The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

GIO and DNO... if I got a dollar every time those two get mentioned... I'd have couple dollars now I guess [:D]

GIO and DNO are extreme examples in any case. Incredibly huge scenarios, pushing the envelope of TOAW engine further than many, including Norm himself, ever planned, or thought possible. The fact that they, kinda, work, and that we (myself included) love them, should not be mis-used to have them two appear in every argument on this board. They are simply extremes, and lets leave it at that.

What? I thought it was Mellenthin who gets mentioned in every discussion...[;)]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Having said that...

What's "recon attack" anyway? It's either "recon" or "probing attack". If it's recon - then there is no combat, and your turn will not end prematurely. If its "probing attack" then yes, there should be possibility of "probing attack gone wrong" which will screw up your day - please take apologies from STAVKA that your SS uebermensch got stopped by unexpectedly fierce defense of some "marginal" Soviet unit, or, in case of GIO, accept apologies from OKH because some German unit decided to... you fill in the rest [;)] Of course, it never happened in real war, right? [:D]

Personally, I never trigger any "marginal" attacks and/or attacks that took many MPs for units to get there, in first, or even second round of fighting in my turns. Thats what I call "operational planning". Of course, sometimes my "important" attacks take too long so there is no second or third phase at all - which is what happens on the battlefield in real life, and I can live with that.

O.

Bit busy at the moment so a short answer for what's a recon attack is: Those minimize losses attacks which gets any reserve units of the opponent moving and drain the supplies. I'll get back to this later.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Keke

What? I thought it was Mellenthin who gets mentioned in every discussion...[;)]

Mellenthin would make me go to early retirement [;)]

O.

[steveh11Matrix]

Oleg, can I join your club please? [:)]

However, I too would like to see the random early turn end being restricted by formation, rather than being 'across the board', and having it selectable by the scenario designer.

Steve.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

However, I too would like to see the random early turn end being restricted by formation, rather than being 'across the board', and having it selectable by the scenario designer.

I agree.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Personally, I never trigger any "marginal" attacks and/or attacks that took many MPs for units to get there, in first, or even second round of fighting in my turns.

Nobody with enough experience does that. When I say that turns ends without a proper reason, it means that all the attacks were planned carefully.

Btw, in GiO it would be the Soviet troops in their very first turn attacking the Finns for the very first time, when they suddenly find that they can do no proper full scale attacks during the first half-week anymore (this when there should be at least 80% of the turn left).

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Keke
Btw, in GiO it would be the Soviet troops in their very first turn attacking the Finns for the very first time, when they suddenly find that they can do no proper full scale attacks during the first half-week anymore (this when there should be at least 80% of the turn left).

What does it mean "it should"? If it "should" and it doesn't then it's a bug. If the turn ends when game designer (certain individual known by the name Norm Koger) intended, then it's the game working as advertised. Case closed. [;)]

O.

[Capitaine]

I agree 100% with Oleg and have stated it myself many times in the past. TOAW is an operational game, and complaints about its "inability" to model multi-year campaigns are misguided. Some may like or enjoy the attempts to make the game something it's not -- and great if they do -- but it was never intended for this role and it's doubtful that the engine ever will suffice for that purpose.

The greatest aspect of TOAW as a game is the very aspect condemned in this thread: The issues of time management placed on players involved in operational planning.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
The greatest aspect of TOAW as a game is the very aspect condemned in this thread: The issues of time management placed on players involved in operational planning.

Exactly [&o]

That is what makes TOAW so unique, subtle and fun. Otherwise, you'd have "click and attack" with every unit, once per turn - if you want that play Panzer General.

And if you want "Phillipines to Belgium within single turn" play the game in my sig (which is IMO excellent, otherwise I would not be putting it in my sig).

Oleg

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

So one wouldn't always want small units just brushed aside. They can indeed hold up the parade.

Yes Collin but what we are talking about here is the sturm gun in Belgium that holds up the army in the Philipines:^)

No that is a problem of bad scenario design. TOAW was never NEVER intended to cover "campaigns" stretching from Phillipines to Belgium. Some designers chose to do it anyway, but then ridicolous results are to be expected occassionally.

Oleg (founding member of "Keep TOAW Operational Level Game" club)

Bad scenario design certainly is at the root of a lot of faults that are often blamed on the program itself; however, things don't need to reach from Belgium to the Phillipines for the early turn ending to get absurd.

I first got aggravated by it while playing Ilkka's Decision in the North -- a scenario at a perfectly reasonable scale that covers the operations of Army Group North plus the Finnish front. Some little ski battalion up above the Arctic Circle would take a poke at some Russian border patrol -- and Manstein's panzers hundreds of miles to the south would come to a screeching halt.

...right. As it is, one finds oneself not proceeding with operations of subsidiary importance in Iowa lest they cause early turn ending in Idaho. It's ridiculous.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I first got aggravated by it while playing Ilkka's Decision in the North -- a scenario at a perfectly reasonable scale that covers the operations of Army Group North plus the Finnish front. Some little ski battalion up above the Arctic Circle would take a poke at some Russian border patrol -- and Manstein's panzers hundreds of miles to the south would come to a screeching halt.

Ilkka's Decision in the North is among the most ridicolous TOAW scenarios I've ever seen.

Sorry if I appear rude I am just being honest and direct here... I said so much directly to Ilkka in mails several times anyway, during testing of his scenario many years ago, so it's not like he does not know what i think of it.

So, I am sorry I can't and won't discuss further based on anything from scenarios like DITN - the very example of how TOAW scenarios should *NOT* be made (in my opinion of course).

If you think DITN is fine scenario design, we really have nothing to discuss, we may agree to disagree and go on our merry ways, with absolutely no hard feelings on my part whatsoever...

Funny thing you say yourself *exactly* what makes this scenario ridicolous in my eyes - "mixture" of miniscule 1-1 Finnish ski battalions on one side, and 32-25 German *DIVISIONS* on another. Skewed movement factors and strengths. Et cetera et cetera.

Can you say "bad scenario design"? [:'(]

If your 1-1 Finnish ski battalion screwed your Panzers you have to ask what purpose does Finnish ski battalion have in any such scenario at all? What did you want to do with it as operational level commander? If the scenario designer gave you this "tool" (mighty 1-1 Finish ski battalion) it also means he gave you the possibility to screw up your infantry *division* movement and plans with it. If you accept to play scenario as skewed as this, you also have to accept any result that will come of it.

In other words: Garbage in - garbage out [:D]

I'd personally take DITN as prime example why funny "mixtures" and half assed approaches do not, and should not work in subtle world of operational warfare scenario design TOAW intends to portray.

Again sorry if I came accross as being rude, just saying directly how I see it.

Oleg

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


What does it mean "it should"? If it "should" and it doesn't then it's a bug. If the turn ends when game designer (certain individual known by the name Norm Koger) intended, then it's the game working as advertised. Case closed. [;)]

O.

I hate it when you just pick one poorly chosen word of mine and ridicule it down (not the first time y'know). Yes, you are more fluent in English, but you should understand my point; there was nothing in the GiO situation that would warrant an early turn ending, it was just a simple dice roll to get that (a residue feature from some boardgames). And that is poor computer game design and nothing else.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


Ilkka's Decision in the North is among the most ridicolous TOAW scenarios I've ever seen.

Sorry if I appear rude I am just being honest and direct here... I said so much directly to Ilkka in mails several times anyway, during testing of his scenario many years ago, so it's not like he does not know what i think of it.

So, I am sorry I can't and won't discuss further based on anything from scenarios like DITN - the very example of how TOAW scenarios should *NOT* be made (in my opinion of course).

If you think DITN is fine scenario design, we really have nothing to discuss, we may agree to disagree and go on our merry ways, with absolutely no hard feelings on my part whatsoever...

Funny thing you say yourself *exactly* what makes this scenario ridicolous in my eyes - "mixture" of miniscule 1-1 Finnish ski battalions on one side, and 32-25 German *DIVISIONS* on another. Skewed movement factors and strengths. Et cetera et cetera.

Can you say "bad scenario design"? [:'(]

If your 1-1 Finnish ski battalion screwed your Panzers you have to ask what purpose does Finnish ski battalion have in any such scenario at all? What did you want to do with it as operational level commander? If the scenario designer gave you this "tool" (mighty 1-1 Finish ski battalion) it also means he gave you the possibility to screw up your infantry *division* movement and plans with it. If you accept to play scenario as skewed as this, you also have to accept any result that will come of it.

In other words: Garbage in - garbage out [:D]

I'd personally take DITN as prime example why funny "mixtures" and half assed approaches do not, and should not work in subtle world of operational warfare scenario design TOAW intends to portray.

Again sorry if I came accross as being rude, just saying directly how I see it.

Had a very good PBEM of DITN a couple of years ago, and I strongly disagree about its quality. Not perfect but good. I've heard this "it's the scenario's" -fault argument before many times, but especially in this case it's BS.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Keke
Had a very good PBEM of DITN a couple of years ago, and I strongly disagree about its quality. Not perfect but good. I've heard this "it's the scenario's" -fault argument before many times, but especially in this case it's BS.

Scenario is Finno-centric to the extreme - that may be the main reason you like it [;)]

Oleg

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Scenario is Finno-centric to the extreme - that may be the main reason you like it [;)]

Oleg

Well...you have a point there, but the scenario is definitely not rubbish.

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

I wouldn't agree with you Oleg. Situation in which one independet marginal attack stops whole operation elsewhere and results in early turn end often happened in every regular scenarios (scenarios which comes with a game).

What's "marginal attack"? If it's really so marginal then leave it for the last phase in your turn, for when you are sure there will be no other phases, or you don't really need more phases. Otherwise it's *bad operational planning* and you deserve to be punished. There is a reason why all good offensive operations had to stick to very precise timetable, otherwise they would turn into shambles real fast. If you miscalculate, and turn ends sooner than you expected - well, too bad, war is hell, grind your teeth and soldier on [:D] (or whine on the boards, choice is yours).

Ok. At the end it don't need to be marginal. I used marginal just to emphasize eventual frustration that can occure affter you lose a turn. But take for example Middle East 73 scenario. How can you explain that attack at Golan stops other attack which is occuring at same time on Sinai?! These two attacks are totaly INDEPENDET! Maybe it is planned that they start at same moment but both attack have independet goals and independet progress. Can you imagine that attack on Sinai, which is going as planned in every way, has to stop just because second attack have difficulties to break through defensive line?

Same situation I had playing other scenarios (Kharkow 42, Crusader 41...). This doesn't depend on scope of scenario (small or huge) and that is not issue here. Issue is that you have two or more INDEPENDET attacks and that one of them screws others. This can be true for division level as well as for company level attack (vietnam scenarios).

I like TOAW and I played it a lot but TOAW is not perfect and there is a space for improvement (underestimated SAM performances for example...)

Emir

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I agree 100% with Oleg and have stated it myself many times in the past. TOAW is an operational game, and complaints about its "inability" to model multi-year campaigns are misguided. Some may like or enjoy the attempts to make the game something it's not -- and great if they do -- but it was never intended for this role and it's doubtful that the engine ever will suffice for that purpose.

The greatest aspect of TOAW as a game is the very aspect condemned in this thread: The issues of time management placed on players involved in operational planning.

The problem is that the current system has nothing to do with real world tactics and strategy. In fact much of the time is just a bad idea to think in terms of real world operations amd instead play the game. In Descision in the North Finns are to stay out of attacks simply because they have a chance of interfering with the much more important activities of Army Group North. In World War II the Finns were active in the defence of tehir country but here they are essentially paralyzed because Finnland is just not worth enough in terms of VPs to risk fighting with them.


Another example is if you are planning on doing any kind of naval invasion. In this case you have to skip the first part of your turn or face the real danger that your naval invasion will simply be loitering off the coast when your turn ends - where they will likely be destroyed by half the enemeis airforce that are rebasing to nearby airfields for this new and exciting turkey shoot.

The whole thing does not really reflect any kind of reality as it stands and it strongly rewards ahistorical gamey planning and tactics.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic
Ok. At the end it don't need to be marginal. I used marginal just to emphasize eventual frustration that can occure affter you lose a turn. But take for example Middle East 73 scenario. How can you explain that attack at Golan stops other attack which is occuring at same time on Sinai?! These two attacks are totaly INDEPENDET! Maybe it is planned that they start at same moment but both attack have independet goals and independet progress. Can you imagine that attack on Sinai, which is going as planned in every way, has to stop just because second attack have difficulties to break through defensive line?

What has to "stop"? Atack A never stopped because of attack B, if the Attack A is ordered at all.

Trigger both attacks in the same phase (the first one) and then you'll have both attacks play out for sure, even if you'll have no other phases in that turn.

People try to fumble with TOAW turn phases, trying to squeeze as many as possible, oftenly with no understanding of what goes on "behind the scene", very oftenly playing very badly designed scenarios to begin with and complain when things don't turn out 100% perfect as they imagined. Well that's war. Dice and rnd number generator are not always your friends.

Same situation I had playing other scenarios (Kharkow 42, Crusader 41...). This doesn't depend on scope of scenario (small or huge) and that is not issue here. Issue is that you have two or more INDEPENDET attacks and that one of them screws others. This can be true for division level as well as for company level attack (vietnam scenarios).

Keke may again accusse me of nitpicking other people's choice of words, but in what sense did attack A "screw" the attack B?? If BOTH attacks are ordered to begin with, you'll have both of them play out!

If attack A took so long, that you could NOT even order the attack B within same turn, then there never *was* attack B except in player's wet dreams [;)] Well those dreams turned out to be just dreams (as is case so oftenly in real war) and you'll have to postpone your *planned*, *dream* attack B for another turn. Nothing essentialy wrong with that IMO.

I like TOAW and I played it a lot but TOAW is not perfect and there is a space for improvement (underestimated SAM performances for example...)

Yes the game can be improved of course.

But 95% of what is wrong with TOAW, or what people *perceive* is wrong with TOAW can be tracked down to BAD and DISASTROUS and STRANGE and FUNNY scenario design. People doing things this game was never meant to do. People making skewed scenarios. People having no idea at all about stuff like movement rates, unit sizes etc. I could name 4-5 scenario designers whose work is just pure rubbish (Ilkka, incidentally, would not be one of them, DITN is just exceptionally bad scenario from him). I won't do that cause I don't want to turn this thread into endless flame war.

Yes, some scenarios from the stock game were rubbish too.

For example Korsun 44 scenario (I think this one came with TOAW 1 and went all thru the series). Turn length here was something like 6 or 12 hours, and ground turned to mud like before the game even started. Movement rates for TANKS then bogged down to like 3 hexes per turn.

Squeezing more than one phase from any given turn in this scenario was simply impossible. This scenario seemed to depict fight between tired three legged elephants stuck in mud, not the modern mechanized campaign it meant to be. Just totally totally badly designed scenario, and that's all.

I can imagine people getting frustrated by it and taking it out on GAME instead of SCENARIO designer.

Oleg

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
The problem is that the current system has nothing to do with real world tactics and strategy. In fact much of the time is just a bad idea to think in terms of real world operations amd instead play the game. In Descision in the North Finns are to stay out of attacks simply because they have a chance of interfering with the much more important activities of Army Group North. In World War II the Finns were active in the defence of tehir country but here they are essentially paralyzed because Finnland is just not worth enough in terms of VPs to risk fighting with them.

We have another clear example of accusing the game engine for what is clearly fallacy of scenario design.

Interesting, I'd agree with everything you said above, and nearly everything Colin said about DITN before you.

But contrary to you two I see that as BAD scenario design, not the bugs in the original game. Can't you see everything you say essentially points out that DITN is screwed scenario?

O.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

People try to fumble with TOAW turn phases, trying to squeeze as many as possible, oftenly with no understanding of what goes on "behind the scene", very oftenly playing very badly designed scenarios to begin with and complain when things don't turn out 100% perfect as they imagined. Well that's war. Dice and rnd number generator are not always your friends.

Yeah, GiO and DnO are crappy scenarios and I, like most TOAW-players, have no idea what happens under the hood. [8|] I think nobody is claiming that every turn should go 100% perfect, and there shouldn't be any randomness, but that there are some really stupid things happening: One offensive gone bad (note: nothing wrong with that) turning another offensive to a failure without any rational connection, or a operationally swell situation, like the start of the Barbarossa, turning into a joke , because the Axis didn't manage to do anything else but lightly probe Soviet lines for a half-week, thanks to a dice roll.

Oh and Emir obviously means two separate offensives at different parts of the front triggered at the same time...

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

But 95% of what is wrong with TOAW, or what people *perceive* is wrong with TOAW can be tracked down to BAD and DISASTROUS and STRANGE and FUNNY scenario design. People doing things this game was never meant to do. People making skewed scenarios. People having no idea at all about stuff like movement rates, unit sizes etc. I could name 4-5 scenario designers whose work is just pure rubbish (Ilkka, incidentally, would not be one of them, DITN is just exceptionally bad scenario from him). I won't do that cause I don't want to turn this thread into endless flame war.

Yes, some scenarios from the stock game were rubbish too.

For example Korsun 44 scenario (I think this one came with TOAW 1 and went all thru the series). Turn length here was something like 6 or 12 hours, and ground turned to mud like before the game even started. Movement rates for TANKS then bogged down to like 3 hexes per turn.

Squeezing more than one phase from any given turn in this scenario was simply impossible. This scenario seemed to depict fight between tired three legged elephants stuck in mud, not the modern mechanized campaign it meant to be. Just totally totally badly designed scenario, and that's all.

I can imagine people getting frustrated by it and taking it out on GAME instead of SCENARIO designer.

Almost all the original scenarios were rubbish, so if you use them as an example naturally the scenario design is to blame.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I first got aggravated by it while playing Ilkka's Decision in the North -- a scenario at a perfectly reasonable scale that covers the operations of Army Group North plus the Finnish front. Some little ski battalion up above the Arctic Circle would take a poke at some Russian border patrol -- and Manstein's panzers hundreds of miles to the south would come to a screeching halt.

Ilkka's Decision in the North is among the most ridicolous TOAW scenarios I've ever seen.

Sorry if I appear rude I am just being honest and direct here... I said so much directly to Ilkka in mails several times anyway, during testing of his scenario many years ago, so it's not like he does not know what i think of it.

So, I am sorry I can't and won't discuss further based on anything from scenarios like DITN - the very example of how TOAW scenarios should *NOT* be made (in my opinion of course).

If you think DITN is fine scenario design, we really have nothing to discuss, we may agree to disagree and go on our merry ways, with absolutely no hard feelings on my part whatsoever...

Funny thing you say yourself *exactly* what makes this scenario ridicolous in my eyes - "mixture" of miniscule 1-1 Finnish ski battalions on one side, and 32-25 German *DIVISIONS* on another. Skewed movement factors and strengths. Et cetera et cetera.

Can you say "bad scenario design"? [:'(]

If your 1-1 Finnish ski battalion screwed your Panzers you have to ask what purpose does Finnish ski battalion have in any such scenario at all? What did you want to do with it as operational level commander? If the scenario designer gave you this "tool" (mighty 1-1 Finish ski battalion) it also means he gave you the possibility to screw up your infantry *division* movement and plans with it. If you accept to play scenario as skewed as this, you also have to accept any result that will come of it.

In other words: Garbage in - garbage out [:D]

I'd personally take DITN as prime example why funny "mixtures" and half assed approaches do not, and should not work in subtle world of operational warfare scenario design TOAW intends to portray.

Again sorry if I came accross as being rude, just saying directly how I see it.

Oleg

Your attempts to make them otherwise notwithstanding, your criticisms of DitN are essentially irrelevant. Examples illustrating essentially the same point could be drawn from plenty of scenarios -- and sooner or later we could corner you into admitting that one of the scenarios was good.

The fact remains that with early turning ending as it is, one faces two choices with a subsidiary attack at low odds -- and both choices are equally unrealistic. First, one can launch the attack -- and risk a mysterious paralysis sweeping through your entire force, causing all their attacks to be halted mid-stride. Second, one can not make the attack -- 'but we can't attack, sir!' 'Why not?' 'Our actions might freeze reality on the other side of our known universe!' The fact is that what happens to a unit on one side of the map should not be able to exert this instantaneous affect on units on the other side of the map. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Swedish ski battalions of Bolivian infantry brigades.

Butterfies in Peking have nothing on TOAW. The current solution is NOT a satisfactory solution. Pointless to pretend otherwise.