• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Is this a bug/mistake?
09-27-2011, 06:43 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-27-2011, 08:00 AM by Kool Kat.)
#41
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
(09-27-2011, 05:47 AM)Jason Petho Wrote: Using the top five most played, Talonsoft scenarios, I thought it might be interesting to see how the original designers used the time scale within their scenarios.
Jason Petho

Very interesting!

Thanks for sharing Jason! cheers
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 08:09 AM,
#42
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
(09-25-2011, 10:02 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: And, to all who think I am just demanding that CS stay in it's original and flawed form, you would be wrong.
I wanted to see the glitches fixed, new units added, a new "look" in graphics, new interesting & fun to play scenarios, and continued support for the system.
I simply believe that game scale has taken a back seat when it should be the format for all future development of the game.
cheers
HSL

You raise good points here Ed!

It seems like a long time between patch updates? :chin:

Wonder how Matrix & Co will prioritize all the player input that has been accumulated (and still is?) in several threads on the Matrix forums?

Ensuring game scale remains "consistant" looks to be a tough order going forward?


Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 10:12 AM,
#43
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
(09-27-2011, 05:47 AM)Jason Petho Wrote: Using the top five most played, Talonsoft scenarios, I thought it might be interesting to see how the original designers used the time scale within their scenarios.

Tank Graveyard at Minsk by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 18 = 108 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~10 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 2 days) = 600 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 33.3 minutes per turn

Giants on the Vistula by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 20 = 120 minutes
Actual Battle length: 9 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 36 hours) = 540 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 27 minutes per turn

Rest Steel at Fedorovka by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 14 = 84 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~11 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 3 days) = 660 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 47.1 minutes per turn

Storm 5-5-5 by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 12 = 72 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~4 hours = 240 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 20 minutes per turn

The Battle is Joined by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 20 = 120 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~8 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 16 hours) = 480 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 24 minutes per turn

Jason Petho

So you are saying that if a designer takes a snippet of a battle it should represent the entire battle from beginning to end?
Or, did the designers change the hex size or range of gun fire?
Or, did the early designers not sacrifice fun to have the game be what it is not?
Are all the Kursk scenarios representative of the day those battles lasted?

C'mon. I am not saying pure time to fight the battles. That is what you do not understand. And, never seem to have understood?
That "dog" simply will not hunt.

What is the distance a T-34 moves? What is the range of the gun? What size does the unit represent?
Did that change in any of these scenarios?

Shall I upload my West Front World War II scenario, that has part of England and all of Europe to Western Russia, on a small amount of hexes?
Boy, that will be in scale too?

Now take a design on a 500 by 500 hex map with 400 turns?
You may be able to draw a scale map of 250m hexes but 400 turns will never fly.

Stick to scale and not ways to move away from scale. You might as well work on PanzerCorps? That is pretty fanciful, where the scale changes from scenario to scenario?

I was hoping you would not go down that road.
And, I honestly hoped you were not already down that road with the power you hold over the game.
We are powerless (except in voicing our concerns), you and the programmer can pretty much do (and have done) what you wanted regardless of feedback.

I also hope that voices of dissent are not overlooked, or worse ... squelched.

cheers

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 11:27 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-27-2011, 09:07 PM by Kool Kat.)
#44
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
(09-27-2011, 10:12 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: I was hoping you would not go down that road.
And, I honestly hoped you were not already down that road with the power you hold over the game.
We are powerless (except in voicing our concerns), you and the programmer can pretty much do (and have done) what you wanted regardless of feedback.

I also hope that voices of dissent are not overlooked, or worse ... squelched.

cheers

HSL

And at the end of day... it comes down to this?

We can make all the arguments... bring forth evidence... present facts... be "passionate"... be polite... be angry... be indifferent... be nice... post suggestions in the "proper" threads, etc. ...but the power resides with Jason and a programer? And the power can be wielded with a heavy or indifferent hand? Obtuse "non-answers"... simply not answering the questions... or talking "down" to us like we are children being patiently corrected by a parent... all because nothing can be done about it? And the sad thing... I don't see any of this improving, and instead the gulf between CS players and Matrix programers simply gets wider and more distant?

Ed, you caution against the voices of dissent being overlooked... clearly that "exercise" is well under way and has been for some time? And the squelching is being accomplished by obtuse "non-answers"... or choosing to not answer or ignore a player's question completely?

It's not about "agreeing with everything I state" syndrome.. it's actually more fundamental and insidious than that? The "other side" is simply not listening... and believes what they develop and roll out for CS should be accepted and welcomed with open arms all the time... because they say so? And if some CS players don't like it... so what? We (Matrix) know better and that's the "end" of that discussion? It was NEVER about a gaming community sharing ideas and corroborating together on what is best for the future of CS? Instead, it was all about a small, elite group telling CS players what is best for them?

I been associated with and playing CS for over 5 years... and while there are many aspects about CS that I do like and Jason & Co should be complimented and sincerely thanked for continuing to support this gaming platform... on the flip side I have never once (I'm sure I'll be quickly corrected if wrong)... have I read a statement from Jason & Co. that ANY optional rule... ANY unit.... ANY rule... ANY Matrix interpretation... is ever wrong, ever incorrect, maybe could have been adapted better, maybe should be eliminated, etc. and now in this thread... we can't even get Jason to give us a straight answer on why the Matrix interpretation of CS time and game scale differs from what is printed in the CS 1.03 User Manual? More ignoring a player's question. And so it continues.... and we keep going around and around... until CS players give up in disgust and indifference... and everything gets tamped back down?

Maybe it would be best to shut down the forums in regards to CS suggestions and feedback... cause nobody is listening anyway?
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 02:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-27-2011, 03:26 PM by Dragoon.)
#45
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
As for the bridging engineer,I dont see it as such a big deal....His 1st turn he drives up to the bank of the river.Most likely doesnt have enough points to unload so will have to wait until next turn.On 2nd turn he unloads but will have to wait until 3rd to attempt to install some type of bridge.So best case scenerio some type of river crossing is erected in 18 minutes total time,worst case scenerio ,as its all based on a dice roll, is the bridge never gets erected....Saw a show on the military channel tonight where a US tanker vet was talking about coming upon a blown bridge and waiting until dark for the engineers to put up a bridge of some sort so the shermans could cross.He said the tank crews were hoping to spend the night on the otherside once they got across but were ordered to keep moving and had advanced on the next town by morning.So obviously it wasnt put up in 6 minutes but it didnt take 24 hours either.

I just cant get my head around a Sherman can only shoot twice in 6 minutes of game play... but its still my favorite game in the world.I remember playing Jason twice way back in 97/98 and I appreciate everything he has done for the game to help keep it going,good or bad...

Dragoon
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 07:17 PM,
#46
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
(09-27-2011, 10:12 AM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: So you are saying that if a designer takes a snippet of a battle it should represent the entire battle from beginning to end?
Or, did the designers change the hex size or range of gun fire?
Or, did the early designers not sacrifice fun to have the game be what it is not?
Are all the Kursk scenarios representative of the day those battles lasted?

C'mon. I am not saying pure time to fight the battles. That is what you do not understand. And, never seem to have understood?
That "dog" simply will not hunt.

And I will speak for my recently published H2H scenario - "Breakout at Benicourt." The battle(s) in the Benicourt region of France on September 13, 1944 actually began before dawn... with sporadic fighting continuing until night fall. Never ONCE during either my research into this battle or the subsequent development of my scenario, was I under the illusion that I was modeling or depicting the entire day long series of battles.

Specifically, I was depicting the climatic point in the battle, approximately mid-afternoon when significant Allied armor units made contact with the main German defense lines. Frankly, the thought never crossed my mind that I was modeling a day-long battle because such a depiction would be out of scale with the CS game system.

And in the end it comes back to scale... and it has always been about scale.
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 07:49 PM,
#47
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
"I just cant get my head around a Sherman can only shoot twice in 6 minutes of game play... but its still my favorite game in the world.I remember playing Jason twice way back in 97/98 and I appreciate everything he has done for the game to help keep it going,good or bad..." Dragoon

I agree with all but the phrase "good or bad". I want what is good for the game and not what is bad for the game.

For those who are interested in what the developers and designers thought of game scale (even the current ones).
From the manual, page 13:
_____________________________________________________
2.0 Object of the Game

Welcome to the Campaign Series!

The Campaign Series is a tactical-level game portraying some of the significant battles from 1936 to 1945 in the European and Pacific Theaters of Operation. Choose to fight as the Axis or Allies in over 300 historical scenarios. The choice is yours. Pit your skills against the computer or a human opponent in any of the many historical scenarios, or try your hand in full-fledged campaigns consisting of linked scenarios, where each battle counts. You can also go head-to-head against fellow gamers at home via the Internet in games with up to 16 players!

Each scenario is played on a unique map with five “view modes.” Most scenario maps are based on historically-accurate 1940-era 1:50,000 scale maps actually used by Axis and Allied commanders during the war. Combat is performed on a “hex grid” map that has defined wargaming for over three decades. Each “hex” represents 250 meters; with 4 hexes to a kilometer or 6 hexes to a mile. Turns are equivalent to approximately 6 minutes of real time.

Each scenario has a variable number of Game Turns, in which you and your opponent attempt to capture or defend Objectives and smash more enemy troops then you lose. Every conceivable type of battle action is represented in the scenario selection: meeting engagements, armored breakthroughs, trench defenses, exploitation, reconnaissance, battles of attrition, mobile defenses, and much more.

There are a number of low-complexity “Boot Camp” scenarios designed especially with the new player in mind. If you are new to John Tiller’s “Campaign Series,” you are highly encouraged to begin your play with these scenarios.

Besides the “Boot Camp” scenarios, there is also a tutorial scenario (“East Front II Tutorial”). This tutorial scenario is not only an introduction for new players — it is also a fun and challenging hypothetical scenario for veteran players. You are encouraged to begin playing the tutorial scenario while following along with the East Front tutorial in section 18.0.
_______________________________________________
The above is similar, if not more detailed than what Talonsoft would write, in the Rising Sun manual:
_______________________________________________
Game Scale & Stacking

The game scale is 6 minutes per Game Turn and 250 meters per hex (exceptions; Game Turns during a Night scenario represent a longer period of time due to units normally moving slower at night, and the scale of some of the smaller islands maps has been "stretched" slightly for playability's sake). Each strength point (SP) of an infantry platoon represents a half squad <snip> etc, etc.
_______________________________________________

Original intent is far different from stating that scenarios were designed to represent multiple days or hours of combat?
No one was counting the amount of trees on a map or making sure that a building was within inches of where it should have been on the map. Or, that a stream was precisely following it's course by the hex sides.
No one was saying "we have to represent a larger scale ... because we can", therefore we will include units that go beyond the scale.

I believe the original intent has been lost.
I believe it could actually hurt the game in the long run.
They could even take the words out of the manual but, I believe that the scale is part of the game and always will be.

I also believe that the "team" could have stuck to the original intent of CS. They could have made all their "cockamamie" changes in Modern Wars, which is "their" stand up game?

I am not trying to bash. Nor spam.
I believe someone has to stand up for CS as a game and it's game scale.

It is also "my favorite game" and I am willing to defend it.

cheers

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
09-27-2011, 10:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-27-2011, 10:08 PM by Hawk Kriegsman.)
#48
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
Hello All,

Every single manual produced for CS states that the gmae scale is
6 minutes / 250 meters. The manual was written by the designers, so to argue their intent seems a bit foolish to me.

Keep in mind that CS is a game of tactical combat. It is not a game of operational combat nor it is a game of stategic battle.

Jason you point out the top 5 most played scenarios and calculate the modified minutes per turn. The only problem with that is that all the units move the same despite the difference in modified times.

I am reasonable sure that you do not believe a unit moving in a 20 minute turn can only move the same distance in a 47.1 minute turn.

The entire OOB's are also not available in our 5 mentioned scenarios., only a portion.

They are tactical snapshots of the battle, not the entire battle.

CS is a tactical combat simulation. It is quite abstract. It is not real combat and it lacks a certain level of realism. It is based on reasearch and the design teams interpretation of that research. Keep in mind a lot of the data they used was from data collected on a proving grounds, which an idea condition to determine a weapons capability. We will never know how accurate the designers are, becasue we have no capacity to witness the actual capabilities first hand.

If everyone would remember this we would all be better off.

We are all here because the game is FUN.

One of the great things about CS is its flexibility. You want a 10 turn fire fight between a couple of companies? You can do it.

You want to recreate Market Garden in total? You can do it.

The larger the scenario and the more time the scenario represents the larger the level abstraction gets. What's so hard to understand about that?

More to the point what is wrong with that?

From all I have read, battles have a lot of down time in between relatively short bursts of intense action.

CS represents the relatively short bursts of action.

If your scenario is well designed and fun I will play it. Whether it is 10 turns and hypothertical or 100 turns and very accurate I will play it.

That is the bottom line.

Yes some of the new units can be a bit of a stretch to one's sensibilities.

So what? Units like that have been around from day one (combat engineers clearing a 250 meter hex of mines or blocks in 6 minutes).

Not too long ago I played Huib's CCR/7 Into the Breach as the Germans. A sizeable portion is stuck behind a river. For many turns I was frustrated and annoyed as my bridging engineers did nothing, but delay a crucial element of my advance. Upon finally building a bridge I had to move fast and furious into battle.

All this time did I care about the abstract nature of the bridging function. NO. I care about getting a :censored: bridge built.

I had FUN.

Thats what it is about.

So to the designers I say keep designing and developing. If you can find the units and design them please do. I can decide if I want to use them or not.

As to new rules. Design away, but make them optional. Let me decide if I like the new rule.

Never forget what the basic building block of CS is 250 meters/ 6 minutes. But please continue to design creative and fun large sceanrios. I can abstract the time scale in my head.

And to all. Relax and have FUN. There is enough here for everyone to have FUN.

Its a game.

Thanx!

Hawk




Quote this message in a reply
09-28-2011, 03:28 AM,
#49
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
(09-27-2011, 10:06 PM)Hawk Kriegsman Wrote: Hello All,

Every single manual produced for CS states that the gmae scale is
6 minutes / 250 meters. The manual was written by the designers, so to argue their intent seems a bit foolish to me.

Keep in mind that CS is a game of tactical combat. It is not a game of operational combat nor it is a game of stategic battle.

Jason you point out the top 5 most played scenarios and calculate the modified minutes per turn. The only problem with that is that all the units move the same despite the difference in modified times.

I am reasonable sure that you do not believe a unit moving in a 20 minute turn can only move the same distance in a 47.1 minute turn.

<SNIP- the middle portion; though I agree>

And to all. Relax and have FUN. There is enough here for everyone to have FUN.

Its a game.

Amen.

cheers

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
09-28-2011, 03:48 AM,
#50
RE: Is this a bug/mistake?
(09-27-2011, 10:06 PM)Hawk Kriegsman Wrote: Yes some of the new units can be a bit of a stretch to one's sensibilities.

So what? Units like that have been around from day one (combat engineers clearing a 250 meter hex of mines or blocks in 6 minutes).

Not too long ago I played Huib's CCR/7 Into the Breach as the Germans. A sizeable portion is stuck behind a river. For many turns I was frustrated and annoyed as my bridging engineers did nothing, but delay a crucial element of my advance. Upon finally building a bridge I had to move fast and furious into battle.

All this time did I care about the abstract nature of the bridging function. NO. I care about getting a :censored: bridge built.

I had FUN.

Thats what it is about.

So to the designers I say keep designing and developing. If you can find the units and design them please do. I can decide if I want to use them or not.

As to new rules. Design away, but make them optional. Let me decide if I like the new rule.

Never forget what the basic building block of CS is 250 meters/ 6 minutes. But please continue to design creative and fun large sceanrios. I can abstract the time scale in my head.

And to all. Relax and have FUN. There is enough here for everyone to have FUN.

Its a game.

Thanx!

Hawk

Amen.

Jason Petho

Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)