TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy

[gliz2]

This is original post that got me puzzled:
when you overrun enemy units: it will leave a "time stamp" in the hex (denoted at "round X"). That means that if one of your units with 50% left of its movements point (MP) overruns an enemy unit, all your other units moving through that hex will pay up to 50 % of their MP.

This is especially important on the first turn: don't take a PZ reg and use all its MP to overrun enemy units deep into enemy territory (unless you are certain that no other of your units have to pass through any of the hexes where you performed an overrun). Overrun then move, overrun then move, overrun then move etc.

An example: take the 25th Pz Reg 41 in hex 170,314 and move it North/North West overrunning units along the way until you overrun the Russian unit "164th RR" in hex 167, 307. When that unit has been overrun try to move a German Inf Reg from an adjacent hex into 167, 307. You will now see that the Inf Reg has to pay 13 MP (50 % of its MP) to enter that hex because it has a "round 5" timestamp placed on it caused by the 25th PZ Reg overrunning the hex in its round 5 (there are 10 rounds in a turn, so because the Pz Reg had around 50 % of it MP left after it had overrun the hex, the timestamp will be "round 5").

If all this is old news to you I am sorry for the incoherent ramble

I hope you enjoy the scenario.

I do not understand the overruning and time stamps issue. Does it mean you should not be overruning enemies and kinda rushing forwards (bypassing the enemy units)?

Could someone be so kind as to shed a light on this for me

[gwgardner]

A battle takes place in an overrun hex, taking some time. Units which later enter that overrun hex are doing so ... later. Thus the additional movement point cost, to show the passage of time.

[gliz2]

Well, this I understand but is it always 50% of MPs?
It sounds a tad strange that an arbitrary value is hard coded irrelevant of important variables (e.g. overrun of routed unit with 1 SP is much different than an breakthrough overrun).

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Well, this I understand but is it always 50% of MPs?
It sounds a tad strange that an arbitrary value is hard coded irrelevant of important variables (e.g. overrun of routed unit with 1 SP is much different than an breakthrough overrun).

Read this: 10.5.2. Retreat Before Combat (RBC)

Please note there are many terms and other rules mentioned in this rule that you will most likely have to look up. Take your time reading it and searching the other stuff you'll need to know to understand this very confusing and hard to understand part of the manual.

In answer to your question, it does not cost 50% of a unit's movement cost for any or every unit. That 'if' word tells you that. It is simply an example. That means that if one of your units with 50% left of its movements point (MP)

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I do not understand the overruning and time stamps issue. Does it mean you should not be overruning enemies and kinda rushing forwards (bypassing the enemy units)?

Note that if the overrunning unit was the closest to the target, there will be no issue whatsoever. Everything coming after it will already have expended at least as many MPs as it did. The problem occurs when you bring a unit from far away to do the overrunning. Then all units that were closer will have to pay lots of extra MPs to follow up.

The other problem occurs when an insignificant RFC unit is allowed to retreat in any direction. Then, such nutty chases can leave a barrier of time stamps all over the map. It's more important than ever to corral such units so that they only have - at most - one path of retreat.

[gliz2]

@Curtis
I've played around with it. Damn it can be pain in the ass. For FITE 2 this requires extreme attention to movement and battle planning. And it's on its own very time consuming.
It kindda seems like implementation of an old boardgame overrun rule where after the overrun occured the units in-combat could use rest of their MPs while the adjacent units that did not participate in combact could only move 3 hexes. But then it was related to non-dynamic turn set.

I by no means against the system, just it can be a game killer in pratcise. Especially when the initial movement is some important as in FITE.

[Lobster]

There has to be some mechanism present that accounts for time. Otherwise you will have units moving through hexes where a combat is taking place as though nothing were there. When GG WitE came out they through time out the window completely. One unit could attack a hex and then an adjacent unit could move through that same hex without penalty. When in reality both of those units were moving/fighting at the exact same time. Movement = time. Combat = time. In areas where there is no combat it doesn't matter as much. It still matters but not to the extent as hexes where a combat is taking place.

In a huge scenario like FitE2 people attempt to come up with optimum movement and combat in the initial phases. That can be seen if you go back and see how GG WitE unfolded during the early days of it's release. It got so everyone did basically the same exact thing during the initial turns. I don't think that's as easily done in FitE2 or any large scenario made with TOAWIV. The game system throws in some randomness that can easily throw off the 'perfect' opening sequences. It really does make you use the stuff between your ears instead of just moving stuff around based on what someone else has come up with.

Good luck and stick with it. Eventually it gets easier.

[fogger]

@Curtis
I've played around with it. Damn it can be pain in the ass. For FITE 2 this requires extreme attention to movement and battle planning. And it's on its own very time consuming.
It kindda seems like implementation of an old boardgame overrun rule where after the overrun occured the units in-combat could use rest of their MPs while the adjacent units that did not participate in combact could only move 3 hexes. But then it was related to non-dynamic turn set.

I by no means against the system, just it can be a game killer in pratcise. Especially when the initial movement is some important as in FITE.

As I said in one of the posts on "Which is the most detailed Eastern front scenario" at the start of the game German turns can take a 3 to 5 hours per turn. That is because of the planning and movement. Yes it is a pain in the butt, but FITE2 is a very detail game. Remember at the start you control 3.8 million men and nearly 7,000 AFV's and approx 3,000 aircraft. It is this detail that makes the game very additive.


Soren, Kristian, Rick and Steve have down a fantastic job on FITE2.

So take your time and enjoy the game. After all you will spend the next 3-5 years playing it.

[gliz2]

I started paying close attention to this and have to say there are some things I still don't get. A defence of 4 Points was overrun in turn 1 of 8 by 120 Points and still in effect bit took the same amount of time as overrun of defence of 32 points by 136 points. Both happened in pretty same conditions: units caught in the open, encircled and crushed). To me it's a bit of a head scratcher cause I don't get it why they lasted the same. Maybe just luck like bad roll or something?

The issue is that this IGYG system so there is amount of artificial in this time stamp concept which for me is hard to knack. As an example: had a proficiency check failed as German in round 1. This resulted in me pushing (Ruskies get routed) the enemy out of the city with important bridge but with no advance. So next Russian turn I was able to bring in reinforcements from over 300 km to "retake" the defence of the bridge (and blow it up) unmolested through the empty hex left by the proficiency check failure event. Things like this can be quite irritating.

[Lobster]

Just wondering because of the number of times I see comments like yours. Do you thing everything should go exactly as you had planned? If the system were changed so that everything went exactly as you had planned would this be a better game (in your opinion)?

[gliz2]

Lobste
I had been in boardgame developing so I had that disputes time and time again.
Ergo: you are in God mode pushing chits. So at the very basics you can do something no commander was ever able to do. Perfectly execute his movement and attack orders. To me this an utterly absurd but it is a limitation of the engine. But still there are engines who deal with the issue quite decently.
Secondly: I have an issue with Time Stamps in the when it comes to clarity. The TAOW engine is old, based on a boardgames with all its artificial consequences. I accept it but I have no dillusions to it being realistic. It's not.

So to answer your question. I would like to see one day a game where my orders would be followed realistically by AI in a real time sandbox (an old game of Desert Storm comes to my mind). However even with IGYG system I'd like to see more flexibility and accuracy. The time stamps system is in my opinion a half solution. It solves issue of a chain of events within a turn kwhich simulates a real time) and at the same time it oversimplifies the issue. An example of this might be movement of units over the same hex. No matter how hard you try it there is no solution to code the realistic movement through a hex. There will be always simplification.

The balance between what I call "god mode" and realism is very delicate in any case. TAOW is one of the best implementation of boardgames engine (John Tiller's PzC games are better but because of the scale and framing).

As to the issue of chain of events (and Time Stamps) I can only try to figure the best way of combining efficiency with game limitations. In my opinion Time Stamps fail to deliver. They are an improvement but not a solution. Maybe simply there is none because of the used engine.

Just an example of situation when it's get quite confusing. A hex in FITE is of considerable size of ca 18km2. Therefore it is quite possible an encirclement would only take place within a hex but its not possible because of the boardgame engine limitation (only chits of one side can occupy hex). In reality however it was quite normal that 1-2 km from the pocket of resistance was a road which was fully used by the advancing units. In boardgame the whole hex is deemed to be occupied. Hence the Time Stamps is applied to the whole hex (and surroding hexes from which the advance was launched). This result in a strange situation where a division-sized pocket kind of occupies 40-50km2 and uses all resources (incl. time) assigned to the given hex(es).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I started paying close attention to this and have to say there are some things I still don't get. A defence of 4 Points was overrun in turn 1 of 8 by 120 Points and still in effect bit took the same amount of time as overrun of defence of 32 points by 136 points. Both happened in pretty same conditions: units caught in the open, encircled and crushed). To me it's a bit of a head scratcher cause I don't get it why they lasted the same. Maybe just luck like bad roll or something?

In both cases they tried to run, but had no way out, so ... they surrendered. That takes the same amount of time in both cases. [:D] No combat took place.

The issue is that this IGYG system so there is amount of artificial in this time stamp concept which for me is hard to knack. As an example: had a proficiency check failed as German in round 1. This resulted in me pushing (Ruskies get routed) the enemy out of the city with important bridge but with no advance. So next Russian turn I was able to bring in reinforcements from over 300 km to "retake" the defence of the bridge (and blow it up) unmolested through the empty hex left by the proficiency check failure event. Things like this can be quite irritating.

Just think of the Russians as having been moving while the Germans were doing their thing.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Ergo: you are in God mode pushing chits. So at the very basics you can do something no commander was ever able to do. Perfectly execute his movement and attack orders. To me this an utterly absurd but it is a limitation of the engine. But still there are engines who deal with the issue quite decently.

No, some formations or units may be in reorganization - they won't execute your plans at all.

Secondly: I have an issue with Time Stamps in the when it comes to clarity. The TAOW engine is old, based on a boardgames with all its artificial consequences. I accept it but I have no dillusions to it being realistic. It's not.

Yet it produces historical results. Check out some AARs. And that's what counts. You can theorize what would be the most accurate system, but results trump theory.

[Lobster]

Yeah gliz you are mostly right about the god mode. Even worse, you have the power of hind sight. You know exactly what happened and so have a better idea of what may happen. No game system can change the hind sight advantage unless the game uses completely random battles that never happened. Combat Command does some of what you ask for. Not sure if you've ever played it but you give orders and your units attempt to carry them out.

One of the things that TOAWIV does not do and should is limit ZOC based on unit size and scenario scale. In a game with a 25km hex scale a battalion sized unit has the same ZOC as a corps sized unit. It should have no ZOC at all.

I've had hundreds of board games and played many different turn based digital war games. This is by far the best of the lot. So after all these years I'm still playing it. There are many other problems with IGOUGO and Norm did a fair job of addressing most of them. Time stamps do a good job of limiting how badly time and space is broken in this type of turn based game but it's not perfect and problems still exist. Maybe some day someone will design the perfect wargame simulation that does everything everyone want. Not likely but we can hope. [;)]

[gliz2]

@Lemay
Are you serious dear Sir? [:D]

1. The fact that an unit is unavailable (be it reorganization or preprogrammed inavailibility) has nothing to do with the absolute perfect execution on orders. You want an example - take Command Ops. You order a unit to move and it might just not do it or do it differently you'd order. In TAOW the unit do exactly as ordered (provided the units available) of course to unknow result.

2. Sorry but what you wrote actually is not correct. Each side has it's own turn. You cannot have simultaneous movements of both sides. Therefore Time Stamps are applicable for the given side only. This in effect means that the time is warped. One side is spending the 3.5 days and impacting on the enemy and then magically the clock is turn back and the other side is executing during the same period ignoring the timeline. Hence the sequence of events is broken as in the case discribed with Soviets retaking the bridge the time did not add up at all.

The rounds represent timeline. You have a unit coming into the hex only in the last round. And the opponent can atack that unit on that hex in his first round. So in the time where the unit was not yet in that hex. Are we talking about time travelling or reality here? And even more strangely a unit can block opponent movements even before it was even on that hex.
This is the main problem of hex based IGYG game engines.

A brilliant example of how the Time Stamps not solving much is a bridge assault. Chain of events:
1. Germans make assault in round 3-4.
2. Germans take the bridge and move behind it substantial forces.
3. Some other combats are happening on the hex now occupied by ze Germans till end of rounds.
4. Soviet units make a counter attack in round 1.
5. Soviet take the bridge in round 1 and blow it up.

What is the game timeline for those events? Because it makes zero logic. Either ze Germans should have not been able to cross over the bridgevor the Soviets shouldn't have been able to retake it.
What would hapoen in reality was that after the crossing the cunits would clash in an engament battle few clics from the bridge. Or a counterattack would have taken place before the German force were able to exploit. But in the game the time got twisted resulted in actions that couldn't have taken place between units that couldn't engage each other at that moment because there were in different place (effectivelly in Russian turn the German advancing units were fighting earlier than they have fought for the bridge they had to take over to be attack later). This what I mean with the statement that Time Stamps are extremely confusing and a half solution.

Another example is moving units happens without Time Stamp. Many times I have moved units to the max MP (which is an abstract representation of movement in time) going throught the hex in which later in the turn a combat would happen (leaving a Time Stamp) earlier than the movement of the unit but as the battle execution can be triggered later no penalties occured to the moved unit. What Time Stamp is solving in those cases? Nada.

To get it right there would have been change of sides within a turn per rounds. So if Germans execute say rounds 1-3 then there would be a switch and Russians could use theirs round 1-3).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

@Lemay
Are you serious dear Sir? [:D]

Yep.

1. The fact that an unit is unavailable (be it reorganization or preprogrammed inavailibility) has nothing to do with the absolute perfect execution on orders.

Over the course of many turns the effect is quite similar. You can't plan in advance on any specific unit carrying out your plans. Not how a God would do it at all.

2. Sorry but what you wrote actually is not correct. Each side has it's own turn. You cannot have simultaneous movements of both sides.

But it's perfectly reasonable to think of it as simultaneous. There are no "turns" in reality. While the Germans were attacking the bridge, the Soviets were moving reserves towards it - getting there just in the nick of time.

The rounds represent timeline. You have a unit coming into the hex only in the last round. And the opponent can atack that unit on that hex in his first round. So in the time where the unit was not yet in that hex. Are we talking about time travelling or reality here? And even more strangely a unit can block opponent movements even before it was even on that hex.
This is the main problem of hex based IGYG game engines.

Of course IGYG abstracts simultaneous operations, and, except for a few mitigating features, we have to live with that. But the WEGO alternative comes with its own issues that I've repeatedly argued are far worse. And simultaneous offensives by both sides in the same area are rare things. Usually one side is on the offensive and the other is on the defensive. IGYG is just fine for that.

A brilliant example of how the Time Stamps not solving much is a bridge assault. Chain of events:
1. Germans make assault in round 3-4.
2. Germans take the bridge and move behind it substantial forces.
3. Some other combats are happening on the hex now occupied by ze Germans till end of rounds.
4. Soviet units make a counter attack in round 1.
5. Soviet take the bridge in round 1 and blow it up.

What is the game timeline for those events? Because it makes zero logic. Either ze Germans should have not been able to cross over the bridgevor the Soviets shouldn't have been able to retake it.
What would hapoen in reality was that after the crossing the cunits would clash in an engament battle few clics from the bridge. Or a counterattack would have taken place before the German force were able to exploit. But in the game the time got twisted resulted in actions that couldn't have taken place between units that couldn't engage each other at that moment because there were in different place (effectivelly in Russian turn the German advancing units were fighting earlier than they have fought for the bridge they had to take over to be attack later). This what I mean with the statement that Time Stamps are extremely confusing and a half solution.

What does any of that have to do with Time Stamps? Time Stamps can't solve the National Debt either. And what was even the issue? The Germans took the bridge and then the Soviets took it back.

Another example is moving units happens without Time Stamp. Many times I have moved units to the max MP (which is an abstract representation of movement in time) going throught the hex in which later in the turn a combat would happen (leaving a Time Stamp) earlier than the movement of the unit but as the battle execution can be triggered later no penalties occured to the moved unit. What Time Stamp is solving in those cases? Nada.

How is a combat occurring in a hex that friendly units have moved through already? The enemy unit would have to have been forced to retreat into the hex somehow - after the friendly unit passed through. And that assumes the friendly player stupidly didn't leave anything in the hex so that that retreat could even happen. Time Stamps aren't going to solve every ridiculous example. But they do solve a bunch of issues.

[Cabido]

I won't enter this discussion, its whole considered. I like the time stamp concept. I think it adds a nice time managing layer to the game. Some may think not and I'm alright with it. But the aspect below, that got mentioned, is one of the most artificial points for game that fits into multiple space scales.

One of the things that TOAWIV does not do and should is limit ZOC based on unit size and scenario scale. In a game with a 25km hex scale a battalion sized unit has the same ZOC as a corps sized unit. It should have no ZOC at all.

The single hex, single penalty value for all sizes of hexes and units doesn't scale to fit the multiple game scales. An ant unit can really delay large forces just by their presence on enemy territory (because of movement penalties that aren't scaled) and supply, which forces the chase, surround and clean cycle even when forces are very unbalanced. I'm not talking about guerrilla, but about little disorganized troops; HQs have impact on supply only for adjacent units; units can be spotted only if adjacent. I know the game doesn't calculate line of sight, but it doesn't need to. Just establish diminishing probabilities based on distance and terrain. The next terrain hex will decrease the probability using as a base the probabilities of previous hexes and so on, the same way supply is calculated. I know that in larger hex sizes it does simulate reconnaissance troops info, but for the smaller hex sizes, at least...

Scaled ZOC could be used, inclusively, to allow encircling of small units by larger units without having to subdivide and creating the six units pattern; this pattern remember me of GO, in which you must have a little piece in every position around the captured pieces.

Don't get me wrong. I love the game as it is. These are just suggestions on what I think could make it better and I have to agree with the above quote.

[gliz2]

But it's perfectly reasonable to think of it as simultaneous. There are no "turns" in reality. While the Germans were attacking the bridge, the Soviets were moving reserves towards it - getting there just in the nick of time.

Waaaat? Mister either read the post slowly and carefully again or stop this nonsense. And read the definition of "simultaneously" because the IGYG is exactly opposite of simultaneously.

Over the course of many turns the effect is quite similar. You can't plan in advance on any specific unit carrying out your plans. Not how a God would do it at all.

I don't understand what are you trying to communicate. Again Combat Ops simulates the problems of chain of command and orders following. TAOW doesn't. There is nothing to discuss about here.

What does any of that have to do with Time Stamps? Time Stamps can't solve the National Debt either. And what was even the issue? The Germans took the bridge and then the Soviets took it back.

And 2 plus 2 gives 5 because you say so How could the Germans take the bridge that was earlier blown up by the Soviets? I mean they discovered a time travelling Wundermachine? I understand the limitations of the engine and I have no issues with it. The Time Stamps are creating issues that normally would not be there. As the Germans attacked the bridge at the same moment in some games (digital and board ones) opponent can perform counter-attack to simulate the real-time reaction and avoid the situation I have described (which you refuse to understand for whatever reason).
What is the difference you ask? In the responsive system (and in reality) either of two things would happen:
1. The Germans would hold the ground and afterwards advance.
2. The Soviets would successfully counter-attacked and the Germans would not be able to advance.
What happened in TAOW was that the Germans advanced (although Soviets have blown it earlier in the turn timeline) because the TAOW does not have this responsive system.

How is a combat occurring in a hex that friendly units have moved through already? The enemy unit would have to have been forced to retreat into the hex somehow - after the friendly unit passed through. And that assumes the friendly player stupidly didn't leave anything in the hex so that that retreat could even happen. Time Stamps aren't going to solve every ridiculous example. But they do solve a bunch of issues.

What are you writing about I have no clue. Where a turn equals to 3,5 days (84 hrs) unit A moves through hex 1,2,3,4 and 5 consuming all MPs where hexes 2 and 3 consume 75% of MPs. You can calculate at what point in time the unit was crossing those hexes. In this example unit A has crossed hex 4 between 63-70 hrs. Unit B entered hex 4 at ca.20 hrs and stopped. End of turn. Enemy movement. He attacks hex 4 at ca. 30 hrs and occupies it. But as this is in his turn the Unit A already passed hex 4. In reality this would simply not be possible.

Time Stamps add a layer of complexity which does not properly address the issue of simulating timelines. Actually the more attention I pay to it the less logical it seems. I think the problem is related to implementation of two coinciding systems: Movement Points and rounds in the turn. Traditionally Movement Points were to address also the timeline issue (in an extremely simplistic way but still). The rounds within the turn add an overlay on on the MP. You use MP which are consuming rounds but only if you execute battles. So time is counted in twofold: using MPs and then using Rounds. And on top there are Time Stamps to mark timeline on hex(es). No matter how I calculate it this just doesn't add up.

Just to make one thing clear: I have played TAOW for 8 years now and I will continue to play it. But I'm not blind and I'm not liking this sitting-on-a-high-horse You present. Just because there are limitations/flaws it doesn't mean that the game sucks. And, in my opinion, Time Stamps is a questionable addition, perhaps unfit for the engine. Ideally I would see TAOW develop better use of rounds within turns like 9-16 rounds per turn, and each 3-4 rounds sides would switch. This also would not solve the issue but would be more close to reality as an opponent would have a chance to react in more time consistent manner.

[gliz2]

I totally agree Cabido. The ZOC are not even right for FITE.

The best approach I have seen in a hex game was in some old board game where the fight was conducted at the same hex or adjacent hexes depending on the hex types and unit size and type (so the chits of both sides occupied the same hex for a fight in case the defender was too weak). But it bet this would be a nightmare to implement in TAOW because of the time span.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Waaaat? Mister either read the post slowly and carefully again or stop this nonsense. And read the definition of "simultaneously" because the IGYG is exactly opposite of simultaneously.

IGYG is an abstraction. The movement of Soviet reserves to get to the bridge after it's combat is also an abstraction. In the real world, they would be moving at the same time as the German attacks were being carried out.

I don't understand what are you trying to communicate. Again Combat Ops simulates the problems of chain of command and orders following. TAOW doesn't. There is nothing to discuss about here.

Yes it does. Just as I described. It is in a different fashion than Combat Ops does it, but its overall impact is much the same. No God mode.

And 2 plus 2 gives 5 because you say so How could the Germans take the bridge that was earlier blown up by the Soviets? I mean they discovered a time travelling Wundermachine? I understand the limitations of the engine and I have no issues with it. The Time Stamps are creating issues that normally would not be there. As the Germans attacked the bridge at the same moment in some games (digital and board ones) opponent can perform counter-attack to simulate the real-time reaction and avoid the situation I have described (which you refuse to understand for whatever reason).
What is the difference you ask? In the responsive system (and in reality) either of two things would happen:
1. The Germans would hold the ground and afterwards advance.
2. The Soviets would successfully counter-attacked and the Germans would not be able to advance.
What happened in TAOW was that the Germans advanced (although Soviets have blown it earlier in the turn timeline) because the TAOW does not have this responsive system.

The Soviet rounds 1-10 come after the German rounds 1-10, not simultaneously. Again, it's an abstraction.

What are you writing about I have no clue. Where a turn equals to 3,5 days (84 hrs) unit A moves through hex 1,2,3,4 and 5 consuming all MPs where hexes 2 and 3 consume 75% of MPs. You can calculate at what point in time the unit was crossing those hexes. In this example unit A has crossed hex 4 between 63-70 hrs. Unit B entered hex 4 at ca.20 hrs and stopped. End of turn. Enemy movement. He attacks hex 4 at ca. 30 hrs and occupies it. But as this is in his turn the Unit A already passed hex 4. In reality this would simply not be possible.

Again, friendly and enemy rounds are not simultaneous. They are sequential: Side 1 first, then Side 2.

Time Stamps add a layer of complexity which does not properly address the issue of simulating timelines. Actually the more attention I pay to it the less logical it seems. I think the problem is related to implementation of two coinciding systems: Movement Points and rounds in the turn. Traditionally Movement Points were to address also the timeline issue (in an extremely simplistic way but still). The rounds within the turn add an overlay on on the MP. You use MP which are consuming rounds but only if you execute battles. So time is counted in twofold: using MPs and then using Rounds. And on top there are Time Stamps to mark timeline on hex(es). No matter how I calculate it this just doesn't add up.

Just to make one thing clear: I have played TAOW for 8 years now and I will continue to play it. But I'm not blind and I'm not liking this sitting-on-a-high-horse You present. Just because there are limitations/flaws it doesn't mean that the game sucks. And, in my opinion, Time Stamps is a questionable addition, perhaps unfit for the engine. Ideally I would see TAOW develop better use of rounds within turns like 9-16 rounds per turn, and each 3-4 rounds sides would switch. This also would not solve the issue but would be more close to reality as an opponent would have a chance to react in more time consistent manner.

Let me explain what Time Stamps are intended to do:

In older versions of TOAW, after all combats were completed the round advanced to the round of the LONGEST combat. This was a problem called "turn burn". In TOAW IV, after all combats are completed the round advances to the round of the MEDIAN combat. This can potentially greatly reduce "turn burn". But it means that some combat hexes will be out of time with the current round. Time Stamps address that, specifically. The reduction in "turn burn" is a good thing, and Time Stamps are essential for that to work. They are also used to address the possible time machine effects of overruns. That's all they are intended to do, and they do it quite well.