The armed half-track

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Well I've read this debate with interest.
The funny thing is I agree with everybody, those who want the strict time scale and perhaps smaller scenarios. Also those who like larger scenarios and perhaps a different time scale.
The thing is as I see it you play what you want, nobody is forcing you to do otherwise.
Likewise, also design what you want to whatever scale you want.
Some will like it, some won't, so what.
The only thing with latter different scale is that I think a note should be added into the scenario description to say exactly what scale is being used so others can decide to play or not.

I really think the game is big enough for everyone.
There are hundreds of scenarios to choose from, so there are plenty of each scale for every school of thought.
It's obvious agreement on all matters will never be arrive at in our time.
That's not to say you can't play what you want with whom you want and have a great time doing it. While at the same time others do the same with whom they want and get just as much fun out of the game as yourself.

Cheers, Gordon

I agree with Gordon. There is plenty of room for both.

You are right and not right at the same time. There are no schools of thought and there is no such a division of purists and revisionist.

Of course there are two schools of thought. One which believes in the sliding scale and one who looks at the manual and reads the actual (even if abstract) scale of the game?
I think Gordon is 100% right. Not "right and not right" at the same time. That's an impossible statement.

The fact is that time scale is flexible and that ALL designers (except Baltjes) have used it as such. RR seems to be a purist follower of his own misinterpretation of what he thinks the game stands for and causes merely confusion, nothing more.

Ad hominem attacks by you are a constant?
Ad hominem tu quoque, does not make you right. :chin:

The vast majority of the scns cannot be pressed in an unbroken linked turn timespan of 6 minutes. Only NOT-designers claim otherwise so far but fail to deliver proof in the form of examples of scenarios. Let alone they ever built one that would show their case.

No one was building a case. This is another in your line of Ad hominem tu quoque? Because you see it that way does not give you the right to attack a person concerning their views. I and Hawk have displayed the facts of what the manual says.
That you see scale as something that can be stretched, compressed, or bent to your whims does not bother me. I can choose to play or not play your scenarios based on your premises for your scenarios. :whis:

The game models snipits of battles. It's scale was intended for that. I'm sorry you cannot see it that way. I am sorry that you continue to attack my person with your snide remarks, because I state facts.

Maybe it helps to say that the some of the original makers, later wrote in the HPS Civil war manual (a newer John Tiller game) , that turns have flexible timespans. They obviously realized that you cannot fix a timespan in such a type of game.

So, another game which models a different fight in a different time period is your defence? Sorry, that is hardly the case. That is your interpretation only.

I should not really care really but I get tired by criticism on new units not fitting in six minutes etc made by those who do not understand how the game is made and then think they have math on their side.

Sarcasm aside. Once again you attack the person?
Seems that is all you can do?
Maybe you should not care ... and just not post comments if they do not address the facts and only attack the posters?
Concerning the units in question, we were told that they were specifically included to help a designer who modeled his scenarios on the stretched scale "school of thought", where time is not a factor?
They obviously are not in keeping with the original designer's thoughts on the abstract of air combat as it fits within the context/scale of the game ... or they would have been included in the original game?

In the future please address the issues and not attack the members?
I and others have said that both thoughts could co-exist.
You seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise and personally attack others who do not share your views? :kill:

I did make every attempt to return to the discussions original theme. I will not address this "person" and his views in this thread again.



RR