Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Farwell

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Farwell Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Farwell - 2/6/2016 11:45:45 PM   
Zap


Posts: 3121
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: online
This s the title of that video

Last Soviet Military Crossing River Drill 1990-Russian Ukraine Trucks

_____________________________


(in reply to Zap)
Post #: 61
RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 7:57:22 AM   
Crossroads


Posts: 11148
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: online
Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.

_____________________________

Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
---
CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

(in reply to Zap)
Post #: 62
RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 8:43:26 AM   
Zap


Posts: 3121
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.


That is close enough to reality for me. that American engineer unit in world war II did one in 45min. I,m at peace with that carry over into game terms.

_____________________________


(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 63
RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 8:44:59 AM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.


Well actually that is a simplification and it doesn't represent it exactly that way. Anyone who looks for evidence whether a bridge can be constructed in 6 minutes won't find an answer. I'll show why:

A narrative on a battle or an after action report usually goes something like this:
- Company A started out at 6:00, immediately receiving heavy fire from the woods northeast. At the same time on the left flank, the Co. C of the engineer Bn started working on a makeshift bridge at the location of the one that was blown up during the retreat a month earlier
-Company B failed to reach the start off positions in time but once reached by 8:00 they advanced 3 km into enemy territory taking the set objective at 11:00 while capturing 19 prisoners
-At the same time the first vehicles were crossing the new engineer bridge.
-By noon Company A was still not able to advance more than 500 meters while still being pinned down by machinegun and mortar fire.

So to put these small company level actions into 6 minute turns, it quickly becomes clear that 6 minute turns are impossible as it simply would lead to something totally unplayable. You first would get 20 turns of only Co. A action in basically the same hexes and 20 turns of bridge building attempts. Then at turn 20 Co B would make a "swift" (not really) advance taking 30 turns to move twelve hexes. Somewhere after 30 turns also the bridge would be completed. Co. A fought over a few hexes for 50 turns. Wow Nice scenario, it would bore the hell out of everyone and the casualty rates would obviously be sky high compared to real events with so many turns.

The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.
We shouldn't even still be discussing it after all these years. I hope the Dev team will ignore the bashing of those few who don't have a clue and continue to improve the game. We can certainly use a new company based turn based game. If it would mean rebuilding all my WF scenarios, it would be worth a consideration.

Huib

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 64
RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 8:54:36 AM   
Crossroads


Posts: 11148
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: online
^^ Yes , the thing is it is a bit difficult to describe this in simple terms.

  • 'Game Scale' (platoons / 250m hexes / 6 minute turns) goes a good way to explain unit characteristics, and the abstractions that make the game play in both shorter and longer scenarios, such as the bridge laying abstraction described
  • 'Battle Duration', or 'Scenario Duration' then explain how a well designed, well tested scenario will play out to historic / intended results in a number of turns that it, well, takes to do so.

    Arguing the two things are the same is at the core here.

    And no, we're not changing the game engine at the core of the things. It has proved to be an excellent abstraction of tactical platoon sized engagements over the years. In my very biased opinion it is the best engine there is, for the task in the hand.

    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to Huib)
  • Post #: 65
    Hoorah for engineers! - 2/7/2016 8:59:07 AM   
    Crossroads


    Posts: 11148
    Joined: 7/5/2009
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.


    That is close enough to reality for me. that American engineer unit in world war II did one in 45min. I,m at peace with that carry over into game terms.


    Yes, that is how the abstractions work typically. The various abstractions for time span I believe are:

  • The percentile roll
  • Turn basis, ie. an Engineer removes one Minefield Strength Point per turn it begins in the minefield undisrupted and with full 100 APs available

    Then with the modern era titles such as with CS Middle East there's say the Bridge Laying engineer vehicles that do the job without the abstraction, just use 100AP to do so. So maneuver into position, one turn; Lay the bridge, another turn; move out, third turn.

    I see no reason to change this level of abstraction, it has worked over the years, and continues to do so.

    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to Zap)
  • Post #: 66
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 9:04:02 AM   
    Huib


    Posts: 585
    Joined: 11/21/2006
    From: Nederland
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap



    That is close enough to reality for me. that American engineer unit in world war II did one in 45min. I,m at peace with that carry over into game terms.


    That is how it currently is made more or less if you would compare whole scenarios with whole historical battles they represent. (As I (and Jason) explained before there are no existing scenarios that actually have implemented a 6 minute turn duration)

    (in reply to Zap)
    Post #: 67
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 11:23:48 AM   
    berto


    Posts: 14659
    Joined: 3/13/2002
    From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.

    Well actually that is a simplification and it doesn't represent it exactly that way. Anyone who looks for evidence whether a bridge can be constructed in 6 minutes won't find an answer. I'll show why:

    Well actually, that's much more of a simplification than anybody here realizes. Here's why.

    Yes, in the legacy code, there used to be a fixed 20% chance to build a bridge, vehicular or non vehicular. Fixed, as in: hard-coded, no variation, end of story.

    But now (i.e., in the new and improved Campaign Series), it varies

  • depending on whether or not the laying unit has the XTracked or XTruck or XFoot attribute; higher prob for the XTracked and XTruck units

    and also, with the Adaptive A/I optional rule toggled ON

  • depending on the build_hexside_bridge_prob and build_vehicle_bridge_prob parameters, which vary by side, nation, and even scenario

    In Middle East, the range of build_hexside_bridge_prob values is



    berto@telemann:/games/matrix/cs/middle_east/scenarios> egrep "^n [[:digit:]]" *.ai | awk '{print $107}' | sort | uniq | sort -n
    15
    16
    18
    20
    21
    22
    24
    26



    And the range of build_vehicle_bridge_prob parameters values is



    berto@telemann:/games/matrix/cs/middle_east/scenarios> egrep "^n [[:digit:]]" *.ai | awk '{print $108}' | sort | uniq | sort -n
    10
    12
    15
    16
    20
    25
    28
    30



    (Without any customization, in the .ai files, the default value for either of these probs is the legacy standard 20%.)

    The points being

  • The probability of laying a bridge (either type) is a much more complicated calculation than before.
  • That probability varies by side or nation, on a per-scenario basis.
  • Hence also varies on a per-game basis. (For example, lower prob in WWII, higher prob post WWII. Thus slower in WWII, faster post WWII.)
  • And is moddable to boot!

    We now have flexibility to vary, in effect, the average building a bridge time. It used to be 5 turns, more or less. Now we have perfect freedom to have it be X turns, more or less, where X is entirely customizable.

    quote:

  • And is moddable to boot!

  • If anybody disagrees with any of this, they have the modder's right to change it, even to absolutely ruling out any in-game bridge building whatsoever (by setting, in the .ai files, the build_hexside_bridge_prob and build_vehicle_bridge_prob values to zero)!

    Ultimately, there is no need to quarrel about it. You don't like how we do it? Mod it, have it your way!

    < Message edited by berto -- 2/7/2016 12:34:47 PM >


    _____________________________


    (in reply to Huib)
  • Post #: 68
    Hoorah for engineers! - 2/7/2016 11:31:41 AM   
    Crossroads


    Posts: 11148
    Joined: 7/5/2009
    Status: online
    Ooh yes

    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to berto)
    Post #: 69
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 11:43:46 AM   
    Otto von Blotto


    Posts: 265
    Joined: 7/18/2008
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib

    The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.


    I remember very well it was always roughly 6mins time scales that were supposed to be used not only in the original manual but also the reviews at the time of the matrix release, most have long since fallen off the web but I did find this one from Out of Eight http://www.outofeight.info/2007/07/john-tillers-campaign-series-review.html"The game is turn-based, using an action point system that roughly corresponds to six minutes of real time."


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib
    We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.


    That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.

    _____________________________

    "Personal isn't the same as important"

    (in reply to Huib)
    Post #: 70
    Scenario duration - 2/7/2016 12:15:45 PM   
    Crossroads


    Posts: 11148
    Joined: 7/5/2009
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib

    The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.


    I remember very well it was always roughly 6mins time scales that were supposed to be used not only in the original manual but also the reviews at the time of the matrix release, most have long since fallen off the web but I did find this one from Out of Eight http://www.outofeight.info/2007/07/john-tillers-campaign-series-review.html"The game is turn-based, using an action point system that roughly corresponds to six minutes of real time."



    That quote from Huib had to do with (with lack of a better term) Scenario Duration, and how "six minutes" is interpreted to mean that too. They are two separate things, that is the key to understanding this whole discussion.

    I quote from two pages back:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    Yes, how the units are modeled and in how many turns a certain historic battle would play out to historic results are two different things.

    Not least for the reason the player has a complete "god view" to all friendlies even when Fog-of-war is in place. And larger the scenario the greater the deviation, typically.


    Some of Kool Kats remarks apparently stem from his own failure (or unwillingness) to understand (turn based) game mechanics vs reality. By definition pauses in fights and battles, order delay etc. can only be modelled in real time games such as the Command Ops series for example and never in turn based games.

    So claiming a specific turn is exactly a specific given historical time span (in whatever manual) is an impossibility and won't hold up in any game or scenario (whether JT Panzer Campaigns or Talonsoft CS). However that is not a concern, as the designer can determine the needed number of turns to make the best representation of the actual events.

    On top of that Kool Kat's own custom scenarios also fail to qualify for the absurd fixed "scale" givens he claims to be carved in stone from the "old manual". In fact that is the case with ALL CS scenarios and that's just fine.

    Cheers
    Huib





    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to Otto von Blotto)
    Post #: 71
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 12:29:12 PM   
    Crossroads


    Posts: 11148
    Joined: 7/5/2009
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib
    We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.


    That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.


    For avoidance of doubt: Campaign Series is not changing its scale.

    It remains what it is, and always has. No changes there.


    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to Otto von Blotto)
    Post #: 72
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 1:12:56 PM   
    MrRoadrunner


    Posts: 1045
    Joined: 10/7/2005
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib

    The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.


    I remember very well it was always roughly 6mins time scales that were supposed to be used not only in the original manual but also the reviews at the time of the matrix release, most have long since fallen off the web but I did find this one from Out of Eight http://www.outofeight.info/2007/07/john-tillers-campaign-series-review.html"The game is turn-based, using an action point system that roughly corresponds to six minutes of real time."


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib
    We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.


    That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.


    Thanks Terry.
    Watching history being rewritten is off putting at best.
    Hearing it casually and arrogantly being thrust upon us as "facts" is frustrating. Especially when it comes from "the powers that be".

    Then to hear that Huib wants to possibly morph the game into company based? Is it Huib or the team?
    How are players to know?
    Why don't they make their own game based on the scale they want? Oh ... they did.
    And, now they want to ruin "our" classic game through their un-bundling, meddling, and changes for change sake. Wow!

    Let's throw out 250m hexes and 6 minute turns because Tiller did other titles that way?
    Huh? That's not even an argument. It is blather. So much of nothing to the argument.
    Funny when you have the original manuals that you can see, in black and white, what the game's scale is and what the intent of the designer and developers were.

    They should not be able to re-write history. I'll try to not get in my time machine and go back before the game was programmed and when the manual was written.
    That took the cake in the argument for the ultimate rewrite of history?
    And, as for the hoax comment; Hoax?
    Sure. I perpetuate a hoax. Or, was/is it in writing?

    Thanks again for validating my memory of the way things really were.

    RR

    _____________________________

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    (in reply to Otto von Blotto)
    Post #: 73
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 1:23:52 PM   
    76mm


    Posts: 3046
    Joined: 5/2/2004
    From: Berlin
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
    And, now they want to ruin "our" classic game through their un-bundling, meddling, and changes for change sake. Wow!


    I've asked the question below several times, you haven't answered, and keep repeating your statement above: Just what is keeping you from enjoying your classic game? You can keep playing the existing bundled version...so what exactly are you complaining about?


    And for the record, I think that most of the changes are improvements rather than "changes for change sake".

    (in reply to MrRoadrunner)
    Post #: 74
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 1:36:04 PM   
    MrRoadrunner


    Posts: 1045
    Joined: 10/7/2005
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib
    We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.


    That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.


    For avoidance of doubt: Campaign Series is not changing its scale.

    It remains what it is, and always has. No changes there.



    Sorry. I have to disagree.
    Especially once you un-bundle and morph/port the individual games to be more like the ME game, the Campaign Series itself will no longer exist.

    That, is the simple truth. You might as well drop "Campaign" and put in "Development Team" Series.

    And, if you would have read the article from 2007 that Otto attached you would have seen the "warts" that the writer/critic did not like. His reference to CS as being "slow moving" and "giving orders to units each turn" was not off putting to me. It is what makes the game great. It gives it the moving "unit chits" along the paper map like in a board game.

    Plus, all the scenarios and campaigns that you do not get in other games?
    Will all those change with the remake?

    Granted the Development Team Middle East game plays the same way. Maybe to a different scale? But, it has the same slow 3-D play the writer/critic did not like. (And, changing the map to that horrible Panzer General 3-D rendition will not help.) Nor, will some of the "new" "enhancements" that seem all the "rage"??

    But, maybe that is why the programmer gave DTME the new 2-D slot?
    You guys can do away with 3-D all together and make it a real game?

    RR

    _____________________________

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    (in reply to Crossroads)
    Post #: 75
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 1:47:45 PM   
    MrRoadrunner


    Posts: 1045
    Joined: 10/7/2005
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap

    After I read the comments about engineers I was curious went to a video on you tube where a Russian military crew put a bridge up in 6:45 seconds. So it tells me its possible.


    Can you post the link?
    Or, do I search for Russian engineer bridge building?

    RR


    Ed you'll have to look I have not had success in trying topost the link. Go to you tube and search like you say. It should come up. Have to say it was a 1990 Russian unit. Then I looked at WWII pontoon bridges. Search agin in youtube. There the was an article with the 107th American engineers. Where it speaks of time it took them to build a pontoon bridge. There it was a longer period like 45 minutes for a pontoon bridge that could carry mobile units. Search Pontoon bridges


    I saw them both and did not think that they were what you referred to.
    One because they used materials that were at the scene to begin with (meaning they did not move them there and then build the bridge). It could take more than six minutes just to get the equipment out let alone get enough of the materials needed to construct the bridge.
    Remember WWII engineers that were not "bridge building specific" did not carry around all the parts necessary to construct the bridge?

    And, two, because they were "modern" bridge building engineers. I thought we were discussing WWII engineers.
    For DTME you can have the more modern engineers and they can work within that game.

    And, there was also no comment on the Lego bridge? That took more than six minutes to make.

    RR

    _____________________________

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    (in reply to Zap)
    Post #: 76
    RE: Scenario duration - 2/7/2016 2:05:01 PM   
    Otto von Blotto


    Posts: 265
    Joined: 7/18/2008
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    That quote from Huib had to do with (with lack of a better term) Scenario Duration, and how "six minutes" is interpreted to mean that too. They are two separate things, that is the key to understanding this whole discussion.



    Sorry Petri I'm not buying it, it has always been the case and I think everyone is fully aware that although the battles did last much longer in real time the game cuts out a lot of stuff that happens but the game doesn't represent and was never meant to, resting, eating sleeping going to the toilet, resupply command chain logistics order delays ect, but it can't in all seriousness get away from the fact the game was modeled for each unit to expend it's action points in around 6 mins and each turn we play is supposed to show what a unit can do in around 6 mins. There may be a hour and a half faffing around between each turn, that's a restriction of the way the game works we all know this.


    _____________________________

    "Personal isn't the same as important"

    (in reply to Crossroads)
    Post #: 77
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 2:10:06 PM   
    MrRoadrunner


    Posts: 1045
    Joined: 10/7/2005
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

    Petri, there is no anger on my part. Disappointment and disgust. Not anger. And, I always push back against institutionalized oppression.

    And, Zak, let me know if this is an example of what you are going to report?

    RR



    No anger, eh. Well you fooled me.

    I am up to a civil discussion on any game related topic so glad to hear that's how we'll continue then. No name calling by anyone, no putting words in anyone's mouth, sounds like a deal.


    Sorry to have fooled you. That was not my intent.

    I can have a civil discussion as long as strawmen arguments are not the norm, fanboys do not constantly chime in with "yes sir, boy he's right", and the "discusser" does not resort to talking down from his/her perch.

    I've played the game for many years, supported and unsupported. I do so against the AI in campaigns (which were altered by the hidden AT gun and artillery rule changes, that set me back a bit and sucked the fun out of simply playing them. In previous arguments we were told that the changes better reflected the simulation than the game play). And, I mostly play now PBEM against a limited amount of opponents due to some real life time constraints. No more fifteen games at one time for me. A couple is all I can handle.

    Every time someone tells me that I can simply play the old way and not convert to the new way has no clue as to what they are saying. Especially for PBEM.
    The changes are not small, necessary, or wanted. Each change has had an effect, just like dropping a stone into a pond, the ripples go far from where the stone was dropped. Playing the "old way" is not going to work. Being forced from the game is what seems to be down the road for me, and what seems will be a few others. In my view it is a calculated plan.
    If that is what you guys want, there is nothing I can do about it but state my case until there is no case to state?

    If toes are stepped on I cannot help it. Sorry if I called your baby "ugly" and you thought I was calling you ugly.

    RR

    _____________________________

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    (in reply to Crossroads)
    Post #: 78
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 2:29:18 PM   
    Jafele


    Posts: 721
    Joined: 4/20/2011
    From: Seville (Spain)
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: 76mm

    I've asked the question below several times, you haven't answered, and keep repeating your statement above: Just what is keeping you from enjoying your classic game? You can keep playing the existing bundled version...so what exactly are you complaining about?




    He can´t find opponents by email. That´s all.


    _____________________________

    Las batallas contra las mujeres son las únicas que se ganan huyendo.

    NAPOLEÓN BONAPARTE


    Cuando el necio oye la verdad se carcajea, porque si no lo hiciera la verdad no sería la verdad.

    LAO TSE

    (in reply to 76mm)
    Post #: 79
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 2:34:26 PM   
    76mm


    Posts: 3046
    Joined: 5/2/2004
    From: Berlin
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
    Every time someone tells me that I can simply play the old way and not convert to the new way has no clue as to what they are saying. Especially for PBEM.
    The changes are not small, necessary, or wanted.


    You seem to be saying that notwithstanding the fact that the changes are not "small, necessary, or wanted" everyone will stop playing the old game and start playing the new game.

    Doesn't that mean that the changes are in fact wanted by most players? If the changes aren't wanted, they'll continue playing the old game, as can you. Right?

    Your real complaint seems to be that the player base will move in a direction that you don't like?

    < Message edited by 76mm -- 2/7/2016 3:37:29 PM >

    (in reply to MrRoadrunner)
    Post #: 80
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 2:42:15 PM   
    Zap


    Posts: 3121
    Joined: 12/6/2004
    From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
    Status: online
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Huib


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap



    That is close enough to reality for me. that American engineer unit in world war II did one in 45min. I,m at peace with that carry over into game terms.


    That is how it currently is made more or less if you would compare whole scenarios with whole historical battles they represent. (As I (and Jason) explained before there are no existing scenarios that actually have implemented a 6 minute turn duration)



    to clarify, I'm in accord with the transferal of time portrayed in the game it's fine with me and I get the allowance that needs to be made. Keep up the good work.

    < Message edited by Zap -- 2/7/2016 3:43:41 PM >


    _____________________________


    (in reply to Huib)
    Post #: 81
    RE: Scenario duration - 2/7/2016 2:50:05 PM   
    Crossroads


    Posts: 11148
    Joined: 7/5/2009
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    That quote from Huib had to do with (with lack of a better term) Scenario Duration, and how "six minutes" is interpreted to mean that too. They are two separate things, that is the key to understanding this whole discussion.



    Sorry Petri I'm not buying it, it has always been the case and I think everyone is fully aware that although the battles did last much longer in real time the game cuts out a lot of stuff that happens but the game doesn't represent and was never meant to, resting, eating sleeping going to the toilet, resupply command chain logistics order delays ect, but it can't in all seriousness get away from the fact the game was modeled for each unit to expend it's action points in around 6 mins and each turn we play is supposed to show what a unit can do in around 6 mins. There may be a hour and a half faffing around between each turn, that's a restriction of the way the game works we all know this.



    But that is exactly what I have been saying all along. And what you said above as well. Game scale being six minutes, battles lasting longer in real time ie. Scenario Duration. So what is it that you're not buying? Genuine question.


    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to Otto von Blotto)
    Post #: 82
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 2:53:06 PM   
    Crossroads


    Posts: 11148
    Joined: 7/5/2009
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    No anger, eh. Well you fooled me.

    I am up to a civil discussion on any game related topic so glad to hear that's how we'll continue then. No name calling by anyone, no putting words in anyone's mouth, sounds like a deal.


    Sorry to have fooled you. That was not my intent.

    I can have a civil discussion as long as strawmen arguments are not the norm, fanboys do not constantly chime in with "yes sir, boy he's right", and the "discusser" does not resort to talking down from his/her perch.



    You are certainly allowed to represent your own view. You seem to have great difficulties allowing others to present theirs. I thought there was an agreement to stop the name calling? Lasted a good few hours did it.

    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to MrRoadrunner)
    Post #: 83
    RE: Scenario duration - 2/7/2016 5:03:31 PM   
    Otto von Blotto


    Posts: 265
    Joined: 7/18/2008
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    That quote from Huib had to do with (with lack of a better term) Scenario Duration, and how "six minutes" is interpreted to mean that too. They are two separate things, that is the key to understanding this whole discussion.



    Sorry Petri I'm not buying it, it has always been the case and I think everyone is fully aware that although the battles did last much longer in real time the game cuts out a lot of stuff that happens but the game doesn't represent and was never meant to, resting, eating sleeping going to the toilet, resupply command chain logistics order delays ect, but it can't in all seriousness get away from the fact the game was modeled for each unit to expend it's action points in around 6 mins and each turn we play is supposed to show what a unit can do in around 6 mins. There may be a hour and a half faffing around between each turn, that's a restriction of the way the game works we all know this.



    But that is exactly what I have been saying all along. And what you said above as well. Game scale being six minutes, battles lasting longer in real time ie. Scenario Duration. So what is it that you're not buying? Genuine question.



    Swapping in Scenario Duration which is abstract for game scale which is fixed was just a way for some to try to trash kool kats designs and dissing his and others misgivings of the future of the current development path in its abstract use. (to be fair he did say it would happen in the first post)

    quote:

    I thought long and hard before deciding to make my opinion on JTCS public. These are my thoughts and how I see the future of JTCS and the direction the Dev Team is taking this game platform. So, brace ourselves for the dissecting of each sentence... the mounted and "spirited" defense of every point and counterpoint... and the chorus of supporters who will rush to the new platform's defense. So be it.

    It's my opinion and I stand by it...


    We were afaik and have always been talking about game scale which is 250m and 6 mins per turn.

    Just taking one of Jasons examples.

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

    This isn't right though is it, and is at the nub of the problem, it's not
    Game Turns: 18 = 108 minutes which relates to a Designer modified time scale: 33.3 minutes per turn.

    It's 18 x 6 minuet game turns spread out over a scenario time of whatever time you want be, whether it's 10 hours or 2 days we are only playing 18 six minuet turns during the game and to say it's anything else is just wrong braking the unit scale of the game that we all obliviously hold very dear.

    A while ago on the blitz we were discussing about how extreme assault was implemented to which you rightly said it wasn't on your watch.

    What happens now is.


    _____________________________

    "Personal isn't the same as important"

    (in reply to Crossroads)
    Post #: 84
    RE: Farwell - 2/7/2016 5:08:59 PM   
    Zap


    Posts: 3121
    Joined: 12/6/2004
    From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
    Status: online
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: 76mm

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
    Every time someone tells me that I can simply play the old way and not convert to the new way has no clue as to what they are saying. Especially for PBEM.
    The changes are not small, necessary, or wanted.


    You seem to be saying that notwithstanding the fact that the changes are not "small, necessary, or wanted" everyone will stop playing the old game and start playing the new game.

    Doesn't that mean that the changes are in fact wanted by most players? If the changes aren't wanted, they'll continue playing the old game, as can you. Right?

    Your real complaint seems to be that the player base will move in a direction that you don't like?


    Yes, that is what it seems to be about. He made his argument more then once I gave it a hearing, and have drawn my conclusion long ago. Repeatedly, making his points well that's his prerogative. Opinions are already formed some will stay with the classic others will move on. I'm personally looking forward to see what they can do with the EF WF RS (that's my cup of tea).

    < Message edited by Zap -- 2/8/2016 1:39:20 AM >


    _____________________________


    (in reply to 76mm)
    Post #: 85
    RE: Scenario duration - 2/7/2016 7:11:08 PM   
    Crossroads


    Posts: 11148
    Joined: 7/5/2009
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

    We were afaik and have always been talking about game scale which is 250m and 6 mins per turn.

    Just taking one of Jasons examples.

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

    This isn't right though is it, and is at the nub of the problem, it's not
    Game Turns: 18 = 108 minutes which relates to a Designer modified time scale: 33.3 minutes per turn.

    It's 18 x 6 minuet game turns spread out over a scenario time of whatever time you want be, whether it's 10 hours or 2 days we are only playing 18 six minuet turns during the game and to say it's anything else is just wrong braking the unit scale of the game that we all obliviously hold very dear.




    Yes, I buy that. This is exactly what I have tried to explain as well, maybe by different words. 6 minutes / 250m as how the units are designed to function. And, as that is how they are designed, that is how they play each of the individual turns. You say 18x6 minutes, I say Scenario Duration. Jason made the examples, but he argued scenarios play out faster than "10 hours = 60 turns only and always". But let us put aside that for now. I believe so far so good, yes?

    So if we accept that scenarios can span a longer time than just an hour or two of battle that is being simulated, we'd then need an abstraction where units can perform duties that take a longer time than 6 minutes. There's the two abstraction models, the percentile roll (like with bridge laying) and the per-turn achievement level (like clearing a strong minefield). This is clearly a conflict point, as Side A says "No not allowed" and Side B says "Yes we need them too". I am clearly with the latter, but that is irrelevant as long as one side does not try to force their way to the others.

    And that's the whole argument, isn't it? And has been for pretty much since the game came up. Nothings being changed as far as I know.


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

    A while ago on the blitz we were discussing about how extreme assault was implemented to which you rightly said it wasn't on your watch.

    What happens now is.



    Yes, of course.

    _____________________________

    Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
    ---
    CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
    CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 OUT NOW!

    (in reply to Otto von Blotto)
    Post #: 86
    RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 1:45:48 AM   
    Zap


    Posts: 3121
    Joined: 12/6/2004
    From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
    Status: online
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap

    After I read the comments about engineers I was curious went to a video on you tube where a Russian military crew put a bridge up in 6:45 seconds. So it tells me its possible.


    Can you post the link?
    Or, do I search for Russian engineer bridge building?

    RR


    Ed you'll have to look I have not had success in trying topost the link. Go to you tube and search like you say. It should come up. Have to say it was a 1990 Russian unit. Then I looked at WWII pontoon bridges. Search agin in youtube. There the was an article with the 107th American engineers. Where it speaks of time it took them to build a pontoon bridge. There it was a longer period like 45 minutes for a pontoon bridge that could carry mobile units. Search Pontoon bridges


    I saw them both and did not think that they were what you referred to.
    One because they used materials that were at the scene to begin with (meaning they did not move them there and then build the bridge). It could take more than six minutes just to get the equipment out let alone get enough of the materials needed to construct the bridge.
    Remember WWII engineers that were not "bridge building specific" did not carry around all the parts necessary to construct the bridge?

    And, two, because they were "modern" bridge building engineers. I thought we were discussing WWII engineers.
    For DTME you can have the more modern engineers and they can work within that game.

    And, there was also no comment on the Lego bridge? That took more than six minutes to make.

    RR


    This is a idea of the times for bridges WWII 1942 107th
    1 bridge =300 feet 6min.
    2 bridge =72 linear feet 22min.
    3 bridge = 37 feet 6min
    During this period there were three types of bridges in general use in the Army inventory. The first was 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. The 107th did it at the rate of 50 feet per minute. The next type of bridge was known as an H-10 and consisted of two prefabricated steel girders supported by a mud sill on each bank and covered by three-inch plank. The 'book' record was 57 minutes for 72 linear feet. The 107th time stood at 22 minutes! The last bridge in the inventory was the ten-ton pontoon bridge which the Regiment constructed at the rate of 6½ feet per minute, twice as fast as they were supposed to be able to. These record setting times weren't achieved merely by constant practice. Many long nights were spent by company officers and non-coms trying to figure out how to save precious minutes and even seconds from times. 10


    < Message edited by Zap -- 2/8/2016 2:40:22 PM >


    _____________________________


    (in reply to MrRoadrunner)
    Post #: 87
    RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 11:33:23 AM   
    MrRoadrunner


    Posts: 1045
    Joined: 10/7/2005
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crossroads

    No anger, eh. Well you fooled me.

    I am up to a civil discussion on any game related topic so glad to hear that's how we'll continue then. No name calling by anyone, no putting words in anyone's mouth, sounds like a deal.


    Sorry to have fooled you. That was not my intent.

    I can have a civil discussion as long as strawmen arguments are not the norm, fanboys do not constantly chime in with "yes sir, boy he's right", and the "discusser" does not resort to talking down from his/her perch.



    You are certainly allowed to represent your own view. You seem to have great difficulties allowing others to present theirs. I thought there was an agreement to stop the name calling? Lasted a good few hours did it.


    Who did I stop from presenting their views? This is a classic in the line of strawman arguments?

    Name calling? Who'd I call a name?
    If you are talking about the collection of fanboys who seem to want to titter about others and then complain when they are called out? Not from me (this time). I chose to ignore them. Including the one from Spain who knows nothing but still wants to make comments. If they want to own up to their fanboy status and complain that is up to them. They can stay elementary school all they want. It just rolls off the back.

    And, so far I have not been talked down to by someone who has power, and have not responded in kind, so I fail to see what your new bitch is about.

    And, your "baby" is still ugly.

    RR


    _____________________________

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    (in reply to Crossroads)
    Post #: 88
    RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 11:42:35 AM   
    MrRoadrunner


    Posts: 1045
    Joined: 10/7/2005
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zap
    This is a idea of the times for bridges WWII 1942 107th
    Level 1 bridge =300 feet 6min.
    Level 2 bridge =77 linear feet 22min.

    During this period there were three types of bridges in general use in the Army inventory. The first was 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. The 107th did it at the rate of 50 feet per minute. The next type of bridge was known as an H-10 and consisted of two prefabricated steel girders supported by a mud sill on each bank and covered by three-inch plank. The 'book' record was 57 minutes for 72 linear feet. The 107th time stood at 22 minutes! The last bridge in the inventory was the ten-ton pontoon bridge which the Regiment constructed at the rate of 6½ feet per minute, twice as fast as they were supposed to be able to. These record setting times weren't achieved merely by constant practice. Many long nights were spent by company officers and non-coms trying to figure out how to save precious minutes and even seconds from times. 10



    So we are to believe that the engineers that you use in combat carry boats and girders with them?
    Or, are you talking about the engineers specifically designed for that, along with having trucks etc?
    I got no problem with the time frame that the troops can build them.
    My issue is with them carrying stuff around throughout the scenario and still fighting like they are not.
    Let's build a bridge, clear a wreck, blow a wall, clear a minefield, build a trench system, and lay out a minefield all in a turn ten turn scenario (obviously not that they have to do it, just that they potentially can do it by the way they are designed - coupled with lucky rolls that do happen).
    Just not my idea of realism. Not that I would push realism over game play-ability. Some things, like planes that defy gravity, are a bit much to ask for or justify.

    RR

    _____________________________

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    (in reply to Zap)
    Post #: 89
    RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 12:39:06 PM   
    Zap


    Posts: 3121
    Joined: 12/6/2004
    From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
    Status: online
    Well there are represented in the game bridge building engineers. (I imagine they had all the materials needed)
    The other engineers I would except the abstraction (for example having support trucks with material nearby).

    Simply put, I like some flexibility in allowing a WWII level1 300feet 6min, level2 77feet 22min., level3 bridge(heavy duty) Which took 6 min for 37feet to construct. To be represented in the game by engineers(not identified as bridge building.)

    The time frames are very close to the real WWII time frame as the examples given. You have now raised another issue to say its not possible. I mean, is there no flexibility in your imagining of how things could be abstracted? Some allowance? It seems not, and this is where I part ways with your thinking. the(original)designers made some allowances in the original game scenarios that did not completely conform to this 6min time frame. Or not? I can't imagine every scenario they made did.

    Think about all the scenarios (custom) made for the game later. And make it more enjoyable. if we had to follow your line of thinking they would have to be eliminated!

    Sorry, but I'll move away from your thinking, that does not allow any abstraction within reason.




    < Message edited by Zap -- 2/8/2016 2:57:31 PM >


    _____________________________


    (in reply to MrRoadrunner)
    Post #: 90
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Farwell Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.164