Is this a bug/mistake?

[Jason Petho]

I'm still having trouble with regular engineers being able to construct a foot bridge within a six minute time frame. :eek1:

An engineer with a chainsaw can accomplish this in less than six minutes.

...an assault bridge designed to pass troops quickly over creeks and streams. The 'book' said well trained troops should be able to erect it at the rate of 40 linear feet per minute....

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Yes, but did you look at the TO&E?
The American engineers had a separate unit that did the foot bridges. Not engineers in general.
Let's see; drive up in trucks, dismount, offload the bridging, assemble, and make a ramp on either side to move across.

I'll start looking for pics of German engineers with chainsaws. Until then, let's go out into our back yards with a chainsaw and cut down enough trees to make a footbridge that can be used by combat soldiers to cross a forty foot span?

Maybe cut down a tree big enough to have sixty ton tanks drive across?
All in the same six minutes?

And, don't worry, it's part of the game now and I can make a choice of erecting a bridge. Where it effects the old scenarios are in the ones where blowing bridges was part of the game tactics. Now a couple of engineers, with chainsaws, can make a bridge (even in the desert where you can find all those trees to cut down) that infantry can cross and take victory hexes that were intended to be denied (by the scenario designer).

Sorry Wolf, this is the last of my comments. :bow:



HSL

[Wolfman]

Please everyone, don't worry about hijacking the thread - I've had my answer, so continue to bitch about bridges generally all you like ;)

[Kool Kat]

I'm still having trouble with regular engineers being able to construct a foot bridge within a six minute time frame. :eek1:

An engineer with a chainsaw can accomplish this in less than six minutes.

...an assault bridge designed to pass troops quickly over creeks and streams. The 'book' said well trained troops should be able to erect it at the rate of 40 linear feet per minute....

Jason Petho

Come on! Let's all use some common sense here? :chin:

You can't offload bridging equipment from a truck... trundle it down to the stream / creek... offload the bridging planks (here I'm assuming the engineers already have material for spans)... sling it across a 40 foot water expanse... bolt it down... so soldiers can march smartly across the just erected span... in 6 minutes? :eek1:

Now... if you are assuming... based on your "chainsaw" remark... that the engineers have to FIRST cut down trees... than proceed with all of the other prep work... you are going to have a bunch of engineers missing fingers... and we have completely crossed over into the"Twilight Zone." :eek1:

You know... after folks point out mistakes... or gaming features that don't make sense or are completely illogical... it's OK to state... "You know, you guys raise a good point here. We (Matrix Team) screwed up on that feature, but we'll address it in the next patch update."

For me, I respect an individual or team more... when that person or group admits they are wrong after errors are highlighted... instead of "I'm going to defend my action no matter what." Defending a coding error or illogical gaming feature does not make it right? :chin:

Nobody is perfect.. least of all me. Nobody is claiming that. But, it would be nice if folks would sometimes remove their fingers from their ears... really LISTEN (READ) what players are stating about CS... engage in open, honest dialogues between developers and players... and than come together and do what is best to improve CS as a game system... while keeping all egos in check? :chin:

[Scud]

Operation Market Garden:

"In Valkenswaard engineers were moved up to construct a 190 foot (58 m) Class 40 Bailey bridge over a stream, which was completed within 12 hours."

Not sure about the six minutes, but many designers in the past have claimed they don't follow that timeline, anyway. IMO, the first rule of thumb in a fictional scenario is to make it fun. If the looseness of the timeframe or the abilities of the engineers are questionable, so what?

In a historical scenario, that's something else. What makes a good historical one, again IMO, is it's general accuracy in the men and material, the map, and its ability to illustrate to the player what decisions had what affects on the outcome of the battle. In that case, the use of including building engineers might not be such a good thing(?)

Rod Coles once said to me that he'd play tested a scenario where the designer put material into the battle that hadn't even been invented yet. Which says to me that the proper use or improper use of building engineers should fall upon the scenario designer. Since they're not included in older scenarios, I don't see them having an affect anyway? Again... ? Whether new designs use them in a good way, playability-wise, is up to players to decide and will be reflected in the scenario's ratings and comments.

Personally, I like them, but I'd much rather play a fun game than an accurate one. Just me. I should add, the few scenarios where I had bridging engineers, they never got one built, so it's not a guarantee.

Dave

[Jason Petho]

Personally, I like them, but I'd much rather play a fun game than an accurate one. Just me. I should add, the few scenarios where I had bridging engineers, they never got one built, so it's not a guarantee.

Thank you, Dave.

Jason Petho

[Kool Kat]

IMO, the first rule of thumb in a fictional scenario is to make it fun. If the looseness of the time frame or the abilities of the engineers are questionable, so what?

I agree 100% Fun is my philosophy when I design scenarios too.

Which says to me that the proper use or improper use of building engineers should fall upon the scenario designer. Since they're not included in older scenarios, I don't see them having an affect anyway? Again... ? Whether new designs use them in a good way, playability-wise, is up to players to decide and will be reflected in the scenario's ratings and comments.

Again, I agree.

What I took exception to was Jason defending the use of building engineers by attempting to highlight how historically accurate CS modeled this capacity. Clearly, building engineers and their functions are designed to fulfill a specific game need (bridging water)... are greatly simplified / exaggerated to complete that capability within reasonable game turn amounts. I think it basically fulfills that function to a point... but there is always areas for improvement? :chin:

Sure it's nice to have bridging engineers... and I'm not saying get rid of them... but, IMO it is also "fair" to call out when their functionality / time frame is fantasy... especially when erroneous claims are made that historically, WWII bridges were built in 6 minutes.

IMO, one "fix" for bridging engineers would be to have a percentage chance for a successful bridge each turn, except the 1st turn. The bridging engineer w/ truck would need to remain stationary (no movement / no combat) adjacent to the water hex and have that percentage chance of success increase 10% each turn. If the engineer moves or engages in combat, the sequence starts over. Guarantees no more 6 minute "wonder" bridges... and forces players to be very careful that bridging engineers are only committed in relatively "safe" battle zones.

Enough stated? I just get annoyed when I see something that looks, sounds, swims, and quacks like a duck... I call it a duck... and someone else calls it a horse?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Operation Market Garden:

"In Valkenswaard engineers were moved up to construct a 190 foot (58 m) Class 40 Bailey bridge over a stream, which was completed within 12 hours."

That's a lot of six minute blocks? :smoke:

Not sure about the six minutes, but many designers in the past have claimed they don't follow that timeline, anyway. IMO, the first rule of thumb in a fictional scenario is to make it fun. If the looseness of the timeframe or the abilities of the engineers are questionable, so what?

So what?
How about getting the scenario designers to understand the game scale?
Especially when using bridging engineers and wreck clearing engineers?

It's always been about game scale. That is what Tiller is doing with his new game that is the same scale as CS?
And, most likely, why he is doing it. Besides the make money part? :eek1:

Get away from game scale and it is no longer the same game. :dunno:



HSL

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Enough stated? I just get annoyed when I see something that looks, sounds, swims, and quacks like a duck... I call it a duck... and someone else calls it a horse?

If the development team wanted the duck to speak they could code into the game engine as; "AFLAC", and it would become part of the game.

If someone puts an ice cream cone on a horse and calls it a unicorn no one else would believe it's a unicorn. If it was coded into the game some scenario designer would use it and it would become part of the game? :chin:

Though, I have grown used to engineers clearing minefields in six minutes. ;)

Remember Panzer General was a fanciful game that used realistic, if basic, units? They added Allied General which was not so successful and Fantasy General using the same engine (for the D&D crowd)(and, IIRC, Space General), along with the funky (IMO) 3-D series. None of these lasted as long as the Campaign Series.
Except for the original Panzer General which has new life breathed into it. And, from what I have seen the developers have made the combat system "more realistic" and much more deadly than it already was. Which might make it fade more so than the original. The original developers lost the scope if not the scale of their intended design. The new team may have lost the original intent. IMHO, of course! :smoke:

I just don't want the same thing to happen to CS. If I am wrong; so be it.
I just want to be able to express it without getting Thor's Hammer on my head or the teacher saying "it's right because I said so. Therefore it is right".

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

[Dan Caviness]

Sorry if any hijacking occured Wolfman but I thought we were at least semi-"on topic" with bridges and what can cross what in any case. Ed, if your starting another thread I'll chip in there from now on.

Huib, your point is well made.
The conditions for crossing heavies and mediums have become for the most part synonomous in the context of the game with the new bridge engineer units. Equalizing all tank ratings for bridges does bring fairness and equity into the game again.

I was considering going the other way, rather making the heaviest tanks on both sides require a heavy bridge. This also equalizes the advantages of being able to construct a medium bridge during the course of a scenario.
IMO, this actually allows the designers (you being one of our best) to "play" better when designing as we can still use medium/heavy bridge layouts to isolate certain areas from certain types of tanks.

Ed, I won't try to say what is and isn't possible in a game turn.
We all know how that works my friend, while it's great debate gristle, I think it's impossible to define in the context of the game.

I like the new bridge building units and think they have introduced some neat little tricks designers can really use to make good scenarios.

I'd like to see some of the heavy tanks on both sides that can't cross them, rather than just some German tanks.

Maybe it's a bailey's bridge, maybe it's couple of pontoon boats, maybe it's a concrete and steel bridge complete with guardrails and rumble strips, maybe it took 5 minutes or 5 weeks, not sure on all that...but the idea works for me.

Regards,

Dan