TOAW Next Generation

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti

Use limited attacks. I think this is one of the most overlooked feature of the game. More `veteran´ I have become with the game, more limited attacks I have been using.

:hush: Jyri, shhhhhh! You're divulging secrets of the priesthood...

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


:hush: Jyri, shhhhhh! You're divulging secrets of the priesthood...

Forgive me, your grace General Bishop JAMiAM, the Abbot of el TOAW Monastery. :hail:

 

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by Stevo

The real burning question is . . . was this thread initiated as a tease, or does someone have a serious intent to develop the ideas into reality?

Regards, RhinoBones

A few of us have had direct dealings with Norm Koger and Take-2. While things are definitely at an impass for now, I think it inevitable that this system will eventually carry on, somehow. For now, all these items are going into a file. Whatever new version of TOAW finally gets released, or even should a new system appear, these are issues that will have to be dealt with.

D.

 

[Kraut]

I'd like to have more controll over my combat phases, if I give my attackers the order 'min losses' I expect them to break contact early and preserve as much combat rounds as possible.
But than (Murphys Law) there is always this uninteresting little battle where a single StuG Btl. attacks an encircled NKVD unit and the stubborn soviets refuse to surrender and the battle goes on and on and on, burning almost all combat phases.
I want to be able to tell a unit: attack but break after 3 combat rounds. In a game where 10 combat rounds represent 3.5 days it's highly unlikely that the entire german army watches this little uniteresting fight and refuses to take orders in the meantime

It might be good to split up a turn in 10 _assured_ rounds, meaning I hit end turn and 10% of my attacks get resolved. If a combat is finished after 1 round I can continue moving these units, if the combat continues I can get a status report and decided wheteher I'd like to continue this attack or order my units to break off.

The only problem might be play balance, making it to easy for one side to surround & destroy the enemy but thats what playtests are for

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Kraut
I'd like to have more controll over my combat phases, if I give my attackers the order 'min losses' I expect them to break contact early and preserve as much combat rounds as possible.
But than (Murphys Law) there is always this uninteresting little battle where a single StuG Btl. attacks an encircled NKVD unit and the stubborn soviets refuse to surrender and the battle goes on and on and on, burning almost all combat phases.
I want to be able to tell a unit: attack but break after 3 combat rounds. In a game where 10 combat rounds represent 3.5 days it's highly unlikely that the entire german army watches this little uniteresting fight and refuses to take orders in the meantime

Although I´d love to have some kind of manual limiter to avoid those `turn burning´ -attacks, it has to be remembered that the turn is an abstraction of the time scope it represents, so 10 combat rounds in half-week turn doesn´t mean they are 0.35 days each. Failed proficiency checks and `turn burning´ -attacks represent failures outside the scope of individual battles.

 

[Aryaman]

Items I would like to see in anew TOAW game
1. Supply depots and lines of supply instead of hexes with a supply base

2. Units with low supply should be unable to move or attack

3. Change the turn system to wego

4. Change the movement system, get rid of that hex possesion system and instead have to types of movements for units, tactical and stratecigal, like in the V4V games

5. A naval system similar to the air system, with ports acting like airbases

6. Real chain of command, with a tree structure adjustable and a penalty for units too far from their HQs

7. No subdivision capability, normally people design scenarios with some scale in mind, battalions, regs, divs, whatever, and those subdivisions only add gamey tactics

8. Surrounded units would fight to scape against the weakest encircling unit, so that you can´t destroy a division using companies to sealed a pocket

9. Experience should be modelled differently, those subtile percentages don´t do much of a difference between tough veterans and green units. A multiplayer factor, with a difference from 0.5 to 2.5 for green, recruit, experecienced, etc, for instance could be more realistic

10. Make inf units capable of being lorried, and motorized units to disembark

Just some points

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Aryaman
Just some points

...and a whole different game...

 

[Kraut]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


Although I´d love to have some kind of manual limiter to avoid those `turn burning´ -attacks, it has to be remembered that the turn is an abstraction of the time scope it represents, so 10 combat rounds in half-week turn doesn´t mean they are 0.35 days each. Failed proficiency checks and `turn burning´ -attacks represent failures outside the scope of individual battles.

I think you are wrong here, the 10 combat rounds do represent the time it takes for a battle to be decided. If I plan my attacks and the worst start is at the third combat round and all attacks are at limited losses and all attacks are finished after one go ( in _no_ combat report are news as 'Axis forces continue attack) than I _should_ have 50% left.

In a test scenario I did everything as described above and all combats ended early expect one (the above mentioned StuG Btl.) that attacked on min. losses and kept on attacking (lots of 'Axis forces continue attack' messages) and my turn was almost spent (20% left).
I reloaded the test scenario and let the StuGs rest... voila, 50% left! (Of course I did some more tests to be sure )

Of course luck in involved here but I am fairly certain that after 50% of my turn all combats were finished expect this one and because of this unprdictable long combat valuable combat rounds were burned.

Imagine yourself at the Ostfront, commanding the entire Wehrmacht and instead of following your orders the entire front from north to south stops attacking for a day or two because they wait until one little battle somewhere along the front is decided

 

[John Paul]

Shipping

It would be nice if there was a differential made between troop ships and assault shipping.Just because you can transport X amount of divisions by sea,doesn't mean there is that same capability when making amphibious assaults.

 

[Stauffenberg]

x10 Rounds

Originally posted by Kraut


I think you are wrong here, the 10 combat rounds do represent the time it takes for a battle to be decided. If I plan my attacks and the worst start is at the third combat round and all attacks are at limited losses and all attacks are finished after one go ( in _no_ combat report are news as 'Axis forces continue attack) than I _should_ have 50% left.

This is an interesting point and I think you are both right, and wrong, as far as that goes. 10 rounds really represents an idealised "initiative", allowing for further attacks and exploitation if you have handled things well and if--and here is where it becomes an ideal--you are lucky. Koger purposefully built in a randomised failure function that will end rounds, any round, "for no reason". Every unit (not disrupted at the beginning of the turn or otherwise N/A) can move its full movement factor and attack if it can if you want it to. Your holding back units and staggering attacks time-wise is a gamble, one you choose to make, and one that bets that good planning will allow initiative to be maintained and developed. One has to be aware though that 10 rounds represents an ideal, a division of time to be sure, but not one you should expect to get with complete certainty: bad planning, fanatical defenses, and finally an inexplicable failure of initiative at the end of a round, can bring it all to a close far sooner. One can rationalise this last "mystery" in many ways. This was a nice touch on Koger's part in my view, a subtle way of handling initiative, along with variations on first player moves when playing face to face.

D.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Kraut
Imagine yourself at the Ostfront, commanding the entire Wehrmacht and instead of following your orders the entire front from north to south stops attacking for a day or two because they wait until one little battle somewhere along the front is decided

I think you missed my point. The game has a igo ugo-system, so there are many abstractions with time spending. With your logic one could imagine commanding the entire Soviet Army, which doesn´t react to Wermacht attacks until half a week has passed by...(well, kinda realistic during the early stages of Barbarossa ).

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Re: x10 Rounds

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
along with variations on first player moves when playing face to face.

We don´t have that in PBEM.

 

[Stauffenberg]

No, and the odds of meeting a grognard TOAW player for hotseat play is about the same as meeting a chap in a purple pantsuit.

 

[Brevet]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg
No, and the odds of meeting a grognard TOAW player for hotseat play is about the same as meeting a chap in a purple pantsuit.

Did you ever watch The Big Lebowski? Has a dude named Jesus bowling in a purple pantsuit. One of my favorite movies

 

[Stauffenberg]

ah HA. Someone finally got the allusion. Yes exactly. On another thread Jamiam was scoffing at boardgamers that used counter-tweezers to sift through stacks of units, claiming that "real men grow long fingernails on thumb and index finger for that".

To which I replied, "the last chap I saw like that was in a purple pantsuit."
From the movie of course.

You get 10 Bonus Points and you can email Don Maddox for your prize when you hit the magic 100.

D.

 

[Red]

Adding to wishlist...

Okei, I'v been lurking around a long time and I just wish to add to the wish list (if its any good... )

The one thing that realy annoyes me is how rivers are represented in TOAW. I realy enjoy making maps, and I often find that the rivers "in hexes" clutters up my map. Especialy when I make maps with valleys. There is also the thing with roads paralelling rivers.

So my wish would be to give scenario designers the possibility to have hexsides rivers.

 

[Dan Neely]

join the club in LARTing takespew. the unreleased acow 1.05 patch supports hexside rivers.

 

[Red]

I was under the impression that it was just 50km hexes that supported hexsiderivers in "1.05" ????

 

[LOK]

TOAW/The next generation

If there is any possibility of TOAW being upgraded (or perhaps a new game system being developed) should we (Warfare HQ or TDG or ???) come up with a list of desired features/additions/bug fixes etc. and associated ratings?
Lots of people have posted excellent suggestions and of course, I have my own list.
I'm sure how we rate our desired features/additions (e.g. "must have" , "nice to have", etc.) will be hotly debated but it may help Take2 change their minds???

I'd be happy to assist in the effort if anyone is interested...

LOK

 

[Stauffenberg]

I don't know. What do you make of a company that refuses to allow an established system to grow and evolve? a company that turns down an offer to develop a complete new scenario CD by established designers at their own time & expense? a company that can barely be arsed to even civily respond to your proposal packages?
I'll use the highbrow term "nescient."

That said, I have every confidence that the system will get around this block eventually. It has too much going for it.

My "take" on Take-2 is that TOAW is not even a blip on their developmental radar screen as the number of unit sales is so small--niche market you know. On the other hand, judging by the fact they are still selling it and promoting it on their page (same Talonsoft box art--they really haven't put a dime into TOAW), I suppose they have X number of boxes to bundle and sell. I am also told that owning the rights affects their stock value.

Perhaps we can pester them with complaints about their failure to provide the latest upgrade for TOAW from Koger. In your email to these people, drop in a phrase along the lines of "this has become a hot topic on the wargaming boards."

Emails to: support@take2baltimore.com

This is another topic really and so I will start a new thread for this. If you want to respond about the Take-2 issue, do it in the other thread pls.

D.