Matrix Games Forums

Sure. Let's just call it the operational art of science fiction and have everything use anti gravity devices. Why have trucks at all? Just throw the lot out. Don't need em. They just clutter up the place. Why do anything with the naval stuff? People played the game as it was for years. Why throw in commanders. People played the game without them for years. Why change supply, people played the game as it was first designed for years. [:D][:D][:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Sure. Let's just call it the operational art of science fiction and have everything use anti gravity devices.

Jesus Christ. Just select the "Fixed" flag if you want the equipment not to move at all- or change the icon to "Fixed artillery"

It's not like 1 "Truck" in TOAW is one actual truck anyway. How many trucks do you know that can pull 2 heavy artillery pieces at the same time?

Can you give me an actual design scenario where you feel limited by the fact that "Requires Transport" equipment moves at a rate of 1? Because I can name several scenarios where designers have used this feature to force units to move at a rate of 1.

The definition for “required” contains words such as compulsory, essential and indispensable.

In this forum I see that “required” doesn’t necessarily mean “required” but rather something more like “maybe” (Post #7). Also, there is something about 22 years exceeding the statute of limitations for correcting manual errors and an analogy about ketchup.

Instead of spending time making denials and justifications for not fixing the problem, it would be nice if the problem was acknowledged and put on the programmer's things-to-do list.

Regards

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Jesus Christ. Just select the "Fixed" flag if you want the equipment not to move at all- or change the icon to "Fixed artillery"

Honestly I'm not sure why you have gotten so emotional about this issue? I'm the one who started this thread so if you'd like we can continue the discussion. The fact is that there are heavy guns which are NOT fixed, but should not be able to move unless they have something to tow them. I'm not sure why this is such a controversial idea...

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Can you give me an actual design scenario where you feel limited by the fact that "Requires Transport" equipment moves at a rate of 1? Because I can name several scenarios where designers have used this feature to force units to move at a rate of 1.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an actual design scenario", but the issue came up for me as I'm working on a scenario in which I only want Soviet 122mm batteries to be able to move if they have transport. Like in real life. I can't speak to what other scenario designers wanted to do, perhaps their guns were lighter or they just didn't really care much one way or another, as is their right.

I could understand if someone just responded that this is a limitation of the engine, full stop. I would then pick up the pieces of my shattered life and move on... But attempts to justify the ability to move heavy guns without transport on the grounds of realism are completely unconvincing, for the reasons outlined in this thread.

But the real issue for me is that this issue and others are not described in the manual, where it says that "static" equipment can only move with transport. If that's not the case, fine, just correct the manual (and the other places where it is unclear, such as in the editor).

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So let me get this straight. Instead of using the transport to move the guns they use it to move the tents? Right. Unless you missed it there is zero transport in the unit and in any artillery unit the guns come first.

Units consist of a whole slew of elements that are not represented in TOAW. The game just assumes they are there. There is no option to treat them as missing. That definitely includes the supply assets of the unit, among much else. To suggest that the supply assets have been removed would, in the real world, render the unit unable to obtain supply and thus become unable to even fire. Not a situation the game was ever designed to represent.

So, if txp is missing, it is only the transport for the equipment requiring towing.

What amazes me is the lengths you go to so you can be right about so many different subjects. No one ever runs out of fuel because they siphon it from other vehicles. No one ever runs out of ammo because they don't shoot their weapons. No one ever runs out of food because they eat their shoes. The list goes on and on. Trouble is, units did run out of fuel and ammo in the real world. But not in yours.

Not true. The game models equipment running completely out of supply via the desertion feature (now even part of units with lines of communication, if beyond the "overextended" range).

Oh, and the one that really gets me is how a unit can lose vehicles 200 km behind enemy lines because they and somehow that same vehicle ends up in the replacement pool good as new.

If the unit has a line of communication, that equipment would have been abandoned on friendly territory and therefore would, ultimately, be returned to the pools. If it had no line of communications, then it will be permanently lost.

Tom is right. There are guns that should not move at all without transport assigned to the unit. Period. Anything else is just foolishness or a pathetic attempt to be correct. Or both.

Clearly there are guns that require txp but can be manhandled without it.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Jesus Christ. Just select the "Fixed" flag if you want the equipment not to move at all- or change the icon to "Fixed artillery"

It's not like 1 "Truck" in TOAW is one actual truck anyway. How many trucks do you know that can pull 2 heavy artillery pieces at the same time?

You don't need any trucks in TOAW so the answer is zero. And fixed artillery can't move at all so that's not going to work now is it? Simple solution is remove the ability of artillery over a certain size to move at all without transport. Dang, how hard was that? [8|]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So let me get this straight. Instead of using the transport to move the guns they use it to move the tents? Right. Unless you missed it there is zero transport in the unit and in any artillery unit the guns come first.

Units consist of a whole slew of elements that are not represented in TOAW. The game just assumes they are there. There is no option to treat them as missing. That definitely includes the supply assets of the unit, among much else. To suggest that the supply assets have been removed would, in the real world, render the unit unable to obtain supply and thus become unable to even fire. Not a situation the game was ever designed to represent.

So, if txp is missing, it is only the transport for the equipment requiring towing.

What amazes me is the lengths you go to so you can be right about so many different subjects. No one ever runs out of fuel because they siphon it from other vehicles. No one ever runs out of ammo because they don't shoot their weapons. No one ever runs out of food because they eat their shoes. The list goes on and on. Trouble is, units did run out of fuel and ammo in the real world. But not in yours.

Not true. The game models equipment running completely out of supply via the desertion feature (now even part of units with lines of communication, if beyond the "overextended" range).

Oh, and the one that really gets me is how a unit can lose vehicles 200 km behind enemy lines because they and somehow that same vehicle ends up in the replacement pool good as new.

If the unit has a line of communication, that equipment would have been abandoned on friendly territory and therefore would, ultimately, be returned to the pools. If it had no line of communications, then it will be permanently lost.

Tom is right. There are guns that should not move at all without transport assigned to the unit. Period. Anything else is just foolishness or a pathetic attempt to be correct. Or both.

Clearly there are guns that require txp but can be manhandled without it.

Omg...your entire line of reasoning is so full of bull crap I won't even bother to reply to any of it. [8|]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm not sure what you mean by "an actual design scenario", but the issue came up for me as I'm working on a scenario in which I only want Soviet 122mm batteries to be able to move if they have transport.

But surely the unit either has transport or it doesn't. Does this one unit frequently have the transport appearing and disappearing? Does 1 truck allow your 12 122mm Howitzers to move in a way that 0 trucks definitively do not- bearing in mind that a "Truck" in TOAW does not equal a real truck, but rather represents some rough amount of motor transport.

It can be assumed that a unit with 0/6 trucks might actually have 1 broken down old banger which can in fact drag the gun into the adjacent hex before it stops again- since 6/6 trucks would actually mean the unit has about thirty vehicles in good condition.

Note that if a unit has zero MPs it can't move by rail or sea (or air for that matter) either. There are multiple scenarios where units have 1 MP quite deliberately so those units can move by rail and perhaps one hex off the rail but that's all. Changing the definition of "requires transport" would break all those scenarios.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm not sure what you mean by "an actual design scenario", but the issue came up for me as I'm working on a scenario in which I only want Soviet 122mm batteries to be able to move if they have transport.

But surely the unit either has transport or it doesn't. Does this one unit frequently have the transport appearing and disappearing? Does 1 truck allow your 12 122mm Howitzers to move in a way that 0 trucks definitively do not- bearing in mind that a "Truck" in TOAW does not equal a real truck, but rather represents some rough amount of motor transport.

It can be assumed that a unit with 0/6 trucks might actually have 1 broken down old banger which can in fact drag the gun into the adjacent hex before it stops again- since 6/6 trucks would actually mean the unit has about thirty vehicles in good condition.

Note that if a unit has zero MPs it can't move by rail or sea (or air for that matter) either. There are multiple scenarios where units have 1 MP quite deliberately so those units can move by rail and perhaps one hex off the rail but that's all. Changing the definition of "requires transport" would break all those scenarios.

Shouldn't the scenario designer get to decide if a gun can move without transport or not? A gun crew can roll a 105mm howitzer for a bit. Done it. Moving anything bigger over kilometers of ground? I hope it's a big parking lot. Leave it up to the guy making the scenario, not someone who wants to dictate how you should or shouldn't make YOUR scenario.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
But surely the unit either has transport or it doesn't. Does this one unit frequently have the transport appearing and disappearing?

Not appearing and disappearing, but appearing. In June '41 many Soviet batteries lacked their organic transport and had to wait for civilian tractors, etc. to be commandeered.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It can be assumed that a unit with 0/6 trucks might actually have 1 broken down old banger which can in fact drag the gun into the adjacent hex before it stops again- since 6/6 trucks would actually mean the unit has about thirty vehicles in good condition.

I find this whole concept of "quantum trucks" (trucks of indeterminate quantity and capability) to be a major weakness as the game moves down into the tactical scale. If a battery has four guns, I want four trucks to pull them, not some random number of trucks necessary to achieve the desired speed. Obviously that train has left the station on TOAW.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Note that if a unit has zero MPs it can't move by rail or sea (or air for that matter) either. There are multiple scenarios where units have 1 MP quite deliberately so those units can move by rail and perhaps one hex off the rail but that's all. Changing the definition of "requires transport" would break all those scenarios.

Sure, with existing transport model. Like I've said, if people are willing just to admit that it is a limitation of the engine, rather than trying to justify it on realism grounds, that's fine, all games have their quirks.

My main problem with these quirks in TOAW is that many of them are not only undocumented, but they are directly contradicted by what is written in the manual or even in various parts of the game program itself, and the dev seems perfectly happy with that state of affairs. I guess who cares if players can make sense of the game's capabilities/limitations?

At the slightly tactical scale I just completed a platoon level scenario. So far it plays okay, but rather slow. I am using 250 meters a hex and most infantry units have 4 MP's (the US are paratroops and no trucks), so it make a rather slow game. The Para artillery have a movement of 1. I gave them 4 trucks but set it to 1 truck and they still have 1 MP. But the AT units have 2 trucks and they have like 6 MPs.

Doing another scenario now and this one is company level. I'll test some more with this one.

For the platoon game, I am thinking of dickering with the road movement rates or movement bias or something, not sure yet. I have planned at least 8 of these platoon level scenarios and about the same for the company ones, that is if they work out they way I am hoping or envision.

ORIGINAL: Zovs
I have planned at least 8 of these platoon level scenarios and about the same for the company ones...

Like your game plan for small unit operations. Are you sticking to historical operations or are they going to more like military problems?

Regards

Historical as much or as close as possible.

Don, I'm also working on a platoon level scenario, although my hex scales are larger. Interested in what Attrition Divider and Max Rounds per battle you come up with, I'm still tinkering with these as well. Also, I'm actually using "section" level units to prevent them from dividing. Mine is a purely hypothetical situation but basing it on real-world OOBs, etc.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Not appearing and disappearing, but appearing. In June '41 many Soviet batteries lacked their organic transport and had to wait for civilian tractors, etc. to be commandeered.

You could have the unit in a static deployment until the transport arrives. This is probably more reliable than asking the replacement engine to deliver the right number of trucks to the right units on a realistic schedule.

Or they could move a hex at a time, which is probably not much different from moving 0 hexes. This is Russia after all and there's a lot of space to cover.

I find this whole concept of "quantum trucks" (trucks of indeterminate quantity and capability) to be a major weakness as the game moves down into the tactical scale. If a battery has four guns, I want four trucks to pull them, not some random number of trucks necessary to achieve the desired speed. Obviously that train has left the station on TOAW.

Thing is you're never going to want the actual number of trucks. For example, a US artillery battery with four 105s has four 2.5 ton trucks that pull the guns plus another nine 2.5 ton trucks assigned to various other duties, as well as two lighter trucks.

You're always going to want to figure out how many trucks are needed to get the guns to move at motorised speed, and for the unit to really slow down if it only has half its trucks but still has all its guns. Whether that means giving it two trucks (current system) or four one is still designing for effect- rather than working out how many trucks were actually there. If you give the unit thirteen trucks instead of four then the game is going to count all those trucks towards Transport Asset Sharing and your supply level will go up.

This applies to other things as well. The same battery has an HMG (presumably for air defence), but if you put the HMG in the unit at divisional scale then TOAW is going to assume that the HMG will go forward and support attacks. So if the artillery is standing alone in its own unit you maybe want the HMG in there- but if you've rolled it up into a bigger unit you definitely don't.

Sure, with existing transport model. Like I've said, if people are willing just to admit that it is a limitation of the engine, rather than trying to justify it on realism grounds, that's fine, all games have their quirks.

It's part of the design which works as it is and doesn't really cause any problems outside of extreme cases.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

At the slightly tactical scale I just completed a platoon level scenario. So far it plays okay, but rather slow. I am using 250 meters a hex

Right off the bat there is a problem here as a unit which is two hexes away from an enemy unit shouldn't just be able march back and forth with impunity. If they're in line of sight (which TOAW doesn't cover) then your light mortars and machine guns are going to be able to interdict enemy movement at 500m distance, but direct fire weapons in TOAW can only do this if the unit is in an adjacent hex (ZOC and disengagement penalties).

Am I missing something? Why are you making this scenario in TOAW rather than some tactical engine?

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Don, I'm also working on a platoon level scenario, although my hex scales are larger. Interested in what Attrition Divider and Max Rounds per battle you come up with, I'm still tinkering with these as well. Also, I'm actually using "section" level units to prevent them from dividing. Mine is a purely hypothetical situation but basing it on real-world OOBs, etc.

Tom,

I am still tinkering with the AD, well it's set at the default of 10 and so far in the 8 turns I have test it seems to be okay at that level. For the Max Rounds so far I set it to 6 and it seems to be working okay, I may have to raise it up some (just upped it to 9 and will test it shortly), the default is 99, but for hourly turns I wanted lower it down to see how it works.

My biggest issue is that infantry only units (i.e., those without transports) have only 4 MP's and it seems they can only move about 1-3 hexes per turn and it seems realistic but perhaps too boring. The Germans have a company of PzG with a movement rate of 12 and a Motorized Infantry company with a movement rate of 12 and the two platoons of AFV also have a 12 MP allowance.

I just had to adjust down the precipitation, as each turn was getting more and more mud which was not working for me for June.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Zovs

At the slightly tactical scale I just completed a platoon level scenario. So far it plays okay, but rather slow. I am using 250 meters a hex

Right off the bat there is a problem here as a unit which is two hexes away from an enemy unit shouldn't just be able march back and forth with impunity. If they're in line of sight (which TOAW doesn't cover) then your light mortars and machine guns are going to be able to interdict enemy movement at 500m distance, but direct fire weapons in TOAW can only do this if the unit is in an adjacent hex (ZOC and disengagement penalties).

Am I missing something? Why are you making this scenario in TOAW rather than some tactical engine?

No your not missing anything and everything you mentioned in that first paragraph is true.

The main reason I am using TOAW for this is:

a) because I can
b) I want to see how TOAW can (or can't) model tactical situations
c) I thought it would be interesting to see how that the lowest level how the engine handles smaller sized units and how they interact within the system, to gain a better understanding of the engine, that way it could help me make better decisions with company and battalion sized battles/scenarios, which is where I think TOAW really does shine
d) experience and understanding

For my tactical games I generally use Steel Panthers and the Campaign Series, but as I state in item c above, I am looking to do some battalion level games with the maneuver elements being companies, or regimental sized games/scenarios with the maneuver element being battalions.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You could have the unit in a static deployment until the transport arrives. This is probably more reliable than asking the replacement engine to deliver the right number of trucks to the right units on a realistic schedule.
***
Or they could move a hex at a time, which is probably not much different from moving 0 hexes. This is Russia after all and there's a lot of space to cover.
It's part of the design which works as it is and doesn't really cause any problems outside of extreme cases.

Yes, as I've mentioned from the beginning, I find this slightly annoying but can deal with it. What I do find truly annoying, however, is having to figure stuff like this out myself because the manual is incorrect/out of date, whatever.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You're always going to want to figure out how many trucks are needed to get the guns to move at motorised speed, and for the unit to really slow down if it only has half its trucks but still has all its guns. Whether that means giving it two trucks (current system) or four one is still designing for effect- rather than working out how many trucks were actually there. If you give the unit thirteen trucks instead of four then the game is going to count all those trucks towards Transport Asset Sharing and your supply level will go up.

Actually, this is exactly what I don't want to do...I find this type of black-box very frustrating, convoluted, and counter-intuitive. Panzer Campaigns, for instance, a more abstract but simpler and, in my view, better system: Units in PzC are containers for equipment, just as in TOAW, but the unit speed and movement class is set at the unit level, rather via some opaque process involving the summation of equipment characteristics. There is more to it than that, but that is the basic concept...

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
This applies to other things as well. The same battery has an HMG (presumably for air defence), but if you put the HMG in the unit at divisional scale then TOAW is going to assume that the HMG will go forward and support attacks. So if the artillery is standing alone in its own unit you maybe want the HMG in there- but if you've rolled it up into a bigger unit you definitely don't.

hmmm, this sounds interesting, but I don't understand what you're saying... Why would an HMG cause a divisional-sized unit move to attack, but not a battery-sized artillery unit?

ORIGINAL: Zovs
I am still tinkering with the AD, well it's set at the default of 10 and so far in the 8 turns I have test it seems to be okay at that level. For the Max Rounds so far I set it to 6 and it seems to be working okay, I may have to raise it up some (just upped it to 9 and will test it shortly)...

Yes, I plan to try 9 rounds.

ORIGINAL: Zovs
I just had to adjust down the precipitation, as each turn was getting more and more mud which was not working for me for June.

Yes, I've also found that "moderate" precipitation covers the map in mud in June, which seems excessive. Let me know if you find something more better, but not desert-like.