Farewell to JTCS

[Warhorse]

Do you have CSME? The extra 2d zooms at my 54 years of age are a serious bonus!!

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: carl11
the present zoom levels, close in or out, (Hotkey 2 or 5) at least for me is pretty close in and 5 provides a great BF overview.., I am not sure being in any closer would gain anything, view wise...(?)

They're displaying correctly, but even at max zoom, the graphics in the classic series are far too small for me to see comfortably. The graphics in CSME are much more to my liking--not only size, but generally the counters, etc. are crisper and have the factor indicators, etc.

[carll11]

No, I have not purchased it yet. So I have no frame of refeence re: the extra 2d....thx

[carll11]

Understood, thx.

[Warhorse]

Ahh, ok. There are now a couple new zooms, which is very nice, when used to the '4' view in JTCS! There are screenshots and such at the ME forum, so you can sort of see what I mean. But, there is so much more in the game that is new as well.

[carll11]

I pln on getting it soon..thx!

[kool_kat]

Gents:

It really pains me to be negative and depressed over where this Dev Team is taking future JTCS development… but I call it like I see it.

I’m no stranger to the Dev Team. I’ve helped both Mike and Petri with play testing their JTCS H2H scenarios. I’ve worked with Jason as a fellow Blitz officer. Berto I don’t know very well, but have had a few “offline” conversations with him on various aspects of JTCS.

When I first started to suspect that the Dev Team was getting “off track” with JTCS development were those succession of game patches, starting with 1.03. In many cases, each successive patch was put out, in part, to fix bugs and errors introduced in the previous one! The Dev Team initially made Extreme Assault (EA) the default assault rule… and that started the fracture of the JTCS Community as players divided into two camps – EA and not EA. Also, not only did EA fracture our Community, it also “broke” many of the pre-EA designed scenarios. I played a JTCS scenario in which a single MG squad held out against waves of close assaults by battalion-sized formations!

Then, there was the business about the game interface with the tiny icons… engineers building bridges in 6 minutes… plane units that did not fly… and other out of scale units.

Sometimes, it’s best to just leave a “classic” game alone… and having played JTCS since early 2000… I really wish the Dev Team had stopped at the 1.04 patch… and left well enough alone. But, that’s not what happened.

And now, with the planned unbundling of JTCS and the publishing of three separate titles… the JTCS Community will fracture again – this time into the “classic” JTCS and “new” CS Series camps. I wonder how many times the Matrix Dev Team can subdivide a niche market that has a plethora of WW2 games and compete against such heavy weights as the Panzer Battles Series, developed and published by John Tiller Software?

I guess time will tell?

[Jason Petho]

Remember the discussion when the Dev Team argued that the scale of the game was “sometimes” 250 meters per hex and sometimes 6 minutes of time?

"Using the top five most played, Talonsoft scenarios, I thought it might be interesting to see how the original designers used the time scale within their scenarios."

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

Giants on the Vistula by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 20 = 120 minutes
Actual Battle length represented by the scenario objectives and conditions for victory: 9 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 36 hours) = 540 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 27 minutes per turn

Red Steel at Fedorovka by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 14 = 84 minutes
Actual Battle length represented by the scenario objectives and conditions for victory: ~11 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 3 days) = 660 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 47.1 minutes per turn

Storm 5-5-5 by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 12 = 72 minutes
Actual Battle length represented by the scenario objectives and conditions for victory: ~4 hours = 240 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 20 minutes per turn

The Battle is Joined by Doug Bevard
Game Turns: 20 = 120 minutes
Actual Battle length represented by the scenario objectives and conditions for victory: ~8 hours (being generous as it lasted nearly 16 hours) = 480 minutes
Designer modified time scale: 24 minutes per turn


I don't recall anywhere that the map scale has been called into being anything but 250m per hex.

Jason Petho

[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.

[Huib]

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

[MrRoadrunner]

Scale is the scale. What a scenario designer does with it is his or her own choice?
Units move and shoot specifically based on the scale. Players then can decide which scenarios they wish to play or not based on their play experience?

However to anyone who wants to nit pick individual scenario time frames, the game is still 250 meters per hex and 6 minutes per turn. As Huib stated it is up to the scenario designer to try to stretch and sell his or her time frame.
Where the "team" goes wrong is by putting into the game system the things that do not work within the scale. Where Huib goes wrong is stating that the new manual can change the scale? It cannot. The "team" can take the words out of the manual but they cannot take the parameters of how units move and shoot, in both distance and time.
The scale is etched in stone until they bend and/or break it so much as to be unrecognizable within the game itself?
No matter what the "team" says it is only what the "team" does that will destroy the game.

Scale is scale. Anyone who does not see that should run the development team. [8|]

RR

[Huib]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Scale is the scale. What a scenario designer does with it is his or her own choice?
Units move and shoot specifically based on the scale. Players then can decide which scenarios they wish to play or not based on their play experience?

However to anyone who wants to nit pick individual scenario time frames, the game is still 250 meters per hex and 6 minutes per turn. As Huib stated it is up to the scenario designer to try to stretch and sell his or her time frame.
Where the "team" goes wrong is by putting into the game system the things that do not work within the scale. Where Huib goes wrong is stating that the new manual can change the scale? It cannot. The "team" can take the words out of the manual but they cannot take the parameters of how units move and shoot, in both distance and time.
The scale is etched in stone until they bend and/or break it so much as to be unrecognizable within the game itself?
No matter what the "team" says it is only what the "team" does that will destroy the game.

Scale is scale. Anyone who does not see that should run the development team. [8|]

RR

The scale is that it is a company based game with 250 m hexes whereas Panzer Campaigns for example is batallion based with 1 km hexes.
It seems that you did not (want to) see the rest I wrote about the difference between real time and turn based wargames when it comes to the representation of time spans (or time scale if you wish to call it that way).
Jason already showed that no actual scenarios exist on what you refer to as what you believe is the fixed time "scale".

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Scale is scale. Anyone who does not see that should run the development team. [8|]

Talonsoft too, apparently, as shown above.

[KEYSTONE0795]

I remember reading about the scale "problem" with the Campaign Series right after it's original Talonsoft release. People were screaming that in a six minute turn, infantry perform super human feats and that with a 250 meter scale, infantry should not be able to assault an adjacent hex. Many years later, we're all still playing and enjoying the system.
That fact speaks to the soundness of the basic design. Just my 2 cents.

[Jason Petho]

That's the point.

With the modified time frame that every designer designs for, regardless if it 6 minutes in the rules or 30 minutes in practice, they have the tools that help them with their designs to make the game fun and enjoyable.

[MrRoadrunner]

But, scale is still scale.

250m per hex?
All fire is based on the scale, correct or not?
A tank that can shoot six hexes distance would fire twice as far if the hexes were 125m or half as far if the hexes are based on 500m?
Same with infantry and all other fire?

Movement is based the same way. Speed is time plus distance. A unit moving can reach a distance based on movement through hexes and terrain effects. If the scale was 125m the units can move twice as many hexes and half the hexes if the hex was 500m.

To Herr Huib; I stopped reading when you made snide comments regarding Mike's scenarios (which I find equally as good as many of yours). And, for the fact that we have had these discussions for years. So I am sure that I have not missed a single "gem" you wrote?
Squad Battles is tactical and based on "squads" and individual vehicles. JTCS is based on platoons and is tactical/grand tactical. The next level is operational? Further up would be strategic?

It's quite simple? It is how all games are made, from miniatures, board, and computer. Scale is the foundation. And, IIRC, your map design tutorials are very specific when trying to "scale" the map in to hexes?
Or do we just fudge the maps?
Huib will have a heart attack if a tree or town is out of place? But, don't worry, what the scenario the designer had in mind covered several days so it does not fit the scale?
As long as it is based on 250m hexes all is good. As long as units move and fire in scale all is good.

Jason.
Hogwash!
Your thinking, and that of the development team, is how we get the out of scale units. Engineers which could do remarkable feats in six minutes (or in real life, hours for that matter).
Air planes that can hover over the map and not use a single movement point? And, I am not talking about the silly air bases. I'm talking about the planes that can do things on map (controlled by the players) that defy gravity (but then again gravity is a concept that you do not have to put into time and distance?).
Not to mention the naval units and how they work?
To Keystone0795's point, creating more arguments even now? And, not learning from past mistakes (sure miss the Talonsoft forums).

All these in because of what? Realism? Simulation?
How about keeping the abstract ... abstract? That was the original intent?
Or, put them in and have them operate to scale?

How about keeping "in scale" when adding all the new kewl things?

Neither of you will ever convince me (nor will smug condescension stop me) from knowing what the game's scale is.

As Keystone0795 stated, the game has stood the test of time. And, hell, that was after being unsupported, messed with, changing hands multiple times, and with some of the out of scale stuff you guys put in.

I could care less if your list of "out of scale" scenarios was ten times longer. The intent of the scenario designer did not change the scale of the game. Nor was the game effected by their designs. Where out of scale comes into play is with the "team" so willing to throw scale out to fit in all the new kewl things.
Not a single scenario has effected game scale. Even a Picasso designed scenario would not effect game scale. Your willingness to bring up scenarios as an argument for different scale is specious at best.

Where "you" deeply impact the game's scale is in adding new units. Hopefully all new units are seen through (and run through the filter of) the measure of 250m hexes and six minute time frames?
Otherwise "we" are "doomed". [:)]

RR

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

But, scale is still scale.

250m per hex?
All fire is based on the scale, correct or not?
A tank that can shoot six hexes distance would fire twice as far if the hexes were 125m or half as far if the hexes are based on 500m?
Same with infantry and all other fire?

Map scale has never been in question. It's 250 metres per hex.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Your thinking, and that of the development team, is how we get the out of scale units. Engineers which could do remarkable feats in six minutes (or in real life, hours for that matter).

Can engineers build a light bridge across a hexside river? You bet they could. There are Army Manuals out there that can shed some light on how long these tasks take. I highly recommend taking a gander.

Can engineers lay a level 1 minefield? You bet. Read said manuals above to figure out how long it takes.

Can engineers build trenches? You bet... again, read said manuals.

Can engineers remove minefields? You bet and you can determine how long it takes to do so with said manuals.

Can engineer vehicles remove wrecks? You bet...!

Can Bridging Vehicles lay vehicle bridges? You bet...!

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Not to mention the naval units and how they work?

Naval units work like water bound/mobile artillery units. You know, like those that would participate in a naval bombardment. Very handy if your map doesn't allow the use of off-board artillery. Sevastopol harbour is a prime example for their use.

I also presume you read the manual:

Design considerations for naval units:
 The Strength Point value of the combat-capable naval forces is based on the number of primary guns it has. The unit will be deemed out of action if it has no guns left to fire; it may not be sunk, it just may be put out of action by excessive damage.
 Most of the surface ships can fire indirectly, allowing them to perform some form of naval support. The larger the ship, the more effective at suppressing a hex it will be.
 None of the naval units have an Assault Value. If they are going to engage in combat against one another, they will have to shoot it out to see who the victor is.
 Scenario design considerations of naval units:
 These are best to be included as support unit to a shore based battle, or supporting an amphibious invasion.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Neither of you will ever convince me (nor will smug condescension stop me) from knowing what the game's scale is.

Who's trying to convince you? You have an opinion, I have an opinion .. and they differ. So be it.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
As Keystone0795 stated, the game has stood the test of time. And, hell, that was after being unsupported, messed with, changing hands multiple times, and with some of the out of scale stuff you guys put in.

Yay for having the freedom to do it! And continuing to do it.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I could care less if your list of "out of scale" scenarios was ten times longer. The intent of the scenario designer did not change the scale of the game. Nor was the game effected by their designs. Where out of scale comes into play is with the "team" so willing to throw scale out to fit in all the new kewl things.
Not a single scenario has effected game scale. Even a Picasso designed scenario would not effect game scale. Your willingness to bring up scenarios as an argument for different scale is specious at best.

Every scenario has not impacted map scale. Most maps are made at 250m hexes. There are the odd handful that isn't, Rising Sun has a few.

Every scenario has impacted time scale, every designer choosing to design within their own perceived time scale. From the original East Front all the way to the current JTCS.

So yes, by adding new units and capabilities that fit designers varying time scale to enhance their designs, we encourage the longevity of the series and imaginations of our customers.

[Warhorse]

Well, hate to say it, but the 3d graphics are way out of scale, Jason, damn, now I gotta reduce them all to 1x1 pixel graphics, my apologies....

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: Warhorse

Well, hate to say it, but the 3d graphics are way out of scale, Jason, damn, now I gotta reduce them all to 1x1 pixel graphics, my apologies....

LOL [:D]

No, please. We´ll have to use a telescope to play CSME. [:-]

[Crossroads]

Ha, good one Mike [:D]

Yep, 3D Normal View is 200 pixels wide, which, depicting 250 meters, means 1px = 1.25. Very difficult to have all the details in... [:(] That will significantly reduce our effort on new 3D graphics though!

Here's the German Rifle Platoon'39 in their Feldgrau uniform: .

Here, then, is the German SS Rifle Platoon '43 in their Camo: .

Maybe that shoud suffice for many other units too?

We are after all, it seems, giving up 3D to concentrate on 2D with vs-AI only play. I was not aware of this, but alas: I found it in the internet, so it must be true. [:'(]