 |
|
The armed half-track - 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: The armed half-track (/showthread.php?tid=52513) |
RE: The armed half-track - Antoni Chmielowski - 08-20-2009 Gentlemen, This topic is veering off course FROM a valid discussuion halftracks to name calling and the reheating off old disagreements. Please keep all comments on topic or I will lock the topic and consider enforcing ROE #20. Thank you RE: The armed half-track - Hawk Kriegsman - 08-20-2009 Antoni Chmielowski (FGM) Wrote:Gentlemen, As an aside having nothing to do with this. Isn't it 4AM where you are? Shouldn't you be in bed? Just curious. Thanx! Hawk RE: The armed half-track - Antoni Chmielowski - 08-20-2009 Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Antoni Chmielowski (FGM) Wrote:Gentlemen, Erik, Its actually 3.25 am as I post this, and as a single guy I am an early riser ! Thanks ! RE: The armed half-track - Hawk Kriegsman - 08-20-2009 Antoni Chmielowski (FGM) Wrote:Erik, Damn! What time to you go to bed? 7PM? LOL!! Thanx! Hawk RE: The armed half-track - Chuck10mtn - 08-20-2009 Gentlemen, I think I started this by wondering what the MG on the halftrack was used for ??? As in what was its PRIMARY roll.Offensive to help in a attack, or defensable as in to use against air attack, ambush or that sort of thing. What did the halftrack do MOST of the time. Not what could it POSSABLY do. In the real war if a bridge was blocked you went around, time was not factored in. In the game you have x number of turns to get so far so it matters. I just can't believe that people get this nasty over a game !!! Not life or death a game. The sun will rise and nobody will change anybodies mind. So lets all go to a neutral corner and discuss something else. The game will have additions and subtractions from it. We don't have to like it, and they may not always change it to be what you want to play, but I don't see anybody here being forced to play. So lets enjoy what we have and worry about time and halftracks in rules each person goes over with his opponent. Chuck RE: The armed half-track - Huib Versloot - 08-20-2009 MrRoadrunner Wrote:Here is the Doug Bevard description of what his battle represented: Not the first hour and 12 minutes after TF Lovelady fired it's first shot at the Schill Line. Therefore 12 turns is an abstract choice that Bevard made to represent these events that happended spread over several days in the best way given the game mechanics. This observation (that is valid for most scenarios) makes the duration of a turn irrelevant for scenario designing. Anyone who has ever tried to design a historical scenario has at some point been forced to determine how many turns are needed to represent historical events. If Bevard had used Ed and Hawk's perception of time scale in CS, his TF Lovelady scn would have been over a hundred turns instead of twelve. RE: The armed half-track - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-20-2009 Alfons de Palfons Wrote:MrRoadrunner Wrote:Here is the Doug Bevard description of what his battle represented: It's a snipit of the battle? He is not modeling the entire battle. His map is 250 m per hex side to side is it not? I read what he wrote in his battle description. Nothing more or less. He put the units on the map he created and once two players start it is a fight on 250 m hexes at six minutes (abstractly) per turn. It's just basic game scale that has been in the wargaming community since there was a wargaming community. RR RE: The armed half-track - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-20-2009 K K Rossokolski Wrote:perhaps we should not dare to express an opinion!!!. maybe hawk kriegsman could express an opinion on marching speed as well as casting aspersions on the qualifications, even the right, of others to comment. Perhaps we just need to read the manuals? When do facts become opinions? The facts are: Game scale = six minute turns (abstractly applied) 250 m hexes side to side. Strength points are one per armor and one per half squad of infantry. Range is based on hex size. Movement is abstractly based on six minute turns. Both Hawk and I cut an pasted (or wrote out) the sections of the manual(s) that apply to the discussion. Opinions are that the game scale is not the game scale and can be whatever a scenario designer wants it to be. Where this argument breaks down is in a few who are trying to overturn the facts with their opinions? I just come from a place where 1+1=2 ... every time you do the formula. If someone has an opinion that 1+1 should equal 2.5 I will reject that opinion. That said, I never rejected that the ideas of some designers to model "operations" and battle themes outside the nuts and bolts of the game scale, should be rejected. In fact I said that I thought they could do what they wanted. The game was never perfect in a mathematical sense. But, it was the closest thing to staying within it's parameters as any game was. Those are the simple facts of the game? The "heart and soul" of the original game? Now we have variable visibility because someone decided that either weather/LOS should change every six minutes of each players turn. Airfields that attack without planes showing on the map. Naval units that can actually move over oceans (where the original designers had gun turrets to represent the shore bombardments). Or, the design team is catering to the "abstract" game scale crowd who make scenarios where each turn represents hours to days of operations. Most early scenario designs were Battalion, Regiment, or Brigade fights over maps that suited their scale. Over time some designers have created huge multi Division battles, on extremely large maps, with an almost obscene amount of turns/time. These by their very nature called for "night and day" and communications/command structures that were not originally modeled for the game? Do I think that the "larger is better - abstract is better" is wrong for the game? No, not really. Players have a choice to play those scenarios? Most are clearly defined in their scenario descriptions. I just hope that movement toward the abstract does not push out the game scale "purests". I've always said that scale is important. I've always listened to those who feel differently. I've always stated that they can make whatever scenario they want. I just find it strange that anyone who expresses the facts of the game, within an opinion, then gets jolly stomped by those who want the abstract. In no way is this post intended to attack any one person. I simply quoted Rod's comment to show what I am responding to. Rod knows that I hold him in very high regard. I am simply upholding what the original game intent was, based on what the designers wrote, concerning game scale.  Ed RE: The armed half-track - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-20-2009 Chuck10mtn Wrote:Gentlemen, On topic, some HT's had Mg's on them to provide anti air protection. Some have Mg's on them provide fire support for the infantry they carry. American halftracks, personnel carriers, had .50 cal mgs for AA protection. Though, some of the scout HT's carry additional .30 cal mgs to provide fire support. To try to define a primary roll would need an indepth look at each of the HT's and the tactical use by armies that used them. German Ht's that carried troops did so to carry them into the fight. They were to increase the mobility of the infantry soldier while providing him some cover to get closer to a fight without taking unneccessary casualties. RR RE: The armed half-track - Von Earlmann - 08-20-2009 I love the smell of a good half track debate in the morning :-) Don't take this stuff too seriously.........causes acid reflux etc. VE |
){kind=link}