New Bug in TAOW III version???

[Killorbekilled]

I'm the allies, Paris was taken twice - I took it back the next turn, was taken right after - and was held this time. Two turns later - my French troops are still there. It's obviously good for me, but I'm sensing some unfairness perhaps?

[JAMiAM]

Hi,

Go ahead and send me the file from the last turn that you played, where you did not retake Paris. An after the attack SAL, or the PBL. I'll forward it to Ralph so that he can fix it. You and your opponent will have to replay a couple of turns, but at least the rest of the game should be okay.

[Mark Stevens]

Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Veers]

Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't panic Mark, I'm sure it's the same problem we faced, and that it's fixed with the next patch. :D

[ralphtrickey]

I'm the allies, Paris was taken twice - I took it back the next turn, was taken right after - and was held this time. Two turns later - my French troops are still there. It's obviously good for me, but I'm sensing some unfairness perhaps?
The easiest thing is probaly to send me the turn sent to the Axis player right after Paris fell. I'll walk through the events and make sure that the correct army is withdrawn, then send a sal file to the axis player, so I'll need his email.

If you both agree, you can send me a later turn sent to the Axis player, and I should be able to fix it instead.

ralphtrickey (at) hotmail (dot) com

[viridomaros]

isn't it related to the turn range of the surrender event? If so it's not a bug but rather a WAD. it makes sense to me, it's not like everyone is going to stop fighting once the capital falls. a 2,3 turns delay isn't that unrealistic.

This happened in my game against Blueflag for Poland and France.

Now you can start working on improving naval combat. I played a turn the other day: i attacked the dane's navy (4 destroyers) with my med fleet unit. No support for both sides, the allied lose 3 battleships, a bunch of heavy cruisers, battle cruisers etc... while the danes lose 1 destroyer. You're going to tell me to go around the problem and to use planes. It seems that in toaw III ships shot down a lot more planes than before and as a result i often lose too much planes for what i can sink.
I really needed to attack the unit since my opponent blockaded gibraltar's route with it.

[Mark Stevens]

"isn't it related to the turn range of the surrender event? If so it's not a bug but rather a WAD. it makes sense to me, it's not like everyone is going to stop fighting once the capital falls. a 2,3 turns delay isn't that unrealistic."

I fear not: there isn't a delay built in - Paris being occupied by the Axis at the start of a turn (Event 82) should trigger the withdrawal of the French (Event 85).

The reason there isn't a delay - which, as you say, wouldn't be unreasonable - is because the Fall of France triggers other Events, like the formation of Vichy and the Axis TO to mobilise Spain (and that in turn triggers others) so a delay - perhaps allowing a strong Allied player to retake Paris in the interval - would screw up the Event sequencing.

"Now you can start working on improving naval combat" Amen to that. What I'd really like to see is ships being treated more like air bomber units, but obviously limited to affecting the sea hexes only, i.e. they can still physically be moved but then be set to 'combat support' or 'interdiction' - I imagine that 'naval superiority' might be too difficult? - and either provide support to naval landings/defense as appropriate or, if on interdiction, have a %age chance of striking other naval or embarked land units moving within their range (which would need to be vastly increased). Land units forced to disembark at sea would have to sink.

I'd imagine that this is a bit ambitious, but it would be better than the giant floating artillery batteries that we have at present, at least for the larger scale scenarios like EA.

[JAMiAM]

isn't it related to the turn range of the surrender event? If so it's not a bug but rather a WAD. it makes sense to me, it's not like everyone is going to stop fighting once the capital falls. a 2,3 turns delay isn't that unrealistic.

This happened in my game against Blueflag for Poland and France.
I didn't check the events myself, and was taking it "on faith" that there was no delay built in. Mark? Can you weigh in on this and let us know whether you built in a delay?

Now you can start working on improving naval combat. I played a turn the other day: i attacked the dane's navy (4 destroyers) with my med fleet unit. No support for both sides, the allied lose 3 battleships, a bunch of heavy cruisers, battle cruisers etc... while the danes lose 1 destroyer. You're going to tell me to go around the problem and to use planes. It seems that in toaw III ships shot down a lot more planes than before and as a result i often lose too much planes for what i can sink.
I really needed to attack the unit since my opponent blockaded gibraltar's route with it.
No, I won't tell you that you should have used planes. Instead, you should have attacked the Danes from 2 hexes away, if you had a naval unit with battleships in it. Then, they wouldn't have caused you any casualties since their units don't have any ships with a range of 2 hexes. Incidentally, I don't recall the Danes ever joining the Axis in any of the games that I played, though admittedly I usually don't attack Denmark/Norway as the Axis. How did they get to be Axis controlled in yours?

[JAMiAM]

I didn't check the events myself, and was taking it "on faith" that there was no delay built in. Mark? Can you weigh in on this and let us know whether you built in a delay?

Nevermind Mark. I see we crossposted. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Veers]

I
Incidentally, I don't recall the Danes ever joining the Axis in any of the games that I played, though admittedly I usually don't attack Denmark/Norway as the Axis. How did they get to be Axis controlled in yours?

When Denmark falls a small 'Danske Fleet' is deployed for the Axis.

[viridomaros]

No, I won't tell you that you should have used planes. Instead, you should have attacked the Danes from 2 hexes away, if you had a naval unit with battleships in it.

this is what i did to start with. But the danske fleet has only 4 destroyers as a result you can't destroy the unit by artillery bombardement. it would have damaged the unit quite badly if it had let us say 20 destroyers but against small units it doesn't work.

PLEASE RALPH improve the naval combat :upset: .

On a side note i had my first Return to desktop after 1h00 gaming in a gotterdammerung turn, anyone knows why this happened?

[Killorbekilled]

Well thanks to everyone for helping to feed and nuture my little game habit here. Is there a new patch for TAOW 3 EA?

[Veers]

Well thanks to everyone for helping to feed and nuture my little game habit here. Is there a new patch for TAOW 3 EA?
It's coming out soon, very soon. :D

[Mark Stevens]

When Denmark falls a small 'Danske Fleet' is deployed for the Axis.

Ulver being Danish, he was madly keen to recreate the seizure of the small Danish fleet by the Germans. Maybe a four destroyer disband would have done the trick.

[Veers]

Ulver being Danish, he was madly keen to recreate the seizure of the small Danish fleet by the Germans. Maybe a four destroyer disband would have done the trick.
HAHAHA, that's cute.
Hey, been meaning to ask. How did you and Ulver get to making this wonderful scenario, and where is Ulver now?

[Mark Stevens]

Crikey, you're challenging our friend Shane (Mantis) for the EA :hail: Award, you brown-nosed devil you.

I could tell you that I was at my prayers one day when there was a blast of trumpets, a smell of ambrosia, and that the clouds parted to reveal the scenario being lowered down from heaven to a grateful wargaming world, cradled in the arms of angels ...

but that's only half true.

Trey Marshall originally knocked it out in 2000ish. Ulver and I had been playing other TOAW scenarios and this one really caught our eye. Ulver suggested a few minor improvements and, after getting Trey's OK, we began buggering about with it. Ulver dropped off of the radar a couple of years ago and now I'm like one of those poor little worms trapped in a maze in a science experiment: I'm shuffling cheerfully along looking for a piece of crap to eat, but every time I get an electric shock (in the form of a suggestion or complaint) I shudder, then turn blindly down another developmental dead end until I'm bought up short by another 50,000 volts. And I emphasise mental.

Then TOAW III came out and I've never looked forward...er...back.

Trust that answers your question.

[Veers]

Crikey, you're challenging our friend Shane (Mantis) for the EA :hail: Award, you brown-nosed devil you.

I could tell you that I was at my prayers one day when there was a blast of trumpets, a smell of ambrosia, and that the clouds parted to reveal the scenario being lowered down from heaven to a grateful wargaming world, cradled in the arms of angels ...

but that's only half true.

Trey Marshall originally knocked it out in 2000ish. Ulver and I had been playing other TOAW scenarios and this one really caught our eye. Ulver suggested a few minor improvements and, after getting Trey's OK, we began buggering about with it. Ulver dropped off of the radar a couple of years ago and now I'm like one of those poor little worms trapped in a maze in a science experiment: I'm shuffling cheerfully along looking for a piece of crap to eat, but every time I get an electric shock (in the form of a suggestion or complaint) I shudder, then turn blindly down another developmental dead end until I'm bought up short by another 50,000 volts. And I emphasise mental.

Then TOAW III came out and I've never looked forward...er...back.

Trust that answers your question.
HAHAH, yes it does, and in a very cute way. :laugh:
Did you lose track of Ulver, as well, or has he just moved on form TOAW?

[Mark Stevens]

We worked together on this scenario for several years running in the early 2000s, and were in very regular contact: we even phoned each other occasionally. It was on Ulver's own wargaming website that we originally posted the scenario, and after a while we were invited to move it to the TOAW section on what eventually became Gamesquad.

Some time after it moved our e-mail exchanges got less frequent, then petered out altogether. I used to send him the revised versions as they appeared, but he stopped acknowledging them and I haven't seen a post from him on any topic for several years now. His website seems to be defunct. Perhaps he is too. I've lost his phone number.

Although I'm not a sentimental sort of chap, I've left his name on the thing to acknowledge that it was his idea to tinker with Trey's original scenario, and he did an awful lot of work on what's still the underlying Event structure, although obviously there've been many changes in the last couple of years.

[Veers]

We worked together on this scenario for several years running in the early 2000s, and were in very regular contact: we even phoned each other occasionally. It was on Ulver's own wargaming website that we originally posted the scenario, and after a while we were invited to move it to the TOAW section on what eventually became Gamesquad.

Some time after it moved our e-mail exchanges got less frequent, then petered out altogether. I used to send him the revised versions as they appeared, but he stopped acknowledging them and I haven't seen a post from him on any topic for several years now. His website seems to be defunct. Perhaps he is too. I've lost his phone number.

Although I'm not a sentimental sort of chap, I've left his name on the thing to acknowledge that it was his idea to tinker with Trey's original scenario, and he did an awful lot of work on what's still the underlying Event structure, although obviously there've been many changes in the last couple of years.
Well that's too bad. Maybe someday he'll magically reappear.
At least one of you stayed on to look after the scenario. :D

[viridomaros]

a house rule to diband small naval units to provide replacements for major fleets is a good idea. I'll put it into action next time i start an EA game.
I don't think it's possible to disband air units is it possible to do it with navals?
i have the impression it's impossible as well so you would have to use events to activate unit disband.....

[Veers]

a house rule to diband small naval units to provide replacements for major fleets is a good idea. I'll put it into action next time i start an EA game.
I don't think it's possible to disband air units is it possible to do it with navals?
i have the impression it's impossible as well so you would have to use events to activate unit disband.....
If memeory serves it is impossible.

[Lou]

If what you are trying to do is disband deployed naval ship units,
No, you cannot do a mouse over and have a disband option appear.

If you are trying get minimum replacement ships on selected turns,
When using a replacement unit,
A disband event for the unit concerned should work,
If the unit is scheduled to deploy on that turn.

It is possible to save the event,
(Someday soon 1000 events will not be enough)
By deploying the REPLACEMENT UNIT on map.
Then using a mouse over to disband the unit at the owning players option.

Example - create your unit of ships desired.
Then change the Icon to Marine or Amphibious.
Test deployment locations using both events and or turns.


Lou
----------------------------------
The TOAW is in the details.

[Veers]

If what you are trying to do is disband deployed naval ship units,
No, you cannot do a mouse over and have a disband option appear.

If you are trying get minimum replacement ships on selected turns,
When using a replacement unit,
A disband event for the unit concerned should work,
If the unit is scheduled to deploy on that turn.

It is possible to save the event,
(Someday soon 1000 events will not be enough)
By deploying the REPLACEMENT UNIT on map.
Then using a mouse over to disband the unit at the owning players option.

Example - create your unit of ships desired.
Then change the Icon to Marine or Amphibious.
Test deployment locations using both events and or turns.


Lou
----------------------------------
The TOAW is in the details.
Good plan, Lou.
Hey, been meaning to ask you: Do you play TOAW or just work on it? :D

[Mark Stevens]

This might be better than what we have at present, which is a sudden burst of naval replacements around turns 150 - 155 ish, and nothing else all game. Reason is that replacements can only start and stop once - you can't set them for, say, one battleship every six months.

What I could have is a small naval disband at the start of every six months, or something similar, obviously larger for the Allies than the Germans. In a stunning new departure for this scenario, I could even base it on the number of vessels that were actually constructed.

And/or allow Germany to double the Kriegsmarine in the 1930s by having a turn one disband, but at what cost? I'd need to remove a similarly high tech piece of production, like the starting panzer corps, or an entire Luftflotte.

But then should the Allies have the chance to match it?

Decisions, decisions...

[Veers]

This might be better than what we have at present, which is a sudden burst of naval replacements around turns 150 - 155 ish, and nothing else all game. Reason is that replacements can only start and stop once - you can't set them for, say, one battleship every six months.

What I could have is a small naval disband at the start of every six months, or something similar, obviously larger for the Allies than the Germans. In a stunning new departure for this scenario, I could even base it on the number of vessels that were actually constructed.

And/or allow Germany to double the Kriegsmarine in the 1930s by having a turn one disband, but at what cost? I'd need to remove a similarly high tech piece of production, like the starting panzer corps, or an entire Luftflotte.

But then should the Allies have the chance to match it?

Decisions, decisions...
Options, options, my dear friend. Options, variety, is the spice of life, after all. :D

[viridomaros]

This might be better than what we have at present, which is a sudden burst of naval replacements around turns 150 - 155 ish, and nothing else all game. Reason is that replacements can only start and stop once - you can't set them for, say, one battleship every six months.

What I could have is a small naval disband at the start of every six months, or something similar, obviously larger for the Allies than the Germans. In a stunning new departure for this scenario, I could even base it on the number of vessels that were actually constructed.

And/or allow Germany to double the Kriegsmarine in the 1930s by having a turn one disband, but at what cost? I'd need to remove a similarly high tech piece of production, like the starting panzer corps, or an entire Luftflotte.

But then should the Allies have the chance to match it?

Decisions, decisions...

that would be interesting if naval combat in toaw was functional to a minimum. as it is it's nearly a waste of time since the persian navy with 2 gunboats can own the us fleet having 20 battleships or so. but coupled to an increased/decreased sea lift that would make sense. If you have some events left what do you think of linking naval units to sea transport. Each naval unit would represent 1000 Transport point (just a number to explain my idea) and if you lose the unit you lose the sea transport points. That would be quite realistic and would emphazise the naval part of the game. To tie the loss of british naval units with a decreased supply would make sense as well.

[Veers]

that would be interesting if naval combat in toaw was functional to a minimum. as it is it's nearly a waste of time since the persian navy with 2 gunboats can own the us fleet having 20 battleships or so. but coupled to an increased/decreased sea lift that would make sense. If you have some events left what do you think of linking naval units to sea transport. Each naval unit would represent 1000 Transport point (just a number to explain my idea) and if you lose the unit you lose the sea transport points. That would be quite realistic and would emphazise the naval part of the game. To tie the loss of british naval units with a decreased supply would make sense as well.
Hey, what a great idea.

EDIT: Of course, then you couldn't have reconstituting navies.

[viridomaros]

navals shouldn't reconstitute anyway. It's boring like nothing else to see the italian navy reconstituting 3 to 4 times wihtin 1 year. It happened to 1 of my game recently.
By the way does someone know if the AA rating of ships have been enhanced/corrected? i seem to lose a lot of planes for just a few light ships sunk.

[Veers]

navals shouldn't reconstitute anyway. It's boring like nothing else to see the italian navy reconstituting 3 to 4 times wihtin 1 year. It happened to 1 of my game recently.
A navy evaportaing and reconstituting is a lot different at this scale. When a fleet 'evaporates' it is more realistic to look at it as the fleet taking breaking off contact from the enemy. When it 'reconstitutes' is when it has had time to reorganize to a point where it can be put to sea again.


By the way does someone know if the AA rating of ships have been enhanced/corrected? i seem to lose a lot of planes for just a few light ships sunk.
I believe that since the AA was improved in TOAW III, the Navy got a boost as well as AA guns. I ahev experienced higher losses than in ACoW, as well.

[Mark Stevens]

Yes, must emphasise that fleets are rarely 'sunk' in a game of this scale. Most took damage to a few capital ships and then broke off to refit and supply.

The Italian navy breaking off from combat, then being completely inactive for a while before returning, albeit weakened, to the fray for another three months is what happened. It wasn't sunk for the whole war in one bloody engagement.

[viridomaros]

It wasn't sunk for the whole war in one bloody engagement.

because for the most part of the war it stayed in its harbor. What annoys me is the use of the fleets to blockade sea access to particular area, the attacker always lose a lot more than the defenders (especially capital ships) as the allied i have lost ( i mean it, not damaged) most of my battleships, battle cruisers etc....
The german did lose their kriegsmarine twice i think and now it seems to be gone for good and the italians lost 4 time their naval units within a year. Regarding the ships being produced it would be better to have the kriegsmarine reconstituting while the italians don't. That would force the axis player to be somewhat cautious about how he uses the italian fleet.

[Mark Stevens]

Kesselring, who was the German commander for the Mediterranean area, thought that the Italian fleet could have achieved more if Mussolini could have been persuaded to handle it more boldly - on paper it was pretty strong. Just because it lurked in port historically, I don't want to force players to have to follow suit. In general, I think that it will eventually be destroyed if it repeatedly takes on the Royal Navy.

But I agree that naval warfare in general isn't TOAW's strong point - I'd really like to see it more abstracted over longer distances, like air warfare, but that's another topic.

[Veers]

Kesselring, who was the German commander for the Mediterranean area, thought that the Italian fleet could have achieved more if Mussolini could have been persuaded to handle it more boldly - on paper it was pretty strong. Just because it lurked in port historically, I don't want to force players to have to follow suit. In general, I think that it will eventually be destroyed if it repeatedly takes on the Royal Navy.
True, and agreed.


But I agree that naval warfare in general isn't TOAW's strong point - I'd really like to see it more abstracted over longer distances, like air warfare, but that's another topic.
This would definately be an improvement over the current system.

[Lou]

Hey, been meaning to ask you: Do you play TOAW or just work on it? :D


I play the game, not well I admit. Of the games played, all had specific ending conditions, turn or score, different than as designed, but all went at least 150 turns.
3 EA games, Axis 1.8f?, 2 Allies, 3.0, 3.1.
5 Pony Tracks, 3 Axis 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, 2 Allies 1.02a, 1.04 (never released)
1 American Front 1914, US.

Marginal victories, all for my opponents. The opponents were members of the Old Fogy Group, who play tested Pony Tracks.

And there is just no counting all the play test turns working out bugs for Narvik, BOB, Supply, events, deployments and withdrawals.

The possibility of PBM games with other than the Old Fogy Group is remote. Most players require at least 1 turn a week, time constraints preclude even that. TOAW time comes in 15-minute groups, sometimes 3 times a day, or days of none.

Current games have some PBM turns, but 80% are hot seat with the Old Fogy Group.
EA T-3, Allies, Turn 44, lost Poland, Norway (Narvik is allied again), Denmark, invaded Belgium precluded a 39 Balkin campaign. Russian has Iran, Eastern Poland, and forward deployed. Italy is neutral. Paris will fall within 6 weeks max.
American Front 1914, US, Turn 25, (my modified version) a play test, started in March 06, and restarted twice. Lost Baltimore, Washington DC, and Harrisburg. All divisions are at 50-55% of TO&E, losses have been HUGE.

Current projects active and or on hold are:
50% EA T-3 base for new Matrix Pony Tracks, 780 events tested, 32 more sequence groups to go.
25% Ben Turners EA 2.28 OOB into a version of Pony Tracks using 1.04 events.
60-90% 3 modified versions of American Front 1914. OOB, replacements and events need to be refined further. Not happy with current solutions
60-99% 6 different versions of JR’s .99d Viet Nam 1965-1975. I have an 80 MB hard drive full of tests, OOB’s, scenarios, and saved turns. Will not release, as there are much better scenarios available on the subject now. But I still visit it from time to time, and Elmer may make the solitaire version viable.
90% A map exercise with 100% hidden objective values. Needs reworking with T-3 assigning additional values and hidden (from the opponent) news events.
80% Identify all events that have to be changed to make the TAOW classics viable, providing a list so players can make the necessary corrections themselves. Verification is all that remains, but maybe it can be ready by the next patch.
60-75% 4 outside projects to construct specific event sequence options/results. Although the need for all was canceled with the release of T3, as an exercise they are worthwhile doing.

Much that I want to do is far too time intensive, for the free time available.

Nitpicking appears to be my primary interest if you look at all my posts. I enjoy making things work when an easier way can be found, or trying to find out why things happen that maybe should not.

Lou
----------------------------------
The TOAW is in the details.

[Mantis]

What I could have is a small naval disband at the start of every six months, or something similar, obviously larger for the Allies than the Germans. In a stunning new departure for this scenario, I could even base it on the number of vessels that were actually constructed.

And/or allow Germany to double the Kriegsmarine in the 1930s by having a turn one disband, but at what cost? I'd need to remove a similarly high tech piece of production, like the starting panzer corps, or an entire Luftflotte.

But then should the Allies have the chance to match it?

Decisions, decisions...

Mark, you should read over some of the thougths put forth in the discussion we have going on the WWII Dream Game thread I have going in the main TOAW forum.

Link (http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65118).

There has been talk about 'production' that covers pretty much that type of thing that you are discussing. IF I end up doing/helping with a new WWII scenario, you can be certain that this type of thing will be included. I think it might be along the lines of what you're looking for.

[Mantis]

The Italian navy breaking off from combat, then being completely inactive for a while before returning, albeit weakened, to the fray for another three months is what happened. It wasn't sunk for the whole war in one bloody engagement.

You haven't seen my games...

(And notice I didn't say whether I'm talking about being Allied or Axis... :laugh: )

[Mantis]

What annoys me is the use of the fleets to blockade sea access to particular area, the attacker always lose a lot more than the defenders (especially capital ships)

This is true, yet doesn't need to be crippling. To be honest, as soon as I got a feel for naval 'combat' (to use the term loosely), I quite quickly came to the realization that I was virtually never (as either side!) going to participate in direct naval combat again. So now, if I cannot do as James has suggested, utilizing a range 2 fleet vs. a range 1 fleet, I will simply move all my naval units that will 'participate' in the combat adjacent to the enemy unit, and then will move all my naval bombers into range. The movement of said aircraft generally means that I have a few that still have 70+% of their movement allowance, while others are around the 50% area, and some with only 30%. The 70's will attack directly, with all other aircraft on CS. The navies will do nothing but sit adjacent to the enemy fleet, and will not attack. (Providing 'indirect' support all by themselves). I keep this up, adding in the other aircraft when the turn % remaining indicates it is time to do so. Most of the time, I can wipe the units right out doing this a few times over the space of a turn.

You will find, however, that typically, you'll do very great damage to the enemy in the first attack or two, but might have to hit it repeatedly to kill the last couple of DDs off. (Shrug). Realistic? No. But I never said it was. All it really is, is me making a nod to the game engine, and going with what works, not what should be. But the effect is one I like. I never lose navy on my own turn, and almost never on my opponents turns. (I don't leave the navies at sea if it can be helped).

The air takes a good beating sometimes, but there always seem to be enough frames to handle the stresses. And it's not like this type of battle happens very often over the course of the war anyways, so the expense can be 'spread out'.