Something about 1.03 I'm worried about

[Dogovich]

Other than it is not optional, what is the main objection to changing visibility? Is it the degree of the change, or the fact that change can happen over the course of a game? If the latter, then why is a scenario non-historical if visibility changes? I've been adjusting the probabilities a bit and have played a 20 turn game where the starting visibility was 6. Visibility changed on average about once every 2.5 turns. At no time did the visibility exceed 8 hexes, or go below 5. Most of the time, the visible range was 5-7 hexes.
I also changed the parameters to read that if the initial starting visibility is greater than 14 or less than 5 that no changes are to be made.

Would this be better than what was before? Would this be acceptable on historical terms? Just wondering. Need to know before Sunday night.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ed, i´m a little bit surprised and it´s funny that you my meaning used against you or your view! Why? You don´t like germans with some experience and some opinions about the game? My answer for v. Manstein or other posts was never against your view or so but only my opinion involved bad english.

So sorry about that and take care with your personal attacks!

This is getting silly?
My post was not attack against you or anyone else.

If you have taken it personally I apologize. That was not my intent whatsoever.
I have German, English, Irish, French, Arab, Indian, and friends of all colors and creeds.
Why do simple sentences have to be so distorted?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Other than it is not optional, what is the main objection to changing visibility? Is it the degree of the change, or the fact that change can happen over the course of a game? If the latter, then why is a scenario non-historical if visibility changes? I've been adjusting the probabilities a bit and have played a 20 turn game where the starting visibility was 6. Visibility changed on average about once every 2.5 turns. At no time did the visibility exceed 8 hexes, or go below 5. Most of the time, the visible range was 5-7 hexes.
I also changed the parameters to read that if the initial starting visibility is greater than 14 or less than 5 that no changes are to be made.

Would this be better than what was before? Would this be acceptable on historical terms? Just wondering. Need to know before Sunday night.

Major, please make it optional? :chin:
I could care less if some like it or some not. Why should those who like it "take over" and ruin the game for those who do not like it?
If it is optional everyone can be satisfied?
Or, at least most?

Just my personal opinion. After what I have read, by some, my opinion can be worth a grain of salt or a grain of sand? :rolleyes:

Nice to see you have the time to post here. :smoke:

[K K Rossokolski]

Surely Ed has the answer....that it be optional. That way, as far as I can see, everyone is satisfied. But don't force people to take something they don't want. With an optional system, those who want it can have it, those who don't need not. Seems blindingly obvious to me.

[Dogovich]

Actually Ed, your opinion means a lot more than most anyone else's. Unfortunately, it may take a while before I can figure out how to make it an option as opposed to a rule. That also being said, every time that I say that, I usually feel challenged enough to go at it and pull a Scottie type miracle.

What I will do is go ahead and put out the version I whipped out tonight where the amount of change is somewhat minimal. Then, between different DG/VN projects, I'll try to come up with a way to make it optional. DO YOU HEAR THAT OUT THERE!!!!! I SAID I WILL TRY!!!!! NOT PROMISE!!!! TRY!!! This is not a promise for success, but my tries seem to yield pay dirt.
Am on dangerous ground here. Every time I say "try" too many people see "will" and we end up with a lot of hurt feelings on both sides. Which is why I don't no longer present ideas to the various boards. We got into a lot of trouble early on when we did just that. I blame the education system of course.

What I will do in the future though is send new ideas to you Ed and discuss them. As I said before, I value your opinion over any other's and I see you as a moderate force on this board, and one without an agenda.

By the way, I think that halftracks should be used in any manner that the owner wishes.......

Same goes for trucks...

[RedDevil]

Ya hear that Ed, someone values your opinions! :P

[Cam]

Hmmmmmm
I agree with Huib. This is not a PS3 game in realtime !
Fog, dew and stuff happens. This game is more like chess.
Cam

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

mhhh .. very good points here from old veteran Gamers ;)
[ i am a newbe JTCS Gamer - but play strategie games for nearly 30 Years]

But i musst in certain points disagree with Huib and other old Gamers.
NOT in the Visibility thing - here i have make my statement clear.

But the Game grow with the ability to make bigger scenarios with hugh maps
and an enormous amount of Units on both sides.

For the player -THAT LIKE THIS- [remember this words ;) ] it would be nice do
addept for the very big and very long scenarios the ability to manage the
Game from an larger scale level that is was designet in the good old days.

With a map that go over 500Hexes you can realistic manage many thing that is "out of the scale"
for the traditional Talonsoft scenarios ...

And as a side note, i like the idea that split up very large battles in small
scenarios with different support level to simulate different support conditions.
[air drop of support and so one ..]
But i dislike the way that my units are preeset in the "new" map ...
I need the full control over my units, and if this simulate a continous play
then i musst have the control over my units, who he stand on the new map, depending
on the time he leaves the old Map and his position.
Only then the scenarios make for me a continous battle under my control.
ATM i prefer very large maps to have my units under control the whole battle.

R-TEAM
[and sorry for my suboptimal English]

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Wow... We should rename this thread "A Gathering of the Grognards"

[Osiris]

HI All

First let me make one thing clear:
Im all for variable visibility changing from night to day to night is a fantastic idea.

I think at some point the Beta briagde and matrix are going to have to sit down and figure out the time/scale in this game because it really is the heart of the issue. You cannot build variable visibility unless you have a defenite scale to work with..and its not going to be 6 minutes unless someone out there wants to build 240 turn scenarios!

The distance infantry can move in the current CS version in 1 turn makes the 6 minute time scale dead on arrival anyway..if you dont believe me..get a back pack..fill it with rocks say about 50-100pds and have your friends throw rocks at your head with intent to injure and see if you can cover 750m in 6 minutes

Where do we start..well the time/scale issue must be sorted out..why not go with game designers Von earlmans 24 minutes for a day turn and 45 minutes for a night turn (see his post on June 15/08 under the time scale thread)..and build the variable visibility option around that scale..its a place to start..

I still think it might be better to take it completely out with the revised 1.03 patch and overwrite the program and really work this into the game with patch 1.04..whats the hurry?

Please really do take the advice that sometimes more is less.


At this point theres no point in continuing on the LCG project since I dont want the AI deciding the visibilty in the scenarios I design. As steel rain made in his comment..Im probably going to stick with 1.02 for now and wait for 1.04

Osiris