Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: solops

OK, I read the whole thing through twice more, slowly and I understand (mostly) what was done. I think a lack of overall context was making the concept difficult. My first objection was "Why not just treat each combat separately and eliminate ANY need for "management of the mean number of rounds, i.e. Completely eliminate the "gamey"". Am I correct in assuming that the entire "round" system is not only for resolving combat on a location with units arriving at different times, but that it ALSO maintains that combat's relative place in time relative to all other combats in the world during that turn....which could have effects on other movements and combats happening nearby, should they happen later in the same turn?
It has been a long time since I played much. And folks new to the game, and I hope there are many, will have no clue what this is all about.

Did you read post #10? Unless you believe in time machines, nothing is gamier than what you're proposing. Units pour through a breach in the lines with their initial movement allowance. But that gap won't even exist till the end of the turn.

Think of the tactical rounds as little mini-game-turns. You don't carry MPs over from previous game-turns. Nor should you from previous tactical rounds.

A most lucid explanation of a most elegant design approach that must have preserved much of the code whilst fundamentally altering/correcting the underlying design.

A most lucid explanation of a most elegant design approach that must have preserved much of the code whilst fundamentally altering/correcting the underlying design.

Most wargames don't even try to approach this issue, which Norm Koger tried to fix with the round system. Let`s consider that are many players that are reading this forum are not familiar with TOAW III, hence their difficulty to understand this BTS.
Which seems a very good addition to the TOAW system, taking care to most of the issues. Can`t wait to try a scenario.

Also I think the interface improvements are great and the game looks are muchimproved (if only, I insist, the unit counter in the unit panel could be enlarged a lot [:)])

I wonder how the "bmp lover" legion feel about this png graphics. They didn´t like them in TOAW III

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: solops

OK, I read the whole thing through twice more, slowly and I understand (mostly) what was done. I think a lack of overall context was making the concept difficult. My first objection was "Why not just treat each combat separately and eliminate ANY need for "management of the mean number of rounds, i.e. Completely eliminate the "gamey"". Am I correct in assuming that the entire "round" system is not only for resolving combat on a location with units arriving at different times, but that it ALSO maintains that combat's relative place in time relative to all other combats in the world during that turn....which could have effects on other movements and combats happening nearby, should they happen later in the same turn?
It has been a long time since I played much. And folks new to the game, and I hope there are many, will have no clue what this is all about.

Did you read post #10? Unless you believe in time machines, nothing is gamier than what you're proposing. Units pour through a breach in the lines with their initial movement allowance. But that gap won't even exist till the end of the turn.

Think of the tactical rounds as little mini-game-turns. You don't carry MPs over from previous game-turns. Nor should you from previous tactical rounds.

You misunderstand. I agree with you. I did not understand. I think I do now and that is what my post above was about.

Timestamps idea is pretty interesting, but still can create some time machine paradoxes.
For example, in the last case the enemy unit was overrun on round 3. So on round 2 the player has a timestamp on that hex, which is ok. What is not ok, is that the adjasent hexes are not affected, because on round 2 the enemy unit is still there and can influence a ZOC, especially if the active disengagement rule is in effect. I hope you get my point [:)].

I think that the old system is more painful, but more realistic.
At the same time the introduction of Planned Combats dialog makes the old system more viable.
Do you consider implementing the possibility of choosing between two systems? One for the new players and one for more conservative ones?

And the last thing I wanted to say is counter design. When I play TOAW, the most important thing to me is the percentage of movement point left. You can have movement point values on the unit counters, but you still have to count a lot.
I dont know if it is technically possible, but it would be fun to have the percentage visible right on the unit counter.
One of the possible solutions is the counter frame that would show the percentage of movement points. The image attached shows a unit that has 75% of movement left.

Anyway, you are making a great job and I would be happy to play the new game!

ORIGINAL: odoakr


Timestamps idea is pretty interesting, but still can create some time machine paradoxes.
For example, in the last case the enemy unit was overrun on round 3. So on round 2 the player has a timestamp on that hex, which is ok. What is not ok, is that the adjasent hexes are not affected, because on round 2 the enemy unit is still there and can influence a ZOC, especially if the active disengagement rule is in effect. I hope you get my point [:)].

I think that the old system is more painful, but more realistic.
At the same time the introduction of Planned Combats dialog makes the old system more viable.
Do you consider implementing the possibility of choosing between two systems? One for the new players and one for more conservative ones?

And the last thing I wanted to say is counter design. When I play TOAW, the most important thing to me is the percentage of movement point left. You can have movement point values on the unit counters, but you still have to count a lot.
I dont know if it is technically possible, but it would be fun to have the percentage visible right on the unit counter.
One of the possible solutions is the counter frame that would show the percentage of movement points. The image attached shows a unit that has 75% of movement left.

Anyway, you are making a great job and I would be happy to play the new game!

This is a good point. The timestemp should also affect the ZOC and other effects (e.g. supply?) that the relevant units have.
The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem[:D]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

This is a good point. The timestemp should also affect the ZOC and other effects (e.g. supply?) that the relevant units have.
The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem[:D]

The game code was originally written in the late 90s. That it has been brought to this point is nothing short of a miracle. If you want to wait another five years for the entire thing to be remade by one programmer then I suppose what you propose could be done. Most of us are already way past tired of waiting.

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: X.ray

This is a good point. The timestemp should also affect the ZOC and other effects (e.g. supply?) that the relevant units have.
The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem[:D]

The game code was originally written in the late 90s. That it has been brought to this point is nothing short of a miracle. If you want to wait another five years for the entire thing to be remade by one programmer then I suppose what you propose could be done. Most of us are already way past tired of waiting.

I agree. I'm not a coding pro so I don't know, but even I can imagine to fix the ZOC time machine issue may require more than justing changing one line of code.
The medium vs. minimum point is still valid and should be easy to change if needed -- don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing a change, I was just saying I could understand but am not convinced why it's medium instead of minimum.[:D]

ORIGINAL: odoakr


Timestamps idea is pretty interesting, but still can create some time machine paradoxes.
For example, in the last case the enemy unit was overrun on round 3. So on round 2 the player has a timestamp on that hex, which is ok. What is not ok, is that the adjasent hexes are not affected, because on round 2 the enemy unit is still there and can influence a ZOC, especially if the active disengagement rule is in effect. I hope you get my point [:)].

One could argue that units don't exert ZOCs while under attack - they're too preoccupied. Note that units advancing after combat don't pay ZOC costs either - presumably the adjacent units can't fire at the advancing units because they are too closely engaged with the defenders.

And the last thing I wanted to say is counter design. When I play TOAW, the most important thing to me is the percentage of movement point left. You can have movement point values on the unit counters, but you still have to count a lot.
I dont know if it is technically possible, but it would be fun to have the percentage visible right on the unit counter.
One of the possible solutions is the counter frame that would show the percentage of movement points. The image attached shows a unit that has 75% of movement left.

See post #17 in this thread:

tm.asp?m=4268316

ORIGINAL: X.ray

The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem[:D]

We carefully considered this, but intentionally opted for setting the adjustment to the median instead of the minimum for the retention of skill that median imposes.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: odoakr


Timestamps idea is pretty interesting, but still can create some time machine paradoxes.
For example, in the last case the enemy unit was overrun on round 3. So on round 2 the player has a timestamp on that hex, which is ok. What is not ok, is that the adjasent hexes are not affected, because on round 2 the enemy unit is still there and can influence a ZOC, especially if the active disengagement rule is in effect. I hope you get my point [:)].

One could argue that units don't exert ZOCs while under attack - they're too preoccupied. Note that units advancing after combat don't pay ZOC costs either - presumably the adjacent units can't fire at the advancing units because they are too closely engaged with the defenders.

I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: X.ray

The other point about BTS - which I understand but am still not convinced - is that the turn would advance to the medium of the battle rounds, instead of minimum, under the new system. I understand this makes the game tricker and you have to plan more carefully, but since we have the BTS system, why not make it minimum so that it completely address the question about battle in Africa affecting France - by moving the rounds to medium clearly only mediumly solved this problem[:D]

We carefully considered this, but intentionally opted for setting the adjustment to the median instead of the minimum for the retention of skill that median imposes.

As I mentioned, I could understand this[:D]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.

It just gets too complicated to keep track of. Was the combat delayed by a late unit or did it last too long due to a stubborn defense? There is also the issue that the ZOC may not go away - it could still be there due to some other unit that either always had a ZOC there or was forced into doing so by retreat during the combat phase. You don't want to burden the player with BOTH a ZOC AND a BTS.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See post #17 in this thread:

Excellent news! Combined with the Planned Combats dialog it'll make the game much easier to play!

ORIGINAL: X.ray
I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to tell. I understand that taking this into account could make the game more complicated, so it's up to you in which way to develop the game.

I would only want to ask one thing:

ORIGINAL: odoakr
Do you consider implementing the possibility of choosing between two systems? One for the new players and one for more conservative ones?

Does the AI understand how to optimize with these changes?

ORIGINAL: odoakr

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See post #17 in this thread:

Excellent news! Combined with the Planned Combats dialog it'll make the game much easier to play!

ORIGINAL: X.ray
I think what he meant is that if the actual battle happens at, say, round 5, due to the late arrival of the attacking unit. So before round 5 the target hex wasn't under attack and therefore the target unit should exert ZOC as normal. However, if the median round is determined to be, say, round 2, although the target hex would have a BTS stamp and whoever enters that hex will fastforward its clock to round 5, the hexes around the target hex don't have any BTS stamp and would not have any effect on units that entering them -- while in reality the target unit should have existed by the time of round 2 and any enemy units bypassing it would have been affected by its ZOC.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to tell. I understand that taking this into account could make the game more complicated, so it's up to you in which way to develop the game.

I would only want to ask one thing:

ORIGINAL: odoakr
Do you consider implementing the possibility of choosing between two systems? One for the new players and one for more conservative ones?

I imagine switching between the two systems would be difficult. Maybe players (or designers) could be given the option to choose among minimum, median and maximum of the battle rounds, if people do think this point is so important.

Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one. [:D]

Battles continue until all units of one side have broken off,

1. What does that phrase mean? What is "broken off?"

2. How do I know how many tactical rounds it will take to play out any one battle during my turn?