Losing the entire game due to missing by one or two turns is garbage.

[Horseman]

@superman81906
You can't use that type language nor this kind of aggressive behavior in this forum.
It's your first warning. The second will grant you a temporary ban.
The third one will be a permanent ban.
Now, it's up to you, but if you want to continue in this forum please change your behavior.

Why don't you read into the context of why I finally answered this way after his continual dismissal of my request and idea, along with his insults. Horseman: "And then when you missed the new turn limit by 1 or 2 turns you'll be moaning that it's "garbage to lose the game" all over again". He is belittling the fact that I wanted an option to get a minor victory by finishing a turn or two late, saying that I will be "moaning" again like I am complaining about nothing and will never be happy. Along with the fact that he has been telling me "just turn the time limit off", because he does not think it is worth the time to add my request, as he prefers to have his ideas implemented thinking they are more important than mine. And NO, turning the time limit of is NOT what I am asking for, I have told him repeatedly this is NOT what I want, and is NOT a fix, yet he persists in pushing this on me throughout the entire post.

So needless to say, I have every right to defend myself, let him know I don't need his belittling of my ideas anymore, defend myself from his passive aggressive insults, and I am not sorry.

How about this - instead of insulting and ranting, explain why turning the time limit off does not fix the issue? What about that option doesn't work in giving you what you want? Because frankly it does 100% stop you loosing the game if you miss the time limit and it does have a cost - you won't earn prestige past the actual time limit. And you can still earn bonus prestige by finishing early so theres still incentive to push harder. You are also more than capable of defining a hard time limit yourself where you actually lose if you don't make it. Say, give yourself and extra two turns and if you've still not won by then, that's it, game over and you stop playing that campaign.

You have posted an idea/suggestion. I do not think it is very good/needed and explained my reasons why. If you're going to get defensive and read insults when someone gives a reasoned counter then there is not a lot more to say.

Also, I'd like to ask a question. What ideas am I trying to get implemented? There's no "my ideas are better than yours" going on, I haven't really suggested much if anything and am perfectly able to accept when/if I do that some people won't like them and voice as much.

Lastly I will offer an apology if you feel like I have been belittling you, that is not my intent. There is nothing wrong with having ideas and posting them (and there will always be someone who likes it and someone who doesn't) and people voicing ideas it what ultimately gives devs ideas to expand and try something different. But you do need to learn the difference between someone disagreeing that your idea is good and someone insulting you.

[Vorskl]

You fight hard and kick ass all through the campaign, and one mission you miss by one or two turns, and now you are a complete failure? I say this is garbage. Patch it so there is an OPTION to finish up to 3 turns late with increasing point penalties or other negative results, but you can still move forward in the campaign.

Pls check history books how hours if not minutes played the utmost critical role in a battle - Midway, June 22nd events, Operation Market Garden, Sinking of 3 Soviet cruisers in the Black Sea in 1943 to name a few. Tight deadlines are justified and are based on the actual military history.

[JosephM]

Hello All,

Superman81906 has been given a temporary ban due to ignoring his warning and arguing with staff. To all users, please treat each other with respect: debating a difference in opinion is fine, but using insults is not allowed at all. We are monitoring threads, and please treat others the way you want to be treated

[FOARP]

My 2 pfennigs on this: using "defeat the enemy in X turns" as the measure of victory always struck me as lazy game-design. It makes it, rather than being a game in which winning means defeating the enemy, a game where enemy units are just so many speed-bumps or hurdles that you have to clear quickly enough to win the game. You get the feeling that your victory is not in question - the only question is whether you can win quickly enough according to an arbitrary standard. I just can't get motivated to play when I know I'm going to win.

This was a big problem with the original PzG 2 BTW - the AI was bad even by the standards of the day (the AI did not know how to move its artillery so you would often just find the AI's artillery just standing around at their starting point) so it looked like the actual game was just wiping out the defending units with your all-powerful panzers quickly enough to win the game. I'm a massive milhist and wargame fan but that just doesn't do it for me - I played PzG 1 obsessively but PzG 2 just for a bit.

You fight hard and kick ass all through the campaign, and one mission you miss by one or two turns, and now you are a complete failure? I say this is garbage. Patch it so there is an OPTION to finish up to 3 turns late with increasing point penalties or other negative results, but you can still move forward in the campaign.

Pls check history books how hours if not minutes played the utmost critical role in a battle - Midway, June 22nd events, Operation Market Garden, Sinking of 3 Soviet cruisers in the Black Sea in 1943 to name a few. Tight deadlines are justified and are based on the actual military history.

The examples you're giving here are single-unit actions, not battle/campaign level stuff. Historically, there were few campaigns where winning a few days earlier or later would have made such a difference. Even something like the strike at Kiev in '41 wouldn't have necessarily doomed the attack on Moscow if it had finished a day later or earlier.

[George_Parr]

My 2 pfennigs on this: using "defeat the enemy in X turns" as the measure of victory always struck me as lazy game-design. It makes it, rather than being a game in which winning means defeating the enemy, a game where enemy units are just so many speed-bumps or hurdles that you have to clear quickly enough to win the game. You get the feeling that your victory is not in question - the only question is whether you can win quickly enough according to an arbitrary standard. I just can't get motivated to play when I know I'm going to win.

This was a big problem with the original PzG 2 BTW - the AI was bad even by the standards of the day (the AI did not know how to move its artillery so you would often just find the AI's artillery just standing around at their starting point) so it looked like the actual game was just wiping out the defending units with your all-powerful panzers quickly enough to win the game. I'm a massive milhist and wargame fan but that just doesn't do it for me - I played PzG 1 obsessively but PzG 2 just for a bit.


The examples you're giving here are single-unit actions, not battle/campaign level stuff. Historically, there were few campaigns where winning a few days earlier or later would have made such a difference. Even something like the strike at Kiev in '41 wouldn't have necessarily doomed the attack on Moscow if it had finished a day later or earlier.

There are more than enough instances were that sort of timing did make a difference (or could have, if accomplished).

Breaking through and reaching the Meuse in rapid fashion did prevent the Allies from having defensese that were much better prepared. Not stopping the Panzers and taking Dunkirk a few days earlier would have trapped the entire British army, thus making the British position much worse, both in Britain itself as well as in North Africa. A more rapid advance could have trapped the Soviets troops around Smolensk, instead of letting lots of them get away. Same one year later, when the temporary decision to move the 4th Panzer Army from aiming for Stalingrad to supporting the breakthrough at Rostov instead, ended up with a bunch of Soviets armies breaking out of encirclement instead of facing certain destruction. This meant that instead of a decisive victory that destroyed the Soviet armies in the Don area, the Soviets got away, leading to a much stronger defense at Stalingrad and more troops for an eventual counter-attack. A few days can be the difference between an enemy having to surrender and the enemy escaping the trap. Just like it can be the difference between the enemy being able to move in reinforcements or being left with a giant hole in the line that can't be fixed. Or the difference between conquering advantageous terrain and setting up proper defenses, and having to face a counter-attack unprepared in open terrain.

Come to think of it, what exactly is the difference between having to win a scenario in 25 turns, and having a 25 turn scenario in which you need to succedd after 20 turns?
Both fulfill your criticism of there being a time-limit to win. Basically all offensive missions have to work on a limit of some sort, as there is no way to properly set up a scenario for all possible ways. There would be no feeling of victory being in question if you had ages to defeat an enemy that gets weaker and weaker while you can take all the time in the world to beat it in whatever way is the most efficient for you. If instead there was an excessive amount of reinforcements to make up for the enemy's starting setup getting weaker and weaker, it wouldn't really resemble the actual missions and operations that existed either.

I'm not saying that the "beat the scenario in 20 out of 25 turns" victories are always great, I do dislike some of them as well, but they do have their place. There's only so much you can do when combining historic missions, gameplay and an AI.

[Retributarr]

"Well-Said!". "George_Parr"... your intricate descriptive break-down of this 'Game-Time-Limit-Factor' situation... is the 'Best' that I have yet read. Great-Work!.

[Vorskl]

George_parr,
you did a nice explanation job! But your examples are of the attacking side, for whom extra 'turns' spent are the difference between a decisive and a normal victory.
For the defending side, extra 'turns' were normally a 'game-over': Uman pocket, Kiev pocket, Bryansk pocket - the troops needed 'just' 2-3 more days to escape and be safe, but they were not given such an opportunity and it was the definitive END.

[FOARP]

My 2 pfennigs on this: using "defeat the enemy in X turns" as the measure of victory always struck me as lazy game-design. It makes it, rather than being a game in which winning means defeating the enemy, a game where enemy units are just so many speed-bumps or hurdles that you have to clear quickly enough to win the game. You get the feeling that your victory is not in question - the only question is whether you can win quickly enough according to an arbitrary standard. I just can't get motivated to play when I know I'm going to win.

This was a big problem with the original PzG 2 BTW - the AI was bad even by the standards of the day (the AI did not know how to move its artillery so you would often just find the AI's artillery just standing around at their starting point) so it looked like the actual game was just wiping out the defending units with your all-powerful panzers quickly enough to win the game. I'm a massive milhist and wargame fan but that just doesn't do it for me - I played PzG 1 obsessively but PzG 2 just for a bit.


The examples you're giving here are single-unit actions, not battle/campaign level stuff. Historically, there were few campaigns where winning a few days earlier or later would have made such a difference. Even something like the strike at Kiev in '41 wouldn't have necessarily doomed the attack on Moscow if it had finished a day later or earlier.

There are more than enough instances were that sort of timing did make a difference (or could have, if accomplished).

Breaking through and reaching the Meuse in rapid fashion did prevent the Allies from having defensese that were much better prepared. Not stopping the Panzers and taking Dunkirk a few days earlier would have trapped the entire British army, thus making the British position much worse, both in Britain itself as well as in North Africa. A more rapid advance could have trapped the Soviets troops around Smolensk, instead of letting lots of them get away. Same one year later, when the temporary decision to move the 4th Panzer Army from aiming for Stalingrad to supporting the breakthrough at Rostov instead, ended up with a bunch of Soviets armies breaking out of encirclement instead of facing certain destruction. This meant that instead of a decisive victory that destroyed the Soviet armies in the Don area, the Soviets got away, leading to a much stronger defense at Stalingrad and more troops for an eventual counter-attack. A few days can be the difference between an enemy having to surrender and the enemy escaping the trap. Just like it can be the difference between the enemy being able to move in reinforcements or being left with a giant hole in the line that can't be fixed. Or the difference between conquering advantageous terrain and setting up proper defenses, and having to face a counter-attack unprepared in open terrain.

These are all essentially single-unit actions though, not campaign end-points. If the conquest of France had ended one day later, the difference to world history would be zero. Ditto the Tunisia campaign. Of course there are examples of where units arriving at their objectives a day earlier or later would have made a difference - no-one disputes that - but at a broader campaign/battle scale one day was rarely the difference between success and defeat.

Come to think of it, what exactly is the difference between having to win a scenario in 25 turns, and having a 25 turn scenario in which you need to succedd after 20 turns?
Both fulfill your criticism of there being a time-limit to win. Basically all offensive missions have to work on a limit of some sort, as there is no way to properly set up a scenario for all possible ways. There would be no feeling of victory being in question if you had ages to defeat an enemy that gets weaker and weaker while you can take all the time in the world to beat it in whatever way is the most efficient for you. If instead there was an excessive amount of reinforcements to make up for the enemy's starting setup getting weaker and weaker, it wouldn't really resemble the actual missions and operations that existed either.

I'm not saying that the "beat the scenario in 20 out of 25 turns" victories are always great, I do dislike some of them as well, but they do have their place. There's only so much you can do when combining historic missions, gameplay and an AI.

They have their place, but playing games where every single mission, or even most missions, is "blitz to point X in y days" gets tiring. The relative lack of defensive battles in some games - even when they are supposed to be dealing with the late war from the German side or the early war from the Allied side - is often telling as it looks like either they don't know how to make defensive battles fun or the AI is too poor to be able to execute a half-decent offensive.