? don't understand the following

[Zap]

I apologize in advance to all. But I read the following comment and it raised my eyebrows. Since I am in the camp of purchase this game I wanted to get peoples comment. Now I play war games which only deal with the battle aspect. But does TOAW IV have something that makes the commenter below make it seem it really so dry? More so then any game i'm playing now?


" The low point in gaming must have been Norm Koger's bland tinkertoy set - with apologies to Tinkertoy - called 'The Operational Art of War'. It is not operational; and it is not war. It is devoid of flavour, and becomes a dull, dull, dull exercise in accounting. There is a lot of this floating around. The graphics have - supposedly - improved, but they look like silly little miniatures floating around on a Styrofoam cake . . . hiding the dull accounting behind the toy-town scene.

War does not exist in sterile isolation. It's time to dust off your Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Battles are dumplings in a thick, rich stew of politics and diplomacy and intrigue. Victory is not a body count or mere numbers comparison. I like my WARgames to be rich and messy in historical "
flavour and sauce.

[Meyer1]

Is that from a really old review? What wargames do you play? Because that quote could apply to pretty much all present wargames. In fact the "exercise in accounting" has in TOAW more flavor than others since the you know what the units have or lose (trucks, different types of infantry squads, tanks, artillery, etc). Since the game is operational in nature most scenarios don't deal with anything else other than the battle.
The graphics critic I suppose is aimed at the 3D mode that pretty much nobody uses it. Can't remember if that survives in IV. The 2D look the you would be using is there in the videos to judge.

[Zap]

The comment was made Sept 2016. The context of the discussion was should wargames add(politics, media influence)to the mix. I mean I own and have played occasionally WITPAE. There can't be more accounting then in that game. But I find it enjoyable.

[Lobster]

As far as graphics it seems to me they are talking about the 3D that no one ever uses. This is probably someone who played the 'war games' that use 3d models exclusively and could not grasp how to use the 2D version of the game that is used by most everyone.

It's painfully obvious that individual does not understand that there are levels to fighting a war and is looking for something strategic. If they don't want to play an operational level war game then they need to go look elsewhere. Matrix has some and Paradox has droves of grand strategy games. I have no idea who made the comment. Do you have the source?

BTW, what accounting? I've been playing the game since the initial release. Accounting is not a word I would use in explaining TOAW.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Zap

The comment was made Sept 2016. The context of the discussion was should wargames add(politics, media influence)to the mix. I mean I own and have played occasionally WITPAE. There can't be more accounting then in that game. But I find it enjoyable.

Thanks. Well, there are many videos of Toaw III in youtube and also many AARs in the III forum. That should serve you to see for yourself. But if you like WITP I don`t think you should be worried about that kind of criticism.
I would also like to see that discussion, is it in a public forum?

[ncc1701e]

Yes, a link to share please?

[Zap]

fb.asp?m=4360666 Username: hjalmar99

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Zap

fb.asp?m=4360666 Username: hjalmar99

Thanks for the link. I can't understand how people have problems with moral or ethic questions on a war-GAME.
About the other issue, that is to include political/economics variables, that is of course a good point but eventually you can't control everything, is hard enough to push hundreds of counters already. So if you want to reach every variable, you have to lose detail at the lower level.
That's why we have strategic, operational, or tactical wargames. You can't have all that in just one game.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Zap

fb.asp?m=4360666 Username: hjalmar99

[:D][:D] And here I thought it was from someone who was an actual qualified war game critic. Instead it seems to be someone making a comment from a a soap box. Hey, I do the same thing.

[Zap]

[:D] That's why I started my post with an apology.

[sIg3b]

I love totally dry spreadsheet games. If anything, TOAW is a bit too messy and unpredictable for my taste. [:D]

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Zap

fb.asp?m=4360666 Username: hjalmar99

[:D][:D] And here I thought it was from someone who was an actual qualified war game critic. Instead it seems to be someone making a comment from a a soap box. Hey, I do the same thing.

I also thought it was from a critic. It sounds like the sort of thing Bruce Geryk would write. http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/author/bruce-geryk/

I enjoyed his articles about WITE but sometimes he his scathing about the 'number-led' nature of some wargames.


As for TOAW IV, I'm really looking forward to it.

[aaatoysandmore]

That's just a typical troll review of a hater Zap; just disregard them and know TOAW at any version has been an still is the leader amongst strategy wargames. It's silly to call the game dry with all the things it does behind the scenes and still gives you more for the eye. Norm is an excellent designer. With TOAW game series he's saved me many a $$ by having scenarios and campaigns it it that another game only has one of.

I like value for my $$ and that is why I get games like TOAW and Age of Rifles and Steel Panthers. You get a lot for your money.

I'd almost like to slap the guy in the face for calling it a "tinker toy" looks like he has experience playing with a childs toys though.[:D]

[larryfulkerson]

You guys need to browse the site called Rugged Defense. It's got
tons of scenarios and auxillary files. It's here:

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/news.php

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I apologize in advance to all. But I read the following comment and it raised my eyebrows. Since I am in the camp of purchase this game I wanted to get peoples comment. Now I play war games which only deal with the battle aspect. But does TOAW IV have something that makes the commenter below make it seem it really so dry? More so then any game i'm playing now?


" The low point in gaming must have been Norm Koger's bland tinkertoy set - with apologies to Tinkertoy - called 'The Operational Art of War'. It is not operational; and it is not war. It is devoid of flavour, and becomes a dull, dull, dull exercise in accounting. There is a lot of this floating around. The graphics have - supposedly - improved, but they look like silly little miniatures floating around on a Styrofoam cake . . . hiding the dull accounting behind the toy-town scene.

War does not exist in sterile isolation. It's time to dust off your Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Battles are dumplings in a thick, rich stew of politics and diplomacy and intrigue. Victory is not a body count or mere numbers comparison. I like my WARgames to be rich and messy in historical "
flavour and sauce.

Actually, going by Wikipedia, it seems like a fairly close match.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_level_of_war

I think your problem is that it isn't a 'grand strategy' game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy

It's a war-game, make no mistake about that. There are numbers under the hood, but they are very complex numbers, you need to make sure that you understand the units as well, take an infantry unit against a tank and you won't be successful. If you just look at the surface numbers, you're going to have problems. Most importantly, I suspect that anyone who knows strategy will be able to mop the decks of anyone who doesn't and just looks at the numbers.

It isn't a political game, the flavor is determined by the scenario which is largely governed by history, I don't like political games, the AI can't play them convincingly, playing against the AI in Civ and GalCiv always seems more like min-maxing to me. It's possible that there are games out there that mold politics and combat in a convincing way and I just haven't fond them. and I just haven't found them.

I don't see that as a rant against TOAW specifically but against this class of wargames.

[elxaime]

There is a ancient and fascinating debate hidden in all this discussion about war games as number-crunching exercises. It is the military equivalent of debates over Marxist political theory. Or similar back and forth regarding Clauswitz. And of course Tolstoy.

The traditional approach is that history is made by Great Men. Most war games take this approach largely because it is more fun for the players. Who wants to preside as a figurehead over a chaotic clash unfolding largely beyond anyone's control? Or to be a pawn of fate (which in a war game would be random die rolls)?

Tolstoy's account of the 1812 Battle of Borodino relies on historiography that shows that the respective supreme army leaders - Napoleon and Kutuzov - having brought their forces to the battlefield, then made relatively few operational decisions. Those were handled at lower levels, quite often based on outdated or mistaken information unlikely to be a concern of the Eagle-Eyed war gamer sitting typically at his perch above the battlefield.

The number-crunching approach reflects the diminished reputation of the Great Man theory and is closely related to industrial revolution, the rise of Marxist theory, and advances across the fields of battlefield technology. War is a science and, like any other science, can be understood once you ascertain the rules that apply. While 20th century military science acknowledges chaos ("no plan survives contact with the enemy" - Rommel) it is heavily weighted towards the notion that, in the end, conflict can be managed according to the application of general industrial organizational principles. The Germans in WW2 disparaged the US approach as "materialschlacht" but in the end they were buried by it.

War game designers are in damned if they do, damned if they don't dilemna. If they accurately model history, with its vagaries and lack of control, players accuse them of creating straight-jackets or making things too random. If they go the spread-sheet route, they get accused of being soul-less number crunchers.

The reality is that these games are going to remain best guesses, works of art not science. The better ones manage to get pretty far along in finding the balance between fun and accuracy.

[RealChuckB]

ORIGINAL: elxaime

There is a ancient and fascinating debate hidden in all this discussion about war games as number-crunching exercises. It is the military equivalent of debates over Marxist political theory. Or similar back and forth regarding Clauswitz. And of course Tolstoy.

The traditional approach is that history is made by Great Men. Most war games take this approach largely because it is more fun for the players. Who wants to preside as a figurehead over a chaotic clash unfolding largely beyond anyone's control? Or to be a pawn of fate (which in a war game would be random die rolls)?

Tolstoy's account of the 1812 Battle of Borodino relies on historiography that shows that the respective supreme army leaders - Napoleon and Kutuzov - having brought their forces to the battlefield, then made relatively few operational decisions. Those were handled at lower levels, quite often based on outdated or mistaken information unlikely to be a concern of the Eagle-Eyed war gamer sitting typically at his perch above the battlefield.

The number-crunching approach reflects the diminished reputation of the Great Man theory and is closely related to industrial revolution, the rise of Marxist theory, and advances across the fields of battlefield technology. War is a science and, like any other science, can be understood once you ascertain the rules that apply. While 20th century military science acknowledges chaos ("no plan survives contact with the enemy" - Rommel) it is heavily weighted towards the notion that, in the end, conflict can be managed according to the application of general industrial organizational principles. The Germans in WW2 disparaged the US approach as "materialschlacht" but in the end they were buried by it.

War game designers are in damned if they do, damned if they don't dilemna. If they accurately model history, with its vagaries and lack of control, players accuse them of creating straight-jackets or making things too random. If they go the spread-sheet route, they get accused of being soul-less number crunchers.

The reality is that these games are going to remain best guesses, works of art not science. The better ones manage to get pretty far along in finding the balance between fun and accuracy.

I think this sums it up very nicely. In the end, it often boils done to what a gamer wants/looks for/is comfortable with. I, for one, can live with a lot of uncertainty and don't need/want to know all the details because I believe that games are an (incomplete) attempt at simulating something incredibly complex and uncertainty helps to move it away from a pure mathematical exercise to something that more resembles real life (and death ...). I can even live with some of the infamous "jeeps win against Tiger tanks" problems, as my understanding is not that you line up some jeeps and Tigers on a shooting range to see who wins but that it is an abstract representation and that having the strongest tank does not always guarantee a win.

Good thing that there are so many good games to choose from that you can pick at your liking and that fit your style (and the fun you are looking for) and why staying away from the ideological discussions on the forums is probably the best choice! [:D]

Really looking forward to TOAW IV (and I'm not even sure it it's the best fit for myself but it'll be fun to find out)

[larryfulkerson]

Really looking forward to TOAW IV (and I'm not even sure
it it's the best fit for myself but it'll be fun to find out)

What is it you're looking for? Mongster scenarios, TOAW IV has 'em.
Small quick scenarios, Bob Cross has one scenario that's got 11 units and
1 turn. I think I got the number of units right, I remember one turn.
And everything inbetween. As it happens I just now downloaded the
American Civil War scenanrio and the 19th Century equipment file
for it and it's got old timey boats with sails and muskets, etc.
There's a scenario for the American Revolutionary War, but I forget
the name of it. Name a period or a subject, or a theme, and TOAW IV
probably has it already. If not, there's a built-in editor for users
to make their own modifications, build new scenarios, etc. TOAW IV
is all I do anymore. Good thing I'm a playtester or I wouldn't get
enough of it.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Zap

I apologize in advance to all. But I read the following comment and it raised my eyebrows. Since I am in the camp of purchase this game I wanted to get peoples comment. Now I play war games which only deal with the battle aspect. But does TOAW IV have something that makes the commenter below make it seem it really so dry? More so then any game i'm playing now?


" The low point in gaming must have been Norm Koger's bland tinkertoy set - with apologies to Tinkertoy - called 'The Operational Art of War'. It is not operational; and it is not war. It is devoid of flavour, and becomes a dull, dull, dull exercise in accounting. There is a lot of this floating around. The graphics have - supposedly - improved, but they look like silly little miniatures floating around on a Styrofoam cake . . . hiding the dull accounting behind the toy-town scene.

War does not exist in sterile isolation. It's time to dust off your Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Battles are dumplings in a thick, rich stew of politics and diplomacy and intrigue. Victory is not a body count or mere numbers comparison. I like my WARgames to be rich and messy in historical "
flavour and sauce.

Actually, going by Wikipedia, it seems like a fairly close match.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_level_of_war

I think your problem is that it isn't a 'grand strategy' game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy

It's a war-game, make no mistake about that. There are numbers under the hood, but they are very complex numbers, you need to make sure that you understand the units as well, take an infantry unit against a tank and you won't be successful. If you just look at the surface numbers, you're going to have problems. Most importantly, I suspect that anyone who knows strategy will be able to mop the decks of anyone who doesn't and just looks at the numbers.

It isn't a political game, the flavor is determined by the scenario which is largely governed by history, I don't like political games, the AI can't play them convincingly, playing against the AI in Civ and GalCiv always seems more like min-maxing to me. It's possible that there are games out there that mold politics and combat in a convincing way and I just haven't fond them. and I just haven't found them.

I don't see that as a rant against TOAW specifically but against this class of wargames.

Two games come to mind that I think have great diplomacy in them. "War of the Lance" and "Spartan". I've always enjoyed the diplomacy in both these games because they didn't seem geared over you giving the AI every thing for a treaty or small patch of lands. It's real diplomacy like it should be based on your play style and what you choose to send your diplomats toward.

[RealChuckB]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Really looking forward to TOAW IV (and I'm not even sure
it it's the best fit for myself but it'll be fun to find out)

What is it you're looking for? Mongster scenarios, TOAW IV has 'em.
Small quick scenarios, Bob Cross has one scenario that's got 11 units and
1 turn. I think I got the number of units right, I remember one turn.
And everything inbetween. As it happens I just now downloaded the
American Civil War scenanrio and the 19th Century equipment file
for it and it's got old timey boats with sails and muskets, etc.
There's a scenario for the American Revolutionary War, but I forget
the name of it. Name a period or a subject, or a theme, and TOAW IV
probably has it already. If not, there's a built-in editor for users
to make their own modifications, build new scenarios, etc. TOAW IV
is all I do anymore. Good thing I'm a playtester or I wouldn't get
enough of it.

I'm definitely not interested in monster scenarios (I always think that most or even all gaming systems have the most trouble with them). Small scenarios are good, most interested in the 1930 - 1960 time range, so I'm sure there will be enough for me to do. I was most interested in a new version of the Korea 1950 scenario but it looks like that is not included, which is a bit surprising.
I still have some doubts about the timestamp implementation (but think that what the devs are trying to address was probably the biggest issue of TOAW III).