Matrix Games Forums

This s the title of that video

Last Soviet Military Crossing River Drill 1990-Russian Ukraine Trucks

Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.

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.

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.

Well actually that is a simplification and it doesn't represent it exactly that way. Anyone who looks for evidence whether a bridge can be constructed in 6 minutes won't find an answer. I'll show why:

A narrative on a battle or an after action report usually goes something like this:
- Company A started out at 6:00, immediately receiving heavy fire from the woods northeast. At the same time on the left flank, the Co. C of the engineer Bn started working on a makeshift bridge at the location of the one that was blown up during the retreat a month earlier
-Company B failed to reach the start off positions in time but once reached by 8:00 they advanced 3 km into enemy territory taking the set objective at 11:00 while capturing 19 prisoners
-At the same time the first vehicles were crossing the new engineer bridge.
-By noon Company A was still not able to advance more than 500 meters while still being pinned down by machinegun and mortar fire.

So to put these small company level actions into 6 minute turns, it quickly becomes clear that 6 minute turns are impossible as it simply would lead to something totally unplayable. You first would get 20 turns of only Co. A action in basically the same hexes and 20 turns of bridge building attempts. Then at turn 20 Co B would make a "swift" (not really) advance taking 30 turns to move twelve hexes. Somewhere after 30 turns also the bridge would be completed. Co. A fought over a few hexes for 50 turns. Wow Nice scenario, it would bore the hell out of everyone and the casualty rates would obviously be sky high compared to real events with so many turns.

The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.
We shouldn't even still be discussing it after all these years. I hope the Dev team will ignore the bashing of those few who don't have a clue and continue to improve the game. We can certainly use a new company based turn based game. If it would mean rebuilding all my WF scenarios, it would be worth a consideration.

Huib

^^ Yes , the thing is it is a bit difficult to describe this in simple terms.

[*]'Game Scale' (platoons / 250m hexes / 6 minute turns) goes a good way to explain unit characteristics, and the abstractions that make the game play in both shorter and longer scenarios, such as the bridge laying abstraction described
[*] 'Battle Duration', or 'Scenario Duration' then explain how a well designed, well tested scenario will play out to historic / intended results in a number of turns that it, well, takes to do so.

Arguing the two things are the same is at the core here.

And no, we're not changing the game engine at the core of the things. It has proved to be an excellent abstraction of tactical platoon sized engagements over the years. In my very biased opinion it is the best engine there is, for the task in the hand. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.

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.

Yes, that is how the abstractions work typically. The various abstractions for time span I believe are:

[*] The percentile roll
[*] Turn basis, ie. an Engineer removes one Minefield Strength Point per turn it begins in the minefield undisrupted and with full 100 APs available

Then with the modern era titles such as with CS Middle East there's say the Bridge Laying engineer vehicles that do the job without the abstraction, just use 100AP to do so. So maneuver into position, one turn; Lay the bridge, another turn; move out, third turn.

I see no reason to change this level of abstraction, it has worked over the years, and continues to do so.

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)

ORIGINAL: Huib

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Laying a bridge by an Engineering unit has a 20% chance for succeed, so on average building a bridge takes five turns. Depending on the scenario duration, that may or may not be a significant effort of the said unit, keeping it from performing any other duties. Calculating this to the six minute scale as a unit capability, that equals 30 minutes, on average.

Well actually that is a simplification and it doesn't represent it exactly that way. Anyone who looks for evidence whether a bridge can be constructed in 6 minutes won't find an answer. I'll show why:

Well actually, that's much more of a simplification than anybody here realizes. Here's why.

Yes, in the legacy code, there used to be a fixed 20% chance to build a bridge, vehicular or non vehicular. Fixed, as in: hard-coded, no variation, end of story.

But now (i.e., in the new and improved [;)] Campaign Series), it varies

[*]depending on whether or not the laying unit has the XTracked or XTruck or XFoot attribute; higher prob for the XTracked and XTruck units

and also, with the Adaptive A/I optional rule toggled ON

[*]depending on the build_hexside_bridge_prob and build_vehicle_bridge_prob parameters, which vary by side, nation, and even scenario

In Middle East, the range of build_hexside_bridge_prob values is

---

berto@telemann:/games/matrix/cs/middle_east/scenarios> egrep "^n [[:digit:]]" *.ai | awk '{print $107}' | sort | uniq | sort -n
15
16
18
20
21
22
24
26

---

And the range of build_vehicle_bridge_prob parameters values is

---

berto@telemann:/games/matrix/cs/middle_east/scenarios> egrep "^n [[:digit:]]" *.ai | awk '{print $108}' | sort | uniq | sort -n
10
12
15
16
20
25
28
30

---

(Without any customization, in the .ai files, the default value for either of these probs is the legacy standard 20%.)

The points being

[*]The probability of laying a bridge (either type) is a much more complicated calculation than before.
[*]That probability varies by side or nation, on a per-scenario basis.
[*]Hence also varies on a per-game basis. (For example, lower prob in WWII, higher prob post WWII. Thus slower in WWII, faster post WWII.)
[*]And is moddable to boot!

We now have flexibility to vary, in effect, the average building a bridge time. It used to be 5 turns, more or less. Now we have perfect freedom to have it be X turns, more or less, where X is entirely customizable.

[*]And is moddable to boot!

If anybody disagrees with any of this, they have the modder's right to change it, even to absolutely ruling out any in-game bridge building whatsoever (by setting, in the .ai files, the build_hexside_bridge_prob and build_vehicle_bridge_prob values to zero)!

Ultimately, there is no need to quarrel about it. You don't like how we do it? Mod it, have it your way! [8D]

Ooh yes [8D]

ORIGINAL: Huib

The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.

I remember very well it was always roughly 6mins time scales that were supposed to be used not only in the original manual but also the reviews at the time of the matrix release, most have long since fallen off the web but I did find this one from Out of Eight http://www.outofeight.info/2007/07/john-tillers-campaign-series-review.html"The game is turn-based, using an action point system that roughly corresponds to six minutes of real time."

ORIGINAL: Huib
We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.

That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

ORIGINAL: Huib

The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.

I remember very well it was always roughly 6mins time scales that were supposed to be used not only in the original manual but also the reviews at the time of the matrix release, most have long since fallen off the web but I did find this one from Out of Eight http://www.outofeight.info/2007/07/john-tillers-campaign-series-review.html"The game is turn-based, using an action point system that roughly corresponds to six minutes of real time."

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.

I quote from two pages back:

ORIGINAL: 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

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

ORIGINAL: Huib
We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.

That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.

For avoidance of doubt: Campaign Series is not changing its scale.

It remains what it is, and always has. No changes there.

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

ORIGINAL: Huib

The whole "scale" discussion put forward by RR years ago is in fact a hoax. It is based on nothing, and never any examples were given to support the claim other than "the original manual said six minutes". Maybe that part of the manual came from the concept and was written before the game was actaully programmed and scenarios were constructed. Fact is that in John Tillers civil war titles that came next, turns were suddely "flexible time spans" according to that manual.

I remember very well it was always roughly 6mins time scales that were supposed to be used not only in the original manual but also the reviews at the time of the matrix release, most have long since fallen off the web but I did find this one from Out of Eight http://www.outofeight.info/2007/07/john-tillers-campaign-series-review.html"The game is turn-based, using an action point system that roughly corresponds to six minutes of real time."

ORIGINAL: Huib
We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.

That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.

Thanks Terry.
Watching history being rewritten is off putting at best.
Hearing it casually and arrogantly being thrust upon us as "facts" is frustrating. Especially when it comes from "the powers that be".

Then to hear that Huib wants to possibly morph the game into company based? Is it Huib or the team?
How are players to know?
Why don't they make their own game based on the scale they want? Oh ... they did.
And, now they want to ruin "our" classic game through their un-bundling, meddling, and changes for change sake. Wow! [X(]

Let's throw out 250m hexes and 6 minute turns because Tiller did other titles that way?
Huh? That's not even an argument. It is blather. So much of nothing to the argument.
Funny when you have the original manuals that you can see, in black and white, what the game's scale is and what the intent of the designer and developers were.

They should not be able to re-write history. I'll try to not get in my time machine and go back before the game was programmed and when the manual was written. [;)]
That took the cake in the argument for the ultimate rewrite of history?
And, as for the hoax comment; Hoax?
Sure. I perpetuate a hoax. Or, was/is it in writing?

Thanks again for validating my memory of the way things really were.

RR

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
And, now they want to ruin "our" classic game through their un-bundling, meddling, and changes for change sake. Wow!

I've asked the question below several times, you haven't answered, and keep repeating your statement above: Just what is keeping you from enjoying your classic game? You can keep playing the existing bundled version...so what exactly are you complaining about?
[&:][&:][&:]

And for the record, I think that most of the changes are improvements rather than "changes for change sake".

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

ORIGINAL: Huib
We can certainly use a new company based turn based game.

That's the point isn't it, it will no longer be the same game especially with the changes in spotting rules ect. I will also be considering saying farewell and thanks for the memory's.

For avoidance of doubt: Campaign Series is not changing its scale.

It remains what it is, and always has. No changes there.

Sorry. I have to disagree.
Especially once you un-bundle and morph/port the individual games to be more like the ME game, the Campaign Series itself will no longer exist.

That, is the simple truth. You might as well drop "Campaign" and put in "Development Team" Series.

And, if you would have read the article from 2007 that Otto attached you would have seen the "warts" that the writer/critic did not like. His reference to CS as being "slow moving" and "giving orders to units each turn" was not off putting to me. It is what makes the game great. It gives it the moving "unit chits" along the paper map like in a board game.

Plus, all the scenarios and campaigns that you do not get in other games?
Will all those change with the remake?

Granted the Development Team Middle East game plays the same way. Maybe to a different scale? But, it has the same slow 3-D play the writer/critic did not like. (And, changing the map to that horrible Panzer General 3-D rendition will not help.) Nor, will some of the "new" "enhancements" that seem all the "rage"??

But, maybe that is why the programmer gave DTME the new 2-D slot?
You guys can do away with 3-D all together and make it a real game? [8|]

RR

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Zap

After I read the comments about engineers I was curious went to a video on you tube where a Russian military crew put a bridge up in 6:45 seconds. So it tells me its possible.

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

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.

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Petri, there is no anger on my part. Disappointment and disgust. Not anger. And, I always push back against institutionalized oppression.

And, Zak, let me know if this is an example of what you are going to report?

RR

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.

I've played the game for many years, supported and unsupported. I do so against the AI in campaigns (which were altered by the hidden AT gun and artillery rule changes, that set me back a bit and sucked the fun out of simply playing them. In previous arguments we were told that the changes better reflected the simulation than the game play). And, I mostly play now PBEM against a limited amount of opponents due to some real life time constraints. No more fifteen games at one time for me. A couple is all I can handle.

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. Each change has had an effect, just like dropping a stone into a pond, the ripples go far from where the stone was dropped. Playing the "old way" is not going to work. Being forced from the game is what seems to be down the road for me, and what seems will be a few others. In my view it is a calculated plan.
If that is what you guys want, there is nothing I can do about it but state my case until there is no case to state?

If toes are stepped on I cannot help it. Sorry if I called your baby "ugly" and you thought I was calling you ugly.

RR

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I've asked the question below several times, you haven't answered, and keep repeating your statement above: Just what is keeping you from enjoying your classic game? You can keep playing the existing bundled version...so what exactly are you complaining about?
[&:][&:][&:]

He can´t find opponents by email. That´s all.

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?