modern .exe

[piero1971]

to side-thread the discussion on SAM's I think that what could be usefull to ad in a new modern .exe is some new equipment for the years 2000-2020.

not necessarely to go and make up every single new version of new trucks, AFV, etc. but certainly of:

- new infantry sqads with much more power
- newest drones, UAVs and newest planes (not many needed, but a few russian, US, Chineese, and EU)
- some of the very latest MBTs and APCs (if major difference with what exists today
- New Helicopters (a few)

makes sense to coordinate that Modern.exe ?

[Kraut]

- new infantry sqads with much more power


Why exactly do you think todays Infantry squads should have more power than the already present Assault Rifle Squads? There equipment isn't that much different than a 1945 assault squad with StG44 rifles, and their training is as always represented by prof. setting.

I think modern infantry is more powerfull because of their various support weapons such as gunships, helicopters, precision guided bomb raids etc, but not because they themself somehow got more powerfull.

Even the improved self protection with body armor is better simulated by attrition settings than by fiddeling with the DB.

[piero1971]

re. attrition, that's an interesting idea. so for example an attrition level of what should be used in an Iraq scenario? 10 being the standard?

I am thinking of more grenade launchers, SAWs, snipers, etc. for infantry, IR equipment, thermal scans, imagery, improoved c3i, etc.

[Kraut]

Well, its not as if each GI has a grenade launcher attached to his rifle (and duringg WW2 they had rifle grenades aswell), snipers were part of each army since... sniper rifles were invented (and especially the soviets had many many during WW2), so we can assume that they are already factored into the DB, and for IR, I think there is a 'night combat ability' setting in the editor for each force, so that would cover that pretty well :)

Improved CCC.... has that ever killed an enemy soldier? :D And is already well presented in game I thing through support settings, maybe better theather recon settings etc.

[Panzer-War]

As far as I understand the attrition divider it effects all equipment as well as both forces. Not good if you’re trying to show one force with infantry useing Kevlar over another force that has next to none of its own. Example a scenario between U.S. U.K. and Iraq, should Iraq receive the same reduced losses not in my opinion. A shock bonus would be better since it can be applied to one force but similar problem as above everything gets the bonus even if there are units in that force that don’t really deserve it Or units that don’t have the same quality body armor.
As to modern infantry squad firepower compared to a squad equipped only with stg 44 I consider the modern to have more firepower. Take a U.S. 12man squad 3 saws per (witch some consider lmgs) likely as well one grenade launcher per. Also considering the modern weapons are more efficient.

[Ben Turner]

The major evolution of infantry capabilities into the 21st century is the miniturisation of anti-tank weapons.

Some tweaking of the database would probably be advised to model this (perhaps with assault squad AT++), but in general I think it's best to tailor BioEded .exes to each individual scenario rather than generating one generic .exe which tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no-one. It's not like an .exe is a large file with today's computers- one megabyte here or there won't make much difference at all.

[sstevens06]

The major evolution of infantry capabilities into the 21st century is the miniturisation of anti-tank weapons.

Some tweaking of the database would probably be advised to model this (perhaps with assault squad AT++), but in general I think it's best to tailor BioEded .exes to each individual scenario rather than generating one generic .exe which tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no-one. It's not like an .exe is a large file with today's computers- one megabyte here or there won't make much difference at all.


I agree with Ben and have taken that approach with several of my scenarios. It has the added advantage of providing the scenario designer with yet another level of creative control over his scenario -- I think of it as a kind of "meta-Editor."

[viridomaros]

The major evolution of infantry capabilities into the 21st century is the miniturisation of anti-tank weapons.

Some tweaking of the database would probably be advised to model this (perhaps with assault squad AT++), but in general I think it's best to tailor BioEded .exes to each individual scenario rather than generating one generic .exe which tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no-one. It's not like an .exe is a large file with today's computers- one megabyte here or there won't make much difference at all.

i thought thing like milans etc... are already present in the game
now may be you're thinking about something else?

[Ben Turner]

i thought thing like milans etc... are already present in the game
now may be you're thinking about something else?

Well, one would have to experiment. Compare the performance of a unit with Assault squads plus ATGMs and one of just Assault squads with the firepower of the ATGMs added on.

[Stauffenberg]

re. attrition, that's an interesting idea. so for example an attrition level of what should be used in an Iraq scenario? 10 being the standard?

I am thinking of more grenade launchers, SAWs, snipers, etc. for infantry, IR equipment, thermal scans, imagery, improoved c3i, etc.

Piero,

I'm not going to get excited about TOAW/TOE tweaks until the main defects in TOAW are addressed (not prioritised):

--Command Control, unit assignment, national limitations, type, range, reassignment etc etc.

--tied in with the above supply tonnage tracked a la W@W, priority assignment of tonnage, stockpiling etc. etc.

--tied in with the first as well: leaders with leadership values plus and minus, on divisional, corps, or army level.

--linked to the above unit gradations from press-ganged militia, through conscripts, up to veteran and elite etc etc.

--detailed naval enhancement--in my wildest fantasy I am imagining Tiller's HPS Guadal Canal system welded on top of TOAW, but something, anything, that improves the antediluvian naval dynamics in TOAW.

All of the above have been posted many times before in various forms, nothing new; I just like to nail it up now and again, hoping some programmer Wunderkind will eventually appear.

D.

[Ben Turner]

I'm not going to get excited about TOAW/TOE tweaks until the main defects in TOAW are addressed

We all want these things Daniel but there's no harm in getting the best we can out of what we have.

[Stauffenberg]

We all want these things Daniel but there's no harm in getting the best we can out of what we have.

Hmmmm. Did I say there was? If I was totally fed up with TOAW limitations I wouldn't keep at it. Nothing wrong with TOE tweaks, agreed; nothing wrong with wanting it all, and wanting it now, either.

[Ben Turner]

Hmmmm. Did I say there was? If I was totally fed up with TOAW limitations I wouldn't keep at it. Nothing wrong with TOE tweaks, agreed; nothing wrong with wanting it all, and wanting it now, either.

Patience, grasshopper. Like I said, eventually someone will turn up and produce a game that does everything TOAW does and more. Then all us designers will be screwed because our scenarios are incompatible....

It occurs to me that Norm still defines himself as an "independent computer wargames designer" on his website despite not having published a game in five years. I wonder if his Russo-Japanese war game will ever actually surface?

[Stauffenberg]

It occurs to me that Norm still defines himself as an "independent computer wargames designer" on his website despite not having published a game in five years. I wonder if his Russo-Japanese war game will ever actually surface?

I had a couple of interesting email exchanges with him awhile back Ben, and I got the strong impression that he really does have a powerful sort of "nostalgia" about TOAW and would in fact love to see it enhanced and further developed etc. but, apart from a certain antipathy viz. an unnamed corporate entity, he has bills to pay like the rest of us, and the rest is history.

So, if not a programmer wunderkind then an independent "investor" with nothing better to do with his funds to entice Norm back onto the quest for the ultimate boardgame-derived computer sym Grail....

Of such are dreams made of.

[Dicke Bertha]

What would be a realistic budget that an 'investor' would need to provide?

[Ben Turner]

I had a couple of interesting email exchanges with him awhile back Ben, and I got the strong impression that he really does have a powerful sort of "nostalgia" about TOAW and would in fact love to see it enhanced and further developed etc. but, apart from a certain antipathy viz. an unnamed corporate entity, he has bills to pay like the rest of us, and the rest is history.

Yeah.

So, if not a programmer wunderkind then an independent "investor" with nothing better to do with his funds to entice Norm back onto the quest for the ultimate boardgame-derived computer sym Grail....

Actually I feel the way forward for computer wargames is to strip them as far as possible of various design hangovers from board games. TOAW's relatively good at this but there remain a lot of elements which are inherited from board games which couldn't do any better. For example, why should the stacking limit in a hex be nine units? Any such limit should be based on the size of those units. Impossible to do in a boardgame, but simplicity itself on a computer.

I suppose a lot of the older generation of wargamers have a lot of nostalgia for these kinds of elements, but having only played a handful of board wargames I feel that for better simulation we need to really push the boundaries of what can be done on a computer.

[Stauffenberg]

What would be a realistic budget that an 'investor' would need to provide?

I have no idea. Last I heard Norm was doing 3-D stuff so he is cutting edge as far as that goes. As I said, my impression with him is that he still has a personal committment to TOAW, and if the conditions were right would go back to it when he could. Just my impressions based on a few emails awhile back.

D.

[Ben Turner]

What would be a realistic budget that an 'investor' would need to provide?

I know what you're thinking- getting a gang of TOAW players to club together to pay for this. It's a nice enough idea but it's not really practical, given the size of the community and the level of uncertainty. You're welcome to ask Norm but I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[Stauffenberg]

Actually I feel the way forward for computer wargames is to strip them as far as possible of various design hangovers from board games. TOAW's relatively good at this but there remain a lot of elements which are inherited from board games which couldn't do any better. For example, why should the stacking limit in a hex be nine units? Any such limit should be based on the size of those units. Impossible to do in a boardgame, but simplicity itself on a computer.

I suppose a lot of the older generation of wargamers have a lot of nostalgia for these kinds of elements, but having only played a handful of board wargames I feel that for better simulation we need to really push the boundaries of what can be done on a computer.

You're right about that. We could discuss the possibilities of maps alone for ages--Roads to Moscow looked fabulous... until it crumpled and disappeared. W@W, actually back to Atomic Games, was a revolution at the time and its beautiful interface is still head and shoulders amongst what's available, 20 years (I think) or so later...

But the equipment database in TOAW is terrific. Combined Arms (formerly Battlefields) has had alot of development issues as it resides right on the cusp between full-blown tactical and operational and opening the tactical can of worms wasn't fully appreciated at the start, but I have to tell you the command control/OB tree on that, the ability to reassign units, is outstanding. In talking to a few programmers. Pavel amongst them, I gather it would be a major issue trying to move TOAW over into a format that could allow this sort of reassignment of units etc, but your point is well-taken--if the opportunity to radically improve TOAW comes along why settle for graft-ons so to speak? Rethink everything.

Finally, the real problem is that the world is dominated by corporate interest and niche-markets don't even appear on their radar screens.

D.

[Ben Turner]

But the equipment database in TOAW is terrific. Combined Arms (formerly Battlefields) has had alot of development issues as it resides right on the cusp between full-blown tactical and operational and opening the tactical can of worms wasn't fully appreciated at the start,

I can imagine. Something we've discussed a little on Larry Fulkerson's thread.

but I have to tell you the command control/OB tree on that, the ability to reassign units, is outstanding.

Sounds good. I'm not particularly keen on the scale but even so it sounds like it'll be worth buying.

Rethink everything.

Yeah- more or less what I said in my dissertation. Hopefully I'll be getting my exam results soon and then I'll put it up at TDG. I expect you'd like to read it- don't worry, it's only a tiny fraction of the size of your doctoral thesis.

[Stauffenberg]

Yeah- more or less what I said in my dissertation. Hopefully I'll be getting my exam results soon and then I'll put it up at TDG. I expect you'd like to read it- don't worry, it's only a tiny fraction of the size of your doctoral thesis.

If you don't mind posting it here what is it on?

[Kraut]

Actually I feel the way forward for computer wargames is to strip them as far as possible of various design hangovers from board games. TOAW's relatively good at this but there remain a lot of elements which are inherited from board games which couldn't do any better.

True, for example the hex grid, one would think that there should be a better solution. But what? A by-pixel map would be a very fine square-grid, and to be anything meaningfull a pixes shouldn't represent more than a few hundred meters than. But for an operational wargame... how do you fit a division into a few hundred meters? Cant be done, so a good part of the unit would have to be: in front, behind, above and below my pixel, and without going into micromanagement hell there would be no good way to influence the distribution of the unit around that pixel.
So if we are dealing with an abstraction of a unit, by having a symbol standing for an entire division, we need an abstraction of the map aswell, so satellite images or highly detailed maps simply cant work on an operational level.
But thinking about an alternative for hexes (you cant, for example, form a straight line north-south, one of you units is always attackable from three sides) I still havent found a solution, so not everything converted from board games is bad :)
But I doo agree that many of the limits (units per side, events, ...) are simply no longer necessary and should be removed.

[Ben Turner]

If you don't mind posting it here what is it on?

"Simulating the Fall of France". In the process I discuss some more general questions on simulation.

In the meantime, there's a shorter article already on TDG in which I discuss my own views on the campaign from a purely historical perspective. This was also submitted for my degree- turned out to be the highest graded paper I did in three years.

[Ben Turner]

True, for example the hex grid, one would think that there should be a better solution. But what? A by-pixel map would be a very fine square-grid, and to be anything meaningfull a pixes shouldn't represent more than a few hundred meters than. But for an operational wargame... how do you fit a division into a few hundred meters?

Well given the current situation with computer technology, and the problems of research to a detailed level, I'd recommend sticking with a hex map. However one could go over to a system where unit locations are co-ordinates rather than being spaces. This would mean the strict definition of the game as "operational" disappears, as it becomes a more general warfare simulation. I don't think this is really practical given the resources we have at the moment, however.

Cant be done, so a good part of the unit would have to be: in front, behind, above and below my pixel, and without going into micromanagement hell there would be no good way to influence the distribution of the unit around that pixel.

These details would be dealt with by an AI. Like I said, computers aren't powerful enough for this- yet.

not everything converted from board games is bad :)

Indeed. As with all received wisdom, some is correct and some is false. We must judge each item on its merits.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

True, for example the hex grid, one would think that there should be a better solution. But what? A by-pixel map would be a very fine square-grid, and to be anything meaningfull a pixes shouldn't represent more than a few hundred meters than. But for an operational wargame... how do you fit a division into a few hundred meters? Cant be done, so a good part of the unit would have to be: in front, behind, above and below my pixel, and without going into micromanagement hell there would be no good way to influence the distribution of the unit around that pixel.
So if we are dealing with an abstraction of a unit, by having a symbol standing for an entire division, we need an abstraction of the map aswell, so satellite images or highly detailed maps simply cant work on an operational level.
But thinking about an alternative for hexes (you cant, for example, form a straight line north-south, one of you units is always attackable from three sides) I still havent found a solution, so not everything converted from board games is bad :)
But I doo agree that many of the limits (units per side, events, ...) are simply no longer necessary and should be removed.


So you haven't seen HTTR? No hexes, no need to micromanage because of a very good AI. It simply has the best game engine for an operational level wargame. Unfortunately one cannot make new units, but modify the already present, and that restricts scenario design very much. Oh, and no possibility for PBEM...

[Stauffenberg]

"Simulating the Fall of France". In the process I discuss some more general questions on simulation.


Yes I would be interested in reading that down the road.

D.

[Stauffenberg]

So you haven't seen HTTR? No hexes, no need to micromanage because of a very good AI. It simply has the best game engine for an operational level wargame. Unfortunately one cannot make new units, but modify the already present, and that restricts scenario design very much. Oh, and no possibility for PBEM...

Jyri...

"Purpose of the HTTR project is to establish HTGR technology and nuclear heat utilization technology. The HTTR is a graphite-moderated and helium gas cooled reactor with 30 MW in thermal power and outlet coolant temperatures of 850°C for rated operation and 950°C for high temperature test operation."

I would guess that's not what you are talking about. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction as I have not heard of it.

Daniel

[Panzer-War]

I think he is referring to Highway to the Reich.

[Stauffenberg]

Sounds likely doesn't it. Another Arnhem game I expect.

[Ben Turner]

Sounds likely doesn't it. Another Arnhem game I expect.

Sounds like it. The thing about TOAW is you can do practically anything with it. That's why it's lastest so long.

[Bloodstar]

You're right about that. We could discuss the possibilities of maps alone for ages--Roads to Moscow looked fabulous... until it crumpled and disappeared.

I still have a beta of Road to Moscow, sent to me by I-Magic in 1998. Shame it was not finished, you could almost feel terrible heat when you advanced in the Summer of 1942. toward Stalingrad :)


Mario

[Sheik Yerbouti]

"Purpose of the HTTR project is to establish HTGR technology and nuclear heat utilization technology. The HTTR is a graphite-moderated and helium gas cooled reactor with 30 MW in thermal power and outlet coolant temperatures of 850°C for rated operation and 950°C for high temperature test operation."

Exactly, but the OOB is confined to the 1944 western front.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Shame it was not finished, you could almost feel terrible heat when you advanced in the Summer of 1942. toward Stalingrad :)

Are you sure it wasn't just the menopause? :p

[Bloodstar]

Are you sure it wasn't just the menopause? :p


LOL ! Maybe at that time I didn't have air-conditing device :laugh:


Mario