Is this a bug/mistake?

[Kool Kat]

And, to all who think I am just demanding that CS stay in it's original and flawed form, you would be wrong.

I wanted to see the glitches fixed, new units added, a new "look" in graphics, new interesting & fun to play scenarios, and continued support for the system.

I simply believe that game scale has taken a back seat when it should be the format for all future development of the game.
If designers want to make scenarios that do not fit the game scale, let them do it. But, not create units that do not fit the game scale because a couple designers want them. At least, making them available to future designs that will make more artificial (in scale) scenarios.


HSL

Ed - you are passionate about CS... as many of us... and you raise excellent points on the dangers of "glossing over" game and time scale. :bow:

And the more I mull over "add ons" to CS like bridging and mine laying engineers... bath tub fleet... "strategic" bombing, etc. the more these features don't make sense to me for the CS game scale. :chin:

These "functions" either take "too long" in terms of game time to complete.... or go beyond the tactical, 250 meter map scale... like strategic bombers.

Yep. I reserve the right to change my mind... when presented with good arguments and sound reasoning. Wish others could be as open minded? :chin:

So, what I propose... and hopefully others will agree... that it's time (maybe again?) to revisit these CS "add ons" ... starting with bridging and mine laying engineers.

Do bridging and mine laying engineers make sense for both the CS game and time scale? :chin:

And while game designers have the option to utilize (or not?) these questionable units... why develop them in the first place if they are out of synch with the game scale? :chin:

I belive we, as CS players, deserve honest and open dialogue with the Matrix developers on the reasoning, thought process, and justification behind why both bridging and mine laying engineers were added to the OOBs?