Is this a bug/mistake?

[Glint]

Bit late getting into this one, been on Holiday.
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Hawk's comments.As for Jason,
He sent me a task that I could help with in creating VP totals in the oob editor.
A task that was too big for me to find time to do. Given the amount of tasks
the Matrix team have to deal with, I would say they should be congratulated on
their efforts. Anything thrown in the mix can be used or not used, i.e, bridge building
engineers, etc, according to the individual's taste. If you want realism 100%, join the army!
Otherwise, as Hawk said, enjoy the brilliance of the game's abilities and have fun with it?
Thank you Jason!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

If you want realism 100%, join the army!

With this comment, I think you missed the point? :chin:

It's not 100% realism (no one was talking realism) but, "game common sense" and sticking to the parameters of game scale when making additions to the game. :smoke:

Most of the rest (silly attacks, defenseless defenses, or smugness) are just tempests in a teapot? :coffee:



HSL

[Kool Kat]

Gents: :smoke:

This has been an informative and interesting thread!

You learn all kind of things on these forums? :chin:

[Glint]

KK/HHSL, I made a valid comment on the contents of the thread.
I shall not say no more other than keep me on your ignore list?
I reiterate, I enjoy the fun side of the game, as do others, if you don't then
ignore the scenarios that vex you so much? I like the extras that have been
added to the game and appreciate the efforts the Matrix squad have brought
to it. That is what I was stating. No need to belittle others' freedom of views?

[Huib Versloot]

I have not read all the thread, but did read Hawks post and agree with that mostly. For designers I would recommend the following: be very strict about the 250 m/hex scale. The 6 minutes per turn in practice is just a sentence in a manual and not something in any designer's mind when he is designing (only the real historical facts and real terrain data are in your mind when you're designing). Given the abstractions in, and the pace of the game just take care that the total number of turns in your scenario does justice to the historical events you want to represent, then you automatically have designed in a realistic time scale. Finally add or delete some turns for playability/ balance purpose.
This is how it always has worked ever since the game was released. The best way to prove one understands the scale of the game is by designing playable scenarios that the community enjoys.
Finally I would recommend to the sceptics of the Matrix team to research the old Talonsoft scenarios. You will come to the conclusion that they are the most abstract scenarios around: not only in timespan, but also for oob, map size and representation.
No way anyone can derive "the original intent" and the "parameters of scale" from these scenarios, let alone understand them. Perhaps that is why the argumentation of the Matrix crititics stays limited to copying and pasting of some pages of the manual without being able to say how you would implement all that in a scenario.


Huib

[Crossroads]

Well put, Erik and Huib

My observation is the shorter the scenario the more the time scale feels like 6 minutes per turn. For longer scenarios, the more abstract the timescale becomes?

I am pretty sure already the Avalon Hill classics Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader scenarios pointed out something like this in their Situation briefs:

This scenario represents the fighting that took place...

And those board games are in the DNA of this game as well.

Besides my comment, I mainly posted to add one more cat into discussion

The kats of the world unite!

---

EDIT: I actually take back what I said about PB / PL scenarios. A typical situation description goes like "Kampfgruppe Harzer attacks elements of the 1st British Parachute Brigade at Arnhem". A typical situation lasts from 10 up to 15 turns but no more. They do not mention timescale at all. PL / PB are 6 min 250m hex systems.

It seems Huib's comments regarding original Talonsoft scenarios are spot on. Maybe they had played their PL as well? :chin:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Huib wrote: "No way anyone can derive "the original intent" and the "parameters of scale" from these scenarios, let alone understand them. Perhaps that is why the argumentation of the Matrix crititics stays limited to copying and pasting of some pages of the manual without being able to say how you would implement all that in a scenario."

I kinda agree with all but this smug comment.
Herr Huib does not take into account that there are some who have spoken to Tiller and other developers, designers, scenario makers, and play testers of the original Talonsoft version. Most of the original scenarios are far better than any of the new ones, IMO.

Scale is scale. I agree that designers of scenarios need to be true to 250m per hex. Though, I do not believe that a tree or building in a different position is not as worth fighting for as simply scale itself.
I copy and paste so as not to sound like a self important nudge who wants to "lord himself" over 'what the game should be' when the whim hits him. Talking down about someone "not understanding" parameters of scale is very smug indeed. Especially if the one he was talking down to was designing tactical board war games at a time when his own voice was changing to something deeper and he was squeezing pimples on his face.

Since Huib did not read all/any of my comments (his words not mine) I am sure he wants to define what I write within his own mindset. I did cut and paste developer thoughts on "stretching" the design beyond scale and the reasons why, because it was about what they wanted (not I)?
It did not call for a 30 turn game that represented three days of fighting and units to represent companies or regiments (not squads or platoons) as historical fact within the game's scale. And, I am sure that the developers would not argue into perpetuity over the existence of a town or non existence of a town? I would not either.

As most posters have written this is a game? It's supposed to be fun?

I believe that the designers who stick to strictly historical maps and OOB should see the irony that we see when they argue for this strictness until it runs into their desire to throw "6 min turns" out the window.
There are many hypothetical scenarios that are very fun to play. There are also very many historical scenarios that are fun to play. Though, I find many "strictly historical" scenarios that represent "outside the time scale" to be "un-fun". Again; Most of the original scenarios are far better than any of the new ones, IMO.

I hate to repeat myself (because I am not cut and pasting).
Scale is what makes this a tactical level game? Scale, both distance and time, is what determines how far a unit moves and a gun fires. Last I heard movement and fire is the heart of the game. How units do that is important.
It does not matter if you want to design a 400 x 400 map with three Corps per side. It does matter when you add 500 turns into the mix.
Take a large Normandy or Kursk scenario. I am fine with them. Sixty turns would give them a rough days worth of fighting, though stretching the time parameter a bit. If the designer wanted to show a days worth of fighting, he would have hit the nail on the head.

Scale has limits. Scenario designs are relatively limitless?
Scale is not limitless and scenario designs are only limited when designers make them that way?

There is a huge entrenchment on the part of the Matrix team that cannot be overcome with "let's agree to disagree". That entrenchment is bringing "out of scale" pieces into the game engine which, in my opinion, could spoil the game over time.
Also, putting down the thoughts of others by saying "they do not understand" "I, Herr Huib, am the only one that can speak as an authority" is not good for discussion, or the game, in any way.

I wanted to point out some of the changes. I picked a few. There are more.



HSL

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The 6 minutes per turn in practice is just a sentence in a manual and not something in any designer's mind when he is designing

Really? Now you speak for all designers? Ok.

The 6 minutes per turn is a core building block of the CS engine. It determines how many action points it takes to move. It determines how many action points it takes a unit to fire.

There is a reason for this. It explains why a 40mm AA unit fires 3 times per turn and a Russian 152mm Gun fires once. Rounds per Minute.

All unit data parameters have to be governed by a time factor. And for purposes of hard data (ie unit values) this time value has to be fixed. Just like the 250 meters per hex has to be fixed. To have meaningful and consistant unit data you must have distance and time fixed.

Given the abstractions in, and the pace of the game just take care that the total number of turns in your scenario does justice to the historical events you want to represent, then you automatically have designed in a realistic time scale. Finally add or delete some turns for playability/ balance purpose.

Yes, but one can also design a 10 turn 1 hour firefight scenario and adhere rigidly to 6 minutes per turn.

This is how it always has worked ever since the game was released.

Agreed.

The best way to prove one understands the scale of the game is by designing playable scenarios that the community enjoys.

I understand the scale perfectly 250 meters per hex and 6 minutes per turn. Right there in black and white in ever single version of the game spanning to different companies.

Finally I would recommend to the sceptics of the Matrix team to research the old Talonsoft scenarios. You will come to the conclusion that they are the most abstract scenarios around: not only in timespan, but also for oob, map size and representation.

I for one am not skeptical of the Matrix team. They have done good work.

I will also agree that many of the TS scenarios are terrible with regards to accuracy and abstraction. But they are fun.

I also will tell you Huib, and please keep in mind that I am a big fan of your scenarios, that you have created some of the most accurate scenarios with beautiful accuate maps that are some of the most mind numbingly boring sceanarios to play.

No way anyone can derive "the original intent" and the "parameters of scale" from these scenarios, let alone understand them.

This is a counterintuitive argument. This would also mean that you cannot derive or understand "the original intent" or "parameters of scale"
let alone lecture us on their meaning.

Perhaps that is why the argumentation of the Matrix crititics stays limited to copying and pasting of some pages of the manual without being able to say how you would implement all that in a scenario.

It is not about Matrix. The game scale statement of 250 meters per hex and 6 minute turns is their users manual too!

Why is it in there if it does not matter or is inaccurate?

I'll answer that for you. Because all the unit data and parameters are based on it.

Like I said before. If you want to design a 50 turn scenario depicting several hours / days of battle, by all means do it.

If it is fun I will play it and recommend it. If it sucks I won't.

In the end that is what should probably matter most to a designer.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Crossroads]

Gents, my 0,02 although I must be mad to join in this trench warfare. But then again, maybe we are all a bit mad here (as Cheshire cat).

I hate to repeat myself (because I am not cut and pasting).
Scale is what makes this a tactical level game? Scale, both distance and time, is what determines how far a unit moves and a gun fires. Last I heard movement and fire is the heart of the game. How units do that is important.
It does not matter if you want to design a 400 x 400 map with three Corps per side. It does matter when you add 500 turns into the mix.
Take a large Normandy or Kursk scenario. I am fine with them. Sixty turns would give them a rough days worth of fighting, though stretching the time parameter a bit. If the designer wanted to show a days worth of fighting, he would have hit the nail on the head.

I believe no one really disagrees on the 250/6/platoon thingie as for the basic scale. Movement, fire rate, everything is designed around it. Fully agreed.

As you point out, should anyone design a 400x400 hex Corps scenario on platoon level he'd be rather pushing the armchair general's endurance to the limit, not the unit scale limit as such.

The problems we seem to constantly run in this discussion and in the dozens of similar earlier imho have to do with timescale, and timescale alone.

Maybe we should separate the timescale into a separate discussion.

A Corps scenario with 500 turns? Any scenario with 500 turns. Hmmm. The likely result is a very strange scenario.

Agreed?

What about a 60 turn Kursk scenario you mention as an example?

Ten hours of as-is time scale. Every platoon fighting every minute of the long day, without a pause. Plausible? Maybe. Maybe not.

I believe with that example we have propably reached or even passed the limit of the strict timescale adherence.

And it has nothing to do with game engine but everything to do how the scenario turns out.

The issue is the fact that these little computer platoons never tire, never run out of ammo, never stop to have a tea break, fight until bitter end, ...

And, realistically, you can only fight so long without stopping for a cup of tea.

It is not about Matrix. The game scale statement of 250 meters per hex and 6 minute turns is their users manual too!

Why is it in there if it does not matter or is inaccurate?

I'll answer that for you. Because all the unit data and parameters are based on it.

Like I said before. If you want to design a 50 turn scenario depicting several hours / days of battle, by all means do it.

If it is fun I will play it and recommend it. If it sucks I won't.

In the end that is what should probably matter most to a designer.

Again, the unit scale and the engine design as such is not an issue is it.

As for the timescale, I believe we start to be on the gray area on any scenario lasting longer than let us say 20 - 25 turns. Just a hunch.

Apart from that, I fully agree on your closing remark. I mean, if it is fun, I will play it as well.

[Kool Kat]

The 6 minutes per turn in practice is just a sentence in a manual and not something in any designer's mind when he is designing (only the real historical facts and real terrain data are in your mind when you're designing).

Huib, I've designed just as many H2H approved scenarios as you? Please don't presume that you speak for all scenario designers - including myself.

Actually for me... there are a huge number of other parameters / considerations that go into my thinking and reasoning when I design a scenario... unit movement rates / distance, weapon types, ranges, "hard" vs. "soft" attacks, objectives, road networks, reinforcements, number of turns, etc. including and not exclusive... historical facts and terrain data.

The best way to prove one understands the scale of the game is by designing playable scenarios that the community enjoys.

Agree. The majority of my scenarios are H2H approved... other players have both tested these designs... and hopefully enjoy playing them as well? As a "novice" scenario designer... I really value other players' input... especially during the development cycle... because I believe valued input and criticism improves a scenario and in the end it is a "win-win" - the designer gets an improved scenario and the CS gaming community gets to enjoy the end result - a more enjoyable and fun game to play.

No way anyone can derive "the original intent" and the "parameters of scale" from these scenarios, let alone understand them. Perhaps that is why the argumentation of the Matrix crititics stays limited to copying and pasting of some pages of the manual without being able to say how you would implement all that in a scenario.

I have no difficulty in incorporating the parameters / considerations that I deem "important" into the scenarios that I design... all the while governed by the 250 meters / 6 minute game scale of CS. I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to grasp that there is an inherent "scale" built into this game engine?

Again, I can only speak for myself... and not to presume to speak for all scenario designers and players? :chin:

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?" - Alice (Alice in Wonderland) :eek1: