TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.

[ncc1701e]

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

[Meyer1]

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

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

[Lobster]

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.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

[fastfrank]

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/

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

[Poltava]

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.)

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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.[&o]

[rocketman71]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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.[&o]

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.

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: rocketboy

ORIGINAL: X.ray

ORIGINAL: Lobster




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.[&o]

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.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

A true WEGO system will be difficult to PBEM.

Combat Mission

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

[stolypin]

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

[Lobster]

They can and have co existed in v.3