The Operational Art of War

[Manic Moran]

Just picked up Version II the other day. Trying a few scenarios out. They're absolutely huge. One scenario lasts me for over a full day.

 

Anyone have any comments on the game?

[Guest Master Blaster]

Nick,

What's the scale on that?

[Dan Weaver]

Operational level - in small scenarios you'll be using battalions and in large scenarios you'll be using brigades.

 

Fun game, where a lot of stuff is possible thanks to the event editor. Supply calculations could use some work and the AI is limited to the same old 'drive straight at objective' logic.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Correction - in large games each "marker" can be up to a division.

The engine is quite genius. Each hex can be everything from 500 meter, up to 5.000 meters. Each turn can range from 4 hours (iirc) up to one week.

As you can see, scenario-makers can do pretty much which battle they want.

 

Great compliment to Combat Mission or Steel Panthers.

[Allan W]

If by version 2 you mean TOAW 2, I strongly suggest you pick up Century of Warfare which is the latest version of the game and covers everything from 1900 onwards.

 

As far as I can tell, very few scenarios are being written now for anything other than CoW.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Combat Mission map-size ranges from about 800x800 meters to about 2500x2500 meters if I am not mistaken.

Each vehicle is individual, as are for instance sharpshooters.

Squad is represented by a small group of 3 soldiers, where each digital soldier represents 3-4 real men.

 

A medium battle is about 2 companies + support on each side.

[Guest Murph]

The wargamer site is back up. Check out the scenarios.

[Sandstig]

I've got TOAW:CoW and one thing that I find a bit annoying is how a lot of the systems are lumped into one big category... many for example would disagree with the values for the M1A2 as opposed to say a Leopard 2A6... unfortunately, we're only given the option for a Leopard II (Improved) in the game. Is there anyone here who's tried an alternate listing of weapon's systems?

[RETAC21]

Well, the issue of an equipment editor has come up again and again, but there is none in sight as it is not really significant, i.e., modifiying sightly values is not going to affect the combat value of units. I noticed some odds too: a 155 mm gun is more powerful than a 203mm gun and I have heard that the M4A3E8 is more powerful than a Tiger II. I am of the opinion that it is more important to have a better naval system, but I agree that screwed values are annoying.

[PCallahan]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

Well, the issue of an equipment editor has come up again and again, but there is none in sight as it is not really significant, i.e., modifiying sightly values is not going to affect the combat value of units. I noticed some odds too: a 155 mm gun is more powerful than a 203mm gun and I have heard that the M4A3E8 is more powerful than a Tiger II. I am of the opinion that it is more important to have a better naval system, but I agree that screwed values are annoying.

 

I believe the artillery values are based on the effective number of rounds the gun can put out (ie, the sustained rate of fire) rather than the power of individual shells. I think there is the 203 has the advantage of range over the 155, so there is an advantage to it.

 

Pat Callahan

[Mats]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

I noticed some odds too: a 155 mm gun is more powerful than a 203mm gun and I have heard that the M4A3E8 is more powerful than a Tiger II.

 

Yes that is correct,the rate of fire have much more importance than anything else(not to say it is an unimportant thing)but the ability of for example the Tiger to open fire at a longer range engage and kill more targets before the Sherman can even fire is not calculated,these issues have been discussed since the game series arrived but Norm Kroger have been coldharted to any such small trivial complains that a Sherman is indeed better to have than a TigerII and simply stated that it is a STRATEGIC game and not a tactical one.

The most terrible case would be the Pkfw-3 50mmL60 gun is considerable more effective than the Pkfw-4 75mmL48 issue,in the game when fighting over a longer period in Russia the Germans in the game are replacing there effective Pkfw-3 with the lesser effective Pkfw-4 when in reality the Germans screemed for a heavier gun with longer range who could penetrate the T-34s armor but again such small trivia is not of any concern according to Norm Kroger.

If you fire 50shots from a 50mm gun which have rather small chance of penetrating say 20% each shot or a 75mm with 40shots and say 33% chance of penetrating who is better,the 50mm would kill 10targets but the 75mm would kill 13targets and also it have the advantage of opening fire at a longer range and thus could pick targets more carefully and have the ability to stay prone in a good firing position while the lower calibre tank must scoot around to even come into range for a firing solution and while mowing you can not fire either in those old tanks so actually the 75mm even may have the advantage in the number of rounds fired in a battle!!

[Amedeo Matteucci]

In the latest ACOW incarnation of TOAW most of those inconsistencies were resolved. Artillery is rated also for range and shell weight. So while a 155mm could put more stuff on target in a given interval of time nonetheless the 203mm has a greater range and is more effective against some kind of fortified target where smaller shells could prove ineffective at all.

For what concernes armoured combat now AFVs are rated with a frontal protection equivalent and guns have a max penetration rating. The problem is that if we take (as the game does) the frontal protection of a Tiger I to be 10cm of RHA and the penetration potential of an M10 TD to be 13 or so (based on HVAP rounds) not considering the shatter gap etc. we'll have US AFVs armed AFVs destroying Tigers at will while they were actually effective only at the shorter ranges. Anyway problems like PzKw-IIIs being more effective than PzKw-IV or M48s with heavier armour than T-72s are no more an issue.

 

Amedeo