Matrix Games Forums

Oh FFS. I DON'T CARE IF A BATTLE TAKES TEN ROUNDS. I don't. That's not a bad thing. The fact that a ten round battle will end the turn for every unit on the map is the problem. That's what I objected to in the first place. Read the posts. Understand. [8|]

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
If you don't want turn burn set the MRPB to 1 and
ATTACK 10 TIMES for the battle that would take 10 rounds.
What could be simpler.

ORIGINAL: Panama

It is effective in reducing the number of rounds you have to work with. Thus, watered down and/or truncated.

What on earth are you talking about??? The MRPB reduces or eliminates turn burn - giving you more rounds, not less.

I'm through with this thread

Let's hope so - someone reading might think you know what you're talking about.

Let's be clear: Designers wanting to limit turn burn in their scenarios have a perfectly good tool to use: The MRPB setting. Most scenarios would do well to set it to three - unless you really want turn burn effects. Leaving it at the default value of 99 will not reduce turn burn at all, and you can expect players to squawk.

Now, of course, it's not absolutely perfect. No one has said that it was. But it is very effective and will do fine for now.

ORIGINAL: Bill Earley

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
If you don't want turn burn set the MRPB to 1 and
ATTACK 10 TIMES for the battle that would take 10 rounds.
What could be simpler.

Do you have any idea what you are saying? Let me explain.

You are saying to take a large scenario such at Fire in the East, which is already complex, and cutting each turn up into ten more turns. So after each round each battle has to be revisited, if you can even remember where they all are, and redo each and every one of them.

Do you understand that changing MRPB in all scenarios is NOT advisable? That reducing the MRPB adds complexity to a scenario? It's like saying to avoid running out of gas you should stop at each and every filling station you come to and fill up.

A) Now, I will agree that, in order to avoid turn burn, the only option is to reduce MRPB. I'm NOT arguing that and I've never argued that. I'm in complete agreement as things stand now.

If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread you will see I simply stated that turn burn is not realistic. That for one combat to cause an entire map to suffer the same fate is ahistorical and not realistic. Omaha Beach should not cause Utah Beach to be less succesful. Omaha Beach is a turn burner. Utah Beach is a six to eight round affair. One does not equal the other without turn burn. (Read A before continuing)

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

It is effective in reducing the number of rounds you have to work with. Thus, watered down and/or truncated.

What on earth are you talking about??? The MRPB reduces or eliminates turn burn - giving you more rounds, not less.

I'm through with this thread

Let's hope so - someone reading might think you know what you're talking about.

Let's be clear: Designers wanting to limit turn burn in their scenarios have a perfectly good tool to use: The MRPB setting. Most scenarios would do well to set it to three - unless you really want turn burn effects. Leaving it at the default value of 99 will not reduce turn burn at all, and you can expect players to squawk.

Now, of course, it's not absolutely perfect. No one has said that it was. But it is very effective and will do fine for now.

I can see why Colin gets so frustrated.

Read the previous post please. Try and comprehend what is being posted.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Let's hope so.

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Bill Earley

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
If you don't want turn burn set the MRPB to 1 and
ATTACK 10 TIMES for the battle that would take 10 rounds.
What could be simpler.

Do you have any idea what you are saying? Let me explain.

You are saying to take a large scenario such at Fire in the East, which is already complex, and cutting each turn up into ten more turns. So after each round each battle has to be revisited, if you can even remember where they all are, and redo each and every one of them.

No need to be so condescending. I knew what I was saying and it works for me. - If my only goal was to eliminate turn burn.

ORIGINAL: Panama

Do you understand that changing MRPB in all scenarios is NOT advisable? That reducing the MRPB adds complexity to a scenario? It's like saying to avoid running out of gas you should stop at each and every filling station you come to and fill up.

Changing the MRPB to 1 is not advisable for all scenarios. A setting of 3 or 4 would work the best I believe, giving 3 or 4 rounds of combat map wide. About what we all want and find manageable.

ORIGINAL: Panama
A) Now, I will agree that, in order to avoid turn burn, the only option is to reduce MRPB. I'm NOT arguing that and I've never argued that. I'm in complete agreement as things stand now.

Excellent so we are on the same page so far.

ORIGINAL: Panama
If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread you will see I simply stated that turn burn is not realistic. That for one combat to cause an entire map to suffer the same fate is ahistorical and not realistic. Omaha Beach should not cause Utah Beach to be less succesful. Omaha Beach is a turn burner. Utah Beach is a six to eight round affair. One does not equal the other without turn burn. (Read A before continuing)

So what would be the ideal solution? Reducing the movement allowance of each group of attackers commensurate to the lengths of their attacks after each round and continuing the turn until all attackers have 0 MPS left? Let's explore your options of having and eating cake.

ORIGINAL: Panama

Do you have any idea what you are saying? Let me explain.

You are saying to take a large scenario such at Fire in the East, which is already complex, and cutting each turn up into ten more turns. So after each round each battle has to be revisited, if you can even remember where they all are, and redo each and every one of them.

That's it? Having ten rounds is just too much work? What happened to the claim that it "watered down" and "truncated" the turn? May we assume you've now abandoned that falsehood?

As for the work issue, I expect that anyone playing FITE yearns for as many combat phases as they can get. It's the difference between winning and losing.

Do you understand that changing MRPB in all scenarios is NOT advisable? That reducing the MRPB adds complexity to a scenario? It's like saying to avoid running out of gas you should stop at each and every filling station you come to and fill up.

It's not advisable in scenarios where the designer wants turn burn to take place. (And there are such scenarios). But, for sure, FITE - and Europe Aflame - would particularly benefit from a low MRPB setting.

A) Now, I will agree that, in order to avoid turn burn, the only option is to reduce MRPB. I'm NOT arguing that and I've never argued that. I'm in complete agreement as things stand now.

If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread you will see I simply stated that turn burn is not realistic. That for one combat to cause an entire map to suffer the same fate is ahistorical and not realistic. Omaha Beach should not cause Utah Beach to be less succesful. Omaha Beach is a turn burner. Utah Beach is a six to eight round affair. One does not equal the other without turn burn. (Read A before continuing)

You have continuously argued that the MRPB was not the solution to it.

Wow. Arrogance abounds. This is why I stopped coming here.