CMAK: BTS battles without turn limit PLEASE!

[Steiner14]

Ahhhhhhhh.

I'm glad to see that enough folks see what the problem with turn limit is/can be.

@JonS:

thanks for that tip - i would have never choosen a 120 turn monster, because now the max. turn# usually correlates and is understood as amount of time needed to finish the job. Great to hear, that the turn# in this one doesn't indicate when tea time is going to stop the fighting.

Hopefully it is a good scenario, too.

[ September 03, 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[rune]

To answer this question:

Is that not what we all want?

No it isn't. For each person here that wants unrestricted time or 120 turns, there are 3 that want short sharp fights they can play in one sitting. Yes, the number is correct based on feedback I get in emails as the lead designer. For each person that wants huge maps to maneuver in, another likes the small battles that people like Hans, Berli and Andreas make.

Again people, there is not one answer. As many different styles of play, there has to be scenarios to cover it. I make fictional what/if scenarios, I make scenarios where time is critical [paratroops landing on your head], and I make massive LONG battles. I make historical battles to put you in the situation and see if you can do better. What you guys are suggesting an open ended game where I can maneuver around has been made, Korsun Pocket for example. This is done at the operational level.

CMAK, CMBB and CMBO are tactical games. Here is the situation, what can you do with it? None of you have seen CMAK yet. It is still a tactical war game. The times John posted are a nice guide, but when did the clock start and when did it end? Did it count the artillery bombardment, the time to get in position for the assault and countless other factors?

Again, the bottom line is the CD will have a mix of battles. There is no one right answer. No, not everyone wants it historical. Some people want even matched scenarios, and how often did that happen? Some people want ahistorical maps, read the reviews of von Lauchert complaining of the map. Umm, it is based on a 1:25000 map, complain to Mother Nature, not to me. Some people want to learn why things happened and why tactics changed...others just want to play ladder games.

So no, it is NOT what everyone wants. First and foremost, CM series are GAMES. I will continue to try to get a mix of everything on the CD, and as I said before, some you will like and some you won't, depending on your style of play. Just realize, as many players that are out there, there are play styles that are out there, there is no one right answer.

Rune

[Steiner14]

Rune,

i agree with you, but the problem is not, that we all don't want the same, but that some arrogant people here don't want, that other people have the possibility to play a wider range or different battles.

It's like forbiding my neighbour to have a second car, because i don't need one, too.

[ September 03, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I haven't seen many people claiming we should have unlimited turns,

Geez, did you even LOOK at the subject heading? This entire thread was about unlimited turns!!!

just that 30-45 as in most CM scenarios are nonsense and lead to either unrealistic tactics or they narrow down tactics to one approach.

Depends on the scenario. It's exactly why when I did my Assault on Kamienka scenario, I gave the attacker 60 turns.

Why is it that someone like John Salt can come up with contrete historical numbers and nobody even notices?

Because the numbers are kind of meaningless without some kind of idea about one or two of the actions that made up the sampling?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Rune,

i agree with you, but the problem is not, that we all don't want the same, but that some arrogant people here don't want, that other people have the possibility to play a wider range or different battles.

Hmm, I thought the problem was arrogant people with a low knowledge base lobbying for changes and trying to justify it based on their limited understanding of "reality".

It bothers me not if you get your unlimited turn games; I probably wouldn't play them - but I would raise objections to anyone who tried to state in open forum that it was a better simulation than a game with turn limits, as that simply isn't the case.

You can lobby for unlimited turns all you want - just stop pretending that there is some historical justification for it, as there clearly isn't.

[Redwolf]

Rune,

what you say is undoubtly true, players want to go through a scenario in one evening. But it doesn't change the fact that a CM battle of the typical size that people want gets a reduction in realism and learning effect by the kind of time limits that many scenario designers put on them in CMBB.

This is all OK, it is what people want, for the typical gamer it is better to have a game he can play in the time available even if that means his learning options or even realism are limited by it. The better scenario is of no use if it isn't played.

However, the way that people argue in this thread is ridiculous, claiming that it is an important realism improvement to force the attacker into a 35 minutes timeframe instead of a 45 or 90 minutes one. It is not. It may be good and necessary for the game and its community, but it comes with a realism and learning drawback.

Same goes for the almost complete absence of artillery in CMBB scenarios and severe limitations on artillery ammunition. Tanks are much more fun, infantry still more fun, and CMBB artillery is a frustrating experience. So it is good for community and country. But for many scenarios it is not at all realistic. Nobody lets the division's last depleted tank battalion attack into a patch of terrain known to be defended without giving them the division's artillery, and chances are the division acts on behalf of the corps.

Michael, the thread title is off, but what most people here actually want is enough turns to try different approaches and to do proper reconnaissance. Mind you, that is reconnaissance that reveals information that we don't get at the start of a CM battle.

[ September 03, 2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I am glad that is the case Redwolf. Just to clarify, I have nothing against scenarios taking 60, 71 or 200 turns. As mentioned, I have made some long ones myself. My Russian Commando Raid scenario is 120 turns, for example.

I agree that there are significant issues re: reconnaissance and player knowledge - I think everyone will agree that this needs to be addressed.

Heh, how can the "thread title be off"? The thread title is the first thing that goes up! The rest of it is just hijacking!

But hijacking can sometimes be good.

[Fredrock1957]

Wow.. you all make excellent points, after reading this thread I think its time for a break. I like the idea of a FOW time limit that only the designer knows.. but not all the time... Speaking of all these time limits... How long is the setup phase in CM vs a real life time frame (an hour, a day, a month... ahhh) jeez I dont know if anyone can put an answer to that.

Just another counrty heard from

[Andreas]

How about two different turn limits, one for the attacker, one for the defender? Or has someone already suggested this?

[Fredrock1957]

Wow.. you all make excellent points, after reading this thread I think its time for a break. I like the idea of a FOW time limit that only the designer knows.. but not all the time... Speaking of all these time limits... How long is the setup phase in CM vs a real life time frame (an hour, a day, a month... ahhh) jeez I dont know if anyone can put an answer to that.

Just another counrty heard from

[JonS]

Originally posted by rune:

... It is still a tactical war game. The times John posted are a nice guide, but when did the clock start and when did it end? Did it count the artillery bombardment, the time to get in position for the assault and countless other factors? ...

Just to address this point, I think it is a safe assumption that the time starts from H-Hour and ends when the objective is declared secure. As such it would:

1) probably not include the pre-H bombardment, but would include any post-H artillery fire. Few fireplans indeed would only have fire on one side or the other of H, expecially in 21st AG in NWE in 1944/45.

2) in most cases not include the moving up and forming up phases, except for follw on forces (eg, the second two companies in a two-up, two-back attack).

At the risk of stating the blind-bleedin-obvious, H-Hour is usually the time when the first infantry step across the startline. The startline is usually an easily identified feature (a road, a field-edge, a line taped out by the battalion intelligence officer, etc) that is usually covered or concealed from direct enemy observation.

Lots of 'usually's in there, because there are lots of exceptions. Such is life - it was a big war after all.

However, H-Hour and the startline are two fixed points that everything else in the plan is hung off (the objective being a third I suppose). As such it would make sense that the times and distances in John Salts info be related to them.

Dorosh,

the kind of actions that these times relate to are easy to find, and you know exactly where to go to find them (Jary, Graves, Blackburn, et al). Stop bickering and start behaving like a Commonwealth Grog!

Regards

JonS

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

The problem for scenario designers is, that they have to keep the turn# moderate, because otherwise the majority wouldn't play their scenarios, if they see a 120 turn monster.

If you think people shy away from 120 turn monsters, why would you think they would flock to an unlimited turn monster?</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

Dorosh,

the kind of actions that these times relate to are easy to find, and you know exactly where to go to find them (Jary, Graves, Blackburn, et al). Stop bickering and start behaving like a Commonwealth Grog!

Regards

JonS

You're talking about a handful of actions, and Salt is talking about another handful of actions. Bickering has nothing to do with it, I'd genuinely like to know where the sampling comes from. Crossing the start line into a deep fog and advancing through a wheatfield is somewhat different from crossing a startline in say, Ortona, or at Cassino. They're interesting figures but not too meaningful when devoid of any context whatsoever.

From what I recall about Blackburn, he doesn't really time any of his battles. I've never read Jary, though I would certainly love to one day.

[Cabron66]

What is the reason this thread continues to grow? The topic is a good one, but unfortunately has been a good one for a while and is now a little talked out. Basically, some of us, myself included, want more options as designers. I personally do not want unlimited turns because I'm certain that at no time has time not been a factor. Beyond that there are only three categories: short actions, medium actions, and long actions. Within them there are three options: fixed turn limit, flexible turn limit and unknown turn limit. All of these and any combination of them can and should be available to the scenario designer because they all have existed in real life. In this case, these are simple options which could be included at very little cost to the designer and would increase the depth of the game considerably.

However, I must repeat my original point. The turn limit is a tool to be used effectively and for a reason. A good designer will use it to reflect a real life condition that was the source of pressure meant to be felt by the virtual commander. A bad designer will use it for some other reason, or worse, for no good reason at all. Players will probably have to decide for themselves which designers are which as both kinds have and always will exist.

Futhermore, the turn limit tool can be mixed with another very effective tool, the briefing, to achieve marvelous results.

Micheal Dorosh mentioned the issue of intelligence in his last post. I suggest we start a new thread and talk about that as it is integral to the turn limit debate. How much a commander knows and how credible that knowledge is is paramount to his selection of tactics and his ultimate success or failure. When given sufficient context the CM commander must play within the parameters set by the (credible) designer and has only himself to blame for failure. Also important is the issue of how intelligence can be portrayed using the tools provided by the game.

[ September 03, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Runyan99]

Okay, go ahead and start the 'intelligence' thread.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I predict the scenario average length will magically increase the day PBEM is 1 file per turn only .

Yup, you know that's right.

I've been doing 60 turn 1,000 pointer PBEMs. I love 'em. The attacker probes, then attacks. He doesn't wait for the last few turns because he is fully ready long before then. If things go badly for the attacker, and the defender is mobile, he can counterattack. There is time for all this good stuff, and no flag rush. Are the first 20 turns slow? Yes, but there are noteworthy events that happen during the period. It is slow; but not boring to me. How much time does it take to hit "Go" and send a file? 3 minutes? Does one player spend 20 turns hunting down the last of his defeated opponent's routed troops? No. I've yet to play an opponent who doesn't know when it's time to surrender or call a ceasefire.

Unlimited turns? Unnecessary IMO. Hidden turns? I'll never play a scenario like that. I can't believe people want a "game over" screen right in the middle of a tense fight. We'll not only have too short of scenarios, we won't know exactly how "too short" they are. Yuck!

Treeburst155 out.

[ September 07, 2003, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I predict the scenario average length will magically increase the day PBEM is 1 file per turn only .

Yup, you know that's right.

I've been doing 60 turn 1,000 pointer PBEMs. . </font>

[dieseltaylor]

Michael Dorosh - representing the mild mannered Canadians. I used to think how good the laid back Canadian style suited UN duties ....

Anyway I agree with some of Steiner14's points and even if his thread, as a non-native speaker, is inelegantly or incorrectly phrased I would not want to be too picky.

I like playing large battles 3000 pointers huge maps because it gives me lots of choices on tactics and forces. It is probably not very realistic of me - but then I enjoyed playing chess.

Is it that there are two ways of looking at CMBB those who believe it is a re-enactment tool and those who find it a way of playing a wargame on a board full of variable terrain ,weather, troop quality , morale and even units. The more I think about it the more I think it IS a game.

Oh well! if it is a game then really no reason to be unpleasant.

[Cabron66]

Yep, the cool thing about the game is that it can be tailored to almost any need. I don't see why the turn limit thing couldn't be made a little more flexible, though. I see nothing wrong with an unknown turn limit option, for example, if it were made integral to the game.

I see something like the option to set the limit to between x and y number of turns with a percentage chance of the game ending every turn to a maximum of y.

Now, admittedly, this is something that might not have a great many uses, but I think it would remove the predictability of certain scenarios and improve replayability. I imagine a scenario where everything ends say, with the arrival of a much larger force or nightfall or the general withdrawal of the force your units are part of or lord knows what. The player is told in the briefing that he must operate under the constraints of time and told approximately what timeframe he is looking at, but not when the event in question will occur. For example, the player is told he has approximately an hour to accomplish his objectives. Not 60 turns, but approximately an hour depending on the outcome of other events taking place in the vicinity.

Of course this is an option for the designer. The battle will still end reliably, but the player does not know exactly how much time he has. Last minute rushes will never happen and, IMO, it will avoid certain other gamey tactics. Gives the player the choice to risk taking a bit longer to make his move or not.

Oh, and before I forget, I don't speak for Micheal, but the whole "mild-mannered Canadians" thing is a bit annoying. If you want mild-mannered, go to Belgium (OUCH!). I think we are so often called mild-mannered because we are frequently compared to another group of people, closely related to ourselves, who are anything but. Hehehe. Time to pull my cape over my face and dash away into the night.

[ September 07, 2003, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Cabron66]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Hidden turns? I'll never play a scenario like that. I can't believe people want a "game over" screen right in the middle of a tense fight. We'll not only have too short of scenarios, we won't know exactly how "too short" they are. Yuck!

Treeburst155 out. [/QB]

When I was a kid I hated veggies until I realized how good they were for me. Give it a chance, dude. You might like it.

Seriously, I don't want short battles, but just the option to make a scenario end with a variation of say anywhere from 3 to 8 turns. It's only three to eight minutes in real life and would add a bit more realism if scenario designers want it.

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I predict the scenario average length will magically increase the day PBEM is 1 file per turn only .

Yup, you know that's right.I've been doing 60 turn 1,000 pointer PBEMs. </font>

[WWB]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Hidden turns? I'll never play a scenario like that. I can't believe people want a "game over" screen right in the middle of a tense fight. We'll not only have too short of scenarios, we won't know exactly how "too short" they are. Yuck!

Treeburst155 out.

When I was a kid I hated veggies until I realized how good they were for me. Give it a chance, dude. You might like it.

Seriously, I don't want short battles, but just the option to make a scenario end with a variation of say anywhere from 3 to 8 turns. It's only three to eight minutes in real life and would add a bit more realism if scenario designers want it. [/QB]</font>

[Cabron66]

Sure, but with the controls I mentioned in my previous post. Not a big difference, I realize, but also not difficult to implement.

And doesn't the variable time limit tell you when the turn will end plus an unknown number of turns? This is not what I want. I want a flexible time limit (with a small variation), but with no turn limit displayed. The turn limit must be detailed in the briefing and could be plus or minus depending on what the designer wants to do or the game decides.

This is more realistic IMO and could provide for some real nail-biters. If the reason for a game ending could be given that would be better, but I hate to ask for major changes I don't think I'll ever see.

Sorry, I was trying to keep that last post brief. I was referring to the amount of variation I recommended. I should have explained the difference between my idea and the already existing mechanism.