Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
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

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

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
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.

ORIGINAL: 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.

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Ok I think this part is relevant. What I was trying to say is that the scale does get large enough for east front scenarios, but maintain the units as company level. This means more units of course, but you aren't commanding each company. The simplicity is retained but without a cost to realism. (armies moving around as clumps.)

Like I said, the only obstacle to that is performance. The engine is getting better with each release, so it seems likely that we'll eventually be able to play large east front scenarios at a company level.

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Because it's far more interesting,

If you can model companies and make it just as simple,

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Otherwise, you might get just another in the looong loooooongggggg string of games that favor Germans (because of designer's fanboyism or mistakes in design) so that players can only wonder "how come these ueber-guys ever lost a war??"

Finally, to get back on TOAW topic somewhat - many good TOAW scenarios put German batallions/regiments vs Soviet regiments/divisions, etc ie. a Soviet unit one level above the German, to get the good simulated effect. It's not the same as giving Soviets simply more batallions to work with, it shows different doctrines altogether.

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

...but unrealistic. At times, army commanders didn't even know where some divisions were- let alone individual companies. One persistant problem with wargames is that too much information is available to the player, especially about his own force.

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Who says that I'm an army commander?

Since when do you play a specific commander in any of these games?

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Well, number of units, ie number of counters is certainly a consideration (if not an outright limitation) for this engine. It all happens in "quasi real time". If there's too many of them you get cluttered screen even if CPU can handle all that. Besides, show me one Soviet commander with rank of polkovnik or above, who really ever cared about such trifling entities as companies when conducting operations?

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what the player cares about. Regiments don't move as clumps. They have forward units, they have rear echelon units, they have maneuvre elements - companies. That's all.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Good grief. The person who designed the scenario when he decided to simulate an army-level operation.

Note that I only went up to army level to make my point about divisions. Corps commanders still would not be aware of the locations of individual companies. Uncertainty in war is a really big deal. Rommel spent much of May 1940 with only a very vague idea where the various components of his division were. The difference was that it didn't matter; whereas when this happened to his opponents it was a disaster.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what the player cares about. Regiments don't move as clumps. They have forward units, they have rear echelon units, they have maneuvre elements - companies. That's all.

One has to be careful. At a certain point, one switches from an operational simulation to a very, very large tactical simulation. Ten years down the line, will you be arguing for or against modelling every single soldier on the battlefield?

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Again, allied fog of war is a different topic. We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what I'm roleplaying, or what particular level a specific player is interested in. I don't care about specific rifle squads in TAOW - but they're there, and I can examine their weapons, and they contribute to the realistic modeling of a simulation.

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy
It's not a realistic simulation to abstract them as a company and pretend that they move around in that mass down the streets of fallujah, or wherever else.

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

If it could be done, why wouldn't you?

I'm not controlling that soldier, but he does exist. In a modern simulation, platoons and even squads can become independent maneuvre elements. It's not a realistic simulation to abstract them as a company and pretend that they move around in that mass down the streets of fallujah, or wherever else.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

True op level should give answer to that. To achieve this on platoon level you need a Cray supercomputer,

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
If it's the steppe between Stalingrad and Kalach then it is [:D]

HTTR/COTA series is somewhat CPU intensive and certainly more CPU intensive than, say, TOAW or any other turn based game.

At one point you have to decide whether you will use your "CPU budget" and more importantly "human usability mental budget" or "GUI budget" to handle individual people, platoons, companies or, say, regiments. I say - regiments all the way (for Soviets, battallions for Germans). For East Front's massive operations that's the only way to get realistic historic results.

I haven't met one single tactical level EF game that I liked. Close Combat 3 was fun, as was Talonsoft's East Front 2, but both were quite gamey, and neither gave an answer "how the hell did the Uber Germans lose this war?"

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

Again, allied fog of war is a different topic. We're talking about the realistic modeling of a simulation, not what I'm roleplaying, or what particular level a specific player is interested in. I don't care about specific rifle squads in TAOW - but they're there, and I can examine their weapons, and they contribute to the realistic modeling of a simulation.

They should be there, but the player shouldn't really be able to call up such detailed information instantaneously. I recall that in the old game Borodino, one had to request battle reports from the corps, which would then be delivered in real time (or not, if the message didn't get delivered).

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Because at the level of the individual soldier simulation gets filled with many, many problems. Do we simulate the soldiers having a call of nature, reading letters from home- or murdering some civilians? How do we simulate the impact this has on his fighting potential?

l, I'm thinking about simulation of conventional warfare. Professional simulation of modern so-called "low-intensity" warfare would have to consider all sorts of things which aren't important to historical simulation.