The armed half-track

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Most early scenario designs covered brief snipits of parts of battles. It was rare to see an entire operation covered by the early designers?

RR

Ed,

Even Taskforce Lovelady, that good old Bevard classic was a multiple day battle in reality. Bevard put it in something like 12 turns. This scn does NOT simply represent a small part of the battle.
There are also engagements that in reality took only an hour or so but were so intensive that a designer would also need 12 turns to represent them. In such a case it would not be realistic to add a bridging engineer or something probably. A lot of the older stock scns are the most abstract scns around (mainly in force size oob representation) and cover multiple days. (I could name a very long list of scenarios here)
So Matrix does not do anything different with timescale than Talonsoft did. All that was done was the adding of new units that would also fit well in many old stock scns.
Ofcourse you are free to not like larger scenarios, but they are no more abstract than other scns. I like larger scns as long as they translate the real events into the game realistically.

In summary I'll conclude with your sentence: I don't think the new direction of "time is relative to the situation you are modeling" is the way to go.
This is not new, it has always been this way.

Huib

Once again you totally missed my point?

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

well, messed that up!
I'll get on with finding another bridge to block in my game, lol!
Just joking Ed!
regards
Peter

:stir:

"Taking the Remagen bridge"

http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/taki...bridge.htm

"As “B” Company Tank Destroyers proceeded across the bridge on March 10, 1945 German artillery blew up a truck ahead of us. The one-way traffic was blocked. "

Runs-for-cover... :smoke:

So, in the spirit of the discussion, did the Americans send the truck onto the bridge to block it?
If the Germans sent a driver to put an empty truck on the bridge, to be destroyed and block the bridge, that would be a better story?
Show me where any driver was sent, in the line of fire (ie. a combat zone), to take a perfectly good truck to use as a roadblock.

Trucks were so valuable that the Americans removed them from two infantry divisions to make the "Red Ball Express". This essentially took both divisions out of the fight by making them static.
I can't see the use of trucks as blocks in the game. That's my opinion. If it is not yours that is fine by me.

BTW, was the truck that got hit by artillery empty or carrying supplies? :rolleyes:



RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The discussion does not beggar any more commentary on that particular subject.

My point was..."it's a computer game...do we still have the artificial restraints put on us by house rules?"

I like that..."...then I won't play you...". Fine.

...Convince me that I am wrong...but I sincerely believe that that is the crux of the matter. Don't play me, fine. I don't play alot anyway...

Three reasons to not try to ... :smoke:



RR

[Von Earlmann]

Good Lord................do people still think that the 6 minute time scale was ever really accurate in any version of CS?

I suspect that in a scenario with 15 turns which supposedly is 90 mins a commander might be able to issue maybe one order during the entire the engagement.

Time scale is like the rest of most of the game pretty abstract at times and pretty close at other times. I did discuss oaded arty with someone who was in an arty unit post WWII and he confirmed that they could in fact set up and fire in about 6 mins.

I find it hard to believe that a PSW type could bump and expose up to 3 or 4 units and then relay that info and have same units attacked by and assaulted repeatedly in 6 mins.

As for large scenarios. It was not the game design that limted the size of the scenarios. It was the capabilities of the computers and with todays stuff you can play larger scenarios without locking things up. I like larger scenarios and have always prefered playing campaign type games in any wargame I play. for those that enjoy smaller scenarios I think that's great too. They are both suited to the game and prefering one over the other does not make any of them wrong.

However, by damn you will never convince me that 6 mins a turn is any where near realistic in the overall concept of the game......then or now :-)

VE

[Huib Versloot]

Most early scenario designs covered brief snipits of parts of battles. It was rare to see an entire operation covered by the early designers?

RR

Ed,

Even Taskforce Lovelady, that good old Bevard classic was a multiple day battle in reality. Bevard put it in something like 12 turns. This scn does NOT simply represent a small part of the battle.
There are also engagements that in reality took only an hour or so but were so intensive that a designer would also need 12 turns to represent them. In such a case it would not be realistic to add a bridging engineer or something probably. A lot of the older stock scns are the most abstract scns around (mainly in force size oob representation) and cover multiple days. (I could name a very long list of scenarios here)
So Matrix does not do anything different with timescale than Talonsoft did. All that was done was the adding of new units that would also fit well in many old stock scns.
Ofcourse you are free to not like larger scenarios, but they are no more abstract than other scns. I like larger scns as long as they translate the real events into the game realistically.

In summary I'll conclude with your sentence: I don't think the new direction of "time is relative to the situation you are modeling" is the way to go.
This is not new, it has always been this way.

Huib

Once again you totally missed my point?

RR

???

You didn't have a point as far as time scale is concerned other than demonstrating that you don't understand how scenarios are made.

[Crossroads]

well, messed that up!
I'll get on with finding another bridge to block in my game, lol!
Just joking Ed!
regards
Peter

:stir:

"Taking the Remagen bridge"

http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/taki...bridge.htm

"As “B” Company Tank Destroyers proceeded across the bridge on March 10, 1945 German artillery blew up a truck ahead of us. The one-way traffic was blocked. "

Runs-for-cover... :smoke:

So, in the spirit of the discussion, did the Americans send the truck onto the bridge to block it?
If the Germans sent a driver to put an empty truck on the bridge, to be destroyed and block the bridge, that would be a better story?
Show me where any driver was sent, in the line of fire (ie. a combat zone), to take a perfectly good truck to use as a roadblock.

Trucks were so valuable that the Americans removed them from two infantry divisions to make the "Red Ball Express". This essentially took both divisions out of the fight by making them static.
I can't see the use of trucks as blocks in the game. That's my opinion. If it is not yours that is fine by me.

BTW, was the truck that got hit by artillery empty or carrying supplies? :rolleyes:



RR

I knew I would pay the price for being a smarta$$... :)

Actually, I misinterpreted the Remagen story I accidentally bumped into... I thought what happened was that the Germans intentionally blew up a truck of their own to block the strategically very important bridge at the time of the US attack.

Having re-read, it seems that what happened was that the Germans just happened to hit a (US?) truck that exploded and blocked the bridge. My bad.

You see, I did try to :stir: but *within* the context of the discussion. :smoke:

First round on me

[Edit: typo]

[Glint]

''Then we will have to disagree?
I think that blocking a bridge by driving trucks onto it is gamey.
Heck, where is the spirit of the game?'' (Ed)

Surely it's not gamey in the right situation Ed, it happenened in actual warfare?

I agree to disagree too Ed ! If I put the necessary number of tanks (forget trucks), on the bridge in defence and knowing if they fail, the wrecks will block a valuable crossing point and possibly change the outcome of the battle, is that gamey?

I'm not trying to convince you Ed, or stating your ideas of ROE are wrong ! I just threw in a situation for debate. I would not use gamey tactics myself and agree with your comments to a degree, I just had a thought and aired it.

regards
Peter

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Most early scenario designs covered brief snipits of parts of battles. It was rare to see an entire operation covered by the early designers?

RR

Ed,

Even Taskforce Lovelady, that good old Bevard classic was a multiple day battle in reality. Bevard put it in something like 12 turns. This scn does NOT simply represent a small part of the battle.
There are also engagements that in reality took only an hour or so but were so intensive that a designer would also need 12 turns to represent them. In such a case it would not be realistic to add a bridging engineer or something probably. A lot of the older stock scns are the most abstract scns around (mainly in force size oob representation) and cover multiple days. (I could name a very long list of scenarios here)
So Matrix does not do anything different with timescale than Talonsoft did. All that was done was the adding of new units that would also fit well in many old stock scns.
Ofcourse you are free to not like larger scenarios, but they are no more abstract than other scns. I like larger scns as long as they translate the real events into the game realistically.

In summary I'll conclude with your sentence: I don't think the new direction of "time is relative to the situation you are modeling" is the way to go.
This is not new, it has always been this way.

Huib

Once again you totally missed my point?

RR

???

You didn't have a point as far as time scale is concerned other than demonstrating that you don't understand how scenarios are made.

Why your only point is to attack the poster and not the comment is your M.O.?
You've done so very well in the past and seem to do so now?

Here is the Doug Bevard description of what his battle represented:

Mausbach, 12km E of Aachen, Germany: [Best played against Human opponent] While in the north the British were preparing for Operation Market-Garden, further south the Americans were knocking on Germany's door. With the decision to bypass Aachen, the plan of the US VII Corps called for a frontal attack by armor to sweep through the West Wall defenses south of the city then a northward sweep to complete the encirclement. By September 14th CCB/3rd Armored Division had penetrated deeply into the West Wall and was poised to drive north. At Roetgen, CCB split into two task forces with TF King advancing toward Stolberg, while on the right TF Lovelady was to fight its way to Eschweiler. By noon on the 15th, Colonel Lovelady's tired GIs prepared to cross the Vicht River and drive through the last positions of the Schill Line and into the open ground around Mausbach and Gressenich. German reserves were nearly exhausted. However, a scratch force from the shattered 9th Panzer Division, 105th Panzer and 394th Assault Gun Brigades was ordered south to blunt the American attack.
__________________________________________

12 turns = One hour and twelve minutes of fighting.

It is quite simple and no where does it say it represents fighting over a period of time. It is a snipit of the battle that he portrays.

You didn't have a point as far as time scale is concerned other than demonstrating that you don't understand how scenarios are made.

From the game manual:
page 13
Each scenario is played on a unique map with five “view modes.” Most scenario maps are based on historically-accurate 1940-era 1:50,000 scale maps actually used by Axis and Allied commanders during the war. Combat is performed on a “hex grid” map that has defined wargaming for over three decades. Each “hex” represents 250 meters; with 4 hexes to a kilometer or 6 hexes to a mile. Turns are equivalent to approximately 6 minutes of real time.
Each scenario has a variable number of Game Turns, in which you and your opponent attempt to capture or defend Objectives and smash more enemy troops then you lose. Every conceivable type of battle action is represented in the scenario selection: meeting engagements, armored breakthroughs, trench defenses, exploitation, reconnaissance, battles of attrition, mobile defenses, and much more.
page 155
What is the game scale?
A. The game scale is six minutes per turn and 250 meters per hex. Each Strength Point (SP) of an infantry platoon represents a half squad (thus, 6 SPs represent a platoon of three squads). Each SP of a Machine Gun platoon represents one MG “team” (and, thus, one MG); each SP of a gun (i.e., gun, mortar, or howitzer) battery represents one gun and its attendant crew; each SP of a vehicular platoon (regardless of type) represents one vehicle and its crew. Crews and guns are considered the same units for game play purposes.
_______________________________________

Or, is it how "stupid" I am that I don't appreciate your scenarios? I understand the game's scale and a little of the way scenarios are made by all designers. I do not take the word of one specific designer.
I keep most scenarios in my game folder. Luckily we can remove those we don't like so that we don't have to play them? I know my West Front folder is lighter than a standard WF folder. :chin:

Get it? :smoke:

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

''Then we will have to disagree?
I think that blocking a bridge by driving trucks onto it is gamey.
Heck, where is the spirit of the game?'' (Ed)

Surely it's not gamey in the right situation Ed, it happenened in actual warfare?

Peter,
You will have to give me a reference where it was done intentionally, in the heat of battle, by the guys who drove the trucks.
I do not see grey areas.
If a scenario designer wants to put in a block hex and say it is a pile of trucks that is one thing? When a player uses a gamey tactic "because he can", that is another thing?

I'm not sure how many times I will say "we will just agree to disagree" but, you actually happened to insert "actual warfare" comment, which just does not hold water.

Sorry, I see it in black and white, and not in shades of grey.

Good gaming!

Thanks for letting me have my opinion. :)



Ed

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Good Lord................do people still think that the 6 minute time scale was ever really accurate in any version of CS?

<snip>
However, by damn you will never convince me that 6 mins a turn is any where near realistic in the overall concept of the game......then or now :-)

VE

No one is trying to argue to convince anyone?
I've seen, over the years, the steady creep of those who think that the game should model whole operations that cover days in one scenario. I think it should be done using multiple scenarios that cover those hours of those days, in a theme format. But, that is just me and I am not a scenario designer?

Six minutes is the scale chosen by the original designers. It establishes the size of the map hexes, range of fire, and how far units can move in the game.
Is it perfect ... no.
Can a designer use artistic license and create an operation using the game (even if not by exact scale) ... yes.

Can players enjoy what they want if all types of scenarios were made ... I sure hope so.

I guess neither is perfect?

I'll just be in the "stupid" camp that believes in the game scale in the parameters set by the original designers (based on the PanzerBlitz/PanzerLeader board games). I will not be convinced that operations covering multiple hours, over a period of days were ever intended to be part of the overall concept of the game. How many miles would that Panther be shooting? ;)

But, that is me and I also respect some of the work that you have done in creating your scenarios. I hope we can continue to disagree in a civil manner? :smoke:



RR