Hmmmm (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

Titanwarrior89 -> Hmmmm (5/7/2009 10:49:21 PM)

How do you turn off music? Couldn't find anything in search or the manual.[:(]



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/7/2009 10:51:18 PM)

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2074694



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Hmmmm (5/7/2009 10:53:11 PM)

Thank you.[:)]
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2074694




1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 5:32:08 AM)

Is there any way to have the last turn in a scenario left uncertain?  Even if there was a ten percent chance that the opponent might have one more turn, it might change the way the last half of the last turn is played. 

I just played a scenario where I had the last half of the last turn, and it allowed me to take all sorts of liberties I wouldn't have taken if I'd thought for one moment my opponent might have another turn.  I'm not normally competitive enough for it to make a difference.  I've seen other players do remarkable things in the last half of the last turn.

I'm not sure if it is possible, and I'm not sure if other players would want it.  I believe Combat Mission has it as an option, but I don't know what players there prefer.  I wouldn't know if the program for Campaign Series would even lend itself to this type of adjustment.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 10:44:08 AM)

I would not want that at all!

RR



kool_kat -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 11:53:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Is there any way to have the last turn in a scenario left uncertain?  Even if there was a ten percent chance that the opponent might have one more turn, it might change the way the last half of the last turn is played. 


No way! I would NOT be in support of this proposed JTCS change. [X(]



TJD -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 12:26:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Is there any way to have the last turn in a scenario left uncertain?  Even if there was a ten percent chance that the opponent might have one more turn, it might change the way the last half of the last turn is played. 


No way! I would NOT be in support of this proposed JTCS change. [X(]



I'm not sure I'd want it either but nonetheless 1925Frank's point is a good one. If you know you've got the last move in a game you can throw caution to the winds and take all sorts of cheap shots. I'm guilty of it myself. It's reasonable to want an option to limit this sort of "gamey" behaviour.

/TJD



scottintacoma -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 12:43:40 PM)

And depending on the situation, I will throw caution to the wind on the last turn, whether I have the first or last move.




kool_kat -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 3:49:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD


I'm not sure I'd want it either but nonetheless 1925Frank's point is a good one. If you know you've got the last move in a game you can throw caution to the winds and take all sorts of cheap shots. I'm guilty of it myself. It's reasonable to want an option to limit this sort of "gamey" behaviour.

/TJD


I would be very cautious about generalizing last moves and player behavior.

Some counters that come immediately to mind...

In a very close game, it would be foolish for a player with the last move to "...take all sorts of cheap shots" against his opponent and have opt fire ruin a victory?

Why penalize a player who understands the strengths of a last move and incorporates it into his game strategy?

Last moves and player behavior are situational and therefore not appropriate for another proposed optional rule?



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 4:23:50 PM)

This falls in the category of not being very realistic but being a hell of a lot of fun.  I've had victories snatched away on the last turn and still thought the match was tremendously fun, and I just completed a game where my opponent (MrRoadrunner no less) had a solid minor victory but nearly (but not quite) lost it because of the advantages I had by having the benefit of the grand finale.  It was a great match anyway, and the grand finale only added to it, but I was left wondering if my opponent might have felt cheated if I'd snatched a draw out at the very end with tactics that would have been disastrous if he'd but had another turn. I personally felt that it wasn't very fair to MrRoadrunner, but I nevertheless enjoyed making a run at stealing a draw when MrRoadrunner had a minor victory so well in hand.  I imagine the old-timers have gone over this a million times already, but I don't recall any discussions since I've been following this forum.  From my perspective, the grand finale added something great to an already enjoyable game, but I was left wondering whether my grand finale would have spoiled the game for my opponent.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 7:08:48 PM)

1925frank,
It was precisely because of the planning involved for the last turn that you did not snatch away my victory. Nonetheless, I would rather you have tried and failed then to not try and simply end the game.
It's part of what makes CS such a fine game.
If more changes are made that allow the game engine to take over I may just as well go back to the old Talonsoft disks and get them to work. They were years of fun that the game engine could not effect and make un-fun.
I don't mind when luck is involved. I do mind when the game's programmer is.

RR



Sweed -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 10:23:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

1925frank,
It was precisely because of the planning involved for the last turn that you did not snatch away my victory.
RR


This says it all to me. If your opponent has the last turn than you must plan for it.



Borst50 -> RE: Hmmmm (5/21/2009 11:21:21 PM)

and in DCG's if the player throws caution to the winds on the last turn and does so repeatedly, the player may very well soon find his battalion is too shot up to make it a good battle, even with replacements, the commander has to be somewhat conservative and try to acheive objectives without suffering too many unwanted casualties.

That is what DCG's have in addition to the standard h2h battles. what the commander does actually counts for the next battle. So I would not want to see any changes made.



TJD -> RE: Hmmmm (5/22/2009 1:28:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest


quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD


I'm not sure I'd want it either but nonetheless 1925Frank's point is a good one. If you know you've got the last move in a game you can throw caution to the winds and take all sorts of cheap shots. I'm guilty of it myself. It's reasonable to want an option to limit this sort of "gamey" behaviour.

/TJD


I would be very cautious about generalizing last moves and player behavior.

Some counters that come immediately to mind...

In a very close game, it would be foolish for a player with the last move to "...take all sorts of cheap shots" against his opponent and have opt fire ruin a victory?




Thanks for the thoughtful caution, Mwest, but I think most players can, with allowances, often estimate the coming risk of op fire in the last throw, and still exploit the final move very effectively.

quote:


Why penalize a player who understands the strengths of a last move and incorporates it into his game strategy?


An option isn't a penalty. And, unless you're quite the genius, which you may well be, the last move is often not the culmination of a master strategy, but sort of a scramble and even a last shot. But, sakes, I'm generalizing again. I forgot your caution.

quote:


Last moves and player behavior are situational and therefore not appropriate for another proposed optional rule?


Not clear on your meaning but let's let it go.

/TJD




kool_kat -> RE: Hmmmm (5/22/2009 12:04:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD

Thanks for the thoughtful caution, Mwest, but I think most players can, with allowances, often estimate the coming risk of op fire in the last throw, and still exploit the final move very effectively.


Agree. Intelligent players will calculate the op fire risk... and plan their final move accordingly.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD

An option isn't a penalty. And, unless you're quite the genius, which you may well be, the last move is often not the culmination of a master strategy, but sort of a scramble and even a last shot. But, sakes, I'm generalizing again. I forgot your caution.


But the result of implimenting the proposed option is a penalty? Your proposed option handicaps the player who plans the final move / combat of his units and rewards the player who does not plan accordingly?




MrRoadrunner -> RE: Hmmmm (5/22/2009 10:11:49 PM)

And, once again there is no thought to scenario balance or size modifier when gaming PBEM?
Even as an option, it is another in a line of silly grabs of the game engine to "change the game"?

RR



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/23/2009 1:43:20 AM)

Thank you for all the responses.  I believe I've got my answer.  I'm putting a check mark next to the "not a good idea" column.

The next suggestion will be a brothel hex that increases the units' morale by 6 and from which no units retreat but take, instead, a loss of a SP, kind of like a cave hex, except with amenities!



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Hmmmm (5/23/2009 2:44:48 PM)

LOL! I think Pandora's box has new meaning? [8|]

RR



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/23/2009 5:04:47 PM)

Yes, for censors or those with squimish sensibilities, the hex name could be Pandora's Box.  Open it at your own peril!  A tough nut to crack!



Huib -> RE: Hmmmm (5/23/2009 8:09:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Thank you for all the responses.  I believe I've got my answer.  I'm putting a check mark next to the "not a good idea" column.




It is not such a bad idea actually, it's just that you got some answers by some of the more conservative players. In CM it works very well and in the scn editor the maker can decide if the scn needs it or not. IMO the end of a game can be just as exciting if the precise end time is uncertain, at least in CM it is that way.

Huib



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/23/2009 10:28:31 PM)

I think "The Operational Art of War" has that option too.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 11:12:22 AM)

Conservative? Or purest?
CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I'd rather be "conservative" than change the game to something it is not.
The "Mona Lisa" already has a moustache. It does not need a beard too.

RR



Legionaer -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 1:17:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I agree complete !!! I don´t know why i read those compares not for the first time here ? Let the Campaign Series what it is !!!

Stefan



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 1:46:37 PM)

Purest.  I can see that.  If someone tried to change Monopoly, Risk, or Chess, I'd instinctively oppose it.  Like a Spock with round ears.  It's the personality of the game that is being tampered with.



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 2:03:06 PM)

Not that there's anything wrong with round ears.

Or the Nebraska Cornhuskers wearing blue jerseys.



V22 Osprey -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 5:11:46 PM)

This thread has gone so far off topic it isnt even funny.How did it get from ''how to turn off music'' to ''lets change CS''?



1925frank -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 6:05:37 PM)

The name of the thread is "Hmmmm," as in, "I've got a question."  And I deliberately changed the question rather than start another thread.

Mystery solved.



Huib -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 8:54:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Conservative? Or purest?
CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I'd rather be "conservative" than change the game to something it is not.
The "Mona Lisa" already has a moustache. It does not need a beard too.

RR


Just conservative, not a purist. To be a purist you would have to understand the game. A purist would use different arguments than you do.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Hmmmm (5/24/2009 9:03:28 PM)

LOL! Truth there! [:)]
I just think that slapping on pieces from Steel Panthers, Combat Mission, and The Operational Art of War do nothing more than add "chrome" that satisfies a few while changing the game for all others.
I'm not against colorizing old movies. I am against changing dialog or adding scenes that don't make sense while doing so.
Like what extreme assault does for balance of all scenarios, so too, would any "optional game ending" format?
Just throw out balance all together? Both purest and conservatives may agree to be against something like that?

I prefer to be extra conservative. I have not been pure in quite some time! [;)]

RR



kool_kat -> RE: Hmmmm (5/26/2009 2:04:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Conservative? Or purest?
CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I'd rather be "conservative" than change the game to something it is not.
The "Mona Lisa" already has a moustache. It does not need a beard too.

RR


Just conservative, not a purist. To be a purist you would have to understand the game. A purist would use different arguments than you do.


Why can't a conservative be a purist? [&:]

And why do some players constantly look to alter the game engine... by adding more random luck elements and further reducing the need for individual skill level? [8D]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375