The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

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.

Oleg

Let's make me clear. Imagine that you want to take four objectivs: two hills (obj1 and obj2) who dominates over two villages (obj 3 and obj4) during a 1 day turn. You have two regiments (A nad B) for this task. You prepared attack (or operation) – moved units designated for attack around first group of objectives (obj1 and obj2). Assumption is that these two attacks are independet which means that succes or failure of one cannot influence other in any way.


Your Regiment A --------------- Your Regiment B

attack vs. ----------------------- attack vs.

obj1 – Hill 1 --------------------- obj2 – Hill 2
obj3 – Village 1 ----------------- obj4 – Village 2


In attack planning dialog time expanded pane shows that both first attacks (directed against hills) will take approx. 10% of turn time. According to this you have planned first to take hills and then to move and clear villages. After clicking at resolve attacks button your first attack (commading by first subordinate officer) goes as planned and Regiment A takes "Hill 1".

But second attack (commanding by second subordinate officer) is taking much more then 10% of 1 day turn and the battle for "Hill 2" will be much longer then it is anticipated at first (let say that you need whole day of fighting to take "Hill 2").

What will happen? What influence will have battle for "hill 2" on results of operation of regiment A against "Hill 1" and "Village 1"?

In reality after taking "Hill 1" Regiment A will continue advance and take "Village 1" (if unoposed) or will start another battle (if "Village 1" is defended). Suppose that "Village 1" was lightly defended and taken witouth problems. Regiment A will continue their advance deeper in enemy rear or will stop and dig in for possible counter attack (all these action will be during a same day – turn). Outcome of operations undertaken by Regiment B will not have any impact on operations of Regiment A.

But in TOAW it will be a different story. After taking "Hill 1" Regiment A has to stop at the "Hill 1" and wait attack of Regiment B to be resolved elsewhere on map. As the battle for "Hill 2" need whole day to be resolved, Regiment A will fail to take second objective (Village 1) and to move some hexes further in enemy rear. Why? Because second attack of Regiment B resulted in early turn end. This wouldn't be a problem if these two operations are connected somehow and if succes of one have influence on another. But, under initial assumption, they are independet and one shouldn't have any impact to another (at least during one turn eg. one day in this case).

Situation above have nothing to do with scenario size or scenario design, and it is simplification of real TOAW scenarios where you can have much more then two indipendet attacks (operations). With increasing number of such attacks (operations) there is bigger chance that one of them lead to early turn ending.

I hope I was clear enough.

Emir

BTW I'm also not a member of TDG if that fact have anything to do with issue we are discussing here.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald
It may well be the case that Norm never intended the engine to handle much of what we would like it to handle.

Bingo! [:D]

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic
But second attack (commanding by second subordinate officer) is taking much more then 10% of 1 day turn and the battle for "Hill 2" will be much longer then it is anticipated at first (let say that you need whole day of fighting to take "Hill 2").

What will happen? What influence will have battle for "hill 2" on results of operation of regiment A against "Hill 1" and "Village 1"?

Yeah, and so what?

You are commanding whole operation here, not just Hill A and/or Hill B sub-operations. We may take it to simulate that problems in battle B required you to turn your attention there and postpone sub-operation A for any of the possible reasons that are beyond the scope of the game, or are modelled abstractly (reshuffling of supplies as Keke suggested [;)], staff work on more complicated battle, recon assets not being available etc.)

I will repeat one of my most important arguments in this thread (which was ignored by you all except Capitaine) - all operational IGO/UGO games make life for the attacker VERY easy. Anything that makes attacker's life harder is welcome in my opinion, even if it cannot be 100% logically explained for your taste.

(Turn based tactical games also make life for the attacker too easy, EVEN if they are not IGO/UGO, but since discussion about tac wargames is beyond the scope of this thread I won't expant this further here.)

Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK? [;)]

If you chose to make such scenario anyway, and play it, you accept any weird result that may come out of any such scenario. Still, good scenario designers like Daniel McBride, found a way around many of the problems and quirks inherent to such schemes.

Two more points I wish to make (no make it three):

1. I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

2. TOAW development plans are clearly outlined in some "official" posts in recent days, and I highly doubt you'll see any substantial changes, so, again, this makes this whole discussion moot.

3. I will restate again what I consider to be very important point, ignored by many: IGO/UGO simplifies attacker's problems greaty, so anything that will make attacker's life harder is welcome.

Oleg

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'm sorry, but the logic here goes as follows. All aspects of TOAW as it exists will be defended. There are never to be any changes -- ever. The system is perfect, damnit!

Hey, it worked for the Medieval Church.

Well there is some logic in that we who frequent this board loved and played TOAW for years so we obviously loved the game and how it works, warts and all if you wish. Those who may agree with you never played TOAW or left the game many years ago never to return, so you will not see their posts on this board at all.

1. System is not perfect, but is the best I know for what it *intends to portray*. Some of the changes suggested on this board lately want to change the game so much it will not be the same game (my absolute favorite is introduction of WITP-like production system in TOAW - too laughable to comment seriously).

2. Posts from Norm outlined dev plans for TOAW pretty clearly. You will not see any substantial changes, and many day dreamers better stop day dreaming right now lest they be disappointed by what future brings. (That I'm afraid includes you Colin.)

People have to realize purpose of the game is to work as designer intended, not as they want it to work in their wet dreams.

O.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

1. I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

You didn't? So turn ending on formation-by-formation basis is not a reasonable suggestion?

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

...

Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK? [;)]

...

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, since these two fronts were not operationally linked (they were definitely related at the strategic level, but TOAW simulates the operational, not strategic, nor tactical for that matter, level of war). To properly simulate this conflict 2 separate scenarios are preferable to 1.

Now one could argue that it is within the operational scope of TOAW to be able to simulate the entire Eastern Front at 10km/hex, regimental-level, but that really is an extreme case and anomalous results are to be expected.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

1. I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

You didn't? So turn ending on formation-by-formation basis is not a reasonable suggestion?

Sounds reasonable, but how would it look in the game itself, and how much will it change the overall balance? (again, in favor of the attacker?). Would it be practical to implement?

It would require rewriting lots of code, and would change the game too much. I guess. I don't consider myself "know it all" kind of guy but I highly suspect it is too much work for what is planned for TOAW in near future.

Let me quote what Norm said about much-wished, and far less controversial hex-side river issue:

">Hexside rivers en route?

Not from me- too much work. But feel free to lobby Matrix with
your favorite wish lists. I think they'd be pleased if you guys
respond with a list of wonderful changes to implement."

End quote.

O.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Sounds reasonable, but how would it look in the game itself, and how much will it change the overall balance? (again, in favor of the attacker?). Would it be practical to implement?

It would require rewriting lots of code, and would change the game too much. I guess. I don't consider myself "know it all" kind of guy but I highly suspect it is too much work for what is planned for TOAW in near future.

Let me quote what Norm said about much-wished, and far less controversial hex-side river issue:

">Hexside rivers en route?

Not from me- too much work. But feel free to lobby Matrix with
your favorite wish lists. I think they'd be pleased if you guys
respond with a list of wonderful changes to implement."

End quote.

O.

Well, we are not here to disguss about how feasible any changes are codewise. We discuss about what kind of changes experienced gamers have in mind. Even if there are no changes, we are free to dicuss about them, even if you are on the wrong side of the argument. [:'(]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Keke
Even if there are no changes, we are free to dicuss about them, even if you are on the wrong side of the argument. [:'(]

Like yourself? [:D]

[Capitaine]

It seems like those who militate to scrap the turn-ending feature of TOAW wish simply to have a generic "war simulator" rather than have the ability to design proper operational scenarios within the intended scope of Norm's design.

True, without the turn-ending feature, TOAW could become a garden variety IGO-UGO wargame. But it was the randomness and uncertainty introduced by Norm's revolutionary time usage feature that made the IGO-UGO more palatable, by introducing uncertainty and full turn planning into the mix.

Again I say, if you are against Norm's time usage feature, you are against TOAW. You might like a wargame creator game that can model any conflict, but that isn't TOAW.

(BTW, you can get what you want for all I care. TOAW did what it did, and made its mark; I have no interest in a democratically designed wargame anyway. Norm is the only one, IMO, worthy of making any changes consistent with his vision of his game. If Norm changed it, I would take notice. But he didn't, and he won't. Don't you think it's all there for a valid reason? Besides just an equipment database?)

[JJKettunen]

Bloody hell, nobody wants to scrap the turn ending feature but to make it more versatile, more suitable for various scenarios.

And this self-righteous "if you are against feature X, you are against TOAW, Norm and democracy" -talk is just bloody stupid.

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Yeah, and so what?

You are commanding whole operation here, not just Hill A and/or Hill B sub-operations.

Not exactly. I have ploted a plan for a day one (as supreme commander). Execution is at the lower level. Subordinate of Operation A doesn't need to care about how is progressing Operation B. He has his own objectives independet from Operation B.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I will repeat one of my most important arguments in this thread (which was ignored by you all except Capitaine) - all operational IGO/UGO games make life for the attacker VERY easy. Anything that makes attacker's life harder is welcome in my opinion, even if it cannot be 100% logically explained for your taste.

This is true. But maybe it will be better to complicate life for attacker in some other way than in this silly one.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK? [;)]

Why do you think this is related only to larger scenarios? In my example distance between two villages can be 10km not half a continent.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Two more points I wish to make (no make it three):

I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

I remember game called "Johny Reb II" which I long time ago played on my C64. Two units which were engaged in combat for longer time were "in melee" status, and you was unable to move them untill battle was resolved, but you was able to move other units. There are also suggestions made by other players. Why not to try implementing some of them to see which one is best, and how will it work?

Emir

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Yeah, and so what?

You are commanding whole operation here, not just Hill A and/or Hill B sub-operations.

Not exactly. I have ploted a plan for a day one (as supreme commander). Execution is at the lower level. Subordinate of Operation A doesn't need to care about how is progressing Operation B. He has his own objectives independet from Operation B.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I will repeat one of my most important arguments in this thread (which was ignored by you all except Capitaine) - all operational IGO/UGO games make life for the attacker VERY easy. Anything that makes attacker's life harder is welcome in my opinion, even if it cannot be 100% logically explained for your taste.

This is true. But maybe it will be better to complicate life for attacker in some other way than in this silly one.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Point is, in ideal TOAW scenario, Objective A and Objective B would not be half a continent away, they would be operationally inter-dependent to at least SOME degree. If, knowing all this, scenario designer chose to make Panzer division in Smolensk dependant on actions of Finnish ski batallion in Sala, then he, the scenario designer, has some wrong ideas about TOAW and scenario design OK? [;)]

Why do you think this is related only to larger scenarios? In my example distance between two villages can be 10km not half a continent.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Two more points I wish to make (no make it three):

I didn't see any feasible, reasonable suggestion as to how to "correct" the "early turn end" pseudo-problem from you guys. Perhaps there was some such suggestion but I may have missed it? If there is no practical feasible solution, that does not require re-write of 60% of the game code, this whole discussion is moot.

I remember game called "Johny Reb II" which I long time ago played on my C64. Two units which were engaged in combat for longer time were "in melee" status, and you was unable to move them untill battle was resolved, but you was able to move other units. There are also suggestions made by other players. Why not to try implementing some of them to see which one is best, and how will it work?

Emir

That's not a completely inapplicable idea. It can be hard to extract units from combat -- harder than in OPART. One reason real armies tend to hold units in reserve.

One could have a chance attacking units get engaged with their opponents. Then the only way to free them would be to 'rout' them -- with heavy losses to readiness. Something worth chewing over, anyway...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

...Norm is the only one, IMO, worthy of making any changes consistent with his vision of his game. If Norm changed it, I would take notice. But he didn't, and he won't. Don't you think it's all there for a valid reason? )

And there we have it. All Norm's decisions were correct. All suggestions for 'improvements' are necessarily erroneous. It is heresy to think this way.

[ralphtricky]

Has anyone considered the affects of introducing a 'delay x phase' command would be? It could probably be put on the attack planning dialog, and I think that it might resolve some of the issues mentioned here.

It would allow you to coordinate things like 'a probing attack with these units, followed by the main punch by these units.

Thoughts?

Ralph

[ColinWright]

To be absolutely clear here, having made a lot of changes in TOAW myself, I have learned that their effect needs to be tested carefully. For example, trying to simulate the declining ability of fighters to exert air superiority at long range by creating both short- and long-ranged versions of the same fighter produced screwy results. Similarly, my tests with reducing proficiency for artillery and increasing its firepower to magnify the effect of it being out of supply suggested this wasn't a way to go.

However, this doesn't lead to a blanket conclusion that no changes should be made, ever. Ben's assigning recon values to German tanks has created generated some very realistic behavior from early war panzer units, and it turns out that giving artillery pieces an AT value works quite nicely. With thought, I imagine I could list about a dozen changes that have improved TOAW either in general or with reference to simulating particular campaigns.

Norm did not create the perfect product. TOAW was not something handed down from God that perfectly simulated all operational warfare, 1900-2005. It can be improved. The only real questions are which changes are actually improvements and which ones are practicable.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Has anyone considered the affects of introducing a 'delay x phase' command would be? It could probably be put on the attack planning dialog, and I think that it might resolve some of the issues mentioned here.

It would allow you to coordinate things like 'a probing attack with these units, followed by the main punch by these units.

Thoughts?

Ralph

Functionally, how would this differ from simply not making the attack until a later round? If the attack is to be launched in the SAME round, then launching it later will simply increase the amount of time it takes for all attacks to be resolved in that round.

As I see, currently the problem is that everyone has to wait around until all attacks have been resolved. The problem is that if one attack turns out to eat up the whole turn, everyone's turn is over.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You TDG guys started out many years ago on a noble mission of producing high quality TOAW scenarios but, with some exceptions, quickly turned into "TOAW Whiners Club Supremo". You wanted TOAW to handle all sorts of funny and downright ridicolous ideas this game was never intended to work with.

(Looks at list of scenarios)... Poland 1939, Lodz 1914, Wintergewitter...

All well within the bounds of TOAW. Some wierd ideas in there- but they work pretty damned well. There are plenty of scenarios which try to do too much with TOAW- but none of them have been produced by TDG (if we exclude Richard Bradley from the discussion).

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

No it's sad to see you on the side of TDG whiners [:D]

Striking, really. I suppose you don't follow WHQ, so it's unfair of you to appreciate it, but the fact that Colin and Keke (and myself) are in agreement on the topic means that they must be right- since the two are usually quite happy to disagree over any issue under the sun.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Well there is some logic in that we who frequent this board loved and played TOAW for years so we obviously loved the game and how it works, warts and all if you wish. Those who may agree with you never played TOAW or left the game many years ago never to return, so you will not see their posts on this board at all.

Right. Which do we want;

a) The TOAW community to remain the size it is now
b) The TOAW community to regain all those players who disappeared years ago (the game was indeed several times more popular three or four years ago than it is today).

2. Posts from Norm outlined dev plans for TOAW pretty clearly. You will not see any substantial changes, and many day dreamers better stop day dreaming right now lest they be disappointed by what future brings. (That I'm afraid includes you Colin.)

I'll grant that it's unlikely that we'll see major changes in the near future if ever. However, if such changes are going to be made, isn't it a good idea to figure out what we want now?