Is this a bug/mistake?

[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