The Nature of CM Battles is...

[Abbasid111]

"Kevin and the Warts". I think I saw them in New York in the late '70s.

[shift8]

6 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

A scenario is a battle in a can.  It is not reality.  No matter how good of a simulation CM may be it is not the equivalent of reality.  The means of dictating victory or defeat are entirely artificial.  The scenario designer paints some victory locations on the map and assigns points for capturing them.  The scenario designer may also allocate victory points for killing the enemy or keeping friendly casualties low.  No matter how you slice it, the person who is designing the 'battle in a can' is the one who is dictating to the player what victory or defeat means. 

Let me ask you a question.  When you play a scenario and there are victory conditions specified in terms of occupy or touch objectives and destruction of enemy soldiers and equipment do you view that as a valid means of determining victory or do you just decide on your own whether or not you have 'won'?  I you just play something and decide on your own whether you won or not then discussing this topic with you is an entirely wasted effort because you are setting your own parameters for victory or defeat.  If you accept the scenario designers definition of victory or defeat within the context of terrain and destroy objectives then why can't you accept the scenario designer's parameters for time and space?  The one who tells the player whether he won or not is the scenario designer and the scenario designer tells you whether you won or not by virtue of setting victory objectives, map dimensions, and time requirements.  If you don't capture the specified objectives within the time frame that the designer has dictated you lost the battle.  There is no 'well if I had more time I would have captured X'.  Part of the designer's parameters was 'capture X within time frame Y.'  If you fail to do so then you lose. 

What you apparently find impossible to understand is the fact that failure in a scenario due to time constraints means that you failed to capture the objective within the parameters that the designer specified.  If you had more time could you capture the objective?  Maybe, but that's irrelevant because you didn't accomplish the task in the specified time.  It doesn't matter if the real battle continues on for the next three weeks.  All that matters is that you, the gamer, failed to win the scenario within the parameters specified by the scenario designer.  Making an argument that 'well real battles last until the objective is captured' is entirely irrelevant because that's not even part of the equation.  The only thing that matters is what you, the gamer, managed to accomplish within the parameters specified by the scenario designer.  Real life battle commanders don't gain 25 victory points for capturing Francois Farm.  Real life battle commanders don't have a map edge.  Real life battle commanders don't gain 100 points if he keeps his casualties below 10%.  Real life battle commanders don't gain 200 points for totally destroying enemy unit X.  The entire framework within which a CM battle is 'fought' is artificial and the parameters of that battle are set by the designer.  One of the parameters that the designer sets is time.  If you fail to meet the threshold for victory within the time specified then you lose.  I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that. 

@ASL Veteran and @Baneman: 

I absolutely do understand that the time limit is the mission designers intent as a victory condition. And I also absolutely understand that the defender may not be able to win without it. BUT as I already stated earlier in this thread: I dont care. (reasons below)

I have no problems playing a scenario where one side is almost certain to win. This happens all the time in real life. I play battles for the historical or tactical experience, not necessarily for some kind of competition. In particular, the AI is ultra easy to defeat in general, so I get no enjoyment by "outsmarting them". I get enjoyment from scenarios by exploring the tactical possibilities presented by something that is supposed to be a moderate simulation of real events. In multiplayer I prefer no time limits as well. I dont mind losing if the tactical situation was impossible. Nor do I find it fun to win when my defense was only possible because some game-ism made it so that the attack had to stupid things that enhanced my chances. Id rather lose than win like that. If you dont find this fun that is fine. Im merely expressing my opinion on what I think makes a fun CM game.  I like as few game-sims as possible. And I absolutely despise time-limits in particular. 

I dont care much for what the scenario designers definition of victory is. I play the scenario by my own definitions of victory and defeat. IF someone else likes the AAR page, I dont mind. If you want to declare it a defeat because of some time limit, and I can even somewhat live with that. What I find MOST irritating is how the time limit STOPS the game. This is the biggest reason I dont like the limits. Which is why I dont see them as necessary regardless of how you want to play. I see no reason that time limit couldnt be indefinite and simply view the time limit as a modifier of your score. But his is not what happens. The game simply ends on some silly clock and you get a defeat. 

[Panzerpanic]

Can we just have the OPTION(who is optional btw) to change te time limt in the quick battle.

[Warts 'n' all]

4 hours ago, Abbasid111 said:

"Kevin and the Warts". I think I saw them in New York in the late '70s.

Yeah, just checked an old N.M.E.. They were bottom of the bill on The Clash's "Take the Fifth" tour

[ASL Veteran]

1 hour ago, shift8 said:

@ASL Veteran and @Baneman: 

I absolutely do understand that the time limit is the mission designers intent as a victory condition. And I also absolutely understand that the defender may not be able to win without it. BUT as I already stated earlier in this thread: I dont care. (reasons below)

I have no problems playing a scenario where one side is almost certain to win. This happens all the time in real life. I play battles for the historical or tactical experience, not necessarily for some kind of competition. In particular, the AI is ultra easy to defeat in general, so I get no enjoyment by "outsmarting them". I get enjoyment from scenarios by exploring the tactical possibilities presented by something that is supposed to be a moderate simulation of real events. In multiplayer I prefer no time limits as well. I dont mind losing if the tactical situation was impossible. Nor do I find it fun to win when my defense was only possible because some game-ism made it so that the attack had to stupid things that enhanced my chances. Id rather lose than win like that. If you dont find this fun that is fine. Im merely expressing my opinion on what I think makes a fun CM game.  I like as few game-sims as possible. And I absolutely despise time-limits in particular. 

I dont care much for what the scenario designers definition of victory is. I play the scenario by my own definitions of victory and defeat. IF someone else likes the AAR page, I dont mind. If you want to declare it a defeat because of some time limit, and I can even somewhat live with that. What I find MOST irritating is how the time limit STOPS the game. This is the biggest reason I dont like the limits. Which is why I dont see them as necessary regardless of how you want to play. I see no reason that time limit couldnt be indefinite and simply view the time limit as a modifier of your score. But his is not what happens. The game simply ends on some silly clock and you get a defeat. 

Alright then.  If you don't accept the scenario designer's definition of what constitutes victory then what is it exactly that you want?  What is this discussion about?  You load up a scenario and you play it.  You ignore the designer's victory conditions and you just play to play.  When winning and losing have no meaning then I'm not sure what the issue is.  If you go into the editor you can change any parameter that you want to so therefore the issue is resolved.  If we are having this discussion because you want 'scenario designers' to alter what they do to fit your needs then I guess you have made your case and if anyone wants to alter what they are doing then they will.  As long as you understand why time limits are included within the context of scenario design then I have nothing more to add.  This is an issue of personal preference and if you have any specific time related issues that you want to discuss about specific scenarios then I think we can have a reasonable discussion.  If you want to insist that time limits are not a valid expression of designer intent then I'm not sure that discussion will go anywhere but around in circles.  If your expectation is that future scenarios will not have any time limits included then I expect that you will be disappointed.  By all means enjoy the game in the way that you see fit.

[kevinkin]

9 hours ago, Abbasid111 said:

 

"Kevin and the Warts". I think I saw them in New York in the late '70s

 

If you saw me, then you noticed I was hustling 5 buck chess games in Washington Square Park to pay for the next show at the CBGBs. I never ever was allowed on stage but was thrown off it a few times. My hustling days ended with Squad Leader. Saved my life actually.  

Edited May 21, 2016 by kevinkin

[Sublime]

Heh washington sq park. Smoking much plant matter?