Mr. Guberman Wrote: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.
Mr. Guberman Wrote: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?
Mr. Guberman Wrote: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:
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
