Engineers

[Dragoon]

Hello,

I would like to try and expain why I am so much in favour of Engineers having the capability to erect a river crossing over a minor river.Is it exactly to scale?Not exactly.But its one cool feature to have available.

The original game developer first developed the game based on an approximate scale of 6 mins per turn and approximate 250m hexes.At the same time the developer also developed the ability for infantry units (in one turn if lucky)to Dig in and make an IP postion in the 250M hex.Also Engineers to be able to smoke a 250m hex and ability to remove mines in a 250m hex 1 level per turn.These original features arent exactly to scale either.So if we remove the bridge building option then we would have to look at removing some of the original options that the game was developed on.That is what I would like to see avoided as it is a big reason why this game is so much fun.

Dragoon

[Kool Kat]

So if we remove the bridge building option then we would have to look at removing some of the original options that the game was developed on.That is what I would like to see avoided as it is a big reason why this game is so much fun.

I don't believe any player, who has posted in this thread, has advocated for the removal of the engineer bridge building option? :chin:

And it is flawed reasoning to make an assumption that "if" the engineer bridge building option were removed... than other game engine "approximations" would necessarily need to be removed too? :chin:

Suffice to state that the engineer bridge building option is a "kool" option... and move on from there? :cool2:

IMO, I believe this thread has most likely run its course?

[Dragoon]

I agree no one mentioned removing bridging engineers.I was trying to make a point based on what we were talking about in the thread.

No flawed reasoning at all on my part....Basically in the thread I mentioned road engineers,then it was mentioned its out of the game scale.Just made me think that if the game was ,as close as possible,true to scale all non scale units/features would have to go for it to be true to scale kind of thing including some original features/options...No biggie.I remember playing you years ago,your a good player good luck with your games.

Cheers

Dragoon

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Basically in the thread I mentioned road engineers,then it was mentioned its out of the game scale.Just made me think that if the game was ,as close as possible,true to scale all non scale units/features would have to go for it to be true to scale kind of thing including some original features/options...

Instead of throwing out the "baby with the bath water" how about coding engineers to properly fit scale. If a bridge can be built, as Glint showed, in two hours (which is twenty game turns), then code the engineers to take twenty or more turns to erect the bridge?
How about coding the engineers to take longer clearing mines?
Then add your road building engineers and estimate how long it would take to build a serviceable road and have them take that amount of time?

Arguing to the absurd works in some discussions. Taking out all the stuff that is not in scale would be.
My point through this, and previous, debate is that scale should be respected.
Some players took the tact of saying that scale should be up to the scenario designers. Gosh if they make a game that reflects 10 hour turns and a weeks worth of action but both sides have a chance of winning so I will ignore the game's scale, it's all right with me. That is like saying as long as everyone agrees and is doing 90 in a 35 mph zone it is not breaking the law?
Sorry scale is the parameter law of the game.

I've always had issue with mine clearing and now sowing, as being out of the time scale. But, it was never considered serious enough to be a problem that the Matrix Team would address.
Engineers laying smoke over an entire 250m area, in six minutes, is also a bit much. But, it has been part of the game since the beginning of the game.

I'm more interested in the developers respecting game scale when "adding new units". And, scenario designers respecting scale in their scenario designs.

I may have played some of the out of scale scenarios, but I always look at them as 6 minutes per turn and 250 meters per hex.



HSL

[Dragoon]

All good suggestions HSL.

I'm new to playing the larger scenerio's and I am really enjoying them.Now that I have been thinking on this subject,Maybe when the game was developed the larger 50 plus turn scenerio's didnt get much attention(game only came originally with two or three large ones) but they still wanted features such as clearing mines to work in the smaller scenerios too so who knows what their thinking was.I know the group of players I started out with wouldnt play them as we only played live online at the time.

Didnt the U.S. Forces have bridging tanks of some sort?Not sure why that popped into my head thought I seen a picture of one or maybe it was from a different time era.

Dragoon

[Scud]

...At the same time the developer also developed the ability for infantry units (in one turn if lucky)to Dig in and make an IP postion in the 250M hex.Also Engineers to be able to smoke a 250m hex and ability to remove mines in a 250m hex 1 level per turn.These original features arent exactly to scale either....

Actually, in fairness, the platoon digging in on a 250 meter hex, doesn't mean they're making a dug-in position out of the entire place, it just means that where they sit, they've dug a fortified position and control the immediate 250 meters. Same with a mine field, same with smoke. Out of the entire 250 meters, the engineers might be smoking themselves for cover to clear a small, maybe 20 meter section of mines in a road or trail—for a level 1 mine field. Graphically, that would be near impossible to represent, so the 250 meter icon has to be thought of a merely a representation. At least, that's the way I've always interpreted it.

Dave

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I'm new to playing the larger scenerio's and I am really enjoying them.Now that I have been thinking on this subject,Maybe when the game was developed the larger 50 plus turn scenerio's didnt get much attention(game only came originally with two or three large ones) but they still wanted features such as clearing mines to work in the smaller scenerios too so who knows what their thinking was.I know the group of players I started out with wouldnt play them as we only played live online at the time.

Actually the 50 plus turn did not come into mind because of the game scale. Once you get past a days fighting more rules are needed to cover command and control, supply, night/day, unit fatigue, etc.
I think it is in the designer notes in the manual.
Most scenarios were designed as snippets of a battle and not the historic covering of the entire battle.
I do not mind playing larger scenarios as team games. There is only so much time that I have to get regular scenarios done. :smoke:

Didnt the U.S. Forces have bridging tanks of some sort?Not sure why that popped into my head thought I seen a picture of one or maybe it was from a different time era.

Yes, they had bridging tanks. They could quickly place the bridge (I think in less time than the one that Glint showed us) but, you also have to take into account the "prepping" of the banks of the river to allow access to the bridge. In pictures, Glint's bridging engineers had level ground on both sides, which I also assume are hard enough to allow for heavy unit movement.
If it could be coded into the system an engineer bridge would often require less time to put over an existing short bridge span (maybe that twenty hours or less), at the location of an existing road bridge?
When you have to build a "path" to the bridge and prepare the ground before and after the bridge more time would be required.

I think we then begin to code the game into the boring menagerie that Squad Leader became as it morphed into the cumbersome Advanced Squad Leader.



HSL

[Von Earlmann]

A lot of the new units and engineer capabilities were added to be used in the campaigns I sometimes run and to be honest when used in that light they work pretty well. I do agree that smoking a hex with engineers is a bit off but as Ed said it has always been so.......I could buy into the fact that they might just be smoking part of the hex for their own cover.....but if that were true they wouldn't be able to block los to the other hexes....but one thing we can agree on is engineers work pretty much the same for both sides so I guess it's at least fair.

VE

[Dragoon]

Just a thought...Maybe there should be two types of bridging Engineers.One for getting infantry across which would,I think, be faster to set up and get them across to set up a brigehead while the Heavy bridge Engineers(if thats a correct term)sets up for heavier vehicles.But then again thats what rafts and boats are for.So pay no attention to this post cause at the moment I'm too lazy to delete it.

Dragoon

[Crossroads]

Just a thought...Maybe there should be two types of bridging Engineers.One for getting infantry across which would,I think, be faster to set up and get them across to set up a brigehead while the Heavy bridge Engineers(if thats a correct term)sets up for heavier vehicles.But then again thats what rafts and boats are for.So pay no attention to this post cause at the moment I'm too lazy to delete it.

Dragoon

That would be a light bridge, wouldn't it? I mean the infantry only bridge. Then the current bridge engineer unit building medium bridges would be clearly a different one.

Why don't you go and try doing it yourself? Adding new units is possible, you would just need Jason to encrypt them.

I spent this weekend on a home improvement project and have had no time trying to install a parallel JTCS folder, but if I got it right you would only need to copy the EF and WF folders under a new name to have a little sandbox for trying out things like this.