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 - 5/2/2017 9:47:02 PM   
Qwixt


Posts: 901
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline
Not sure if this was brought up, in the example where one hex is advanced to 5, and the others drop the median of 2, what happens if you bombard the hex at turn 5? It's kind of like going backward in time. Does it change the combat results shown? What about adding additional units to the fight, does that change the results for the original units?

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 61
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/2/2017 11:22:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

Not sure if this was brought up, in the example where one hex is advanced to 5, and the others drop the median of 2, what happens if you bombard the hex at turn 5? It's kind of like going backward in time. Does it change the combat results shown? What about adding additional units to the fight, does that change the results for the original units?


From the article:

Combat effects of Battlefield Time Stamps: Combats planned for a hex with a Battlefield Time Stamp will start on a combat round as if the player-turn is the same as the hex’s time stamp. All units that participate in a combat that results in a Battlefield Time Stamp have their time stamps increased to the resulting time stamp of the battlefield.

So, if further combats are set up for that hex, prior to round 5, all participants have their time stamps increased to 5.

After all combats are resolved and the combat phase has been advanced, all Battlefield Time Stamps on the map that are either less than or equal to the new time stamp of the player-turn are erased.

So, when the round reaches round 5, the BTS in that hex is removed (assuming there hasn't been a later BTS incurred there).

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Qwixt)
Post #: 62
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/2/2017 11:42:22 PM   
Qwixt


Posts: 901
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

Not sure if this was brought up, in the example where one hex is advanced to 5, and the others drop the median of 2, what happens if you bombard the hex at turn 5? It's kind of like going backward in time. Does it change the combat results shown? What about adding additional units to the fight, does that change the results for the original units?


From the article:

Combat effects of Battlefield Time Stamps: Combats planned for a hex with a Battlefield Time Stamp will start on a combat round as if the player-turn is the same as the hex’s time stamp. All units that participate in a combat that results in a Battlefield Time Stamp have their time stamps increased to the resulting time stamp of the battlefield.

So, if further combats are set up for that hex, prior to round 5, all participants have their time stamps increased to 5.

After all combats are resolved and the combat phase has been advanced, all Battlefield Time Stamps on the map that are either less than or equal to the new time stamp of the player-turn are erased.

So, when the round reaches round 5, the BTS in that hex is removed (assuming there hasn't been a later BTS incurred there).


Ahhhh I see now. The joining units get time warped up to the correct turn number. Got it. Sorry, I missed that or misunderstood.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 63
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/4/2017 10:21:45 AM   
X.ray

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


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.

Well, such problem (time travel) exists as long as a unit can perform multiple actions in a turn, i.e. move, attack, move again, attack again etc. And it's not just TOAW that has it. Other turn based games have the same issue too. I believe the purpose of having battle rounds in a turn is to address that issue, i.e. to "dial" every unit's clock to the same moment after each battle. However this action of "dialing" only applies after battles but not after movement, therefore time travel caused by movement still exists. The BTS system only addresses part of it.
I was hoping there could be a system that could address the entire movement part as well. I don't think it would make it a half "WEGO", as it doesn't change the way the original game works. The only thing it does is to make sure all units, including those who participated a battle, and those who didn't, will have their clocks synced at all times. I'm sure someone would come up with a perfect solution one day
I knew WEGO or RTS would address all these issues but I just don't feel they are PBEM friendly, nor they are very practical at the operational / campaign level (unless you have many participants playing simultaneously as the military does in their professional simulations).

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 64
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/4/2017 3:49:38 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Well, such problem (time travel) exists as long as a unit can perform multiple actions in a turn, i.e. move, attack, move again, attack again etc. And it's not just TOAW that has it. Other turn based games have the same issue too. I believe the purpose of having battle rounds in a turn is to address that issue, i.e. to "dial" every unit's clock to the same moment after each battle. However this action of "dialing" only applies after battles but not after movement, therefore time travel caused by movement still exists. The BTS system only addresses part of it.
I was hoping there could be a system that could address the entire movement part as well. I don't think it would make it a half "WEGO", as it doesn't change the way the original game works. The only thing it does is to make sure all units, including those who participated a battle, and those who didn't, will have their clocks synced at all times. I'm sure someone would come up with a perfect solution one day
I knew WEGO or RTS would address all these issues but I just don't feel they are PBEM friendly, nor they are very practical at the operational / campaign level (unless you have many participants playing simultaneously as the military does in their professional simulations).


I can only think of a couple of time-machine issues with movement:

1. Recon turning up previously unknown enemy units and allowing friendly reaction to this new info by units with lower time stamps.

The problem is that plotted movement (even full-blown WEGO) has it worse: No units - even at the same or later time stamps - can react to such info. Everybody has to keep on as plotted, regardless. (This mindlessness is my main objection to WEGO).

2. Potential stacking/density effects that could occur dynamically are avoided.

Here the problem is that those are phony stacking/density effects anyway, and effecting them would actually be wrong. Those effects only really should apply at the end of the unit's movement - when units in front are stopped and the unit has to exit the road to enter the hex, or take up a slot in the front lines, etc. While everyone is still moving, those issues mostly don't apply - certainly they don't apply to the extent that they do at the destination.

So, unless there is some other effect I'm missing, I still don't see the point of plotting movement just to make movement take place simultaneously.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 65
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/4/2017 4:38:59 PM   
Nemo69


Posts: 685
Joined: 2/18/2004
From: Nowhere to be seen
Status: offline
That's excellent news. Looking very much forward to trying it.

_____________________________

Fais ce que dois

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 66
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/4/2017 5:10:29 PM   
X.ray

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I can only think of a couple of time-machine issues with movement:

1. Recon turning up previously unknown enemy units and allowing friendly reaction to this new info by units with lower time stamps.

The problem is that plotted movement (even full-blown WEGO) has it worse: No units - even at the same or later time stamps - can react to such info. Everybody has to keep on as plotted, regardless. (This mindlessness is my main objection to WEGO).

Why can't it be made that units can react to such info? For example, if a unit was moving through a path but stopped because a retreating enemy unit is now on its way due to a recent battle, then the unit should be able to choose to fight the enemy unit, or stop movement and defend current position, or retreat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

2. Potential stacking/density effects that could occur dynamically are avoided.

Here the problem is that those are phony stacking/density effects anyway, and effecting them would actually be wrong. Those effects only really should apply at the end of the unit's movement - when units in front are stopped and the unit has to exit the road to enter the hex, or take up a slot in the front lines, etc. While everyone is still moving, those issues mostly don't apply - certainly they don't apply to the extent that they do at the destination.

So, unless there is some other effect I'm missing, I still don't see the point of plotting movement just to make movement take place simultaneously.

How about the scenario that Lobster mentioned, i.e. the active player can use a moving unit to block the retreating path of enemy units even though by the time the battle happens the moving unit shouldn't have arrived (say the battle ends in round 2, but the moving unit needs to use 100% of its MP to get to the position). It seems to me only by making movement simultaneous with battles this could be addressed. Not sure if I missed anything.
There are also potential effects on ZOC as odoakr mentioned, and maybe supply as well (though I'm not sure about this point).

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 67
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/4/2017 6:18:31 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3045
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
War in the Pacific has a WEGO system with Task Forces able to react to enemy forces. I am really surprised that so few other games attempt to use a similar approach. If 10+ year old code can do this why can not more modern development do it as well?

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 68
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/4/2017 6:46:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Why can't it be made that units can react to such info? For example, if a unit was moving through a path but stopped because a retreating enemy unit is now on its way due to a recent battle, then the unit should be able to choose to fight the enemy unit, or stop movement and defend current position, or retreat.


It probably can. But look at the tiny list of options you made: That's only a micro-subset of what the PO has at its disposal. And think what a crummy player the PO is! No human gets to intervene in the units' movements. (Which is my other issue with WEGO: brainless wargaming - kind of like letting the PO control all your formations (which you can now do, by the way)).

quote:

How about the scenario that Lobster mentioned, i.e. the active player can use a moving unit to block the retreating path of enemy units even though by the time the battle happens the moving unit shouldn't have arrived (say the battle ends in round 2, but the moving unit needs to use 100% of its MP to get to the position). It seems to me only by making movement simultaneous with battles this could be addressed. Not sure if I missed anything.


That's not even an issue till combat. And then it is addressed by the BTS system.

quote:

There are also potential effects on ZOC as odoakr mentioned,


That's only an issue where the overrunning unit comes from a long way off relative to any nearby exploiting units. The generation of a BTS by that should now be enough to reduce that practice to nil.

quote:

and maybe supply as well (though I'm not sure about this point).


?? Supply isn't determined during the player-turn. It's determined between player-turns.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 69
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/5/2017 6:22:07 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 539
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
I understand how TOAW simulates the time spend in the turn, so that combats involving units that have spent some of their movement are affected.

Let's say unit A and B are attacking an adjacent hex, with the help of unit C that is moving 80% of its movement factor before joining the combat. The timestamp systems calculates the delay caused by a "late" unit joining the combat and the combat will end on impulse 8, instead of 1.

But isn't it some kind of artificial/confusing solution? It means that while moving the units in the map, some of them are in different times in the turn. Some units in the map represent they are in impulse 3 while others in 7.

I mean, wouldn't be easier if you just move & attack with all your units in 10 independent impulses? In the example it would be moving unit C during 8 impulses while A & B wait during these 8 impulses and then attacking all together. I know it may mean issuing more orders, but at any time you can see in the map exactly where all the units are at that precise time/impulse.

Seems more intuitive to me.

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 70
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/5/2017 9:38:04 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4368
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
What if a group of sibling units begin their turn at the front line and all wish to attack three enemy hexes and achieve break through. They can pour through that centre hex.

Meanwhile another sibling unit starts at the edge of the map and uses all its movement points to stack with the other units. I know the game rules and I will not use it in the combat. However it has entered a hex that has been time stamped. What affect does the unit have on the combat and the subsequent exploitation by the other sibling units?



(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 71
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/5/2017 2:10:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

I understand how TOAW simulates the time spend in the turn, so that combats involving units that have spent some of their movement are affected.

Let's say unit A and B are attacking an adjacent hex, with the help of unit C that is moving 80% of its movement factor before joining the combat. The timestamp systems calculates the delay caused by a "late" unit joining the combat and the combat will end on impulse 8, instead of 1.

But isn't it some kind of artificial/confusing solution? It means that while moving the units in the map, some of them are in different times in the turn. Some units in the map represent they are in impulse 3 while others in 7.

I mean, wouldn't be easier if you just move & attack with all your units in 10 independent impulses? In the example it would be moving unit C during 8 impulses while A & B wait during these 8 impulses and then attacking all together. I know it may mean issuing more orders, but at any time you can see in the map exactly where all the units are at that precise time/impulse.

Seems more intuitive to me.


There remains the risk of early turn ending after each combat phase. That's only intended to impact combat plans. It shouldn't impact the movement of units that aren't in combat (reinforcements moving in the rear areas or other units just maneuvering). And you still have the risk of combats that, while starting on time, last multiple rounds. Do they go into limbo?

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 72
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/5/2017 2:11:31 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

What if a group of sibling units begin their turn at the front line and all wish to attack three enemy hexes and achieve break through. They can pour through that centre hex.

Meanwhile another sibling unit starts at the edge of the map and uses all its movement points to stack with the other units. I know the game rules and I will not use it in the combat. However it has entered a hex that has been time stamped. What affect does the unit have on the combat and the subsequent exploitation by the other sibling units?


If it takes up a position to block a defender's retreat, and the unit is destroyed, instead, because of it, then it will increase the resulting BTS.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 73
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/6/2017 8:14:49 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 539
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


There remains the risk of early turn ending after each combat phase. That's only intended to impact combat plans. It shouldn't impact the movement of units that aren't in combat (reinforcements moving in the rear areas or other units just maneuvering). And you still have the risk of combats that, while starting on time, last multiple rounds. Do they go into limbo?


I don't see why. If you can deliver orders for the 10 impulses, you can move units and/or initiate/continue a combat in any impulse.

What it seems a bit confusing to me is the paradigm used. Let's say a turn represents a full day with the impulses about 2,4 hours. If unit A move 70% of its movement allowance and B is ready to attack, they both are represented at the same time in the map but at different times during the day turn (it's 7pm for A, and 00:00 for B) so they have to adjust (delay B) so that they attack together. If you deliver orders independently you could do something like this without the stress of bothering the timestamp of each unit. Every impulse you see exactly where all the units are at that impulse/moment of the day.

Impulse 1: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 2: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 3: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 4: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 5: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 6: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 7: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 8: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 9: A + B (attacking together)
Impulse 10: A +B (attacking together)

right now is something like

A (moving) B (resting)
A+B attack together: be careful because A has a timestamp representing that has already used most of the time in its impulse, thus attacking together will make the whole turn moves up to 9th impulse.

I guess to properly represent the same scenario you should:

- Move A
- Attack only with B
- Keep on attacking with B and checking by yourself when it's the time to add A to the combat so you don't miss some impulses.

Is that correct?

Is just different paradigms to represent the same time passing by during a turn...

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 74
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/6/2017 3:39:18 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

I don't see why. If you can deliver orders for the 10 impulses, you can move units and/or initiate/continue a combat in any impulse.

What it seems a bit confusing to me is the paradigm used. Let's say a turn represents a full day with the impulses about 2,4 hours. If unit A move 70% of its movement allowance and B is ready to attack, they both are represented at the same time in the map but at different times during the day turn (it's 7pm for A, and 00:00 for B) so they have to adjust (delay B) so that they attack together. If you deliver orders independently you could do something like this without the stress of bothering the timestamp of each unit. Every impulse you see exactly where all the units are at that impulse/moment of the day.

Impulse 1: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 2: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 3: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 4: A (moving) B (resting)
Impulse 5: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 6: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 7: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 8: A (moving) B (attacking alone)
Impulse 9: A + B (attacking together)
Impulse 10: A +B (attacking together)

right now is something like

A (moving) B (resting)
A+B attack together: be careful because A has a timestamp representing that has already used most of the time in its impulse, thus attacking together will make the whole turn moves up to 9th impulse.

I guess to properly represent the same scenario you should:

- Move A
- Attack only with B
- Keep on attacking with B and checking by yourself when it's the time to add A to the combat so you don't miss some impulses.

Is that correct?

Is just different paradigms to represent the same time passing by during a turn...


OK, I'll try again. Maybe you're not fully familiar with TOAW. At the end of each combat phase there is a check against the attacking force's Force Proficiency. If that check fails, the player-turn ends, regardless of how much of the turn has been expended. This is to model the "no plan survives contact with the enemy" thing. Note that this means that trying to slice the player-turn up into ten combat phases is not a good idea for crummy forces. Removing it would mean that every force, no matter how crummy, could carry out operations with surgical precision.

For that reason, the BTS system does not change that. So, if rear-area units (reinforcements and such) can't move their full movement allowance in round 1, there is a real chance that they never will - and that is not what that check is intended to impact.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 75
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/6/2017 7:03:08 PM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 539
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

At the end of each combat phase there is a check against the attacking force's Force Proficiency. If that check fails, the player-turn ends, regardless of how much of the turn has been expended.


I see, thanks. I kind of understand the game dynamics (I think) but I still don't understand what it is supposed to simulate that behaviour in real life combat. I mean, one silly attack won't stop the whole front.

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 76
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/6/2017 7:41:22 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

At the end of each combat phase there is a check against the attacking force's Force Proficiency. If that check fails, the player-turn ends, regardless of how much of the turn has been expended.


I see, thanks. I kind of understand the game dynamics (I think) but I still don't understand what it is supposed to simulate that behaviour in real life combat. I mean, one silly attack won't stop the whole front.


It isn't "one silly attack" causing the early turn ending - that has been addressed by the BTS system. The force proficiency check is a different issue: Remember that the enemy units are not moving as you progress through your player-turn. That's an abstraction of IGOUGO. But you are not guaranteed that you will get to exploit that situation to the hilt, especially the crummier your force is. There is a risk that, if you try for that extra combat phase (or phases), it will blow up in your face. Make your plan too complex and your force may fumble the execution of it.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 5/7/2017 2:02:16 AM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 77
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 10:10:56 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4368
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Basically across the map I have planned 3 turns in advance and I wish to make 3 major attacks spread across the map.

Your comment about a too complex plan or extra rounds frightens me!

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 78
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 2:43:56 PM   
Meyer1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Basically across the map I have planned 3 turns in advance and I wish to make 3 major attacks spread across the map.

Your comment about a too complex plan or extra rounds frightens me!

Didn´t you play Toaw III?

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 79
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 3:10:05 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Basically across the map I have planned 3 turns in advance and I wish to make 3 major attacks spread across the map.

Your comment about a too complex plan or extra rounds frightens me!


To fail the Force Proficiency check, a random check against the Force Proficiency value must fail, AND a random check against the number of rounds remaining must also fail.

So, for example, suppose your Force Proficiency is 70. Then after a combat phase ends on round 5, the odds of your turn ending are 0.3 x 0.5 = 15%. Not too much risk. After round 6, they are 0.3 x 0.6 = 18%. After round 7, they are 0.3 x 0.7 = 21%. Even after round 8 they are only 24%. But all that adds up. After all four phases, the chance of an early turn ending somewhere in there totals up to: 1 - 0.85 x 0.82 x 0.79 x 0.76 = 58%.

By making your plan less complex you can reduce those chances: Suppose you arrange your attacks so that two rounds are expended each combat phase. Then the check is only made at the end of rounds 6 and 8. Now the total chance of an early turn ending becomes: 1 - 0.82 x 0.76 = 38%. So, a less complex plan adapted near the end of the player-turn gives better odds of getting all combat rounds. Note that if you make the plan so simple that all four rounds are expended in one phase, the odds are reduced to 24% (since there is only one check at the end of the one phase).

So, that's what I meant by more/less complex: Trying to slice your player-turn up into too many combat phases. If you don't have the Force Proficiency to expect to achieve that, better to make thicker slices towards the end of the turn.

Now, if your Force Proficiency is 95, you can probably forgo such considerations. If it is 45, you may need to start such considerations even earlier in the player-turn.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 5/7/2017 4:50:34 PM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 80
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 4:08:29 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3191
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Basically across the map I have planned 3 turns in advance and I wish to make 3 major attacks spread across the map.

Your comment about a too complex plan or extra rounds frightens me!


To the casual observer it would seem you have not played TOAW.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 81
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 4:41:31 PM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 539
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Basically across the map I have planned 3 turns in advance and I wish to make 3 major attacks spread across the map.

Your comment about a too complex plan or extra rounds frightens me!


To the casual observer it would seem you have not played TOAW.


... but who wants to understand it in order to consider to play.


_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 82
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 4:55:53 PM   
X.ray

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Why can't it be made that units can react to such info? For example, if a unit was moving through a path but stopped because a retreating enemy unit is now on its way due to a recent battle, then the unit should be able to choose to fight the enemy unit, or stop movement and defend current position, or retreat.


It probably can. But look at the tiny list of options you made: That's only a micro-subset of what the PO has at its disposal. And think what a crummy player the PO is! No human gets to intervene in the units' movements. (Which is my other issue with WEGO: brainless wargaming - kind of like letting the PO control all your formations (which you can now do, by the way)).


Thanks Bob for your patience. And forgive me being a dumbass - I still couldn't understand, why "No human gets to intervene in the units' movements"? Is it because there are some considerations that make it impractical, or because the game designer wouldn't design it that way? In my simple mind the human can and should get to intervene in the units' movements when certain things happen, e.g. unexpected enemy enounter, original attack plan gets cancelled because enemy is knocked out by other units, etc. And it should not be difficult to achieve - the player turn just needs to automatically pause on the round when such things happen, as if it now pauses on the round when the median battle completes. So simply speaking the player turn will have more stopping conditions than just finishing combats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
How about the scenario that Lobster mentioned, i.e. the active player can use a moving unit to block the retreating path of enemy units even though by the time the battle happens the moving unit shouldn't have arrived (say the battle ends in round 2, but the moving unit needs to use 100% of its MP to get to the position). It seems to me only by making movement simultaneous with battles this could be addressed. Not sure if I missed anything.


That's not even an issue till combat. And then it is addressed by the BTS system.


I finally got what you meant by "it is addressed by the BTS system", as below

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

If it takes up a position to block a defender's retreat, and the unit is destroyed, instead, because of it, then it will increase the resulting BTS.


So even though the blocking unit does not participate in the combat, if its existance played a role in the final combat result, the clock would run as if it has participated in the combat, and the combat would actually start in the round after this blocking unit arrive, instead of before (when all actual attacking units arrive), correct?

Now here's the question:
If the target unit is not destroyed - i.e. the blocking unit is too weak to block the way - would the BTS be increased the same way as the case above? You didn't mention, but I would assume yes, given the blocking unit would have effectively participated in the combat in this case as well (though not successful).
Then there's the thrid possible outcome: the target unit is destroyed right away under the attack (it didn't even get the chance of trying to retreat). In this case, the blocking unit would not have to participate in the combat, then does the BTS get to increase as a result of the presence of the blocking units?
If yes, that means you should not move any units adjacent to your target attacking hexes, other than the attacking units, because the non-participating units will most likely cost you additional combat rounds (unless the movements cost fewer tactical rounds than the combat itself) due to the potential impact on the combat results caused by their presence (in fact, it should also include the presence of their ZOCs).
If not, that means the attacking units would have 100% correctly predicted the result of the combat before they decide when to launch the attack, i.e. they need to know the enemy had no chance in order to start the attack in say, round 2, instead of round 8 when the blocking unit arrives. If they predicted it wrongly (i.e. enemy not vaporizing but instead retreating), then the enemy would have fled in round 3, way before the blocking unit arrives in round 8, thus causing the time travel issue that Lobster mentioned.
To me the former makes more sense, but from what you said above it sounds like the latter is currently how the new system is designed. Just want to be clear.
Thanks again.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 83
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 6:59:04 PM   
Meyer1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Basically across the map I have planned 3 turns in advance and I wish to make 3 major attacks spread across the map.

Your comment about a too complex plan or extra rounds frightens me!


To the casual observer it would seem you have not played TOAW.


... but who wants to understand it in order to consider to play.



Well I did ask Joe 98 if he played the III version, because I remember him pretty active in the forum last couple of years. Of course if you are new to the series some concepts could be hard to understand.


(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 84
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 7:07:36 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11497
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Thanks Bob for your patience. And forgive me being a dumbass - I still couldn't understand, why "No human gets to intervene in the units' movements"? Is it because there are some considerations that make it impractical, or because the game designer wouldn't design it that way? In my simple mind the human can and should get to intervene in the units' movements when certain things happen, e.g. unexpected enemy enounter, original attack plan gets cancelled because enemy is knocked out by other units, etc. And it should not be difficult to achieve - the player turn just needs to automatically pause on the round when such things happen, as if it now pauses on the round when the median battle completes. So simply speaking the player turn will have more stopping conditions than just finishing combats.


OK, I misunderstood what you were proposing. I suppose that would be possible. I would question its practicality. You don't know when or even if such a stoppage will occur, so you have to plot out the entire turn. Then it stops almost immediately and you have to practically start all over again. This would especially seem impractical for WEGO, since each stoppage would require a new email sequence.

quote:

So even though the blocking unit does not participate in the combat, if its existance played a role in the final combat result, the clock would run as if it has participated in the combat, and the combat would actually start in the round after this blocking unit arrive, instead of before (when all actual attacking units arrive), correct?


Sort of. If the defenders couldn't retreat due to blocking units then all units, even ones not participating, affect the BTS round.

quote:

Now here's the question:
If the target unit is not destroyed - i.e. the blocking unit is too weak to block the way - would the BTS be increased the same way as the case above? You didn't mention, but I would assume yes, given the blocking unit would have effectively participated in the combat in this case as well (though not successful).


No. Only if the defender was destroyed because of blocking units. (Be aware this isn't implemented yet, so I'm sort of describing castles in the sky at the moment - but this is how I anticipate it will work).

quote:

Then there's the thrid possible outcome: the target unit is destroyed right away under the attack (it didn't even get the chance of trying to retreat). In this case, the blocking unit would not have to participate in the combat, then does the BTS get to increase as a result of the presence of the blocking units?


No.

quote:

If not, that means the attacking units would have 100% correctly predicted the result of the combat before they decide when to launch the attack, i.e. they need to know the enemy had no chance in order to start the attack in say, round 2, instead of round 8 when the blocking unit arrives. If they predicted it wrongly (i.e. enemy not vaporizing but instead retreating), then the enemy would have fled in round 3, way before the blocking unit arrives in round 8, thus causing the time travel issue that Lobster mentioned.


They know when the blocking unit will get there. They can then delay their pushing the defender clear out of the hex once it's been beaten. These are operational sized hexes - lots of room for fudging stuff like this. The bottom line is that putting late units in blocking positions now is more realistically modeled.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 85
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 8:03:15 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2643
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It probably can. But look at the tiny list of options you made: That's only a micro-subset of what the PO has at its disposal. And think what a crummy player the PO is! No human gets to intervene in the units' movements. (Which is my other issue with WEGO: brainless wargaming - kind of like letting the PO control all your formations (which you can now do, by the way)).



Properly configured, WEGO systems such as those produced by Frank Hunter do not lead to brainless play, as with historical commanders you can never be sure that your minions will carry out your orders just as you intended. Therefore, because you cannot micro-manage what happens, you get a realistic uncertainty and the need to make your strategy as idiot (AI) proof as possible, just as it was for historical commanders. I get a lot of value out of the few WEGO games available and it is a pity that it is a dying art.

This is in no way a criticism of TOAW, which is one of the best games ever and another example of how older game systems put most modern offerings to shame.

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 86
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 10:22:02 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3191
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 87
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 10:24:52 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3191
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Basically across the map I have planned 3 turns in advance and I wish to make 3 major attacks spread across the map.

Your comment about a too complex plan or extra rounds frightens me!


To the casual observer it would seem you have not played TOAW.


... but who wants to understand it in order to consider to play.



... but is scared away by concepts that are unfamiliar. Too bad there isn't a demo version for those who have never played the game.

What is needed is a good AAR. Where is Larry? If anyone can do a good AAR it's that guy.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 5/7/2017 10:38:33 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

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

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 88
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/7/2017 11:14:37 PM   
Fred98


Posts: 4368
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Its not an AAR that's required.

Rather for TAOW 111, I need a "Take mouse in hand, click here and click there" etc.

For example, when looking at any screen, how can I tell who's turn it is?

.



(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 89
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 12:00:51 AM   
Meyer1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Its not an AAR that's required.

Rather for TAOW 111, I need a "Take mouse in hand, click here and click there" etc.

For example, when looking at any screen, how can I tell who's turn it is?

.






Never had a problem with that, but looking at the screenshots i guess this is solved for IV

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 90
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

0.248