Thoughts on TOAWIII vs HPS PzC/MC

[hank]

Adam Parker, those were excellent descriptions of how a turn and attack resolution in TOAW differs from PzC's.  I too am a long time PzC player.  (still am)
 
I learned a lot from those two simple posts above.
 
From what I deciphered, in TOAW its best to pre-plan all your attacks ... or at least most of the important ones ... before you hit the resolve attack button.  Does this mean I can preplan attacks then move units as needed (or visa versa) and I should get more actions (movement, attacks, etc.) within one Turn, than I would if I planned an attack - execute it - move some units - plan an attack - execute it - move some units - etc - etc -  ??
 
Thanks for the insight.
 
Hank
 
also - I can't critisize PzC like others here ... they just have a different philosophy on war game design than others. They put most their effort in battle research, OOB's, etc. ... than in fine tuning the engine (which they actually do thus the revision patches).  PzC's is a good IGO-UGO game ... like SSG's Battles in " " series ... but I've gone away from BiN due to burn out.  I play lots of games and find good and bad in all of them ... mostly good.  The one "con" about PzC's that I will say is that they are expensive ... especially if you want to collect many battles to add to your collection.  ... cha ching cha ching goes the cash register ....

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You don't have to wait for anything. Both players enter orders, and watch the action unfold, in real time. Everything happens "as we speak". Both players can regulate the speed of the game (stop, normal speed, fast, extra fast), and the game plays in slower of two players' settings. Games usually play in normal or fast speed - first you both enter initial orders and start the game, then it usually plays in normal or fast speed.

Given that "normal" is the lowest level above stop, I can imagine the game would really drag at that speed.

It does not "drag", because normal is not the same as "real time", it's much faster than real time.

Whether the scenario "drags" or not also depends on the length of the scenario in question. I prefer smaller scenarios in COTA engine anyway, lasting for up to 3-4 days of "historic time" (which can be played in couple hours of "game time" (mix of normal and higher speeds in game)

I feel I can kinda predict your next comment/complaint [:D] and that is that COTA is too tactical for your taste, if scenarios last for "only" 4, or 10 days of "historic time". If you think that way, you're wrong. COTA's scenarios, varying from 1 to 10 days of "hostoric time" are perfectly balanced for the *operational* warfare feel of the game (perhaps still a bit on the lower, ie, tactical side of things). TOAW's mega scenarios, using corps sized units and lasting for 4 years ([X(]) are the perversion of the term "operational" IMO, and usually quite ridicolous to play.

Oleg

[BAL]

The one "con" about PzC's that I will say is that they are expensive ... especially if you want to collect many battles to add to your collection.

Have you tried ordering from NWS? PzC games there are $30 as opposed to $50 at the HPS website. For that matter, most any game is cheaper at NWS.

[wodin]

I really enjoy the PzC series. The SSG games look fantastic but I prefer the gameplay of the PzC titles.

TOAW is the grandaddy of them all and for value for money it cant be beaten. The only problem I had with it is the way the turn mechanics play out. Thats just me though.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I feel I can kinda predict your next comment/complaint [:D] and that is that COTA is too tactical for your taste, if scenarios last for "only" 4, or 10 days of "historic time". If you think that way, you're wrong. COTA's scenarios, varying from 1 to 10 days of "hostoric time" are perfectly balanced for the *operational* warfare feel of the game (perhaps still a bit on the lower, ie, tactical side of things). TOAW's mega scenarios, using corps sized units and lasting for 4 years ([X(]) are the perversion of the term "operational" IMO, and usually quite ridicolous to play.

I agree. I thought you were the one who liked huge scenarios; Drang Nach Osten etc.?

I do prefer the operational scale- battalion or regiment units- but I have been known to play tactical games, and once I can rebalance it for TOAW III I'll probably release my company-scale Rhodes scenario.

I take it COTA etc. are at a fixed scale? That's a shame- but hopefully it can be fixed. I'll get one of this series this year anyway, it really does sound like they're moving wargaming forward.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I agree. I thought you were the one who liked huge scenarios; Drang Nach Osten etc.?

It all depends on the "feel", and thats something you can judge usually only after some *playtesting*. DNO, again, feels right, and turn-wise it's not too long (last version I played had 36 turns IIRC). That's not too much, and considering most games are decided by turn 15-20 anyway, it feels like one enormously huge "operation", basically as upper limit of the TOAW engine as it stands. (In my opinion of course.) Since it's based on regiments (on the German side at least) it does feel like one huge inter-connected bunch of operation(s), so it's pushing the operational-level envelope, but still operational.

Normally though I prefer smaller scenarios, DNO is exception to the rule (as are some other big scenarios by Daniel).

For instance, I consider WITP, enormously huge wargame, as "operational" level wargame - it's just enormously huge operational wargame, but it's still operational (with some strategic elements like Japanese production - incidentally, something I could easily live without, and usually do on "auto pilot"), because the core of the game is still *planning operations* using op-level "tools". Enormously, frighteningly huge operational level wargame - but IMO still operational, not really strategic.

I take it COTA etc. are at a fixed scale? That's a shame- but hopefully it can be fixed. I'll get one of this series this year anyway, it really does sound like they're moving wargaming forward.

I am the one arguing fiercely for inclusion of Regiment (polk) level estabs in the East Front game in the series, at least for Soviets (so far most scearios are based around companies/battalion HQs which works for WF and Med/Africa but may be troublesome for EF).

True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

O.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It all depends on the "feel", and thats something you can judge usually only after some *playtesting*. DNO, again, feels right, and turn-wise it's not too long (last version I played had 36 turns IIRC).

Poor Oleg- so behind the times! [;)] Just opened to check. Seventy turns in a recent version.

I am the one arguing fiercely for inclusion of Regiment (polk) level estabs in the East Front game in the series, at least for Soviets (so far most scearios are based around companies/battalion HQs which works for WF and Med/Africa but may be troublesome for EF).

True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

Good luck.

[hank]

" ...
From what I deciphered, in TOAW its best to pre-plan all your attacks ... or at least most of the important ones ... before you hit the resolve attack button.  Does this mean I can preplan attacks then move units as needed (or visa versa) and I should get more actions (movement, attacks, etc.) within one Turn, than I would if I planned an attack - execute it - move some units - plan an attack - execute it - move some units - etc - etc -  ?? 
..."
?
 
looking for an education
Hank
 

[hank]

OOPS ... after that last post I found this one from molotov_billy? on another thread.  It sounds like part of the answer I was looking for.
 
Sorry... this is a little off topic ... but I'm desperate for knowledge.
 
"... snippet
 
The first thing you want to do is move all of your units. Move columns along roads, etc, even up to their maximum movement. If they're not attacking this turn, you can use their full movement allowance before you initiate any attacks.

You still have 100% of your turn at this point - only attacks reduce your turn time. Your first attacks should be with units that have their full movement allowance left, or very close to it. If you attack with a unit that has 80% of it's movement allowance, it will use up at least 20% of your turn. It can use more if attacks last longer. (the length of attack depends on a number of factors, including how many losses you allow.) Keep an eye on the circle of stars graphic on the right toolbar to observe how much of your turn is left. If you initiate an attack with a unit that has too few movement points (which will use up more of your turn), you'll see this in the graphic. For example, if you have 80% of you turn left, and you attack with a unit that only has 20% of it's movement points left, you'll use up at least 80% of you turn.

Artillery attacks by themselves don't do much damage. If you want to do a 'pure' bombardment, create an attack from one direct attack unit with "minimize losses", and add your artillery to that attack. I assume this has to do something with spotting.

Hope that helps.
 
snippet ... "

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

These are all tactical games, aren't they?

No. I consider a game like panzer campaigns to be far more tactical than HTTR/COTA. Panther game's engine is by far the most realistic operational level system that I've ever played. Gameplay reads exactly like operational level books that I've read about WWII.

With order delays, it's actually impossible to play in a tactical way.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: hank

OOPS ... after that last post I found this one from molotov_billy? on another thread.  It sounds like part of the answer I was looking for.

Sorry... this is a little off topic ... but I'm desperate for knowledge.

Just think of it this way. If you execute attacks with units that have 80% of their movement points left, you'll end up with less than 80% of your turn left after the attack. I've noticed that most attacks on "limited losses" result in 10% to 30% useage of my turn, so I can get 3-4 attacks in each turn. So my turn goes something like this:

-Move all units as far as they need to go
-plan all attacks with units that have 100% of their movement
-execute
-move units forward if previous attacks open holes/etc
-plan all attacks with units that have about 70-80% of their movement (no units should have more than this after your first attack, since you've used 20-30% of you turn)
repeat
repeat
etc

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

[pvthudson01]

I love TOAW's system because it provides the fun of making real blitzkrieg moves. I wont touch PZC, I got France 40 or whatever and it was so bad it has collected dust since I bought it. Battles in Italy, COTA, Korsun Pocket and TOAW are the ones I play right now. You also have the advantage with each one of those of really nice user created scenarios and better interface and manuals.  I still dont get the hype over Tiller games. However his best work was East / West Front and I cant wait for those to be re-released!

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

I posted lengthy arguments about this on Panther Games East Front DDT board (in the restricted, beta test area of the Matrix boards). I don't really think this discussion is in any way relevant for *TOAW* board [;)]

Anyhow.... Since Soviets realised that Germans are better at tactical level, for the most of the war they sought - and found! - a way to materialize their advantage on the next level, and that is operational. As end result, by 45., while still lagging behind on the pure tactical level (which every German fanboi will be happy to make big deal about) - Soviets truely excelled on the level we all here love so much, and that is operational. Soviet operations of 44 and 45 are true operational level masterpieces, that probably haven't been repeated ever since.

Now, to *materialize* this operational level thinking, we simply need MORE units, MORE territory, and a scale that is by a measure of degree bigger than what Panther games were (or are) up to now. Using company and battalion estabs may, and does, work well for Market Garden (HTTR) and COTA, and will work well for Africa, perhaps for selected battles in the Pacific as well, but it will NOT work well for EF. Sovs would be in disadvantage.

This is where, IMHO, Combat Mission makes a huge mistake. This game is true example of German fanboyism if there ever was any. By pitting battles on pure tactical level you always have tactical ubermensch Germans fighting quasi-equal number of n00b Soviets (or even Western Allies). Well, nice, but simply not realistic, and never gives any chance for Sovs to materialize what they were best at - op level planning and execution.

In short, that is why we need bigger base unit estabs for Sovs, for EF, in my opinion.

Oleg

[hank]

Thanks MB ... I played around with this last night and i like it much better than the way I was playing before.  I'll tryout your sequence in the last post tonight.  Its a blast learning this game ... its a lot different from either PzC or BiN (which I enjoy also ... I'm just a hog when it comes to these games)  ... but I'm very interested in learning TOAW as much as possible due to its huge and continuous following ... like SPWaW has.
 
regards
Hank
 
I've been playing Rundstedts Plan Martin and Barbarossa to learn.  Both those sce's are fun to play ... Plan Martin is extremely enjoyable ... and even though its a hypothetical sce, the historical units are there to "what if" with.
 
 

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
True operational actions on the EF need Regiments IMO.

Why? The only reason that high-level wargames are restricted to regiments is because of simplification reasons, and because in most wargames you have to give orders to every single unit on the maps (TAOW!) In HTTR, you don't give orders to every unit. You give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ, and the AI takes control of it's subordinates in a realistic fashion. Very rarely do I control individual companies.

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph

[ioticus]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


As people design scenarios for the new TOAW AI, and as the TOAW AI get's better at tactical combat, I've been planning to add those levels of command into the TOAW system. That's going to be the real challenge in coding TOAW IV. AI is my real passion, anyway, so it should be fun.

Ralph

That's awesome, because playing a good AI is my passion, a match made in heaven, if you will.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

In a larger sized scenario, you would simply give orders to a higher level HQ (regiment.) Clumping companies into regiments is just getting rid of a level of realism that makes COTA/HTTR so much more interesting than other wargames. With each level of abstraction, you're getting rid of a bit of realism. The only drawback here is the performance, which is improving with every release.

I'm not sure that having the companies on the map is helpful when you're issuing orders to the regiments. If the player is commanding an Army or Army Group, he certainly wouldn't be aware of the locations of individual companies or probably even battalions. Perhaps the game could track them- but they shouldn't be visible.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As end result, by 45., while still lagging behind on the pure tactical level (which every German fanboi will be happy to make big deal about) - Soviets truely excelled on the level we all here love so much, and that is operational. Soviet operations of 44 and 45 are true operational level masterpieces, that probably haven't been repeated ever since.

It probably helped that the German operational method had been crippled in the meantime.

This is where, IMHO, Combat Mission makes a huge mistake. This game is true example of German fanboyism if there ever was any. By pitting battles on pure tactical level you always have tactical ubermensch Germans fighting quasi-equal number of n00b Soviets (or even Western Allies). Well, nice, but simply not realistic, and never gives any chance for Sovs to materialize what they were best at - op level planning and execution.

Well, balanced battles did no doubt occur occasionally. But you're right that if players wanted realism rather than balance then they should be playing many, many battles where hopelessly outnumbered Germans variously hold by the skin of their teeth or are totally overwhelmed by Soviet masses (after having been ground into a fine paste by however many thousands of artillery tubes).

But players, on the whole, don't care about realism. They want balance. And V-2 rockets.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I'm not sure that having the companies on the map is helpful when you're issuing orders to the regiments. If the player is commanding an Army or Army Group, he certainly wouldn't be aware of the locations of individual companies or probably even battalions. Perhaps the game could track them- but they shouldn't be visible.

Because it's far more interesting, and companies were the lowest size of independent unit. Regiments, divisions, and army groups clumped together into one massive unit is an unrealistic level of abstraction for the sake of simplicity. If you can model companies and make it just as simple, then why bother with the unrealistic abstraction?