|
MrRoadrunner -> RE: Farwell (2/4/2016 10:02:20 PM)
|
But, scale is still scale.
250m per hex?
All fire is based on the scale, correct or not?
A tank that can shoot six hexes distance would fire twice as far if the hexes were 125m or half as far if the hexes are based on 500m?
Same with infantry and all other fire?
Movement is based the same way. Speed is time plus distance. A unit moving can reach a distance based on movement through hexes and terrain effects. If the scale was 125m the units can move twice as many hexes and half the hexes if the hex was 500m.
To Herr Huib; I stopped reading when you made snide comments regarding Mike's scenarios (which I find equally as good as many of yours). And, for the fact that we have had these discussions for years. So I am sure that I have not missed a single "gem" you wrote?
Squad Battles is tactical and based on "squads" and individual vehicles. JTCS is based on platoons and is tactical/grand tactical. The next level is operational? Further up would be strategic?
It's quite simple? It is how all games are made, from miniatures, board, and computer. Scale is the foundation. And, IIRC, your map design tutorials are very specific when trying to "scale" the map in to hexes?
Or do we just fudge the maps?
Huib will have a heart attack if a tree or town is out of place? But, don't worry, what the scenario the designer had in mind covered several days so it does not fit the scale?
As long as it is based on 250m hexes all is good. As long as units move and fire in scale all is good.
Jason.
Hogwash!
Your thinking, and that of the development team, is how we get the out of scale units. Engineers which could do remarkable feats in six minutes (or in real life, hours for that matter).
Air planes that can hover over the map and not use a single movement point? And, I am not talking about the silly air bases. I'm talking about the planes that can do things on map (controlled by the players) that defy gravity (but then again gravity is a concept that you do not have to put into time and distance?).
Not to mention the naval units and how they work?
To Keystone0795's point, creating more arguments even now? And, not learning from past mistakes (sure miss the Talonsoft forums).
All these in because of what? Realism? Simulation?
How about keeping the abstract ... abstract? That was the original intent?
Or, put them in and have them operate to scale?
How about keeping "in scale" when adding all the new kewl things?
Neither of you will ever convince me (nor will smug condescension stop me) from knowing what the game's scale is.
As Keystone0795 stated, the game has stood the test of time. And, hell, that was after being unsupported, messed with, changing hands multiple times, and with some of the out of scale stuff you guys put in.
I could care less if your list of "out of scale" scenarios was ten times longer. The intent of the scenario designer did not change the scale of the game. Nor was the game effected by their designs. Where out of scale comes into play is with the "team" so willing to throw scale out to fit in all the new kewl things.
Not a single scenario has effected game scale. Even a Picasso designed scenario would not effect game scale. Your willingness to bring up scenarios as an argument for different scale is specious at best.
Where "you" deeply impact the game's scale is in adding new units. Hopefully all new units are seen through (and run through the filter of) the measure of 250m hexes and six minute time frames?
Otherwise "we" are "doomed". [:)]
RR
|
|
|
|
