Air Force support.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: mheard
My and other suggestions about air bombing seem to have started a debate about the scale of the game. I'm pretty sure that not everyone will agree about this scale and scope whether in the physical sense (extent of the of battle area, number of units and so forth) and time scales. JTCS is a tactical level game and not a strategic one. That much I am certain on. I suppose the context is that JTCS is not the game to fight the entire Battle of Kursk but just about covers the whole of Market Garden perhaps.

I somewhat agree and also beg to differ. I'd like clarity over suggestion.
What everyone should agree upon is the scale of the game?
From the very creation of the game series the manual states:

"What is the game scale?
A. The game scale is six minutes per turn and 250 meters per hex. Each Strength Point (SP) of an infantry platoon represents a half squad (thus, 6 SPs represent a platoon of three squads). Each SP of a Machine Gun platoon represents one MG “team” (and, thus, one MG); each SP of a gun (i.e., gun, mortar, or howitzer) battery represents one gun and its attendant crew; each SP of a vehicular platoon (regardless of type) represents one vehicle and its crew. Crews and guns are considered the same units for game play purposes"

From the game disk/folder help section:

Parameter Data

Minutes per Turn: 6
Meters per Hex: 250

Maximum Units per Hex: 6 Maximum Strength Points per Hex:24
Maximum Strength Points per Road: 12 (more than this number of SPs in the hex negates any road/railroad/path in the hex)

Minimum Non-Wreck Strength Points per Hex that Block LOS: 13
Minimum Wreck Strength Points per Hex that Block LOS: 6
______________________________

I believe that every unit, new terrain feature, and scenario should be done with regard to the game's scale.

ORIGINAL: mheard JTCS is a tactical level game and not a strategic one. That much I am certain on. I suppose the context is that JTCS is not the game to fight the entire Battle of Kursk but just about covers the whole of Market Garden perhaps.

Here we agree? I think that designing scenarios to model the entire operations of Market Garden, Normandy on "D_Day", and Kursk is way beyond the game's scale. I think you can design scenarios that show bits and pieces of the battles on a tactical level.

I personally believe that scenario designers can do whatever they like within what the game engine allows them to do. If that is Market Garden, I have no problem with them taking that on. I do not play the larger scenarios, unless as a team-game, and would never try to stop anyone from making or playing a large scenario. [:)]

With that in mind I think strategic bombing or carpet bombing is "out of scale". Though I do find your attack against bridges and other terrain features, including bunkers and Pillboxes, would be a neat little trick.
Would the ability of the plane to attack wrong targets still be in effect? A plane taking out the wrong bridge would be interesting, indeed. [;)]

RR

[V22 Osprey]

Guys, let's not turn in into a JTCS game-scale debate like over at the blitz.We all know how that turned out.[8|]

I agree with the statement about some of the new features actually turning off players rather than improving the game.Extreme Assault and variable visibility being the worst of them all.These changes pretty much split the JTCS community in half.We should stop with the major changes now before it becomes at totally different game.I think the JTCS team's focus should be ironing out the bugs, adding countries to battle generator, improving the AI, not major changes to engine.You guys always complain about lack of AI improvements, well, how are they suppose work on AI when you are too busy focusing on changes that could ruin the game?[:-][8|]

[MrRoadrunner]

Osprey, no one was talking about Extreme Assault or Variable Visibility? [&:]

Game scale is measurable and was defined by the original designers.
The difference between here and The Blitz is that here there can be debate. At The Blitz a few posters can silence others, with the help of the Blitz leadership. [:-]

Remember, the scale of the game is the scale of the game? It is what allows tanks to fire at specific ranges or move to specific hexes.
It is a simple thing that every game simulation has. It is what determines the organizational size of units. [:)]

This is Matrix? It is where the game is developed by the Matrix team. Unless they are changing the scale of the game it will remain the scale that is used?
When they change the game's scale it will become JTCS only in name?

I've posted what the rules manual states and what the game folder says. Debate about changes can happen.

Debate about scale will be like debating that 1+1=4? Where is the debate? It either is, or it is not?  [X(]

RR

[mheard]

[font="Times New Roman"]

Would the ability of the plane to attack wrong targets still be in effect? A plane taking out the wrong bridge would be interesting, indeed.

If that is feasible to factor into the game then why not. Anything that adds to the realism of the game is fine by me and the use of aircraft is an area where there is (IMHO) room for a great amount of improvement[:)].

Getting the views of others on what should/could be done is the way to present a consistent set of requirements. I do not advocate strategic bombing being included. However, the definition of 'tactical' bombing is somewhat elastic and definitely appears to have issues regarding scope of the game.

Yes, the scale of the game is defined in the manual and as per your other post the hex has to be fixed at 250 metres absolutely. However, I think, Roadrunner, in terms of units and timescale you are being a little too pedantic.

Baltjes has already discussed in detail the matter of scale when looking at scenarios that last a larger number of turns. I apologise in advance if what I say on this sounds a bit pompous.

A scenario of 10 turns pretty much represents one hour of real-time fighting. Anything over that number of turns and I believe one has to suspend the concept of fixed time periods per turn. There are a number of reasons for this and it is further complicated by a time frame that is in perhaps days when large scenarios are being played.

Despite terrain movement cost factors I do not see that a unit's movement can always take exactly 6 minutes. Most artillery, cannot unlimber, set sights, load shells, test range and fire on target in 6 minutes. Even with the most modern of communications available to command an artillery strike to take place within 6 minutes stretches credulity. So, the turn length has to be elastic and depends on the context of action and terrain. Otherwise, movement and firing would have to undergo very, very complicated rules which in turn would make the game less playable.

I do not consider Market Garden, Overlord, El Alamein etc., are ‘way beyond the game's scale’. The former two scenarios are already included in JTCS. Changes and improvements are needed to make these and all scenarios more realistic and just as much fun. I don’t see why recognising a variable timescale per turn changes playability or the scale of the game. I would love to see a scenario(s) that cover a day/night/next day battle of say thirty turns based on one of the famous tank engagements in the Western Desert or Russia where night fighting was minimal and visibility was affected by evening and morning light. (Great stuff, perhaps, but not yet feasible with the current game engine).

As for SPs of units what the manual states is broadly correct. BUT there are a lot of exceptions so that the SPs might not necessarily be the actual number of troops or weapons. The strength /value of 4 SPs 25lb artillery could be 4 actual guns with a standard trained and ammunition supplied crew. Conversely, same weapon with two SPs is two actually guns with a highly trained crew and a crew supplying shells at a very fast pace. The same applies to say the MG42. 2 SPs could be two guns or one gun with say three in the crew better able to supply ammunition and change a barrel speedily. This is something that the scenario designer works out.

The limit of 24SPs per hex doesn't entirely add up if taken literally. Four infantry units = 144 soldiers (give or take a few). A 250 metre square area hex is a pretty large area for this number of soldiers to fit. However, realistically a platoon and its logistic dynamic would need X amount of physical space to operate effectively if in open ground or a forrest. However, that is certainly not the case in hexes representing city or suburbs. You can get and would expect to find far more troops simply because of the number of storeys per building and cellars. (JTCS needs improvements for the better playing of street-fighting scenarios – Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin etc. IMHO).

Scenarios-wise there is and should be something for everyone in JTCS and Modern Wars. I don't advocate one group of players losing out because of an over-empahsis on the volume of changes focused in one particular area. At present we can agree to diasagree over large-scale scenarios.

OspreyV22’s post on all of this does suggest that the discussion about further improvements and changes to JTCS means we cannot see the wood for the trees.

‘I think the JTCS team's focus should be ironing out the bugs, adding countries to battle generator, improving the AI, not major changes to engine’

I don’t have a problem with that at all. Get right what you have already before putting in something new - an excellent principle. Jason Petho is working on OOB’s, units, countries etc. for V1.05. Is that all this entire forthcoming version will contain? Again, no problem. If there is more then do we know what is specifically being worked upon? (I recall seeing some postings about this but I’m not sure).

Is there any chance of a monthly V1.05 newsletter which will state what V1.05 is going to have and what is being fixed. What is the progress & problems so far and release date based on the development project progress schedule. Finally, a summary of all the ideas, changes etc. that have been suggested by the community to be possible inclusions in V1.06+ releases. (For the author of such a post I would hope most of the content would be repeated in each posting).

I for one would like to see (V1.06) aircraft, artillery and dynamic changes to terrain features to be the top priority areas to be reviewed and the appropriate changes made. [/font]


Martin [:)]

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: mheard

Yes, the scale of the game is defined in the manual and as per your other post the hex has to be fixed at 250 metres absolutely. However, I think, Roadrunner, in terms of units and timescale you are being a little too pedantic.

Baltjes has already discussed in detail the matter of scale when looking at scenarios that last a larger number of turns. I apologise in advance if what I say on this sounds a bit pompous.

The devil is in the details. It is what makes the game great and it's "success" spans a longer period of time than most computer games?
Think of this, "The sun rises in the East and sets in the West." Is there room for productive debate on that?
Scale is the scale? Peace out dude!

ORIGINAL: mheard I for one would like to see (V1.06) aircraft, artillery and dynamic changes to terrain features to be the top priority areas to be reviewed and the appropriate changes made. [/size] [/font]

On this we agree? Though, planes are a bit more abstracted in the game due to it being a "tactical land combat simulation"? I just may want a bit more attention paid to the minute details and the game's scale.

And, for what it is worth, I do think we agree on more than we disagree?



RR

[mheard]

Hi there Roadrunner!

I think it would fair to say we do agree on more than disagree. The game has being going for more than what, eleven years, now? How many players are there worldwide I wonder?

Many of the posts (particularly concerning mods) seem to generate heated debates. I certainly don’t want to start another on what are often matters of detail. I am a new kid on the block to this forum and I don’t want to sound pushy and irritating to others who have been solidly playing and contributing for years of on various issues.

I will put my view on modding though. I am working through the unsupported Divided Ground Version 2 at the moment and will go onto the Vietnam War mod.(Unless Modern Wars I appears soon). So far, so good. However, good these mods are, and I have no complaints so far, they were and are unsupported. I can understand someone wanting to mod for the fun of it but getting the JTCS developers to ‘open up’ files and codes to all is not, IMHO, a wise idea. It’s better to put a case for this or that war to be included or these changes to be made to the current game developers and community.

I was delighted to find out that my favourite wargame had been resurrected as JTCS (V1.04 in my case). Of course an improved Divided Ground was not included but that is another matter. BUT despite all the work and achievements of the developers and the increase in the number of countries, OOBs, and better scenarios I was disappointed that the AI, Artillery, & dynamic terrain changes had not been improved or included. These were things I recall discussing with Craig Foster in 1999. I’ve got ‘my’ bridge/mine-laying engineers now and I am grateful for that! However, I having had my taste buds tickled I want more and better!

No negative criticism is meant of Jason or his colleagues here at all.

Overall I’m not a details person. So, I’ve tended to accept OOBs, for example, as given and got on with the game. To others these are the fundamental building blocks rather than the working on extra features. I don’t see why the JTCS community should argue (debate, yes) about priorities of game development so long as we know in advance what is being done and the timescales involved. Like I said in my previous post I am not entirely clear what Jason Petho and the other members of the team’s schedule and tasklist is for V1.05 and what they intend to do next. (I expect Modern Wars is going to affect the schedule).

I am intending to construct my ‘what I would like to see in the game’ list. Too long for a post so I will want to attach it as an MS Word document. Do you know if this is feasible?

BFN,


Martin

[Jason Petho]

Modern Wars: Volume I -- 2009

UPDATE 1.05 -- 2010

Modern Wars: Volume II -- 2010/11

UPDATE 1.06 -- 2011/12

etc.

Jason Petho

[mheard]

[font="Times New Roman"]Great, thanks a lot, Jason.

Is is possible to have details as to what is going to be in V1.05 (definitely and probably) & what conceptually is going to be in V1.06? A clear idea of this I feel is very important for the JTCS community.

Is there going to be a charge for these upgrades?

As for Modern Wars I I'm looking forward to this and any, any improvement on Divided Ground will be wonderful - and Vietnam War as well! There won't be a DCG if I recall. Will there be some LCGs though?

Perhaps the aforementioned release notes should be put under a different thread or topic in the forums?

All the best and thanks again,

Martin[/font]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mheard

[font="Times New Roman"]Great, thanks a lot, Jason.

No worries.

ORIGINAL: mheard
Is is possible to have details as to what is going to be in V1.05 (definitely and probably) & what conceptually is going to be in V1.06? A clear idea of this I feel is very important for the JTCS community.

Not at this point, no. Modern Wars has the priority at the moment, more information will be available once Modern Wars is released.

ORIGINAL: mheard
Is there going to be a charge for these upgrades?

UPDATES are free. Modern Wars is a purchase as it is a new game (well, two games in one).

ORIGINAL: mheard
As for Modern Wars I I'm looking forward to this and any, any improvement on Divided Ground will be wonderful - and Vietnam War as well! There won't be a DCG if I recall. Will there be some LCGs though?

LCG's are included.

DCG's are not, although we are hoping to include them in the future and I have been building the OOB's to be DCG "ready".

Jason Petho

[MrRoadrunner]

Hello Martin,

Yes, there is agreement on quite a bit.
Your tenure in the game is worth more than longevity on the forums? Feel free to post away! Everyone is entitled to an opinion and make suggestions? [;)]

Concerning your modding. I think this area of the forums is the place to discuss, as well as post, them: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=452

Jason and the team have made some good tools to help us transmit our requests in a clear and orderly fashion. They have been most helpful, listen well, and react cordially to constructive criticism. [:)]

RR