Why not just separate rounds?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Why not just separate rounds?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Why not just separate rounds?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Why not just separate rounds? - 12/11/2007 12:51:15 PM

Heldenkaiser

Posts: 58
Joined: 8/8/2006
Status: offline

I admire TOAW greatly for the combat rounds model, in that with each combat round it cuts the turn as well as the remaining movement points for all units by the percentage of movement used to get into combat in the first place. That does away with a lot of problems that other turn-based wargames have with unit using their full MP in exploitation of a breach made by a unit that had already used its own full MP to even get there.

However, there still remain a number of unrealistic artificialities, such as units using all their MP to surround an enemy unit, but not participate in the combat that leads to the subsequent elimination of the unit because it has no retreat path open. If that combat is executed by a unit that has not moved before, this can occur in the first combat round, even though the units blocking the retreat would not have been there before the end of the turn. How can they block the retreat if they are not even there at the time the combat occurs?

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler, I've been wondering, if the turn were simply broken down in so many rounds as it can now have combat rounds? So that movement in each round would only be about 10% of the turn? So that units could only move to where they can get in that 10% of the turn? Yes, it would increase the effort for completing each round, but would it not also increase realism a lot? Has this ever been considered? Or are there other solutions to the problem? Or is this not considered a problem? Thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: Why not just separate rounds? - 12/11/2007 4:56:59 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler, I've been wondering, if the turn were simply broken down in so many rounds as it can now have combat rounds?

You can do this. Just have shorter turns.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Heldenkaiser)

Post #: 2

RE: Why not just separate rounds? - 12/11/2007 10:37:23 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Who wants to play FITE with 1/4 day turns??!!

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 3

RE: Why not just separate rounds? - 12/12/2007 4:02:12 AM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

Uh, you could potentially have units that move adjacent to an enemy unit, using up that portion of a turn as if it were planned combat.

In other words, if a unit used all of it's movement and moved adjacent to an enemy unit, then any combats that got executed after that, would cause the turn to be ended, and would show that happenning in the planned combat dialog.

Not perfect but at least that resolves the concern. If you had each turn in 10 steps... would be a PAIN to have to move each unit ten times.

DiT

(in reply to Heldenkaiser)

Post #: 4

RE: Why not just separate rounds? - 12/12/2007 5:18:16 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser
However, there still remain a number of unrealistic artificialities, such as units using all their MP to surround an enemy unit, but not participate in the combat that leads to the subsequent elimination of the unit because it has no retreat path open. If that combat is executed by a unit that has not moved before, this can occur in the first combat round, even though the units blocking the retreat would not have been there before the end of the turn. How can they block the retreat if they are not even there at the time the combat occurs?

There are other ideas on how to deal with that that don't require a full redesign of the system. See items 7.18 and 7.19 in the wishlist.

quote:

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler, I've been wondering, if the turn were simply broken down in so many rounds as it can now have combat rounds? So that movement in each round would only be about 10% of the turn? So that units could only move to where they can get in that 10% of the turn? Yes, it would increase the effort for completing each round, but would it not also increase realism a lot? Has this ever been considered? Or are there other solutions to the problem? Or is this not considered a problem? Thanks.

You would still have early turn ending due to force proficiency check failures, and under this system their impact would be much more severe. Every unit's movement would be cut short by the failure, even units moving in the rear without plans for combat during the turn at all. Forces with very low Force Proficency would have no means to avoid those consequences as they do now (not trying to get 9 rounds per turn, for example). They would have to try to function just like very high proficiency forces, no matter how inappropriate that was. So they would tend to suffer the loss of much of their turn regularly.

(in reply to Heldenkaiser)

Post #: 5

RE: Why not just separate rounds? - 12/14/2007 12:24:02 AM

Heldenkaiser

Posts: 58
Joined: 8/8/2006
Status: offline

Thank you for your replies, Gentlemen.

(in reply to Heldenkaiser)

Post #: 6