Nobody liked my multiple forum thread idea, so I want to add what I would like to see as tactical replacements for any new BaO system that eliminates turn order.

First is the pretransfer phase, which I think was a good idea but not fully implemented. The old system meant you could position units and have them available for defense but not offense, and really the only reason this was the case was because coding the UI to account for using those pretransferred units to attack with was just never done. I would like to see this ability added. In other words, if I pretranfer 100 units to Zimbabwe, I should be able to issue an attack from Zimbabwe with those 100 units. Arguments about whether those units should attack at full strength are valid, but remember in the current system they are essentially 100% defensive full strength and 0% offensive.

Some sort of positional (flanking) tactics. Absolute topography is impossible to determine algorithmically, (i.e. distance) but certain things can be determined from the raw county data. If Country A borders Country B, and Country C borders both, and you attack A from both B and C, then either B or C can be considered a flanking attack with a corresponding increase in attack abilities. Likewise if A borders B and C borders A but not B, and you attack from C and B, then either C or B should count as a rear attack with an even greater increase.

How you determine which attack is the main and which is the flank/rear could be done several ways. The easiest is simply to assign the largest attack force as the main. A more interesting way would be to make that the default, but make it possible to override by the defender (yes, defender). Each turn you could choose to orient any defensive force towards a neighboring country in order to meet an attack.

These are things that could be added regardless of what formula/system is ultimately used for determining attack resolution, but they would work best with a non-turn based BaO system.

IRoll11s wrote: Nobody liked my multiple forum thread idea, so I want to add what I would like to see as tactical replacements for any new BaO system that eliminates turn order.

Multiple threads. Absolutely! This one has been good for general discussion and getting the ball rolling, but it's become too unwieldy, not to mention confusing.  I think there should be one for each system, and possibly one down the road for comparison.

As I'm sure you know, I've already started an M-Engine Thread.  I plan to start a separate one that follows the first test game as soon as we get it off the ground.  I've got five players signed up for a standard map, and we should be taking our first turn today.

..so I want to add what I would like to see as tactical replacements for any new BaO system that eliminates turn order.

M-Engine:

Pre-transfers are 100% troops with M-Engine.. This is theoretically the fortify round from the last turn. Simple and clean.

Re: Flanking tactics.. I didn't realize that ToS could handle simultaneous attacks on one territory from two different borders (originating from the same and/or different players?) This has been one of the trickier parts of the M-Engine design to put together, but it accommodates all of the above, and even more sophisticated scenarios such as delayed arrivals to the battle field, etc.  With the M-Engine, there are many solutions, and I have proposed but one for simplicity's sake, but I'm going on the assumption that execution needs to be transparent to the player, with no need to fill in extra fields for hypothetical contingencies.  Probably should be the same idea if you all do a ToS BaO upgrade.

IRoll11s wrote: Nobody liked my multiple forum thread idea, so I want to add what I would like to see as tactical replacements for any new BaO system that eliminates turn order.

I read your multiple forum thread post, thought "great idea!", and then immediately replied to other things going on in the thread that I was also excited about.

IRoll11s wrote: 
First is the pretransfer phase, which I think was a good idea but not fully implemented. The old system meant you could position units and have them available for defense but not offense, and really the only reason this was the case was because coding the UI to account for using those pretransferred units to attack with was just never done. I would like to see this ability added. In other words, if I pretranfer 100 units to Zimbabwe, I should be able to issue an attack from Zimbabwe with those 100 units. Arguments about whether those units should attack at full strength are valid, but remember in the current system they are essentially 100% defensive full strength and 0% offensive.

Really?  I thought the idea was that troops on any given turn do one thing.  They pre-transfer, they attack, or they transfer within the attacking phase.  Having a pre-transfer followed by an attack within one turn is like blitzing, which I think has merit as an option, but the absence of this option fits well within the original BAO gameplay scheme.

I'm surprised you would say that, of course troops don't do just one thing on any given turn. You have the trivial case of a troop being able to defend multiple times against multiple attacks. You have the case where pretransferred troops can defend against an attack (yet not attack). You also have the case where an order to attack from a country that was lost but subsequently regained before the attack order will go through, effectively giving a 2 territory blitz to the troops involved.

Okay, "one thing" is too vague. They execute one movement order (transfer or attack) across at most one boundary. They never hop across two boundaries.

From the WF FAQ on BAO:

"This process differs from turn-based play in that instead of being able to use one group of troups to perform multiple attacks you can only issue a single order to every unit (except one that must be left behind to occupy the territory.)"

Yertle wrote: For the record, I also liked how BAO did have a different attacking/dice system than Turn Based. The Base values and the way Wins and Losses were calculated helped distinguish BAO from Turn Based.

As I continue to think about all the BAO stuff...I still am a really big fan of this.  Having a different Gameplay rather than just simply a different way to place your order/take your turn.

11's: you were factually correct, I was not.

Yertle wrote:

Yertle wrote: For the record, I also liked how BAO did have a different attacking/dice system than Turn Based. The Base values and the way Wins and Losses were calculated helped distinguish BAO from Turn Based.

As I continue to think about all the BAO stuff...I still am a really big fan of this.  Having a different Gameplay rather than just simply a different way to place your order/take your turn.

Agreed. The longer I mull over BAO, the more I think it was just fine. It really just needed some better documentation and more people playing it who weren't just fodder.

Cramchakle wrote:

It really just needed some better documentation and more people playing it who weren't just fodder.

I was definitely one of those people..

*deep breath* Cramchakle, I am your fodder.

Hey, if ToS-style BAO makes it over here, I'll hit it like the fist of an angry god. It may have some annoyances, but show me a system that doesn't? Heck, I just wish I didn't get booted out of that super-blind Texas tournament on WF. If BAO gets going here, I'll *find* a way to port that map over. Seriously, it can't be that hard.

M57 wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

It really just needed some better documentation and more people playing it who weren't just fodder.

I was definitely one of those people..

I think taking care of the former would take care of the latter, actually. Help, anyway.

Oatworm wrote: Hey, if ToS-style BAO makes it over here, I'll hit it like the fist of an angry god. It may have some annoyances, but show me a system that doesn't? Heck, I just wish I didn't get booted out of that super-blind Texas tournament on WF. If BAO gets going here, I'll *find* a way to port that map over. Seriously, it can't be that hard.

Do you mean the giant Texas map? I will personally make sure that map NEVER gets over here. It was the single worst map on WF, hands down.

Oh, c'mon Vataro - it was better than that France one with the broken borders and ambiguous colors. Besides, Texas was actually fun to play as long as you didn't do something stupid like use Risk rules without fog on it.

IRoll11s wrote: Nobody liked my multiple forum thread idea, so I want to add what I would like to see as tactical replacements for any new BaO system that eliminates turn order.

First is the pretransfer phase, which I think was a good idea but not fully implemented. The old system meant you could position units and have them available for defense but not offense, and really the only reason this was the case was because coding the UI to account for using those pretransferred units to attack with was just never done. I would like to see this ability added. In other words, if I pretranfer 100 units to Zimbabwe, I should be able to issue an attack from Zimbabwe with those 100 units. Arguments about whether those units should attack at full strength are valid, but remember in the current system they are essentially 100% defensive full strength and 0% offensive.

Some sort of positional (flanking) tactics. Absolute topography is impossible to determine algorithmically, (i.e. distance) but certain things can be determined from the raw county data. If Country A borders Country B, and Country C borders both, and you attack A from both B and C, then either B or C can be considered a flanking attack with a corresponding increase in attack abilities. Likewise if A borders B and C borders A but not B, and you attack from C and B, then either C or B should count as a rear attack with an even greater increase.

How you determine which attack is the main and which is the flank/rear could be done several ways. The easiest is simply to assign the largest attack force as the main. A more interesting way would be to make that the default, but make it possible to override by the defender (yes, defender). Each turn you could choose to orient any defensive force towards a neighboring country in order to meet an attack.

These are things that could be added regardless of what formula/system is ultimately used for determining attack resolution, but they would work best with a non-turn based BaO system.

Ro11s, if you're looking at some options for introducing tactics check out this thread http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1087/Commanders_Generals_and_Tactic_Cards .

These tactics cards took the place of dice during battles and while there may be some copyright arguments out there it may spark some ideas for those more gifted than i at programming...

I was always willing to help people learn BAO. I wrote that unofficial manual for AnA.  I really wanted more of a challenge from more players. :)

Anyhow, I'm here cuz there is a slight problem with SGear. Lets say I have 5 units in a territory. I start in the attack phase, want to attack with 1 to one territory. If I go back to reinforce and hit "move all", it does not recognize the one order to attack, and will move all 4 available. When I select move all, I am assuming it should be all units without orders, not all units period.

Thanks G I'll check that one.

Yeah, reinforce moves aren't having the proper checks apply to them; same thing happens when you make a Reinforce All move to a troop-max territory.

That's fixed in the new version of the Player, should be out today or tomorrow.