Point Values

Mike Abberton · 02-12-2009, 02:29 PM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:Without scenarios, CS does not exist. At present, on the Database there are 700+ WF, 600- EF and 200- RS. Total around 1500.
About 40 EF, 25 WF ,and 0 RS are marked with * or **, showing, I understand, known compatibility with JTCS. I believe a majority of the rest is playable. Whether they are any good is another matter, and in any event at least partly subjective. If they are technically playable, of what consequence is it that they do not use all the new stuff?

Abandoning this wonderful resource would really be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am not necessarily talking about abandoning CS completely (i.e. not sell it anymore, or patch it for new operating systems). What I am talking about is trying to add things that are out of scope for the game engine or forever tweaking things that might fix things going forward but makes old scenarios unplayable.

CS in its same basic form has existed for a long time. The latest JTCS upgrade gave it a little boost, particularly to run under Vista and made some changes to increase its legs a little. But to me, it seems like CS is really getting ready to enjoy an active semi-active retirement. One where many people still enjoy it as it is and hopefully still will for some years to come. But not a retirement that starts trying to change what it is, like the naval units and bombers, or trying to completely revamp the points system.

Again just my thoughts.

Mike

K K Rossokolski · 02-12-2009, 02:53 PM,

Mike Abberton Wrote:I am not necessarily talking about abandoning CS completely (i.e. not sell it anymore, or patch it for new operating systems). What I am talking about is trying to add things that are out of scope for the game engine or forever tweaking things that might fix things going forward but makes old scenarios unplayable.

CS in its same basic form has existed for a long time. The latest JTCS upgrade gave it a little boost, particularly to run under Vista and made some changes to increase its legs a little. But to me, it seems like CS is really getting ready to enjoy an active semi-active retirement. One where many people still enjoy it as it is and hopefully still will for some years to come. But not a retirement that starts trying to change what it is, like the naval units and bombers, or trying to completely revamp the points system.

Again just my thoughts.

Mike

That makes a lot of sense to me.

**Jason Petho** · 02-13-2009, 01:14 AM,

Mike Abberton Wrote:CS in its same basic form has existed for a long time.

...because it was unsupported for 7 years?

Jason Petho

Kool Kat · (This post was last modified: 02-13-2009, 02:42 AM by Kool Kat.)

Mike Abberton Wrote:I am not necessarily talking about abandoning CS completely (i.e. not sell it anymore, or patch it for new operating systems). What I am talking about is trying to add things that are out of scope for the game engine or forever tweaking things that might fix things going forward but makes old scenarios unplayable.

Again just my thoughts.

Mike

I agree with Mike's comments.

Over the past several months, I have read proposals after proposals to revamp the artillery / spotting rules, opportunity fire, unit point values, etc. Essentially, these proposals advocate the elimination of entire rules and drastically altering the game engine. Reasons cited include "xyz" (insert the rules section here) is "too simple," "unrealistic," "unfair," "unbalanced," etc.

With the dust still settling from the ver. 1.04 game patch and some of the questionable changes made in that patch - variable visibility, extreme assault, bathtub naval units, "hidden" anti-tank guns, sci-fi "projecting" bomber units, etc. - all adding different and potentially unbalancing elements into the JTCS scenarios, I think it is very premature for folks to be advocating MORE whole scale changes until MORE players get MORE games under their belts and persons can start to realistically evaluate these new or changed rules / units and their impact in the game.

Also; what I have NOT seen discussed, is the need to create new scenarios based on ver. 1.04... AND the need to "upgrade" existing pre- ver. 1.04 scenarios (custom & stock) to be compatiable with the ver. 1.04 game patch.

As it has been pointed out in other posts, there are a wealth of existing scenarios that may play much differently (maybe better? or maybe worse?) under the ver. 1.04 game patch. We just don't know. Are we just going to shrug and state that players are on their own with the existing stock and custom scenarios developed pre ver. 1.04? If so, where does that leave us as players today? Select from a handful of post ver. 1.04 scenarios only?

And now, the constant clamor from a few scenario designers and players that MORE whole scale changes MUST happen now because current rules sections and game mechanics are broken?

I don't buy it... and as a JTCS player I believe we need to move more slowly and proceed in a more deliberate manner. Let's let our scenario base "catch up" with ver. 1.04 before we start tearing apart entire rules sections and revamping the game mechanics again.

**Jason Petho** · 02-13-2009, 02:29 AM,

mwest Wrote:Also; what I have NOT seen discussed, is the need to create new scenarios based on ver. 1.04... AND the need to "upgrade" existing pre- ver. 1.04 scenarios (custom & stock) to be compatiable with the ver. 1.04 game patch.

I've stated shortly after the 1.04 UPDATE release that that is on the list of things to do for 1.05.

Jason Petho

K K Rossokolski · 02-13-2009, 07:01 AM,

Jason Petho Wrote:
mwest Wrote:Also; what I have NOT seen discussed, is the need to create new scenarios based on ver. 1.04... AND the need to "upgrade" existing pre- ver. 1.04 scenarios (custom & stock) to be compatiable with the ver. 1.04 game patch.

I've stated shortly after the 1.04 UPDATE release that that is on the list of things to do for 1.05.

Jason Petho

All 2000? Might take a while. At one a day, about 5 years. hell of a lot more if you use the H2H system

**Jason Petho** · (This post was last modified: 02-13-2009, 07:09 AM by Jason Petho.)

K K Rossokolski Wrote:All 2000? Might take a while. At one a day, about 5 years. hell of a lot more if you use the H2H system

One would start with the "official" ones included with the game.

Jason Petho

Kool Kat · (This post was last modified: 02-13-2009, 07:49 AM by Kool Kat.)

Jason Petho Wrote:One would start with the "official" ones included with the game.

Jason Petho

Sounds like a logical way to start - with the stock official scenarios... and then a subset of the "better" custom ones - based on player ratings and feedback. Then add those to the growing list of post ver. 1.04 scenarios and you move forward.

**Jason Petho** · 02-13-2009, 07:50 AM,

mwest Wrote:Sounds like a logical way to start - with the stock official scenarios... and then a subset of the "better" custom ones - based on player ratings and feedback. Then add those to the growing list of post ver. 1.04 scenarios and you move forward.

Excellent suggestion.

Jason Petho

RADO · 02-13-2009, 08:18 AM,

Well, I have played 28 games since becoming active once again a few months ago. The new version is, IMO, a very positive move forward, but even with all the posts I have seen, and all the comments that have been made, I refer back to my original post.

The point system gentlemen, "is broken", and that was & is my only issue. CS is a great game. Some scenario designers have done an excellent job at creating challenging and relatively fair scenarios. Others have done a very, very, poor job at designing scenarios, and I scratch my head, trying to understand what the designer was thinking about.

What remains is a need for a point system to be created that gives a fair cost for a unit based on game capabilities, and then it is up to the scenario designer to do the rest. Right now, we don't have that, and again, IMO, that is a real issue for the game.

- Greg

:bow: