TOAW IV features

[William the Silent]

Equipment Editor:
Let's say I want to create a Napoleonic scenario with battalion as the basic unit.
Could I use the equipment editor to create companies as being equipment?
Let's say I create a line, grenadier and light company in the equipment editor with a certain D and A strength. Then I create, let's say, an Austrian battalion with 4 line, 1 grenadier, 1 light company and some regimental guns.

Just an idea.

[BigDuke66]

I just wonder why the detail when there is nothing in the engine to depict the tactical actions on that level, no squares/lines/columns by infantry, no charges by cavalry, etc., it's all not there because this is an operational game.

In case yo want to depict a battle you may rather go with brigades at best, if you want to do a campaign just do divisions.

[cathar1244]

The basic reply is that you're setting up a system that the game is not specifically structured to work with.

It may work acceptably well or it may not. Before you invest a lot of time in scenario design, my suggestion would be to set up a test scenario with a few units on an open map, using the scheme you describe.

Keep the scenario small and run it at least 10 times. Keep track of losses and battle results. For the time and space scale you are using, compare to actual results in Napoleonic battles. TOAW has some levers you can use, such as the attrition divider, to change the rate of losses. You may be able to tweak the test scenario such that results look okay. Or you may find it just doesn't work well.

Cheers

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

... it's all not there because this is an operational game.

TOAW may have started life as an “operational” game, but it has since outgrown the name. Instead of being an operational game, it’s now a game which can be played equally at the operational, strategic and tactical levels.

To avoid confusion maybe the word “operational” should be dropped from the title. Within the limitations of a turn based hex game, the engine functions for attack, defense and maneuver seem to work just fine at all scales. The new time and hex scales introduced by TOAW IV make this possible. Personally, when I open a tactical level scenario, I like to use the excellent board game mod. It seems to fit naturally with company level units.

As far as detail goes, the detail described for the scenario above is no more detailed than what we’ve seen for existing scenarios. I can’t imagine how much research time has been spent on East front OOBs, but that is all part of the enjoyment offered by TOAW. A quick look at the equipment list shows how detailed, i.e. anal, we’ve become.

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: William the Silent

Equipment Editor:
Let's say I want to create a Napoleonic scenario with battalion as the basic unit.
Could I use the equipment editor to create companies as being equipment?
Let's say I create a line, grenadier and light company in the equipment editor with a certain D and A strength. Then I create, let's say, an Austrian battalion with 4 line, 1 grenadier, 1 light company and some regimental guns.

Just an idea.

You can, but losses would be in companies, though.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
To avoid confusion maybe the word “operational” should be dropped from the title. Within the limitations of a turn based hex game, the engine functions for attack, defense and maneuver seem to work just fine at all scales. The new time and hex scales introduced by TOAW IV make this possible.

I don't really agree with this--I think that TOAW remains primarily an operational game, and is generally a poor choice for strategic or tactical games. Just because they added the time and map scales for strategic and tactical doesn't mean that the rest of the game mechanics have been revised accordingly.

I think that TOAW is not well-suited for strategy games because it lacks such things as production and more robust treatment of naval units. Sure, at some point there is little difference between large-scale operational and small-scale strategic games, but I don't think that TOAW is a good choice for a true strategy game. While it might be possible to use events to cover strategic issues to some extent, that would be a real chore. That said, I think that will relatively limited tweaks TOAW could become a pretty good choice for strategic games.

TOAW is even less suited for tactical games. Things such as LOS, facing, etc. are totally absent. Ranged fire, another critical aspect for tactical games, AFAIK could only be implemented through the artillery rules, which doesn't make much sense.

Various other issues are also generally designed around operational warfare--the engineering rules are one example, I'm sure others could point out more.

[BigDuke66]

Yea I go with 76mm, while not impossible it just a poor choice to use TOAW for strategic or tactical levels.
An example of an very detailed operational game with tactical aspects is given by Tillers Panzer Campaign series. If you would try to mirror that in TOAW the result would likely be poor at best.

[rhinobones]

I don't really agree with this--

I’m not a fan of strategic games, so I’ll skip that part.

As for tactical games, you make some strong points and provide examples. Good argument. Totally agree with you about the deficiency of ranged fire but other than that, I’m not really concerned about attributes other than attacking, defending and movement. TOAW provides those capabilities adequately for my purposes. There are other tactical level details I can model using the editor.

Even though we disagree on the finer points, think it’s nice that we have a toy we can both enjoy.

Regards

[William the Silent]

You can, but losses would be in companies, though.

Yes, would become kind of miniature game.
Should have to try it out on small scale like Cathar1244 said.
Just playing with the TOAW engine.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I don't really agree with this--I think that TOAW remains primarily an operational game, and is generally a poor choice for strategic or tactical games. Just because they added the time and map scales for strategic and tactical doesn't mean that the rest of the game mechanics have been revised accordingly.

I think that TOAW is not well-suited for strategy games because it lacks such things as production and more robust treatment of naval units. Sure, at some point there is little difference between large-scale operational and small-scale strategic games, but I don't think that TOAW is a good choice for a true strategy game. While it might be possible to use events to cover strategic issues to some extent, that would be a real chore. That said, I think that will relatively limited tweaks TOAW could become a pretty good choice for strategic games.

TOAW is even less suited for tactical games. Things such as LOS, facing, etc. are totally absent. Ranged fire, another critical aspect for tactical games, AFAIK could only be implemented through the artillery rules, which doesn't make much sense.

Various other issues are also generally designed around operational warfare--the engineering rules are one example, I'm sure others could point out more.

The new smaller scales need to be used judiciously - for the right subjects. I think pre-20th century topics can work with a few house rules. And, I thought that WW II Pacific island topics could work as well (and they really need the smaller scales to even be attempted).

I do have the example of my Shiloh 1862 scenario - which works (via a few house rules) much like the board game it was designed from.

As for strategic subjects - that's being done now regardless. Might as well give designers some tools to help out. Some aspects of production are possible to model somewhat already (see my Soviet Union 1941 scenario).

[Lobster]

For 20th century warfare any scale below 2.5km is not suitable for tactical warfare. As Tom said, no LOS isn't there. I realize some people have made scenarios smaller than 2.5km but they can't be very accurate because there is no LOS.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curt
I think pre-20th century topics can work with a few house rules. And, I thought that WW II Pacific island topics could work as well (and they really need the smaller scales to even be attempted).

Yes, I think that's right, although notably both of those examples don't seem to require LOS or ranged fire (either because of weapons limitations or terrain).

ORIGINAL: Curt
As for strategic subjects - that's being done now regardless. Might as well give designers some tools to help out. Some aspects of production are possible to model somewhat already (see my Soviet Union 1941 scenario).

Yes, also agreed. While I wouldn't call TOAW a "strategic" game engine, that doesn't mean that you can't make strategy games with it. As I said, I think that with limited tweaking it could become a pretty good strategy game engine.

[William the Silent]

Maybe TOAW might get some more customers by tweaking the game engine also into the strategic/tactical direction.
There is no real 2D game editor, like TOAW, out there for the musket era.
Shiloh 1862 is indeed a good example.

[Lobster]

You could probably do Borodino fairly easy since the only intervening terrain was buildings, a woods and the defensive works. Those can readily be accounted for with house rules.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Yes, also agreed. While I wouldn't call TOAW a "strategic" game engine, that doesn't mean that you can't make strategy games with it. As I said, I think that with limited tweaking it could become a pretty good strategy game engine.

And I'll point out that Curt immediately put the new monthly turn interval to use in his American Revolutionary War scenario.

[William the Silent]

To make a game popular you have to create a game community, like with Total War, I believe. The basic game (Shogun/Rome) was only interesting for a while, but the modders made TW great. It's amazing what creativity was put out there and shared. You even got history lessons through the games. And there was not even a game editor included.

I'm very new to TOAW. I never considered TOAW, because I like Napoleonic warfare most (next to WW2) and TOAW was 2.5km/hex. But then I noticed these CW games on Bob Cross website.
So if you can ad more creative gamers to TOAW the community will grow and so does the game.
I already learned a lot from all the input on this forum. Very helpful.

[rhinobones]

Currently the PO ignores objectives which are located in friendly controlled hexes and directs formations to the first objective located in an enemy controlled hex. This denies the designer an ability to program maneuvers behind friendly lines. Unavailable maneuvers include flanking actions, movement of reserves along specific routes to the front or following in trace.

Request that TOAW be revised so formations follow the objective track designated by the scenario designer without being subject to hex/objective ownership.

Regards