JTS/HPS Wishlist and Random Thoughts

[Dog Soldier]

I do not have Korea 85. IIRC, it only covers the southern part of the Korean peninsula. To include the North up to the border of China would require a map with a N-S length of 1,100 Km (hexes).

The largest map in the series that I could find is Moscow 42 which is (539,452). The F14 map may be larger though I cannot tell since I do not have that title either.

FWIW, I think a Korean map to cover the 1950 war as a campaign would be interesting for the ebb and flow of the campaign, strategic options for seaborne invasion and such. Just building the largest map ever for MC/PzC series would be a big task as already outlined by the posts in this thread from people who are close to the development process.

If you are interested in Korea 50 the SB title does a pretty good job of simulating the combat at a different level. It does give a feel for the Korean conflict.

Dog Soldier

[BigDuke66]

Here I wonder if there is a limit on mapsize.

[-72-]

I do not have Korea 85. IIRC, it only covers the southern part of the Korean peninsula. To include the North up to the border of China would require a map with a N-S length of 1,100 Km (hexes).

The largest map in the series that I could find is Moscow 42 which is (539,452). The F14 map may be larger though I cannot tell since I do not have that title either.

FWIW, I think a Korean map to cover the 1950 war as a campaign would be interesting for the ebb and flow of the campaign, strategic options for seaborne invasion and such. Just building the largest map ever for MC/PzC series would be a big task as already outlined by the posts in this thread from people who are close to the development process.

If you are interested in Korea 50 the SB title does a pretty good job of simulating the combat at a different level. It does give a feel for the Korean conflict.

Dog Soldier

The site has planning maps for every game in the PzC, MC and the ones from France '14 - just go to the spotlights tab at http://hist-sdc.com and choose the relevant series on the buttons to the left.


-One thing that shouldn't be neglected would be to start small - get the feel for the various editors; for me the big thing seems to be VP assignations -you can have an imbalanced situation but if your vp ratings or vp values set for objectives is off it can make for an even more imbalanced scenario - although conversely, it can also make an imbalanced situation more of a competitive game (much more). Of course there are some other things to consider - length of time allowed in a scenario... things like that.

I have only dabbled in some PzC material, and the editors in the operational series work a little differently than the grand tactical series - although the basic principals involved in scenario design remain about the same in the general sense.

[Many Mariuses]

I agree that a map covering the entire Peninsula would be ridiculously large and unmanageable.

However, couldn't the above map could be used (with modification) to feature scenarios and campaigns from the fighting during the stalemate from 51-53? There were limited offensives, IIRC, and several interesting hypothetical possibilities. After all, K 85 is built around a hypothetical scenario. Does the map include enough of central Korea to allow for some scenarios covering the early fighting in 1950? While they would be one-sided affairs, there are certainly other one-sided scenarios in the JT catalog.

Again, a Salerno-style title covering two or three smaller battles-- such as Inchon, the Chosin Reservoir, or the fighting around Pusan would be very well suited to the PzC system, and could be quite good. It always seemed strange to me that the only title dealing with Korea is a hypothetical scenario that seems increasingly unlikely with hindsight, especially when a real war featuring WWII era equipment mixed with new equipment and the clash between the world's most technologically advanced powers with the peasant army of Mao is there for the taking. I can't be the only person who would gladly purchase such a title.

It's simply a matter of limiting the scope of the title. But that's just my opinion. :)

Sorry to hijack the thread :)

[Mr Grumpy]

I agree, a 1950's title could be covered by several manageable maps coving the main actions rather than trying to create a unmanageable monster campaign map.

I personally find the historical actions of the 50's more attractive than the hypothetical 80's title.

[Compass Rose]

Does the map include enough of central Korea to allow for some scenarios covering the early fighting in 1950?

I can't be the only person who would gladly purchase such a title.

I agree, a 1950's title could be covered by several manageable maps coving the main actions rather than trying to create a unmanageable monster campaign map.

I personally find the historical actions of the 50's more attractive than the hypothetical 80's title.

Count me in too. A PzC or a PzB Korean War 1950's JTS title would be very interesting and a "must have" in my book.

[Xaver]

There is a mod for Korea 85 set in 3rd 1950 offensive

https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...?tid=58576

Maybe for Korea 50 they can use as you say Salerno system.

I am curious about the new WWI title... maybe like with PzB open a "wikileaks" thread

[2-81 Armor]

FWIW, I would think that a Korea '50 would be a natural fit for the MC series, and I'm actually surprised that its not already covered-- especially given the existence of Korea '85.

Though it would probably be too much to include the entire war, I would think that through using multiple smaller maps (al la Salerno) that the important parts could be covered. Or it could be covered in two or three titles.

I'd really like to see this too! I'd like to see the entire peninsula mapped, but from what I can gather, for most things, it's really the maps that are the bottleneck, so I suppose the Salerno approach is best.

Only reason I'd like the full map is so the first phase from 1950-51 could be played out as a one map grand campaign. From the initial invasion, to the Pusan Perimeter, the breakout, Inchon, and the Chinese intervention. This could be done with a series of mini maps too, but being able to play the whole thing on one map would be nice. Either treatment would be fine with me.

Another era not mentioned is Vietnam. I don't mean the whole war (that would be impossible), but what about full map 1972 Easter Offensive, and 1975 Final Offensive games that would only need to cover from the DMZ down to Saigon and the Mekong Delta (the Laos /Cambodia staging areas would not have to show those entire countries)? 1972 and 1975 could avoid (for the most part) extensive guerrilla operations and rules, since these were "conventional" campaigns, and different options for more or less US involvement could be done. We'd have a lot to play with: armor, artillery, special forces, early TOW missiles, gunships and airmobile ops, without having to deal with too much guerrilla/partisan stuff, since the North used their regulars for the most part, with the VC (what was left of it) playing a limited role.

[-72-]

I wouldn't say that maps are the bottleneck to anything but free add-ons and user designed mods.

The main map in Campaign Overland is 989,1088 -I think that is the biggest one that I know of -and the Quebec city area map from FIW is larger than M 42's map by about 100 hexes each way.

The programming that creates the layers on maps are largely the same - although there is a bit of a lag loading up the Overland map. I don't think that it is a significant issue. What you as a scenario designer do on that space -is probably more of an issue.

Just throwing that out there.

[2-81 Armor]

I wouldn't say that maps are the bottleneck to anything but free add-ons and user designed mods.

The main map in Campaign Overland is 989,1088 -I think that is the biggest one that I know of -and the Quebec city area map from FIW is larger than M 42's map by about 100 hexes each way.

The programming that creates the layers on maps are largely the same - although there is a bit of a lag loading up the Overland map. I don't think that it is a significant issue. What you as a scenario designer do on that space -is probably more of an issue.

Just throwing that out there.

So, essentially what we're saying here is the map size is not limited by the software, but it's a question of file sizes (for loading time) and a point of diminishing returns regarding what could be provided for free vs what should be making a profit for the effort invested? If so, I can understand that.

As far as what the individual designer does with the tools and materials, I can relate to that also. Years ago I did a scenario for TOAW called "Home Before The Leaves Fall" which seemed to take forever to get done and tested. Once I understood I had to set a limit for how much detail, and how many units I should (not could) include, with the map scale and scenario length, things went a lot easier, and it got published as part of the TOAW III package. That's when I learned that even with the best of intentions, you can overdo it and kill your own design if you're not careful. The play testers were actually the biggest help in getting me back to reality.

OOB research is my real area of enjoyment, but even now I find myself getting carried away with trying to add too much, such as with the 1970's DF'85 OOB I'm playing around with, and I haven't even begun any real scenario work using it yet.