From: Washington D.C.
The problem I have with artificial time constraints… Is it demeans the purpose of the objective… Which is the successful prosecution of the mission.... Everything should be about the mission… If the mission cannot be successfully prosecuted… It is all senseless .......
Using time space.. operation tempo are tactical applications that you manipulate to leverage mission success.....
Excluding the manipulation of space time… Makes the scenario just game…
It depends. On the defense, you don't get to pick when the enemy attacks. They're going to do that when they decide it makes sense for them. In that case, a time constraint makes more sense, because the attack is over when the attack is over. On the offense, the reverse is true, unless you specifically make the decision that it's a hasty attack to exploit a fleeting, temporary advantage, there should be time to prepare and mass the resources necessary so that you're at maximum advantage.
In practical terms, that means an offensive scenario generally needs to have all the time necessary to reconfigure all the aircraft, and plan. While a defensive scenario is probably going to be relatively short and the player may be forced to choose between reconfiguring aircraft and risking not having enough of them ready when the enemy offensive comes.
I have seen a number of scenarios… Where the assaulting force is ridiculously position at start within range of opfor... positioned to almost immediately take casualty for the sake of Game.... excluding the notion of the ingress as a tactical leverage...... While it does make for great tensions in gameplaying it is also kind of silly and lacking plausibility of any real world situation.....
That's a different problem.
I remember a scenario I play tested where I looked at what was going on and my first decision was to take my carrier and run away at 30kts. I thought it was interesting how few people did that when I watched how they were testing it. They seemed content to have the carrier within SAM range. Who does that? Do they just love launching airplanes only for them to be shot down? It turned out that had I not run away, I would have been sunk by an undetected submarine. Apparently that one decision messed up his carefully thought out "plot." Who would have thought the US Navy would run away? Of course the would if they were in a fundamentally bad spot!
It's not necessary to rig a scenario in the name of drama. It's not even a good idea, because one unanticipated move can leave someone's carefully constructed plot in tatters. It's much better to think much more fundamentally. What is the computer attacking/defending? What is the player attacking/defending? Then come up with a plan on the computer side for doing that. Test it. Make sure it works really well, then challenge a player to defeat them.
A lot of players are politics/current events junkies. That's fine, but honestly, at this level of wargaming, there's really only a distant relationship between the politics of the conflict and the tactics employed. The politics shape things like what to attack or not to attack, what to defend, and what you might not care about protecting. They're also reflected in no-nav zones, and side postures.
The "plot" for a given scenario is what you tell people happened afterwards. Ideally, everyone has a different story about how they solved the problem.