Daydreaming about future TOAWs

[Menschenfresser]

Taking the final sip of my coffee this morning, a small idea hit me. Larry, if you're out there, take note.

It would be nice to have as an intrinsic feature to each objective hex a turn over turn point award system. Some scenarios already do this with events (the Poland scenarios come to mind), but it would be nice if it could be a function of the objective itself. Designers could pass to variables into the function: number of points & how often they are awarded (every turn, every second turn, etc).

The idea come to me when looking over the allied stop line in GiO.

As is I don't give a thought about victory hexes until the last few turns of a scenario. This would make it easier for designers to give us reasons to hold onto cities, ports, etc that, while aren't important enough to warrant some other attribute, like supply reduction, are worthwhile targets for both offense and defense.

A thought...

[larryfulkerson]

So um, do you mean that the points awarded for a certain hex be a variable amount depending on the number of the current turn? or that the points for that hex depends on the current game situation? or???

Sure, something like that could be done. It might be confusing however, if the objectives to be captured to gain victory points changes from a certain hex to some other hex. I mean if, during turn two the objective hex is ( 10,112 ) and then during turn three it's ( 11, 114 ) then the player(s) would have to remember to look to see what the current objective is to know which direction to drive the attack.

Or maybe I don't understand the thrust of your idea.

An example, if you please.

[Menschenfresser]

Let's say you have ten cities on the map, each awarding victory points to the player who holds them at the end of the game. At the start, player X holds all cities. Player Z holds none. Z is the attacker and has to capture as many as possible.

My idea is that each of these cities would award the defender victory points for every turn they were held, thus making an issue of how long player X is able to retain control of these cities. The idea being this would be a quality of the victory point hexes and not of some separate event (as is the present case).

Variables:
-How many points awarded per turn.
-How often points are awarded.
-To which force this applies (Either or Both).

I think you're confusing objective as in AI with objective as in victory point hex. Agreed, they are one and the same. That's another thing. Why do hexes that award victory points have to be tied to formation objectives? I think in the long run both design and AI would benefit from separating the two. Or am I misunderstanding the way TOAW presently works?

[Ben Turner]

That's another thing. Why do hexes that award victory points have to be tied to formation objectives?

This isn't really a problem as most scenarios with have static formations which can be used to create whatever additional victory locations are needed.

[larryfulkerson]

Let's say you have ten cities on the map, each awarding victory points to the player who holds them at the end of the game. At the start, player X holds all cities. Player Z holds none. Z is the attacker and has to capture as many as possible.

My idea is that each of these cities would award the defender victory points for every turn they were held, thus making an issue of how long player X is able to retain control of these cities. The idea being this would be a quality of the victory point hexes and not of some separate event (as is the present case).

Variables:
-How many points awarded per turn.
-How often points are awarded.
-To which force this applies (Either or Both).


That's a great idea. Let's use that in the TOAW clone thingie.

[Hellen]

number of points & how often they are awarded (every turn, every second turn, etc).

A thought...

there's an event like this in Cherbourg, german player gets +3 points per turn for holding Cherbourg past a certain turn.

Seems like it would be easy enough to set up using the event engine, if you have enough event slots to cover what you want.

[viridomaros]

well it would be a nice feature to save some events for big scenarii

[ER_Chaser]

the #1 issue that TOAW system needs to improve/adopt is a WEGO system. If possible, that is.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

the #1 issue that TOAW system needs to improve/adopt is a WEGO system. If possible, that is.

Since that is impossible, I'd like to see more symmetric igo-ugo.

[Kraut]

Since that is impossible, I'd like to see more symmetric igo-ugo.


Its not impossible, it would work with a client server architecture (or a combat mission system), that would also enable multiplayer games with more than just two payers. Players plan their turn on their computer, send the turn to the server and get a new turn once the server finished calculating the turn. That would also radically reduce the cheating possibilities :)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Its not impossible, it would work with a client server architecture (or a combat mission system), that would also enable multiplayer games with more than just two payers. Players plan their turn on their computer, send the turn to the server and get a new turn once the server finished calculating the turn. That would also radically reduce the cheating possibilities :)

OK, I ment practically impossible. ;)

[Hellen]

the #1 issue that TOAW system needs to improve/adopt is a WEGO system. If possible, that is.

That would be cool.

Have no idea how it could happen, but I know it could. Somehow.

Somewhere deep in the code.

[Bob Cross]

the #1 issue that TOAW system needs to improve/adopt is a WEGO system. If possible, that is.

I couldn't disagree more. IGO-UGO was the best system for TOAW's scale. WEGO would have been a disaster. It would solve a few minor problems while adding major ones.

Real units aren't automatons blindly following pre-plotted orders (for up to a week at a time!). They are commanded by a chain of sentient beings who alter their actions in response to developments.

Just consider "infiltration tactics". Developed by the Germans in 1917, they formed the basis for all infantry tactics in WWII and beyond. And, more profoundly, were the basis for Blitzkrieg. Among the definitions for infiltration tactics are "Take the path of least resistance", or, alternately, "Exploit success, abandon failure". Such tactics can't be pre-plotted. In fact, WEGO forces will act more like pre-1917 WWI forces (i.e. no blitzkrieg).

Another "impossible to pre-plot" example would be "hit-and-run" tactics. And, generally, any sort of unit coordination against enemy elements that weren't spotted prior to plotting is impossible, short of reliance entirely on the PO. And we all know how clever the PO is.

I want continuous control of my forces, just like a real chain-of-command. At TOAW's scale that requires IGO-UGO.

[Red]

I want continuous control of my forces, just like a real chain-of-command. At TOAW's scale that requires IGO-UGO.

Eh, have you ever had "real life" command of a military unit larger than a squad? :hmmm:

Let me assure you that "continous controll" aint a part of it... :laugh:

[Foggy]

Another nice feature would be in the attack planner - ie how much
would it cost to open a 3 hex hole here versus there - w/o going
into micromanagement :laugh:

[Redwolf]

A WEGO system would stand (or fall) by its SOP settings. You need to preset what the unit will do in what situation.

Reliancle on "TacAI" or "MicroAI" won't cut it.

The problem is that if you have SOPs the player has to understand and set them, which is considered too much of a burden on the customer, or so commercial game vendors say. An OpenSource clone wouldn't have that problem.

[larryfulkerson]

I like the idea of using SOP's for the wego system, um......the problemo is that during the heat of battle there might come up a situation that isn't covered by the SOP and the computer might do something "stupid", something a human player would never even consider doing.

And the other part of the SOP system is that it's impossible to program the clone to cover every unforseen situation. ( Since unforseen means by defination that it's not something that CAN be forseen ). So there are going to be times and situations that WILL occur, believe me, that the "impossible" situations will happen. Given an infinite amount of time, everything that is possible WILL occur. ( And will occur an infinite number of times. )

Anyway, the first draft of the clone should include the use of SOP's so we can build a network-enabled wego system. I concur with the use of SOP's and even though it's not perfect it's better than nothing at all.

[Redwolf]

I like the idea of using SOP's for the wego system, um......the problemo is that during the heat of battle there might come up a situation that isn't covered by the SOP and the computer might do something "stupid", something a human player would never even consider doing.

And the other part of the SOP system is that it's impossible to program the clone to cover every unforseen situation. ( Since unforseen means by defination that it's not something that CAN be forseen ). So there are going to be times and situations that WILL occur, believe me, that the "impossible" situations will happen. Given an infinite amount of time, everything that is possible WILL occur. ( And will occur an infinite number of times. )

Anyway, the first draft of the clone should include the use of SOP's so we can build a network-enabled wego system. I concur with the use of SOP's and even though it's not perfect it's better than nothing at all.

All true but if you have decent SOPs they actually go quite a good way. TacOps for example has a pretty usable set, although of course on the grand tactical level.
http://schlepper.hanse.de/redwolf/sop.jpg

And it is not true that a IGOYGO system does not have SOPs or TacAI. If it's the enemy's turn you have automatic reactions. And right now TOAW only support one form of SOPs, the agression/losses modifier.

Another thing to condier is SOPs changing at waypoints, something that e.g. Steel Beasts implements.

[Bob Cross]

Eh, have you ever had "real life" command of a military unit larger than a squad? :hmmm:

Let me assure you that "continous controll" aint a part of it... :laugh:

No single commander has such control, but the entire chain-of-command, taken as a whole, does. And that's what's being modeled in TOAW.

One could actually get a taste of what a WEGO TOAW would be like. Just take a scenario that has never had its PO programmed for either side (DNO would be an example). Player one (this could be a team) would put it in the scenario editor and program the PO for his side, including objectives, PO events, and formation orders. He would then send the modified file to Player two, who would repeat this for his side. The complete file would then be played in PO vs. PO mode. Whoever had programmed his side better would presumably prevail.

Now that might even be moderately interesting. And it would have the added benefit of leaving us with a PO-programmed version of DNO after it was over. But it would in no way compare to two humans (or teams of humans) playing DNO directly.

[Bob Cross]

All true but if you have decent SOPs they actually go quite a good way. TacOps for example has a pretty usable set, although of course on the grand tactical level.
http://schlepper.hanse.de/redwolf/sop.jpg


That's a fairly detailed set of options. Yet it doesn't even remotely approach the level of options a real commander would have. And all those options have to be made in advance. So before you know whether you're going to encounter a truck park or a batallion of Tiger IIs or whether you've come through in good shape or been decimated, you must decide what you're going to do upon encountering the enemy.

And how would those options enable units to coordinate against targets of opportunity? How would infiltration tactics be implemented? etc.

[Redwolf]

That's a fairly detailed set of options. Yet it doesn't even remotely approach the level of options a real commander would have. And all those options have to be made in advance. So before you know whether you're going to encounter a truck park or a batallion of Tiger IIs or whether you've come through in good shape or been decimated, you must decide what you're going to do upon encountering the enemy.

And how would those options enable units to coordinate against targets of opportunity? How would infiltration tactics be implemented? etc.

The point is not to attempt to be complete. Just good enough for good gameplay. Besides, some of what you say would be bejond control of a real high-level commander.

The goal here is to come up with something that works "good enough" for WEGO, where IGOYGO is - as mentioned - not free of TacAI or SOPs either. Anybody who played both CM and TacOps will instantly know how much superior SOP settings are compared to a completely autonomous "TacAI" with no player tuning.

[ER_Chaser]

I couldn't disagree more. IGO-UGO was the best system for TOAW's scale. WEGO would have been a disaster. It would solve a few minor problems while adding major ones.

Real units aren't automatons blindly following pre-plotted orders (for up to a week at a time!). They are commanded by a chain of sentient beings who alter their actions in response to developments.

Just consider "infiltration tactics". Developed by the Germans in 1917, they formed the basis for all infantry tactics in WWII and beyond. And, more profoundly, were the basis for Blitzkrieg. Among the definitions for infiltration tactics are "Take the path of least resistance", or, alternately, "Exploit success, abandon failure". Such tactics can't be pre-plotted. In fact, WEGO forces will act more like pre-1917 WWI forces (i.e. no blitzkrieg).

Another "impossible to pre-plot" example would be "hit-and-run" tactics. And, generally, any sort of unit coordination against enemy elements that weren't spotted prior to plotting is impossible, short of reliance entirely on the PO. And we all know how clever the PO is.

I want continuous control of my forces, just like a real chain-of-command. At TOAW's scale that requires IGO-UGO.
Bob, I did not say I know how to make it possible with TOAW --- either its scale or more importantly, its concepts.
I like the scale of TOAW a lot. However, I do think the IGO UGO system with multi-round turn system is a serious problem of balance.
For the concrete examples you provided to "counter" the idea of WEGO system, I do not quite agree though. In CMBB, for large scale battles, I use those tactics on a regular basis perfectly. Therefore, it is possible to simulate such things in a WEGO system. But of course, one cannot simply copy the CM model into TOAW world, it won't work. But be creative, there might be some way! :)

[ER_Chaser]

oh, the reasons why I stress so much on WEGO system:
the issue of "cheating", of course.
1) there is no way to garantee a player with no cheating in IGO UGO system. And esp. in that multi-round system. One has to rely on "trust" --- but trust must be established through time and communication. And it is a very subjective thing.
2) thus, more seriously, how can I prove that I did not cheat?? Why would a new opponent believe me? And honestly speaking, this problem happens to me in every IGO UGO games. And it is not rare. The reason is that sometimes, player skills have huge gap and one simply cannot believe a "supposed-to-be-familiar" scenario can be played so radically differently and esp. better. It is very understandable for the accuser to get that kind of frustration. Very often, to save the trouble, I had to refrain myself from doing my own best. In the end, it becomes quite boring and frustrating for myself to play (it is like just to appease some1 .. ).
However,
3) In a WEGO system, I NEVER had such problems. No matter how hard I beat my opponents in a mirrored game, absolutely no complaints. So you are really free to try your best and really enjoy the game itself.

[Kraut]

Another nice feature of a WEGO system would be that it would be easy to implement team games, like 3 guys share playing the Axis side in a Barbarossa scenario or 10 guys play a nation each in a WW2 scenario :)

[Bob Cross]

The point is not to attempt to be complete. Just good enough for good gameplay. Besides, some of what you say would be bejond control of a real high-level commander.

Just good enough for units to act like brainless robots. And, as I said above, what I said is not beyond the entire chain-of-command, taken as a whole.

Think about the decision matrix one goes through in TOAW when your units encounter hidden enemy units.

First, one assesses the situation. That includes the strength, distribution, and composition of all the nearby enemy forces, the overall terrain, logistics, remaining movement, and support circumstances, and the strength, distribution, and composition of all nearby friendly forces. The possible conditions that could be encounted are nearly infinite.

All of that information is then analyzed and an action plan is formed. The range of options for that plan are vast. Just the manner in which friendly units could be coordinated for attacks against the enemy distribution is, again, nearly infinite. Or decisions to dig-in, flank, envelope, manuver, or even run for it could result.

My point is that this infinite range of conditions to be encounted, their analysis, and the infinite range of responses to be chosen are beyond pre-plotting or PO control.

My example of programming the PO for DNO was not that far off the mark. That's essentially what WEGO is: PO vs. PO play, but with intermittent interuptions for human reprogramming of the PO. IGO-UGO has its problems, but my point is that WEGO's problems are much worse.

[Bob Cross]

oh, the reasons why I stress so much on WEGO system:
the issue of "cheating", of course.
1) there is no way to garantee a player with no cheating in IGO UGO system.

Actually, there is. It would require the use of a third party as a referee. All combat rounds would have to be executed by the referee. A bit tedious, of course. And the TOAW code could be changed to tighten up some of the cheat paths now available.

But, furthermore, I don't see how WEGO prevents cheating. Someone must execute the plotted plans, and whoever that is could run it over an over again to his benefit. That could include re-programming his plots in that process too. That even sounds worse, since only one side would have that ability. At least IGO-UGO is equal opportunity.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

but my point is that WEGO's problems are much worse.

For a programmer yes, but not for a player if WEGO is properly implemented.

But, furthermore, I don't see how WEGO prevents cheating. Someone must execute the plotted plans, and whoever that is could run it over an over again to his benefit. That could include re-programming his plots in that process too. That even sounds worse, since only one side would have that ability. At least IGO-UGO is equal opportunity.

You should see how WEGO is done in Combat Mission. No chances of cheating with proper turn phases.

[Aries]

Sorry just a drive by post here. but read this, and I had to laugh.

"the problemo is that during the heat of battle there might come up a situation that isn't covered by the SOP and the computer might do something "stupid", something a human player would never even consider doing."

Hmm isn't our history full of situations, where a human actually in fact did something incredibly stupid?

First that leaps to mind, don't bomb the oil storage at Pearl Harbour. What, are you nuts? You can't just leave them all that oil not bombed!!

[Kraut]

besides, armies usually have standing orders of what to do in a certain situation, stupid or not. Think about the soviet counterattacks during the inital days of Barbarossa. Incredibly stupid, but those were the orders plotted before the war broke out and the commanders were following them :)

[Bob Cross]

For a programmer yes, but not for a player if WEGO is properly implemented.

I have no idea what that means. But let's suppose that it means some future super-human race creates a wargaming PO that actually compares in skill to a human. And it actually does skillfully assess, analyze, and respond as a human can throughout the game turn. Even in that case, I still wouldn't want anything to do with WEGO. Why would anyone want to surrender that much of the wargaming process to a computer? You would, in effect, reduce yourself from wargamer to spectator.

You should see how WEGO is done in Combat Mission. No chances of cheating with proper turn phases.

You don't even hint at how, and I can't imagine how. You're saying Combat Mission game files can't be run over and over again. Even on different computers? If there actually is some way to prevent that, why couldn't it be applied to an IGO-UGO game system? What's special about WEGO in that regard?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I have no idea what that means. But let's suppose that it means some future super-human race creates a wargaming PO that actually compares in skill to a human. And it actually does skillfully assess, analyze, and respond as a human can throughout the game turn. Even in that case, I still wouldn't want anything to do with WEGO. Why would anyone want to surrender that much of the wargaming process to a computer? You would, in effect, reduce yourself from wargamer to spectator.

I have no idea why you insist that a player should have total control of his forces, as it doesn't happen in real life either. I also don't understand why you don't want anything to do with WEGO. I guess you have never played a decent game with WEGO, right?

It's a challenge for a programmer to get the WEGO right, so that units react to new situations realistically.



You don't even hint at how, and I can't imagine how. You're saying Combat Mission game files can't be run over and over again. Even on different computers? If there actually is some way to prevent that, why couldn't it be applied to an IGO-UGO game system? What's special about WEGO in that regard?

Player 1 gives his orders, sents the file to player 2 who gives his order and executes the turn with no playback. Then the file is sent to player 1, who sees the playback, file is sent back to player 2, who sees the playback and gives new orders. File send back to player 1, who gives his orders and executes the turn. Repeat ad infinitum. No chances of cheating. Cannot be applied to IGO-UGO as far as I can see.

[Bob Cross]

I have no idea why you insist that a player should have total control of his forces, as it doesn't happen in real life either.

For the third time in this thread, the chain-of-command, taken as a whole, does have such control. That's what classical wargaming has always simulated. It's completely valid to do so. And it's what I prefer.

I also don't understand why you don't want anything to do with WEGO.

I should have said a WEGO TOAW. That's what this is about. Didn't mean to step on your toes. At sub-operational scales WEGO may be tolerable. We'll see.

I guess you have never played a decent game with WEGO, right?

Grigsby's Pacific War was WEGO. But land combat in it was extremely abstracted. Naval combat was pretty abstracted too. IGO-UGO still would have been better.

Player 1 gives his orders, sents the file to player 2 who gives his order and executes the turn with no playback. Then the file is sent to player 1, who sees the playback, file is sent back to player 2, who sees the playback and gives new orders. File send back to player 1, who gives his orders and executes the turn. Repeat ad infinitum. No chances of cheating. Cannot be applied to IGO-UGO as far as I can see.

That's brilliant. Sort of like the referee idea I mentioned, but without the need for a third party. Could be applied to IGO-UGO for each combat phase but it would be just as ponderous as the referee idea. It could at least be an option.

All right, I'll grant WEGO an edge in that aspect. But that doesn't make up for the reality that you're not really wargaming but just watching a PO vs. PO contest with a bit of human intervention.

[Ben Turner]

For the third time in this thread, the chain-of-command, taken as a whole, does have such control. That's what classical wargaming has always simulated. It's completely valid to do so. And it's what I prefer.

You're right that the entire chain of command has that kind of control, but the problem is that different levels have different combinations of control and information. Give me a little while and I'll put my dissertation up at TDG and you can see what I mean.

...OK, my dissertation (Simulating the Fall of France) is now available on the articles page at TDG under 'historical articles'. Unfortunately only in word format at the moment.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

...OK, my dissertation (Simulating the Fall of France) is now available on the articles page at TDG under 'historical articles'. Unfortunately only in word format at the moment.

While it is an interesting little article, I hope it really doesn't represent the culmination of your academic career.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

All right, I'll grant WEGO an edge in that aspect. But that doesn't make up for the reality that you're not really wargaming but just watching a PO vs. PO contest with a bit of human intervention.

No it's more like wargaming with a bit of PO intervention.

[Ben Turner]

While it is an interesting little article, I hope it really doesn't represent the culmination of your academic career.

.... bloody stupid forum censorship is stopping me expressing my true feelings. I suppose I should expect no different from the countryman of such greats as "the-Americans-deserved-what-they-got-on-11th-September" JTGEN.

Seriously- you go get yourself a BA in War Studies and then mouth off about my dissertation. Wanker- hah, forum can't get rid of THAT.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

.... bloody stupid forum censorship is stopping me expressing my true feelings. I suppose I should expect no different from the countryman of such greats as "the-Americans-deserved-what-they-got-on-11th-September" JTGEN.

Seriously- you go get yourself a BA in War Studies and then mouth off about my dissertation. Wanker- hah, forum can't get rid of THAT.

Considering your childish reply I now understand that it must be a culmination point of your academic career. If I knew that the standards were so low in your educational institution, I would have kept my mouth shut. Hey, it is still a good article, but not a decent dissertation from academic history writing point of view.

[viridomaros]

hey come on keep cool both of you
we re not here to fight against each other
if you don't like ben's article just say i don't like it or something of that kind. why annoy him with the quality of the studies he did?
at least he succeeded and it's always nice to have someone who studied in this area on our forum don't you think?

[Ben Turner]

Considering your childish reply

Contrasted with your manly dismissal of my work, your totally mature posting of photoshopped images to attack TDG, your generally outrageous behaviour on every occasion when I've encountered you?

If I knew that the standards were so low in your educational institution,

Get lost. King's is one of the top ten universities in the country and the department is the best civilian institution of its kind in the world.

but not a decent dissertation from academic history writing point of view.

It's not a historical dissertation- it's about designing wargames.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I know you'd love to have a mudslinging match, but just forget it.

[Ben Turner]

I know you'd love to have a mudslinging match, but just forget it.

Amusing, since you started it.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

whatever

[nemo]

I don't see this getting anywhere nor being of any use to anybody.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What? Go back to your fruit-beer, Belgium man.

You don't happen to be Ben in disguise?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Why you are so paranoid? I agree with you. Helsingen Sanomat is on my desk, right now.

Since you don't know how to write Finnish, I'll ask the moderators to check your IP address.

I guess this is the culmination of your trolling, eh?

[Ben Turner]

You don't happen to be Ben in disguise?

Sorry to disappoint you. Whoever that guy was who's posts you got deleted was not me- I've been playing Fire in the East for about three hours.

[Bloodstar]

Sorry to disappoint you. Whoever that guy was who's posts you got deleted was not me- I've been playing Fire in the East for about three hours.

Hehe, Ben I think you gonna like it. I am glad that you are listening to our elderly company of TOAW OLD PLAYERS GROUP
LOL

Just kiddin. BTW, my sister lives in London, she is ok and her friend actually had to pass to work in that morning at the tube that went up but she called the work to say that she is ill. That is called luck. What a tragedy.


Mario

[ER_Chaser]

"TOAW OLD PLAYERS GROUP"? Is it the group of "elderly men" who plays TOAW or players who played TOAW for a long time? :) Never heard about it .. :p

[nemo]

"TOAW OLD PLAYERS GROUP"? Is it the group of "elderly men" who plays TOAW or players who played TOAW for a long time?Probably both :whist:

[Bloodstar]

"TOAW OLD PLAYERS GROUP"? Is it the group of "elderly men" who plays TOAW or players who played TOAW for a long time? :) Never heard about it .. :p


Just a tongue-in-cheek :)


Mario

[Ben Turner]

Hehe, Ben I think you gonna like it. I am glad that you are listening to our elderly company of TOAW OLD PLAYERS GROUP
LOL

Actually I started playing the game some time ago. A lot of problems in the scenario, principally that most German units have either too much or too little motor transport.

[Bloodstar]

Actually I started playing the game some time ago. A lot of problems in the scenario, principally that most German units have either too much or too little motor transport.

Well, I didn't thought about that - maybe you are right. Scenario is far from ideal and I know that I was cursing it many times but when I started to play it I couldn't stop.
The biggest fright is the huge size of the scenario and if you want to do turn good and creative it is really exhausting.


Mario

[Ben Turner]

Well, I didn't thought about that - maybe you are right.

Well, at 10km/hex and half week turns, the average infantry regiment in Fire in the East has a move rate of twenty, or 200km in half a week. That makes for 57km per day- which is superhuman. The best infantry units in history tend to burn out if they tried to maintain 40km per day.

On the other side of the coin, units like the Grossdeutschland motorised regiment are no faster than the leg infantry.

Scenario is far from ideal and I know that I was cursing it many times but when I started to play it I couldn't stop.
The biggest fright is the huge size of the scenario and if you want to do turn good and creative it is really exhausting.

Well I'd already played Drang Nach Osten. That's the same scale but without the wide range of basic design errors. Of course Fire in the East was made more recently and I would hope the designers would fix some of the more glaring errors at some point in the future.

[Bloodstar]

Well, at 10km/hex and half week turns, the average infantry regiment in Fire in the East has a move rate of twenty, or 200km in half a week. That makes for 57km per day- which is superhuman. The best infantry units in history tend to burn out if they tried to maintain 40km per day.


Manstein with his tanks did made spectacular progress in capturing Daugavpils which is impossible to make in FITE.
I don't know why they put it like this, you would have to aske them. Maybe because of formations that are staying whole war, maybe to make a difference between this scenario and others or who knows, maybe they are in the forest? :devil:


On the other side of the coin, units like the Grossdeutschland motorised regiment are no faster than the leg infantry.


There is a lot of fighting to be made as well.


Well I'd already played Drang Nach Osten. That's the same scale but without the wide range of basic design errors. Of course Fire in the East was made more recently and I would hope the designers would fix some of the more glaring errors at some point in the future.


Well, why don't you compile your questions and send it via email to designers? Don't worry I think that Danish people have forgotten that you sank their navy in front of Copenhagen by now :devious: (just a joke).

But please remember that scenario is fun, maybe full of ahistorical things but fun, and free and nobody is paying designers (you included) to make those scenarios, so I think that this work must be respected. Europe Aflame is great scenario but I would like to see section of the forum dedicated to The Great War, Fire in the East etc... and other great scenarios. Or we could compile the list of best scenarios for TOAW and make a sections dedicated to them.


Mario

[Ben Turner]

Manstein with his tanks did made spectacular progress in capturing Daugavpils which is impossible to make in FITE.
I don't know why they put it like this, you would have to aske them.

It's a common error. Designers get TO&Es from different sources and put in the real number of trucks. TOAW doesn't work like that. Leg infantry units in TOAW should never really have trucks attached no matter how many were in the official TO&E. If they walked in battle they should walk in the game.

I think with the motorised units, where they are just infantry the designers probably got confused because of a tendency on the part of the Germans to call these units "infantry (motorised)", and the 'motorised' part is easily missed. Then some of the other fast units the designers just didn't assign enough transport for all the equipment.

[qupte]Well, why don't you compile your questions and send it via email to designers? Don't worry I think that Danish people have forgotten that you sank their navy in front of Copenhagen by now :devious: (just a joke).[/quote]

Correction- we sank it twice.

The difficulty is, I'm not exactly an expert on the Eastern Front. Any list I could compile wouldn't be very exhaustive, and I might even give wrong information now and then.

But please remember that scenario is fun, maybe full of ahistorical things but fun,

Well for me ahistorical things make the game less fun.

[qupte]I would like to see section of the forum dedicated to The Great War, Fire in the East etc... and other great scenarios. Or we could compile the list of best scenarios for TOAW and make a sections dedicated to them.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's really necessary. Endless subdivisions will just clutter up the forum and most of them will be inactive most of the time.

[rasmus]

[QUOTE=Ben Turner]
Correction- we sank it twice.
QUOTE]
Not entirely correct. The second time around you burned the capital and stole the fleet. Same result, different methods.

No hard feelings from our side, we know we began the fight by raping and plundering our way through the british Isles back int the good old days :) .

[Bloodstar]

[QUOTE=Ben Turner]
Correction- we sank it twice.
QUOTE]
Not entirely correct. The second time around you burned the capital and stole the fleet. Same result, different methods.

No hard feelings from our side, we know we began the fight by raping and plundering our way through the british Isles back int the good old days :) .

LOL, yes, the Vikings!! :laugh:


Mario

[Ben Turner]

Not entirely correct. The second time around you burned the capital and stole the fleet. Same result, different methods.

Better yet. Waste not, want not.

No hard feelings from our side, we know we began the fight by raping and plundering our way through the british Isles back int the good old days :) .

True. I think we're about even.