East Front Map

[Panama]

This is all I can do under 3.4

[BigDuke66]

Is there enough room to expand the map to the west to include Berlin?

[Panama]

Under 3.5 you could include the U.S. East Coast. [:D]

Just kidding. With 3.4, no. It's as far east and west as it can go. With 3.5 you might get in all of Western Europe besides what is already done.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Under 3.5 you could include the U.S. East Coast. [:D]

Just kidding. With 3.4, no. It's as far east and west as it can go. With 3.5 you might get in all of Western Europe besides what is already done.

...speaking of 3.5! Perhaps a release around x-mas? The 'Schwerpunkt Kharkov - The four battles' won't be started before the 3.5 :/

Klink, Oberst

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

...speaking of 3.5! Perhaps a release around x-mas? T

Klink, Oberst

Which year?[:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Because so many aspects of a scenario are subjective I don't know if there is any perfect scale. It would vary by individual.

But some scales make more sense for some campaigns than others.

As it is a major land campaign in which small scale operations blur into irrelevance across the vast span of space and time, I'd say a scenario covering the whole of the East Front is best set at 25-50km per hex. Probably the most interesting and innovative scenario I've played on the subject is Bob Cross' at the latter scale. Getting out of the largely irrelevant detail of the individual units engaged in the campaign, Bob is able to focus on the factors that were actually decisive. It feels right, in a way that none of the more detailed scenarios on the subject have ever done.

Of course, since I'm currently working on a conversion of a scenario from 50km to 25km per hex, perhaps I should keep quiet about this.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

There are other tools to achieve the same effect(s) you are looking for and these will let you "keep" the original map scale:

- Movement Bias
- Supply Radius
- Enemy Hex Conversion Rate
- Supply Cost for Movement
- Radiness cost for Movement

See chapter XII of the 'What's new' doc for TOAW 3.4

At the time Piero did his Barbarossa these parameters didn't exist yet (except Movement Bias and Supply Radius).

Don't forget artillery range and unit density.

[ogar]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Telumar

There are other tools to achieve the same effect(s) you are looking for and these will let you "keep" the original map scale:

- Movement Bias
- Supply Radius
- Enemy Hex Conversion Rate
- Supply Cost for Movement
- Radiness cost for Movement

See chapter XII of the 'What's new' doc for TOAW 3.4

At the time Piero did his Barbarossa these parameters didn't exist yet (except Movement Bias and Supply Radius).

Don't forget artillery range and unit density.

What ?!?
You don't like RR artillery being able to annihilate air groups from 200 km away ? (/playtest humor)
Telumar is well aware of the problems with range and density and custom scaling. And how to adjust for them.
But then again, that's Telumar, other designers can benefit from your and his pointers.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ogar

What ?!?
You don't like RR artillery being able to annihilate air groups from 200 km away ? (/playtest humor)

I'm more concerned about how they (I) forgot to build the last ten miles of railroad so the supplies can't get off the quayside.

But then again, that's Telumar, other designers can benefit from your and his pointers.

Yeah. As he was making a list for other people, I thought it had better be complete.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Of course, since I'm currently working on a conversion of a scenario from 50km to 25km per hex, perhaps I should keep quiet about this.

Hmmm. Sounds like Fall Grau.

[BigDuke66]

I would always prefer detail over playability of course only to a certain degree.
I see this in WITE, turns too long and scale too big, 10km and half week(3 or 4 day turns) would be much better for my taste.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Panama

Because so many aspects of a scenario are subjective I don't know if there is any perfect scale. It would vary by individual.

But some scales make more sense for some campaigns than others.

As it is a major land campaign in which small scale operations blur into irrelevance across the vast span of space and time, I'd say a scenario covering the whole of the East Front is best set at 25-50km per hex. Probably the most interesting and innovative scenario I've played on the subject is Bob Cross' at the latter scale. Getting out of the largely irrelevant detail of the individual units engaged in the campaign, Bob is able to focus on the factors that were actually decisive. It feels right, in a way that none of the more detailed scenarios on the subject have ever done.

Don't get me wrong, the scenario models everything fine and i especially like the Soviet replacements/manpower and lend/lease mechanics, but what Bob's scenario doesn't do for me, and i think i speak for quite some people, is immersion. And i am pretty sure it's the scale.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Of course, since I'm currently working on a conversion of a scenario from 50km to 25km per hex, perhaps I should keep quiet about this.

That would not be Bob's Soviet Union...? Pity.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Don't get me wrong, the scenario models everything fine and i especially like the Soviet replacements/manpower and lend/lease mechanics, but what Bob's scenario doesn't do for me, and i think i speak for quite some people, is immersion. And i am pretty sure it's the scale.

I agree with this. The scenario is explicitly stated to be "beer & pretzel" scale - in other words, simple fun was the first priority. I expected that there was a need for such a treatment - just as there is a need for the monsters. But that doesn't mean that the design was simple. On the contrary, it's one of the most sophisticated designs I've ever made. You have to get so much stuff right for a Barbarossa scenario to work, regardless of scale. As best as I can tell, mine does.

The issue I have with the bigger ones is that they usually don't seem to work very well, for an assortment of reasons. I don't see any fundamental reason why someone can't get it right, though.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


[...] But that doesn't mean that the design was simple. On the contrary, it's one of the most sophisticated designs I've ever made. You have to get so much stuff right for a Barbarossa scenario to work, regardless of scale. As best as I can tell, mine does.

The issue I have with the bigger ones is that they usually don't seem to work very well, for an assortment of reasons. I don't see any fundamental reason why someone can't get it right, though.

That's why i keep pointing other designers to your work for all Barbarossa/Ostfront designs..[8D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Hmmm. Sounds like Fall Grau.

Sh. It's a well-kept secret (since only about five people ever read the TDG forums).

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The issue I have with the bigger ones is that they usually don't seem to work very well, for an assortment of reasons. I don't see any fundamental reason why someone can't get it right, though.

Two reasons why it is unlikely a scenario at this scale will ever really work in this sense;
a) the amount of work required increases exponentially with the scale. For a scenario to work properly, you will need to go through multiple playtest cycles. The more complex the scenario, the more playtests are needed to explore a suitable range of possible outcomes. At the same time, if you go down a hex scale you will likely add more units whilst increasing the number of turns, so dramatically lengthening the amount of time needed for playtest.
b) To co-ordinate 2,000 pieces over a front of a couple of hundred hexes- and to keep their actions consistent turn to turn- is an incredibly mentally taxing exercise. People talk about chugging through one turn of these scenarios in 3-6 hours. That's less than six seconds per piece. There's a reason why real world commanders have much smaller hierarchies to deal with, and why traditional wargames usually stick to a few dozen pieces. Perhaps one could play these games intelligently if it was a full-time job (and with an extensive set of notes on what your operational plans were in each sector). But in your downtime after work in the evening? You'll just wind up shuffling everything forward blindly.

Of course, for most designers, the goal is not necessarily a perfect finished product. So this is not an exhortation to instantly stop working on anything in particular.

[Foggy]

Be happy to play test - one of my favorite scens [&o]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Foggy

Be happy to play test - one of my favorite scens [&o]

Assuming this is directed at me- I'm doing two designer tests at the moment. It looks like almost everything is fine but I need to be sure of balance.

[Foggy]

Yes - directed to you [:D] I've played 4 times - the Axis has never won! My last game against Jason I took the head on approach
and bullied my way thru the East Coast. Amazing losses on both sides - really reflects the terrain and the difficulty of conquering the US accross the ocean. Great scen - almost up to DM's standards [8D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Foggy

Great scen - almost up to DM's standards [8D]

Must... not... start flame war...