Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The War Room >> RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/26/2017 2:45:20 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

This is a good point. The timestemp should also affect the ZOC and other effects (e.g. supply?) that the relevant units have.
The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem



The game code was originally written in the late 90s. That it has been brought to this point is nothing short of a miracle. If you want to wait another five years for the entire thing to be remade by one programmer then I suppose what you propose could be done. Most of us are already way past tired of waiting.
I agree. I'm not a coding pro so I don't know, but even I can imagine to fix the ZOC time machine issue may require more than justing changing one line of code.
The medium vs. minimum point is still valid and should be easy to change if needed -- don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing a change, I was just saying I could understand but am not convinced why it's medium instead of minimum.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 31
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/26/2017 3:32:05 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: odoakr


Timestamps idea is pretty interesting, but still can create some time machine paradoxes.
For example, in the last case the enemy unit was overrun on round 3. So on round 2 the player has a timestamp on that hex, which is ok. What is not ok, is that the adjasent hexes are not affected, because on round 2 the enemy unit is still there and can influence a ZOC, especially if the active disengagement rule is in effect. I hope you get my point .


One could argue that units don't exert ZOCs while under attack - they're too preoccupied. Note that units advancing after combat don't pay ZOC costs either - presumably the adjacent units can't fire at the advancing units because they are too closely engaged with the defenders.

quote:

And the last thing I wanted to say is counter design. When I play TOAW, the most important thing to me is the percentage of movement point left. You can have movement point values on the unit counters, but you still have to count a lot.
I dont know if it is technically possible, but it would be fun to have the percentage visible right on the unit counter.
One of the possible solutions is the counter frame that would show the percentage of movement points. The image attached shows a unit that has 75% of movement left.


See post #17 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4268316


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to odoakr)
Post #: 32
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/26/2017 3:36:59 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem


We carefully considered this, but intentionally opted for setting the adjustment to the median instead of the minimum for the retention of skill that median imposes.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 33
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/26/2017 4:27:47 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: odoakr


Timestamps idea is pretty interesting, but still can create some time machine paradoxes.
For example, in the last case the enemy unit was overrun on round 3. So on round 2 the player has a timestamp on that hex, which is ok. What is not ok, is that the adjasent hexes are not affected, because on round 2 the enemy unit is still there and can influence a ZOC, especially if the active disengagement rule is in effect. I hope you get my point .


One could argue that units don't exert ZOCs while under attack - they're too preoccupied. Note that units advancing after combat don't pay ZOC costs either - presumably the adjacent units can't fire at the advancing units because they are too closely engaged with the defenders.

I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem


We carefully considered this, but intentionally opted for setting the adjustment to the median instead of the minimum for the retention of skill that median imposes.

As I mentioned, I could understand this

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 34
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/26/2017 6:41:17 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.


It just gets too complicated to keep track of. Was the combat delayed by a late unit or did it last too long due to a stubborn defense? There is also the issue that the ZOC may not go away - it could still be there due to some other unit that either always had a ZOC there or was forced into doing so by retreat during the combat phase. You don't want to burden the player with BOTH a ZOC AND a BTS.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 35
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/26/2017 7:18:25 PM   
odoakr

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 4/26/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See post #17 in this thread:


Excellent news! Combined with the Planned Combats dialog it'll make the game much easier to play!

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.


Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to tell. I understand that taking this into account could make the game more complicated, so it's up to you in which way to develop the game.

I would only want to ask one thing:

quote:

ORIGINAL: odoakr
Do you consider implementing the possibility of choosing between two systems? One for the new players and one for more conservative ones?




< Message edited by odoakr -- 4/26/2017 7:24:29 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 36
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/27/2017 7:16:13 AM   
Szilard

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline
Does the AI understand how to optimize with these changes?

(in reply to odoakr)
Post #: 37
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/28/2017 12:09:44 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: odoakr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See post #17 in this thread:


Excellent news! Combined with the Planned Combats dialog it'll make the game much easier to play!

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.


Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to tell. I understand that taking this into account could make the game more complicated, so it's up to you in which way to develop the game.

I would only want to ask one thing:

quote:

ORIGINAL: odoakr
Do you consider implementing the possibility of choosing between two systems? One for the new players and one for more conservative ones?



I imagine switching between the two systems would be difficult. Maybe players (or designers) could be given the option to choose among minimum, median and maximum of the battle rounds, if people do think this point is so important.

(in reply to odoakr)
Post #: 38
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/28/2017 12:47:20 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2077
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 39
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/29/2017 5:22:53 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4335
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Battles continue until all units of one side have broken off,

1. What does that phrase mean? What is "broken off?"

2. How do I know how many tactical rounds it will take to play out any one battle during my turn?





(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 40
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/29/2017 2:43:57 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Battles continue until all units of one side have broken off,

1. What does that phrase mean? What is "broken off?"


No longer participating in the combat. For attackers, they have either been eliminated or failed a morale check. For defenders, they have either been eliminated or retreated out of the hex.

quote:

2. How do I know how many tactical rounds it will take to play out any one battle during my turn?


You don't. You can only make educated guesses.


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 41
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/29/2017 7:19:53 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 1013
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
This is very interesting. I am very impatient to try. Would it be possible to have a screenshot of the combat planner when attacking one hex? It has always given me useful intel regarding the possible rounds spent during combat.

Thanks

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 42
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 2:35:59 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
So how this BTS is impacting on game play? I guess it makes the defense stronger, and harder to surround units. Anything else?

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 43
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 3:26:06 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

So how this BTS is impacting on game play? I guess it makes the defense stronger, and harder to surround units. Anything else?

?? It has to help the offense - fewer early turn endings.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 44
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 3:27:18 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 2077
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

harder to surround units


How about more realistic when surrounding units.

The old way. You have three regiments in front of the enemy unit at the beginning of a turn. Then you take some small highly mobile ant units and move them around to the flank and rear hexes of the enemy unit. They use all their their movement points to get there. Now the unit is 'surrounded' with no hope of retreat. The three regiments that didn't move at all attack the hapless enemy unit and utterly destroy it without expending more than, oh, we'll say 2 of the ten battle rounds. So they consumed 20% of the turn.

Now think about that. If only 20% of the turn is consumed in the combat exactly where would those three surrounding ant units have been? Certainly not where they are currently at the time of combat because it took their entire movement to get there or, to put it another way, it took them the entire turn to get there. So was the enemy unit really surrounded? No it wasn't. It had an avenue of retreat.

Time and space considerations are one of the biggest problems when you attempt to mirror reality in a turn based game. BTS attempts to rectify at least some of the time traveling. You can't fix it all but at least it fixes some of it.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 45
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 4:37:07 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

harder to surround units


How about more realistic when surrounding units.

The old way. You have three regiments in front of the enemy unit at the beginning of a turn. Then you take some small highly mobile ant units and move them around to the flank and rear hexes of the enemy unit. They use all their their movement points to get there. Now the unit is 'surrounded' with no hope of retreat. The three regiments that didn't move at all attack the hapless enemy unit and utterly destroy it without expending more than, oh, we'll say 2 of the ten battle rounds. So they consumed 20% of the turn.

Now think about that. If only 20% of the turn is consumed in the combat exactly where would those three surrounding ant units have been? Certainly not where they are currently at the time of combat because it took their entire movement to get there or, to put it another way, it took them the entire turn to get there. So was the enemy unit really surrounded? No it wasn't. It had an avenue of retreat.

Time and space considerations are one of the biggest problems when you attempt to mirror reality in a turn based game. BTS attempts to rectify at least some of the time traveling. You can't fix it all but at least it fixes some of it.


I agree, in fact I came up with a simpler idea to deal with in the "comprehensive Wishlist" thread, back then in 2010 . Then Bob point me to the file where he was already working on the BTS.

Just wanted to know how much change the game play or if affects some scenario's balance.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 46
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 4:38:23 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 876
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

So how this BTS is impacting on game play? I guess it makes the defense stronger, and harder to surround units. Anything else?

?? It has to help the offense - fewer early turn endings.


Well yes, I was thinking more tactically and forgot about that. I guess would help the offense more the bigger the scenario.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 47
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 4:43:45 AM   
fastfrank

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 5/19/2016
Status: offline
I had some great modelers supporting me who began every presentation saying a model doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough to distinguish improvement. Some of these discussions don't distinguish whether the proposed change favors the side on the offense vs the defense and could result in a wash over a campaign. Respectfully suggest TOAW IV doesn't need to be perfect in every detail, hopefully balanced on offense vs defense overall and informative at the campaign level. Perfection is the enemy of good enough/

_____________________________


(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 48
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 10:11:21 AM   
larrybush


Posts: 413
Joined: 11/17/2005
From: Florida nowdays
Status: offline
I still don't see how BTS will stop ant tactics - It will stop large exploitation's due to ant tactics. But it won't stop placing an air-mobile company to block the retreat route of an armor brigade, will it? Oh well, I'll just play the new version and find out.

(in reply to fastfrank)
Post #: 49
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 4/30/2017 2:02:18 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognerd

I still don't see how BTS will stop ant tactics - It will stop large exploitation's due to ant tactics. But it won't stop placing an air-mobile company to block the retreat route of an armor brigade, will it? Oh well, I'll just play the new version and find out.


That has already been addressed in III: Retreating units can try to RBC blocking units. Only if that fails do the blockers cause their elimination.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to larrybush)
Post #: 50
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/1/2017 7:15:04 AM   
Poltava

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/3/2013
Status: offline
This is a very smart and functionable solution to a tricky problem. Well done! Really looking forward to TOAW 4. (And the graphics upgrade is excellent.)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 51
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/1/2017 4:36:59 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

harder to surround units


How about more realistic when surrounding units.

The old way. You have three regiments in front of the enemy unit at the beginning of a turn. Then you take some small highly mobile ant units and move them around to the flank and rear hexes of the enemy unit. They use all their their movement points to get there. Now the unit is 'surrounded' with no hope of retreat. The three regiments that didn't move at all attack the hapless enemy unit and utterly destroy it without expending more than, oh, we'll say 2 of the ten battle rounds. So they consumed 20% of the turn.

Now think about that. If only 20% of the turn is consumed in the combat exactly where would those three surrounding ant units have been? Certainly not where they are currently at the time of combat because it took their entire movement to get there or, to put it another way, it took them the entire turn to get there. So was the enemy unit really surrounded? No it wasn't. It had an avenue of retreat.

Time and space considerations are one of the biggest problems when you attempt to mirror reality in a turn based game. BTS attempts to rectify at least some of the time traveling. You can't fix it all but at least it fixes some of it.
This is similar to the issue that odoakr raised but to a further extent. And this is the intrinsic problem all IGOUGO turn based games have and I haven't seen a good solution yet. Maybe one could design a "battle intention" system where all units that are assigned to move or attack tasks don't actually act upon the time of placing orders, and the orders are only shown as dotted/shaded intention on the map. When the player clicks the button and executes the orders, all units act simultaneously, and stops at the time when the first battle ends (or the first encounter happens). Then the player could issue new orders, e.g. follow up battles, alternative movements, etc (maybe with certain restrictions to avoid gamey behaviors), but all units would be running their clocks simultaneously in this case, so that any time travel would not happen.
Certainly this is not something to be expected in TOAW IV, but hopefully in TOAW V, if any, or some next strategy game down the road.

< Message edited by X.ray -- 5/1/2017 4:38:01 PM >

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 52
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/1/2017 5:10:16 PM   
rocketman71

 

Posts: 284
Joined: 2/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

harder to surround units


How about more realistic when surrounding units.

The old way. You have three regiments in front of the enemy unit at the beginning of a turn. Then you take some small highly mobile ant units and move them around to the flank and rear hexes of the enemy unit. They use all their their movement points to get there. Now the unit is 'surrounded' with no hope of retreat. The three regiments that didn't move at all attack the hapless enemy unit and utterly destroy it without expending more than, oh, we'll say 2 of the ten battle rounds. So they consumed 20% of the turn.

Now think about that. If only 20% of the turn is consumed in the combat exactly where would those three surrounding ant units have been? Certainly not where they are currently at the time of combat because it took their entire movement to get there or, to put it another way, it took them the entire turn to get there. So was the enemy unit really surrounded? No it wasn't. It had an avenue of retreat.

Time and space considerations are one of the biggest problems when you attempt to mirror reality in a turn based game. BTS attempts to rectify at least some of the time traveling. You can't fix it all but at least it fixes some of it.
This is similar to the issue that odoakr raised but to a further extent. And this is the intrinsic problem all IGOUGO turn based games have and I haven't seen a good solution yet. Maybe one could design a "battle intention" system where all units that are assigned to move or attack tasks don't actually act upon the time of placing orders, and the orders are only shown as dotted/shaded intention on the map. When the player clicks the button and executes the orders, all units act simultaneously, and stops at the time when the first battle ends (or the first encounter happens). Then the player could issue new orders, e.g. follow up battles, alternative movements, etc (maybe with certain restrictions to avoid gamey behaviors), but all units would be running their clocks simultaneously in this case, so that any time travel would not happen.
Certainly this is not something to be expected in TOAW IV, but hopefully in TOAW V, if any, or some next strategy game down the road.

Flashpoint Campaigns has a system like that. You plan movement and attacks and then there is a WEGO phase that plays it all out. The side with better communications/HQ structure get to plan more often and has the initiative. I know there are several who want that engine adapted to WWII and it could very well work for both smaller and larger scale scenarios.

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 53
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/1/2017 6:00:29 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rocketboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

harder to surround units


How about more realistic when surrounding units.

The old way. You have three regiments in front of the enemy unit at the beginning of a turn. Then you take some small highly mobile ant units and move them around to the flank and rear hexes of the enemy unit. They use all their their movement points to get there. Now the unit is 'surrounded' with no hope of retreat. The three regiments that didn't move at all attack the hapless enemy unit and utterly destroy it without expending more than, oh, we'll say 2 of the ten battle rounds. So they consumed 20% of the turn.

Now think about that. If only 20% of the turn is consumed in the combat exactly where would those three surrounding ant units have been? Certainly not where they are currently at the time of combat because it took their entire movement to get there or, to put it another way, it took them the entire turn to get there. So was the enemy unit really surrounded? No it wasn't. It had an avenue of retreat.

Time and space considerations are one of the biggest problems when you attempt to mirror reality in a turn based game. BTS attempts to rectify at least some of the time traveling. You can't fix it all but at least it fixes some of it.
This is similar to the issue that odoakr raised but to a further extent. And this is the intrinsic problem all IGOUGO turn based games have and I haven't seen a good solution yet. Maybe one could design a "battle intention" system where all units that are assigned to move or attack tasks don't actually act upon the time of placing orders, and the orders are only shown as dotted/shaded intention on the map. When the player clicks the button and executes the orders, all units act simultaneously, and stops at the time when the first battle ends (or the first encounter happens). Then the player could issue new orders, e.g. follow up battles, alternative movements, etc (maybe with certain restrictions to avoid gamey behaviors), but all units would be running their clocks simultaneously in this case, so that any time travel would not happen.
Certainly this is not something to be expected in TOAW IV, but hopefully in TOAW V, if any, or some next strategy game down the road.

Flashpoint Campaigns has a system like that. You plan movement and attacks and then there is a WEGO phase that plays it all out. The side with better communications/HQ structure get to plan more often and has the initiative. I know there are several who want that engine adapted to WWII and it could very well work for both smaller and larger scale scenarios.

But what I said above was not really a "WEGO" system as the other side did not "go". It is still one side playing his turn but now all his units have to act simultaneously.
A true WEGO system will be difficult to PBEM.

(in reply to rocketman71)
Post #: 54
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/1/2017 6:29:05 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2077
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

A true WEGO system will be difficult to PBEM.


Combat Mission

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 55
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/1/2017 6:29:38 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

But what I said above was not really a "WEGO" system as the other side did not "go".


So, all the problems of WEGO but none of the benefits?? The two sides are not moving simultaneously, but the units are moving mindlessly. Sounds like the worst of both worlds.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 56
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/2/2017 12:41:14 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2077
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognerd

I still don't see how BTS will stop ant tactics - It will stop large exploitation's due to ant tactics. But it won't stop placing an air-mobile company to block the retreat route of an armor brigade, will it? Oh well, I'll just play the new version and find out.


That has already been addressed in III: Retreating units can try to RBC blocking units. Only if that fails do the blockers cause their elimination.


Even with the RBC element you have time travelling. That unit that is blocking the way may not even be there at the moment of combat in the real world. I don't see any way around some of this with a turn based game without some human imposed limitations or 'house rules'. For instance if an opposing unit's retreat path is totally blocked by friendly units then all friendly units have to be used in the combat. That type of time travelling is then taken care of for the most part.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 57
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/2/2017 1:04:26 PM   
stolypin

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 12/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Bob, that is a brilliant illustration of the improved combat system and Combat Result dialog.

I have been playing TOAW since it came out. I could not understand why the AI did better than I. Next I started playing PBEM on The Strategist ladder. A guy named Wilhelm was my mentor. He was the #1 on the ladder. (I suspect he just used me to pad his numbers). He cleaned my clock every time- we played exchange games of Wintergewitter. He even beat me when I was the Soviets!

I then discovered the "Circle of Stars". That made a big difference. But if I had, say, six stars left as I finished my first turn planning, I took forever to go through all of my units to find which one had a "late unit" attack.

Fast forward to TOAW IV: Now using the new system, the Battle Time Stamp and Combat Result dialog make this whole thing much more intuitive. Thanks much for this post.

_____________________________


Similar experience here. I bought TOAW on Day 1 (1998, I believe), enjoyed it for years, and thought I grasped it. But whenever I played PBEM (against someone who obviously understood the system better than me), I got killed every time.

(in reply to r6kunz)
Post #: 58
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/2/2017 2:54:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11056
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognerd

I still don't see how BTS will stop ant tactics - It will stop large exploitation's due to ant tactics. But it won't stop placing an air-mobile company to block the retreat route of an armor brigade, will it? Oh well, I'll just play the new version and find out.


That has already been addressed in III: Retreating units can try to RBC blocking units. Only if that fails do the blockers cause their elimination.


Even with the RBC element you have time travelling. That unit that is blocking the way may not even be there at the moment of combat in the real world. I don't see any way around some of this with a turn based game without some human imposed limitations or 'house rules'. For instance if an opposing unit's retreat path is totally blocked by friendly units then all friendly units have to be used in the combat. That type of time travelling is then taken care of for the most part.


Well, let's make up our minds what we're talking about. Is it going to be Ant Tactics or Time Traveling? Ant Tactics were addressed in III. Time traveling will be addressed with the BTS thingy.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 59
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/2/2017 7:05:27 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 2077
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
They can and have co existed in v.3

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The War Room >> RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172