The Operational Art of War, Volume II

DEVELOPER : Talonsoft
PUBLISHER : Talonsoft

Ratings

Graphics: 6 - Nothing spectacular, but that's not the point.  Intelligent use of colors in the depiction of organization.

Audio: 3 - the wargamer's classic collection of explosions and rumbling tank sounds.

Interface: 5 - No big problems, but no advancement from TOAW(I) either.   What's up with that 3d box?

Gameplay: 8.5 – Plays at many levels, but always an essential wargame experience.  Possibly dry for people from non-wargame backgrounds..

Replayability: 9 – The scenarios included are okay, but the editor is fantastic and the fan base will no doubt produce scads of support.

Multiplay: 6 – Hotseat and PBEM.

Learning Curve: 8 – A lot of the function is "black boxed", but editing is definitely for the hardcore enthusiast .

Manual: 9 – Extensive and well written, with a huge section on editing.  Tons of tables and numbers.

Pros: This is a staple game for any serious strategy gamer interested in simulating modern (1956+) military combat at all but the smallest tactical and largest (strategic) scales.

Cons: It's for serious players; those seeking short "beer & pretzels" play should look elsewhere.

Comments: It really depends what you are looking for - it does the "turn-based hexes with counters" thing really well.  If you're looking to have a very editable modern battle board wargame, this is it.

CURRENT PATCH IS 1.02 (6/99) and is available here.  It is a must-have patch, fixing a number of issues.

Overall: 8.8 - "If you want a modern military wargame, you need TOAW2"

Norm Kroger is one of those figures in the wargaming world whose name upon a game almost guarantees a very high level of accuracy, a massive amount of detail, and in the end a resulting validity that makes his products a pleasure to play.  The Operational Art of War, Volume 2 is exactly what we expect from Norm, and from Talonsoft.

TOAW2 is (eponymically) the descendant of TOAW(1) and is a wargame intended to simulate all varieties of battles from 1956 to the present and near future.  It is a grognard's wargame.  It is hex-based, and uses the cardboard-counter paradigm with which we're all comfortable.  As the "operational" in the title suggests, it endeavors to represent neither the details of tactical maneuvers, nor the resource management of grand strategic level games.   It is a theater- and sub-theater-level game, well suited to simulate everything from the scale of battalions on up to brigades and divisions.

The TOAW engine deserves some comment.  Rather than being satisfied with a rationalized system of "combat factors" and "movement factors", Norm and crew have used the massive number-crunching capabilities of modern systems to allow the rather bland surface of the game to contain a staggering amount of detail.  For example, each unit does not have a set "combat value".  Rather, a unit is made up of its component parts (rifle squads, jeep squads, ATGM teams, helicopters, and what have you).  When this unit contacts an enemy unit, these parts are applied against the component parts of the enemy, and the results tabulated.  If a tank company runs over a mechanized battalion, the individual ATGM teams in the battalion actually "fire" their weapons against the attacking tanks, registering a certain number of kills, immobilizations and misses.   This all takes place invisibly, with the end result being a gradual degradation of the attacking unit, and thus its attack.

A similar system is in place to represent mobility.   At the operational scale, we're not really concerned with the maximum speeds of the trucks attached to a unit.  More important are the number of trucks (allowing more of the unit to be road transported simultaneously), the road network they are traveling over (a broad network allowing the unit to be transported en masse, rather than strung along a single path) and the skill/experience of the unit (where everyone knows what their doing - a huge reduction in Clauswitzian "friction").

The neat result of this is that to simulate a unit, you simply build it as the sum of its parts and - voila! - it HAS its combat effectiveness and movement values etc all figured out.  Kind of a "result-based" bottom-up system, rather than a "rationalized" top-down system where the designer has to grant units with numeric values based on their research and experience.  The catch is that the basic values - the utility of that additional truck, the hit and kill likelihood of that Sagger - MUST be accurate or multiplicative error will destroy the game's credibility.

It's a novel approach, and uniquely takes advantage of a computer's particular strength.  Unfortunately, novelty has its price and TOAW paid it.   This essentially was the source of much condemnation and criticism for TOAW1 (the "100 jeeps taking out 100 Tigers" example has probably gotten the most press).  But I think a lot of the criticism was unjustified.  Not all, but a lot.  Part of it has to do with a lack of cognizance on players part - justified because we've simply never been handed a system quite like this.  On the surface, it's ridiculous that a unit of 100 Jeeps (and nothing else) would cause the retreat of a unit composed of 100 Tiger tanks.  But on the operational scale, it takes a slightly different picture.  Certainly the "jeep" unit would be able to pick and choose the point of engagement, possessing much greater inherent mobility.  The Tiger was notorious for its unreliability, short range, high ground pressure, and limited ammunition supply.  I'm not saying the guys in the jeeps could do squat against the Tigers - not at all.  Certainly on a hypothetical flat plane, 100 against 100, the jeep guys are history.  But if we're talking the operational scale (say, 5km-broad hexes of mixed terrain and 1- or 2-day turns)?  I'd be hesitant to say the Tigers could even drive the jeep units from the hex, much less exert what might be called "total control" over the area.  And that's the essential argument about the results coming from the TOAW engine.  It's NOT a tactical simulator - we're talking about very "fuzzy" concepts like 'control' and 'threat' over a large area - not "who holds the second floor of that particular building".    

Of course, it’s inevitable that such a "bottom up" system would have some small flaws (or if not flaws, then at least things I quibble with), and TOAW2 is no exception. In most cases, these are with elements that the engine isn’t really designed to represent directly – aircraft or naval units for example. Going by the statistics, the MiG-29 is a better aircraft than either the F15 or the F14? I’d believe that for the early models, but not for the latest versions. I hope the anti-personnel statistic for the generic 35mm dual AAG is a typo, and the game doesn’t actually simulate that it’s 50% more effective an antipersonnel weapon than the USS New Jersey (and the ZSU-23 uses HEAT? Those are pretty tiny shaped charges….).

And of course, there are the design decisions that some players will downright object to, or at least raise questions about. There is extensive AFV differentiation, but none for infantry elements – an Iraqi light rifle squad is exactly the same as an Israeli or American or Soviet light rifle squad, given the same support levels? Another item I’d like to ask Talonsoft about (and am going to as soon as I finish writing this – I’ll happily post his answer when I get it) is how supply consumption is modeled with units armed primarily with missiles. Missile-armed units should be disproportionate burdens on their supply chain, and should suffer extraordinary penalties for being out of supply. For example, (disregarding for the moment the questionable targeting quality values between the 105mm-armed M60A3 and the wire-guided Shillelegh-armed M60A2) if the M60A2 is 50% more lethal than the M60A3, why aren’t all MBT’s today missile armed? 

I've read reviews nitpicking the weapon data (and Norm's rebuttal to same) and while his rebuttal was 99% on the mark, in this respect I'm afraid I'm not yet totally convinced.  If we’re talking about the OPERATIONAL effectiveness and lethality of weapon systems (and not simply the firing-range ‘to-kill’ figures), then  missile systems are generally too lethal given their limited shot count and supply issues. Sure, a Sagger will be a first round kill against most 1970’s era NATO tanks, but how many Saggers will an ATGM team have available? Given their time-to-target and the likelihood of firing team suppression, early ATGMs of all types are given kill values that seem too high. Looking purely at the statistics it seems that the robustness and reliability of the systems were also unconsidered.

This is where Norm's reputation and Talonsoft's regular posting of patches both come into play.  Norm Kroger's games are always, as far as I've seen since the early '80's, thoroughly researched and deeply fact-based.  As an illustration of this I would again refer to his rebuttal above - the amount of knowledge he has at his fingertips is amazing.  Do I have some questions about narrow issues in how the game models certain aspects of combat?  Sure I do - it's part of being a grognard that one is never without an opinion to wield or nit to pick.  But based on my experience with Mr. Kroger's products I expect that he has at least a credible reason for setting up things the way they are, or he'd be willing to change something if presented with credible evidence that he's in error.

Further,  Talonsoft has a generally good reputation for releasing a lot of updates to their games - as a result of listening to their customers, not that the games are any buggier than the rest of the industry's products.  TOAW did have some faults and patches were issued quickly to address them.  Therefore, when the time came to write TOAW2, they recognized firstly that there were some things that needed a deeper fix than a patch could address.  Secondly, there were AI and unit maneuverability issues that were unique to the period that TOAW2 represents.  (They're not perfect, however; I've had some particular trouble running TOAW on my laptop and I didn't get any response to my emails to TS tech support about it.) 

TOAW2 offers a number of options over those available to its superficially-similar boardgame cousins.  Units have a number of different attack alternatives, from limited probes to all-out assaults, and there's a positively bewildering array of order alternatives in terms of multi-unit, multi-hex attacks.   Units in a sense have a limited amount of action available to them before they reorganize, and hurling your units at the enemy wholesale is a good way to guarantee not only a quick end to their actions, but also that they will be unready (reorganizing) when the enemy comes back at you.  So , as a good game should, TOAW2 forces players to husband their resources and only commit to all-out effort when they have no other choice.  

One other interesting feature is the phased turn execution, something simply not possible to provide in a boardgame where the bookkeeping would be prohibitive.  The phased turns means that the turn is in effect divided into "tenths".  If a unit moves half its movement and attacks, it would be considered to be employing the attack in phase 5 or later.  If it moves only a short distance or no distance, it can attack in earlier phases.  If, after attacks are resolved, if no combat lasted beyond phase 8, then you are 'returned' to executing your turn with 20% remaining.  Cool.

Really, even with the number of different unit types, different weapon types, different platform types - the game can be rather simple to play.   This is all in credit to the design.  As noted above, there is a lot of number crunching going on beneath the surface.  But for the player who would rather NOT get tangled in those details, they don't have to - it CAN be played like Tactics II (a beginner board wargame).  For those who love the details, they're all there - just pop the hood and look inside.

As I think I've already alluded, graphically the game is rather standard, as are the sounds.  But they're not really the point of the game - this is a wargame and eye candy is not required.  The clarity of the graphics (an early complaint with TOAW1) has been entirely fixed and playing it on my 15" monitor was no problem.   The interface is functional with use of right clicking where possible.

The AI is surprisingly good.  I haven't played through all of the scenario's but the several I have played have been an adequate struggle from the AI. Again recognizing the diversity of tactics employable (going back to that airmobile issue)  this isn't too bad.  In every case I've had fun. Most importantly, the AI is flexible, able to handle a fair array of human deviousness without breaking down completely.  This is most important for the editor and goes a long way toward explaining why the fan-design community has been so happy with the TOAW products.

The editor is probably the key feature in this package, aside from the game engine itself.  Easy to use and very full featured, as Norm himself puts it in the manual - they decided it was more important to make the editor powerful than bulletproof.  This is a creditable decision I wish more companies would make.  The designer has complete control over every aspect of the scenario being designed (the only exception being I couldn't find an actual equipment characteristic editor - I can add any number of Mi-24's to a unit, but I couldn't address the actual damage figures etc for the Mi-24).  As mentioned above, the units themselves are very easy to build - as long as you have an accurate TO&E you can easily build the forces.   If you're more ambitious you can try your hand at the event editor - a very useful tool that allows you to (as only one example) define multiple goal paths and events based on activities within the scenario.  Let's say you are designing the ubiquitous "Warsaw Pact Invasion" scenario.  You could set up the event editor as follows:

And so forth.  As you can see, this would allow a tremendous number of "background" politico-social events to be triggered by the events taking place in the game.  In my playing of the Cuba '62 scenario (one of the first ones I played) I was seriously nervous; as news events followed my successes in pinching off the center of the island and building for major efforts to grab supply centers, I started to see that North Korea had mobilized and my air transport assets were being shifted to cover the growing crisis in Europe.  It started to occur to me (as perhaps it should have from the beginning - oops) that the 32-turn scenario limit was irrelevant - I needed to move my assets a little more quickly and try to conclude this thing before 'the balloon went up' so to speak.  I'm not going to tell you how it ended (I'll leave it to you to try invading Cuba yourself and discover the consequences.) but the news events and their consequences heightened the believability and impressiveness of the scenario (credit goes to Doug Bevard for designing that one).  The event editor is a powerful application that adds richness and variability to otherwise-simple set piece scenarios.

A critical factor in the game is supply - there's unit supply levels, formation supply levels, theater supply sources, replacements (available equipment for restoring missing items to a units TO&E), reinforcements (completely new units) - and as an operational commander you must pay at least casual attention to these things or you will find yourself losing a significant percentage of your combat strength due to a simple lack of supplies.  The manual acknowledges this - stating that, if air superiority is achieved, interdiction is the best possible lowest risk use for aircraft in a theater.  Many games have modeled interdiction, but I think this is one of the first to simulate the real-life effects successfully.

Finally, another well-implemented feature of the game is their use of color.  In the editor, each unit is designated with a color (as with most games).  What's novel is the fact that color has an operational impact beyond indicating which side a unit is fighting for.  Units are capable of inter-unit support at three different levels - internal support, limited support, and free support.   Which support is available is denoted by colors.   For example, a background color might indicate "nationality".  Foreground (the symbol) colors might denote army, navy and other units.  Internal support means the unit can only support units of the identical color scheme, "limited" means that the unit can offer support to units of the same background color but different foreground colors, and "free" is for the highest level support units capable of supporting all units for that side.  (Note that this is formation-dependent as well - as a scenario designer you can have the French MLRS support the German armored company by putting them in the same formation.)  This forces the player-commander to pay at least minimal attention to unit cohesion or suffer for it.

For the scenario designer, the manual is an essential tool.  In the past, I've criticized companies for putting in their in-house editors as a last-minute rush job, with little support and no instruction.  Such is not the case with Talonsoft and TOAW2.  The manual sections covering the unit editor, map editor and particularly the event engine are thoughtful and well written. Statistics and figures for every piece of equipment simulated are also offered, a not inconsiderable list.

Unfortunately, the weakest parts of the package are probably the included scenarios.  They are basically good, but there's a fairly large number of historical conflicts that are available for simulation in the last 50 years of the 20th century, that Talonsoft seems to have shunned in favor of (mostly) hypothetical scenarios, most of which involve the US in some form or another.  They're fun - don't get me wrong - but the scope could be broader.  Of course, this is rectified by the fan base, who has produced some remarkable works of military history disguised as TOAW2 scenarios. :)  I'm slavering to get into Jeff Riddolls 540-turn behemoth port of the Victory Games' boardgame of Vietnam 1965-1975 (posted 11/4/99 and apparently requires a not-yet-publicly available patch IIRC), but it's a shame TS missed a lot of opportunities to present this sort of work themselves.  

In all, whether you'll be happy with TOAW2 depends a lot on your expectations.  If you are a real-time strategy buff, or someone who doesn't have a lot of time or effort available to invest in playing a single wargame - you may find TOAW2 a bit on the dry side.  On the other hand, if you have a history with board wargames, and are looking for an interesting and successful new system that takes an innovative (yet reassuringly familiar) approach to modern land combat, TOAW2 is exactly what you've been hoping for. 

If you like to comment on this review, please post a message at the forum.
Reviewed by Steve Lieb

 want to build a substrength ATGM rifle cadre with heavy AA support and a couple T-60's? Sure you can...

 the turn summary situation report isn't so good for the USA in Cuba 1962

 My central units have linked up and pinched off the middle of the island (a wide screen view is also available).

 a key to success is heavy air assets

 Planning a multi-hex attack against a strong Cuban unit.