Is this a bug/mistake?

[Dan Caviness]

David, Ed, you both state the best solution.
Use them if you like, or don't.

In Jason's defense...US troop got across the Wurm north of Aachen in about 5 minutes. No, the Wurm is not the Rhine, but it was deep enough to drown some of the GI's who tried to cross it.
Yank engineers had anticipated the Wurm would be rainswollen and difficult to cross and had already provided planks, rafts, etc., to the frontline troops who were pushing over it that morning.

This is a good discussion.
Many of the "rivers" we see on map are "creeks" as we know them.
The deal is even 3 or 4 foot of water with a muddy bottom would be problem for your foot soldiers if there was a current.

Ed...most of all I agree with your overall point.
Changes should be made slowly and with caution to this game.

Regards,

Dan

[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?

[Dan Caviness]

Mike, what you said.

I think the mods were made with the intent of letting us playtest them, and letting us help decide if they are good or bad ideas?

If I came across as one of those who are not being open minded my apologies, that was certainly not my intent.

Regards,

Dan

[Kool Kat]

Mike, what you said.

I think the mods were made with the intent of letting us playtest them, and letting us help decide if they are good or bad ideas?

If I came across as one of those who are not being open minded my apologies, that was certainly not my intent.

Regards,

Dan

Dan - not at all sir!

So... if what we are doing is "play testing" these mods... and these mods are NOT set in "stone" ...when does the testing end... and we can put the mods to a player vote? :chin:

[Jason Petho]

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?

Sections 5.18.1 and 21.7 of the 1.03 Manual explain the use and intended design use of the Bridging Engineer.

Jason Petho

[von Manstein]

Why not let designers make their scenario in time scale what they want to? Just mark those scenario as 'no 6min time scale' and if you don't like it just don't play it but let other players have fun.

[Kool Kat]

Sections 5.18.1 and 21.7 of the 1.03 Manual explain the use and intended design use of the Bridging Engineer.

Jason Petho

21.7 Bridging Engineers
Design considerations for training:These units are capable of building medium bridges across a stream or minor river hexside.
These ARE NOT combat units but have some defence, so
you will have to secure the area they intend to operate prior
to sending them to the frontline. Scenario design considerations:
These are specialist units and should be used in very limited quantities.

5.18.1 Building Bridges
An Undisrupted, unfatigued, fully-supplied Engineer unit may attempt to build a light bridge across a hexside gully, stream, or minor river. An Engineer unit capable of damaging walls and bridges can blow up the newly created bridge
(see 5.19)

An Undisrupted, unfatigued fully-supplied regular Engineer
unit may attempt to build a light bridge (a footbridge) across
a hexside stream or river with a 20% chance of success.
The procedure is similar to that used for damaging walls
or blowing up bridges. In the unit menu, select Build Light
Bridge, select the direction for the bridging attempt, and
press Enter. The bridging attempt will have a 20% chance
of success. If successful, the Engineer unit will assume an out-of-ammo status and remain so until resupplied. The attempt costs 100 Action Points. The whole process assumes that the unit is
attempting to construct a light foot bridge using locally-obtained materials. An Undisrupted, unfatigued fully-supplied bridging Engineer unit may attempt to build a vehicle
bridge across a hexside stream or river with a 20% chance of success. The procedure is similar to that used for damaging walls or blowing up bridges. In the unit menu, select Lay Vehicle Bridge,
select the direction for the bridging attempt, and press Enter. If a vehicle bridge unit, or light modern MTU or AVLB is making the attempt, there is a 60% chance of success. If successful, the
Engineer unit will assume a low on ammo status and remain so for the remainder of the scenario.
The whole process assumes that the unit is attempting to construct a medium vehicle bridge using specialized materials that the unit has with it. This means that a bridging Engineer platoon may
only build one medium bridge during the course of a scenario!
Bridging Engineer units are specialists. They can only build medium vehicle bridges. They many not build light foot bridges, clear mines/obstacles, or blow up/damage walls or bridges. Any Engineer constructed bridge can be destroyed by any Engineer unit capable of blowing up bridges. The process is identical to that used to blow up regular bridges.

Sigh... here we go again with "none answers?" I get so tired of it!

Jason - the above referenced sections tell me that building engineers are capable of building medium bridges across a stream or minor river hexside. It than explains the bridging procedure.

I believe most players know that information already?

But what you leave out of your reply is much more significant?

Here are my questions:

1. What is the Matrix developers' reasoning behind the introduction of bridging engineers... and how you (they?) justify that the time scale for building medium bridges is not based on either historical data or even reality?

2. Is the bridging mod a game test mod that players will be able to vote on whether to keep or discard in future patch updates?

---

Why not let designers make their scenario in time scale what they want to? Just mark those scenario as 'no 6min time scale' and if you don't like it just don't play it but let other players have fun.

Maybe because we are playing a tactical WWII game system with the following scale (1 player turn = 6 minutes and each hex represents 250 meters)?

We are not playing a fantasy game with Orcs and Unicorns and 2 weeks for each turn?

But hey... if a designer wants to create a CS scenario that simulates an entire WWII theatre with each platoon representing a division and each turn = 1 month - go for it? Nobody is preventing it?

But, maybe... just maybe... we should demand that the developers behind the CS game system NOT create "special" units to enable a fantasy environment?

And when those "special" units are created... maybe we as CS players should be able to engage in honest and open dialogue with the Matrix developers on the justification behind the units?

And if Matrix values CS player input... and enough players voice their reasoning and justification... maybe open minds will prevail... and some decisions will be rethought... and maybe changed... for the better?

Just a thought.

[von Manstein]

Why not let designers make their scenario in time scale what they want to? Just mark those scenario as 'no 6min time scale' and if you don't like it just don't play it but let other players have fun.

Maybe because we are playing a tactical WWII game system with the following scale (1 player turn = 6 minutes and each hex represents 250 meters)?

We are not playing a fantasy game with Orcs and Unicorns and 2 weeks for each turn?

But hey... if a designer wants to create a CS scenario that simulates an entire WWII theatre with each platoon representing a division and each turn = 1 month - go for it? Nobody is preventing it?

But, maybe... just maybe... we should demand that the developers behind the CS game system NOT create "special" units to enable a fantasy environment?

And when those "special" units are created... maybe we as CS players should be able to engage in honest and open dialogue with the Matrix developers on the justification behind the units?

And if Matrix values CS player input... and enough players voice their reasoning and justification... maybe open minds will prevail... and some decisions will be rethought... and maybe changed... for the better?

Just a thought.

You just said that nobody is preventing it but in the same time you want to demand from the developers to NOT create "special" units.

We are not talking about orks, but units that existed, only their abilities doesn't fit to CS time scale. And again why not let other players have good fun in their way, the way you and in some part me too, don't like. We don't have to play those 'fantasy' scenarios.

I'm more confused about 'friendly' improved positions and minefields that I can't see from the start, and the rest of them once spotted.

[Kool Kat]

You just said that nobody is preventing it but in the same time you want to demand from the developers to NOT create "special" units.

Please don't over generalize my statements. I am referencing bridging and mine laying engineers only... not every special unit in the game.

We are not talking about orks, but units that existed, only their abilities doesn't fit to CS time scale.

Correct! We are debating and discussing special units (bridging and mine laying engineers) with abilities / capabilities that don't fit into the CS time scale.

And again why not let other players have good fun in their way, the way you and in some part me too, don't like.

It's not about preventing CS players from having fun... it's on a more fundamental point. Why are Matrix developers creating special units (e.g. bridging and mine laying engineers) with abilities / capabilities that don't fit the CS time scale? Is there a pent up demand from other CS players for these units? Did a Matrix design team study this "problem" for months... go through extensive and rigorous play testing of these special units? Did one or two Matrix developers think it would be a "kool" idea and throw these units into the OOBs? Or did Matrix developers (as Jason stated earlier) believe these special units with abilities / capabilities that don't fit into the CS time scale, were developed based on historical and realistic data points?

Sadly, a quick exchange of postings completely destroyed the "6 minute wonder bridge" defense?

We don't have to play those 'fantasy' scenarios.

Correct. But, because players can opt out of either using or playing scenarios with bridging or mine laying engineers... does it justify the development of special units with abilities / capabilities that don't fit the CS game scale?

The CS game system has both a specific scale and time frame... and IMO there have been excellent points raised on why these special units abilities / capabilities don't fit the CS game scale... so the question I am raising to Matrix developers is; Why create these units in the first place?

[von Manstein]

The CS game system has both a specific scale and time frame... and IMO there have been excellent points raised on why these special units abilities / capabilities don't fit the CS game scale... so the question I am raising to Matrix developers is; Why create these units in the first place?

... to give more 'cool' toys to those who don't care about '6 minutes time scale' ... probably would be the answer??? :rolleyes:



But I agree that should be some one proper place/topic under subject: 'what I would like to see in my CS' where players and developers would exchange their ideas and worries.