CS Game Scale - Manual Style

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Edit: content removed because it quoted other edited content.

[Skryabin]

Better to have a plate in front of one's head

...especially here! Aren't we in WARgaming club? LOL I would love to have a wide one in front of mine... just in case :)

[Von Earlmann]

You can put that 6 min thingy in the manual,you can put it on the Times Square billboards, you can have Obama make it part of his healthcare reform, you can get nasty and ridicule others, but...........ain't no way .............no how a turn is 6 minutes!

From where the sun now stands I will discuss this no more..............however the half track thingy still makes my nipples hard :-)

VE

[Herr Straße Laufer]

You can put that 6 min thingy in the manual,you can put it on the Times Square billboards, you can have Obama make it part of his healthcare reform,

What is the size of a hex?
How far can units move and shoot?
What gives the artillery it's range?

Game scale. Plain and simple. :smoke:

you can get nasty and ridicule others, but...........ain't no way .............no how a turn is 6 minutes!

Sorry this strawman and canard needs to be put to rest. :chin:
Please read everything that I have written. I have not ... repeat ... not gotten nasty. Nor, have I used ridicule. I have simply cut and pasted the words found in the manual and those comments of other members.
In your future Posts (if any) remember that?
I've been belittled, called names, have words assigned to me that I did not write. Go talk to Huib and Curt.

You should know better?
All I have ever said is that you and the sliding scale crowd can design whatever scenario based anyway you wish. If it is a good scenario I will play it.
That is what I have said and will continue to say. Cut and paste any comment that you believe, where I was nasty or ridiculed any of the "sliders"?
I may have pushed back a time or two, in response to the comments of others, but to be nasty and ridicule... Give me a break. :angry:

From where the sun now stands I will discuss this no more..............however the half track thingy still makes my nipples hard :-)

Now a hard nipple is a serious thing to waste? :rolleyes:



Ed

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Better to have a plate in front of one's head

...especially here! Aren't we in WARgaming club? LOL I would love to have a wide one in front of mine... just in case :)

From what I understand, the early original Talonsoft design/development team had "discussions" that make our posts look like a Sunday afternoon ladies sowing circle. Some of their discussions often led to near fist fights. :rolleyes:
I've heard rumor that even now some of the current Matrix design/development crew have "gotten into it" pretty good with each other. :chin:

It is the nature of people working together that have different ideas of the way things should go?
I would not want just plates. I would want full body armor. ;)



RR

[Mr. Guberman]

Ed.

Agreed...let us do enjoy our sewing circle.

Believe me, my "so" was not meant to be a confront...but was asking for more clarification unto the specifications provided. That's all...and peace brother.

We all know the published scale...and we know what has been designed by the publishers...some good, some bad...from our Club...some good some bad. If you'll notice, my scens range from the 2-5, maybe 6 complexity level, with not more that a few battalions..at the very best...trying to reduce them from 170 turns is maddening.

It would be...appreciated...if you would not continue to address my comments as if I were advocating division or corps sized scens...I'm talking about tiny little battles that last...for a thousand turns. That is the quandary we are left to try and interpret.

That's it. I don't like fist fights...ususally I am passed out when it gets that far...and am no help at all except maybe as a sandbag...

Cheers and thanx
Curt

[Mr. Guberman]

...it would be terrible for me...

to copy all of the crap, that has been copied and pasted on this subject...

...

...it just would...

cheers

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Believe me, my "so" was not meant to be a confront...but was asking for more clarification unto the specifications provided. That's all...and peace brother.

In the heat of the moment it seemed like a taunt or "the spider saying, come into my web". I'm all for peace as long as I am not cut to pieces over strawmen.

We all know the published scale...and we know what has been designed by the publishers...some good, some bad...from our Club...some good some bad.

I think the scale of the game is spot on in all but one area. I think time should represent 15 to 20 minute turns. I could even be talked into 30 minute turns. I cannot be convinced that a turn would represent a day or two, or even hours because a scenario designer is able to simulate a battle that took days. There are many good and bad scenarios. It might be due to those who forgot game scale as well as early designs from those who were learning how to make scenarios?

If you'll notice, my scens range from the 2-5, maybe 6 complexity level, with not more that a few battalions..at the very best...trying to reduce them from 170 turns is maddening.

It would be...appreciated...if you would not continue to address my comments as if I were advocating division or corps sized scens...I'm talking about tiny little battles that last...for a thousand turns.

I never meant to imply that you did. There are those along the way that wanted to put in that argument. You did not hear it from me.
It's like Mike Abberton wrote:
"Does that explanation require some abstraction, too. Sure. But with this method, it keeps the hex scale consistent with travel speeds (even if infantry are all marathoners). I think the big problem with this explanantion for scenario designers who want to design huge scenarios is that this model breaks down when you have multiple independent forces on the map working semi-independently over long periods of time. You end up with groups of units who are accumulating "downtime" at different rates.

Does all that make the 6-minute game scale "wrong". No, it means you're designing out of the game's "sweet spot". Can you do that and "tweak" the game scale to compensate? Of course you can. But just because it is possible to design a 1,000-turn scenario with 4 divisions worth of troops on each side, and a 500x500 hex map, doesn't mean the game was designed to model that.

Based on the manual, I would say that game was designed for 6-minute turns and relatively small (say regimental size plus support)/short (say up to 25-30 turns) scenarios. The fact that scenario designers (who may or may not have had anything to do with coding the basic game engine) chose to deviate from the sweet spot from day 1 doesn't change the basic design concept at all.

Anyway that was my one rambling comment on the whole game scale debate. In the end, I agree with the saner people on the thread who have said "design and/or play what you enjoy, and let the other drown in the details".
Mike

It was Mike's point (which did not even reference you) and not mine? Though, I agree with Mike.
I was more concerned that some designers want to make scenarios that cover days worth of an operation and not make one that fits the scale. Some want to fixate on the "simulation" and lose sight of the scale.
Would that mean that designers should "cut out the boring parts" and keep the fight within scale, even in that abstract way? Yes, I agree with Mike on that too.

I also said that any and all scenarios are fine by me as long as they are balanced and fun. Just like Mike's closing sentence? :chin:

[Von Luck]

Game scale etc certain designers have tried to compress this idea into large scale battles.This seems to work fine if you dont get into the has to be 6 minutes etc timescale.If the designers worked on that most large games would be 500/1000 turns long.The game can be tweaked for all sorts of battles if we dont go down the it must be 6 min's per turn etc.We have to comprimise with what Talonsoft had in mind and what is now possible with good designers who can bring out the best in the game.IE all the new units etc etc.If we stuck by the origonal Talonsoft data we would be back at EF2.No offence Ed just my thoughts on the game.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Game scale etc certain designers have tried to compress this idea into large scale battles.This seems to work fine if you dont get into the has to be 6 minutes etc timescale.If the designers worked on that most large games would be 500/1000 turns long.The game can be tweaked for all sorts of battles if we dont go down the it must be 6 min's per turn etc.We have to comprimise with what Talonsoft had in mind and what is now possible with good designers who can bring out the best in the game.IE all the new units etc etc.If we stuck by the origonal Talonsoft data we would be back at EF2.No offence Ed just my thoughts on the game.

No offense taken John.
I honesty think that the lack of respect for the game's scale is what brought about Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility, as well as the air bases, naval units, and some of the engineer capabilites that are completely out of "scale".

Here is something from the game folders. If you hit the link to "Help" and then "Game Parameters" you will find:

Parameter Data

Minutes per Turn: 6 Meters per Hex: 250

Maximum Units per Hex: 6 Maximum Strength Points per Hex:24
Maximum Strength Points per Road: 12 (more than this number of SPs in the hex negates any road/railroad/path in the hex)

Minimum Non-Wreck Strength Points per Hex that Block LOS: 13
Minimum Wreck Strength Points per Hex that Block LOS: 6

COMBAT RESULTS TABLE

A B C D E F G
1 6 0 0 0 0 0
1 5 0 0 0 0 5
1 4 0 0 0 5 5
1 3 0 0 0 5 10
1 2 0 0 5 10 10
2 3 0 0 5 10 20
1 1 0 0 10 15 20
3 2 0 0 10 20 25
2 1 0 0 15 25 25
3 1 0 5 15 25 30
4 1 0 10 20 30 30
5 1 5 15 20 35 20
10 1 10 25 25 25 15
15 1 35 25 25 10 5
20 1 60 25 15 0 0
25 1 75 25 0 0 0
30 1 90 10 0 0 0

Column A: net attack strength*
Column B: net defense strength*
Column C: % chance of inflicting a loss of 3 SPs
Column D: % chance of inflicting a loss of 2 SPs
Column E: % chance of inflicting a loss of 1 SP
Column F: % chance of causing Disruption
Column G: % chance of causing a Morale Check

When a unit attacks, the program actually conducts a number of attacks equal to the unit's SPs, then takes each individual result and determines the net result vs. the defender.


* Attack-vs.-defense strengths between those listed above are calculated individually by the program on a pro-rated basis, based on the result probabilities of the two CRT lines the attack falls between. For example, a net attack strength of 11 vs. a net defense strength of 4 has slightly lower result probabilities than an attack of 3 vs. a defense of 1, but higher probabilities than an attack of 2 vs. a defense of 1.

TERRAIN COMBAT MODIFIERS
The amount of the otherwise-applicable attack strength that is allowed to 'hit' atarget occupying such terrain. If two or more apply, they all have an effect; e.g.,a unit attacking a target in a forest hex behind a hedge would use .72 (.8 x .9) or72% of its 'normal' attack strength.

<snipped the rest of Parameter content to not bore members with the numbers. They can access the help menu when playing a scenario?>

_________________________________

The above is how the game defines itself.
All the numbers, in the Parameters area, have meaning?
They are based on the established game scale.
This scale was losely set to the original PanzerBlitz and PanzerLeader Avalon Hill board game.

If you look at Squad Battles, by Tiller, the scale is set on 5 minutes per turn and 40 meters per hex. That scale is battle done by squads which would be 2 strength points of infantry and one tank strength point in CS?
The size of the hex in CS is roughly six times the hex in Squad Battles. So, my previous mentioned thought would be for CS as six times that of Squad Battles, thus my 20 to 30 minutes per turn.

If designers want to make Operation level scenarios the next set above CS in scale would be Operational Campaigns by John Tiller?
Though, they can be modeled using the CS scenario editor, the "over a scale of time" designer should use OpC as their game platform.

Can it be done in CS? Yes. Does it work as an Operation Model? No. Not if game parameters have meaning.
Can a game designed for Operational combat work in CS? Yes. Does it model a battle in the game Parameters? No. It is an abstract of what CS was intended.
I now can see why I have difficulty with most Huib, and some of the the von Earlmann and Don Fox designs. A lot of players liked them and I just scratched my head over them.

I think we should look to the future within the game's scale.
All scenarios should be considered within the games parameters. And, no, I do not agree that we would be back to "EF2". Hell, what's wrong with EFII? :chin:

Heck! There are plenty of battles that can be modeled within the scale that would be most fun and balanced PBEM. We also will not be confused by the mish mash of garbage add ons, like extreme assault and variable visibility, etc. to CS that make it less CS and more "some other game"?

I've often heard new players say that they loved the board game Squad Leader and wanted to make scenarios that model Squad Leader scenarios. Fine by me. They can put single strength point armor and 2 strength point infantry on a map and have at it.
If they do not remember the scale they have to stretch their scenario theme? They would be better served to buy Squad Battles and design away.
Just my thoughts on the subject.

As I said, everyone is free to make a scenario as they want, within what can be made? I hesitate to have the developers/new Matrix team change the game's scale to satisfy the few that want a different game. That is all. :)



RR