CS Game Scale - Manual Style

[umbro]

For what it's worth (probably the paper it's not printed on), here is another interpretation (borrowing heavily from what has gone before):

"We need a scale for weapons ranges and visibility" - Okay 250m per hex
"How fast does stuff move around?" - men can move on roads at 4mph - that's 40 hexes per hour. Jeeps can move on roads at 25mph, that's 250 hexes per hour. So, let's divide by ten and have a turn be 6 minutes.
"Great, now how much damage can a weapon system do in 6 minutes?"...

After this conversation comes "What about all the boring bits we skipped over? Waiting for orders, tea breaks, getting POWs back to the MPs, getting wounded back to triage, waiting for the ammo truck to get up here,...." "Let's ignore those, who would want to play a scenario with more than 10 turns anyway?"

Turns out folks did, and do. It isn't that there is a sliding timescale, but rather that the boring bits actually begin to matter. I don't believe anyone truly believes that after a 6 minute turn everyone sits around for an hour. However, after some number of 6 minute turns units do sit around for a number of hours. This "flexible" time scale allows for numerous firefights and recovery periods. It also allows for some of the newer engineering functions as it becomes possible for an engineer unit to make use of these "downtimes" to erect a wooden bridge, or lay a simple minefield.

Basically, IMHO, the "six minute scale" is for the "action sequences", the "flexible time scale" covers the "down times".

umbro

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Basically, IMHO, the "six minute scale" is for the "action sequences", the "flexible time scale" covers the "down times".

I'm fine with these comments. :)
Though, the "flex" crowd seems to think that the units on the map and the map itself can be "something other" than 250 meters and platoons?

It is the scale that determines how far a Panther can fire? And, at what range, what the penetration is? It is the scale within the time frame that says how many times it can shoot?
From there the combat tables can be established.

Make changes to scale and you get engineers that can build a bridge, clear a hex of wrecks, or sow a 250 meter hex with mines, ... in six minutes. Unless there is no downtime for the engineers, while everyone is resting? :chin: ;)



RR

[Huib Versloot]

For what it's worth (probably the paper it's not printed on), here is another interpretation (borrowing heavily from what has gone before):

"We need a scale for weapons ranges and visibility" - Okay 250m per hex
"How fast does stuff move around?" - men can move on roads at 4mph - that's 40 hexes per hour. Jeeps can move on roads at 25mph, that's 250 hexes per hour. So, let's divide by ten and have a turn be 6 minutes.
"Great, now how much damage can a weapon system do in 6 minutes?"...

After this conversation comes "What about all the boring bits we skipped over? Waiting for orders, tea breaks, getting POWs back to the MPs, getting wounded back to triage, waiting for the ammo truck to get up here,...." "Let's ignore those, who would want to play a scenario with more than 10 turns anyway?"

Turns out folks did, and do. It isn't that there is a sliding timescale, but rather that the boring bits actually begin to matter. I don't believe anyone truly believes that after a 6 minute turn everyone sits around for an hour. However, after some number of 6 minute turns units do sit around for a number of hours. This "flexible" time scale allows for numerous firefights and recovery periods. It also allows for some of the newer engineering functions as it becomes possible for an engineer unit to make use of these "downtimes" to erect a wooden bridge, or lay a simple minefield.

Basically, IMHO, the "six minute scale" is for the "action sequences", the "flexible time scale" covers the "down times".

umbro

Thanks Umbro you just said exactly the same thing that I have been saying for over five years now. Apparently it matters more WHO says it more than what is said.

[K K Rossokolski]

Umbro has hit the nail exactly on the head!!!.
Hurry up and wait!!!....another Vietnam truth.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Thanks Umbro you just said exactly the same thing that I have been saying for over five years now. Apparently it matters more WHO says it more than what is said.

From June 2008:

You should look at COTA or airborne assault series for intelligent timespans, although they are non turn based, their fatigue and order delay sytem is very realistic. I use common sense to determine turn lengths. Nobody ever has been able to tell WHY the CS turn is a given length, other than that someone who doesn't know what he was talking about put it in the old Talonsoft CS manual and probably regretted he did that once scenarios had to be made. Let's see if we can get that sentence out of the ME manual for 1.04.
If said this many times before: without a proper order delay and fatigue system in the engine you cannot have a fixed turn length. So it would not be nice to have a turn clock, unless the designer can set the parameters (time) for it.

Huib

:chin:

COTA gives you a good idea what for example a company of infantry can accomplish in a day, because all elements are present: fatigue, waiting for orders, preparing to move out etc. If you translate that back to CS you'll find that the 6 minute turns can't be applied without reservations (like in the huge Market Garden scenario of 400turns and even here the timepan was widened), since these turns equal to full action. If one wanted, one could calculate an average of action time that is possible in a day (using COTA). As a rule, the more different orders a unit gets, the more time they will spent preparing and the less time there is for action.

To Ed: please explain why a turn is 6 minutes and why it was intended to be that way and how it tranlates back into scenario designing?
The only way I can place it is that the 6 minute turns only represent the actual action/movement, while the rest (sleeping, waiting for orders etc) is simply not represented/skipped by the game engine.
Thus the designer is forced to make his own interpretation of the time NOT represented by the game engine. In doing so he will come on a different # of turns than 240 turns for 24hrs of real time. I usually look what the historical units achieved or could have achieved on a given day and use that to determine the length of the scenario. Most of the time I succeed very well in this I must say.

Huib

Uh, scale? Parameters? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

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

Hmmm ... Scale! :chin:

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.

Hmmm ... I know! :chin:

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

Single day. Two or three? Of course ...

Guys,
All I can say is in my campaigns a daylight turn is equal to about 24 mins and a night turn is equal to about 45 mins.It usually breaks down to about 45 to 47 turns per day and having run a few campaigns I can comfortably say that's about right.Players can do bout what was historically done....sometimes a little better and sometimes a little worse. About the way of any good game.............and by damn this is a good game :-)

I still agree.
Though I think 45 minutes may stretch the scale a bit more.
_______________________________________
Dang. There may have been a time when we were more civil? Even when we disagreed? :rolleyes:
I would still rather see a designer make a scenario based more on the "snippet" of the battle than a multi day condensed affair.
There is much to be said about making campaigns, multi-battles, and simple scenarios.
The difference between you and Herr Umbro is that Jonathan does not attack the poster to make a point. He addresses the point and sheds light at the same time?

With all that said, if we end up with fun, balanced, and playable scenarios we all win?:smoke:



RR

[umbro]

Make changes to scale and you get engineers that can build a bridge, clear a hex of wrecks, or sow a 250 meter hex with mines, ... in six minutes. Unless there is no downtime for the engineers, while everyone is resting? :chin: ;)

Ed poses a very interesting question here. IMHO the downtime for non-combat units is much less than combat units and therefore they do get to do "more" while other guys are resting.

Also, bear in mind that the "bridge" is really two ropes strung across a river that infantry can clamber across, that clearing wrecks means moving the wrecks a couple of meters so that they don't block the road, and that the minefield is level one which means they basically sowed the road at one bottleneck point...

Of course, there is the issue that these guys get to do more than anyone else (as they can often be combat units too!), but I think that is a small price to pay for the extension to game play offered by these new guys. But, I admit that I am biased in favour of larger scenarios with more options - except when playing online H2H :-).

umbro

[umbro]

Though, the "flex" crowd seems to think that the units on the map and the map itself can be "something other" than 250 meters and platoons?

I have to admit that I have difficulties accepting this interpretation. Too much depends on the 250m scale and platoon sized units to make them something else. If one does this then movement factors, attack factors and relative unit capabilities are all lost and the game is no longer a "simulation".

umbro

[K K Rossokolski]

MrRoadrunner Wrote:
Make changes to scale and you get engineers that can build a bridge, clear a hex of wrecks, or sow a 250 meter hex with mines, ... in six minutes. Unless there is no downtime for the engineers, while everyone is resting? End Quote

This is a red herring!! What is the big deal re "scale" here. Ever since I have been playing CS, the sappers have been able to clear a minefield in one turn. And with laying mines, they don't have the problem with finding them first!! 6 SP sappers or 1 SP...... same time. Fit as many Eng platoons in a mined hex as you can, still takes one turn to clear*.
Live with it.
* For a one click minefield, undisrupted troops.
BTW who are the ""flex" crowd." I have seen nothing here advocating changing linear scale or platoon size.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

MrRoadrunner Wrote:
Make changes to scale and you get engineers that can build a bridge, clear a hex of wrecks, or sow a 250 meter hex with mines, ... in six minutes. Unless there is no downtime for the engineers, while everyone is resting? End Quote

This is a red herring!! What is the big deal re "scale" here. Ever since I have been playing CS, the sappers have been able to clear a minefield in one turn. And with laying mines, they don't have the problem with finding them first!! 6 SP sappers or 1 SP...... same time. Fit as many Eng platoons in a mined hex as you can, still takes one turn to clear*.
Live with it.
* For a one click minefield, undisrupted troops.
BTW who are the ""flex" crowd." I have seen nothing here advocating changing linear scale or platoon size.

I could answer but was asked not to respond. :chin:



RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Also, bear in mind that the "bridge" is really two ropes strung across a river that infantry can clamber across, that clearing wrecks means moving the wrecks a couple of meters so that they don't block the road, and that the minefield is level one which means they basically sowed the road at one bottleneck point...

You were never a Boy Scout?
We made a bridge of rope as part of a project to earn a merit badge. I don't remember the amount of time it took except to say that we ate breakfast and were ready for lunch by the time we could get it "almost" ready for use. And, yes, we were a bunch of kids at the time. I am sure that the "pro's" could do it faster. (And, you need to then look at 130 guys trying to cross that rope bridge with full combat loads within the game's scale?)
Never cleared or sowed a minefield. :rolleyes: But, from what I have read it was a little time consuming. I have no problem with the "path clearing". I do have an issue with sowing a 250 meter hex to have enough effect. Clearing is not so much an issue for me. And, it gives a sureal feel to have them perform in the "combat frame" at the same time?
In my early work days I drove truck in a construction company. I was involved in many a "wreck" clearing and recovery. I can guarantee that it took hours to move dozers and trucks that got "in the way" or broke down in the wrong places.

Of course, there is the issue that these guys get to do more than anyone else (as they can often be combat units too!), but I think that is a small price to pay for the extension to game play offered by these new guys.

I have always accepted the abstract nature of many of the game's features. I accept them as the exception and hope they do not become the rule. ;)

But, I admit that I am biased in favour of larger scenarios with more options - except when playing online H2H :-).

I can see one of those 90 to 400 turn scenarios as being a bit much for playing online! :)

RR