Is this a bug/mistake?

Kool Kat · 09-26-2011, 04:25 AM,

(09-26-2011, 04:14 AM)von Manstein Wrote: ... to give more 'cool' toys to those who don't care about '6 minutes time scale' ... probably would be the answer??? :rolleyes:

Maybe? :chin:

But, so far we have an obtuse "answer" to look for bridging engineer "justification" in the CS manual... that does not exist... and now "silence" from the Matrix side of the house?

Huib Versloot · 09-26-2011, 06:15 AM,

I've probably said this a hundred times before over the past 8 years. NO scenarios exist where the turns are on average 6 minutes. Not old Talonsoft, not newer scns. Only hypothetical scns might fit that definition for the sole reason they are hypothetical. Everybody who does a little historical research on the scenarios he plays will conclude this. For example "Taskforce Lovelady" by D. Bevard respresents a multiple day battle (with the historical units he used). Yet the scn is only 12 or 15 turns or so. So either he made a hypothetical scenario, or he did not use an average timespan of 6 minutes. The whole discussion about the turn timespan is useless theoretical blabla. Superimposing this false assumption on what units should be able to do or not be able to do in 6 minutes does not do justice to the quality of the game.

Here you go.

Huib

Kool Kat · (This post was last modified: 09-26-2011, 07:16 AM by Kool Kat.)

(09-26-2011, 06:15 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: I've probably said this a hundred times before over the past 8 years. NO scenarios exist where the turns are on average 6 minutes. Not old Talonsoft, not newer scns. Only hypothetical scns might fit that definition for the sole reason they are hypothetical.

"Combat is performed on a “hex grid” map that has defined wargaming for over three decades. Each “hex” represents 250 meters; with 4 hexes to a kilometer or 6 hexes to a mile. Turns are equivalent to approximately 6 minutes of real time." - Campaign Series 1.03 User Manual, pg 13.

This is the same 1.03 User Manual that Jason referenced to me to "...explain the use and intended design use of the Bridging Engineer." So, I guess some folks use the manual "selectively" depending on what debate points they are trying to make... OR there are User Manual sections that are incorrect? :chin:

(09-26-2011, 06:15 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: Everybody who does a little historical research on the scenarios he plays will conclude this.

But clearly the original Talonsoft developers had both a specific game and time scale in mind... based on what is stated in the User Manual?

(09-26-2011, 06:15 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: The whole discussion about the turn timespan is useless theoretical blabla.

Maybe you can point out what sections of the 1.03 User Manual are "blabla"... that way, we can avoid engaging in "useless theoretical blabla? Is blabla even a word?

(09-26-2011, 06:15 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: Superimposing this false assumption on what units should be able to do or not be able to do in 6 minutes does not do justice to the quality of the game.

We are not debating the "quality of the game" - but the impact of two special units (bridging and mine laying engineers) based on the CS game scale.

But, if you are stating that CS has neither a stated game scale or time... even when the 1.03 User Manual states otherwise... I guess we are at an impass? ...and IMO, simply highlights (once again) the huge gap between the CS player community and (some folks?) on the Matrix development team.

(09-26-2011, 06:15 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: Here you go.
Huib

Ditto.

**Scud** · 09-26-2011, 07:44 AM,

At this point, guys, I recommend we all "take 10" and step out for a cool one. It's an interesting debate, but not one I see any resolution to anytime soon. Plus I'm not seeing anything new being added to the debate. Thread's still open, just time to clear heads and consider thoughts.

Jason's always been a pretty good listener. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest if your viewpoint has merit it will be taken into consideration.

First round's on me.

Dave

Dragoon · 09-26-2011, 08:16 AM,

Cheers Dave,

2nd round is on me...Some players dont think of how many minutes a turn is they just wanna blast away at stuff....Or in my case run like hell...All in all its still a hell of a game and all who help to keep it going we all owe a bit of thanks...

Dragoon

Kool Kat · 09-26-2011, 08:21 AM,

(09-26-2011, 07:44 AM)Scud Wrote: At this point, guys, I recommend we all "take 10" and step out for a cool one. It's an interesting debate, but not one I see any resolution to anytime soon. Plus I'm not seeing anything new being added to the debate. Thread's still open, just time to clear heads and consider thoughts.

Jason's always been a pretty good listener. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest if your viewpoint has merit it will be taken into consideration.

First round's on me.

Dave

Good points Dave! :smoke:

Time for an intermission!

Thanks for stepping in sir. cheers

Dragoon · 09-26-2011, 08:29 AM,

PS: please replace hell on my last post with Heck...

Dragoon

Herr Straße Laufer · (This post was last modified: 09-26-2011, 07:57 PM by Herr Straße Laufer.)

(09-26-2011, 12:40 AM)von Manstein Wrote: 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.

Ah ... no!
Scale is scale.
If you want units to represent regiments, brigades, or divisions then you got it wrong.
If you want hexes to represent miles you got it wrong.

Scale is scale, it is what makes this a tactical game. Otherwise the infantry and armor would shoot for miles?

Though, I did state that scenario designers could do what they wanted. I believe the game would be more solid if they considered scale and not their fantasy of scale.

cheers

HSL

von Manstein · 09-27-2011, 01:53 AM,

(09-26-2011, 07:56 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: Scale is scale, it is what makes this a tactical game. Otherwise the infantry and armor would shoot for miles?

Well, yes but ... you (or designer) can limit range by changing visibility ...;)

I did like that few year ago. I had (and still have somwhere) boardgame 'Ardens 1944', the problem was with finding oponent. So I've copied map to Talonsoft's WF hex by hex, placed units (OOB?... well you wouldn't call it OOB;)) and I've set visibility at 3 or even 1 and had a lot of fun.

For me 'scale is scale' is when the scenario is ... lets say 'serious' but when it's only a 'playground' ... why not?

Like we say in Poland: 'some people like flowers other when their socks stink'

cheers

**Jason Petho** · 09-27-2011, 05:47 AM,

Using the top five most played, Talonsoft scenarios, I thought it might be interesting to see how the original designers used the time scale within their scenarios.

Tank Graveyard at Minsk by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 18 = 108 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~10 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 2 days) = 600 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 33.3 minutes per turn

Giants on the Vistula by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 20 = 120 minutes
Actual Battle length: 9 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 36 hours) = 540 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 27 minutes per turn

Rest Steel at Fedorovka by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 14 = 84 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~11 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 3 days) = 660 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 47.1 minutes per turn

Storm 5-5-5 by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 12 = 72 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~4 hours = 240 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 20 minutes per turn

The Battle is Joined by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 20 = 120 minutes
Actual Battle length: ~8 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 16 hours) = 480 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 24 minutes per turn

Jason Petho