it comes with TOEs), but it is. And, as I have said previously, there is a gold vault of scenarios (particularly on Rugged Defense) that are available.

But, the problem is (and this is an exaggeration to make a point), the game is not playable. Yeah, you can get trough a few smaller scenarios, and then, tediously, through some medium sized ones, but eventually you will get to the point, particularly once the game starts ending your turn before you are done, that the movement management system is too much of a pain to endure to make it worth playing.

I believe what Vic did in his DC series, was to keep track of the movement points used when an attack is made on a hex, and units passing through those hexes have to pay that to go through. This seems fine to me.

But, the more recent game is WITE, and it has totally free movement, and if you look at the number of posts for WITE compared to TOAW, WITE is WAY (!!) more popular (and probably sells a lot more), and don't try to tell me that TOAW is more accurate historically.

If someone wanted to do a game that is very popular and sells a ton, they should just do TOAW and give it free movement. I respect what Koger was trying to do with the original TOAW movement management system, but it is WAY outdated.

[ernieschwitz]

As I see it the allure of TOAW is it is a great game for scenario designers. Not sure why it is a better game than ATG is in this regard (maybe because it comes with TOEs), but it is. And, as I have said previously, there is a gold vault of scenarios (particularly on Rugged Defense) that are available.

Not sure that it is better actually. Depends a lot on what you are trying to achieve. If it is a scenario, of a specific theater then it is better, for several reasons. If you want to make a strategic game, then it is worse. To me as a scenario designer, ATG is much more flexible, although there are some limits to what you can do with regards to ridges and such, graphically at least. If you want to make a multiplayer scenario, instead of a two player one, ATG is hands down the best, mostly cause TOAW doesn't allow for more than 2 players.

A lot of stuff to consider.

[athineos]

Random scenario generation is a key to me liking a game. Do not consider dropping it.

I concur.. that's is why I think JTCS is another good game. I am eagerly waiting for the CS Vietnam to be released next year. It will include a game editor/battle generator as all previous games in the series.

[athineos]

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

ATG is the only 4X with random maps in a WW2 world. It is very well done. I heartily recommend it to anybody who doesn´t have it, yet. (If such a person exists, that is. [:)] )

Don't forget JTCS and CS Middle East (Editor/Random Map Battle Generator)

[warnevada]

More than 30 years ago there was a game called Kampfgruppe, it's the original ancestor of the Steel Panther series. It solved the time management problem rather neatly. Both sides input their orders for the turn including all movement and combat and then the game resolved both sets of orders simultaneously. It's the original IGOUGOWEGO approach.

Considering the state of computers then a lot of what it did was quite crude, the same approach today would be enormously better.

The way it worked was you plotted each unit's movement hex by hex and specified what the unit was to do if it encountered an enemy, either stop and defend or attack. Defending units which didn't move you specified at which enemy units they should fire on or execute opportunity fire at an enemy which came adjacent. Attacking units which started adjacent to an enemy you could order to fire or to assault(by moving into the enemy hex.) All units got a quota of Action Points for the turn.

The way the game resolved the turn is by executing a number of cycles in the turn equal to the number of action points for the turn. Each cycle the game would look at each unit for the first player and follow their orders for one action point, then it would do the same for the second player. Combat results would not be applied until the end of the cycle, so if two units fired at each other, they could potentially both end up dead. The same approach for movement sometimes resulted in opposing units ending up back-to-back like duelists.

Assaults (opponents in same hex) which did not result in one side forcing the other side to retreat or killing them would continue into the next turn. Orders for that turn could be for either side to move out of the hex or to move additional units into the hex and continue the battle.

The game was great because the element of surprise was alive and well.

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

@Bombur,

I like the idea of adding the possibility to have "individual" subformations in ATG to allow for named Ships for example that can take damage. I added it to the list.

If you implement such a change, it would be much easier to simulate naval campaigns in ATG (for instance, the Pacific war). Do you see a way to increase the number of SFT in naval units? 8 ships/TF is not realistic. Of course it would be possible to have lots of 8 ship TF´s.

I like this idea i think its next on the list

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Vic

ORIGINAL: altipueri
In ATG you can attack, if that fails you can find another unit with 100 AP and bring that into attack, then maybe a third or fourth. IN TOAW it attempts to say, "well your first attack failed and that took half a day, so your second attack has only half a day left.

True.

Though the previous stack points committed are remembered, so at some point you are going to face massive penalties when you keep finding new units to repeat the attack on the same hex.

Also the startup attack penalties makes it unwise to commit troops piecemeal.

However it is interesting this TOAW with the time measurement. And although the above does the job in quite a lot of cases, it doesn't do it in all. Especially light troop density battles with weak defenders.

I am making a note here

@Bombur,

I like the idea of adding the possibility to have "individual" subformations in ATG to allow for named Ships for example that can take damage. I added it to the list.

@all,

As some of you might know I am working hard to finish Shadow Empire. After that i'll have some time to see if I can bring some new features to the existing line of games. One of the drawbacks of being a one-man-army is I cannot work on everything at the same time.

Best wishes,
Vic

Glad to hear you are still taking notes on ways to improve this already wonderful game, Vic! I still find myself firing up ATG for another go even years later. I really can't say the same about TAOW. I bought the Matrix version years back and lost interest pretty quick. I may or may not give TOAW 4 a try. Still debating if it's worth the price for me. I know ATG definitely was.

[navekaoy]

A lot of good points have already been made, so I won’t reiterate those but rather add something I haven’t seen anybody mention yet: transparency. The inner workings of ATG are far more transparent than those of TOAW(3 at least, haven’t played 4 yet, but I assume they’re similar in this regard). Now, whether you consider this a good thing or not, or whether it even matters to you, is something else. Some people complain about complex computer wargames that are totally impentrable: they want their games to be like boardgames, in the sense that you can understand most or all of the rules, because if you don’t understand how the game works, you can’t really appreciate the import of the decisions you’re making; in fact, you’re almost not making decisios, according to this argument. Many computer wargames are like this, and for the most part I don’t have a problem with it. But ATG stands out as a shining example of a game where everything is theoretically open to player knowledge. True, I don’t typically look at the detailed combat report to understand exactly how combat works, but the point is that I could. Moreover, I can read the detailed stats of the units and, armed with a decent idea of how combat works, I can get a more detailed sense of what’s going to happen and why.

TOAW has much less detailed stats but much more complicated combat resolution equations (apparently). I’m fine developing an instinct for the combat system and playing by feel - that’s usually what ends up with ATG anyway, and it’s theoretically more “realistic.” Other areas, however, are a bit too opaque for my tastes. For example, in TOAW3 at least, when you watch the review of the enemy’s turn, it gives you no indication of the number of units lost on each side (maybe they changed that in TOAW4, someone else can jump in here) - you just see retreats, unit evaporations, and successful defenses. That’s a bit too opaque for my tastes. And because you can’t see behind the scenes or the nitty gritty details of the units, it’s sometimes hard to get excited about having some really badass tanks vs. some tin can light tanks. One can level this complaint against games like WitW/E as well, though in those cases you can at least turn the combat detail resolution way up and sit for an hour to see exactly what unit destroyed what other unit. The upshot, however, is that ATG feels “gamier,” but in a good way, like a really complicated and interesting boardgame that does all the work of calculation for you.

At any rate, I like both games for different things, and while I don’t think absolute transparency is necessary for a good game, I do think ATG trumps TOAW with respect to transparency in a meaningful way.

[lion_of_judah]

not worth the money!

[altipueri]

I came back here and realised I contributed to this thread earlier in the year.

@navekaoy In TOAW 3 you get a list of individual losses - down to individual tanks, AT guns, squads - you press the little shield at the bottom of the combat summary pop up that says e.g. German losses 2% US losses 5%. Pressing the other shield gives the losses for the other side.

Re: Turns and time effluxion:


Suppose you have a scenario with two separate battles going on - one North; one South


In ATG you can fight all you want in the North until all your AP are used up. See the results. Then you move on to the South. Depending on the result in the North you may now decide to pull back or press on, but you can effectively start the turn or day again for the South.

In TOAW you must decide what you want to attack in the North (but not yet press resolve combat) then decide what you want to move or attack in the South. Then press to resolve all attacks so far. Thus both battles get resolved as if they happened almost simultaneously. If you decide to play it more like ATG you can do the North attacks first and resolve just them. But then you may find they took up most of the day whilst your guys in the South were sitting round drinking tea (if they were British).So in the South you now only have part of a day left.


I've just spent the day avoiding work by playing both ATG and TOAW - in both cases not having played for a while. I don't play enough TOAW to get version 4 until it is in the sale - but it does seem to have added even more details and options.

ATG is more enjoyable though.

[RobS61]

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

I think Koger developed the movement management system a long time ago and it is way outdated now and should either be replaced or simply thrown out and free movement used. As is, with units that should be able to attack not being able to, it probably induces more unrealism than it promotes realism.

20 years ago, to be exact, 1998.
I bought the original and the system didn't click for me, so I got rid of it and never looked back. From everything I've seen, heard and read in the last 20 years, everything that's been tacked on to it just doesn't fix the fundamental faults.
Among other things, and what few people know, is that the game was originally not even designed to be played by email. Of and by itself, the fact that basic design features such as PBEM had to shoehorned into the game speaks volumes about the basic design faults. Overall, it was a very short-sighted design, imo.
I had bought a number of this designer's previous games, like Red Lightning, Conflict: Middle East and Conflict: Korea, and they all had fundamental, game-breaking flaws. TOAW was and is the last time I spent any money on this designer's products.

[lion_of_judah]

I broke down and bought it