Why do we have finite number of turns?

[murpes]

I mean, I understand that you have to have an ending point to the game or else both sides can sit at the edge of the map and do nothing. On the otherhand, I get very frustrated when a game ends right in the middle of some heavy action. I feels, well (forgive me) gamey. I can't imagine real battles ending after a certain period of time and both sides raising their hands and said "okay, what do you have for the score? I gotta get moving my kid has a soccer game tonight."

I know it's a damned if you do damned if you don't, but inactivity seems more realistic than having a battle magically end.

[maxm2]

Do a search on this topic---there's been lots of discussion. If you create your own games you can set the number of turns for 50 or 75 or whatever and one side will always surrender or be defeated before it goes that far (with the standard size battles). There is also a strange (to me) work-around that allows you to set the end turn randomly within a range of turns (so the game ends some time between turn 15 and turn 20, say). To me that's just as unnatural and arbitrary as a fixed point--but there are a number of fans who like this approach.

--Max

"Witty/profound/absurd comment goes here."

[dfgardner]

Originally posted by murpes:

I mean, I understand that you have to have an ending point to the game or else both sides can sit at the edge of the map and do nothing. On the otherhand, I get very frustrated when a game ends right in the middle of some heavy action. I feels, well (forgive me) gamey. I can't imagine real battles ending after a certain period of time and both sides raising their hands and said "okay, what do you have for the score? I gotta get moving my kid has a soccer game tonight."

I know it's a damned if you do damned if you don't, but inactivity seems more realistic than having a battle magically end.

Murpes: It's obvious you've been severly afflicted by CMitus, an insidious and life altering illness. Unfortunately, there is no cure to the illness, ie, not wanting a CM scenario or operation to end. I've also heard of a mutated strain called Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin (CMBB for short). Rumor has it that this strain may even be more life altering.

Fortunately, many poster's on this board are here to help. However, the first step is for you to repeat after me:

"Hello, I'm Murpes, and I'm a Combat Mission addict."

Hang in there brother!

[Bruno Weiss]

Welcome, and keep comming back. It's gamey if you game it.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by murpes:

I can't imagine real battles ending after a certain period of time and both sides raising their hands and said "okay, what do you have for the score?

It's more like the battle goes on, but that it took too long for the objective to be attained within the rest of the (postulated) operation. So sure maybe you could finish him off with 5 more turns but by now his reinforcements are about to arrive or whoever you were intending to encircle has scampered off etc. etc.

[Dirtweasle]

"Captain, you've got thirty minutes to move up and clear that crossroads!"

"Yes Sir!"

"It's now 1630, I expect a report at 1700 from you, good luck!"

What's the problem with a 30 minute game like that?

[PEIPER#1]

Originally posted by murpes:

I mean, I understand that you have to have an ending point to the game or else both sides can sit at the edge of the map and do nothing. On the otherhand, I get very frustrated when a game ends right in the middle of some heavy action. I feels, well (forgive me) gamey. I can't imagine real battles ending after a certain period of time and both sides raising their hands and said "okay, what do you have for the score? I gotta get moving my kid has a soccer game tonight."

I know it's a damned if you do damned if you don't, but inactivity seems more realistic than having a battle magically end.

I know what u mean, I remember the original

STEEL PANTHERS simulate this,

the game waits till you or the enemy dont have enought strenght to get more objectives then it finish.. that will be nice to see in CM or CM2

[ February 21, 2002, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: PEIPER#1 ]

[Urban Shocker]

Another realistic feature would be to set a % casualty figure. If an objectiive is important then this could be higher than if it were low. Players would think twice before sacrificing anything as it would negatively affect their casualty rate. This seems as realistic as being given a time-based limit.

I know that casualties affect the final score and force morale but this feature would simulate having to fight and live for another day rather than having the last man (men) standing.

[Michael Dorosh]

This will be fixed in CMBB - captured flags wil extend the game a turn to give the other side a chance to contest it; if the flag is retaken, I think that means yet another turn, until both sides have no ability to contest the flag...correct me if I am wrong.

Time limits are very real things in warfare; and yes, they are arbitrary - so they were in real life.

There were also instances where casualties were of no consequence to an attacker - not just the Russians, but the Germans and western Allies also sometimes placed a premium on real estate over the lives of their men.

[MikeyD]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't BTS said (in the manual or elsewhere) that the game coding wasn't able to allow an open-ended format due to memory mangement issues, or something-or-other? So making a game without a finite number of moves was basically undo-able.

I suppose one partial workaround would be to construct a campaign with a max number of turns per max number of battles. Still, that's not the same as being able to do a 6 hour maneuver tank battle on a monster map.

A problem with extended campaigns, when I've tried it (against the AI) I've often been left sitting on my hands for the last three battles with the enemy's depleted forces nowhere to be found on the map til the last 3 moves.