time scale misnomer?

[jfstup]

am i missing something? turns are represented

as being 1,2,or4 weeks in scale. but they are

player turns not game turns . so the correct scale (correct me if i am wrong[and i am sure someone will]) is 2,4,and 8 weeks per turn with each side moving and fighting to to be a full turn.

[DevilDog]

Yeah, you're right. It's one of the few things about SC that bugs me.

[iolo]

Actually, while we're on the subject, the variable turn length means that during winter research slows down to 1/4 of the summer rate.

How come? Is it cold in the lab? Brrr....

[Hawkmek]

I wish there were some sort of turn counter. The dates are ok, but I want to know exactly how long I have to complete Sealion.

Example: Turn 5 of 40

That way I wouldn't have to try and keep track of the summer/winter dates. Time seems to get away from you thru the winter.

[J Wagner]

I think the general consensus in these threads, though not unanimous, is that the present turn system is not the best that could have been implemented. I'm hoping for consisistent weekly turns, with variable weather conditions, in future versions of SC.

[USGrant]

Now that you mention it, I've never counted the turns. I assumed that there were 26 player turns in a year. Is this correct, or are there 13?

[Brian Rock]

I actually like variable time turns, although I agree that it makes some aspects (such as research) look a bit odd.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

I actually like variable time turns, although I agree that it makes some aspects (such as research) look a bit odd.

I'd actually prefer less action points in winter. As it is winter goes by without me even noticing. Its not a big issue, I'm happy with it the way it is, but increasing the turn duration is not the same as reducing the number of action points, which I think would be a better winter solution.

[pzgndr]

Something simple to consider is making MPP production doubled in winter and halved in summer. This would normalize production on a per month basis throughout the year. I think it would also create the necessary effect - allowing more activity in summer at the expense of burning out your units, while slowing the pace in winter and allowing units to rebuild. All turns are essentially the same right now, and that really doesn't simulate the ebb and flow of activity during the year.

Making all turns 2 weeks with seasonal effects would keep the game at about 24 turns per year but may lose some of the high activity effect for summer campaigns. Making all turns 1 week would double the game time and slow down individual turns. And if the turn length is clearly defined, you have to rescale everything to accurately match the new scale and that opens up a can of worms for discussion. I generally like the variable turn abstraction because it glosses over a lot of this and avoids complexity.

[Marc]

I kept track and indeed there are only 13 turns for a player in a year. I also thought it was more, just goes to show you! Still, plenty of fun, especially for the money!

Marc

[pzgndr]

You're right, there are NOT 27 turns per year as I've been assuming all along based on the variable turn description. What's up with that? I've been too busy playing along to really notice. So my previous comments are not applicable, since we are essentially playing a game with monthly turns. Why not just drop one turn per year and call them months? Or fix the game to have the variable turns "as described" and adjust the action points and MPPs accordingly or something? Here I was getting used to the idea and now find out it's "different." Even my estimates for research advances are out of whack, since a 20 turn average for 1 research point is really a year and half, not slightly less than a year. :confused:

If we could just go to monthly turns, then maybe have +1 action point during summer turns and -1 during winter turns. If we go to the variable turn sequence as described, then my previous comments about halved production in summer and doubled production in winter would apply. Obviously, going to the intended variable turns or half-month turns would double the current game length and weekly turns would quadruple it.

Since the game already plays well at 13 turns per year, making monthly turns would be fine at this scale and maybe a patch(?) could do this. If a future version goes to 25-mile hexes (+/-) and div/corps units, then the variable turn sequence or half-month turns would be OK. Weekly turns may be too much, but that's always a possibility.

Whatever turn sequence we end up with down the road, it really should be consistent for both sides and have more relevance to actual dates and seasonal effects. The current sequence is just weird, to be polite.

So for now, don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. The all powerful Oz has the game under control.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Something simple to consider is making MPP production doubled in winter and halved in summer. This would normalize production on a per month basis throughout the year. I think it would also create the necessary effect - allowing more activity in summer at the expense of burning out your units, while slowing the pace in winter and allowing units to rebuild. All turns are essentially the same right now, and that really doesn't simulate the ebb and flow of activity during the year.

Agreed totally. Right now it >doesn't matter<

when the Germans invade Russia -they

don't have to wait until June to do so-December

is just fine if they have assembled all their

forces and are ready to go. Same thing for

Overlord (ideally the Allies would-as you say-

swamp the Jerries from both sides and force them

to burn all their MPPs). Winter OTOH would be

bad news for whoever is on the strategic

offensive...

John DiFool

[Straha]

Yup, I agree, too. Somehow, reducing the turn lenght in winter has close to zero effect on actual gameplay and strategic planning. Making all terms equally long and instead reducing action points in winter (especially for tanks) sounds like a good alternative to me.

Straha

[willgamer]

Although I'm reluctant, generally speaking, to support changes to the gem that is SC, this one has my support. Since there are really only 13 turns/year (I thought it was 27), I no longer understand any rational for the current approach.

As a reader of WW2 history, winter penalties would greatly enhance my enjoyment of SC. Many of Bill Macon's suggestions sound very doable.

Please

[USGrant]

I think the action point adjustment by season is a good idea. I wouldn't drop a turn per year though, 13 goes into 52 weeks nicely to create 4-week turns (counting both player turns). If we went monthly we would have to argue about production in February being 10% less than March becasue it is 3 days shorter ...

[Hubert Cater]

There were 2 problems I saw with normalized 2 week turns, i.e. 1 turn per month per side, and added weather effects such as limited movement etc.

1) Time length for summer turns would seem too short

and

2) Time length for winter turns would seem too long

Now keep in mind the design philosophy of SC where I wanted to balance realism with playability before you jump all over me for the following explanations.

1) With normalized 2 week turns it would be very hard to recreate late spring/summer activity such as the invasion of the Low Countries and France, preparations for Sealion etc. along a quasi historical timeline. As it stands now the Axis player starting on May 10, 1940 has turns as follows:

Turn 1 - May 10

Turn 2 - June 7

Turn 3 - June 21

Turn 4 - July 5

Turn 5 - July 19

Turn 6 - August 2

With the normalized 2 week turn system it would be like this for the Axis player:

Turn 1 - May 10

Turn 2 - June 7

Turn 3 - July 5

Turn 4 - August 2

Turn 5 - August 30

Turn 6 - September 27

So from this example by Turn 6 you've almost lost 2 months of summer 'action time'

2) The winter turns would run the risk of seeming very long and ineffectual for this type of game especially with reduced movement etc., consider these months during a PBEM game for example

- Income Comparison -

Current System: 100 MPP per turn = 13 x 100 = 1300 MPP

Normalized 2 week system: 100 MPP per turn = 12 x 100 = 1200 MPP

- Time Effect -

13 turns vs 12 turns but with the desired longer summer months and shorter winter months

- Movement Effect -

With the current systems reduced time length of Fall/Winter/Spring the net effect is having about the same kind of movement/action activity as if it were the case with longer winter turns and lower action points etc.

Again, I know that this is all a simplification and just a few examples of the pros and cons, and it's not to say that the normalized 2 week system doesn't work, but I would like to think for a different type of SC game... perhaps possibly a more advanced version.

Generally with the 13 turn system what I tried to create was a simplification of a one to two month turn with impluses, with the net effect similar to what you would get from a normalized 2 week turn system.

Hope that helps in regards to what I was thinking

Hubert

[pzgndr]

Now keep in mind the design philosophy of SC where I wanted to balance realism with playability before you jump all over me for the following explanations.

I think we're just trying to make sense of it, because no other game alternates turns like this. There are in fact 27 turns per year (right?), but one player gets 13 and the other 14, if I understand correctly now. So one side gets an extra winter turn on alternate years.

Perhaps my suggestion of halved production in summer and doubled in winter could still be considered here. The MPPs would be the same over a 2-year period, but each side gets an extra payment on alternate years. This could work well if its the Allies getting the extra during the winter of 42 (Jan-Feb-Mar) following Barbarossa. The dates could be adjusted if necessary to make it happen. Then Allies would get the MPP boost during 40, 42, and 44; Axis would get it during 41, 43 and 45. Given this, we could then see the historical transitions - Allied buildup in 40, Barbarossa buildup in 41, Russian winter counter-offensive in 42, Zitadel buildup in 43, Overlord buildup in 44, and finally Wacht am Rhine in 45. :cool:

Would this be an appropriate tweak for a patch perhaps? It's a subtle change to the current game that would give us normalized production, seasonal differences, and a bonus for historical transitions mentioned above. I don't see any significant downsides. Comments?

[Hubert Cater]

Good points Bill, I'd just be hesitant to make any wholesale changes to the time setup as it is now for a variety of reasons, but I think some of these suggestions are valid and would probably do well in another version of the SC engine down the road.

Hubert

[Straha]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

SNIP but I think some of these suggestions are valid and would probably do well in another version of the SC engine down the road.

I guess changing this right now would be a major coding issue. But it's good to hear that it is not forgotten. For me this topic really boils down to that - in the current system - we never have to worry about winter like we should when starting campaigns.

Straha

[DevilDog]

If each player got to move per "turn" (i.e. keep everything the same as now, just don't change the date until both players have had a turn), instead of alternating turns I think the problems with 2 week standardized turns would go away. Then reduced actions points during the winter could be implemented.

[ August 15, 2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]