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
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
