The armed half-track

[Mike Abberton]

I'm with Ed on the time scale thing. Like him, I prefer the shorter scenarios for much the same reasons (not to mention that I like to actually finish them in less than month or two).

In some of the larger scenarios, it's possible to force march your infantry miles and miles and miles across the map and they arrive fresh as daisies to fight at the end. Just seems wrong somehow. Same thing goes for division+ sized engagements. Just too big and unwieldy in CS for my enjoyment.

I'd rather jump up to HPS' Panzer Campaign series for larger and longer campaigns, where they actually factor in things like day and night, longterm weather, etc.

Mike

[Glint]

Well, I'm playing a test scenario on a 400x400 hex map with huge amounts of units. We must have the equivalent of ten battles going on along with the strategic element involved. I find a lot of the smaller scenarios too short now to get any enjoyment from them. In the game I'm playing all sorts of tactics can be used and none are considered gamey. The facility is there to play large games without resorting to playing PzC games. Each to their own but I still think some roe's are too rigid and, I have to add, throughout my game career, I don't think anyone has ever queried my tactics? I feel a comment I have thrown into the discussion has been distorted by some comments?
I still maintain some tactics are valid that perhaps others would find gamey, doesn't mean they are wrong?
regards
Peter

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Well, I'm playing a test scenario on a 400x400 hex map with huge amounts of units.

This seems to be out of the "tactical scale" of the game? But, I see your point. I would not want to stop you from enjoying what you enjoy. I just don't think the game was ever intended to model something so big.

We must have the equivalent of ten battles going on along with the strategic element involved.

I'd rather it was broken up into ten smaller scenarios/battles. :)

Each to their own but I still think some roe's are too rigid and, I have to add, throughout my game career, I don't think anyone has ever queried my tactics? I feel a comment I have thrown into the discussion has been distorted by some comments?

Maybe you should state what you mean for the sake of clarity?
It seems that some comments were made based on your original premises and that the discussions developed along the way?
You'll need to show me the distortion of your words?

I still maintain some tactics are valid that perhaps others would find gamey, doesn't mean they are wrong?

You will not ever convince me that empty trucks/transport Ht's/horses/motorcycles, and the like can be used to block roads/LOS/victory hexes/exit hexes and/or draw fire to allow combat troops to advance unbashed by opt fire. Or, use empty trucks or transport halftracks to pull a "circle the wagons" to allow combat units to surround and capture enemy combat units. On those we will have to disagree? :chin:
Some people's "tactics" may just be some people's "gamey tactics"?

I think my simple personal ROE's keep realism in and gamey-ness out of the game. :smoke:



RR

[Glint]

Ed, I've been so involved in the gaming, I don't know how to copy/paste messages, lol! I'll try to answer in my own neanderthal manner!

regards tactical scale of the game, the scenario is running well. With the help of my co-player, we created a scenario that tries to implement a fair few of the different types of units available with the latest patch. So far we are nearly a quarter of the way through the time scale and it is proving a thoroughly enjoyable game, so it seems to me that the game can cover the scope of large scale scenarios.

The size of the map enables far greater manouvres than a small scenario would do.

The distortion I refer to is basically that I suggested a scenario where a bridge could be blocked with units, (I said trucks but anything would suffice) that would not be gamey but something that happened in war. I was trying to illustrate that to have an ROE that forbids certain use of vehicles could be a bit restrictive, seeing that they may have been used that way in actual warfare and we're playing a game that tries to simulate warfare?

I'm not trying to convince you Ed, or stating your ideas of ROE are wrong ! I just threw in a situation for debate. I would not use gamey tactics myself and agree with your comments to a degree, I just had a thought and aired it.

Hawk's reply was well put and we all choose who to play with and who not to as we all have our own interpretations regarding the game. I respect your views, I was not attacking them, as I said, just threw in a thought that occurred to me!

BTW - any advice on copying and pasting comments would be appreciated, lol!

regards
Peter

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The distortion I refer to is basically that I suggested a scenario where a bridge could be blocked with units, (I said trucks but anything would suffice) that would not be gamey but something that happened in war. I was trying to illustrate that to have an ROE that forbids certain use of vehicles could be a bit restrictive, seeing that they may have been used that way in actual warfare and we're playing a game that tries to simulate warfare?

Then we will have to disagree?
I think that blocking a bridge by driving trucks onto it is gamey.
Heck, where is the spirit of the game?

I'm not trying to convince you Ed, or stating your ideas of ROE are wrong ! I just threw in a situation for debate. I would not use gamey tactics myself and agree with your comments to a degree, I just had a thought and aired it.

I'm all for debate. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on the subject. I agree to disagree on the subject of blocking a bridge with empty truck hulks.

BTW - any advice on copying and pasting comments would be appreciated, lol!

Quite simply, quote the entire post using the "quote button" at the bottom right hand side of the post. You will then see where there is "quote=member of choice" in brackets "[]"followed by "/quote" in brackets.
You can break up the comments by putting "quote=member of choice" (bracketed) before the sentence you want to comment upon and "/quote" (bracketed)to capture the sentence as a quote.
Then type your response and use quote brackets to quote a new topic that you want to comment upon.



RR

[Glint]

[quote=glint]The distortion I refer to is basically that I suggested a scenario where a bridge could be blocked with units, (I said trucks but anything would suffice) that would not be gamey but something that happened in war. I was trying to illustrate that to have an ROE that forbids certain use of vehicles could be a bit restrictive, seeing that they may have been used that way in actual warfare and we're playing a game that tries to simulate warfare?

Then we will have to disagree?
I think that blocking a bridge by driving trucks onto it is gamey.
Heck, where is the spirit of the game?

Surely it's not gamey in the right situation, it happenened in actual warfare?

I'm not trying to convince you Ed, or stating your ideas of ROE are wrong ! I just threw in a situation for debate. I would not use gamey tactics myself and agree with your comments to a degree, I just had a thought and aired it.

I'm all for debate. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on the subject. I agree to disagree on the subject of blocking a bridge with empty truck hulks.

I agree to disagree too Ed ! If I put the necessary number of tanks (forget trucks), on the bridge in defence and knowing if they fail, the wrecks will block a valuable crossing point and possibly change the outcome of the battle, is that gamey?

BTW - any advice on copying and pasting comments would be appreciated, lol!

Quite simply, quote the entire post using the "quote button" at the bottom right hand side of the post. You will then see where there is "quote=member of choice" in brackets "[]"followed by "/quote" in brackets.
You can break up the comments by putting "quote=member of choice" (bracketed) before the sentence you want to comment upon and "/quote" (bracketed)to capture the sentence as a quote.
Then type your response and use quote brackets to quote a new topic that you want to comment upon.

Thanks for the advice matey, gonna see if I got it right but don't think I did, lol! Perhaps I should seperate the comments/replies with a line of trucks, lol!
regards
Peter

[Glint]

well, messed that up!
I'll get on with finding another bridge to block in my game, lol!
Just joking Ed!
regards
Peter

[Mr. Guberman]

Nice to see...

...some of our finest minds (?) have posted...after a drunken rant, by me...
interesting.
The scale is for the birds. After careful examination of the earliest (delivered) scens...even D. Bevard was expansive (Ed, please take that under advisement...research if you must). That being said...the only thing that can be done, is to design (or play an already designed) fun scenario.

The discussion does not beggar any more commentary on that particular subject.

My point was..."it's a computer game...do we still have the artificial restraints put on us by house rules?"

I like that..."...then I won't play you...". Fine.

On the by and by...after expounding my philosophy...I do not believe there is anyone who would complain about my playing, either. ...but...as with the others...if they want to give me free points, OK...If I HAVE SCREWED UP AND CAN NOT PARTAKE OF THOSE FREE POINTS...that's my problem and it is still not gamey.

...Convince me that I am wrong...but I sincerely believe that that is the crux of the matter. Don't play me, fine. I don't play alot anyway...but with the cats that I do play...en guarde!!!!

Cheers
Curt

[Crossroads]

well, messed that up!
I'll get on with finding another bridge to block in my game, lol!
Just joking Ed!
regards
Peter

:stir:

"Taking the Remagen bridge"

http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/taki...bridge.htm

"As “B” Company Tank Destroyers proceeded across the bridge on March 10, 1945 German artillery blew up a truck ahead of us. The one-way traffic was blocked. "

Runs-for-cover... :smoke:

[Huib Versloot]

Most early scenario designs covered brief snipits of parts of battles. It was rare to see an entire operation covered by the early designers?

RR

Ed,

Even Taskforce Lovelady, that good old Bevard classic was a multiple day battle in reality. Bevard put it in something like 12 turns. This scn does NOT simply represent a small part of the battle.
There are also engagements that in reality took only an hour or so but were so intensive that a designer would also need 12 turns to represent them. In such a case it would not be realistic to add a bridging engineer or something probably. A lot of the older stock scns are the most abstract scns around (mainly in force size oob representation) and cover multiple days. (I could name a very long list of scenarios here)
So Matrix does not do anything different with timescale than Talonsoft did. All that was done was the adding of new units that would also fit well in many old stock scns.
Ofcourse you are free to not like larger scenarios, but they are no more abstract than other scns. I like larger scns as long as they translate the real events into the game realistically.

In summary I'll conclude with your sentence: I don't think the new direction of "time is relative to the situation you are modeling" is the way to go.
This is not new, it has always been this way.

Huib