TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS

[Lobster]

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.

[juntoalmar]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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.

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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[:'(]

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.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Rasputitsa]

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. [:)]

[Lobster]

Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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.

[Fred98]

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?

.

[Meyer1]

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 [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.

Agreed and I would like to see an Operational/Strategic game working on a similar system. The Eastern Front for example, with a realistic command system, without having to individually move hundreds of counters. This is not brainless idleness, it's just that historically no commander ever got to individually place each unit and sub-unit and claim brilliant strategy, just because you get to choose where every unit goes.

However, TOAW goes a long way to imposing realistic real world timelines on unit action and movement, which is a big improvement on most other games and I am very grateful that this game is developing further.

[r6kunz]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa



However, TOAW goes a long way to imposing realistic real world timelines on unit action and movement, which is a big improvement on most other games and I am very grateful that this game is developing further.

Well put, Mud Man.

I think this thread has drifted a bit. While it is interesting to discuss the relative merits of various simulation systems, I think those who have played Operational Art of War III will find the new graphic display in IV much more helpful in planning battles. Bob, can you do a screen shot of this? I has greatly improved my game play.
And those that are not familiar with TOAW III will probably find this all a bit confusing, despite Bob Cross' excellent tutorial. Just be patient.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.

Agreed and I would like to see an Operational/Strategic game working on a similar system. The Eastern Front for example, with a realistic command system, without having to individually move hundreds of counters.

TOAW IV allows you to hand over control of as many of your formations to the PO as you like - you just set the locations of their objectives. That would be something similar, though not WEGO. Not my cup-of-tea, though.

This is not brainless idleness, it's just that historically no commander ever got to individually place each unit and sub-unit and claim brilliant strategy, just because you get to choose where every unit goes.

For normal wargaming (like in TOAW), you're not functioning as just the supreme commander. You're functioning as all the sub-commanders, too. A perfectly legitimate paradigm.

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

Correct. This will not work for a real WEGO game, but TOAW is not a WEGO game and this all happens in one player's turn, so administravely it should not really be a big trouble (you have only 10 rounds in total in a turn so max 10 stops, right? [:D]). Also it shouldn't be stopping imediately after you hit the button because there should be only two things causing the stop: a. As a result of completed combats, which would lead to stops anyway under the current design; and b. Unexpected encounters due to fog of war or retreated enemy units as a result of combats, i.e. Moving units bump into enemies which they didn't see at the time of receiving movement orders. b is the only thing new.
And I don't think the player has to start all over again when it stops. First of all, the mechnism can be designed in the way that all pre-plotted orders (both movements and combats) will continue to be executed other than those are affected by the above, e.g. only units completed combats or encountered unexpected enemies can change their orders. However, even the game is not designed with such restrictions, players most likely won't reissue orders to the non-affected units anyway, or if he doesn't mind having the trouble then that's his own thing -- as long as the pre-plotted orders can remain on the map and continue to be executed after each stoppage.

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: X.ray

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).

This doesn't make sense to me then: If the blocking units presented but enemy units were not destroyed after the combat, there should be two possible outcome: a. The enemy units don't have the strength to breakout from where the blocking units are, so it stayed at current position; or b. The enemy units knocked the blocking units away (or even destroyed them) and sucessfully retreated out of the target hex.

Let's say the battle happened in round 2 and blocking units arrived in round 8. So the BTS for the target hex remains at round 2 after this battle, based on what you said above, but the enemy units already interacted with something in the future? And what would be the BTS value for the hex where the enemy retreat to, and the hex where the blocking units retreat to?

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.

Agreed and I would like to see an Operational/Strategic game working on a similar system. The Eastern Front for example, with a realistic command system, without having to individually move hundreds of counters.

TOAW IV allows you to hand over control of as many of your formations to the PO as you like - you just set the locations of their objectives. That would be something similar, though not WEGO. Not my cup-of-tea, though.

This is not brainless idleness, it's just that historically no commander ever got to individually place each unit and sub-unit and claim brilliant strategy, just because you get to choose where every unit goes.

For normal wargaming (like in TOAW), you're not functioning as just the supreme commander. You're functioning as all the sub-commanders, too. A perfectly legitimate paradigm.

Absolutely legitimate, there's no right, or wrong, I had some great games playing WEGO, but some of the most memorable games have been with TOAW making use of the PO features, which is even more remarkable considering when the first release was issued and still going strong. So many good games have died, it's good to see this one alive and kicking. [&o]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Correct. This will not work for a real WEGO game, but TOAW is not a WEGO game and this all happens in one player's turn, so administravely it should not really be a big trouble (you have only 10 rounds in total in a turn so max 10 stops, right? [:D]).

No. It can stop every time an unknown enemy unit is revealed, and that can happen each time a friendly moves one hex - which can be as much as 10x the MPs of the highest MP friendly unit. (See the new "Improved Road Motorized Movement Rate" thingy).

Also it shouldn't be stopping imediately after you hit the button because there should be only two things causing the stop: a. As a result of completed combats, which would lead to stops anyway under the current design; and b. Unexpected encounters due to fog of war or retreated enemy units as a result of combats, i.e. Moving units bump into enemies which they didn't see at the time of receiving movement orders. b is the only thing new.

Since unknown enemies can be encountered immediately, the stops can happen immediately.

And I don't think the player has to start all over again when it stops.

So long as they don't mind losing. If there is advantage to doing so, everyone will have to do so or be disadvantaged.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

This doesn't make sense to me then: If the blocking units presented but enemy units were not destroyed after the combat, there should be two possible outcome: a. The enemy units don't have the strength to breakout from where the blocking units are, so it stayed at current position; or b. The enemy units knocked the blocking units away (or even destroyed them) and sucessfully retreated out of the target hex.

There are four possibilities:

1. The defenders hold - they don't have to retreat. This is the only case where they stay in the hex.
2. The defenders are forced to retreat, but can't force any blockers out of the way. They are destroyed.
3. The defenders are forced to retreat, and force a path via an RBC. They survive in another hex.
4. The defenders are destroyed by the attackers - no retreat was incurred.

Only case 2 requires the BTS to incorporate the timestamps of non-participating blocking units.

Let's say the battle happened in round 2 and blocking units arrived in round 8. So the BTS for the target hex remains at round 2 after this battle, based on what you said above, but the enemy units already interacted with something in the future?

So, you're saying it was case 3 above? The defenders escaped by forcing non-participating friendlies to RBC? Then, yes, the battle happened in round 2, and the retreat happened in round 2. What happened between the blockers and the defenders doesn't matter. In effect, the blockers never got there, or their interaction occurred after the battle.

And what would be the BTS value for the hex where the enemy retreat to, and the hex where the blocking units retreat to?

Neither would generate a BTS.

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: X.ray

This doesn't make sense to me then: If the blocking units presented but enemy units were not destroyed after the combat, there should be two possible outcome: a. The enemy units don't have the strength to breakout from where the blocking units are, so it stayed at current position; or b. The enemy units knocked the blocking units away (or even destroyed them) and sucessfully retreated out of the target hex.

There are four possibilities:

1. The defenders hold - they don't have to retreat. This is the only case where they stay in the hex.
2. The defenders are forced to retreat, but can't force any blockers out of the way. They are destroyed.
3. The defenders are forced to retreat, and force a path via an RBC. They survive in another hex.
4. The defenders are destroyed by the attackers - no retreat was incurred.

Only case 2 requires the BTS to incorporate the timestamps of non-participating blocking units.

Let's say the battle happened in round 2 and blocking units arrived in round 8. So the BTS for the target hex remains at round 2 after this battle, based on what you said above, but the enemy units already interacted with something in the future?

So, you're saying it was case 3 above? The defenders escaped by forcing non-participating friendlies to RBC? Then, yes, the battle happened in round 2, and the retreat happened in round 2. What happened between the blockers and the defenders doesn't matter. In effect, the blockers never got there, or their interaction occurred after the battle.

Well, I can see how you rationalize this, but I have to say - this is quite quick and dirty![:D]

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Correct. This will not work for a real WEGO game, but TOAW is not a WEGO game and this all happens in one player's turn, so administravely it should not really be a big trouble (you have only 10 rounds in total in a turn so max 10 stops, right? [:D]).

No. It can stop every time an unknown enemy unit is revealed, and that can happen each time a friendly moves one hex - which can be as much as 10x the MPs of the highest MP friendly unit. (See the new "Improved Road Motorized Movement Rate" thingy).

I would only make it stop at encounter (by "encounter" I mean units actually bump into each other, in adjacent hexes, with the enemy sitting on the path that the friendly units are designated moving through, and neither side is forced to RBC), not at revealing. In the real world troops also won't stop and wait for new orders as soon as they see some enemy soldier shows up on the horizon 20kms away. And often in that case they don't even have much detail of the enemy yet.
As tactical round is the smallest unit of the clock in TOAW, the stop also can only happen at the end of the latest corresponding tactical round. For example, a unit with 100MP bumped into an enemy unit after moving 31MPs, then the clock should stop at the end of round 4, instead of round 3.1, which can't be measured. The friction of a round that is foregone for such particular units during this process, can be considered as C&C delays required to prepare for the new orders.
And the key is the clocks of all units are running simultaneously under this system, which means all units should show 40% of their MPs consumed at this moment. Of course the other units that didn't encounter an enemy would be able to fully utilize their 40% MPs before the stop. So, no time travel will ever happen[8D]

Well, I forgot you could set the # of tactical rounds in a turn to a very large # (999?). Hmmm.... if a scenario designer is crazy enough to give us 999 rounds to play with in a turn, I guess we will have to be prepared to make good use of it....[:D]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: X.ray
Also it shouldn't be stopping imediately after you hit the button because there should be only two things causing the stop: a. As a result of completed combats, which would lead to stops anyway under the current design; and b. Unexpected encounters due to fog of war or retreated enemy units as a result of combats, i.e. Moving units bump into enemies which they didn't see at the time of receiving movement orders. b is the only thing new.

Since unknown enemies can be encountered immediately, the stops can happen immediately.

Again, the turn should only be stopped at the end of a complete round, not a fraction of it.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: X.ray
And I don't think the player has to start all over again when it stops.

So long as they don't mind losing. If there is advantage to doing so, everyone will have to do so or be disadvantaged.

Either way is fine as long as it applies to both players. I do think committed battles shouldn't be allowed to change in any case, as committing a battle requires a great deal of efforts and preparation, and you can't easily cancel or change it just because your brother unit has some troubles on the hiking 200KMs away.