TIME STAMPS and overruning enemy

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2
You can move units more or less irrespective of time the limitation being the MPs however where an combat took place the extra MPs are taken out although it is not absolutely clear which happened first.

Now here are two gems.

1) Movement is time so one is equal to the other, not ir·re·spec·tive/ˌi(r)rəˈspektiv/adjective
not taking (something) into account; regardless of..

2) It most certainly is clear which happened first. Unit A attempts to move into unit B's hex forcing a RBC. Unit C now has to pay an extra movement cost because it could not have moved into the hex unit A now occupies because if it had done so BEFORE unit A then unit C would have been the one forcing the RBC. Either unit A or unit C is going to have to pay extra movement points to enter unit B's hex after the RBC. It's very clear what happened first. It's always clear. The unit prompting the BTS is always the unit that moved first. How could it be otherwise?

[gliz2]

Lobster your example show the limitation of the system. No it is not true that the unit B could not have gone through hex A before the combat was resolved as combat are rarely a static thing. Therefore your statem is incotrect.

Furthermore you and Bob are turning a blind eye on the major issue which is that each sides moves in the same timeframe but im fact separately. First one sides move than the other but is the same time. In reality this is not possible. They move simultaneously.
Therefore Time Stamp which would affect the unit A in your example would not be effective against unit D (Soviet on the right bottom corner) which could result in the unit arriving at that hex before the combat was resolve. Because it will only move in the Soviet turn. If I'm wrong please do correct me.

Another simple example: a unit arrives at the hex with last 2MPs.The following enemy turn it is attacked from adjacent hex by the Soviet unit which was present there. Well if we are talking time consistency the Soviet attack should consume all battle rounds as it could only beging in the last round and not earlier. But "logically" it only consumes one round in Soviet turn.

It's not a rant against the system. It's about a lack of logic behind some of the aspects of Time Stamps. In the end this is a hex turn-based game. It does not represent correctly a timeline.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Furthermore you and Bob are turning a blind eye on the major issue which is that each sides moves in the same timeframe but im fact separately. First one sides move than the other but is the same time. In reality this is not possible. They move simultaneously.

Again, this is where you are going wrong. What IGYG simulates is the real-life situation of one side having the initiative and then the other side reacting to the first side's action. The real-life time line is side 1 moves then side 2 moves. They do not move simultaneously - not even in real life.

This is not that much of a distortion of reality. Real life units don't operate 24/7. They have to rest, sleep, resupply, refit, plan their next moves, etc. There is plenty of slack time to allow an IGYG reality.

For those rare occasions when real-life forces actually do move simultaneously in the same area, we have things like reserve movement.

For TOAW to treat side 2's operations as occurring simultaneously with side 1's would result in endless absurdities.

[gliz2]

Bob I do get it.
Maybe I'm not communicating in a proper way.
The turns are anyhow simulations. The Time Stamps (in my opinion) are not much of improvement from ye ol' boardgames of 90s.I think that actually they do more damage than good.
I was just pointing to the absurdity of a unit attacking another unit where they couldn't have an engagement (because of time restrains). Well the turn last 3.5 days dear Sir. Actually it is absurd to argument here that there is no issue. There is a hughe one and in my opinion I'd prefer to have Time Stamps dropped for reserve movement (or counterattacks). I understand this might not be possible. I'd wish that the TS would be optional. Because in FITE2 I do not find them to do anything else apart from artificially blocking a hex during a turn.

Just to end this dispute. In Market Garden (8hrs turn) it works quite good. But I think in hughe scenarios like FITE it just doesn't fit.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Lobster your example show the limitation of the system. No it is not true that the unit B could not have gone through hex A before the combat was resolved as combat are rarely a static thing. Therefore your statem is incotrect.

Movement = time. That unit you use as an example could not have made it to the hex that A pushed B out of before the over run was resolved. Again MOVEMENT = TIME. How could you have been involved in any wargame design without knowing that simple fact?

[gliz2]

Lobster

What makes you so sure the unit wouldn't make it? Based on the attached picture? Relative time and placement makes it min 5-6 km max 10-11 km. You are restraining (for whatever reason) the action to that particular hex. If I got the rough calculations right the unit D would be able to make it as it is a 2 MPS movement (2-3 hrs maneuver)

Regardless that this is an initial turn. As I see it there is a road the units are not far from each other and there is nothing blocking the path. In many board games you have a mechanism simulating enemy response which is a counterattack sub-phase (before resolving any fight) that is implementing a real-time responsiveness (thus sometimes you are able to prevent an overrun). In some digital board games this is represented by the reserve movement or counterattack phase. Generally the rule of the thumb is the bigger the scale the more you need to take this into consideration. In smaller scenarios with short turns (e.g. 6 hrs turns) you can even skip this.
Of course you have also element of initiative which can be simulated by shock value. There are many possibilities.

Lobster, I'm displeased how easy it is for you to argument ad personam while presenting questionable evidence to support own claims.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob I do get it.

Sure doesn't sound like it. You still seem to think that TOAW should model side 1 and side 2 as moving simultaneously, with side 2 getting into a time machine and traveling back to the start of side 1's moves.

Maybe I'm not communicating in a proper way.
The turns are anyhow simulations. The Time Stamps (in my opinion) are not much of improvement from ye ol' boardgames of 90s.I think that actually they do more damage than good.

They are essential for the change from advancing the turn to the MEDIAN instead of the MAXIMUM combat length. The only area where they might cause harm is when someone allows an ant unit to be RBC'd all over the place. I call that poor play. But, perhaps it could be addressed.

I was just pointing to the absurdity of a unit attacking another unit where they couldn't have an engagement (because of time restrains).

There you go. Back to thinking the sides are moving simultaneously.

Well the turn last 3.5 days dear Sir.

So what? As I've said, there is inertia in warfare. In fact, if you make the turn interval too short, Rommel can't flank the CW in the desert. Instead, they can react so fast that they are always in front of him and he can only slug his way through them. The whole rationale for simultaneous movement is a mirage.

But, if you feel otherwise, you can always make the turn interval as short as you want. As I've said above, you can do FITE at 1-hour turn intervals if you want.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Lobster

What makes you so sure the unit wouldn't make it? Based on the attached picture? Relative time and placement makes it min 5-6 km max 10-11 km. You are restraining (for whatever reason) the action to that particular hex. If I got the rough calculations right the unit D would be able to make it as it is a 2 MPS movement (2-3 hrs maneuver)

Regardless that this is an initial turn. As I see it there is a road the units are not far from each other and there is nothing blocking the path. In many board games you have a mechanism simulating enemy response which is a counterattack sub-phase (before resolving any fight) that is implementing a real-time responsiveness (thus sometimes you are able to prevent an overrun). In some digital board games this is represented by the reserve movement or counterattack phase. Generally the rule of the thumb is the bigger the scale the more you need to take this into consideration. In smaller scenarios with short turns (e.g. 6 hrs turns) you can even skip this.
Of course you have also element of initiative which can be simulated by shock value. There are many possibilities.

Lobster, I'm displeased how easy it is for you to argument ad personam while presenting questionable evidence to support own claims.

I'm smart enough to know that if you are adjacent to something then you are closer than someone over 5km away. Do you even play this game? You pretend you have yet you have no concept of ZOC when you blather about a unit being able to get someplace over 5km away before a unit right next to it can over run. You've never even played the scenario. Even if it were simultaneous movement it still couldn't get there. I've come to realize you only post these ravings because you like to read your posts. Anyway, I'm done feeding the troll.

BTW, I forgot to mention. On 22 June, 1941 the units in question, during a game with simultaneous movement, were over run. No one was able to come to anyone's aid.

[gliz2]

Lobster
Yup 800+ hrs on both iterations of FITE equals nothing. And as you keeping it personal I will simply ignore you 'cause it's neither appropriate nor acceptable.

Bob
OK maybe we are talking about different things. For me the complexity of planning just to get some abstract limitation on something which by definition is anyhow simulated makes little sense. I do not know the engine good enough to claim there is another easy solution. Maybe there is none.
We are pushing chits here - so whether I push a chit in consecutive moves it's just down to the engine. That action A happens before B is a very artificial concept in the hex-based games as this is limitation of engine. Take for example the stacked moved. Only one chit can be "pushed" at a time, even if a full stack moves so in effect there might be a foot infantry leading the tanks which in reality would cause the delay of the armored unit. But I have not seen any effect of such movement.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

For me the complexity of planning just to get some abstract limitation on something which by definition is anyhow simulated makes little sense.

That sentence makes little sense.

Take for example the stacked moved. Only one chit can be "pushed" at a time, even if a full stack moves so in effect there might be a foot infantry leading the tanks which in reality would cause the delay of the armored unit. But I have not seen any effect of such movement.

Why would that delay the tanks? They would just go on past the foot stuff.

[gliz2]

You think it makes little sense do you?

Example.
Unit A at the begining of the turn in contact with enemy in southern hexes (1-3).The enemy puts his units in northern hexes (4-5) to complete the encirclement. However as the units moved in with their last MPs if he will used for combat he will burn all rounds. Therefore he most likely will not use them for combat hence burning just 1 round. If we are talking about the effects of combat the unit A was blocked by units which arrived long after the combat. Time Stamps do not solve this. There was a system of engagement combat which tackled this issue (but it was darn complecated).

Given the roads width there usually can be just two marching collumns. They can spread over miles but the limitation is the road. It is important who is on the road. If it is infantry then the movement will be lower (ca.3-4 km/h) if it is armored unit the speed be much quicker (ca.18-20 km/h). If both the infantry will continue at its pace but armoured will have slower pace (ca.10 km/h). Also it makes difference in terms of entering into combat.
Move a full stack and observe how it is executed (you can do it manually chit by chit). I'm able to push 40 chits through one hex of a road at the "same" time with seemingly no penalties.

PS. Do plane attacks burn rounds as well? Because I haven't seen effect of the distance from the airfield to strike point on the round (only on the effectivenes of the unit).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

You think it makes little sense do you?

I meant that it was incomprehensible.

Example.
Unit A at the begining of the turn in contact with enemy in southern hexes (1-3).The enemy puts his units in northern hexes (4-5) to complete the encirclement. However as the units moved in with their last MPs if he will used for combat he will burn all rounds. Therefore he most likely will not use them for combat hence burning just 1 round. If we are talking about the effects of combat the unit A was blocked by units which arrived long after the combat. Time Stamps do not solve this. There was a system of engagement combat which tackled this issue (but it was darn complecated).

Yes they do. Try it and see. That combat will consume the entire turn.

Given the roads width there usually can be just two marching collumns. They can spread over miles but the limitation is the road. It is important who is on the road. If it is infantry then the movement will be lower (ca.3-4 km/h) if it is armored unit the speed be much quicker (ca.18-20 km/h). If both the infantry will continue at its pace but armoured will have slower pace (ca.10 km/h). Also it makes difference in terms of entering into combat.

Nope. The infantry will just move to the side and let the tanks pass.

Move a full stack and observe how it is executed (you can do it manually chit by chit). I'm able to push 40 chits through one hex of a road at the "same" time with seemingly no penalties.

So what? The amount of traffic that can traverse a given location - assuming there are no traffic jams - is enormous. But when the stuff arrives at the front and has to stack up then the stacking penalties will accrue.

PS. Do plane attacks burn rounds as well? Because I haven't seen effect of the distance from the airfield to strike point on the round (only on the effectivenes of the unit).

Norm was ex-Air Force. He knew what he was doing. He modeled aircraft as a "ready force". They are waiting over the battlefield, ready to be called into action.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Fred98

And time stamps are not limited to the hex where the battle occurred. They apply& to every hex on the map. A total disaster!

I suspect that wasn't the original intention. Still a total disaster!

Huh?

During production of TOAW4, there was a thread discussing time stamps and how they work. "Great Idea!" was my thought.

My understanding is that it works like this: A battle occurs on a hex. The battle is a victory and there are no enemy units remaining on the hex. This battle might be deemed to have taken, say, half of the turn. In the meantime, I have units just behind the battle waiting to exploit into the gap.

Any unit that moves into that hex, immediately loses half of its remaining movement points, because the battle took half a turn. Great Idea! Or 1/4 of their movement points if the battle was deemed to have taken 1/4 of a turn.

Actually it does not work like that. I have found that it works like this:

Game 1:
First: At the back of the map move some AA units, using all their movement points, to critical road junctions.
Second: Participate in battles on the front line


Game 2:
First: Participate in battles on the front line
Second: At the back of the map move some AA units, using all their movement points, to critical road junctions. Aaaaarg! I can’t move the AA units very far because of the time stamp thing.


Modern wargamng, typically allows units to have movement ability and combat ability. All units can move-attack-move-attack until they run out of that ability.

TOAW 4 has the concept of “firstly do all the moving and only then do the combat”. I don’t think that was the intention and I suspect the time stamp feature has had unexpected results.

[gliz2]

@Fred98

Thank You mate. I think I was looking for the right words and explanation of the issue but have failed to do so. You DID IT!

@Bob
I've checked the scenario with units blocking after spending the whole MPs. It did not burn the extra rounds. Just those which were result of the units engaged via the Battle Planner.

And please explain how a squad of B17 or He111 was hoovering over the battlefield to be called in

I'm sorry but you discuss like someone blinded by the emotions.

So if we are talking about the road it does not matter who and in what order uses the hex but when we talk combat then it is all that matters [8|] and no the roads were quite limiting the advance and in many cases (e.g. Market Garden or Normandy) the roads were so narrow and sided by deep ditches that only single column could use it at the time. From what I remember an infantry division column can take anything from 3 to 8 miles while marching on the road.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Fred98

During production of TOAW4, there was a thread discussing time stamps and how they work. "Great Idea!" was my thought.

My understanding is that it works like this: A battle occurs on a hex. The battle is a victory and there are no enemy units remaining on the hex. This battle might be deemed to have taken, say, half of the turn. In the meantime, I have units just behind the battle waiting to exploit into the gap.

Any unit that moves into that hex, immediately loses half of its remaining movement points, because the battle took half a turn. Great Idea! Or 1/4 of their movement points if the battle was deemed to have taken 1/4 of a turn.

Almost correct. They lose however many points it takes to get the unit down to only half its original points remaining. But, other than that, you got it.

Actually it does not work like that. I have found that it works like this:

Game 1:
First: At the back of the map move some AA units, using all their movement points, to critical road junctions.
Second: Participate in battles on the front line


Game 2:
First: Participate in battles on the front line
Second: At the back of the map move some AA units, using all their movement points, to critical road junctions. Aaaaarg! I can’t move the AA units very far because of the time stamp thing.


Modern wargamng, typically allows units to have movement ability and combat ability. All units can move-attack-move-attack until they run out of that ability.

TOAW 4 has the concept of “firstly do all the moving and only then do the combat”. I don’t think that was the intention and I suspect the time stamp feature has had unexpected results.

Actually, that's how TOAW has worked from the first day back in '98. After all combat is resolved the turn's time stamp is adjusted according to how much time was expended in those combats. Prior to Battlefield Time Stamps, it adjusted to the longest lasting combat. Now, with Time Stamps, it adjusts to the median lasting combat. (Often times reducing the amount of time expended - a good thing).

So, you had it right in "Game 1", assuming you wanted to move the AAA as far as their allowance would allow. In "Game 2" you wanted them to wait until after the combats were complete - presumably to exploit those combats. Since they waited until the combats were complete before moving, those points spent waiting were lost. That's exactly how the real world works.

Knowing this, all you have to do, if we're talking about units that will spend the turn entirely in the rear (reinforcements and such) is to move them as far as you want BEFORE any combats are resolved. Like in "Game 1". [:)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I've checked the scenario with units blocking after spending the whole MPs. It did not burn the extra rounds. Just those which were result of the units engaged via the Battle Planner.

Then you did something wrong. I'm not going to guess what it was. More info is needed.

And please explain how a squad of B17 or He111 was hoovering over the battlefield to be called in

Same way any other plane would do it. In fact, longer ranged bomber aircraft would be even more capable than fighter-bombers. That is, in fact, precisely how B-52's were being used in Afghanistan.

So if we are talking about the road it does not matter who and in what order uses the hex but when we talk combat then it is all that matters [8|] and no the roads were quite limiting the advance and in many cases (e.g. Market Garden or Normandy) the roads were so narrow and sided by deep ditches that only single column could use it at the time. From what I remember an infantry division column can take anything from 3 to 8 miles while marching on the road.

I can't envision any case where a road is so narrow that men on foot couldn't get out of the way of vehicles yet vehicles could still use the road. But if you actually have such a special case, that would need to be handled by a house rule. There is no way that TOAW in general should be so encumbered.

[gliz2]

Mister Bob
You made my day.
Brilliant example of dauntless uninformed reply on IIWW tactics and logistics.
The CAS was limited to certain planes, rarely there were any planes "hoovering" over the battlefied and they were mostly fighters. Most certainly no heavy bombers were on-call for close air support. It takes 10 minutes to get that using Google.

And to call in a strike on the hex does not put a Time Stamp on that hex seems like inconsequence.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

The CAS was limited to certain planes, rarely there were any planes "hoovering" over the battlefied and they were mostly fighters. Most certainly no heavy bombers were on-call for close air support. It takes 10 minutes to get that using Google.

Well, yes, but it was your example, not mine.

Had B-17s been actually used for combat support they would have been fully capable of hanging around in the battle area - just as B-52s are used now.

And to call in a strike on the hex does not put a Time Stamp on that hex seems like inconsequence.

We could change the game so that players have to pre-launch their air forces well in advance of their operations. But why would anyone want to have to do that? The game abstracts it so that players don't have to muck with such minutia.


[/quote]

[gliz2]

Bob,
I do appriciate a discussion and I get your point on Time Stamps. It's an engine thing, maybe there is a better solution, maybe there is not. It's a hex game of IGYG throughout centuries. Loads of simplufication and artificial solution to artificial problems.

When I read some of the gems you produce I loose the appetite for trying to beging to understand.

A strategic bomber could not be used as CAS. Not even your case of B52 in Afghanistan (bombing from 20.000 feet) is anything near what my initial question was referring to. Just to end this futile subject. During the IIWW even the CAS required a call-in by a special liaison officer by at Division/TF Level. For a bombardment of enemy position a substantial amount of delay was involved. And it also happened in time. In FITE2 I'm able to order strategic bombardment and engage in combat in the same turn. I hope I don't have to explain what in reality would be the result of such action. So in reality a bombardment of enemy position was "consuming" time, hence should also leave TS on the hex to follow the logic behind TS.

As to the example of unit being surrounded. Well in reality the unit would be withdrawing before the encirclement have happened. In game this is not possible. Time Stamp does not solve anything here as it only mark used combat rounds. Engine can still be exploited.

As to the roads please check many pictures of hedgegrowed roads in Normandy, road to Eindhoven used for advance during Market Garden or try to imagine two double-deckers trying to pass each other on many roads in Rome. Then you should understand what I mean by limitations of roads and moving stacks.

And I didn't do anything wrong. Unit evaporated because it couldn't withdraw but the combat turns used were the once of units involved in combat. Correct me but I think the rules do not treat a blocking unit as a one that took part in engagement. If that would be so then it would create an issues for consecutive engagements with the same unit where in its path there would be units that were moved first (before combat occured) but arrived later. I know it is related to how movement and combat are simulated in FITE2. There is no way around the limitations. Once again I dispute the outcome of Time Stamps and not the idea itself. I'm just keen to know if there is any other solution like for example in John Tiller's systems.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

When I read some of the gems you produce I loose the appetite for trying to beging to understand.

Then you should have no trouble producing clinching arguments against mine.

A strategic bomber could not be used as CAS.

Again, you were the source of that example. No one mentioned B-17s till you did. Nevertheless, they were used to bomb troops multiple times in Normandy. They famously created the breach that started the Cobra operation.

Not even your case of B52 in Afghanistan (bombing from 20.000 feet) is anything near what my initial question was referring to.

The example was exactly what you were referring to - bombers hovering over the battlefield.

Just to end this futile subject. During the IIWW even the CAS required a call-in by a special liaison officer by at Division/TF Level. For a bombardment of enemy position a substantial amount of delay was involved. And it also happened in time. In FITE2 I'm able to order strategic bombardment and engage in combat in the same turn. I hope I don't have to explain what in reality would be the result of such action. So in reality a bombardment of enemy position was "consuming" time, hence should also leave TS on the hex to follow the logic behind TS.

Of course all sorts of planning has to be done before an attack kicks off. Not just for air support but for artillery support and for coordination of the ground forces. But that is being done while the ground forces are moving into position. They don't wait till everyone's ready to go then start to make plans. In TOAW terms, it all takes place under the hood before the kickoff. It would not use any time of the actual attack itself - that is only consumed by the moving units themselves.

As to the example of unit being surrounded. Well in reality the unit would be withdrawing before the encirclement have happened. In game this is not possible. Time Stamp does not solve anything here as it only mark used combat rounds. Engine can still be exploited.

Right. No units were ever surrounded in real life.

As to the roads please check many pictures of hedgegrowed roads in Normandy, road to Eindhoven used for advance during Market Garden or try to imagine two double-deckers trying to pass each other on many roads in Rome. Then you should understand what I mean by limitations of roads and moving stacks.

I cannot imagine any vehicle capable road that couldn't allow vehicles to pass foot solders. And even if there is some magical road of that nature somewhere on Earth, it would be an outlier of monumental proportions. It cannot be the general rule for TOAW.

And I didn't do anything wrong. Unit evaporated because it couldn't withdraw but the combat turns used were the once of units involved in combat. Correct me but I think the rules do not treat a blocking unit as a one that took part in engagement. If that would be so then it would create an issues for consecutive engagements with the same unit where in its path there would be units that were moved first (before combat occured) but arrived later. I know it is related to how movement and combat are simulated in FITE2. There is no way around the limitations. Once again I dispute the outcome of Time Stamps and not the idea itself. I'm just keen to know if there is any other solution like for example in John Tiller's systems.

Unless you're going to give us some screenshots of what you are doing I can't figure out what you are doing wrong. All I can do is show you an example where blocking units cause a huge delay. Check the attached shot of the Combat Chart. Note that the surrounded defenders were eliminated by round four. But the attack consumed nine rounds due to a late unit that was blocking their retreat path. The late unit was not part of the attack but was adjacent to the defenders.