Louie the Toad Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 How detailed must one get? Hmmm.. was the commander right or left handed? Toad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Well it depends on how you think of it. Too me we can never make a truly Historical battle because we can't reproduce exactly what happened, but then again the closer you get the better. That said I would call a battle which has all the units which fought in the conflict and a map which is as close to the real thing as CM can is Historical. And no I don't think you need to know if they were right or left handed... although the names of Battalion / Company and/or platoon leaders is always good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted April 13, 2003 Author Share Posted April 13, 2003 That seems reasonable. I wonder though when one crosses the line between historical and semi. Can I assume that the following is Historical: In the drive on Minsk in 1941 I know there was a clash between units of the Soviet 22nd Tank Division and the 3rd Panzer Division. I know the TIME and GENERAL LOCATION of the engagement so the map will not be of the exact place, but a reasonable facsimile. There was no significant feature such as a river. So the AI could make the map. I know that LEAD ELEMENTS of both the 22nd and the 3rd ran into each other. I don't know HOW MANY or WHICH ACTUAL VEHICLE TYPES fought. But I do know what vehicle and infantry the lead elements that clashed were comprised of and so I have selected a certain number of vehicle, infantry and support units representative of both sides to fight in the scenario. In some ways this seems Historical and in others Semi Historical. When I think of battles that are world famous, where we know every detail, designing those would define HISTORICAL. When does that designation slip away? Is the Devil in the Details?...... Toad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 The case your talking about would be under the Semi-Historical category. For it to be Historical you need the map as well as the detail, IMO. Letting the AI make the map leaves a lot to be desired lets put it that way. The AI can make some ok maps, but to me it just doesn't have the same feel as a map designed by a person. It would take 30-45 minutes or so to make a simple map; even if you don't know what it looks like don't let the AI make the map it just puts your work to shame. [ April 13, 2003, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Panzerman ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted April 13, 2003 Author Share Posted April 13, 2003 Thanks for helping me discern between historical and semi. I do think it is in the details. And there will be a more 'historical' map, rather than computer generated. Grateful Toad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 I differ. I'd call it "historical". Here's why: First, I think the distinction between "historical" and "semi-historical" is meaningless. All scenarios are going to be "quasi" or "semi", simply because CM is an abstraction. Also, there is a big difference between 'recreating' an event and 'simulating' one. I think that so long as your TOE is reasonably accurate, your map is reasonably accurate, and your tactical situation is reasonably accurate, you can call it "historical". If you are "making up" the unit (e.g., there was really no such division, or the opposing units never fough against each other), or you are engaging in fanciful speculation (e.g., the Finns fighting in the Steppes in 1945), then its "fictional". If your map has no basis in reality, its "fictional". Therefore, I think there are only two useful categories.."historical" and "fictional". Choose one or the other. Fine lines are extremely difficult to define, and use of the term "semi" historical is attempting to draw that line. I think that under this simplified definition, your proposed design is unquestionably "historical". My 2 cents. Frank 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 BTW, Toad, give me the general size of your scenario, the location (to the best you can) and a few details on the terrain, and I'll slap together a map for you, if you'd like..you can tweak it too. Frank 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Given the absence of topographical maps of the actual region, and some sort of info (for at least one side) detailing the battalion/company involved, you would have to call it semi-historical. Historical would include a reference to the actual map of the area (be it a sketch in a unit history or an actual 1:10000 scale contour map) and a list of the CM size units involved. "Elements of XX Division" is, to me, semi-historical only. Unless of course you have identified with precision which elements took part. If you haven't, then you could even make a case that your scenario is fictional. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted April 14, 2003 Author Share Posted April 14, 2003 Oh ohh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 I think a historical scenario should be: 1. of a real engagement (duh) 2. Use information about the lay of land (doesn't need to be topo based, cover isn't even included in a topo map and it's extremely important. 3. Plays "historically", i.e. the CM commander is faced with similar choices to the real world commander. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Louie the Toad: Oh ohh. xerxes makes excellent points too. I wouldn't get too wrapped up in it Louie, I'm pretty sure I violated my own rules when calling my GD scenarios "semi-historical"/"historical". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 What Historical/Semi/Fictional means to me: Historical: scenario is based on a real battle AND good quality info is used on OoBs AND good quality info (topo map, or period sketch) is used to create map. A lot of research is required to create a Historical scen. E.g.: a scen based on Op Goodwood, uses actual OoB data for Guards Armoured Divs at that time (or is derived from typical OoB data for a British Armoured Div in Normandy) and equivalent German data. Map is based on the French map for the right area. Semi: Sceanrio is not based on a real battle BUT OoBs are based on good quality info of units that were present in that area, at that time AND Map is based on good quality info OR map is fictional, but consitent with period and location. Less research is required, or you just could be unlucky and unable to find sufficient info on the particular battle you want to re-create. Alternately, scenario is based on a real battle, but aspects of the OoB OR the map are unknown and must be guessed (but not both). E.g.: a scen based on Op Goodwood, uses actual OoB data for Guards Armoured Divs at that time (or is derived from typical OoB data for a British Armoured Div in Normandy) and equivalent German data. So far so good, but map is based on what the scen author 'thinks' a map of the Op Goodwood area should look like. In this case, the terrain is fictional, so the scen can only be considered 'semi.' Or, the scen author has good OoB info for two opposing info for units from two opposing sides that were in the same area, at the same time, and has good quality map info, BUT the units never met and fought. In this case the battle is fictional (but very much 'could have been'), so the scen can only be considered 'semi.' Note that in both cases the OoB info has to be good. Fictional: Anything goes. Creating a scen with 35 x Panthers and 128 T-34s, setting it on the steppes with the date set to July 1943, is a fictional scenario. Calling it "Prokhorovka" or "Kursk" doesn't make it historical Alternately, you might have a real battle in mind, but are unable to find sufficient map or OoB info, and so have to 'guess' a lot. This drags it down into the fictional category. All IMHO of course, and there remains grey areas between historicical and semi, and between semi and fictional. Regards JonS [ April 13, 2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.