Something about 1.03 I'm worried about

[Ivan]

I tend to agree with the developer. While wargames are to an extent reenactments (modelling a real event often) they are also games. There has always been elements of chance (hence the use of dice) and elements of what if. Models also, by their nature, have have an element of abstraction. Abstraction is fundamental and unavoidable unless we all fly over to Russia and fight it out for real. Although I haven't been in a battle I imagine things can get pretty messy, smoke, dust, burning oil, fires etc. Visibility would therefore be variable to an extent. Putting variable visibility into the game seems to me an effective way to model this even if it's an abstraction (as it must be). And as someone else pointed out visibility can also change naturally.

I see an analogy in military modelling forums where there are continual arguments about the correct shade of field grey uniforms or tanks colours. People become obsessed about this. Yet, it's a fact that uniform colour was variable for all sorts of reasons, but people still insist on having exact paint codes etc.

Yes, the quest for historical accuracy is important but if you take away elements of chance all you will be left with is a simple reenactment where the outcome will be preordained. Then it won't be a game anymore.

For what it's worth I like most to the new changes and think the team has done a great job. Love some of the new units and hidden shooters.

Just my pennies worth.

Adam

[DonMFox]

IMO there are 2 ways to get it right. Both of them should be implemented.
1. to make it an optional rule
2. To make the visibilty per turn, a parameter in the scenario editor, so the designer can set the visibility per turn (a thing that is now already possible by manually editing the bte file).

If the above are not possible to program, accept the limitations of the software and keep things as they were.

It is critical that the environment in which the scenarios take place is based on historical facts. The weather (thus visibilty) at certain dates and places were FACTS that one can look up and integrate in the scenario. Like the look of the landscape was a FACT; ie the reason that the designer needs the correct era maps to make the scenario map. The only unhistorical thing is the player himself when he starts to move his units... but thats the game ofcourse. So to answer Dogovich question if a scn is unhistorical when visibilty changes randomly is YES. Once it changes outside the historical weather reports, it is unhistorical. I do not claim to have read or used weather reports for all my scenarios, but for those with 1 hex visibility it is documented well, exceeding this 1 hex is unhistorical.

Huib

I could not agree more with Huib.

I, for one, DO take historic visibility into account when designing a scenario, and it is a significant factor in a number of them. As was mentioned in another post, "A Legend is Born" is perhaps the very best example. To have visibility suddenly change in that scene will completely destroy the simulation....completely.

To be certain, on the battlefield, visibility could vary based upon a number of factors, and depending upon the terrain, might even vary in different places across a map. But the game engine is not set up to model any of this in an acceptable fashion, and having a random set up like this, with no real ability to control the outcome, really disrupts the integrity of the simulation.

I think Huib (and others who have agreed with him) have hit on the correct recommendations.

[Von Earlmann]

And "A Legend is Born" is a great scenario :-)

[Von Earlmann]

Earl, has been fun hasn't it?
Want to do a game some time? Been a while.


Gary,
Send something along............just be warned tho turn rate might be slow at times............then again it might not..........kinda like the visibility........LOL

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

i am very happy with the visibility adjusting and think it is with the current
game engine and his complexity the best choice.

R-TEAM

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I tend to agree with the developer. While wargames are to an extent reenactments (modelling a real event often) they are also games. There has always been elements of chance (hence the use of dice) and elements of what if. Models also, by their nature, have have an element of abstraction. Abstraction is fundamental and unavoidable unless we all fly over to Russia and fight it out for real. Although I haven't been in a battle I imagine things can get pretty messy, smoke, dust, burning oil, fires etc. Visibility would therefore be variable to an extent. Putting variable visibility into the game seems to me an effective way to model this even if it's an abstraction (as it must be). And as someone else pointed out visibility can also change naturally.

I see an analogy in military modelling forums where there are continual arguments about the correct shade of field grey uniforms or tanks colours. People become obsessed about this. Yet, it's a fact that uniform colour was variable for all sorts of reasons, but people still insist on having exact paint codes etc.

Yes, the quest for historical accuracy is important but if you take away elements of chance all you will be left with is a simple reenactment where the outcome will be preordained. Then it won't be a game anymore.

For what it's worth I like most to the new changes and think the team has done a great job. Love some of the new units and hidden shooters.

Just my pennies worth.

Adam

Adam,
Believe me when I say this; I am not for pure historical accuracy. I am interested in a game that once set the standard for games in it's genre, not to be morphed into a game I cannot recognize.

Both Wyatt and Huib (and to some little extent, myself) have presented our reasoning. Realism and game-ability are factors where either should not be dismissed, or given more weight.
I am a more a "scale" and playablitly guy than a realism and historical accuracy guy, like Herr Huib. But, we do agree on one thing. Variable visibility is neither within the scale or very realistic.

Also, and I am not trying to beat a dead horse, making scenarios "long" was never the intent of the original designers or developers of the game. It was originally a "tactical" scaled game. Grand Tactics or "micro" Strategy was the furthest thing from their mind. Don realized that fact when he designed some of his Bulge scenarios. One battle has you fight over three individual scenarios that better represent the "historical" action. Had he tried to make a single, extended "long playing with many turns", scenario we may not have the historically accurate depiction of an event over many hours with variable troops and variable visibility?

And in this scale supply is an abstract factor, as well as ships, and planes.
I've seen some of what "others" wish to have in the way of supply, with dumps and air drops from C-47's. Yikes! But that is way out of the original intent or scale of the game. It just does not make sense to add it because you can?

To me it falls, always, back to game scale.

Regards and

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Earl, has been fun hasn't it?
Want to do a game some time? Been a while.


Gary,
Send something along............just be warned tho turn rate might be slow at times............then again it might not..........kinda like the visibility........LOL

LMAO

Earl,

Look for something as soon as the new 1.03 comes out. I'm getting tired of the "low ammo blues" bug.

Looking forward to it.

Cheers
Gary

[Dogovich]

Well... anyway... we all have our opinions, styles, and thoughts. Guess you can never take that out of the equation.

My modifications to the variable visibility have been submitted. Many, even Huib, have said it is a good compromise.

Any further comments should wait until such time as people have had a chance to evaluate it.

And as I said, the variability is pretty much restricted to times of turbulent weather, i.e. between initial visibilities of 5 thru 15 or so. That should put it back into the proper scale.

Ed,
Nice hearing from you again. As always you are a pleasure to talk to.

Huib,
Relax and smell the roses. Life is too short to be overly concerned about picky little details.

And to all of the rest, take care and have a good summer. Or winter if you're down under. Hope you all like the bridge builders.

I for one am going on vacation to spend time with my wife. So if I don't see ya'll for a while, please understand.

Happy trails,

Wyatt

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Wyatt, enjoy your time off. You earned it! ;)

Ed

[Ivan]

Adam,
Believe me when I say this; I am not for pure historical accuracy. I am interested in a game that once set the standard for games in it's genre, not to be morphed into a game I cannot recognize.

Both Wyatt and Huib (and to some little extent, myself) have presented our reasoning. Realism and game-ability are factors where either should not be dismissed, or given more weight.
I am a more a "scale" and playablitly guy than a realism and historical accuracy guy, like Herr Huib. But, we do agree on one thing. Variable visibility is neither within the scale or very realistic.

Also, and I am not trying to beat a dead horse, making scenarios "long" was never the intent of the original designers or developers of the game. It was originally a "tactical" scaled game. Grand Tactics or "micro" Strategy was the furthest thing from their mind. Don realized that fact when he designed some of his Bulge scenarios. One battle has you fight over three individual scenarios that better represent the "historical" action. Had he tried to make a single, extended "long playing with many turns", scenario we may not have the historically accurate depiction of an event over many hours with variable troops and variable visibility?

And in this scale supply is an abstract factor, as well as ships, and planes.
I've seen some of what "others" wish to have in the way of supply, with dumps and air drops from C-47's. Yikes! But that is way out of the original intent or scale of the game. It just does not make sense to add it because you can?

To me it falls, always, back to game scale.

Regards and

Wise words, I think most of us are in broad agreement, it's ok if it's in game scale and not silly. I've been playing with the new patch and to be honest haven't even noticed the new feature so it can't be that detrimental. I think it's a fair point also that these things should be tried out before they are knocked down completely.

I also think there are some suggestions that border on silly. I am not keen on the new naval aspects as some others. But I'm sure they will be sorted out in future patches.

Cheers to you too