mheard
Posts: 25
Joined: 9/4/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
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.
Martin
|
Printable Version
Air Force support. - 
, 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread