TOAW Scenario Sizes

[Curtis Lemay]

The attached zip contains my two spreadsheets that list the scenario sizes of the TOAW III scenarios (TOAW III Scenario sizes.xls) and most ACOW scenarios (ACOW Scenario sizes.xls). They were last updated June 07, so anything that's come out after that would be omitted.

Size is defined as number of units X number of turns / 1000.

[Curtis Lemay]

For example, here's a screenshot of the top of the TOAW III list.

[Curtis Lemay]

Whereas here's a screenshot of the top of the ACOW list. Some of these may be hard to find copies of now.

[rhinobones]

What information about a scenario is “Size” intended to provide? As an example, if you were told that a scenario has a Size of 150 what could you definitively tell a person about the scenario?

Think you would be better served if you divided total land units by the total land hexes and called the result unit density. At least that number would define a real characteristic of the scenario.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

What information about a scenario is “Size” intended to provide?

Relative effort required to play the scenario.

[rhinobones]

Relative ease . . . I can accept that as an explanation, however, we both know that there are plenty of exceptions to the general case.

Suggest you consider changing the name from Size to something more descriptive of the intent, such as Complexity or REP Factor, i.e. Relative Ease to Play Factor.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

I'd be inclined to add map size as a consideration in complexity -- perhaps not as heavily weighted as number of units and number of turns. Then, too, the event count would be a good indicator. A lot of events is going to correlate very positively with a lot of material to track and keep in mind.

We might wind up with a formula along the lines of a*w+b*x+c*y+d*z, w, x, y, and z being unit count, scenario length in turns, map size in hexes, and number of events respectively. a,b,c, and d would be the coefficients for these variables.

Naturally, the fact that scenario length in turns and number of events are inherently small values while map size in particular is an inherently huge number would have to be taken into account. For example, if we want map size and event count to be weighted equally and we determine that the average scenario has a map covering 50,000 hexes and has one hundred events, we'd want the coefficient for event count to be five hundred times that of map size.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

We might wind up with a formula along the lines of a*w+b*x+c*y+d*z, w, x, y, and z being unit count, scenario length in turns, map size in hexes, and number of events respectively. a,b,c, and d would be the coefficients for these variables.

More complicated than that, even. All else being equal, is a scenario with 10,000 hexes 100 times more complex than one with 100 hexes? I'd say not; in most scenarios, the active area will be a long, thin line. So you'd almost want the square root of the map size.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
. . . in most scenarios, the active area will be a long, thin line.

Long thin line? Sounds boring. Surely scenario designers can do better than that!

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
. . . in most scenarios, the active area will be a long, thin line.

Long thin line? Sounds boring. Surely scenario designers can do better than that!

Regards, RhinoBones

Why am I not surprised?

[rhinobones]

Yes, why aren't you suprised? We are all just dying to know.

Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Long thin line? Sounds boring. Surely scenario designers can do better than that!

I'm sorry, but if I'm simulating most battles in the real world in the 20th century, I would be remiss if I didn't simulate it as occuring over a long thin line.

Your preferences are not everyone else's preferences. You need to come to terms with this and move on.

[rhinobones]

Sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Falcon1]

How does someone even approach playing a scenario with thousands of units?? [:)]

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Falcon1

How does someone even approach playing a scenario with thousands of units?? [:)]

One step at a time. Compared to all the decisions, micro-management let's say at WitP AE, even FitE is a piece of cake. I prefer scenarios with about 200-300 counters max, but others just love 1,000+ units on the map. Personal preference, really.

Klink, Oberst

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Falcon1

How does someone even approach playing a scenario with thousands of units?? [:)]

Study the map. Plan ahead where each division will be needed so you can send them on the proper routes. Plan where your main thrusts will be, where supply will be most difficult, where the best places for your air units will be. Plan, plan, plan.

Then after turn one realize all the plans are now worthless and throw all the plans in the trash and wing it.

[USXpat]

First, it starts with a cup of coffee, then turning up the volume with your favorite WWII music or modern hard rock equivalent thereof. After some SOS with a side order of bacon, and a fresh refill, one loads the scenario - skips the turn replay because all of the good stuff is at the end. Smart opponents always start moving units in areas other than the important areas. Watching the 8,000 movement replay has a low return -- one therefore assumes the worst case is happening everywhere. If it didn't happen this turn... it'll certainly be next turn.

From there, it is mainly a matter of continuous lines and zones of control, force preservation where possible, prioritizing reinforcements and concentrating force as needed. Same as smaller games.

Everyone has their own preferences. There are lots of smaller games out there, not quite as many monsters. TOAW's awesome because it has something for everyone.

I tend to like the monsters, for much the same reason as the Campaign series has linked campaigns in addition to scenarios, or perhaps from a different angle - why people like World of Warcraft, the long-term evolution of things.

The monsters then are like lots of small scenarios wrapped up into one - interconnected, where what happens in one area can impact another. Within these kinds of frameworks, taking an objective -- Warsaw, Kharkov, Moscow, Baku, Paris or Berlin is somewhat less important than being able to "survive the experience".

But it is the somethin' for everyone thing that makes TOAW + 15 years a lot more than perhaps it was intended to be and with some extra effort - perhaps CAN be. The original TOAW was a lot like a great double cheeseburger. Now... it's like a great double chili cheeseburger with lots of onions and a heaping side order of jalapenos with a frosty mug of beer - and a keg or two of that waiting behind it. TOAW may never be perfected, by the time it is, our standards for it will have changed.

AUM.

[PoorOldSpike]

BTW let's not forget we can create our own scens to whatever size and complexity we like!
In fact I'm a creator nut and diving into the scen creator is one of the first things I do after buying any game..