RE: Farwell

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Farwell

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 1:39:29 PM

Otto von Blotto

Posts: 273
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Well there are represented in the game bridge building engineers. (I imagine they had all the materials needed)
The other engineers I would except the abstraction (for example having support trucks with material nearby).

Simply put, I like some flexibility in allowing a level3 bridge WWII(heavy duty) Which took 6 min for 33feet to construct. To be represented in the game by engineers(not identified as bridge building.)

I'm not sure if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but heavy duty bridges can't be made by ordinary engineers in the game just by bridging engineers. ordinary engineers can only make light infantry bridges iirc.

_____________________________

"Personal isn't the same as important"

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 91

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 2:06:46 PM

Zap

Posts: 3639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Well there are represented in the game bridge building engineers. (I imagine they had all the materials needed)
The other engineers I would except the abstraction (for example having support trucks with material nearby).

Simply put, I like some flexibility in allowing a level3 bridge WWII(heavy duty) Which took 6 min for 33feet to construct. To be represented in the game by engineers(not identified as bridge building.)

I'm not sure if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but heavy duty bridges can't be made by ordinary engineers in the game just by bridging engineers. ordinary engineers can only make light infantry bridges iirc.

I confess I don't know. So your saying if someone puts an engineer in his scenario that engineer will not or be allowed (coded) to construct only small bridges? If that's the case then even better. Then that would be closer to reality. You'll have to help me understand that better.

I was just pointing out the time frame as to the information I found about WWII pontoon bridges.

< Message edited by Zap -- 2/8/2016 3:11:13 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)

Post #: 92

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 3:00:34 PM

Otto von Blotto

Posts: 273
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

Taken from the 2.01 manual that I'm sure is the latest release.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued fully-supplied regular Engineer unit may attempt to build a
light bridge (a footbridge) across a hexside stream or river with a 20% chance of success.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued, fully-supplied Bridging Engineer unit may attempt to build a vehicle bridge across a hexside stream or
river with a 20% chance of success.
Bridging Engineer units are specialists. They can only build medium vehicle bridges. They many not build light foot bridges, clear
mines/obstacles, or blow up/damage walls or bridges.

Hope that makes it clearer.

_____________________________

"Personal isn't the same as important"

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 93

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 3:37:53 PM

Crossroads

Posts: 17372
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline

^^ Yes indeed. Here's the Special Engineer types present in the game:

BRIDGING ENGINEERS (1.03): These are special Engineers that can build medium bridges across hexsides. See Section 5.17.1 for more information.

MINE ENGINEERS (1.03): These are special Engineers that are capable of laying a one strength minefield. See Section 5.17.2 for more information.

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS (1.03): These are special Engineers that can build a block and trenches. See Section 5.17.3 & 5.17.4 for more information.

Regular Engineers can:

Attempt to build a Light (foot) hexside bridge at 20% chance

Attempt to blow a hole to High / Low Wall

Clear a Minefield, one strength point per turn

Lay Smoke to a hex they reside in

_____________________________

Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
---
CS: Vietnam 1948-1967 <-- Jan 20th, 2022! --
CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)

Post #: 94

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 5:06:36 PM

Zap

Posts: 3639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

Taken from the 2.01 manual that I'm sure is the latest release.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued fully-supplied regular Engineer unit may attempt to build a
light bridge (a footbridge) across a hexside stream or river with a 20% chance of success.

An Undisrupted, unfatigued, fully-supplied Bridging Engineer unit may attempt to build a vehicle bridge across a hexside stream or
river with a 20% chance of success.
Bridging Engineer units are specialists. They can only build medium vehicle bridges. They many not build light foot bridges, clear
mines/obstacles, or blow up/damage walls or bridges.

Hope that makes it clearer.

Thanks, so the game does represent engineers pretty well and the time thing is pretty close to WWII as well. So the only other point made was these did not have the equipment at hand. Can't the abstraction be made materials and trucks are nearby? I mean that is what Ed is complaining about now. This was my point the time frame has been established close enough to real WWII units. I can make the abstraction and be flexible and I will move forward with the game development.

_____________________________

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)

Post #: 95

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 5:37:46 PM

Otto von Blotto

Posts: 273
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
Thanks, so the game does represent engineers pretty well and the time thing is pretty close to WWII as well. So the only other point made was these did not have the equipment at hand. Can't the abstraction be made materials and trucks are nearby? I mean that is what Ed is complaining about now. This was my point the time frame has been established close enough to real WWII units. I can make the abstraction and be flexible and I will move forward with the game development.

I wouldn't go as far to say the game represents engineers well, normal engineers were part of the base game and are the best modeled to my mind, bridge, construction and mine engineers were all added with 1.03/1.04 and I think don't fit the game system as well but we are where we are. To my mind there were much greater issues than the engineers added with 1.03 and 1.04.

As to Eds points I wouldn't dream of speaking for him but I suggest you read his early posts to see what his issues are with the current and future CS and ME, I will say to me the bridge engineer part you've honed in on and dug into was a very small part of a much larger issue but if you ask him i'm sure he will answer in his own way.

_____________________________

"Personal isn't the same as important"

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 96

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 6:09:13 PM

Zap

Posts: 3639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline

I was asking how you see the abstraction are you allowing any. Just curious. I'm moving forward with the development allowing abstractions are necessary. as I see it

_____________________________

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)

Post #: 97

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 7:37:29 PM

Otto von Blotto

Posts: 273
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

I was asking how you see the abstraction are you allowing any. Just curious. I'm moving forward with the development allowing abstractions are necessary. as I see it

I'm not quite sure I understand your question so forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, abstractions of some kind or another are of course necessary although not strictly about bridge building I would have though some of my earlier posts would show I'm quite open to the idea that abstractions are not just needed but essential.

But I'm sure as well as finding reports of bridges being built in the very quick time frames you've supplied you've also read plenty of reports of vital equipment not where it should be whether it is long delayed, held in traffic, rerouted into the unknown, missing from the start or even appropriated by other units, the list is almost endless, at that time the slick logistics used today were unheard and even now stuff doesn�t always go to plan.

So to automatically assume a perfect situation every time and that for any engineer unit will at any given point in a battle have exactly what it needs in the place it requires it every time it needs it is to me pushing abstraction into solid fantasy.

Don't get me wrong I can live with that, maybe others can't, that�s fine, as I said above.

quote:

To my mind there were much greater issues than the engineers added...

_____________________________

"Personal isn't the same as important"

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 98

RE: Farwell - 2/8/2016 8:03:37 PM

Huib

Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

So to automatically assume a perfect situation every time and that for any engineer unit will at any given point in a battle have exactly what it needs in the place it requires it every time it needs it is to me pushing abstraction into solid fantasy.

There are many ways in scenario designing that can create a "non perfect" situation for certain units. As for engineers that were historically stuck in traffic jams or were missing bridging parts hampering their effectiveness or whatever, a simple way would be to keep them fixed for a while or send them as reinforcements later on. That would be an abstraction for traffic jams that are not possible to simulate. You can't simulate traffic problems itself but you can steer timings by letting units arrive late or early.

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)

Post #: 99

RE: Farwell - 2/9/2016 1:20:32 AM

Zap

Posts: 3639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
Thanks, so the game does represent engineers pretty well and the time thing is pretty close to WWII as well. So the only other point made was these did not have the equipment at hand. Can't the abstraction be made materials and trucks are nearby? I mean that is what Ed is complaining about now. This was my point the time frame has been established close enough to real WWII units. I can make the abstraction and be flexible and I will move forward with the game development.

I wouldn't go as far to say the game represents engineers well, normal engineers were part of the base game and are the best modeled to my mind, bridge, construction and mine engineers were all added with 1.03/1.04 and I think don't fit the game system as well but we are where we are. To my mind there were much greater issues than the engineers added with 1.03 and 1.04.

As to Eds points I wouldn't dream of speaking for him but I suggest you read his early posts to see what his issues are with the current and future CS and ME, I will say to me the bridge engineer part you've honed in on and dug into was a very small part of a much larger issue but if you ask him i'm sure he will answer in his own way.

Thanks for your reply and appreciate the way you present your view. I thought Bridge engineer unit would bring equipment and materials with them(I don't know.) If they do, that would help them fit better. About bridges built under fire (in game a bridge engineer [like a regular engineer] will be disrupted and stopped from continuing to build). Other problems taking place Huib's point in doing scenarios would help as well. I've have read Ed's points. Units were some of his examples. And in particular he mentioned engineers in strict confines of time saying this:

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"

With proof of 6 min. bridges being built and larger bridges being built in a time span pretty close (6 min 37feet /12min 74feet). From his statement and response to my post seems to indicate that he was sure it could not be done in 6 min. My question to him was can he accept some abstraction of that (allowing for a build with some delays being abstracted).

The other thing is when the game was first came out did the scenarios that came with it faithfully represent this time frame in game play in all instances?

< Message edited by Zap -- 2/9/2016 2:47:12 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)

Post #: 100

RE: Farwell - 2/9/2016 2:12:16 AM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
The other thing is when the game was first came out did the scenarios that came with it faithfully represent this time frame in game play in all instances?

The short answer to this is no. Which was my point a few pages back.

Jason Petho

< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 2/9/2016 3:50:25 AM >

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 101

RE: Farwell - 2/9/2016 11:48:25 AM

noissy

Posts: 310
Joined: 3/12/2012
Status: offline

For what it's worth, I have purchased CSME and, despite some scenarios
supposedly being unbalanced, I get immense enjoyment playing it as do others in the WGCG.
As far as JTCS is concerned, the improvements made already, such as extreme assault, make
the game far more enjopyable. Despite early scenarios being affected with EE, I find that
EE doesn't make it impossible to win.
All in all, the few who prefer no change can look for fellow players that like the old versions.
Don't stop changes being made to the game when many more are happy to see the developments being
made by the team? Just accept that if it's not for you, don't try and stop what many more want to see?
Imho, the development team are doing a great job keeping this game alive and kicking.

< Message edited by noissy -- 2/9/2016 12:50:18 PM >

_____________________________

REGARDS
Peter

THE WARGAMERS CLUB FOR GENTLEMEN
(WGCG)
http://www.ww2wargamesclubforgentlemen.com/

Quality is better than quantity !

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 102

RE: Farwell - 2/9/2016 12:10:52 PM

dox44

Posts: 668
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: the woodlands, texas
Status: offline

(in reply to noissy)

Post #: 103

RE: Farwell - 2/9/2016 1:04:48 PM

MrRoadrunner

Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Well there are represented in the game bridge building engineers. (I imagine they had all the materials needed)
The other engineers I would except the abstraction (for example having support trucks with material nearby).

Simply put, I like some flexibility in allowing a WWII level1 300feet 6min, level2 77feet 22min., level3 bridge(heavy duty) Which took 6 min for 37feet to construct. To be represented in the game by engineers(not identified as bridge building.)

The time frames are very close to the real WWII time frame as the examples given. You have now raised another issue to say its not possible. I mean, is there no flexibility in your imagining of how things could be abstracted? Some allowance? It seems not, and this is where I part ways with your thinking. the(original)designers made some allowances in the original game scenarios that did not completely conform to this 6min time frame. Or not? I can't imagine every scenario they made did.

Think about all the scenarios (custom) made for the game later. And make it more enjoyable. if we had to follow your line of thinking they would have to be eliminated!

Sorry, but I'll move away from your thinking, that does not allow any abstraction within reason.

The "blind choose not to see".
Or, you just did not understand?

Either way do not put words in my mouth. For the last time: I do not mind the new units, from airplanes, and engineers, to ships/boats. What I do mind is that they operate within the game's scope and scale.

So far you seem to rest on a video that shows a pre-staged and pre-prepared bridge unit building a bridge, in a peacetime demonstration. You started with the 1990 demonstration that you extrapolated to WWII engineer units under fire. And, you seem happy they will operate that way in a game.
You did not know that engineer bridge building units carry bridges with them?
Then you blended engineer units and further believed the argument?

A regular engineer unit building a light bridge is really not a problem. Moving all over the map building multiple bridges, clearing mines, blowing walls, digging trench systems are just a bit much if a player gets successful with consistent "die rolls".
Not to mention what it did to scenarios that originally were made without bridging by engineers that got completely changed by the ability to build bridges?

My argument about engineers building a light bridge was countered with "they can cut down a tree" and use it to cross the river. OK, how long did that tree take to cut down and strip off the branches? Did they carry one with them?
Then it was "they can make a rope bridge". OK, they got the rope. Someone forded the river/stream and they were able to construct a rope bridge in six minutes capable of supporting men carrying (say) 70 to a hundred pounds apiece (and a tree).
Ever been in scouting? Ever build a rope bridge that was stable and could support people?

You can move on an enjoy your experience with CS. I also have no problem with that.

RR

_____________________________

�The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.�
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 104

RE: Farwell - 2/9/2016 6:14:15 PM

Zap

Posts: 3639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline

Ed ,
I admit I'm not up on all that but I did present this from a source on the internet that I copied to show what I found. Because the whole discussion made me curious. below is what I had posted earlier after posting the video which yes, was from 1990.

This is a idea of the times for bridges WWII 1942 107th
1 bridge =300 feet 6min.
2 bridge =72 linear feet 22min. medium bridge
3 bridge = 37 feet 6min medium bridge
During this period there were three types of bridges in general use in the Army inventory. The first was an assault bridge designed to pass troops quickly over creeks and streams. The 'book said well trained troops should be able to erect it at the rate of 40 linear feet per minute. The 107th did it at the rate of 50 feet per minute. The next type of bridge was known as an H-10 and consisted of two prefabricated steel girders supported by a mud sill on each bank and covered by three-inch plank. The 'book' record was 57 minutes for 72 linear feet. The 107th time stood at 22 minutes! The last bridge in the inventory was the ten-ton pontoon bridge which the Regiment constructed at the rate of 6� feet per minute, twice as fast as they were supposed to be able to. These record setting times weren't achieved merely by constant practice. Many long nights were spent by company officers and non-coms trying to figure out how to save precious minutes and even seconds from times. 10

Thus WWII time period. My question was do you allow for any abstraction in any case. For example Level three (medium) bridge 74 feet could be done in 12 min. according to the game you need a Bridge building engineer. Can you (with your mindset) allow for that abstraction in the game?

< Message edited by Zap -- 2/9/2016 9:14:50 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 105

RE: Farwell - 2/10/2016 11:51:40 AM

MrRoadrunner

Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
My question was do you allow for any abstraction in any case. For example Level three (medium) bridge 74 feet could be done in 12 min. according to the game you need a Bridge building engineer. Can you (with your mindset) allow for that abstraction in the game?

Are you kidding me?
Of course I allow for abstraction. Never said I did not. (With my mindset? Classic case of strawman argument.)
I also believe in scale. Six minutes and 250m.

Let's say you have a run of really great "die rolls".
You can take an engineer unit that begins adjacent to a river/stream. Attempt to build a bridge and succeed in one turn. Cross the river on turn two and enter a level one minefield. Turn three the minefield is cleared. Stay there and build a trench by turn four. Turn five move forward and encounter a blocking wall. Turn six blow a hole through the wall. Turn seven move into a hex containing wrecks. Turn eight clear the wrecks.

That is a lot to do in under an hour? But, in theory it can be done with great die rolling.
Have I ever seen the above happen. No. But, the unit can do it.

I can have abstract thoughts. The above would be a bit much. Even instantaneous communication by every man in the unit would stretch the abstraction?

And to be frank, I do not believe that engineers have been modeled correctly. But, that is another issue altogether.

RR

_____________________________

�The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.�
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 106