Farewell to JTCS

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Huib

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.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

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.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

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.

[OttoVonBlotto]

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

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)

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.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

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).

[Crossroads]

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.

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.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner




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. [8|]

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
[/b]

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

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

[MrRoadrunner]

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
[/b]

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

[Zap]

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.

[OttoVonBlotto]

ORIGINAL: Zap

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 level3 bridge WWII(heavy duty) Which took 6 min for 33feet to construct. To be represented in the game by engineers(not identified as bridge building.)

I'm not sure if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but heavy duty bridges can't be made by ordinary engineers in the game just by bridging engineers. ordinary engineers can only make light infantry bridges iirc.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

ORIGINAL: Zap

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 level3 bridge WWII(heavy duty) Which took 6 min for 33feet to construct. To be represented in the game by engineers(not identified as bridge building.)

I'm not sure if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but heavy duty bridges can't be made by ordinary engineers in the game just by bridging engineers. ordinary engineers can only make light infantry bridges iirc.

I confess I don't know. So your saying if someone puts an engineer in his scenario that engineer will not or be allowed (coded) to construct only small bridges? If that's the case then even better. Then that would be closer to reality. You'll have to help me understand that better.

I was just pointing out the time frame as to the information I found about WWII pontoon bridges.

[OttoVonBlotto]

Taken from the 2.01 manual that I'm sure is the latest release.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued fully-supplied regular Engineer unit may attempt to build a
light bridge (a footbridge) across a hexside stream or river with a 20% chance of success.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued, fully-supplied Bridging Engineer unit may attempt to build a vehicle bridge across a hexside stream or
river with a 20% chance of success.
Bridging Engineer units are specialists. They can only build medium vehicle bridges. They many not build light foot bridges, clear
mines/obstacles, or blow up/damage walls or bridges.

Hope that makes it clearer.

[Crossroads]

^^ Yes indeed. Here's the Special Engineer types present in the game:


[*] BRIDGING ENGINEERS (1.03): These are special Engineers that can build medium bridges across hexsides. See Section 5.17.1 for more information.

[*] MINE ENGINEERS (1.03): These are special Engineers that are capable of laying a one strength minefield. See Section 5.17.2 for more information.

[*] CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS (1.03): These are special Engineers that can build a block and trenches. See Section 5.17.3 & 5.17.4 for more information.

Regular Engineers can:

[*] Attempt to build a Light (foot) hexside bridge at 20% chance
[*] Attempt to blow a hole to High / Low Wall
[*] Clear a Minefield, one strength point per turn
[*] Lay Smoke to a hex they reside in

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

Taken from the 2.01 manual that I'm sure is the latest release.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued fully-supplied regular Engineer unit may attempt to build a
light bridge (a footbridge) across a hexside stream or river with a 20% chance of success.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued, fully-supplied Bridging Engineer unit may attempt to build a vehicle bridge across a hexside stream or
river with a 20% chance of success.
Bridging Engineer units are specialists. They can only build medium vehicle bridges. They many not build light foot bridges, clear
mines/obstacles, or blow up/damage walls or bridges.

Hope that makes it clearer.

Thanks, so the game does represent engineers pretty well and the time thing is pretty close to WWII as well. So the only other point made was these did not have the equipment at hand. Can't the abstraction be made materials and trucks are nearby? I mean that is what Ed is complaining about now. This was my point the time frame has been established close enough to real WWII units. I can make the abstraction and be flexible and I will move forward with the game development.

[OttoVonBlotto]

ORIGINAL: Zap
Thanks, so the game does represent engineers pretty well and the time thing is pretty close to WWII as well. So the only other point made was these did not have the equipment at hand. Can't the abstraction be made materials and trucks are nearby? I mean that is what Ed is complaining about now. This was my point the time frame has been established close enough to real WWII units. I can make the abstraction and be flexible and I will move forward with the game development.

I wouldn't go as far to say the game represents engineers well, normal engineers were part of the base game and are the best modeled to my mind, bridge, construction and mine engineers were all added with 1.03/1.04 and I think don't fit the game system as well but we are where we are. To my mind there were much greater issues than the engineers added with 1.03 and 1.04.

As to Eds points I wouldn't dream of speaking for him but I suggest you read his early posts to see what his issues are with the current and future CS and ME, I will say to me the bridge engineer part you've honed in on and dug into was a very small part of a much larger issue but if you ask him i'm sure he will answer in his own way.

[Zap]

I was asking how you see the abstraction are you allowing any. Just curious. I'm moving forward with the development allowing abstractions are necessary. as I see it

[OttoVonBlotto]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I was asking how you see the abstraction are you allowing any. Just curious. I'm moving forward with the development allowing abstractions are necessary. as I see it

I'm not quite sure I understand your question so forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, abstractions of some kind or another are of course necessary although not strictly about bridge building I would have though some of my earlier posts would show I'm quite open to the idea that abstractions are not just needed but essential.

But I'm sure as well as finding reports of bridges being built in the very quick time frames you've supplied you've also read plenty of reports of vital equipment not where it should be whether it is long delayed, held in traffic, rerouted into the unknown, missing from the start or even appropriated by other units, the list is almost endless, at that time the slick logistics used today were unheard and even now stuff doesn’t always go to plan.

So to automatically assume a perfect situation every time and that for any engineer unit will at any given point in a battle have exactly what it needs in the place it requires it every time it needs it is to me pushing abstraction into solid fantasy.

Don't get me wrong I can live with that, maybe others can't, that’s fine, as I said above.

To my mind there were much greater issues than the engineers added...

[Huib]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

So to automatically assume a perfect situation every time and that for any engineer unit will at any given point in a battle have exactly what it needs in the place it requires it every time it needs it is to me pushing abstraction into solid fantasy.

There are many ways in scenario designing that can create a "non perfect" situation for certain units. As for engineers that were historically stuck in traffic jams or were missing bridging parts hampering their effectiveness or whatever, a simple way would be to keep them fixed for a while or send them as reinforcements later on. That would be an abstraction for traffic jams that are not possible to simulate. You can't simulate traffic problems itself but you can steer timings by letting units arrive late or early.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

ORIGINAL: Zap
Thanks, so the game does represent engineers pretty well and the time thing is pretty close to WWII as well. So the only other point made was these did not have the equipment at hand. Can't the abstraction be made materials and trucks are nearby? I mean that is what Ed is complaining about now. This was my point the time frame has been established close enough to real WWII units. I can make the abstraction and be flexible and I will move forward with the game development.

I wouldn't go as far to say the game represents engineers well, normal engineers were part of the base game and are the best modeled to my mind, bridge, construction and mine engineers were all added with 1.03/1.04 and I think don't fit the game system as well but we are where we are. To my mind there were much greater issues than the engineers added with 1.03 and 1.04.

As to Eds points I wouldn't dream of speaking for him but I suggest you read his early posts to see what his issues are with the current and future CS and ME, I will say to me the bridge engineer part you've honed in on and dug into was a very small part of a much larger issue but if you ask him i'm sure he will answer in his own way.

Thanks for your reply and appreciate the way you present your view. I thought Bridge engineer unit would bring equipment and materials with them(I don't know.) If they do, that would help them fit better. About bridges built under fire (in game a bridge engineer [like a regular engineer] will be disrupted and stopped from continuing to build). Other problems taking place Huib's point in doing scenarios would help as well. I've have read Ed's points. Units were some of his examples. And in particular he mentioned engineers in strict confines of time saying this:

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"


With proof of 6 min. bridges being built and larger bridges being built in a time span pretty close (6 min 37feet /12min 74feet). From his statement and response to my post seems to indicate that he was sure it could not be done in 6 min. My question to him was can he accept some abstraction of that (allowing for a build with some delays being abstracted).

The other thing is when the game was first came out did the scenarios that came with it faithfully represent this time frame in game play in all instances?