Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

That's because they're paper games.

I don't play a lot of 19th century tactical games- but I recall there was one released in about 1988 where one had to issue orders and request reports from AI subordinates rather than just moving tiles around the map as though one were God rather than a general on a hill with a telescope.

Aren't there modern simulations that do this? Where your perfectly laid out plans fall over because one flank simply didn't know what it was supposed to do? If not then the industry really is worse than I thought.

Sounds like that's a no.

If my scenario is as good as the game it is based upon, that's a win. (And it's actually better because it enjoys TOAW's unit and combat details that paper games can never match).

Didn't Talonsoft release a tactical game more or less specifically for this subject? As I recall it had the same 3D icons from TOAW. You might want to look at that.

I don't want to have to learn - or purchase - some other game. I want to empower TOAW's scenario designers.

Sounds great. How does he model Hannibal living off the Roman countryside? Or are we talking about the first Punic war- are there rules that cause your units to attack when you're not ready because they want the glory of defeating Carthage before their year as Consul runs out? Or are you the consul and you only play one turn?

You can probably still find his scenario out on the web somewhere. Regardless of what or how he did anything, giving him the turn and hex scales he needed improves his design. They will empower other designs as well, like the ETO one I mentioned.

No you have chronic scope creep and you will never be able to model everything from a duel to an intergalactic war in a single engine with any kind of fidelity.

So...no expansion of TOAW's abilities at all - even low cost ones (which the above were).

Brace yourself for some heavy duty scope creep, Ben. I've already crossed the Rubicon on that issue.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

The problem with this is not so much extending the scale in itself as now someone is going to ask, why can my direct fire artillery shoot through a hill?

I just wanted to comment on this, from my tests with my platoon level game it does seem that Artillery can shoot over hills. I am seeing that in my platoon level test game.

You will never see a charge of the Light Brigade in TOAW. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You will never see a charge of the Light Brigade in TOAW. [:D]

Now I see that as a challenge...can I build it?

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Zovs
I just wanted to comment on this, from my tests with my platoon level game it does seem that Artillery can shoot over hills. I am seeing that in my platoon level test game.

I think that was GD's point: sometimes in tactical games hills and other LOS obstacles should block lines of fire/sight.

Ah, got you on the LOS, however for what it's worth, while Artillery units may not have a clear LOS to a target they should be able to perform indirect artillery, however that then leads to the myriad of spotters, radio contact battery access, etc...

what's a poor boy to do...?

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Zovs
I just wanted to comment on this, from my tests with my platoon level game it does seem that Artillery can shoot over hills. I am seeing that in my platoon level test game.

I think that was GD's point: sometimes in tactical games hills and other LOS obstacles should block lines of fire/sight.

Over the years I’ve made a few scenarios (and played many others) with scales where LOS could have been an issue, but in the end it’s a lot like the abstract way other features are modeled. Sure, you can get anal and pick it apart, but in the end you’ll live with it, move on and enjoy the scenario the way it is. During actual game play most combat takes place between adjacent units and, if you keep the scenario design so that ranged weapons are indirect weapon types, LOS doesn’t really become an issue. Just keep theater recon to a level where units obscured by trees or high ground are not readily visible.

Regards

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I don't want to have to learn - or purchase - some other game. I want to empower TOAW's scenario designers.

Given the hoops one has to jump through to make these cases "work" in TOAW, I don't think the learning curve of a new game would be a problem.

You could make this argument for all sorts of things: why bother getting MS Word when you can just use Notepad. Well...

So...no expansion of TOAW's abilities at all - even low cost ones (which the above were).

No- I would suggest expansion that compliments the existing abilities. Or is volume based supply a dirty word?

Or is volume based supply a dirty word?

It may or may not be dirty - and I've absolutely what it might mean - but it's definitely more than one word.

ORIGINAL: Rescue193

Or is volume based supply a dirty word?

It may or may not be dirty - and I've absolutely what it might mean - but it's definitely more than one word.

We could make it a hashtag if that helps? #volumebasedsupply!

Anyway, the point is that in TOAW, each hex has a given supply level which is calculated based on the location of supply points and the transport network, and then units draw supply based on the hex's supply level (and a couple of other factors).

The missing piece of the puzzle is that having more units in a theatre doesn't cause the supply level to go down. This has implications for scenarios with geographically separated fronts which the player can move pieces between. For example, in a "War in Europe" scenario, unless a house rule is used the Axis player could drop forty divisions into North Africa and they would receive exactly the same amount of supply as the historic DAK. A house rule in this isolated case may be practical- but there are other, much more complicated situations that can arise. The lack of #volumebasedsupply is also a barrier to realistic offensives: in the real world, supplies are built up far in excess of what units can actually carry with them and then drawn down on for the duration of the offensive, thus allowing more supplies to go forward than the logistics net would normally allow.

I did work out on paper how #volumebasedsupply might look- and it would be a fairly big bit of coding effort from what I understand of programming since you'd have to totally rebuild the supply trace algorithm and build in some new logic around supply dumps being established in forward locations. However it's the single largest gap in TOAW's capability when it comes to the core concept of simulation Operational Warfare in the second quarter of the 20th century.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Given the hoops one has to jump through to make these cases "work" in TOAW, I don't think the learning curve of a new game would be a problem.

Those "hoops" are no more than what you had to jump through to make that paper wargame work.

No- I would suggest expansion that compliments the existing abilities. Or is volume based supply a dirty word?

You're talking about overseas supply, basically. Plenty would argue that that expansion is beyond TOAW's existing abilities - and they would be right ("ground warfare not amphibious warfare!"). But I'm not going to constrain TOAW to its "existing abilities". Note that we've already made some enhancements to naval warfare - essential to such supply - but many more abilities must be added to make it function. I'll just say that I can't discuss what is in development.

But, seeing as how you are a member of the Development Team, and therefore have been made privy to the Development Plan, that was a very strange complaint.

I honestly hadn't come across the the term "volume based supply" before, so thanks for the explanation. I do appreciate it.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Given the hoops one has to jump through to make these cases "work" in TOAW, I don't think the learning curve of a new game would be a problem.

Those "hoops" are no more than what you had to jump through to make that paper wargame work.

I'm not making a paper wargame, though. If I were, why not get one of those engines which lets you move tiles around however you want and it's up to you to apply the rules?

You're talking about overseas supply, basically.

No, I'm talking about multiple scenarios. Did you read my follow up post?

But, seeing as how you are a member of the Development Team, and therefore have been made privy to the Development Plan, that was a very strange complaint.

You're assuming I've read the dev forum in the last five years...

... alright, I looked. Anyway, one can always hope for increased priority.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You're talking about overseas supply, basically.

No, I'm talking about multiple scenarios. Did you read my follow up post?

Why would we make discrete supply handling without the ability to include overseas supply? That would be the principle application. It has to cover that. And that means all sort of complications that have to be sorted out first.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Why would we make discrete supply handling without the ability to include overseas supply? That would be the principle application. It has to cover that. And that means all sort of complications that have to be sorted out first.

I'd say it's the most obvious application but not the principle one. For me, volume based supply would come in whenever a player wants to make a big offensive: they'll need to start stockpiling supply first since the logistical net can't bring supplies forward fast enough once things are in high gear.

It's not relevant for short campaigns which I admit are TOAW's sweet spot- but take a quick look at the AARs forum. Every second post is either D21 or FitE. These scenarios would be hugely enhanced by the ability to build up supplies prior to an offensive.