Time Scale

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Every game has scale. Scale is a measure of distance and time.
It is how the penetration charts are made and damage results are figured. It is why the MG 42's fire three times? It is how the terrain was developed. It is how to know the distance artillery will fire? It is why the air plane effects and offshore bombardment was originally so abstracted?

Scale is what determines how far a unit can move through various terrain.
This game was essentially based upon Panzer Leader - Panzer Blitz?
The hex size and unit size was decided by the scale of those board games.
All movement and fire was based around that size.

The game was not intended to portray "days" or "months". It is not part of it's original "scale". It was one of the reasons I was against Engineers building bridges or laying minefields (in six minutes). Or, "wreckers" that could clear a hex in a turn. It physically cannot be done in six minutes.
Most of the original scenario designs were based on that time/distance scale.

That a bunch of designers created scenarios that cover "days" or "weeks" of action, though not representing the true scale of the game, makes no difference to me. I can simply not play them.

Now if you want to make a game that has enough turns to represent a day in six minute turn times, that is O.K. by me. And again, I will not play something that long or "time" consuming.

If you want to create games that cover days and weeks, OpC and TOAW are great scaled games to that time frame.
It's why I early on tried to disuade those who said, "Hey, I played Squad Leader, and this game is just like it." My usual response was "Hell no! Squad Leader is definately a different scale than the Campaign Series. You may want to get a copy of Squad Battles."
Maybe you can pick up Squad Battles and design scenarios that cover a period of days? It would be equally "out of scale" for what was intended by the game designer.

I cringe when I think that the game can be "ruined" by those who take it's scale lightly.

Maybe I am a purist?
Maybe I just want to play a game in the scale I like?

Those who wish to go on with the morphing of CS into something it is not can keep doing it. There will be a point where I will just stop playing. I am hoping to get to 2,000 games before then. But, I doubt it. If it does get to that I will retire and reload my original disks. I'd rather play against the old AI then have to suffer with games designed out of the scale in which I like to play.

I mean, by example, I do not buy a chicken dinner when I am in a steakhouse. Nor would I buy a steak if I was in a pizza shop. Nor would I buy a beer in an icecream soda place.

[Jason Petho]

Fortunately, due to the vast nature of the Campaign Series, there will always be something for everyone, no matter what their tastes. Whether that be the monster scenarios or the smaller scenarios that stay true to TS form.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Amen! My friend.
I think I will probably "cook off" before I get tired of it.

And, I can always just make scenarios true to scale until then? ;)

[Huib Versloot]

I don't really see why one would cling on to the six minutes rigidly, as even the old TS stock scenarios depict nearly only historical battles that would have needed 100+ turns. Still even the "old designers" such as Bevard chose to represent these battles in less than 20 turns. Taskforce Lovelady for example, was historically a much longer engagement than 1,5 hour (it actually was a battle of more than a day), yet Bevard put it in 12 turns.
The 6 minute sentence in the manual has never been backed up by anyones scenarios actually other than by the accidental fact that a few battles may have been really exceptionally short. I can't think of even a single one apart from the one Osiris mentioned in the previous post.

I still stand by my point that the turns should be seen as a linear sequence where all the "non action" is simply skipped from the game. If each turn is just representing 6 minutes of "action" the game is fairly accurate and fits into Ed's description of space and time.
I agree that you can not make endlessly long scenarios. For example replacements are not integrated in the game engine, which would be needed in really long time battles. But a scenario of a few days is possible IMO simply because on most multiple day battles the actual action could still be measured in hours. There is no need to dedicate 5 turns to the Brits drinking tea.

Huib

[Huib Versloot]

Amen! My friend.
I think I will probably "cook off" before I get tired of it.

And, I can always just make scenarios true to scale until then? ;)

Ed,
I don't think there will be any alterations to the game scale ever by the current developers. We differ a bit about interpretation of the time in the actual game, but not about size, space etc.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

We will continue to disagree.
My thought is that if you want to create a scenario that covers multiple days and "God forbid" replacements. You are way out of the scale of the game to do it in one scenario.

Why not create multiple scenarios that can take into effect basically "snippets" of the battle covered over multiple days? Don has series his "bulge" scenarios?

This game was never designed to cover every minute of every day in the life of a battle? It was designed to give "snap shots" of what happened during various battles.
Those that never understood that, designed scenarios that have 400 turns and really do not "recreate" the whole battle or even pieces of the battle.

I fought tooth and nail to not have the board game Squad Leader morph into Advanced Squad Leader. I spent hundreds of dollars on Squad Leader. I spent not one dime on Advanced Squad Leader. I spent hundred of hours on playing Squad Leader and not one minute on Advanced Squad Leader.

And, as far as your comment about my "clinging"? I do not like change because it can be done. I like to see change for making an improvement.
And, I'm from Pennsylvania, don't you know? I do not have more than two hands and I only cling to my Bible and my guns. ;)

[Osiris]

HI

Well we defenitley have diverse issues on this..I dont think the scale of the game will change, 250m per hex but like I said before it would be fortunate that an armored formation can move 20 km a day when marching and I would think those getting shot at are probably even going to move slower..

Is it possible to design scenarios to scale of the current game..sure it is..I ve been working on this for the past few weeks and heres what I ve figured out. To simulate delay orders...reinforcement arrivals are reduced to 50%, or fixed units have a 50% chance of being released, supply is reduced to 50% to simulate problems with supply and order delays.

Since combat fatigue cannot be reproduced by the current system than here is a comprimise. Most battles (firefights) in WW2 were decided by 1 overriding factor: Running out of ammo was the number 1 reason for a battle being terminated:

Lets take look at a Panther tank which can fire about 10 rounds per minute and carries about 90 rounds of ammo..thats a total of 9 minutes of firing but wait...the AP load was around 40%-50% of the total..so a Panther could shoot at tanks for a total 4-5 minutes at full tilt..thats less than 1 turn in CS!

So if your going to make scale scenarios they need to be short 10-20 turns max..thats 1-2 hours of combat..so as Huib said if its going be a big all day battle it needs to be broken down into a number of scenarios and for each scenario following the first one the morale of the unit needs to be lowered by 1-2 points to simulate combat fatigue..than the 6 minute thing will work.

Thats how I would do it

Otherwise you need to take heed of what the original designer of this game of PzBlitz said upon which CS is based on. when designing scenarios: "of course there were certain actions that would drag on for hours but to simulate those you would need complex supply rules as well as more room for manuever for the supply units.."

Osiris

[K K Rossokolski]

I think this argument is a total red herring...what does the average player care about how long a turn represents??? He/she will take as long as they want/ need/have available to play their turn. If one needs a leak halfway through, one will do so (having I hope begged their opponent's and the Governments permission to save their move!!)That's the only time that counts. That and whether the scenario has the right number of turns to allow the dreaded "balance"!!! Notwithstanding recent significant improvements, CS remains basically a computer aided board game. I think, acknowledging I am, fundamentally, an analogue man, the current arrangements for fatigue and disruption are fine. Surely there are limits to what can be done with a computer. If you want more realism, join the Army

Why are people arguing about how whether a Panzer Division can/should get from Metz to Paris before the pubs close when the map over which they move is only a simple approximation of the ground in reality.

[Huib Versloot]

This game was never designed to cover every minute of every day in the life of a battle? It was designed to give "snap shots" of what happened during various battles.
Those that never understood that, designed scenarios that have 400 turns and really do not "recreate" the whole battle or even pieces of the battle.

Very true. I don't think we disagree that much... really
Most scns I made are single day battles. Sometimes 2 or 3 days. Sometimes I break them down into separate scenarios, sometimes I leave the "snippets" in sequence in a single scenario of 25-50 turns or so, whatever I think will produce the most fun scenario.

/H

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I think this argument is a total red herring...what does the average player care about how long a turn represents??? He/she will take as long as they want/ need/have available to play their turn. If one needs a leak halfway through, one will do so (having I hope begged their opponent's and the Governments permission to save their move!!)That's the only time that counts. That and whether the scenario has the right number of turns to allow the dreaded "balance"!!! Notwithstanding recent significant improvements, CS remains basically a computer aided board game. I think, acknowledging I am, fundamentally, an analogue man, the current arrangements for fatigue and disruption are fine. Surely there are limits to what can be done with a computer. If you want more realism, join the Army
Why are people arguing about how whether a Panzer Division can/should get from Metz to Paris before the pubs close when the map over which they move is only a simple approximation of the ground in reality.

Once again, Rod, I do think you missed the point. :chin:
It's not reality, it's scale. And, it was being discussed as a game.
It's also the design of scenarios and units that are capable within the scale. And, our affection for the game is based on the scale that we like to play. Otherwise I would be playing OpC or Squad Battles?

Osiris wrote: "Otherwise you need to take heed of what the original designer of this game of PzBlitz said upon which CS is based on. when designing scenarios: "of course there were certain actions that would drag on for hours but to simulate those you would need complex supply rules as well as more room for manuever for the supply units.."
I find it a spot on observation for where this discussion should go.

In a game with six minute turns and 250m hexes I do not even think about driving, let alone fighting, from Paris to Metz or vice versa. That there are scenario designers who wish to do so was one of the points.
In this scale with fire tables, supply, and fatigue rules set by the original design, having mine laying and bridge building engineers doing things in six minutes is a bit far fetched? Even for just a game?
How about a designer who makes a scenario in CS that is based on one mile per hex? Now when that Panther reaches out and get's "friendly" with your Shermans at seven hexes, you will have lost single tanks to attacks at seven miles. Which to me is similar to building a bridge in six minutes.
Common sense just tells me that scale matters? That was my only point. I am less about eye candy and things that make me go "ohhh". To add in units and parameters outside the intended design will dilute the product. IMO.

And, as Herr Huib has stated, he and I are much closer in our thinking than we are far away. Plus, we also have one common goal, "designing scenarios that are fun to play".

And, if you do not like our posting about it, you may want to avoid reading our posts? I hate to see you get all lathered up over something that doesn't mean that much. ;)
There are others who may wish to discuss it on the public forum? This is the Campaign Series forum?
BTW, what type of wine goes with red herring? :smoke: