Variety in Toaw

[PFrancis]

Some time ago I bought the game, played a little with it and had to stop, due to lack of time. I'm thinking of trying it again, but going through some AARs on this forum I was surprised to see how much alike they are. It seems a matter of (using the words of a recent AAR I have read) retreating to a favorable spot and keep closing the gaps on the lines, or (when attacking) finding the weak spot and running an attack. Most fronts don't seem to consider terrain, at least not much... they are usually regular in terms of direction. Terrain seem to be a minor problem, whatever the region, sweeping through dense forest don't seem to be very different then through the open (at least in high movement scenarios) and defending in dense urban or mountains don't seem to be as worthful as it should. I don't see much concern to critical spots or logistical problems. It gives the impression that it all resumes to who can pile the greater number of fresh units on a given spot of the front line. Ok, there is the management of combat rounds, but a game can't be based only on how you manage the engine's particularities.
All I stated above is merely an impression I had by reading through the AARs. I'm not saying it is as I described. I want to know if it isn't and why, since I'm planning to give the game another try. What makes scenarios different one from another? What kind of different strategic approaches one can try? Will it all be reduced to managing gaps on a linear front?
I can understand that gronards should be happy with only the necessity of having to distribute division historically along a front an waiting to see how things evolve when punching through enemy lines, keeping tracks of the different formations, but a game must present some further challenge... it must allow us to create different strategic approaches when dealing with different conflicts on different regions of the world, not only to manage gaps on a dense front.
If you can point me to AARs that present a different feel from that I described, I would be grateful.
Thanks.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: PFrancis

Some time ago I bought the game, played a little with it and had to stop, due to lack of time. I'm thinking of trying it again, but going through some AARs on this forum I was surprised to see how much alike they are. It seems a matter of (using the words of a recent AAR I have read) retreating to a favorable spot and keep closing the gaps on the lines, or (when attacking) finding the weak spot and running an attack. Most fronts don't seem to consider terrain, at least not much... they are usually regular in terms of direction. Terrain seem to be a minor problem, whatever the region, sweeping through dense forest don't seem to be very different then through the open (at least in high movement scenarios) and defending in dense urban or mountains don't seem to be as worthful as it should. I don't see much concern to critical spots or logistical problems. It gives the impression that it all resumes to who can pile the greater number of fresh units on a given spot of the front line. Ok, there is the management of combat rounds, but a game can't be based only on how you manage the engine's particularities.
All I stated above is merely an impression I had by reading through the AARs. I'm not saying it is as I described. I want to know if it isn't and why, since I'm planning to give the game another try. What makes scenarios different one from another? What kind of different strategic approaches one can try? Will it all be reduced to managing gaps on a linear front?
I can understand that gronards should be happy with only the necessity of having to distribute division historically along a front an waiting to see how things evolve when punching through enemy lines, keeping tracks of the different formations, but a game must present some further challenge... it must allow us to create different strategic approaches when dealing with different conflicts on different regions of the world, not only to manage gaps on a dense front.
If you can point me to AARs that present a different feel from that I described, I would be grateful.
Thanks.

First this is operational scale rather than tactical. Terrain does make a difference (the manual says so [;)]). The time scale is in days instead of hours so, say a hill, can be overcome in a weeks time, no problem. Same with a river defence. Even one day is enough.

Probing for weak spots in the enemies defenses and then attacking that weak spot is what you should be doing. Frontal attacks are a waste of resources.

Plugging holes in a defense is probably a good idea, otherwise you have bad guys running around blowing stuff up that shouldn't get blowed up.

Logistics, now that seems to be a weak spot in this game.

The combat rounds kind of represent the tactical aspect of the game. That's why you need to manage them. Get as much done with the time you have as possible.

It seems to me you might be more happy playing the North Africa scenarios.

[PFrancis]

ORIGINAL: Panama


First this is operational scale rather than tactical. Terrain does make a difference (the manual says so [;)]). The time scale is in days instead of hours so, say a hill, can be overcome in a weeks time, no problem. Same with a river defence. Even one day is enough.

I accept that, but I think the front should bend with time in a region of difficult terrain, after all, advance should be significantly slowlier in good defensive terrain, at least when considering multiple turns, not only for movement reasons. The French may have been proven wrong in their overconfidence in natural barrier, but those couldn't be ignored. I know that the manual says that terrain makes difference, but I think it doesn't seem to be enough. At least, when reading through those AARs, units seems to advanced with ease through most terrain features when superior in number and front shape and density seem very regular, independent of terrain.

Probing for weak spots in the enemies defenses and then attacking that weak spot is what you should be doing. Frontal attacks are a waste of resources.

Plugging holes in a defense is probably a good idea, otherwise you have bad guys running around blowing stuff up that shouldn't get blowed up.

I don't say otherwise. Sure it is important. I just say that if one just have to do that, all scenarios will seem alike, with the only difference being the balance of forces.

Logistics, now that seems to be a weak spot in this game.

I'm sad to know that. I think logistics is, perhaps, the main aspect of warfare, in any period of time, if one considers a scale greater than that of tactical considerations. Bad logistics lose wars. Managing logistics could be one of the most interesting aspects of wargames. Having played the game a little, I can't really tell, but I must trust your point of view, since you know the game better and I didn't see any consideration to logistics in what I read.

The combat rounds kind of represent the tactical aspect of the game. That's why you need to manage them. Get as much done with the time you have as possible.

I agree. I just think that if you have little else to consider, that will be it.. the whole game will be dependent on this aspect. I'm not saying it is, just considering the hypothesis.

It seems to me you might be more happy playing the North Africa scenarios.

Thanks for the suggestion. Will try them, but would like to know if the different time periods and conflicts represented by Toaw have different feel to them and demand different approaches.

Thanks again. I'm not trying to argue, since I really don't know the game well. Just trying to get as much information as possible in what matters most for me, before investing my time.

[madner]

When you argue that terrain should matter more, you need to provide examples. What scenario did you play where it didn't matter?

What do you consider valid different strategies?

[Panama]

I've not played the modern scenarios but I don't think they would differ that much from the WW2 ones. If you've read much about WW2 you would realize that terrain really only made a big difference if both sides were evenly matched. I have read many campaign and battle histories and there were only a handfull of times where terrain stopped an offensive. Most of the time it's overcome without a large amount of time being used.

In the East Front the large north/south rivers would seem to make great offensive stoppers. But it seems they were crossed with relative ease. In modern warefare terrain makes more of a difference on the tactical level than on the operational level or so it seems to me. WW2 was characterized by large fast offensives. The exception would be Italy. If you want to play a scenario where terrain bogs everything down that's the one.

[PFrancis]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I've not played the modern scenarios but I don't think they would differ that much from the WW2 ones. If you've read much about WW2 you would realize that terrain really only made a big difference if both sides were evenly matched. I have read many campaign and battle histories and there were only a handfull of times where terrain stopped an offensive. Most of the time it's overcome without a large amount of time being used.

In the East Front the large north/south rivers would seem to make great offensive stoppers. But it seems they were crossed with relative ease. In modern warefare terrain makes more of a difference on the tactical level than on the operational level or so it seems to me. WW2 was characterized by large fast offensives. The exception would be Italy. If you want to play a scenario where terrain bogs everything down that's the one.

Maybe you're right. I'm not a military history buff, so I can't really say you aren't. It was just an impression. Anyway, some things seem exagerated, even if I can't say that the general picture isn't as you state.
For instance, I've seen scenarios (with day turns) in which it doesn't matter if you dig in a dense urban hex or in the open hex just to the side of it, if the opposing force is 3 or 4 days from you. Once they get there you'll have a fortified position and sometimes it's easier to take the dense urban position than the open one. In fact, using a mathematical logic (which I don't know if really worthful), I would dig in the open hex, since I would have a fortified position and if taken, my unit could (by chance) retreat to the dense urban one and have the natural bonus of that hex (even if it doesn't seem to make much difference)... if I dig in the dense urban hex (supposing it's surrounded by open hexes), I'll have my unit retreating to an open hex. The same for mountains surrounded by open ground, considering I have enough time to get fortified.

Anyway, perhaps what really matters to me is the answer to a more objetive question:
What do you think are the intellectual challenges in Toaw? What makes a player win? What is the essence of your reflections when analysing a position and taking a decision? Is it all about stating that one has enough force to push and then take the chance or retreating and digging in if that's not the case? In that case, since players can do nothing about reinforcements, which are previously defined, dependent on scenario, player influence in outcome won't be really significant if a major error isn't commited.

Ok, I don't have evidences, I don't know the game well. All the above statements are based on impressions I had when reading AARs. I just want to understand the nature of intellectual challenges present in the game to see if it's what I'm looking for.

Anyway, thanks for you good will to deal with my uninformed considerations.

[Olorin]

About logistics, I think most of us will agree that it's a major weakness of this otherwise great game and that we need a btter supply model.

About terrain, I also think that the OP has a point.
From the manual:

"Infantry and non static weapons in defending units benefit from increased defensive strengths in some terrain or deployments. Effects are not cumulative.

In fortified line hex (any deployment), or fortified deployment (any terrain), x8
Dense urban, dense urban ruin, or badlands (any deployment), x4
Urban, urban ruin, bocage, or mountain (any deployment), or entrenched deployment (any terrain), x3
Forest, jungle, hills, or wadi (any deployment), or defending deployment (any terrain), x2 "

So, it seems it doesn't matter if you are in plains or a mountain, as long as you are fortified you will enjoy the best defense the game engine can offer you. And with the entrenchment rates being so extremely high in most scenarios you can literally create lines of 100% entrenchment in depth in just a few turns, effectively rendering terrain irrelevant.

[shunwick]

Guys,

With the logistics problem I agree that TOAW III's supply system is a tad too simplistic. But the main problem with logisitcs in the majority of published scenarios is that they are chronically undersupplied by the designers. Low FSDEs are the main problem but there are other design issues.

It seems rather strange that designers go to extraordinary lengths to create truly complex supply models and then feed in to them all the wrong numbers. There is indeed a great deal of logistical fun to be had if we could only persuade designers to supply the TOAW III battlefields!

Best wishes,
Steve

[Ibilja]

.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

About logistics, I think most of us will agree that it's a major weakness of this otherwise great game and that we need a btter supply model.

About terrain, I also think that the OP has a point.
From the manual:

"Infantry and non static weapons in defending units benefit from increased defensive strengths in some terrain or deployments. Effects are not cumulative.

In fortified line hex (any deployment), or fortified deployment (any terrain), x8
Dense urban, dense urban ruin, or badlands (any deployment), x4
Urban, urban ruin, bocage, or mountain (any deployment), or entrenched deployment (any terrain), x3
Forest, jungle, hills, or wadi (any deployment), or defending deployment (any terrain), x2 "

So, it seems it doesn't matter if you are in plains or a mountain, as long as you are fortified you will enjoy the best defense the game engine can offer you. And with the entrenchment rates being so extremely high in most scenarios you can literally create lines of 100% entrenchment in depth in just a few turns, effectively rendering terrain irrelevant.

It makes a lot of difference once the attacks start, as sooner or latter they won't be fortified. Terrain makes a lot of difference for being outflanked or not, even in high MP scenarios (with Afrika scenarios being a bad example as the density is very low)

As for the questions, while the reinforcements are fixed, you can usually decide where to send them, where to attack and where to defend and when to stop attacking to rest etc...

Also I doubt you can play a scenario without looking at the main supply routes, your units will be pretty quickly red.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: madner


Also I doubt you can play a scenario without looking at the main supply routes, your units will be pretty quickly red.

Bah, supply in this game is really really really bad. You never run out of anything. You can go on forever and ever and ever.

If the US and UK had the supply system in TOAW they would have been in Berlin before the Soviets. Or maybe not because the Soviets would not have to worry about running out of anything. In this game red is only a color. No supply just makes you weaker, it doesn't stop you from having eternal motion engines in all vehicles and endless quantities of everything.

Then some would say it 'eventually' has a negative impact and a unit goes away. But using this supply system I could 'eventually' drive my tank to Jupiter.

[larryfulkerson]

Logistical considerations figure large in my decisions where to put my front lines, where to do the major pushing, where to lay low with spare units, etc.  I doubt that there is a decent TOAW player who doesn't figure in logistics when deciding where to go and what to do when he arrives there.  Someone said that tactical considerations are left to majors and below and logistics are best left to the generals.  In my estimation logistics is 60% of the decision to attack and defend somewhere in particular and terrain is 30% and the rest is left up to chance.  It is in my case anyway.  I'm not sure what the results would be but I would be very interested in a poll that asks how important each consideration is in deciding where to attack is:  logistics, terrain, weather, equipment condition(s) ( troops and weapons ), maybe even the types of weapons in the attacking force and the defending force in the forces opposed in the area under consideration.  Who sets up polls, moderators?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

"Infantry and non static weapons in defending units benefit from increased defensive strengths in some terrain or deployments. Effects are not cumulative.

In fortified line hex (any deployment), or fortified deployment (any terrain), x8
Dense urban, dense urban ruin, or badlands (any deployment), x4
Urban, urban ruin, bocage, or mountain (any deployment), or entrenched deployment (any terrain), x3
Forest, jungle, hills, or wadi (any deployment), or defending deployment (any terrain), x2 "

To take the example of an open versus a dense urban hex, once the unit loses its fortified status (which it will if subjected to a serious attack), the unit goes back to x1. If it's in the dense urban hex, instead it falls to only x4. So a unit in the dense urban hex has a much better chance to resist a concerted attack.

In addition, dense urban hexes are "restricted vision" whereas open hexes (provided weather is clear) are "open vision". This means that anti-tank equipment in the urban hex will have nearly five times as much chance to hit a target than in the open hex. This is crucial in defending against a mechanised attacker.

Anyway, whilst even a few roads make it easy for a force to move across difficult terrain, fighting through it is another matter. Invariably the routes forward on the roads will be heavily defended, which means sending reinforcements to exploit an opening is going to be much slower, whilst the defender can take his time in organising forces for a counterattack as the breakout will develop slowly.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Panama

In this game red is only a color. No supply just makes you weaker, it doesn't stop you from having eternal motion engines in all vehicles and endless quantities of everything.

Well, this only works as long as the other guy is also in the red. If you've run through all your supplies and he's still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, you're going nowhere.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: madner


Also I doubt you can play a scenario without looking at the main supply routes, your units will be pretty quickly red.

Bah, supply in this game is really really really bad. You never run out of anything. You can go on forever and ever and ever.

If the US and UK had the supply system in TOAW they would have been in Berlin before the Soviets. Or maybe not because the Soviets would not have to worry about running out of anything. In this game red is only a color. No supply just makes you weaker, it doesn't stop you from having eternal motion engines in all vehicles and endless quantities of everything.

Then some would say it 'eventually' has a negative impact and a unit goes away. But using this supply system I could 'eventually' drive my tank to Jupiter.

Make a simple test put a unit with 100% supply and readiness and one with 1%.
Compare movement points.
Move them full distance, and look at the lost equipment due to movement.

Let them attack and compare the casualties.

Now I won't claim it is a perfect system, but you can't win if you don't consider your logistics. Even if it as simple as being close to a working railline.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

It seems rather strange that designers go to extraordinary lengths to create truly complex supply models and then feed in to them all the wrong numbers. There is indeed a great deal of logistical fun to be had if we could only persuade designers to supply the TOAW III battlefields!

I don't think the supply model is complex. I think it is too oversimplified. Let me explain.

Back when TOAW first came out, there was a lot of discussion about this topic and someone stated that Norm uses "supply" as a way to reduce the tempo of operations from what others have called operational friction, i.e., the wear and tear that results from conducting operations (Actually, I think it was Norm himself who said this). This obviously comes from supply consumption, but also fatigue on men and equipment. From my military experience (15 years in Armor/Cavalry units), I can say that operational friction is definitely a major factor. But, the use of the TOAW supply system might not have been the best way to show this.

Let's set aside traditional supply for a moment. Human fatigue can be managed up until a unit reaches some "breaking point" (I don't know how else to say it). So, continuous fatigue can keep units at perhaps 85-90 effectiveness for an extended period of time, but when the troops "hit the wall," effectiveness drops like a stone. When that happens only a period of time away from operations can ensure recovery. I've seen units with more than ample supply just go to hell because they were exhausted. When this exhaustion stems from a few weeks of operations, they recover quickly. But, when it is of the "hit the wall" variety, then they require perhaps a month to get back to effective fighting shape.

Mechanical fatigue is also directly related to the amount of time the equipment is in use. This is similar to human fatigue in that equipment can function with minor issues for a good period of time, but eventually engines must be pulled, gun tubes replaced, etc. So, in this regard human and mechanical are essentially the same. BUT, equipment fatigue can be managed with much less variability than can human fatigue. By that, I mean that it can be scheduled to a great extent. Human fatige can be much more dependent on things that are beyond the control of the logistics system. Morale, for example, does have a major impact.

I think that the main problem with the TOAW system is that these factors all work the same because they are part of the same model. All of these factors (true supply, humand fatigue, and mechanical fatigue), decrease at a fairly stable rate in the game; there is no sudden drop off as one sees in real life for human and mechanical fatigue. As units move and fight, the "supply" is consumed linearly. So, it is very oversimplified.

This is an operational level game, and the systems are to operate in a manner that reflects the effects on operations. Take the case of a unit that moves for three months but never fights. It ends up with a red supply rating. When attacked, it gets creamed, just like a unit that has not moved, but that has expended all its ammo. Why can't the unit that just moved and did no fighting expend it's ammo? Well at the tactical level it could. But no gas for tank units is just as impactful at the operational level as having no ammo. Mobile units have to move to be effective. For non-mobile units (e.g., the grunts), this is also partially true. After hoofing 1000 miles, troops are physically exhausted and while they can fire away, they cannot physically do all the things that they need to do to be truly combat effective. This is much less than is the case with mechanized units, but it IS true. If food and water are available, they should recover fatigue at almost the same rate if the supply level were 15% or 100%. Time is what cures their needs, not something that comes on a truck. This is NOT true for fuel and ammunition, the key traditional supply items. Those SHOULD be directly related to the supply level.

All that said, the system does seem to have a reasonable impact in the game. It DOES slow operational tempo, which was the point. It's not perfect, but it does work, kind of. Making this better can be partially done through events, but not as effectively as I would hope. I frequently go into the editor and change the supply parameters, locations. etc., to get the supply availability more to my liking, but, it's still not enough.

So, yes, the system is overly simplified. It's not broken, just "nerfed." But, it is NOT the part of the game that needs the most work. I would argue that it's the air operations system. It is simply atrocious. The naval system is just as bad, but Norm has always stated that the naval system (and to a lesser extent the air system) were supposed to be crude and highly abstracted; the emphasis of the game was on ground operations. Well, I can accept that in the case of the naval system, but after 1938, or so, the tactical air operations were an integral part of the ground operations. In TOAW, this is modelled very, vey poorly.

[shunwick]

bjmorgan,

There are two issues here. The TOAW III supply system, which I called a tad too simplistic, and the supply model provided by the designer (using the supply system) for a specific scenario. I actually misspoke myself since I don't think the TOAW III supply system is too simplistic. It would be more accurate to call it a tad too abstract.

Cherryreditus is a supply model problem and is primarilly casued by undersupply of the battlefield. The main problem being that players cannot realistically rest and rotate their units because they cannot afford to take them out of the line for months on end to recover.

Going into the scenario to modify the supply model is the only way to make many scenarios reasonably and realistically playable. And yes, many supply models are very complex.

Best wishes,
Steve

[berto]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

So, yes, the system is overly simplified. It's not broken, just "nerfed." But, it is NOT the part of the game that needs the most work. I would argue that it's the air operations system. It is simply atrocious. The naval system is just as bad, but Norm has always stated that the naval system (and to a lesser extent the air system) were supposed to be crude and highly abstracted; the emphasis of the game was on ground operations. Well, I can accept that in the case of the naval system, but after 1938, or so, the tactical air operations were an integral part of the ground operations. In TOAW, this is modelled very, vey poorly.

All in all, that's a pretty damning indictment.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: madner

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: madner


Also I doubt you can play a scenario without looking at the main supply routes, your units will be pretty quickly red.

Bah, supply in this game is really really really bad. You never run out of anything. You can go on forever and ever and ever.

If the US and UK had the supply system in TOAW they would have been in Berlin before the Soviets. Or maybe not because the Soviets would not have to worry about running out of anything. In this game red is only a color. No supply just makes you weaker, it doesn't stop you from having eternal motion engines in all vehicles and endless quantities of everything.

Then some would say it 'eventually' has a negative impact and a unit goes away. But using this supply system I could 'eventually' drive my tank to Jupiter.

Make a simple test put a unit with 100% supply and readiness and one with 1%.
Compare movement points.
Move them full distance, and look at the lost equipment due to movement.

Let them attack and compare the casualties.

Now I won't claim it is a perfect system, but you can't win if you don't consider your logistics. Even if it as simple as being close to a working railline.

I have absolutely no need to do a test. It's a waste of time. If a unit is red it can move and fight forever. I don't give a hoot what shape the other guy is in. No unit on the planet, corp, division, brigade, squad, can go forever. There are no supermen and eternal motion machines. Everyone and everything has to stop for something. But not in TOAW.

I understand scale would make a difference. A one week turn would be different than a half day turn. But it's relatively the same.

[shunwick]

Guys,
 
You lose 1% supply for every movement point expended.  You lose 10% supply for every combat round you spend in battle.
 
Try the following house rules:
 
1. You may not move any ground unit under its own traction for further than you have supply.
2. You may not attack or limited attack with gound units that are Cherry Red.
3. Artillery (and this includes exotic artillery - aircraft) may not be placed in any of the support deployments if Cherry Red.
 
Have fun.
 
Best wishes,
Steve