JTCS - Viet Nam

[Bioman]

I will not be buying the game as the period has no interest for me. I did purchase CSME but don't play it. The only thing that I did like about CSME was the larger sized unit counters. I see no point in buying a game just because it is new. I will be buying the new WWII game if it ever comes out.

I just looked and about 188 games have been logged for CSME of which 29 seem to be tournament games. For a game that came out in 2015 IMHO that does not seem to be good numbers. I hope that the Vietnam game does better.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I did not buy ME when it came out and any temptation was quickly and easily squashed by the negative reviews.

And before the developers or their fans jump on my case.  Many of the current Dev team are responsible for the "upgrades" and changes to the current WW2 CS.  A brilliant game that did not need much tweaking. 

This is the same Dev team that tossed aside that casually tossed aside the key fundamental of CS.

6 minute turns and 250 meter hexes.

So as far as VN.  Even though the subject matter interests me,  I have little to no faith that the developers will get this right.

So mark me down as NO.

Erik

[Jason Petho]

250 meter hexes

I don't recall this has ever been changed.

6 minute turns

That's been generally incorrect from the get go, in the scenarios (time per turn varies wildly based on the combat portion of actual battles being portrayed) and in the way the units were designed (I believe it was recently calculated out to about 15 minutes).

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I'm obviously with Hawk here.

Scale is scale. Six minutes is what gives parameters to how units move on the map. That is why a tank can move "X" amount of hexes each turn.
Fifteen minutes was discussed as "battle time with breaks in between"? If the scale was that the tank would move two and half times more hexes?

You guys fudged the scale to help include all the irrational units that you added.
Team scenario designers did not embrace scale so that they could make a scenario that covered "days".



HSL

[KevinJ]

This is an interesting thread guys. First, let me say, I really love all of the CS games. I've been playing CS for 20 years and just started designing Mideast scenarios for the last couple of years.

I never really paid attention to scale until I started creating my own scenarios. I believe HSL makes a great point about the six-minute scale thing.

Although I really enjoy large, division-sized battles, it's challenging to fit these types of engagements into the CS parameters. For example, one of my favorite CS MiddleEast battles is the 1967 Abu Aghelia scenario. The stock scenario is a 50 turn monster that is fun and challenging but requires a lot of abstractions to make it work. I agree that the "six-minute rule" can be abstracted a bit; how far can we take the abstraction though.

First, assuming each side's turn equals 6 minutes, 50 turns represent approximately 4 hours of actual time. In actuality, Abu Aghelia was a complex battle with a lot of moving parts. Jason's rendition does a really good job of modeling that complexity in a very abstract way. Jason's battle incorporates the actions at Tarat Um, Um Tarpe, Hill 181, Matt's para assault on the Egyptian artillery positions, the infantry and armor assaults on Um Katef, as well as the armored assault on Abu Aghelia position. Historically, this fighting occurred over the course of 24 hours (June 5/6).

The cool thing is that Jason also created smaller scenarios that depict the fighting at Hill 181, as well as the main infantry assault that ultimately decided the fighting at Um Katef.

With all that said, it's virtually impossible to depict the actual fighting time or scale of casualties in these battles. The Israeli offensive in the Sinai would have disintegrated if they lost 1000 casualties at Abu Aghelia or Rafah or during the fighting for Jerusalem.

I've created three or four different versions of the Battle of Chinese Farm (especially the drive to the canal and the first crossing). It's challenging to do within the scale of the game. I really love the massive battles but they are not very realistic with respect to replicating the actual battle time and casualties. I probably will have to break the battles into segments because that is what most battles really are. For example, Lt. Colonel Reshef commanded the IDF Tank Brigade that was tasked with exploiting a gap between the Egyptian lines to the Canal, expanding the gap, and defending the gap against Egyptian counter-attacks. This happened over the course of multiple day and night timeframes. The CS platform doesn't really model multiple-day battles well at all.

In my humble opinion, that doesn't mean the battles aren't fun. It just means the battles aren't to scale. Playing an out-of-scale battle can be really enjoyable but you won't be able to really replicate the conditions of the battle.

One last thought about scale. Rarely do we ever discuss the impact artillery has on the scale of the battle. Large battles that include a lot of road movement mean the moving force incurs massive casualties from the bombardments while traveling toward their embarkation point. I doubt, the Israelis would have pushed forward if they incurred hundreds of casualties just maneuvering into position. Scenario designers probably should account for the impact artillery had on the actual flow of the battle instead of adding artillery because it's part of the order of battle.

Sorry for the long diatribe. That's just my two cents. I love the game and respect the hell out of the Design Team's efforts.

[Jason Petho]

Scale is scale. Six minutes is what gives parameters to how units move on the map.

My mistake, the recent calculations suggests that the Talonsoft units parameters were created at 10 minutes, not 6 minutes.

[Jason Petho]

Although I really enjoy large, division-sized battles, it's challenging to fit these types of engagements into the CS parameters. For example, one of my favorite CS MiddleEast battles is the 1967 Abu Aghelia scenario. The stock scenario is a 50 turn monster that is fun and challenging but requires a lot of abstractions to make it work. I agree that the "six-minute rule" can be abstracted a bit; how far can we take the abstraction though.

After CSVN is released, with the new CSEE, this scenario will be getting a make-over which will help with the abstractions, providing some historical flair for accomplishing missions, etc. The new CSEE is beyond exciting with so many potential capabilities!

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

CSEE?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Scale is scale. Six minutes is what gives parameters to how units move on the map.

My mistake, the recent calculations suggests that the Talonsoft units parameters were created at 10 minutes, not 6 minutes.

Then you are manufacturing new parameters? A vehicle can go only so fast and shoot within a six minute time frame. It's physics? Making 10 minutes is not physically possible unless you change how far a unit can move and shoot.

Whether you and the team want to make it different, scale is scale. It is all about the scale as originally set up. You have no respect for scale or what it means.

I guess I will be passing on Vietnam and may just pass on all the "upgrades" and changes you are doing. When it no longer is the game I love and play you will have fully taken that away from me. To me that will be a very sad day.



HSL

[Herr Straße Laufer]

KevinJ,

I did not mean to not acknowledge your post.
I've been a stickler for the scale of the game. Many units added have been "out of scale" along with many scenario designs where the designer says "this covers the three days of fighting XYZ battle".

Your point I liked was that you can design a scenario that covers a very large battle. A four or five hour fight is exhausting. If a computer could handle the size you could do all of June 6th or Kursk as a scenario. Give it a range of turns that start at dawn and go all day. Bring all units on at historical times.
I'm fine with that.
That represents history?

I just have issues with things not being six minutes and 250m.

You had many good points.



HSL