This brings to mind the following question; how are land battles being resolved right now? With the naval ones its fairly clear as one of the many mini-naval systems like seekrieg is being used. I can offer suggestions in general terms what went on and when but to be specific I need more information as to how land battles are moderated.
Michael
I had to say that resolution of land combat depends on the actual moderator. In the system I am using I haven't yet implemented armored cars yet.
Naval combat is much clearer and simple compared to land combat. If anyone has a suggestion what wargaming system we could use that is not much time consuming, you are welcome.
the one I was useing is Very time consuming (took 3 hours to set up a battle that lasted almost 8 hours)
Something like this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Flames
Now the total world at war setup where you doing economics, naval and air phases, over the entire globe its not a fast game. But it can handle a great deal in terms of whats going on. One thing is to get the full flavor of it we really need to create military leaders to handle the ARMY HQ's.
I would suggest we use that or any odds based, strategic level combat resolution. WiF has a number of E-maps for things like GameBox.
Michael
Quote from: P3D on November 27, 2007, 03:04:42 PM
I had to say that resolution of land combat depends on the actual moderator. In the system I am using I haven't yet implemented armored cars yet.
Naval combat is much clearer and simple compared to land combat. If anyone has a suggestion what wargaming system we could use that is not much time consuming, you are welcome.
TOAW might be an option (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1410.msg13987#msg13987 )
While resolution is quite fast (and can be made by the players themselves), creating the scenario might take quite a lot more time.
WiF is unfortunately has not the required resolution.
TOAW3 might be the solution. I looked at it and it's apparently much more flexible than I expected. and has a lot of scenarios (even WWI) available, and the maps could be used too.
Korpen, could you look it into a bit bigger detail? Should we go to battalion level, how much modding it would require, etc.
The game cost $30 to DL BTW.
Quote from: P3D on November 27, 2007, 05:29:47 PM
WiF is unfortunately has not the required resolution.
TOAW3 might be the solution. I looked at it and it's apparently much more flexible than I expected. and has a lot of scenarios (even WWI) available, and the maps could be used too.
Korpen, could you look it into a bit bigger detail? Should we go to battalion level, how much modding it would require, etc.
"Home Before The Leaves Fall 1914" got to be one of my favorite scenarios for TOAW, and i think the game works well for the period.
As for what level scenarios should be created at, i would answer that it depends on what kind of battle is played out. If there is a battle on some island with fairly small numbers of troops then battalion level sounds good, if it is a great war in Europe or North America with 20+ corps on each side, the divisional level sounds more fitting.
Basically the scale can be set so that the scenario is interesting to play.
Designing a pure PvP scenario in the context of navalism is a bit easier then designing a stand alone scenario, as there is no need to fiddle with AI orders, waypoints and priorities.
This also reduces the need for play balance tweaking, as navalism makes the groundwork for a scenario.
The single most time consuming thing would most likely be drawing the map if the scenario takes place in an area were it is not possible to steal a map from an existing scenario.
If a map is available, and the players involved have detailed ToOaE;s available, it should hopefully only take a day or two to cobble together a scenario. Esp. if one minimise the amounts of events.
There are quite a number of sites with scenarios and discussion forums around
www.tdg.nu for one.
The TOEs will have to be fixed by the rules somehow if we are going down to smaller level, otherwise people will have ahistorically overequipped units.
Can the save be edited as a scenario?
Quote from: P3D on November 27, 2007, 06:16:41 PM
The TOEs will have to be fixed by the rules somehow if we are going down to smaller level, otherwise people will have ahistorically overequipped units.
TOAW work with equipment, and build unit strength out of that (together with some other factors, such as unit supply and proficiency), so a detailed org chart is needed in any case. The scale do not affect waht is in the units, only at which level the utis are displayed in game.
If one seeks perfect balance, then one way to handle this could be to assign all the equipmet avalible to a corps, and then allow the players to organise the corp based on that, but i think it is a boring option. ;)
QuoteCan the save be edited as a scenario?
Nes, not directly, but i know some people did that in the past, will have to ask how it was done.
I have not played the Art of War 1, 2 or 3, but that said I have not been impressed with any scalable system for trying to jump between Strategic and Tactical level. N3 is a strategic level game and I am not sure why we would need to deal with anything below the Brigade level; of course that is just my opinion.
Any particular reason P3D you guys are against a pure strategic solution to your needs?
Michael
Quote from: miketr on November 27, 2007, 06:56:36 PM
I have not played the Art of War 1, 2 or 3, but that said I have not been impressed with any scalable system for trying to jump between Strategic and Tactical level. N3 is a strategic level game and I am not sure why we would need to deal with anything below the Brigade level; of course that is just my opinion.
Any particular reason P3D you guys are against a pure strategic solution to your needs?
Michael
Well TOAW never touch either the tactical nor the strategic level, it (as the name implies) take place on the operational level.
And the jump from strategic to operational level is not that long.
I've kept it too simple. One Die roll per day (a D12), and take the results off of that (scaling one side toward 1 and one side toward 12 and do degrees from their until 6 and 7 were you have stalemates for X number of days (a D30). It was way too simple but was a time saving messure.
As the strategy aspect is handled differently, the resolution must be on the operational level. Doing some battle simulation, I'd say that smallest unit should be somewhere in the 1000-5000 range. That means Bn or Rgt level unless we are playing trench wars.
Quote from: P3D on November 27, 2007, 07:30:59 PM
As the strategy aspect is handled differently, the resolution must be on the operational level. Doing some battle simulation, I'd say that smallest unit should be somewhere in the 1000-5000 range. That means Bn or Rgt level unless we are playing trench wars.
If you guys want to try to handle multi corps battles / campaigns at that level I bow before you in awe.
Michael
Seems counterproductive to me to invest that much time and effort into a detailed battle when the rules fundamentally assume that a corps is a corps, regardless of who it belongs to.
In doing the Chinese/Swiss stuff back in '01, I just used the GURPS mass combat rules, factoring in a few things like weather, artillery, terrain, and such. It made for quick and easy results - precisely what the sim needed.
That a corps is a corps does not prevent players assigning 1000 and 5000 troops to garrison.
True - but if they're the same tech level, a thousand guys on one side ought to have the same capability as a thousand guys on the other side.
Detail is in the hands of the user. If one is trying to get though a campaign, simple works. If one wants realism, something a little more complex is an option. If they want detailed results for a story, use a table top and game it out. If you want something epic...well either you spend a lot of time on it, or use your imagination.
I offerd before and I am still willing to table top a few operations for the sim. Ron would love it he actualy is rather enjoying fighting my 1912 african campain (im still hopeing someone will aprove that).
Thats an interesting point, I would be willing to fight land battles out at least I have access to a number of table top systems; not just WiF.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on November 28, 2007, 04:09:47 PM
Thats an interesting point, I would be willing to fight land battles out at least I have access to a number of table top systems; not just WiF.
Michael
Hehe, it seems quite a few of us are willing to help with that. One advantage of using TOAW is that it can be scaled to fit the situation, it is fast and it give nice results. Also it is possible for the players (if they have bought or otherwise acquired the game) to play out the scenario on their own. This gives a bit more direct player involvment in the outcome, always a good thing imo. :)
LOL im no table top Romel, but my campain in africa has gone fairly well so far (2 of 10 planed major actions have bene fought) im not farmiliar with TOAW, not to discredit it at all, perhaps if I had the actual name i might even buy it.
Well I gave TOAW (the operational art of war III) and its a very interesting game. A covers a lot of ground, the engine is more than a little clunky I feel. Still interesting.
Michael
as did I the last 2 days, I have to say its a tad clunkey
Quote from: miketr on November 29, 2007, 09:25:10 PM
Well I gave TOAW (the operational art of war III) and its a very interesting game. A covers a lot of ground, the engine is more than a little clunky I feel. Still interesting.
Michael
While i know the literal meaning of "clancky", I do not quite get what you mean by it in this context.
So please explain a bit more what you meant, I am always interested to find out how other people feel about a system (and this I ask of Tanthalas as well).
the UI while not bad feals dated even compared to older games like Panzer General II, and the way it works the computer didnt seem all that smart to me, I stomped it a couple times
Quote from: Tanthalas on November 30, 2007, 03:15:04 PM
the UI while not bad feals dated even compared to older games like Panzer General II, and the way it works the computer didnt seem all that smart to me, I stomped it a couple times
Well, the AI is objective/waypoint based, so how good it is largely depends on the scenario played.
Generally it behaves better on the offensive then the defensive, and the higher the unit concentration the better it works, as it is a pretty good tactician.
My issues with the game were user interface; I haven't played it enough to make a judgment on the AI. As to specifics...
It's very hard to select units to do anything. You have to use either the next unit or formation button. You can select a unit out of movement range and then select the one you want. Both are clumsy. You can't select several units' at once or rather only stacks at a time. What I would really like to do is give orders by formation; all of X formation move / attack at once.
Also I wish there was some type of way to see the status of my units at a glance.
These issues combined with the size of some of the trainning missions; makes the game draining mentally just to do the paper work. I don't want to even think about any of the ones that were near unit cap.
The editor is without a doubt a pain, the lack of canned formation is critical weakness.
Never having played the earlier games all I can say is it felt like I was playing a mid 90's game.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on November 30, 2007, 03:51:40 PM
My issues with the game were user interface; I haven't played it enough to make a judgment on the AI. As to specifics...
It's very hard to select units to do anything. You have to use either the next unit or formation button. You can select a unit out of movement range and then select the one you want. Both are clumsy. You can't select several units' at once or rather only stacks at a time. What I would really like to do is give orders by formation; all of X formation move / attack at once.
Also I wish there was some type of way to see the status of my units at a glance.
These issues combined with the size of some of the trainning missions; makes the game draining mentally just to do the paper work. I don't want to even think about any of the ones that were near unit cap.
The editor is without a doubt a pain, the lack of canned formation is critical weakness.
Never having played the earlier games all I can say is it felt like I was playing a mid 90's game.
Michael
I can agree the editor is tricky to work with, but formations can at least be copied and moved as a whole, just not easily :(
I think i can agree on most of these points. But I think the results and the good sides compensate for the shortcomings. While formations cannot be moved as whole (unless playing in a formation-only mode), the only time one would want to do that is during longer transport movements, and then it is easy to just make sure each formation end up in a single hex for ease of movement.
You got some information about unit status in the "Order of battle" but that was maybe not what you were looking for?
I do not think i have ever played the training mission, so i cannot comment on them.
Quote from: miketr on November 30, 2007, 03:51:40 PM
Never having played the earlier games all I can say is it felt like I was playing a mid 90's game.
Michael
Ironicly some mid 90s games were actualy better in ways Panzer general 2 had a superb UI, and a more user friendly interface imo.
Quote from: Tanthalas on December 03, 2007, 03:41:02 PM
Quote from: miketr on November 30, 2007, 03:51:40 PM
Never having played the earlier games all I can say is it felt like I was playing a mid 90's game.
Michael
Ironicly some mid 90s games were actualy better in ways Panzer general 2 had a superb UI, and a more user friendly interface imo.
But PG2 had a combat resolution that was a joke in comparison. TOAW is far superior in taking different combat factors into account, and offers a much more realistic approach to the problems of operational command.
And see what i said about the AI above. Also, in the context of using it here, the ai is irrelevant, as we are talking about PvP... ;)