 |
|
Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - 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: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about (/showthread.php?tid=46426) |
RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Herr Straße Laufer - 06-29-2008 Dogovich Wrote:Actually Ed, your opinion means a lot more than most anyone else's. Unfortunately, it may take a while before I can figure out how to make it an option as opposed to a rule. That also being said, every time that I say that, I usually feel challenged enough to go at it and pull a Scottie type miracle. Thanks Major. My intention was not to strongarm the Beta Brigade or the development team. I've often said that you guys are my heroes and I admire everything that you are doing to support the game and in bringing a ten year old game up to today's standard "code wise". I was just trying to point out that I felt some of the "new" did not mean improved. As Osiris said, it's just more? I hated Advanced Squad Leader, though I loved the original Squad Leader. I liked the old "Skirmish" style miniatures rules and really don't like the new ones that have your nose in the rule book everytime you move, fire, or take hits. ASL morphed a good, simple, basic game into a complicated, tedious, and "un-fun" game. Let's face it, if it is not challenging and fun players will stop playing it. When and if you do write me to pass ideas by, I will give you clear and honest opinion based on gamescale. I honestly feel that the development teams approach was more one of "what can we add" and not "what can we improve". If you could make variable visibility the same option as armor facing, they would have similar codes for application? (As you can tell, computers were not invented when I was growing up? :rolleyes:) And, Halftracks are fighting machines!  Trucks should never be used to block roads, victory hexes, line of sight (even variable line of sight), draw enemy opportunity fire, or surround enemy units so that they can be overrun and captured.   And, Scottie, "tap into the warp drive, put antimatter into the photon torpedoes" and make my volcano.  :chin:Seriously, Thanks Wyatt! 
RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Huib Versloot - 06-29-2008 IMO there are 2 ways to get it right. Both of them should be implemented. 1. to make it an optional rule 2. To make the visibilty per turn, a parameter in the scenario editor, so the designer can set the visibility per turn (a thing that is now already possible by manually editing the bte file). If the above are not possible to program, accept the limitations of the software and keep things as they were. It is critical that the environment in which the scenarios take place is based on historical facts. The weather (thus visibilty) at certain dates and places were FACTS that one can look up and integrate in the scenario. Like the look of the landscape was a FACT; ie the reason that the designer needs the correct era maps to make the scenario map. The only unhistorical thing is the player himself when he starts to move his units... but thats the game ofcourse. So to answer Dogovich question if a scn is unhistorical when visibilty changes randomly is YES. Once it changes outside the historical weather reports, it is unhistorical. I do not claim to have read or used weather reports for all my scenarios, but for those with 1 hex visibility it is documented well, exceeding this 1 hex is unhistorical. Huib RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Herr Straße Laufer - 06-29-2008 I guess Huib set the solution best. Take the code out of the official version 1.03 release unless the variable visibility can be made optional? Making it manditory really would effect everyone. And, from what I see, it would hurt more player/members/scenario designers than it would simply be accepted by them? RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Von Earlmann - 06-29-2008 XLVIII Pz. Korp Wrote:Wow... We should rename this thread "A Gathering of the Grognards" Gary, This would be a good place to set up a bar with some munchies........I love a good animated chewing of the fat :-) Earl RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Hawk Kriegsman - 06-29-2008 Dogovich Wrote:I also changed the parameters to read that if the initial starting visibility is greater than 14 or less than 5 that no changes are to be made. Actually this is not a bad comprimise at all. If I read this correctly only scenarios with an initial visibility of 5 to 14 will be affected? I am ok with this. Thanx! RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Huib Versloot - 06-29-2008 Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Dogovich Wrote:I also changed the parameters to read that if the initial starting visibility is greater than 14 or less than 5 that no changes are to be made. True. that would take the pain away for me actually. RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Tiger 88 - 06-29-2008 I am really glad to hear that this visibility enhancment will hopefully become an option for scenario design. There are way too many good scenarios out there where this would damage the intent of the designer and honestly "ruin" the particular game. I am all for improvements like Earl and many others have stated and totally value what the Beta Brigade has been able to accomplish and thank them for the efforts but we need to keep in mind what this game was originally intended to do and that is wage war for 6minute turns. I also want to say how huge it is that you would listen to us players and take to heart what Huib and Ed have brought up. Thanks for keeping this series alive and tweaking better game play!! RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - simovitch - 06-29-2008 Huib Wrote:That's good to hear Huib. I like this compromise as well.Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Dogovich Wrote:I also changed the parameters to read that if the initial starting visibility is greater than 14 or less than 5 that no changes are to be made. RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - John Given - 06-30-2008 Huib Wrote:IMO there are 2 ways to get it right. Both of them should be implemented. This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. It doesn't sound like it would be that difficult to key either (though I admit I'm no programmer). Imagine a CS where designers could program into the scenario editor when it gets dark, light, and / or cloudy. Awesome, imo. I hope Jason doesn't have a headache or anything after all this. :chin: RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - RedDevil - 06-30-2008 Jason.. have a headache? Nah... :) |
){kind=link}