A nightmare scenario

[ColinWright]

Norm certainly put a damper on the more extravagant hopes for the new TOAW.

What I fear is not that the Matrix TOAW will not come out, nor even necessarily that it will come out.

There is a user-made utility I and several other designers use a lot. It permits us to edit weapons, create new terrain tiles, etc. IF the new TOAW came out, and IF it was incompatible with this utility, and IF the improvements contained in the new TOAW weren't substantial, but only relatively superficial, such as new interfaces, more events, etc, then in my view we would have taken a step backwards, not a step forwards.

The new TOAW might perforce become the community standard -- and at the same time prevent us from doing the things some of us have been doing with the game.

[golden delicious]

Yeah. Hopefully, Matrix had more than a patch-up job in mind when it bought TOAW. But the above case is a serious concern.

[sstevens06]

I agree with the above sentiments. I am a designer and have made extensive use of this 'equipment database editor' utility to customize the equipment for several of my scenarios. Some simply wouldn't work without extensive mods to the equipment database (Berlin Crisis 1961 and the numerous nuclear-capable weapons systems that didn't come with the stock equipment database comes to mind).

So, in order not to take a step backward, some provision should be made to open the equipment database to modification. I'd prefer NOT having to employ a 'user-made utility' - having this capability built-in to the new TOAW release would be ideal.

If Matrix is NOT thinking along these lines, it had better release TOAW with the 'Mother of all Equipment Databases' - the one that came with the prior releases is clearly inadequate, especially for those of us scenario designers striving to maximize historical accuracy.

[Chuck2]

Good points. I'll just add that the "bio-editor" is useful for more than changing equipment values and graphics. It can also be used more broadly to increase FOW effects, which is important in a lot of scenarios. Actually, being able to modify the graphics has led to a number of improvements other than making TOAW scenarios look different.

[Erik Rutins]

We have said the following from the beginning and Norm's post echoed it:

1. The initial release on all these titles will have minor changes, mainly some bug fixes and compatibility updates.

2. After that, we plan to work on more significant upgrades on all these titles, partly based on sales performance justifying future effort.

3. We are very interested in involving the community in each case and we are putting our own resources behind this as well.

4. Any involvement each developer has with us on this has no effect on other contracts, games or commitments that developer has.

I'm afraid rumors got a bit out of control, hopefully this and the post with Norm, combined with our other posts, will help with that.

Regards,

- Erik

[ColinWright]

Funny...this exchange reminds of one I had earlier today. Deja vu, I guess.

Anyway, as I said over at TDG, even 'the mother of all equipment databases' wouldn't solve the problem. Equipment's effectiveness isn't simply a function of the phyiscal characteristics.

Take 25 pounder field guns. These pieces had a considerable AT ability -- but only at fairly close range. In the earlier stages of the North African campaign, they destroyed a considerable number of tanks, but later on the Germans learned to sit outside their effective AT range and shell then with the 75 mm field gun on their Mk IV's.

So the value changes from scenario to scenario. That AT value of five in 1941 becomes an AT value of one in 1942...and this list could be beat to death. Stukas, Czech tanks in German hands as opposed to Czech hands, Bren Carriers as used by various British formations at various points in the war... The point is that really, the values need to be modifiable. One can no more make a universally applicable database than one can make a universally ideal woman. It all depends on what the user has in mind...

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
One can no more make a universally applicable database than one can make a universally ideal woman. It all depends on what the user has in mind...

Now there's a subject about which many tangents could be followed!
Ray

[lok]

The point is that really, the values need to be modifiable. One can no more make a universally applicable database than one can make a universally ideal woman. It all depends on what the user has in mind...

I agree...so let me throw out a wild-a** idea for a futureTOAW (or whatever the name might be). Eliminate the weapons database. Even though there is some satisfaction in building up your armies one tank or one squad at a time, as Colin said it all depends on what the user has in mind...and the user is presently relying on what the programmer decided the ratings of an M1 tank or an F-18 should be. And we all have our own ideas what those should be [:)]

So...what if you replaced the weapons database with a large set of unit capabiilities that are fully adjustable over a large range. They can be set/modified in the force editor. The ratings can be anything from engineering, movement, armor, anti-air, anti-ship, artillery range, bio-chem defense etc. etc. etc. - more than we have now.

That way when you build the 1st Armored Division or 3rd Shock Army or 22nd SAS Regiment or whatever you do not do it by setting the number of M1 tanks or heavy machine guns etc. but by adjusting the ratings of the entire unit . That way you have maximum flexibility in tweaking the exact ratings you want and with the desired resolution. Kind of high-level Bio-Editor.

Right now if you add weapon A, to a unit to improve Rating X it affects Rating Y.
This way the user will have maximum control. Of course, we will endlessly argue about which units should have what ratings but that's part of the fun.[8D]

A totally different approach but may be worth a try?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: lok

The point is that really, the values need to be modifiable. One can no more make a universally applicable database than one can make a universally ideal woman. It all depends on what the user has in mind...

I agree...so let me throw out a wild-a** idea for a futureTOAW (or whatever the name might be). Eliminate the weapons database. Even though there is some satisfaction in building up your armies one tank or one squad at a time, as Colin said it all depends on what the user has in mind...and the user is presently relying on what the programmer decided the ratings of an M1 tank or an F-18 should be. And we all have our own ideas what those should be [:)]

So...what if you replaced the weapons database with a large set of unit capabiilities that are fully adjustable over a large range. They can be set/modified in the force editor. The ratings can be anything from engineering, movement, armor, anti-air, anti-ship, artillery range, bio-chem defense etc. etc. etc. - more than we have now.

That way when you build the 1st Armored Division or 3rd Shock Army or 22nd SAS Regiment or whatever you do not do it by setting the number of M1 tanks or heavy machine guns etc. but by adjusting the ratings of the entire unit . That way you have maximum flexibility in tweaking the exact ratings you want and with the desired resolution. Kind of high-level Bio-Editor.

Right now if you add weapon A, to a unit to improve Rating X it affects Rating Y.
This way the user will have maximum control. Of course, we will endlessly argue about which units should have what ratings but that's part of the fun.[8D]

A totally different approach but may be worth a try?

Logically, there's nothing wrong with this -- but it kind of turns me off. The TOAW approach forces one to actually look at what the unit had rather than just deciding SS Leibstandarte should be a 31-24 because it was so awesome and I have this great picture book...

Of course, the Norm Koger hardware-oriented approach is hardly the end of the story -- but then one moves on to decide just what the factors were that made two otherwise equivalent units of such different value in different hands. There are the tools the current engine provides: proficiency, formation supply, formation proficiency, shock, base supply, supply radius, etc, etc. Then with a little ingenuity one can add or take away recon ratings and even change weapons ratings if that seems justified. I've been using static support squads a lot lately to simulate formations that aren't really able to function very well in mobile combat. And so on -- there're really a lot of approaches out there.

While in theory one could just produce the net effect by modifying the whole unit, I prefer to think that building the unit up piece by piece and weapon rating by weapon rating works better. At any rate, it's certainly more interesting. Rather than just deciding British artillery units should have AT ratings in 1940, I prefer to go look up what kind of AT capability 25 pounders had, how much armor piercing shell was on hand, etc, modify the specific weapon, and then run some trials to see how things work. Of course I don't finish many scenarios but hey -- dock my pay.

[lok]

...While in theory one could just produce the net effect by modifying the whole unit, I prefer to think that building the unit up piece by piece and weapon rating by weapon rating works better. At any rate, it's certainly more interesting...

I must say i agree with you...I also enjoy looking up specific units, their equipment, etc. when I make a scenario. It's part of the fun of TOAW.

On the other hand it's so maddening when I can not get certain equipment to function the way I think it should (SAMs being one example) but i understand there is only so much time and effort a designer/programmer can invest in a game...despite its flaws TOAW still the best wargame around...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: lok

...While in theory one could just produce the net effect by modifying the whole unit, I prefer to think that building the unit up piece by piece and weapon rating by weapon rating works better. At any rate, it's certainly more interesting...

I must say i agree with you...I also enjoy looking up specific units, their equipment, etc. when I make a scenario. It's part of the fun of TOAW.

On the other hand it's so maddening when I can not get certain equipment to function the way I think it should (SAMs being one example) but i understand there is only so much time and effort a designer/programmer can invest in a game...despite its flaws TOAW still the best wargame around...

There's a thread on this SOMEWHERE at TDG. I'm not interested in much after about 1955, but somebody doing a Middle East scenario was trying something involving very short-ranged fighters for SAMS. Dunno if it worked or not.

AA in general is a real weak point in TOAW. For World War Two, its main effect shouldn't be shooting down planes as much as just sharply reducing their effectiveness. It's so much easier to concentrate on hitting that bridge if no one's shooting at you...

It seems to me that the program could look at the AA values in the target hex and then adjust the attacking strength of the aircraft accordingly. As it is, AA is pretty horrible; either it invariably becomes a mighty direct fire weapon for ground combat, or one uses cooperation levels to rule that application out. Then it's just useless. Sometimes that's an improvement. It's certainly not the ideal.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ORIGINAL: lok

The point is that really, the values need to be modifiable. One can no more make a universally applicable database than one can make a universally ideal woman. It all depends on what the user has in mind...

I agree...so let me throw out a wild-a** idea for a futureTOAW (or whatever the name might be). Eliminate the weapons database. Even though there is some satisfaction in building up your armies one tank or one squad at a time, as Colin said it all depends on what the user has in mind...and the user is presently relying on what the programmer decided the ratings of an M1 tank or an F-18 should be. And we all have our own ideas what those should be [:)]

So...what if you replaced the weapons database with a large set of unit capabiilities that are fully adjustable over a large range. They can be set/modified in the force editor. The ratings can be anything from engineering, movement, armor, anti-air, anti-ship, artillery range, bio-chem defense etc. etc. etc. - more than we have now.

That way when you build the 1st Armored Division or 3rd Shock Army or 22nd SAS Regiment or whatever you do not do it by setting the number of M1 tanks or heavy machine guns etc. but by adjusting the ratings of the entire unit . That way you have maximum flexibility in tweaking the exact ratings you want and with the desired resolution. Kind of high-level Bio-Editor.

Right now if you add weapon A, to a unit to improve Rating X it affects Rating Y.
This way the user will have maximum control. Of course, we will endlessly argue about which units should have what ratings but that's part of the fun.[8D]

A totally different approach but may be worth a try?

I'm not to fond of this idea. The units don't act the way they do simply because of their ratings on the counter. In fact as veterans note - the counter is really pretty misleading much of the time - and more so the further one gets from pure infantry masses and into more complex TO&Es.

One of the strengths of TOAW is that this actually gets reflected in how a unit behaves. A unit made up of a few infantry squads and a lot of artillery on a divisional scale does not act the same way as one that has the exact same numbers on the counter but is made up of tanks.

Each of the individual pieces of equipment are rated on a significant number of attributes and these effect how the unit behaves in the actual game. The result goes a long way toward giving each combat formation its unique feel and the proportions of varous pieces of equipment in an individual armies OOB mean that the armies each, in turn, have a unique feel. In my Fall Grau scenario the Japanese infantry divisions appear to be very similier to their German compatriots if one just looks at their counters but their accute lack of armour and anti-armour capability can really come into play. So even though the Japanese and the Germans share pretty similier proficiency ratings, generally have around the same level of supply and the numbers on their counters don't look to disimilier there is a signifcant difference between the German infantry division with its large sums of support equipment backed by moderate numbers of infantry and the Japanese infantry division which has almost no support elements (comparitivly) and unusually large numbers of basic infantry. One of the most notable difference being German infanrty units tend to degrade slower - even as the infantry die the proportion of high firepower support elements keep the unit fairly potent until a it reaches a certian critical point of weakness and then it just sort of ceases to be a factor. Japanese units die in a much more linier fashion - less infantry means less fire power in a very proportional way.

So the make up of units by individual pieces of equipment in many ways allow for a very strong feel of how a unit works at full strength but maybe more importantly it shows how a unit degrades under steady combat. The ability of the German infantry division to transfrom itself into a tight battle formation around signifcant support elements is one of the reasons they could keep fighting even as their infantry was terribly attritioned down as the war went on. Japanese formations faired much less well in this regard, kill the infantry and there is nothing much left at all. The current method displays this result fairly well while a uber unit editor simply would not.

There is also the point that the current method minimizes patriotic bias to a certian degree. I can't just decide Canadians are elite units. Even if I surrender to the conciet that they have slightly higher proficiencies then everyone else I am still faced with their actual TO&E - that keeps my units somewhat in line unless I take that conciet to extremes.

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: lok

...While in theory one could just produce the net effect by modifying the whole unit, I prefer to think that building the unit up piece by piece and weapon rating by weapon rating works better. At any rate, it's certainly more interesting...

I must say i agree with you...I also enjoy looking up specific units, their equipment, etc. when I make a scenario. It's part of the fun of TOAW.

On the other hand it's so maddening when I can not get certain equipment to function the way I think it should (SAMs being one example) but i understand there is only so much time and effort a designer/programmer can invest in a game...despite its flaws TOAW still the best wargame around...

Yes, but this is not a database issue, but a bug. I found out that SAMs worked, but first you had to multiply their Anti-air values for no less than 100, and sometimes by more than a 1000.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Logically, there's nothing wrong with this -- but it kind of turns me off. The TOAW approach forces one to actually look at what the unit had rather than just deciding SS Leibstandarte should be a 31-24 because it was so awesome and I have this great picture book...

Yeah. Whilst rating the equipment involves subjective assumptions, rating an entire unit involves much bigger and much more subjective assumptions. There is only so much to be said on the armour of a T-34 versus that of a Pz-IV. However, you can get a huge range of opinions on the relative performance of a Soviet tank brigade versus a Panzer Regiment.

Really, what one needs is a) the ability to edit the equipment values themselves and b) the freedom to fiddle with all sorts of different values at different levels at the OOB, both at the start of the scenario and by event while it is running.

[lok]

Yes, but this is not a database issue, but a bug. I found out that SAMs worked, but first you had to multiply their Anti-air values for no less than 100, and sometimes by more than a 1000.

I know. Bad example on my part.

The units don't act the way they do simply because of their ratings on the counter. In fact as veterans note - the counter is really pretty misleading much of the time - and more so the further one gets from pure infantry masses and into more complex TO&Es.

i understand and agree....No argument here. I was just throwing out an idea that may have been easier to implement from a coding perspective. Frankly I prefer the present weapons database myself.[:D]

Really, what one needs is a) the ability to edit the equipment values themselves and b) the freedom to fiddle with all sorts of different values at different levels at the OOB, both at the start of the scenario and by event while it is running.

Exactly! And the ability to add new equipment.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: lok

I was just throwing out an idea that may have been easier to implement from a coding perspective.

I'm sure it would be easier to code- but since the program's already been written this way...