JTCS - Viet Nam

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Hawk, it is not 10 clicks an hour, but 11.125 clicks due to double time. As the default average for all grunts. That is a 3 hr 45 minute marathon. Battle gear, combat boots.

The larger the scenario the more things become unrealistic (per 6, or 10, minute turns), agreed. All action, no pause, God view to all units on map, no unit disobeying or misunderstaning orders. But that's another thing isn't it.

I've explained this to gamers by saying there's the game (base) scale as how units are designed.

Then there's the scenario duration, the latter depending on playtesting, with number of turns required matching expected results, and that is that.

Yes I already acknowledged that if you are moving for 40 straight turns.  So your marathon time drops to 6 hours and 24 minutes which is 38 ten minute turns.  No unit is going to do that.   You have not solved any problems who have made them worse.

In scenarios that are 6 minutes per turn and 10 to 20 turns in length the scale is fine.  Units are moving at that rate in small increments.   No one is moving slowly on the battlefield when the bullets are flying.  Envision double time as sprinting.

That scale is right, when put into the right scenario lengths. 

All scales are broken in any and all scenarios that a foot unit spends its ENTIRE existence moving.

If you want work on a movement issue that is REALLY broken, fix a unit retreating multiple times when fired at.

That is something that is truly broken.

[Jason Petho]

The issue is the game was designed to be in the 10 to 20 turn range.  Not the 40 turn range.  

My goodness, I can't believe one of the original designers, D. Bevard, had the gall to make scenarios outside the designed 10-20 turn range.

[Jason Petho]

For that matter, I don't recall anything in my contract for the West Front scenarios I did that scenarios must be limited to 10-20 turns.

[Crossroads]

Hawk, it is not 10 clicks an hour, but 11.125 clicks due to double time. As the default average for all grunts. That is a 3 hr 45 minute marathon. Battle gear, combat boots.

The larger the scenario the more things become unrealistic (per 6, or 10, minute turns), agreed. All action, no pause, God view to all units on map, no unit disobeying or misunderstaning orders. But that's another thing isn't it.

I've explained this to gamers by saying there's the game (base) scale as how units are designed.

Then there's the scenario duration, the latter depending on playtesting, with number of turns required matching expected results, and that is that.

Yes I already acknowledged that if you are moving for 40 straight turns.  So your marathon time drops to 6 hours and 24 minutes which is 38 ten minute turns.  No unit is going to do that.   You have not solved any problems who have made them worse.

In scenarios that are 6 minutes per turn and 10 to 20 turns in length the scale is fine.  Units are moving at that rate in small increments.   No one is moving slowly on the battlefield when the bullets are flying.  Envision double time as sprinting.

That scale is right, when put into the right scenario lengths. 

All scales are broken in any and all scenarios that a foot unit spends its ENTIRE existence moving.

If you want work on a movement issue that is REALLY broken, fix a unit retreating multiple times when fired at.

That is something that is truly broken.

I am not sure I understood your marathon sample with 10 minute turns. Leaving Double Time out of equation, with six-minute turns there's ten turns to an hour, meaning foot infantry on paved roads can move ten times four hexes, or ten clicks, per hour. Which is what the data parameter for say US Rifle 44 (and most others too) says. With ten minute turns, there's six turns to an hour, so six clicks per an hour. It is quite a pace to keep everyone at. Anyhow, we can agree that is quite different from Panzerblitz or Panzer Leader infantry movement stats. 

I mentioned earlier how Arab-Israeli Wars fixed Panzerbliz and Panzer Leader counter stats, that was mostly about movement, and vehicular movement to be precise. I will pick the rule books tomorrow to refreshen my memory as what it said there. (Edit: rulebooks, as I don't seem to find the PDFs from my computer folders. Must be somewhere there... I did find MMP's PanzerBlitz2 set of rules, I had forgotten that interestingly, the ruleset defines scale as 250 yds hexes and fifteen minute turns... Again, more on the PB/PL/AIW to CS evolution tomorrow).

Also, I have no idea why the original CS developers gave artillery two fire missions per turn. Maybe because they gave that to direct fire weapon systems, too. Not what PB and PL do. 

Anyhow, it is getting late here. I need to log off, more of this tomorrow.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The issue is the game was designed to be in the 10 to 20 turn range.  Not the 40 turn range.  

My goodness, I can't believe one of the original designers, D. Bevard, had the gall to make scenarios outside the designed 10-20 turn range.

Good try but no.  D. Bevard also knew that the ideal scenario length was 10 to 20 turns.

Let's take a look at his East Front Catalog that I have.  I have a 114 scenarios.

10 to 15 turns: 47 (41%)
16 to 20 turns: 49 (43 %)
21 to 25 turns: 10 (9%)
26 + turns: 8 (7%)

So this prolific designer had 84% of his scenarios in the 10 to 20 turn range.  Just as the game was designed for.  The other 16% could be experimenting. 

I suspect that you will get similar numbers out of WF and RS.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

For that matter, I don't recall anything in my contract for the West Front scenarios I did that scenarios must be limited to 10-20 turns.

I never said you could not do it.  I said that the game and scale were designed to be at their best in the 10 to 20 turn range.

You love creating huge scenarios.  I have many myself and they are marvels of study, patience and attention to detail.

No matter how fun they are to play they are not ideally suited to the CS engine.

[Jason Petho]

So this prolific designer had 84% of his scenarios in the 10 to 20 turn range.  Just as the game was designed for.  The other 16% could be experimenting.

Since we're speculating...

84% of the scenarios were created in that range because they are easier to create and test in the quick turn around times that Talonsoft was developing under. 

If that was the specified design limits, then 16% of his scenarios were designed outside of your imposed scope - which seems like a waste of time considering the extra effort required to design and test those scenarios.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

So this prolific designer had 84% of his scenarios in the 10 to 20 turn range.  Just as the game was designed for.  The other 16% could be experimenting.

Since we're speculating...

84% of the scenarios were created in that range because they are easier to create and test in the quick turn around times that Talonsoft was developing under. 

If that was the specified design limits, then 16% of his scenarios were designed outside of your imposed scope - which seems like a waste of time considering the extra effort required to design and test those scenarios.

I did not say it was my imposed time scope. I said that 10 to 20 turn scenarios are idea for the game engine.

Its not a waste of time.  Any quality designer is going to push the engine to its fullest to see what is possible.

With out this we would not have the 500 + turn Market Garden operation at the CS level.  Almost unplayable (I did get about 50 turns in against the AI) but very cool to look at.

The CS engine just not designed for that.  Its not speculation, it is what the game excels at.

[Jason Petho]

... it is what the game excels at.

In that sense, we are all entitled to our opinion.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

... it is what the game excels at.

In that sense, we are all entitled to our opinion.

Time to invoke the Dave Mason rule:

"So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
Ooh ooh ooh, oh oh oh"