Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

I still wonder why you continue to reference a scenario that is not in the public domain. I realize that this is your life long endeavor . . . but it’s time to stop quoting invisible sources and publish the scenario for the community to judge.

For once I can agree with this. The fact is Seelowe works excellently. It is more finished than the vast majority of scenarios of comparable complexity. That there is still some tiny prospect of development is Colin's current excuse.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

I still wonder why you continue to reference a scenario that is not in the public domain. I realize that this is your life long endeavor . . . but it’s time to stop quoting invisible sources and publish the scenario for the community to judge.

For once I can agree with this. The fact is Seelowe works excellently. It is more finished than the vast majority of scenarios of comparable complexity. That there is still some tiny prospect of development is Colin's current excuse.

Some major event sequences don't work. Play balance vs historical accuracy issues have yet to be resolved.

You're both right -- or both wrong, depending on how you look at it. If I hadn't gotten into building a deck, I probably would have finished this by now.

On the other hand, Rhinobones' objection is fairly inane. I refer to Seelowe because it's the one concrete example I'm familiar with. My statements are perfectly comprehensible without obtaining the scenario and looking at it. If there was some scenario in the public domain that I was equally familiar with, I would refer to that. I'm certainly not going to refrain from posting until I've finished Seelowe, or refrain from making my point as clear as I can on account of the fact that I haven't.

In any case, Rhinobones could care less about what point it is I'm trying to make, whether I've made it, or how I've made it. He's just some sort of troll.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Some major event sequences don't work. Play balance vs historical accuracy issues have yet to be resolved.

Well let's say this: the last COW version I played was spot on. We haven't extensively tested some of the more exotic invasion locations but that's perhaps an indication of how impractical they are. I didn't notice any problems with "major" event sequences at all.

I think the reality is you're too close to the scenario. You have played the scenario so many times that you know exactly what works and what doesn't work. You'll find the results in new hands to be quite different. What's more, the scenario is certainly emminently playable right now, as well as very rigorous as far as history goes, and it wouldn't be the first time a scenario was published and then tweaked. Think how much more data you'll get if a dozen matches started tomorrow.

If I hadn't gotten into building a deck, I probably would have finished this by now.

Now there's a moral lesson. Actually, you were nearly finished about six years ago. I suspect if you go on this way you'll be nearly finished until the day you die.

In fact the time is already ebbing away when publishing Seelowe will be at all relevant. You're exceptionally fortunate that III came out because prior to that the community was slowing dying out. In due course people will lose interest in TOAW altogether (the game is pretty old) and then you'll end up with a thousand hours of work which no one will give a shit over.

In any case, Rhinobones could care less about what point it is I'm trying to make, whether I've made it, or how I've made it. He's just some sort of troll.

He does make exceedingly good maps.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Now there's a moral lesson. Actually, you were nearly finished about six years ago. I suspect if you go on this way you'll be nearly finished until the day you die.

It's quite possible your fears will be realized. Mea culpa. However, this doesn't do anything to make Rhinobone's objections valid, or to improve my opinion of him.

I can argue with Curtis LeMay. He's obstinate, infuriating, and pointlessly rude -- and I'm sure he has equally pleasant things to say about me. However, we are talking about TOAW -- that really is a concern in the conversation.

As far as I can tell, Rhinobone's sole concern is just to be as annoying as possible. Happily, his abilities in this direction are somewhat limited. Then too, since there is invariably nothing constructive to be extracted from the conversation, I need have no concern about keeping it civil.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It's quite possible your fears will be realized. Mea culpa. However, this doesn't do anything to make Rhinobone's objections valid, or to improve my opinion of him.

Stop trying to change the subject.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious



In fact the time is already ebbing away when publishing Seelowe will be at all relevant. You're exceptionally fortunate that III came out because prior to that the community was slowing dying out. In due course people will lose interest in TOAW altogether (the game is pretty old) and then you'll end up with a thousand hours of work which no one will give a shit over.

That is a concern -- but a surprisingly secondary one.

The community never has been large enough so that the scenario was going to amount to much in terms of immortal fame and glory. I'd do better by haranguing carloads of passengers on the subway.

And let's be frank. Most people aren't going to be able to get ashore in the first place as the Germans, or adhere to the house rules, or appreciate the need to adhere to the house rules. As a public production, a scenario is a union between the players and the scenario itself -- and when it comes to Seelowe, in most cases it's not going to be a happy one. Most players are looking for something else in a scenario, and Seelowe won't give it to them.

Then too, while there no doubt will be interesting and discerning criticisms to be made, a lot of it will be utter bilge. Like, remember when that thread got going and someone fastened on how I'd picked August 24th as S-Day, and why hadn't I picked some other date that he apparently favored, and how German aerial torpedoes would have annihilated the R.N. and God knows what else? It's going to be more grief than pleasure. I mean, Grant Whitley is a pretty sharp guy, and he was starting to get my goat with his ideas about Irish guerrillas.

So while I will admit that cries of adulation from massed thousands of adoring fans would be nice, I don't think I'm going to get that in any case. I should finish it, and it would be a bit absurd if by the time I finished it the game was abandonware, but you exaggerate what will be the actual extent of the loss.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So while I will admit that cries of adulation from massed thousands of adoring fans would be nice, I don't think I'm going to get that in any case.

Aren't you just a little bit curious about what He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will say?

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It's quite possible your fears will be realized. Mea culpa. However, this doesn't do anything to make Rhinobone's objections valid, or to improve my opinion of him.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Well, we can certainly have a Seelowe thread if you like. However, as far as actually working on the scenario today goes, my agenda is (1) responding to the evil LeMay as necessary, (2) actually setting up a Roth IRA before the end of the year, (3) informing Kaiser that I wish to contest their denial of my objection to their billing, and (4) watching Dieppe with the Boy. Should be good. It's a Canadian TV production, and I'm looking forward to evil, pompous Englishmen deliberately immolating innocent, trusting Canadians on impregnable German coastal defenses.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So while I will admit that cries of adulation from massed thousands of adoring fans would be nice, I don't think I'm going to get that in any case.

Aren't you just a little bit curious about what He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will say?

The thought is mildly nauseating. He might actually approve, and that would be almost as bad as if he attacks it. And as to the form his attack might take...

Give me Curtis LeMay tag-teaming with American-in-Sweden or whatever his name was. Please.

No, I'm not really curious. I hope he either genuinely doesn't notice it, or at least pretends he didn't.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

American-in-Sweden or whatever his name was.

Darrin. And he was Canadian.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Well, we can certainly have a Seelowe thread if you like. However, as far as actually working on the scenario today goes, my agenda is (1) responding to the evil LeMay as necessary, (2) actually setting up a Roth IRA before the end of the year, (3) informing Kaiser that I wish to contest their denial of my objection to their billing, and (4) watching Dieppe with the Boy. Should be good. It's a Canadian TV production, and I'm looking forward to evil, pompous Englishmen deliberately immolating innocent, trusting Canadians on impregnable German coastal defenses.

1. It took me a few years to realise that it is very, very easy to waste a lot of time on forums. Bob won't change his mind and it doesn't really matter what he thinks anyway. Also I think you should give up your various arguments at TDG but that's by the by.
2. Fair enough. End of the year is tomorrow.
3. The Kaiser's been dead since 1941. Time to let these things go.
4. That can't take that long. The battle only lasted about four hours.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


4. That can't take that long. The battle only lasted about four hours.

Well, you know. Historical background. Callously stupid British forming fatally flawed plan while Canadians desperately protest (Rutger Hauer as Lord Mountbatten striding around saying, 'so -- a final solution to the Canadian problem'). Heroic attempt at execution. Canadians throwing handcuffed German prisoners into the sea.

They'll probably skip that last bit.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
4. That can't take that long. The battle only lasted about four hours.

If 'they' can take a program about a day in someone's life and drag it on for weeks and weeks and then have the gall to call it '24' (as in hours) a 4 hour battle should be stretchable to at least two hours.

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
4. That can't take that long. The battle only lasted about four hours.

If 'they' can take a program about a day in someone's life and drag it on for weeks and weeks and then have the gall to call it '24' (as in hours) a 4 hour battle should be stretchable to at least two hours.

Anyway, it (Dieppe) turns out to be pretty good. Low budget, but better than the average World War Two film. Fairly historically accurate, maintains dramatic tension, good plot, guid and bluidy at the end.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

! So we can safely ignore the historical reaction to interdiction. It was irrational and futile. General LeMay knows better.

So the Allied Air bombardment campaign was rational and effective. After all, they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't, right? Custer's Last Stand, the Charge of the Light Brigade, keeping 15th Army sitting in Calais, etc. were all sound choices. No commanders have ever made futile or irrational decisions in war.

Again, where is your evidence of it's efficacy? And what are the numbers?! Even is there was a benefit, if we overcorrect too far, it puts us further from reality than we are now. For example, suppose the God's Eye View of WWII dictates that the actual benefit was a 10% reduction in chances of interdiction. Then any adjustment beyond a 20% benefit would be worse than no adjustment at all. Numbers Matter!! And you don't have any.

You could read my post. Although you actually quote it, you manage to completely ignore what I wrote. Then too, how your 'night movement' idea would reflect the greater danger of road movement escapes me.

Sadly, I completely understood it - and it's consequences. That's more than you seemed to have understood. There is no need for a "Night Movement" feature to address the danger of road movement because that's already built into the game.

I think your argument is homosexual. Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. You wrote it.

This is even sadder. No rational discussion of the issue can take place because Colin has had his nose bent out of shape and that trumps all other considerations. I'm used to it, though.

There would be a pop-up option to choose to move by this method. If opted, the unit would pay triple MPs for each hex entered and receive in return a quartered risk of interdiction for that hex. Then, it doesn't matter where or when the method is used, the benefits and costs will apply uniformly - and it will be at the discretion of the player. Players could choose to run the gauntlet if they wanted, or play it safe and slow.

Ah yes. Curtis' (1) clumsy, ...

No clumsier than the current method of moving a stack of units.

(2) arbitrarily fixed,

Since you aren't providing any numbers to support it, it has to be arbitrary. And the method you're suggesting is fixed too. Most combat factors are.

and (3) rather artificial 'night movement' idea.

Nope. That's a completely separate feature.

It has exactly one thing to be said for it. Since you yourself proposed it, you're hardly likely to dig in your heels and deny it has any merit at all.

Don't count on it. I just want a rational entry for the Wishlist.

It's a pity you're in a position to influence the development of TOAW. Aside from everything else, you're (once again) managing to frame what could be a useful conversation in terms that pretty much guarantee no forward progress will be made at all. 'The correct mechanism.' I love that. History, reality, the multiplicity of factors involved -- all is ignored. A pop-up window offering 'night movement' is the one right answer. Curtis has spoken.

My influence is exactly the same as yours: How cogent my arguments are. But, you're right, that's bad news for you.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

1.  This should be very easy to implement for the designer.

You don't know that. We've often found very simple sounding things to be astoundingly hard to make work. For sure this would be quite difficult to thoroughly test out. The number of interations of moves by units with different movement allowances would be huge. Furthermore, since the effect is random, a huge number of trials would be required for the test of each iteration.

The method I suggested would probably be easier to implement and test. And that's what counts. Regardless it lacks the mechanical flaws that yours does.

2.  For the player, it would pose no burden at all.  If he isn't already taking the feature into consideration as he executes his moves, he'll very quickly learn to.

Here's a test: Quickly, without using a calculator, what are the odds of interdiction over the last three hexes moved for a unit with a movement allowance of 33? What about 7? What about 13?

In fact, I can't tell if the numbers even sum up to equality for every movement allowance. In other words, does a unit with 33 MPs have the same cumulative risk as one with 7, etc.?

My suggestion is uniform over the turn and for different units. Only one figure would need to be understood.

3.  Given the actual behavior of units subjected to heavy interdiction, it would seem to model what happened in reality rather nicely. 

Since you don't have any actual figures for any of this, we'll never know if it's modeling anything like reality. Then when you add in its obvious mechanical flaws it becomes indefensible.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Here's a test: Quickly, without using a calculator, what are the odds of interdiction over the last three hexes moved for a unit with a movement allowance of 33? What about 7? What about 13?
In fact, I can't tell if the numbers even sum up to equality for every movement allowance. In other words, does a unit with 33 MPs have the same cumulative risk as one with 7, etc.?

My suggestion is uniform over the turn and for different units. Only one figure would need to be understood.

Why on earth should a player know precisely what the odds are that his move will be severely affected by interdiction? Were real-life generals privileged with this information?

Otherwise, I don't see anything you said that merits a response.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
So while I will admit that cries of adulation from massed thousands of adoring fans would be nice, I don't think I'm going to get that in any case.

Massed fans, adulation, you jest of course. The best you will get is a quote on my by line . . . and thats not entirely complimentary.

Regards, RhinoBones

BTW - Happy New Year and Merry Christmas

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
So while I will admit that cries of adulation from massed thousands of adoring fans would be nice, I don't think I'm going to get that in any case.

Massed fans, adulation, you jest of course. The best you will get is a quote on my by line . . . and thats not entirely complimentary.

Regards, RhinoBones

BTW - Happy New Year and Merry Christmas

This doesn't quite have the zing of your Christmas greeting...been drinking?

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Why on earth should a player know precisely what the odds are that his move will be severely affected by interdiction? Were real-life generals privileged with this information?

They won't know easily. But they can know if they get out their calculators and grind through the figures - for every move of every unit. And there's bound to be some who will - making it necessary for everyone else if they want to keep up. So we can kiss that "easier to use" thing goodby.

Furthermore, if the total risk for units moving their entire movement allowances are not the same for units with different movement allowances, then it will be impossible to make the impact of the method neutral. In other words, if a side has a 5% interdiction rate figure, what is the scale factor necessary with this method to make the risk average 5% per hex for all units? Ralph has to include that in the implementation. There may not be one. It may vary from unit to unit. And that means it will vary from scenario to scenario and even from side to side, if those scenarios and sides have different average movement allowances.

These problems and all the others decend from the inescapable fact that your method has the mechanics wrong. And there is no reason not to get the mechanics right if we're ever going to proceed on this.