A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp

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 >> A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/13/2017 6:13:10 PM

Zaratoughda

Posts: 714
Joined: 11/15/2008
From: NE Pa, USA
Status: offline

I should say here that I used to play TOAW3 a lot but, finally got frustrated with attacking in one place and having my units on the other side of the front losing movement points for it.

I couldn't get a response here but mentioned this over on the ATG forums and suggested that when a battle takes place, a record of that attack in that hex should be kept and only units passing over that hex should lose the MP (OP in TOAW?) for it. With that the designer, Victor Reijkersz came back saying 'what a great idea' and went with that in ATG and his Decisive Campaigns series and, I have been playing those games ever since. Haven't played TOAW3 in a dog's age.

But now there is TOAW4 and I see in he description mention of a 'Battlefield Time Stamp' system now used in combat making things easier.

So.......... my question.... has TOAW now gone to a system similar to what I have mentioned above???

Or, do units on one side of the map still lose MPs when units on the other side attack?

If the answer is the former I will probably be picking up TOAW4.

But, if the later I might just wait until.... TOAW5??

Thanks in advance for any response!

Post #: 1

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/13/2017 7:58:50 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

See this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4274372

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Zaratoughda)

Post #: 2

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 1:23:32 AM

Zaratoughda

Posts: 714
Joined: 11/15/2008
From: NE Pa, USA
Status: offline

OK, thanks for the link!

From reading it, sounds like the system has been improved but still pretty much the same.

In other words, if you try to do all your actions on one side of your battle and then go to the other side, when you do the units on the other side won't have any movement points left. This if the turn hasn't already ended.

So, you have to move all your units first (I don't have a big problem with this) and gotta be judicious as to which battles you resolve first, second, etc. This gets to be tedious and is what I don't like, and not something any military commander ever had to deal with.

I see this as still a problem but maybe, with TOAW4, it is no longer as big a deal. Yeah, the only way to know for sure would be to try it and see.

The subject of TOAW came up in the ATG forums and one poster posted a knowledgeable post that described TOAW as move and then combat with no exploitation and I guess that is what it amounts to if you don't want to manage the rounds in the turn.

To each their own I guess.

Thanks again for the response and link!

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 3

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 1:38:42 AM

Meyer1

Posts: 899
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

OK, thanks for the link!

From reading it, sounds like the system has been improved but still pretty much the same.

In other words, if you try to do all your actions on one side of your battle and then go to the other side, when you do the units on the other side won't have any movement points left. This if the turn hasn't already ended.

So, you have to move all your units first (I don't have a big problem with this) and gotta be judicious as to which battles you resolve first, second, etc. This gets to be tedious and is what I don't like, and not something any military commander ever had to deal with.

I see this as still a problem but maybe, with TOAW4, it is no longer as big a deal. Yeah, the only way to know for sure would be to try it and see.

That's correct. The game feels very similar to III*, you're not gonna think that is very different game.

*But with a much better GUI, among other things (check the features thread) but is still TOAW

< Message edited by Meyer1 -- 12/14/2017 1:39:49 AM >

(in reply to Zaratoughda)

Post #: 4

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 1:52:01 AM

bde4soldier223

Posts: 191
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

im not seeing the cross swords when i planned an attack or whenever the opponent attacks

(in reply to Meyer1)

Post #: 5

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 1:55:08 AM

Meyer1

Posts: 899
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bde4soldier223

im not seeing the cross swords when i planned an attack or whenever the opponent attacks

Click this button

Attachment (1)

(in reply to bde4soldier223)

Post #: 6

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 2:14:14 AM

bde4soldier223

Posts: 191
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

thanks

(in reply to Meyer1)

Post #: 7

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 4:16:05 AM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

So, you have to move all your units first (I don't have a big problem with this) and gotta be judicious as to which battles you resolve first, second, etc. This gets to be tedious and is what I don't like, and not something any military commander ever had to deal with.

Huh?

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Zaratoughda)

Post #: 8

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 1:36:40 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda

So, you have to move all your units first (I don't have a big problem with this) and gotta be judicious as to which battles you resolve first, second, etc. This gets to be tedious and is what I don't like, and not something any military commander ever had to deal with.

LMFAO. Really? So time doesn't advance for everyone at the same time? You can suspend time for some units and have them wait to see what happens and then rewind the clock for them? The reason movement points are lost for everyone across the board is because time moves for everyone at the same speed across the board. That's how the real world works. Army Group North and Army Group South all moved at the same time. When it's 0700 in Murmansk, Russia it's O700 in Cairo, Egypt too. When it's 0700 Central time in the U.S.A., it's 1300 in London, England but it's still the same time. How can that be? Because we all live time at the same time.

They all 'lost movement points' at the same time. They all lived through the same seconds, minutes, hours and days at the same time. These games that ignore time are so terribly flawed as to be useless except as a beer and pretzels game, no attempt made at realism. If it's too much thinking you might as well play checkers. Making every unit pass through time simultaneously as closely as possible is the correct thing to do. What is flawed is not doing that.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I�m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn�t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 9

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 11:13:56 PM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

LMFAO. Really? So time doesn't advance for everyone at the same time

You are mistaken.

Test 1: Open a scenario and withdraw all friendly troops. Ensure they use ALL their movement points. Some units will have taken a few hours to do the move and some units take lots of hours to do the move.

After all troops have moved , note that we are still on Round 1! So from this we learn that movement does not cost Rounds.

Test 2: Begin again. Start by putting in an attack somewhere. Note the Rounds will have moved forward. Now, check the units that did not attack. They all have fewer movement points than before! That does not make sense!

So, I wish to have 1st battalion use up all their movement points and advance on the left. This will take a full day.

I wish 2nd battalion to make an attack on the right. This attack will take all day.

Both actions will take all day. They live in the same time zone.

If I begin my turn with the move by 1st battalion, they can move the whole distance. If I begin my turn, with the attack by 2nd battalion, then the 1st battalion can only move a shorter distance.

This doesn�t make sense!

I understood the BTS system to work like this: Make an attack, succeed, advance. A time stamp is placed in that hex. Now move fresh troops into that hex. Their unit time stamp is moved forward.

That makes perfect sense.

Now check an AA unit that is miles away that you wanted to move to a road junction - its time stamp has been moved forward so it can�t reach the road junction! That doesn�t make sense!

The original poster said he has to think about which actions to carry out first. Otherwise it goes from �game� to �work�.

.

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 10

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/14/2017 11:42:03 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Time does advance for everyone across the board. If you attack a point and push the enemy back why should another unit have it's full movement allowance to take advantage of that successful attack? Time passed for everyone. If I did it your way I could hold units back, wait to see what happened, and have full movement left for the units that I held back to take advantage of what took place in the combats. The unit's I held back got to time warp because they evidently didn't have to spend any time waiting. Maybe they had some sort of Time Machine. So sure, if you like throwing in science fiction lets do it your way. And for good measure lets add dragons and ogres for the SS to use in the Ukraine.

Units that have nothing to do with combats can be moved their complete movement allowance because it makes no sense not to. If you don't have the foresight to move a unit before combats that's your poor planning. No commander in any war in any army in any country in any continent on this planet ever had the advantage of seeing what happened seconds or minutes or hours or day in the future. They could attempt to plan for what happens in the future but that's all. So yeah, you have to think about what might happen and plan your moves accordingly for units that might be close enough to have an effect on future combats. If you want to use up your entire movement allowance and not be able to take advantage of a combat that's your poor planning. But please, no time traveling.

I think this game does a better job of handling time considerations better than any IGOUGO war game available. And a lot of people have put a lot of time in making it that way.

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 11

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/15/2017 12:05:28 AM

Meyer1

Posts: 899
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fred98

You are mistaken.

Test 1: Open a scenario and withdraw all friendly troops. Ensure they use ALL their movement points. Some units will have taken a few hours to do the move and some units take lots of hours to do the move.

That's incorrect, units using their full movement points would see the same time passing, that is what a turn last (which depends on the scenario scale)
.

quote:

The original poster said he has to think about which actions to carry out first. Otherwise it goes from �game� to �work�.

I don't see the contradiction between thinking and gaming. Zaratoughda said that it didn't enjoy the system, and this is fine. It is a game after all. The TOAW system is an attempt to overcome some of the IGOUGO limitations. Is it perfect? No, but no wargame system is. We have to live with it, and if you enjoy it, play it, if you don't, move to something else.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 12

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/15/2017 12:31:41 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Time does advance for everyone across the board. If you attack a point and push the enemy back why should another unit have it's full movement allowance to take advantage of that?

Yes you are correct. In spite of that you didn't read what I wrote.

Whilst the attack is going in I want an AA unit not involved in the attack to move to a road junction.

1: Move the AA unit THEN put in the attack and I can do both. Hooray!

2: Put in the attack and THEN move the AA unit - the AA unit does not have enough movement points. Boooo!

.

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 13

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/18/2017 11:56:15 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fred98

Yes you are correct. In spite of that you didn't read what I wrote.

Whilst the attack is going in I want an AA unit not involved in the attack to move to a road junction.

1: Move the AA unit THEN put in the attack and I can do both. Hooray!

2: Put in the attack and THEN move the AA unit - the AA unit does not have enough movement points. Boooo!

#2 is something that happens in real life situations.

1. Leave for the movie before I eat lunch and get there before it starts.
2. Leave for the movie after I eat lunch and I am only half way there when it starts.

I always take the first choice and snack while I watch the movie.

The game could be made so that you plot moves for units that are not involved in combat or adjacent to enemy units. Then after current combats are resolved the unit moves the number of movement points along the plotted route that more closely equals the number of rounds used. Then you could have the option to either continue along the plotted route until the next combat or plot a new route. That would involve a huge amount of programming. Maybe you could suggest something to Ralph. I'm sure many, including myself (or not), would like to see something like that. It could get very tedious. Whether or not the old girl (TOAW is almost 20) could handle that is another issure.

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 14

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/23/2017 2:16:11 PM

rtropp

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/12/2011
Status: offline

I am only beginning to see light at the end of the time stamp tunnel. As a very inexperienced war gamer, without any prior experience, please allow me pose a "what if" question.
Would it be better, in one round in a turn,to make all moves possible across the board to make best use of time, or, can I make one move at a time and let it play out, and then move to the next battle in the next round?
I believe the answer is the former, move everything possible to make the best use of time. So, I have broken each round into first moving (positioning) units, then assigning artillery and attacks across the board and letting that play out in the first round. Next, with any left over time, and with move points exhausted, I will again use artillery and/or do follow up attacks to capitalize on newly opened hexes. I continue this for each round.
would be interested to know if my very basic understanding of Time Management is correct and whether my process with my turn makes sense?
Or, should I go back to solitaire?

< Message edited by rtropp -- 12/23/2017 2:17:13 PM >

_____________________________

Richard

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 15

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/24/2017 2:52:07 PM

JPJ

Posts: 124
Joined: 7/15/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtropp

As a very inexperienced war gamer, without any prior experience, please allow me pose a "what if" question.
Would it be better, in one round in a turn,to make all moves possible across the board to make best use of time, or, can I make one move at a time and let it play out, and then move to the next battle in the next round?

Welcome to wargaming!

I would say look at the whole map, try to grasp the whole situation, and do not just one thing but everything that needs be done at that moment (in that round) according to your best judgement.

Regarding movement in particular, TOAW allows both (1) moving all MP at once, and (2) manually moving stepwise in each round you get to play (as long as you can use MP). There is something to say for both ways. How you move and plan ultimately depends on your personal style. For me,

(1) Moving all MP at the beginning of the turn is often easier and how I started. A drawback for me is that when I move non-combat units first, there is a map time inconsistency -- already in the first round units that moved all MP are displayed in hexes they will reach only at the end of the turn, even in hexes they would probably not reach within that turn if the turn ends early after they were moved.

(2) Now that we have median rounds in TOAW4, often I tend to move in smaller steps, trying to move as close as possible to the next median round only. (So this involves some calculations and guesswork about the future each time; I'm often a bit off). A benefit of stepwise moves for me is that all units are more in sync with my median rounds through end or early end of turn -- that is how I like to see my map. A drawback obviously is that I must do more clicking and mental bookkeeping to track which units were moving where each time... tedious; and something the computer could do for me. Therefore,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

The game could be made so that you plot moves for units that are not involved in combat or adjacent to enemy units. Then after current combats are resolved the unit moves the number of movement points along the plotted route that more closely equals the number of rounds used. Then you could have the option to either continue along the plotted route until the next combat or plot a new route.

Personally I would very much welcome a system similar to what Lobster describes above (#14) and see that TOAW automatically synchronizes all units (not only combat units) with median round time. It seems logic to me. The mathematics to plot beforehand seem easy enough. But TOAW has a long history and whether that is desirable for all players (it could be optional) and then whether that is feasible in the TOAW codebase are very different questions indeed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtropp
Or, should I go back to solitaire?

I would not go back. Hope you stay, too!

(in reply to rtropp)

Post #: 16

RE: A Question on Battlefield Time Stamp - 12/24/2017 3:23:48 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

...should I go back to solitaire?

Please don't give up. Yes, there's a learning curve but if you have a little patience and go a step at a time and look
at it as if it were a scientific experiment that's ongoing you might feel differently about it. I've gotten literally
years of wargamming pleasure from TOAW and I'd hate for somebody to miss that opportunity. Give it one more earnest
effort and then if you feel like it's over your head then try the basic tutorial scenarios. Waterloo is a classic
for that. You're in for some good times. I'm sending helpful vibrations your way.

_____________________________

If we're all created in the image of god then why aren't we all invisible?

(in reply to JPJ)

Post #: 17