 |
|
On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please? (/showthread.php?tid=65357) |
RE: On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please? - K K Rossokolski - 11-25-2013 Somehow, I managed to delete a post when trying to edit my short post above. So here is a rewrite. I haven't been here for a while, so greetings to all. This is an important topic, especially in view of the great efforts in progress to update our wonderful old game. My disgust for the vile "bathtub navy" and imbecile "airfield bombers" has never been hidden. I remain of the opinion that garbage such as this is responsible for the loss of interest in JTCS. I wish to see them totally removed. I have been examining the current lists of aircraft. There is a lack of rationality in both the aircraft types and their assigned attack values.That said, it appears nothing can be done without corrupting legacy scenarios. I believe the use of onboard aircraft, if not subject to the utmost scrutiny, will introduce capabilities,especially of intelligence gathering and reporting, which are totally unrealistic. However, since about 1955, the helicopter has become increasingly a part of land warfare, never more so than in Vietnam. A Vietnam war game without helicopters would be a joke. Tricky...damned if one does, damned if one doesn't. RE: On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please? - John Given - 11-26-2013 Hi all; KKR and Hawk Kreigsman make some great points. Love the idea about being able to 'shoot' an airstrike from offboard. Anyway, while i never felt that the non-moveable bombers did our hobby any favors, I personally have no issues with the flyable ones. Ships are so rare that they never had much of an effect on the scenarios I played them in. I will admit though, that they are very abstract within the context of the game engine. I guess the big question is how much 'abstact-ness' one is willing to tolerate? As a long time gamer of many different games, I am willing to tolerate a lot, but I realize others will will feel differently, and that's ok too. KKR makes a good point with removing or changing the planes could mess up current scenarios that have them. My vote is keep the flyable planes and the ships, but remove the non-movable ground based planes. 
RE: On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please? - K K Rossokolski - 11-27-2013 The airfield bombers and the bathtub navy must go. I firmly believe garbage like that is the main cause of CS decline. By late 1944, the Western allies had established almost total air superiority over the battlefield. This allowed tactics such as the "Cab Rank", whereby Close Support Aircraft (CAS) units were airborne in the vicinity of ground ops ready to respond immediately to calls. Perhaps the development team could look at this without using on board aircraft. I refer to Huib's post above, which emphasises the need for research and thus understanding in scenario design. The original Talonsoft team introduced sea elements -amphibious warfare- with West Front, as I recall. It worked then, and still does. The offboard artillery is a perfectly adequate facsimile of naval gunfire support. Unfortunately, later on some tried to develop this into the full gamut of maritime warfare, giving us the pathetic bathtub navy. At both ends of Vietnam, for thirty years, the great deltas were the scene of incessant riverine warfare. I would expect to see the development team giving this aspect appropriate attention. Respect for the legacy would be an important consideration for any development team. I expect this would lead to difficulties as errors are uncovered..how do such errors effect existing work? Is retention compatible with plans for the future? RE: On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please? - zap - 11-27-2013 And, Trains, do those work in this game? Any observations about them. Were they part of the original game or have they been added. I'm playing a scenario with troops cars, railroad protection cars, and armed cars. Along with a few cars that are set up with artillery. I have brought up troops to the front and am considering bringing all the armed rail cars back to the front where the enemy is breaking through my lines. RE: On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please? - K K Rossokolski - 11-27-2013 (11-27-2013, 02:26 PM)zap Wrote: And, Trains, do those work in this game? Any observations about them. Were they part of the original game or have they been added.They were not in the original EFII as I remember, although the Map Editor has always had railway tracks available. A lot of the org lists now include trains of various types. A railway cutting can be done, but it takes three hexes across...750m. |
){kind=link}