The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Yeah, like guys in this thread? [:D] I see this thread is bursting at the seams from all this mutual trust and goodwill [8|]

I might disagree with you but I don't think you'd cheat at TOAW. Hardly anyone does. I suppose I could be wrong.

They work fine for me.

Wait... can it be because THE WHOLE GAME WORKS FINE FOR ME???

Now who needs to chill? Anyway, you just said that you don't like the way DitN works, because of a problem which you attribute to bad design, which is even more acute in games like Drang Nach Osten.

In my view, you can either see DitN and DNO as both good designs, or both bad designs, in the light of the above. In my view, they're both pretty good compared to the average, though could do with some improvement.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lava

From an operational level, planning and execution would focus almost exclusively on the main attack. This is the really world, and how staffs function.

The other attack would still go ahead. Are you saying that it wouldn't?

Operationally, I'm saying the other attack is insignificant and should be treated that way. If, however, you are willing to risk supporting other operations which detract from your main operational goal, then don't be surprised if you fail to achieve it.

I personal believe TOAW does a fairly good simulation of operational level warfare.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lava

Have you ever served on a high level staff?

Are you going to tell me that you have? If we're going to talk about staff planning, that big offensive needed to be planned out in some detail a couple of weeks in advance. Of course in TOAW you can just muddle through.

Yes, I am going to tell you I have served on operational staff and have participated in military "wargames" up to the strategic level.

Muddling through doesn't sound very "grog-like" to me. If you put together a major offensive in TOAW the computer will treat it that way and you will see the results of that offensive with multiple attacks. If the turn ends "early", possibly your muddling wasn't up to operational level thinking.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lava

Really? So you are trying to say that a "minor" level operation would get the green light when the fate of the war (the example you made) is at stake? Hardly.

Mm. Actually, it's common practice to keep up low level operations on secondary parts of the front to keep the enemy guessing as to your intentions. So your argument is nonsense.

Nice statement. I'm not making an argument, I'm basing my statements on real world experience, and I do so in a curtious manner.

Before the operation begins, yes. Once the operational plan enters the execution phase, however, all activities that do not support the effort become insignificant. Believe it or not, in the real world, you don't get to move all your counters at once. [;)]

Sounds to me like you guys want to "game" the system. The conversation has already brought up other "gamey" aspects which people "appear" to believe are "real." The 100% proficiency aspect, for example.

Here's the real world. I was once in a attack squadron which won the "The Battle E" (efficiency) Award" and "The McClusky Award" for the best attack squadron in the Navy (24 at that time). I can assure you we were never close to 100% proficiency.

Ray (alias Lava)

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Well, we already have TOAW. We're guaranteed a release of TOAW volume 1.07. You seem to be content to accept what we've already been promised. That's not good enough. I want MORE. You're the one who's being destructive- destructive of the possibility of improving TOAW.

Please...

Unlike Colin I'm not the one starting threads with subjects like "A nightmere scenario."

I've seen this kind of stuff over and over again. The old grogs start spewing their, "this is unrealistic" crap, pressuring the developer to cater to them and resulting in a patch that totally *quarks* the game.

Talk about a nightmere scenario....

Ray (alias Lava)

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

I think this is a key point Oleg is making - a number of scenarios, including some on the original CD, seem to ignore this. In the example of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, it simply doesn't make sense to simulate both the Golan Heights and Suez Canal fronts on the same map in the same scenario...

Ironically, Norm designed two scenarios which did exactly that.

Do you think they're any good?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Operationally, I'm saying the other attack is insignificant and should be treated that way.

It will happen though. If it's not happening in the model then the model is wrong.

I personal believe TOAW does a fairly good simulation of operational level warfare.

Absolutely. The best one which is commercially available. That's why I think we (you, me, everyone) should strive to make it even better.

Muddling through doesn't sound very "grog-like" to me. If you put together a major offensive in TOAW the computer will treat it that way and you will see the results of that offensive with multiple attacks. If the turn ends "early", possibly your muddling wasn't up to operational level thinking.

.... the thing is, the player doesn't represent your operational-level staff. It represents some non-existant entity which has control over every regiment on the Eastern Front, or whatever.

I discussed this sort of thing in my BA dissertation. If we were to get really serious about wargaming, the player's view and powers would be restricted to that of his historical counterpart, and the AI would take control of the various corps and divisions. However, that would make it no longer much of a game and more of an exercise in military history. I don't want to do that.

FWIW, I do plan my offensives. And I don't launch that marginal attack. That's not realistic though. Given that, in game terms, I am both the high level and the intermediate level staffs (including the corps' which is doing nothing else except launching this marginal attack), it doesn't make any sense for the attack not to go in.

Before the operation begins, yes. Once the operational plan enters the execution phase, however, all activities that do not support the effort become insignificant. Believe it or not, in the real world, you don't get to move all your counters at once. [;)]

Look at it in terms of the examples I was giving you. Take Poland. 14th Army is making this drive on Lvov. XIX Panzerkorps is driving on Brest. These operations are the main focus of their respective army groups (Nord and Sud) and of OKH, because the intention of OKH is to cut off any Polish forces remaining in Eastern Poland. However, they are not the concern of 10th Army's headquarters. 10th Army's headquarters is interested in probing the defenses of Warszawa, and they will do that.

Are you seriously suggesting that 10th Army's operations would come to a halt because their parent organisation had their focus elsewhere?

Thing is, you're only looking at this from OKH's perspective. That doesn't help, though, because the player isn't OKH. He's some wierd amalgamation of OKH and all the subordinate HQs.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Unlike Colin I'm not the one starting threads with subjects like "A nightmere scenario."

Colin had a specific and very serious concern, which was addressed by a Matrix employee. The thread has since not seen any activity. I don't see how this is destructive.

The old grogs start spewing their, "this is unrealistic" crap, pressuring the developer to cater to them and resulting in a patch that totally *quarks* the game.

Since you like TOAW as it is already, and TOAW as it is already will still exist, I don't see what the problem is.

Your stated desire is to see more scenarios. I suspect you have this idea that Matrix could pay designers for their work and then publish the scenarios. That won't work. Given the small size of the market, a scenario designer can never make a significant amount of money from such a deal. The way to encourage designers to make scenarios (speaking as a designer) is to give them tools which they want to use. TOAW scenario designers only do so because they enjoy it.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Thing is, you're only looking at this from OKH's perspective.

True enough, but then again, that's how I "perceive" the game was designed. At the army level, you can only do so much. You are constrained by things like time, logistics and intelligence.

I understand what you guys want and believe, but I perfer the "operational" constraints placed on me by the game rather than try to simulate "some wierd amalgamation of OKH and all the subordinate HQs."

When I play, I AM OKH. And the subordinate HQ's follow my orders. That is what I believe the game was intended to do.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My example suggests to recombine the forces whenever possible, before your turn end. Formational reorg is checked during the ABP, and in my experience has been more a function of total losses throughout the formation, than the number of sub-divided units in it.

Alright, I've misunderstood you then. This would work. Going back to my original point, it is still counterintuitive that a lower proficiency unit would be more useful in game terms than a higher proficiency unit.

TOAW has room for improvement, to be sure. However, in this particular issue - the use of high proficiency units - the problem lies with players not understanding how to optimize the usage of their forces, and not with the game engine.

I would hold it up as an engine flaw because the optimization technique you mention has little to do with reality. I would like to see as much symmetry as possible between TOAW and the real world. A player should be able to make decisions based on real world criteria. Whenever your thinking strays from that and into what makes sense in terms of the game engine, you've probably hit on an area which could be improved.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

True enough, but then again, that's how I "perceive" the game was designed. At the army level, you can only do so much. You are constrained by things like time, logistics and intelligence.

Right, and this would be a fine approach- if the game had the AI handling each of the subordinate parts of the army where OKH's focus isn't. Since the game doesn't do that, it's a worse distortion to prevent the player controlling everything than to allow him to do so.

When I play, I AM OKH. And the subordinate HQ's follow my orders.

... OKH gave 10th Army an operational order at the start of the campaign which incorporated the possibility of probing Warszawa. Come 15th September, OKH isn't interested in 10th Army and is focusing on 14th Army and on XIX Panzerkorps. 10th Army isn't crippled- it has it's own staffs at several levels. It probes Warszawa.

Bang, bang, bang. 80% Proficient panzer regiment fights for nine rounds against fortified infantry. Guderian remains on his start line for three days.

Your approach is certainly interesting, it shows you've thought about this more than some, and it does raise some more questions. However, I don't think it explains early turn ending.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Your stated desire is to see more scenarios. I suspect you have this idea that Matrix could pay designers for their work and then publish the scenarios.

Not at all. My experience has been that people who REALLY support a game design are quite happy to freely assist. Significant contributions such as scenarios are worthy of credit, and I believe they would receive that.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

TOAW scenario designers only do so because they enjoy it.

Of course, that goes without saying. However, successful scenario designers or game modders (of whatever game), often find themselves gainfully employed by companies which seek their talent. So there can be benefit.

Hopefully, with all the material out there, I should think that there are individuals who would willing provide their scenarios to Matrix for publication and credit.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

I think this is a key point Oleg is making - a number of scenarios, including some on the original CD, seem to ignore this. In the example of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, it simply doesn't make sense to simulate both the Golan Heights and Suez Canal fronts on the same map in the same scenario...

Ironically, Norm designed two scenarios which did exactly that.

Do you think they're any good?

They were fun from a strictly gaming point of view. I agree with you regarding how such a scenario functions as a simulation. I just wanted to point out the existence of two essentially strategic level scenarios that were designed by the game creator since people were getting into defending what I think are pretty obviously flaws in TOAW based on a divination of some mythical "appropriate" scale.

[Capitaine]

True enough, but then again, that's how I "perceive" the game was designed. At the army level, you can only do so much. You are constrained by things like time, logistics and intelligence.

I understand what you guys want and believe, but I perfer the "operational" constraints placed on me by the game rather than try to simulate "some wierd amalgamation of OKH and all the subordinate HQs."

When I play, I AM OKH. And the subordinate HQ's follow my orders. That is what I believe the game was intended to do.

Excellent points Lava. The problem on this thread is with some gamers' perception of the premise of TOAW. I think that accounts for most of the disagreements. The design issue thus hinges on who has the correct premise, and that is where the oft-cited "godlike" guidance of Norm Koger may well have a proper place. Those who don't identify Norm's premise yet insist it's broken don't really want to "fix" the game, but rather take it over and remake it in their image.

If Norm had a flawed premise, I wouldn't have a problem with changes to the game (I find many games have incorrect premises that I would like changed). But no one has stated or proven that Norm's overall premise was wrong, so I have a lot of concern about his creative legacy being tossed aside by those who wish to create but lack the talent to build their own game engine.

Cobbling together a new game out of a complex existing game without knowing all the thought processes involved with the original engine is a recipe for disaster.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hopefully, with all the material out there, I should think that there are individuals who would willing provide their scenarios to Matrix for publication and credit.

Yeah, I would be. But there's a limit to how far I'm interested in producing new scenarios when the tools retain the same limitations.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Excellent points Lava. The problem on this thread is with some gamers' perception of the premise of TOAW. I think that accounts for most of the disagreements. The design issue thus hinges on who has the correct premise, and that is where the oft-cited "godlike" guidance of Norm Koger may well have a proper place. Those who identify Norm's premise, and still disagree with it don't really want to "fix" the game, but take it over and remake it in their image.

Right. Tell me what Norm's premise was, and how people seek to change it.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
I have a lot of concern about his creative legacy being tossed aside by those who wish to create but lack the talent to build their own game engine.

TOAW is intended to be a toolkit. I would like to see it made as freely editable as possible. Not so much changing to game engine as opening it up.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Wow man, you really do have an attitude. Just what TOAW needs, and just what I have been saying over and over again.

You guys walze in here, thinking now were going to have the game made the way "WE" want it, and if "we" don't get what "we" want, "we" will tell the world how crap the game is.

Yeah. We hate TOAW so much that we've run a website and forum dedicated to it for four years.

I don't call that being a "grog", I call that being destructive. And that kind of destructive, almost suicidal, attitude has become synonomous with "grogs" and wargames.

Good wargames are few and far apart, and thanks to "destructive grogs" they are becoming an endangered species.

Ray (alias Lava)

Good automobiles are few and far apart, and thanks to "Consumer Reports" they are becoming an endangered species.

Companies will sell to any market. As I told Ben, it really doesn't matter if the customers are assholes or not. In fact, most customers are assholes, and successful companies know how to deal with this.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Excellent points Lava. The problem on this thread is with some gamers' perception of the premise of TOAW. I think that accounts for most of the disagreements. The design issue thus hinges on who has the correct premise, and that is where the oft-cited "godlike" guidance of Norm Koger may well have a proper place. Those who identify Norm's premise, and still disagree with it don't really want to "fix" the game, but take it over and remake it in their image.

Right. Tell me what Norm's premise was, and how people seek to change it.

Well, I believe it was to provide a game which constrained the player by "operational" considerations.

Now... if I remember correctly, someone has a list of "100 bugs or changes." THAT kinda sounds like remaking to me...

Ray (alias Lava)

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Excellent points Lava. The problem on this thread is with some gamers' perception of the premise of TOAW. I think that accounts for most of the disagreements. The design issue thus hinges on who has the correct premise, and that is where the oft-cited "godlike" guidance of Norm Koger may well have a proper place. Those who identify Norm's premise, and still disagree with it don't really want to "fix" the game, but take it over and remake it in their image.

Right. Tell me what Norm's premise was, and how people seek to change it.

Well, I believe it was to provide a game which constrained the player by "operational" considerations.

Now... if I remember correctly, someone has a list of "100 bugs or changes." THAT kinda sounds like remaking to me...

Ray (alias Lava)

But since you haven't bothered to read those 100 bugs, you missed the fact that many of them are intended to fix actual bugs in the game, for example SAMs that don't work, communication levels that don't work, etc. Do they invalidate the game as a simulation? not at all, but they are tools that are unavailable to the designer because they don't work.

Now, who's going to fix it? Matrix, but to fix it, Matrix must know they are there, which is why this forums are here. According to you we should just shut up, just in case fixing this bugs kills the hobby, a non-sequitur, if I have seen one.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Right. Tell me what Norm's premise was, and how people seek to change it.

I believe Norm's premise was to account for the variable amount of time within a single turn that any given attack could require, and reflect the overall command ramifications of this attack on the operation as a whole.

Unlike you and others, I do not see multiple rounds of combat within a turn as being guaranteed or even expected. They may occur and they are often beneficial in the right circumstance when set up properly. Therefore, if you've set up your main attack to use multiple rounds of combat, and this attack is essential, do not attack elsewhere. Save those "regular" attacks for a later round of combat -- once your main attack has achieved what you desired. Why delay the regular attacks? Because that is how Norm designed the time usage factor to work and no one has suggested how the same premise can be accomplished through less drastic means. The game is, by nature, sequential after all.

Remember, the game unit is still the "turn", not the phases thereof. The game system suggests that you can have unfinished activities in any given turn if you don't plan accordingly. This, I think, is patently obvious from the design itself. So it seems to me that you're simply disenchanted with the premise of the game itself if you complain that "realistically" you should be able to coordinate everything perfectly within the [indefinite] phases of a turn. The indefinite nature of a turn is, patently, central to the game.

If some players "game" the turn to squeeze out more activities, then that is just the way the game can be played. At some level, the game decides that the attacks made can be resolved quickly enough to permit further action. It's a system that requires real life thought processes, but does not necessarily yield real life results in every single case. It is a game, after all.

It's a matter of which aspect of operational warfare is to be emphasized. I think the game system itself distincly shows the aspect Norm had in mind. If Norm were to personally state that this assumption was wrong, and that the time usage aspect of the game was secondary to the aspects deemed essential to other players, I would concede immediately. That is why I maintain the the time usage/turn ending feature is central to the design of TOAW.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I believe Norm's premise was to account for the variable amount of time within a single turn that any given attack could require, and reflect the overall command ramifications of this attack on the operation as a whole.

These ramifications are appropriate at some scales. At others, they aren't. By having the effect be editable(say a toggle between the current global effect and a more localized[formation level] one), you open up new possibilities for scenarios, which are the life blood of this game system.