Farewell to JTCS

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Zap
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?

The short answer to this is no. Which was my point a few pages back.

Jason Petho

[noissy]

For what it's worth, I have purchased CSME and, despite some scenarios
supposedly being unbalanced, I get immense enjoyment playing it as do others in the WGCG.
As far as JTCS is concerned, the improvements made already, such as extreme assault, make
the game far more enjopyable. Despite early scenarios being affected with EE, I find that
EE doesn't make it impossible to win.
All in all, the few who prefer no change can look for fellow players that like the old versions.
Don't stop changes being made to the game when many more are happy to see the developments being
made by the team? Just accept that if it's not for you, don't try and stop what many more want to see?
Imho, the development team are doing a great job keeping this game alive and kicking.

[dox44]

+1

[MrRoadrunner]

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 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.

The "blind choose not to see".
Or, you just did not understand?

Either way do not put words in my mouth. For the last time: I do not mind the new units, from airplanes, and engineers, to ships/boats. What I do mind is that they operate within the game's scope and scale.

So far you seem to rest on a video that shows a pre-staged and pre-prepared bridge unit building a bridge, in a peacetime demonstration. You started with the 1990 demonstration that you extrapolated to WWII engineer units under fire. And, you seem happy they will operate that way in a game.
You did not know that engineer bridge building units carry bridges with them?
Then you blended engineer units and further believed the argument?

A regular engineer unit building a light bridge is really not a problem. Moving all over the map building multiple bridges, clearing mines, blowing walls, digging trench systems are just a bit much if a player gets successful with consistent "die rolls".
Not to mention what it did to scenarios that originally were made without bridging by engineers that got completely changed by the ability to build bridges?

My argument about engineers building a light bridge was countered with "they can cut down a tree" and use it to cross the river. OK, how long did that tree take to cut down and strip off the branches? Did they carry one with them?
Then it was "they can make a rope bridge". OK, they got the rope. Someone forded the river/stream and they were able to construct a rope bridge in six minutes capable of supporting men carrying (say) 70 to a hundred pounds apiece (and a tree).
Ever been in scouting? Ever build a rope bridge that was stable and could support people?

You can move on an enjoy your experience with CS. I also have no problem with that.

RR

[Zap]

Ed ,
I admit I'm not up on all that but I did present this from a source on the internet that I copied to show what I found. Because the whole discussion made me curious. below is what I had posted earlier after posting the video which yes, was from 1990.


This is a idea of the times for bridges WWII 1942 107th
1 bridge =300 feet 6min.
2 bridge =72 linear feet 22min. medium bridge
3 bridge = 37 feet 6min medium bridge
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

Thus WWII time period. My question was do you allow for any abstraction in any case. For example Level three (medium) bridge 74 feet could be done in 12 min. according to the game you need a Bridge building engineer. Can you (with your mindset) allow for that abstraction in the game?

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Zap
My question was do you allow for any abstraction in any case. For example Level three (medium) bridge 74 feet could be done in 12 min. according to the game you need a Bridge building engineer. Can you (with your mindset) allow for that abstraction in the game?

Are you kidding me?
Of course I allow for abstraction. Never said I did not. (With my mindset? Classic case of strawman argument.)
I also believe in scale. Six minutes and 250m.

Let's say you have a run of really great "die rolls".
You can take an engineer unit that begins adjacent to a river/stream. Attempt to build a bridge and succeed in one turn. Cross the river on turn two and enter a level one minefield. Turn three the minefield is cleared. Stay there and build a trench by turn four. Turn five move forward and encounter a blocking wall. Turn six blow a hole through the wall. Turn seven move into a hex containing wrecks. Turn eight clear the wrecks.

That is a lot to do in under an hour? But, in theory it can be done with great die rolling.
Have I ever seen the above happen. No. But, the unit can do it.

I can have abstract thoughts. The above would be a bit much. Even instantaneous communication by every man in the unit would stretch the abstraction?

And to be frank, I do not believe that engineers have been modeled correctly. But, that is another issue altogether.

RR