View Full Version : Basic turn burn question (one round only, Two weeks in Normandy)
Hello
I do not understand why my turns end in one round after the following takes place in Two Weeks in Normandy (as Allies).
- I move nothing, do nothing
- I only attack the adjacent hexes, resulting either
a) an automatic retreat,
the attacking unit follows, and I might chase the defender a couple of hexes.. if the defender stops retreating, I will NOT plan an attack with the attacker.
b) an attack plan box,
as I said, I haven't moved anything, so the turn usage is 10% on EVERY battle..
So I start the game like this, what follows is that I have 2-4 battles on each beach, all of them only using 10% of the turn time. Any units that have used movement points are NOT attacking..
I press resolve battles.. German Turn 1.. Every single time..
Why?
(I can't play PBEM if I don't clearly understand the concept of the turn phases)
the 10% turn usage only states on what % of the turn the battle will start, not when it will end.
Check your loss tolerance of the units you are using for attack.
In your planned attacks, does the defender ends up retrieving everytime at the end of the battle? If not, you might be attacking an hex whose defenders just don't want to leave, but they do not have the capability of causing you enough casualties for your units to stop attacking. And the battle goes on and on until it burns up all your turn.
a)Set your attacks with minimal losses if you are not sure of the outcome (and even at limited attack). this will help to let you know the reluctancy of your enemy to retreat.
b) make sure you attack with overwhelming force so the enemy will retreat soon.
good luck
Thanks
Practically this means the following:
If an enemy has a larger unit/force, maybe highly entrenched, set at ignore losses, and I attack it with forces that are not superior (maybe break-even or close) that are set to ignore losses, too, the end result will PROBABLY be a battle that burns my whole turn?
And the solution is
a) either make small probing attacks (w/ minimize losses) to buy some information
b) or to attack with superior forces so that the enemy is forced to retreat quickly,
and ONLY EVENTUALLY
c) if the probing attack shows that the enemy is not retreating, AND you do not have enough forces, AND you still want to attack, you should only attack on a later phase when it wouldn't MATTER that much to see the turn end?
Did I get it now???
Does the loss tolerance of my supporting ships and planes matter?
I tried setting my ships to minimize losses when I was experimenting with this, and was able to get more rounds, but maybe it was just random luck?
Remember to check your support settings too. I remember several of the units on the Eastern Beach are set to Internal Support, so if you attack multiple formations that don't support each other it eats up more time in combat. At least so I'm told, makes sense to me so I just avoid that as much as possible.
Thanks
Practically this means the following:
If an enemy has a larger unit/force, maybe highly entrenched, set at ignore losses, and I attack it with forces that are not superior (maybe break-even or close) that are set to ignore losses, too, the end result will PROBABLY be a battle that burns my whole turn?
And the solution is
a) either make small probing attacks (w/ minimize losses) to buy some information
b) or to attack with superior forces so that the enemy is forced to retreat quickly,
and ONLY EVENTUALLY
c) if the probing attack shows that the enemy is not retreating, AND you do not have enough forces, AND you still want to attack, you should only attack on a later phase when it wouldn't MATTER that much to see the turn end?
Did I get it now???
Does the loss tolerance of my supporting ships and planes matter?
I tried setting my ships to minimize losses when I was experimenting with this, and was able to get more rounds, but maybe it was just random luck?
A) These don't have to be probing attacks. If you attack a stack of Germans with a stack of Americans and the Americans are on minimise losses they will (should) break off long before you have used up your entire turn. THis way you can attack several times in a turn, but with more than just probing atatcks.
B) Not always neccesary, refer to A.
c) See A.
Ships/Planes: To be honest, I can't remeber if their loss settings matter in a support role, however, if they are directly supporting (you had them attack the hex with your troops in the attack plannign dialog) then their loss settings matter. Min Loss: They attack for one round, Lim Los: Two rounds, Ign Loss: Three rounds.
Regarding cooperation: If you set up an attack in the attack plannign dialog, you will see several different colourd flags. If its gold, great, if its grey, ok, doable. If it's black, you run a risk of early turn ending.
Regarding cooperation: If you set up an attack in the attack plannign dialog, you will see several different colourd flags. If its gold, great, if its grey, ok, doable. If it's black, you run a risk of early turn ending.
Regarding this, let's say I have an attack dialog with 5 attackers and 3 supporters.. Initially, say, only 2 attackers are in golden. I click one of them.. Bang! One supporter becomes golden as well.. I click it, and sure enough, this goes on, and eventually everyone is golden. LOL.
Does this mean that they are now co-operating fully? Can I assume that some units act as linking units between two entities that were intially golden and gray towards each other?
(Btw, it's funny, now that I'm testing these suggestions of yours, making one attack at a time, just test-launching every attack as a single act during the first phase, only uses 10% of my time so that I have 90% left.. However, if I did all of those actions at the same time, BANG, German Turn One.. Very complex. I couldn't take this if I wasn't a former chess player and today's poker player sigh)
(Btw, it's funny, now that I'm testing these suggestions of yours, making one attack at a time, just test-launching every attack as a single act during the first phase, only uses 10% of my time so that I have 90% left.. However, if I did all of those actions at the same time, BANG, German Turn One.. Very complex. I couldn't take this if I wasn't a former chess player and today's poker player sigh)
Thats odd. I would not have expected the game to behave in such a way.
Maybe someone with more experience than me has an explanation, because I don't.
Regarding this, let's say I have an attack dialog with 5 attackers and 3 supporters.. Initially, say, only 2 attackers are in golden. I click one of them.. Bang! One supporter becomes golden as well.. I click it, and sure enough, this goes on, and eventually everyone is golden. LOL.
Does this mean that they are now co-operating fully? Can I assume that some units act as linking units between two entities that were intially golden and gray towards each other?
Nope, no linking units. Say you have three units in an attack. You assign A to the attack and B is grey and C is black, that means that A and C do not cooperate. However, you then assign B to the attack and C goes grey and so is A. This means that B has limited coop with both A and C, but A and C still do not cooperate together. Does this clear anythgin up for you?:)
(Btw, it's funny, now that I'm testing these suggestions of yours, making one attack at a time, just test-launching every attack as a single act during the first phase, only uses 10% of my time so that I have 90% left.. However, if I did all of those actions at the same time, BANG, German Turn One.. Very complex. I couldn't take this if I wasn't a former chess player and today's poker player sigh)
Why don't you upload a turn, with your attacks planned, and I'll take a look to see what you are doing wrong? Or someone else with experience, if I happen to not be around will prolly take a look for you.
You could also run the game with the -toawlog and -uberdude command line switches. It'll give you extra feedback on what's happening during the combat resolution phases and provide you with a detailed log once the turn is over (you'll find the toawlog.txt file in the main TOAW directory).
You could also run the game with the -toawlog and -uberdude command line switches. It'll give you extra feedback on what's happening during the combat resolution phases and provide you with a detailed log once the turn is over (you'll find the toawlog.txt file in the main TOAW directory).
Yes, or what Nemo said. :)
I had to bump this one because a couple of my opponents are having the same trouble I am.
In a turn I'll set up several attacks set up with ground assaults with supporting artillery (in a variety of ways). I watch my stars and be sure I'm only using a couple for the first round or none in some cases. But after the turn attack resolution for round one, the turn ends when I think I should at least have 60 or 70% of my turn left.
Now, I've been reading this thread and find out that if I'm attacking with Ignore Losses for the ground forces (arty on limit loses) my turn can be used up in one round ... even though the stars indicate to the contrary.
My problem is Why isn't there some type of indicator that will let me know if I'm using all my turn up in one round? That would at least give me the opportunity to make some changes. As it is now, you don't have a chance. Of course some players have played so long they know this but the newbies just have to suffer through quite a steep learning curve.
This game has so much information that is not easily viewed. Back to one of peeves that should be fixed: the user interface is just plain bad. Everyone has struggled through this but the experienced players who have the time to look at 4 or 5 or 8 different places to see how their attacks are going have an advantage. This game is too complex without any user friendly methods to quickly look at what's happening behind the scenes.
Simply from a GUI perspective this game needs major work. I've played lots and lots of military games and in recent years the GUI's have improved tremendously except the re-release of TOAW didn't make any gui improvements at all that I can see (except a few minor things).
my rant is over
Hank
Just received an email that this was bumped.
I just thought I'd let you guys know that I quit playing the otherwise great game, because it was so difficult to control your turns (or phases, actually)..
I recall agreeing strongly, when someone pointed out that TIME is not a random variable.. That is so true.. Generals do know there is 24 hours each day..
One general doesn't just sit and wait for his colleague to finish the battle on another front. If one battle uses too much time, then it should be JUST THOSE troops which get affected..
There is enough randomness in the game without time variable being one of those random variables. Also, it is very a very frustrating feature.. I thought I'd just let you guys know. This was the reason I quit, hope they change it one day
Menschenfresser
05 Nov 06, 12:38
Kenraali, I agree on the overall turn burn. It would be a great improvement if turn burn only effected those units which are participating in the attack. However, it would probably mean that every single TOAW scenario would need to be redesigned. This would be a powerful boon for the attacker
One thing you must keep in mind is scale. At smaller scales (which 2 Weeks in Normandy represents), TOAW turn burn is a REAL issue; whereas, in scenarios around the optimum scale of 10k per hex/half week turns with regimental/divisional sized units, turn burn becomes less of an issue. So long as you don't goof and set an artillery unit to direct attack which you've already dug in, you'll generally get at least two rounds, but an average of 2-4. With the occasional 1 and 5+ rounders.
This is THE reason I shy away from small scale scenarios. Two Weeks in Normandy is a balanced scenario if you compile the results of 20 games, but in each game far too much depends on getting the most out of each turn, which is less dependent on the skill of the player than in scenarios with a larger scale.
The reason why small scale scenarios tend to burn up turns quicker (to the best of my knowledge) is that when units have less equipment, it is harder for either side to inflict enough casualties to have one side or the other break off the combat. Especially when armor is involved. Units that are equipped with pure armor are even worse. The overwhelming force issue mentioned above matters because it impacts casualties. Using lots of artillery can lessen turn burn significantly.
This isn't a straight forward issue for the TOAW community. Some people would be against removing the turn burn aspect. Others, like yourself, represent the opposite side of the spectrum. I'm sorta in the middle. Most good TOAW scenarios are designed around this aspect of the engine and so over the course of a game or several games it plays itself out. But it would be interesting to see what difference its removal would make.
Just received an email that this was bumped.
I just thought I'd let you guys know that I quit playing the otherwise great game, because it was so difficult to control your turns (or phases, actually)..
I recall agreeing strongly, when someone pointed out that TIME is not a random variable.. That is so true.. Generals do know there is 24 hours each day..
One general doesn't just sit and wait for his colleague to finish the battle on another front. If one battle uses too much time, then it should be JUST THOSE troops which get affected..
There is enough randomness in the game without time variable being one of those random variables. Also, it is very a very frustrating feature.. I thought I'd just let you guys know. This was the reason I quit, hope they change it one day
Well, TOAW3 has the "Maximum rounds per battle (MRPB)" feature, which can be usefull to prevent a turn-burning by one single battle. You can set it in the editor, a setting of three should allow you to execute at least three rounds of combat per turn, however it doesn't prevent you from a force proficiency check failure, which could also end your turn.
Most of the scenarios that come with the game haven't set it at all as these are scenarios that have been converted from TOAW-Century of Warfare which hadn't such a feature.
But you certainly can change this for any scenario in the scenario editor.
Another disciple lost..:cry:
EDIT: Ah, Zac - you've also been here to save the heretics.. ;)
Menschenfresser
05 Nov 06, 12:41
I completely forgot about that! Thanks Telumar.
The reason why small scale scenarios tend to burn up turns quicker (to the best of my knowledge) is that when units have less equipment, it is harder for either side to inflict enough casualties to have one side or the other break off the combat. Especially when armor is involved. Units that are equipped with pure armor are even worse. The overwhelming force issue mentioned above matters because it impacts casualties. Using lots of artillery can lessen turn burn significantly.
Could it then be usefull to lower the atrittion divider?
I am not sure which part of the combat calculations the atrittion divider affects. Does it inflict more 'hits' - or only raise the percentage of hit equipment to be destroyed (instead of going to the replacement pool)?
The COW help file (F1):
This value directly affects the lethality of most combat. Within the combat code, effective losses for any item of equipment are divided by this number before being applied to the unit. The default value is 10. Minimum is 1 and maximum is 100.
..doesn't help me much.
Menschenfresser
05 Nov 06, 13:04
I'm not sure it effects what "hit" equipment is destroyed rather than returned to the on hand pool.
It does raise the number of equipment subtracted from each unit for an attack (now whether it effects what happens to this equipment, I don't know). Or to be more precise, you will see larger % casualties in an average attack if you lower the attrition divider...and less if you raise it.
My very subjective sense of this is that in general it should be lower for scenarios which push the bottom end of the scale and raised for scenarios on the upper end. Not in all cases, but in some.
EDIT: Lowering the attrition divider usually makes artillery more important as it can inflict wicked casualties on soft units. I'm not sure a change would effect 2WiN. I've played the scenario twice and am overall rather happy with the play itself. I'm less than happy about how it scores who is the victor.
I suppose one issue that for me would help with the frustration of having your turn end when you expect it to at least have a second round is the circle of stars. If the circle of stars only has 2 or 3 grayed out, you should have another round.
The stars and the 10-block bar in the attack planning dialog window is unreliable due to what I've been reading here is the loss setting. This indicator does not take ignore loss battle into account. That's not right to have an indicator that doesn't work.
If I know I was going to be burning up my entire turn in one round, I would at least have the opportunity to change up some attacks.
The problem with that Hank, is you don't know ahead of time what loss tolerances your enemy's units are at, before you start the battle. That is, of course, unless you've been able to retreat them earlier in the turn. Neither did real-life commanders know ahead of time how hard the enemy would fight for a piece of land. This is where knowing your enemy and the way he fights, is extremely important in TOAW, especially when that enemy mixes things up on you, as a human player might. I've had many games where I fuddled around for half the game, before I had a good idea of what my opponent's modus operandi was. Usually, if you aren't already dead behind the eight-ball, once you do have him figured out, it's pretty easy to make up lost ground, and give him the pasting he so desperately deserves...:devious:
As an aside, it should be noted that the Force Proficiencies for the two sides in 2inNorm are set fairly low, iirc. Not at a computer at the moment where it is installed, but I think they were around 60%. This may lead to some of your turn endings being due to the "proficiency check" instead of burnt rounds. The best way to tell is to monitor the combat reports for all of your combats, and see if any of them contain several "(your side) continue attack" messages. You will have one of these for every additional combat round, past the first scheduled for the specific battle.
Heldenkaiser
06 Nov 06, 18:27
I am fairly frustrated with my own experience in my 2WIN game as well, for the same reason. It's a short game and the Allies have very little time to accomplish their objectives. A turn that ends after a single round of combats is a turn more or less lost. I have lost already three this way, and I have only 11 to lose. And as has been said before, it just doesn't make sense that an entire army just quits fighting for two-thirds of a day ... it's the single most frustrating and irritating issue in TOAW for me--a game that I otherwise would enjoy enormously--and that's a veritable pity. :cry:
Short scenarios can be tricky as there's little time and room to make good for early ending turns and maneuver mistakes. The rule of thumb I apply in Two Weeks in Normandy is to leave armoured recon units alone in the first combat round, as they tend to suck up quite a number of combat rounds, most often all of them.
Sticking to that precautionary measure generally allows me to get through the scenario in fairly good order. There'll be the occasional burnt out turn once in a while but the game will remain manageable.
Again, there's no scientific finding to support it, only a hit-and-miss empirical process.
Dicke Bertha
06 Nov 06, 19:01
Again, there's no scientific finding to support it, only a hit-and-miss empirical process.
Let's hope Bridge Complaints Department doesn't see this. :bite:
I agree though, and this has to go. It really has to go. I feel silly when I set up an attack and don't worry about losses but time-consumption. Oh no, enemy tank battalions dug-in, oh no enemy engineers fortified, oh no all I have is recon and tired infantry, this bridge will take the whole turn probably not to be taken. But since I have no rigourously noted protocol, my feeling of playing against the engine rather than against the enemy holds no water. :clown:
Menschenfresser
06 Nov 06, 19:25
After many games trying to play the engine (and doing it poorly), I agree totally with DB. Playing the game is waaay more fun than worrying about eeking out extra rounds every turn.
That said, I do have a bit of advice. On round one, limit your attacks to just a few of the most important hexes. Take the time to identify which hexes you really want to take this turn and attack those first with minimize losses and heavy artillery/air support. You stand a much better chance to get a second round than if you attack every hex you can or want to. It's better to get a second round and then fire all guns. No promises on this strategy, of course, but it can help.
If possible, when facing armored units, I try to attack for position on round one to gain a flank or extra hex from which to hit the armored unit later in the turn. Sometimes it's better just to ignore the armor altogether and side step your attack.
There certainly is an explanation for this, Pontus - related to equipment, type of unit and proficiency / readiness characteristics, scenario scale to mention a few. You can't infer from my intellectual laziness that there isn't a rational and valid reason for the game to display such a behavior :laugh:
Dicke Bertha
06 Nov 06, 19:35
Zac, frustration with your own incompetence will have you play technically rather than intellectually (good example is our GiO game - once I started to cooperate with the engine, I got going, and there was nothing clever about it, it just became mechanical, but it didn't feel alright; well at least I lost :D).
I think a better TOAW is possible. If intent and maneuver is more important than squeezing out rounds. But maybe I am cavalry, and future is armour. ;)
After many games trying to play the engine (and doing it poorly), I agree totally with DB. Playing the game is waaay more fun than worrying about eeking out extra rounds every turn.
That said, I do have a bit of advice. On round one, limit your attacks to just a few of the most important hexes. Take the time to identify which hexes you really want to take this turn and attack those first with minimize losses and heavy artillery/air support. You stand a much better chance to get a second round than if you attack every hex you can or want to. It's better to get a second round and then fire all guns. No promises on this strategy, of course, but it can help.
If possible, when facing armored units, I try to attack for position on round one to gain a flank or extra hex from which to hit the armored unit later in the turn. Sometimes it's better just to ignore the armor altogether and side step your attack.
My thoughts exactly - or close. Couldn't have said it better.
Dicke Bertha
06 Nov 06, 19:38
There certainly is an explanation for this, Pontus - related to equipment, type of unit and proficiency / readiness characteristics, scenario scale to mention a few. You can't infer from my intellectual laziness that there isn't a rational and valid reason for the game to display such a behavior :laugh:
I know I haven't won you over to the dark unrigourous side Marc, it was a cheap try on my part. :sneak: ;)
Menschenfresser
06 Nov 06, 22:14
I completely agree Pontus. Frustration leads to wanting to learn the engine. We've all gone through that. I suppose the end is which side you choose...playing the engine or playing for effect. It's like learning to drive (yes...that old metaphor again...maybe I should start using "It's like learning how to fly a zeppelin"). Ok...it's like learning how to fly a zeppelin. First you have to learn how the manual tells you how to fly a zeppelin before you start flying one while trying to cut the schnitzel balanced on your lap.
No, no, no...that analogy is totally inept. I'm not sure what I wanted to say now.
Mark Stevens
06 Nov 06, 23:01
"Short scenarios can be tricky as there's little time and room to make good for early ending turns and maneuver mistakes. The rule of thumb I apply in Two Weeks in Normandy is to leave armoured recon units alone in the first combat round, as they tend to suck up quite a number of combat rounds, most often all of them."
No offence to the good captain, but to me this sums up everything that's wrong with the whole "How many rounds can I squeeze into one turn?" approach to TOAW. Operational level commanders in Normandy in 1944 didn't think "I won't use my armoured recon as it'll burn up some of my combat rounds and I won't be able to squeeze so many in."
Given the admitted limitations of an 'I go, you go' game system, I genuinely believe that it's more realistic to set up every attack that you intend to do at the start of the turn and take your chances. If you get another round or two, goody goody: and if you don't, what the hell. You do need to find a like minded opponent if you're not to be crushed like a beetle.
I can't decide whether this is because I'm just too damn lazy to micromanage every attack, or because I genuinely think that it's a more honest way to play.
What would be good is for a massive change to the engine to allow both sides to input their moves and attacks, than press 'Resolve' and see what happens. That would be operational warfare.
I think a better TOAW is possible. If intent and maneuver is more important than squeezing out rounds. But maybe I am cavalry, and future is armour. ;)
Or maybe you're the air cavalry.. ;)
After many games trying to play the engine (and doing it poorly), I agree totally with DB. Playing the game is waaay more fun than worrying about eeking out extra rounds every turn.
That said, I do have a bit of advice. On round one, limit your attacks to just a few of the most important hexes. Take the time to identify which hexes you really want to take this turn and attack those first with minimize losses and heavy artillery/air support. You stand a much better chance to get a second round than if you attack every hex you can or want to. It's better to get a second round and then fire all guns. No promises on this strategy, of course, but it can help.
If possible, when facing armored units, I try to attack for position on round one to gain a flank or extra hex from which to hit the armored unit later in the turn. Sometimes it's better just to ignore the armor altogether and side step your attack.
Sic est. Just one thing on the armoured round burning cars - i guess they continue their attacks due to their high recon levels - at least in toaw3 you have the option to set a MRPB value. Back in COW this had always annoyed me, i used them (the ACs) more to infiltrate through the enemy lines into the rear rather than attacking.
But what do i know, having played only one and a half years of PBEM..
Currahee, veterans! :paperbag:
Heldenkaiser
07 Nov 06, 06:22
Just to explain: My problem is not that sort of "turn-burning" the prevention of which can be learned by studying the rules and setting up attacks accordingly. I can accept that and handle it. But that in spite of this a turn may just as soon end randomly after a single combat round because of a failed proficiency check is a bit harder to swallow. First, I don't see how it can be justified--the whole army just decided to call it a day at 11 AM? Secondly, it really badly affects the balance in favour of the defender in a short scenario like 2WIN. It's not the combat rounds, but rather all the exploitation moves that one doesn't get after punching a hole in the line in round one. The next turn, the hole is plugged and I have to start from scratch. :nervous:
Just to explain: My problem is not that sort of "turn-burning" the prevention of which can be learned by studying the rules and setting up attacks accordingly. I can accept that and handle it. But that in spite of this a turn may just as soon end randomly after a single combat round because of a failed proficiency check is a bit harder to swallow. First, I don't see how it can be justified--the whole army just decided to call it a day at 11 AM? Secondly, it really badly affects the balance in favour of the defender in a short scenario like 2WIN. It's not the combat rounds, but rather all the exploitation moves that one doesn't get after punching a hole in the line in round one. The next turn, the hole is plugged and I have to start from scratch. :nervous:
I can understand you, but as stated elsewhere this is to a certain degree scenario dependent. Which scenarios did you play or are you playing currently?
And it doesn't happen that often. Well, sometimes even good comanders fail to see the writing on the wall and miss some good chances.
Ben Turner wrote in another thread that the next patch is bringing "non-trivial" (his own words) changes - would be interesting to know if it has to do something with the matter being discussed here..
One thing to bear in mind is that combat rounds do not represent discrete segments of time. If you have say four rounds in a one day per turn scenario, this doesn't mean each round represents six hours of time.
What would be good is for a massive change to the engine to allow both sides to input their moves and attacks, than press 'Resolve' and see what happens. That would be operational warfare.
While I differ on the rest, I can only concur with this part. The so-called WeGo system, à la V for Victory is indeed superior. However that'd mean indeed a complete re-write of the engine, i.e. an altogether new game.
While I differ on the rest, I can only concur with this part. The so-called WeGo system, à la V for Victory is indeed superior. However that'd mean indeed a complete re-write of the engine, i.e. an altogether new game.
Too bad Matrix's Combined Arms WWII (formerly known as battlefield) seems to be years away. It's some kind of we-go TOAW. Imagine it would have the flexibility toaw has in time/hex scale..muahahah.
Okay, i stop dreaming now.
I think toaw is still the best turn based operational wargame currently available, though COTA (and its predecessors) has a certain touch also, but that's not turn based.
Bob Cross
07 Nov 06, 12:27
Just to explain: My problem is not that sort of "turn-burning" the prevention of which can be learned by studying the rules and setting up attacks accordingly. I can accept that and handle it. But that in spite of this a turn may just as soon end randomly after a single combat round because of a failed proficiency check is a bit harder to swallow. First, I don't see how it can be justified--the whole army just decided to call it a day at 11 AM? Secondly, it really badly affects the balance in favour of the defender in a short scenario like 2WIN. It's not the combat rounds, but rather all the exploitation moves that one doesn't get after punching a hole in the line in round one. The next turn, the hole is plugged and I have to start from scratch. :nervous:
This has been hashed over and over. The reason it is required is because TOAW is IGOUGO. Real war is simultaneous. If you get one of the random early turn endings it models your enemy reacting more quickly to your offensive than you expected. It's a risk you have to plan for.
Having said that, I would point out that very early turn endings due to force proficiency check failure are very rare - once in 20 turns, usually, Most very early turn endings suffered by novice players are due to attack planning mistakes - using a unit that has expended most of its movement allowance. This happens to them even as they swear that no such units were used. As players gain experience, they get a lot more careful.
Bob Cross
07 Nov 06, 12:30
Too bad Matrix's Combined Arms WWII (formerly known as battlefield) seems to be years away. It's some kind of we-go TOAW. Imagine it would have the flexibility toaw has in time/hex scale..muahahah.
Okay, i stop dreaming now.
I think toaw is still the best turn based operational wargame currently available, though COTA (and its predecessors) has a certain touch also, but that's not turn based.
I'm not sold on WEGO over IGOUGO. Units move simultaneously in war, but also sentiently. WEGO gets the simultaneous part right, but the sentient part wrong. IGOUGO is the reverse. I think the sentient part is more important.
It might be a good idea to mention that units with very high prof. %'s sometimes will just not stop attacking if a sort of 'stalemate' is happening during the battle. Those boys are elite, and they just don't want to quit. This has both pros and cons. In some situations (especially against lower prof. enemies), you can take spots that otherwise you might have failed in. On the flip side, your Panzers smash themselves repeatedly into the enemy lines, make little progress, and continue on...
I've had some very sweet SS Panzers eat an entire turn in EA when they can't win the battle.
Heldenkaiser
07 Nov 06, 15:40
Most very early turn endings suffered by novice players are due to attack planning mistakes - using a unit that has expended most of its movement allowance. This happens to them even as they swear that no such units were used. As players gain experience, they get a lot more careful.
No offense, but isn't this just a guess that's about as hard to prove as it would be for me to prove that (as I confidently believe) in six years of active PBEM wargaming I have learned to care for little details and not make mistakes like that? :shy:
RhinoBones
07 Nov 06, 16:30
While I differ on the rest, I can only concur with this part. The so-called WeGo system, à la V for Victory is indeed superior. However that'd mean indeed a complete re-write of the engine, i.e. an altogether new game.
Combine the WEGO with hex side rivers and I would buy such a game in a heart beat.
Regards, RhinoBones
"Having said that, I would point out that very early turn endings due to force proficiency check failure are very rare - once in 20 turns, usually, Most very early turn endings suffered by novice players are due to attack planning mistakes - using a unit that has expended most of its movement allowance. This happens to them even as they swear that no such units were used. As players gain experience, they get a lot more careful." by B.C.
I have to disagree here. My contention is that the indicators that are suppose to tell you how much of your turn is being used up DOES NOT work. I know how to plan attacks using units with significant MPs left- supplied-proficiencies-etc. It should take into account all these multitudes of factors that obviously figure into the calculation that either ends your turn early after one round or not. Just in the past day or two I've had several turns show only 2 or 3 stars grayed out yet my turn ended after one round.
If I have to look through a dozen or more units to figure up % ratings, then calculate if there is going to be an early end to my turn just isn't practical. The abysmal text formatting makes this so time consuming. Heck if I have to take 2 or 3 hours to make one move of a medium sized scenario like 2 Weeks in Normandy ... I simply will lose interest and move on to another game that either has better formatted data displays or is more simplistic in the way it calculates battle results.
I've played computer war games for 5 or 6 years and many other types of games before that. TOAW is the hardest game I've tried to learn and get good at or even get where I don't stump my toe and unknowingly end the turn early.
sorry for the rant
There's part of the point - you can't calculate when a 'turn-burn' will occur. You can spend all the time in the world examining all the factors and numbers you want, it will never be an exact science.
Years of experience and hundreds or thousands of hours in front of this game will get you to a point where you can get a general feel for certain situations, but by no means can anyone always predict the unpredictable.
Also note that I'm not disagreeing with your assessment with regards to the worth (or lack thereof) of the battle planner. I'm simply pointing out that no amount of analysis will give you the answers every time.
I have to disagree here. My contention is that the indicators that are suppose to tell you how much of your turn is being used up DOES NOT work. I know how to plan attacks using units with significant MPs left- supplied-proficiencies-etc. It should take into account all these multitudes of factors that obviously figure into the calculation that either ends your turn early after one round or not. Just in the past day or two I've had several turns show only 2 or 3 stars grayed out yet my turn ended after one round.
Ok, I can't say anything about TOAW III and stars, I still use CoW. But I can tell you that the only use I (and most vets that I know of) have for the battle planner is just as a really quick reference. Did I accidently include a unit with no movement? What, exactly, are in those 3 huge stacks of mine that need to be committed to multiple battles this combat phase, etc.
And I'd also have to say that most of my attacks (although not planned using the battle planner) will generally follow the predicted time in the planner, plus or minus 10%, almost all of the time. That's not to say that I still don't suffer from a single Russian mech eating an entire turn from time to time, or that I don't have a very simple, straightforward attack continue for round after round, and leave me with 30% remaining instead of the 70% I had anticipated. This doesn't happen too often, and is very much scenario/unit dependant.
I've had several turns show only 2 or 3 stars grayed out yet my turn ended after one round.
Hank, I think you're misunderstanding what the stars/battle planner actually do/does. The stars/battle planner only indicate(s) which round your turn will begin in. If you begin your turn and after setting up all of your attacks you have two stars (assuming you see ten, as I only see nine...?) that means that your turn will start in the second round, having wasted the first round(10%) by planning an attack with a unit that has already moved. Those two blanked out starts do not, however, indicate how much of your turn will be used up in your attacks. As Mantis has pointed out, only years of experience and helpful hints from the many helpful players here, will aid you in determining just how much time any given attack will take(There are several articles written, of course, on how to avoid having a whole turn burned in one attack:D).
EDIT: sorry for the rant It's alright, at least you didn't put it all in capital letters:p. :laugh:
Heck if I have to take 2 or 3 hours to make one move of a medium sized scenario like 2 Weeks in Normandy ... I simply will lose interest and move on to another game that either has better formatted data displays or is more simplistic in the way it calculates battle results.
Hank, please don't take this as an insult, as it isn't. Merely my opinion. I've played this scenario MANY times, both sides, against several opponents, and based on this experience, I'd have to say that if you are not taking at least 2-3 hours to play each turn it means one of three things:
1) You are not playing to your potential.
2) Your opponent is not playing to his potential.
3) Neither of you are playing to your potential.
In short, if you are not deliberating over where your forces are going to go, how they are going to get there, carefully arranging your overruns, attacks, followup movements, defensive arrangements, reinforcement flows, etc, then you're going to either get hemmed in, while playing as the Allies, or have the Allies walk all over you playing as the Germans. This is case one.
Case two is generally when your opponent is the Allied player and you have successfully hemmed him in. This almost never happens until around turn 5, at the earliest, so at least half the game should be up in the air, and highly deliberative, against an opponent with roughly equal skills. In rare cases against a greatly overmatched German opponent, your late game Allied turns might only take an hour or two, if his front has been blown wide open earlier in the game, and you're just mopping up.
Case three is where neither player is aggressive and skilled enough to do more than ineffectual attacks against one another in a closed beachhead situation. The Allied player doesn't have the skills to breakout enough to cause the Germans problems, and the German player lacks either the skill to crush the Allied bridgehead, or the motivation to do so, since he feels that the game is already in the bag.
no offense taken ...
I see several comments where its alluded to it takes several years or hundreds or thousands of games to get where you can understand the basic tools of the game. I play lots of games and have yet to play one that I could not become proficient with the basic tools and data provided in a few weeks time, sufficient to be able to actually concentrate on strategy and tactics.
This is my struggle at this point. I played toaw many years ago on Win98. I've been playing again constantly since TOAW III was released. My ability to wage war is still so limited because I keep tripping over the mechanics of how the game runs. I suppose I'm not dedicated enough and have a RL situation that allows me to play for hours and days and months and whatever ... to just learn the basics.
The object of these games are to have fun planning tactics and strategies. My ignorance of all the little intricate details is my problem obviously. I find PzCampaigns and the DBWWII games simpler yet accurately model warfare adequately to make playing enjoyable. There's problems with those game too but at least the tools and info provided are not hard to learn. ... Im sure there's less depth to those engines but simplicity is a good thing
I'm letting this rest for a while and I appreciate the comments
Hank
Thanks for understanding, Hank.
You make valid comments, based on your particular circumstances, and desires within your gaming experience. TOAW III is something of a niche game, indeed as are most wargames. It caters more to the nuts and bolts crowd, than to the beer and pretzels crowd. I'm not denigrating either group of gamers, since I drift from one crowd to the other depending on my own situation, and arguing over whether one (well-designed game) or the other is better, is like arguing over whether strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream. It's all a matter of taste, and the mental attitude of the player at that moment.
Take care and hope to see you either continue to play, or to pick it back up again, when you are so inclined...:toast:
Mark Stevens
08 Nov 06, 19:03
Hank - final thought: I think an alternative is to agree in advance with your opponent that you'll play it like a normal boardgame, i.e. base your tactics on the raw strengths shown on the counters, move and blast away. You'll have to remember that armour is usually better in the open, infantry in difficult terrain, and master the artillery and air support rules, but you'll still get an enjoyable GAME, which I take it is what you're looking for.
You don't have to master the sequencing of attacks, turn burn, etc., although you'll be exterminated if you play someone who does.
This is what I normally do, and I've been satisfied playing TOAW in its various incarnations since it came out. Usually lose, but hey.
My fear, which I've often expressed, is that players new to this game are easily frightened off by the perceived intricacies of the engine and back in the cupboard it goes, while you turn with relief to Panzer General.
To paraphrase an earlier post, you don't need to know how a car works to go roaring around in it.
RhinoBones
08 Nov 06, 21:25
I'm letting this rest for a while . . .
As another suggestion, you might try your PBM games in the “Standard” mode. That would certainly make it look like a good old board game and possibly help with the turn burn issue. Also might try having an agreement with your opponent(s) to limit turns to one, or two, tactical rounds.
Regards, RhinoBones
Thanks again gentlemen. I shall slog my way forward and take my lumps and maybe dish out some whoop-ass in the process.
Hank - final thought: I think an alternative is to agree in advance with your opponent that you'll play it like a normal boardgame, i.e. base your tactics on the raw strengths shown on the counters, move and blast away. You'll have to remember that armour is usually better in the open, infantry in difficult terrain, and master the artillery and air support rules, but you'll still get an enjoyable GAME, which I take it is what you're looking for.
You don't have to master the sequencing of attacks, turn burn, etc., although you'll be exterminated if you play someone who does.
This is what I normally do, and I've been satisfied playing TOAW in its various incarnations since it came out. Usually lose, but hey.
My fear, which I've often expressed, is that players new to this game are easily frightened off by the perceived intricacies of the engine and back in the cupboard it goes, while you turn with relief to Panzer General.
To paraphrase an earlier post, you don't need to know how a car works to go roaring around in it.
I'll second this thought - unless shock values are involved - I maximize 2 combat rounds:smoke: Just seems more realistic - no complaining about the engine:D
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.