Have TOAD people any project to improve the basic TOAW engine?

[r.bragg]

TOAW is above all an operational simulation system : the best ever. BUT, I think that it might be useful to re-balance the combat - movement routines, in order to make them more realistic.

Let's start using as example a classical scenario : Drang nach Osten, by Daniel Mc Bride, on the Barbarossa Operation : 10 km per hex - half week turns - units at Bn - Rgt level (for Germans) and Rgt - Div level (for Russians).

1) MOVEMENT VALUES

We know (historically) that a standard I.R. (infantry regiment – foot movement) could move (for some days and without rest) for an average of 20 km per day = 2 hex per day - i.e. on a half week scale : 7 hexes).

On the contrary a standard 1941 Pz.R (panzer regiment – mech movement) could move for an average of 80-100 km per day (also fighting : in the first days of Barbarossa Pz.Gruppe 1, 2 and 3 had even a 60 miles per day performance) = 8-10 hexes x 3,5 = 28-35 hexes in a half week turn.

The ratio between infantry and armour is 1 : 4 – 1 : 5; that's the reason for the deep penetration of German tanks and above all for the gaps between armour and infantry in June / July 1941 that so worried OKH and Hitler.

What happen in TOAW ?

A standard I.R. (having only horse-teams as transport) has a move factor (on road) of 15 hexes : too much !!!

A standard Pz.R. (having only mech weapons) has a move factor (on road) of 27 hexes (the minimum – it’s impossible to ask for an extra-performance).

The ratio between infantry and armour is 1 : 1,8; that's why in the TOAW scenarios there are less problems in managing the gaps between infantry and armours during deep penetrations. Furthermore, we could have some troubles in exploiting the breakthrough with the speed as historically happened, because of the loss of movement factors that a armour formation suffers also with inconsistent enemy units.

There’s something wrong in the space / time routines : space and time are the pillars of operational art of war ! . In 10 km or 15 km / hex scales, there is less room for outmanoeuvring enemies than in reality : a regimental unit can cover a 10 km / hex : in reality there will be sufficient gaps for infiltration and breakthrough. We need important adjustment in this areas or the possibility to create monster scenarios with smaller scale (1 - 5 km, 1 day turns - but unplayable).

2) COMBAT VALUES

I start again with some consideration on combat values, in relation with space / time scale.

The present TOAW routines for calculating the combat factors, at equipment level and at unit level (starting from the equipment list), set up mainly on rate of fire (RoF), as abstracted measure of the equipment capability to combat, conjugate with other measures as HE ammo weight, armour penetration and so on.

I think that RoF is not – if taken abstractly – a correct measure. Troops with a 10 rounds/min rifle can’t fire indefinitely. We need to create a time-frame for evaluating each weapon systems ability to make fire and in this time-frame we have to consider ready ammos. I suggest for ex. ONE HOUR (the time in which normally troops consume the ready ammos and take fatigue), but the time-frame could be different for each period (in WW1, in WW2, in modern environment and so on).

Furthermore, we need to consider an average engagement environment (in terms of space) : for ex. : 400 to 800 meters for infantry fight (in plain terrain), 400 to 2,000 for armour combat; this space environment could be discriminate in each case what weapons are involved.

We have above all to consider that, for example, a regimental attack on a 5 km hex scale usually does not involve the whole extension of the front, i.e. do not involve the whole front of the defending unit; that principle should be applied to every hex scale / unit involved : defending units usually cover the front (but in different ways), whereas attacking units are usually concentrated on breakthrough points (with different tactics). So, a 10-5 unit attacking vs. a 10-5 defending unit could not be resolved by a pure attacking vs. defending factor confrontation. How can we model it into the engine ? perhaps using for each unit an “attack / defend tactical mode” : frontal attack, echeloned attack, ... linear defence, defence in depth, ... , used as a multiplier / de-multiplier of the involved forces.

What happens if we analyse the combat factors with the current approach ?

The present routines, based mainly only on Rate of Fire, without a combat time-frame and space environment (within the hex – because of the impossibility to manage the combat modes – all fighting are unrealistically all vs all), are not able to represent the actual fire contribution of each weapons system. And, given that there is no adjustment for considering the tactical deployments of attacking and defending units, the differences are more and more relevant, the results more and more “randomized”.

That’s without speaking about the defence factors routines : how they really work ?

The AT factors (AT attack and armour defence – I guess that if AT would be calculated as average penetrations at 500 – 750 – 1000 meters and armour defence as average R.H.A. - Rolled Homogeneous Armour, considering slopes and for ex. a 50-20-20-10 ratio between frontal arc, sides and rear, for hull and turret), for which I have some calculations for main WW2 tanks that produce very different values.

There are a lot of other issues that should require significant adjustments : balanced forces vs different environment, counterbattery, C3, recon and above all sub-units coordination.

It’s a discouraging experience to find out that an all tanks units performs always better and get less losses that a well balanced battle group of the same size, in all environments (in open flat terrain as in urban, forest and so on). It’s also unrealistic that if enemy artillery units bombard my troops, my own arty within range can’t have a counterbattery mission.

C3 (and all BFC / Elint / EW devices) and recon (light aircr, heli, UAVs) must have specialized assets in the TO&E to have more balanced adjustment factors in this critical area (not only generic default factors). All these are key factors in measuring the sub-units coordination and control.

A WW2 US I.D. had different approach to the use of its subunits and to fire support and weapons’ coordination from that of a German I.D. or a Russian Rifle D. (the same could be applied to every historical period and organisation). If the simplified Attack (AP / AT) / defence factor is only a rough sum up of the weapons listed, we aim not to a TO&E but only a Table of Equipment. In fact, I think that TOAW at present can’t simulate correctly the real difference between for ex. a modern balanced force (i.e. an armoured brigade) and the WW2 equivalent, only by listing the different equipment.

Could TOAW match with some of thee inconsistencies in a near future, for designing more and more real historical scenarios ?

Thanks a lot to TOAD people.

R.B.

[Bloodstar]

Furthermore, we could have some troubles in exploiting the breakthrough with the speed as historically happened, because of the loss of movement factors that a armour formation suffers also with inconsistent enemy units.

Many good ideas but I doubt that it will be all possible in TOAW (maybe in making whole new game from the scratch :o)

But just to comment this... This was commented many times here... Passing through enemy ZOC's is not realistic... Well, whole division will pay high movement points because it is pinned by 1 AT company...
McBride suggested that this could be modified by Editor and that is good idea.

About history vs. TOAW.... Well, my friend can you make a cauldron like Vyazma or Kiev in TOAW? Yes, you can against VERY DUMB live player and maybe even against VERY DUMB AI... But point is that in East Front scenarios there are MANY SMALL encirclements and not many big...

That is because TOAW cannot 100 % present fighting on Eastern Front... that is problem with hex based system mostly, it's not just TOAW. So there is your problem with movement factors and ZOC's...

What will you have in TOAW.... Guderian pushes through enemy lines and make s breaktrough... Later he reports "well boys we are out of fuel, food, and ammo we cannot make like in the books to the Dnieper"

Just because some Soviet units sneaked behind him and cut his supply and crossings were defended by rifle division (in reality they will be routed by seeing panzers alone :cool:)

German panzer division was self sufficient to fight for some days without ressuply or some small air droped supply. Example - Guderian, Manstein, 6th Panzer Division at Luga etc...

So you are asking of TOAW just too much and things that system was not designed for. Maybe some things are possible but some will not be possible.


Mario

[Ben Turner]

We know (historically) that a standard I.R. (infantry regiment – foot movement) could move (for some days and without rest) for an average of 20 km per day = 2 hex per day - i.e. on a half week scale : 7 hexes).

A standard I.R. (having only horse-teams as transport) has a move factor (on road) of 15 hexes : too much !!!

Should be 13- that's the standard foot rate in TOAW.

A standard Pz.R. (having only mech weapons) has a move factor (on road) of 27 hexes (the minimum – it’s impossible to ask for an extra-performance).

Should be 32. If it's 27 the unit doesn't have enough transport. For a proper ratio of 5:2.

In 10 km or 15 km / hex scales, there is less room for outmanoeuvring enemies than in reality : a regimental unit can cover a 10 km / hex : in reality there will be sufficient gaps for infiltration and breakthrough.

Well, that's a company per kilometre. I'd say that's enough to hold a good screen. However in most scenarios you will find that the other guy can brush this screen aside if he commits enough forces, bearing in mind that an attack in TOAW is not just a straight frontal attack, but rather a simulation of the complete interaction between the units involved.

The present TOAW routines for calculating the combat factors, at equipment level and at unit level (starting from the equipment list), set up mainly on rate of fire (RoF), as abstracted measure of the equipment capability to combat, conjugate with other measures as HE ammo weight, armour penetration and so on.

I think that RoF is not – if taken abstractly – a correct measure. Troops with a 10 rounds/min rifle can’t fire indefinitely. We need to create a time-frame for evaluating each weapon systems ability to make fire and in this time-frame we have to consider ready ammos. I suggest for ex. ONE HOUR (the time in which normally troops consume the ready ammos and take fatigue), but the time-frame could be different for each period (in WW1, in WW2, in modern environment and so on).

I'm not keen on the idea of getting down to the fundamentals of squad tactics in what is basically an operational game.

It’s a discouraging experience to find out that an all tanks units performs always better and get less losses that a well balanced battle group of the same size, in all environments (in open flat terrain as in urban, forest and so on).

I wouldn't say that- except on the defence. On the defence, pure armour rules. This could be fixed as was done by Pavel Voylov by making armour passive defender.

In fact, I think that TOAW at present can’t simulate correctly the real difference between for ex. a modern balanced force (i.e. an armoured brigade) and the WW2 equivalent, only by listing the different equipment.

This would be what the proficiency value is for.

[Ben Turner]

But just to comment this... This was commented many times here... Passing through enemy ZOC's is not realistic... Well, whole division will pay high movement points because it is pinned by 1 AT company...

Then don't allow AT companies in the same scenario as a whole division. This is a design problem.

About history vs. TOAW.... Well, my friend can you make a cauldron like Vyazma or Kiev in TOAW? Yes, you can against VERY DUMB live player and maybe even against VERY DUMB AI... But point is that in East Front scenarios there are MANY SMALL encirclements and not many big...

Good point though it deserves stating explicitly: the most dramatic historical advances mostly resulted from major errors on one side or another which are widely known to most if not all wargamers. So one cannot have a single scenario covering such a battle which both has historical starting conditions and allows a historical result. It's impossible.

German panzer division was self sufficient to fight for some days without ressuply or some small air droped supply. Example - Guderian, Manstein, 6th Panzer Division at Luga etc...

The way that performance deteriorates with supply is something that has been looked at and I think it's something which should be modified for TOAW III. Obviously a panzer division with 70% of its stockpile of fuel can move just as far as one which 100% of its stockpile, whilst if it has 0% of its fuel it certainly cannot move half as far.

[Bloodstar]

Then don't allow AT companies in the same scenario as a whole division. This is a design problem.

There are regiments, battalions etc... (FiTE, DnO)... If you break battalion in three's what you get? :smoke:
Or if you make enough damage to recon battalion it is for practical purpose a weak company in the end... and all tie up regiments in size or divisions...

BTW, just to tease you a bit... I value Churchill much more than Stalin but it is interesting what Stalin said about Churchill and England:

"They find nothing sweeter than to trick their allies... Churchill is the kind who, if you don't watch him, will slip a kopeck out of your pocket"
:o


Mario

[Ben Turner]

There are regiments, battalions etc... (FiTE, DnO)... If you break battalion in three's what you get?

A slap on the wrist for not making the battalion indivisible (something the designer of the latter scenario does already in his Bulge variant).

"They find nothing sweeter than to trick their allies... Churchill is the kind who, if you don't watch him, will slip a kopeck out of your pocket"

This pretty well describes Stalin. Churchill had his faults; dishonour, disloyalty and deceit were not really amongst them.

Stalin's an interesting character to study- perhaps rather more than Hitler.

[Bloodstar]

A slap on the wrist for not making the battalion indivisible (something the designer of the latter scenario does already in his Bulge variant).

Again you fail to notice that TOAW is not perfect and that improvisation cannot answer to all questions. As I said due to combat you can reduce battalion to strength of a company and still pay 6 movement points to bypass it. In reality that company would not hold you because you would send radio message to infantry behind that they deal with it. There is no glue on your infantry legs or tank tracks in reality like in TOAW... So Ben you have a bad habit to rationalize everything in TOAW, I don't know why... TOAW is a simulation, a game, but not a perfect game and lacks many important things... it's a fun game but it is still a game.



Mario

[Ben Turner]

Again you fail to notice that TOAW is not perfect and that improvisation cannot answer to all questions. As I said due to combat you can reduce battalion to strength of a company and still pay 6 movement points to bypass it. In reality that company would not hold you because you would send radio message to infantry behind that they deal with it.

... so their dealing with it after you've passed on means it can't slow you down as you move past?

If the infantry can get there in the same TOAW turn, you can use them to RBC any unit as insignificant as you claim. If it's too big too RBC, well, then it might be able to slow down your regiment's movement.

In any case, if you're talking about mechanised forces, they should have high recon values and not have to worry about disengagement penalties.

So Ben you have a bad habit to rationalize everything in TOAW, I don't know why...

Because I find that most of the time, the way things work in TOAW is just fine. You can see elsewhere in this thread where I've pointed out a couple of areas that I think could be improved.

[Bloodstar]

Because I find that most of the time, the way things work in TOAW is just fine. You can see elsewhere in this thread where I've pointed out a couple of areas that I think could be improved.

The TOAW is not working just fine but doesn't stop it to be fun game. If you disagree fine but than why you reply all the time to my posts? I know your preaching but is not convicing and you will surely not beat my claims with your flood of irrelevancy and some "facts" that don't even come close to reality. Sorry I don't buy that "evangelism".

Look at TOAW as evelution in wargaming, but there are ROOM for many other games and ideas. TOAW is not definite answer for all question and historical situation and gameplay. In fact I think that future will bring much better games. That doesn't mean that we are not supposed to enjoy the games as it is now.


Mario

[Ben Turner]

The TOAW is not working just fine but doesn't stop it to be fun game. If you disagree fine but than why you reply all the time to my posts? I know your preaching but is not convicing and you will surely not beat my claims with your flood of irrelevancy and some "facts" that don't even come close to reality. Sorry I don't buy that "evangelism".

I don't consider my remarks to be irrelevant. Nor do I think I should just remain silent while others continue to post opinions with which I disagree.

Look at TOAW as evelution in wargaming, but there are ROOM for many other games and ideas. TOAW is not definite answer for all question and historical situation and gameplay.

Absolutely. A point I have made repeatedly on the Matrix forum.

[Bloodstar]

I don't consider my remarks to be irrelevant. Nor do I think I should just remain silent while others continue to post opinions with which I disagree.

But, Ben you made many times remarks that are way out of TOAW wisdom and inner being :)
I didn't wanted to point that to you as you have a bad habit of making endless posts of irelevant notion and small things... that then become endless tirrade.

And you think you know everything about TOAW and I have caught you many times in your ignorance.
You said on Matrix boards that ships on tactical reserve cannot participate in combat. Strange. My Rumanian ships near Odessa have lower supply and readiness and they were not attacked, they participated in combat. And there was many occasions like this. So, you are caught in your TOAW ignorance, back to TOAW school young boy! :D

Of course you know great deal about TOAW but just don't appreciate other people's opinion and value or evaluate it as yours. You are always right of course. And your methods are best etc... That is quite boring my friend, change the LP record...


Absolutely. A point I have made repeatedly on the Matrix forum.


We agree on that. I hope that you will not take this post as a offense not my intention I am not Oleg Mastruko to argue with you like he does. :)
In fact I don't agree with many Oleg's remark on TOAW.



Mario

[Becker]

Did he actually state that he knows everything about TOAW? I guess not!

[Bloodstar]

Did he actually state that he knows everything about TOAW? I guess not!


Becker the Brutus :mad:

Read between the lines. Ben Turner knows everything about TOAW, he is in fact a TOAW deity, he have a TOAW implanted in his brain. :p


Mario

[Becker]

Cool, I'm not alone in this lonesome world in my ... head :D He has the same supreme ... TOAW implantation as myself. Just joking.

Continue with the thread :)

[Bloodstar]

Cool, I'm not alone in this lonesome world in my ... head :D He has the same supreme ... TOAW implantation as myself. Just joking.

Continue with the thread :)


Hehe... :D

Just wanted to spice the forum a little bit... Jokes are always good :laugh:

And Neuromancer was one of best games on C-64 and Amiga heeh...


Mario

[Ben Turner]

You said on Matrix boards that ships on tactical reserve cannot participate in combat.

No. I don't believe that I did say such a thing. You've misunderstood what I said.

You are always right of course.

OK, here we agree...

I am not Oleg Mastruko to argue with you like he does. :)

For that much I thank you. However I do think it's a bit much that you accuse me of posting "endless tirades" when your posts are consistently longer and more inflammatory than mine. At this point we are no longer actually arguing about TOAW but about whether I should be allowed to discuss it.

[Becker]

Again off topic but I like your website Ben. It's funky :D

[Bloodstar]

No. I don't believe that I did say such a thing. You've misunderstood what I said.

Sorry, but you said it. If Golden Delicious is your nick there... Find that post by yourself.
Here it is:


"Stranger and stranger. Ships cannot be set to tactical or local reserve in TOAW. What game are you playing? " Is that you? Now,is that 1:0 for me or?



OK, here we agree...


Except about ships on tactical reserve and million other things but all is archived here or on Matrix Forum.




For that much I thank you. However I do think it's a bit much that you accuse me of posting "endless tirades" when your posts are consistently longer and more inflammatory than mine. At this point we are no longer actually arguing about TOAW but about whether I should be allowed to discuss it.

You are allowed to discuss it. But, first take your nose out of skies. That is first requisite for a discussion. Your attidute "I know everything" is not good, and frankly I don't like it. Why is your opinion better valued than mine? Well, I don't think so that because you made few scenarios in TOAW that your opinion on some TOAW things is matter that must be taken as granted. That is not discussion. So it't not me that kills discussion. I can take that you have different view than mine. And I will not beat a dead horse and try to explain to you that you are having wrong opinion. But to debate endlessly about your ideal situations, and how all is fault of crappy scenario design (I know TDG is Mighty God who will tell everyone how scenario must be designed). and so on etc...



Mario

[nemo]

You're wrong on this one Mario. You can't put ships on tactical reserve. They just lend support or attack directly, at range, acting as a floating artillery.

[Bloodstar]

You're wrong on this one Mario. You can't put ships on tactical reserve. They just lend support or attack directly, at range, acting as a floating artillery.


Interesting.

Load the FiTE 5.0, Rumanian fleet have range of 1 (4 early destroyers). and it is untried, with prof. of 60, and 100 % supply.

After all combat and I didn't employed it directly (!), it was on tactical support (in range of enemy) as I was clearing Odessa region, now it is veteran status, and proficency 55% and 75 % supply, readiness was 100 as it have been.

I know that I didn't used it directly in combat...


EDIT: Marc, you can put ships to tactical reserve but you must go to unit report... Yes, I doubt that they will act in opponent move by moving I didn't tried that or local reserve but I am pretty sure that they will fire their guns. And that was what I said if you read posts better.



Mario

[nemo]

EDIT: Marc, you can put ships to tactical reserve but you must go to unit report... Yes, I doubt that they will act in opponent move by moving I didn't tried that or local reserve but I am pretty sure that they will fire their guns.


My bad, you're right - I never use the unit report to set a unit status. Never occured to me you could indeed put ships in LR/TR this way. At any rate, my semi-educated guess is that in reserve or no, ships will just lend support to friendly units within range, be it on the offence or on the defence.
And that was what I said if you read posts better. Actually read posts? You're just asking too much from me. :devious:

[Bloodstar]

Actually read posts? You're just asking too much from me. :devious:

Hehe, so I will have to bully someone else additionally to make thread interesting :D


Mario

[Karri]

I've always though that there should be somre sort of 'breakthrough' attack. I mean, if there's a 10km hex and an infantry regiment there, do you need to push all the enemy troops out of that area, or just secure the main roads to be able to push on?

In a way, I am suggesting that there should be the possibility that both sides would control the hex...

[Dicke Bertha]

How many old hands have experience from playing any old same scenario experiencing/experimenting a simple switch such as 'disengagement on/off'? Not me - always on. As many faults as TOAW may have, when I critisise it, I do it out of a limited and biased position.

TOAW3 needs to get rid of its save/security features btw, they detract and anger more than add and help, IMO.

[Ben Turner]

Again off topic but I like your website Ben. It's funky :D

Gah- I don't really like people reading it. It's been cryogenic suspension for about four years now.

[Ben Turner]

"Stranger and stranger. Ships cannot be set to tactical or local reserve in TOAW. What game are you playing? " Is that you? Now,is that 1:0 for me or?

It turned out that ships could be given a reserve setting, but it has no affect on their behaviour.

In any case, your claim was "You said on Matrix boards that ships on tactical reserve cannot participate in combat"

This is not supported by the line you quote above.

And I will not beat a dead horse

Too late.

and how all is fault of crappy scenario design

Not all- but a great deal of the problems in TOAW can be worked around with good design. Especially when it comes to ant units.

[RhinoBones]

How many old hands have experience from playing any old same scenario experiencing/experimenting a simple switch such as 'disengagement on/off'?


There are a few scenarios from the medieval period (and earlier) that play better with ‘Disengagement’ turned off. Otherwise, ‘Disengagement’ is always on.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Bloodstar]

It turned out that ships could be given a reserve setting, but it has no affect on their behaviour.

In any case, your claim was "You said on Matrix boards that ships on tactical reserve cannot participate in combat"

This is not supported by the line you quote above.

Ah, Ben Van Kenobi :angry:

Whatever. Time to change your TOAW Neuromancer Implant v3.0 for new version v5.0 that is available on the market. :D



Too late.


Never is too late to die for Queen and the Country :cool:




Not all- but a great deal of the problems in TOAW can be worked around with good design. Especially when it comes to ant units.

With that I could agree. To a certain degree of course.


Mario

[Dicke Bertha]

There are a few scenarios from the medieval period (and earlier) that play better with ‘Disengagement’ turned off. Otherwise, ‘Disengagement’ is always on.

Regards, RhinoBones

An old gentleman moving gave me a lot of books recently, on was a real eye-opener as to (false) interpretation of well-known 18C battles, specifiaclly those of General Rehnskiöld, Carolus XII's field marshal; quite astonishing. I really have to get into this aspect/era of TOAW - for any designer there will at least be less crowding, and maybe programmed opponent variants open to interpretation depending on author/bibliographer. Rehnskiöld would be like a panzer leader 250 years premature!! :surprise:

[Ben Turner]

TOAW3 needs to get rid of its save/security features btw, they detract and anger more than add and help, IMO.

Absolutely. In particular, if I am ever to transfer GS3 to TOAW III, it will need to be possible to open PBM games in the editor when they are finished, and ideally also whilst still underway.