BTS: The Lewis MOVE/RUN line length limitation

[:USERNAME:]

Yes units can move through each other, what is wrong with that? 12 men don't stand up with arms linked blocking another 12 men, also with their arms linked, from moving through them.

But yes, units do have "footprints" that are paid attention to. If you notice, except for emergency situations, a unit will not purposefully settle down on top of another based on their unit size. Easy one to test out is with a house. Try putting a company in there and see how many units you can pack in.

Steve

Sorry I meant moving through enemy units. Seems a bit quirky. Proximity to the enemy has a severe psych effect. All events beyond the enemy takes on little importance at that time. I am not talking about "stacking".

Units should have some zone of control against enemy (I am talking only infantry UNITS now) units. Thats why I suggested the "ambush" perimeter around a unit.

"1. Relative Spotting, no matter WHEN it happens, involves a crapload of coding and side issues. It ain't going to happen for a while. Without it, overall C&C restrictions on the player aren't going to do much because a major part of the problem is units being able to see what they shouldn't see."

-Steve

I gathered as much that it takes coding. But its the player that sees what he isnt supposed to see DURING THE MOVIE. As I pointed out, by limiting the unit to what IT SEES during the orders phase AND PUTTING SOME PENALTY APPROPRIATE TO THAT FACT the game can bring the actions that a unit can perform more in line with reality.

"2. Moving out of LOS is not something that is a fair measure of what the unit could do in real life. If some vehicle wants to barrel down an unexplored road, why should it get whacked penalties of any sort? Units did stuff like this in real life all the time, and usually paid a serious price for it too. And how do you account for terrain the unit has already "explored" but simply can't see at that very second in the Orders Phase? And why should a small dip or rise in an otherwise open field cause the unit to get penalized."

-Steve

I think your first sentance is perhaps vague? As for the rest, I wouldnt sacrifice thinking about any system changes that might help the game because barreling down roads shouldnt be restricted.

The game models COMBAT and is called COMBAT MISSION appropriately. Its not called JOY RIDE MISSION. You are a little clueless about how armor works. ARMORED WARFARE is basically fire and movement characterized by overwatch and bounding quick motions. While quickly moving (even up a road) you are practically blind beyond 100 meters. The vibrations literally makes focusing difficult. Drivers only need this much distance vision so they can manage. So its a practice to quickly gain a field and stop and scan around before moving again.

If the game allows units to joy ride then the game should limit the spotting severely. Motion more so than ANYTHING attracts human vision. A moving tank is broadcasting itself visually and severly limiting itself visually.

Lewis

[Fred]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

You are a little clueless about how armor works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where can we download a beta version of your program?

I'm ready for a good laugh...

Fred

------------------

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[:USERNAME:]

Fred I just read your response in the "crew thread" and am having a hard time not laughing.

Support hose engineer? Is that what you are?

[Fred]

Back to old style, Lusername...?

Sometimes this little part-time Troll HAS entertaining value ("touched-it-move it" suggestion et. al.)...

Thankfully, no one on this board listens to his strange "proposals" and next-to-useless posts.

There is hope

Fred

------------------

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred:

Thankfully, no one on this board listens to his strange "proposals" and next-to-useless posts.

There is hope

Fred

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fred who nominated you spokesperson for this board?

I actually have alot of people here that email me (Seems everyone had to alert me to a certain banning thread..) and enjoy my intensity about discussions and laugh at my obvious humor.

I am attempting to get a somewhat Combat Mission related discussion going with BTS. Maybe your comments can be directed towards the issue or you could provide another captain sheisskopf example. That was really good Fred.

Lewis

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Chrisl

I cant for the life of me follow what you are talking about.

Sorry. You are hard to follow,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My (badly made) point is that I like to plot *many* moves ahead, often I'll just hit "go" for the first 5 or so turns, even when attacking, since I might still have unexecuted orders and have not made contact. I tend to put in enought waypoints so that I can reroute or stop the units someplace safe, and without a command delay, if they come against an enemy force. If the command delays were increased (and made a stronger function of distance from Platoon HQ or even BHQ) this type of maneuver would still be possible but the penalty for trying to change the orders once given and half executed would be higher (although there should still be some sort of max possible delay for healthy units)

In the unclear post (need more caffeine) I was trying to describe a specific situation and avoid having to put in a spoiler (and thus being difficult to follow), but here it is:

Night at Cheneux Spoiler

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

In Night at Cheneux (which is only 20 turns long) the US player can pull a nice flanking manuever by fording the river and hiking to a bridge at the far end of the map. The problem is that it's a fairly long map, one would like to move a full platoon (or more) to the bridge, and wait there to catch any reinforcements.

If you plot only one turn worth of movement at a time, the command delays will kill you and you'll never get there (especially if you want to sneak the lead unit). When I played it I plotted several moves 2-3 ahead and barely made it in time to get behind the Germans. I should have (and sometimes do) plotted enough lines for 10 or so turns at the very start of the manuever. With the limits it sounds like you're proposing, something like this would be nearly impossible, even though it seems to have been intended by the scenario designer (look at the map and the starting layout).

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 08-24-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl:

In Night at Cheneux (which is only 20 turns long) the US player can pull a nice flanking manuever by fording the river and hiking to a bridge at the far end of the map. The problem is that it's a fairly long map, one would like to move a full platoon (or more) to the bridge, and wait there to catch any reinforcements.

If you plot only one turn worth of movement at a time, the command delays will kill you and you'll never get there (especially if you want to sneak the lead unit). When I played it I plotted several moves 2-3 ahead and barely made it in time to get behind the Germans. I should have (and sometimes do) plotted enough lines for 10 or so turns at the very start of the manuever. With the limits it sounds like you're proposing, something like this would be nearly impossible, even though it seems to have been intended by the scenario designer (look at the map and the starting layout).

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 08-24-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see your point and cant comment on the scenario design but believe it to be a US defense. You can always sneak (run, move is what I am abstracting as a budgeted limit). If used, the run/move budget would be a MAJOR scenario design issue so I appreciate your point. I forget the size of the US force but I believe its a company? Its not unrealistic that a company even in defense would have a manuver reserve and unless a scenario designer wanted to simulate a complete shock like a column of troops being bushwhacked or something, there should be enough movement to react a little.

[chrisl]

You need to look at the scenario (it's quite a fun one). You've got the details quite wrong, but that's mostly irrelevant to whether the line length limit makes sense. If the scenario were a lot longer, then you could pull the flanking maneuver, but you might spend your first few turns of lines setting it up (depending on the limit). All it would do is make everything take longer.

Anyway, I think I see your point about C&C, and confusion, but I don't think your suggestion is the right resolution to it.

A many player CM with relative spotting and password protection for each platoon leader (and controlled units) controlled by a different player might help, but I bet that is a real pain to do up right (and playable-- what happens if a player drops out!). Making command delay depend on distance from multiple HQs (a function of distance from Plat. HQ and distance of that PlHQ from Company HQ etc.) might add what you're looking for. It might also make the game hard to play (never know til you try, though it may not be worth the coding effort).

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

You are missing the large flaw in your distance/penalty suggestion. What I said you dismissed without thinking about the larger consequences. This is common mistake for someone who only plays games, but I am sure be much better after you make your über game a stunningly successfull reality.

So I'll try again to show you ONE example of why your proposed system is highly flawed...

Imagine a tank creeping along a road for 50m. Carefully examining everything along the way. The tank then enters some woods on the same road, drives for another 50m and takes a sharp turn and drives 10m more. Turn ends just as it spots a bunch of serious threats in front of it. Now... if the tank wants to retreat back up the road it is going to get whacked penalties simply because it can't see around the bend 10m behind it. Gee, that sounds pretty unrealistic to me. Hell, I bet if we put this in you would be screaming at us to fix it right afterwards.

Lewis, you have done ONE thing correctly. You have identified a big realism problem for ALL WARGAMES, however unoriginal the observation might be. The problem is that your proposed solution is inherently unrealistic and artificial. It removes realistic local control and therefore is probably just as unrealistic (and far more frustrating) when all is said and done.

I will say this again... unless we remove the human from the game there is no quick and easy "one new feature" way to fix this problem. If there were, someone else would have done it a long time ago. Or at least we would have done it for CM 1.0

Steve

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lewis,

Imagine a tank creeping along a road for 50m. Carefully examining everything along the way. The tank then enters some woods on the same road, drives for another 50m and takes a sharp turn and drives 10m more. Turn ends just as it spots a bunch of serious threats in front of it. Now... if the tank wants to retreat back up the road it is going to get whacked penalties simply because it can't see around the bend 10m behind it. Gee, that sounds pretty unrealistic to me. Hell, I bet if we put this in you would be screaming at us to fix it right afterwards.

Lewis, you have done ONE thing correctly. You have identified a big realism problem for ALL WARGAMES, however unoriginal the observation might be. The problem is that your proposed solution is inherently unrealistic and artificial. It removes realistic local control and therefore is probably just as unrealistic (and far more frustrating) when all is said and done.

I will say this again... unless we remove the human from the game there is no quick and easy "one new feature" way to fix this problem. If there were, someone else would have done it a long time ago. Or at least we would have done it for CM 1.0

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW!

Found this gem while knocking myself out searching (when did search become as slow as now?).

The real problem with the tank on the road vignette described above is that there is no WITHDRAW command for vehicles in the game. Infantry can withdraw but tanks cant. Also, it is assumed by me that the tank reached the end of its given commands? ANY new commands will have a delay no matter what? Thats why it will be destroyed. And thats the way it is now without my proposal.

There should be a WITHDRAW command for vehicles and it would be nice if they popped smoke then if they can. Discretion being the better part of valour.

I dug this old thing up to show that C&C issues (Run abuse, moving through enemy units, etc) isnt anything new. Or as someone else would say "so what, everyone has these problems". But I think theres abstractions that can help. Limitations are viewed as "artificial" it seems. Either you get your mind around the intent and purpose of an abstraction or you just focus on some technicality is the way things usually go here. In this case, the example of tanks real problem is a lack of WITHDRAW command, in my humble opinion.

But BTS has said they are going Full Monty with relative spotting, etc. I cant wait.

Lewis

[SimonFox]

But Lewis relative spotting is not the "Full monty" at all, quite the opposite in fact, hehe.

BTW I agree with your comments regarding withdraw for tanks.

[JasonC]

"challenge" and "bloody nuisance"

I agree. Keep it simple stupid is not just for combat orders, it is also for game design.

On some of the realism points being raised, I think the common pit being plunged toward here is what I call the designer as wannabe movie director, or choreographing the player's moves. By that I mean the urge for anyone with a strong sense of what "would look realistic", to take over all the men and all the elements in a simulation, and dictate what they may and may not do. The result for the player is that he feels as though he is reduced to watching a movie directed by the game designer, about what the game designer thinks realistically happens.

This is bad game design. Even if the choreography induced is realistic. Strategy games require that the players have control of enough of the main elements effecting the outcome, that the result depends on their wits, rather than on a script. The level of control needed to make a game interesting as strategy, as well as playable, is often seen as incompatible with realism by folks that take this urge too far. In truth what they are objecting to and reacting to, is the fact that somebody else (besides them) is commanding the units, and telling them to do things the choreographer dislikes or finds unrealistic. And there is no limit to this. Any command by somebody else can always give rise to such objections.

So the goal is a bad one, not in realism terms but in game design terms. The point is not to eliminate all "unrealistic" play. That can be done quite easily by transforming the game into a documentary. The point is to maintain the strategy game elements, including playability (pace the previous comment quoted at the outset) while also blending in enough realism to sustain believability.

All of that said, however, I think the general idea of additional command and control systems could be a workable one, if toned down and using the existing game systems. And not with a view to "outlawing" "unrealistic" play, but just confronting the player with a variable, additional degree of CC problems. Not ones that require high levels of micromanagement, however.

I'd suggest something like this. When the added CC is used (by scenario, say), then a side is given a certain number of "command points" for use every trun. This is not a giant budget, but an integer, like "2" or "3". 1 command point equals one HQ able to operate normally that turn. An HQ is assigned a command point by clicking on it; all units under its command (red bars) are then able to receive new orders normally that turn. The orders can be anything, same as now, any length etc.

Units under other HQs may still receive orders, but they are restricted as follows. They can chose #1 a *group move*, in which all units under the HQ move (no other speed allowed), on station with one another, in the direction selected for the HQ. If a group move is used, the command delay is normal.

Or, they can choose #2 independent moves, in which case they get orders the same as now, not other changes. But the command delay times are *doubled*.

Lose of the highest-level HQ on a side will permanently reduce that side's command points by 1. Panic or worse morale for that HQ, will reduce command points by 1 until it recovers to pinned or better.

As for vehicles, it might be best to have them not be effected by any of this. Unless new vehicle platoons and vehicle platoon commanders are going to be standard in CM2, which I doubt.

The main result would thus he a reduction in *flexibility*, for a side with few command points. All the units could be given whatever orders you please, but fast reactions to new developments would be limited to sub-units at a time. Units could maintain good coordination if they move together at a walking pace. Commanders are still able to order their units to do whatever they like, but HQs without command points to spend, giving more detailed orders, will have longer response times.

I think this idea is in the spirit of Lewis' suggestion. And I think it is a way to do something along the lines he suggested without a big hit to playability, or telling the players what they can and can't do.

In quick battles, command points might come with HQs, or more properly, higher level formations bought. They could vary with the unit type, side, nationality, and experience level. In some cases a side might have only 1 command point, and would need to cycle through his HQs over several minutes to coordinate a set of complicated moves, or tolerate greater command delays, etc.

Comments welcome, from Lewis and others.

[JPS]

JasonC - your refined version of Lewis' command restrictions actually seems to be both playable and interesting (i.e. higher experience commanders could have more command points, thus differentiating between e.g. conscript and crack companies at somewhat 'operational' level).

I hope BTS checks this thread once more...

[MrSpkr]

I've read all the posts, and the thought that keeps coming to mind is, so what? The game plays well, is fairly accurate in most of its depictions, and is enjoyable. Why fix what ain't broke?

I guess I play the game because it is enjoyable; some others must play it because they want a perfectly realistic simulation. Well, until you have the wife and kids start throwing cherry bombs at you during game play (and the occasional shot from a pellet gun), you ain't gonna git the level of realism some people seem to demand.

To me, this issue runs along the same lines as the "Wait, that MG crew should be able to run" or "hey, in real life that mortar would not be nearly as accurate or deadly because the vertical amplitude of the sun combined with the fully laden swallow (African, I believe) passing through his field of vision would distract him long enough for the enemy to take cover."

Please.

Its a game folks. A highly enjoyable game, but a game nevertheless. Frankly, if BTS decides to put the type of command and control features discussed here in a future version of CM, I hope they would have the good sense to make those optional features that players can turn off when they don't want to be bothered with it.

I know this will induce flames from some of you, but I thought I would speak up for the crowd that thinks command and control and spotting seem to work just fine right now. The game is fun -- that's what games are supposed to be, right? Fun. Nice job, BTS.

MrSpkr

[ 04-23-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

On some of the realism points being raised, I think the common pit being plunged toward here is what I call the designer as wannabe movie director, or choreographing the player's moves. By that I mean the urge for anyone with a strong sense of what "would look realistic", to take over all the men and all the elements in a simulation, and dictate what they may and may not do. The result for the player is that he feels as though he is reduced to watching a movie directed by the game designer, about what the game designer thinks realistically happens.

This is bad game design. Even if the choreography induced is realistic. Strategy games require that the players have control of enough of the main elements effecting the outcome, that the result depends on their wits, rather than on a script. The level of control needed to make a game interesting as strategy, as well as playable, is often seen as incompatible with realism by folks that take this urge too far. In truth what they are objecting to and reacting to, is the fact that somebody else (besides them) is commanding the units, and telling them to do things the choreographer dislikes or finds unrealistic. And there is no limit to this. Any command by somebody else can always give rise to such objections.

So the goal is a bad one, not in realism terms but in game design terms. The point is not to eliminate all "unrealistic" play. That can be done quite easily by transforming the game into a documentary. The point is to maintain the strategy game elements, including playability (pace the previous comment quoted at the outset) while also blending in enough realism to sustain believability.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cant tell how I am choreographing anything. Are you even directing that at me?So this part of your post kind of loses me.

I just seem to want what you are proposing also. I kind of like your idea also and things like it have been mentioned I believe.

I think most people would agree that the way the game is now (and yes theres always people that like the way things are) is on the other end of the spectrum of what we are discussing. theres omni spotting (favoring the attacker) and omni-control (again, favoring the attacker) and a host of MG, exposure, etc modeling issues (again favoring the..).

But the reason that I like my idea is that it limits this other artifact of over-ordering. Unlimited number of orders that stretch beyond the end of the turn. These can always be instantly canceled (over-control) or instantly modified (over control and no delay). Its abused. Ok. I abuse it. It usually favors the attacker.

I dont want the game to break down to a crawl. But I think that the troops in most scenarios can perform actions like some crack paratrooper outfit (who actually paid heavily for their actions when used against frontline units instead of rear echelon). They also take casualties like an elite unit and will continue the same behaviour REGARDLESS of casualtys. Both our ideas slow this down.

Steve tried to convey in one of the MG threads that 30 percent casualties is not viable. He either doesnt play the game or is just backed into a corner. The typical game goes down like we are playing with army soldiers in a sand box. 30 percent is USUALLY low.

In reality, most frontline units would cease offensive activities at around 20 percent. But in CM, we can be as WWI as we like.

So yeah its optional. In Panzer Elite, there was some settings that only a masochist would use. But after awhile, they become a challenge and add a new dimension to play. What we are proposing would direct the player into being a more humane warrior. In campaigns, there could be leftover effects. Its just another facet.

Lewis

PS Yah the reverse move for vehicles should have no delay. With an added tendancy to pop smoke.

[Username]

From an interview with Chas...

"The main issue is the large number of combatant nations. We're hoping to include Germans, Soviets, Poles, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, and Partisans. Many of these forces behave quite differently from one another, depending on the time period. For example, we are reworking the command and control system for the Soviets so it will feel quite different to command a unit of the Red Army than players are used to from the original Combat Mission. Generally speaking, morale and firepower will be high, but command efficiency will be low. It's a unique challenge."

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

"challenge" and "bloody nuisance"

I agree. Keep it simple stupid is not just for combat orders, it is also for game design.

....

I'd suggest something like this. When the added CC is used (by scenario, say), then a side is given a certain number of "command points" for use every trun. This is not a giant budget, but an integer, like "2" or "3". 1 command point equals one HQ able to operate normally that turn. An HQ is assigned a command point by clicking on it; all units under its command (red bars) are then able to receive new orders normally that turn. The orders can be anything, same as now, any length etc.

Units under other HQs may still receive orders, but they are restricted as follows. They can chose #1 a *group move*, in which all units under the HQ move (no other speed allowed), on station with one another, in the direction selected for the HQ. If a group move is used, the command delay is normal.

Or, they can choose #2 independent moves, in which case they get orders the same as now, not other changes. But the command delay times are *doubled*.

Lose of the highest-level HQ on a side will permanently reduce that side's command points by 1. Panic or worse morale for that HQ, will reduce command points by 1 until it recovers to pinned or better.

As for vehicles, it might be best to have them not be effected by any of this. Unless new vehicle platoons and vehicle platoon commanders are going to be standard in CM2, which I doubt.

The main result would thus he a reduction in *flexibility*, for a side with few command points. All the units could be given whatever orders you please, but fast reactions to new developments would be limited to sub-units at a time. Units could maintain good coordination if they move together at a walking pace. Commanders are still able to order their units to do whatever they like, but HQs without command points to spend, giving more detailed orders, will have longer response times.

I think this idea is in the spirit of Lewis' suggestion. And I think it is a way to do something along the lines he suggested without a big hit to playability, or telling the players what they can and can't do.

In quick battles, command points might come with HQs, or more properly, higher level formations bought. They could vary with the unit type, side, nationality, and experience level. In some cases a side might have only 1 command point, and would need to cycle through his HQs over several minutes to coordinate a set of complicated moves, or tolerate greater command delays, etc.

Comments welcome, from Lewis and others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an elegant idea for command and control, I like it. I take it you have a boardgaming background?

Just sounding off here but as a possible example:

Conscript Coy : 0-1 CPs

Green Coy : 0-2 CPs

Regular Coy : 0-3 CPs

Veteran Coy : 1-3 CPs

Crack Coy : 2-3 CPs

Elite Coy : 3 CPs

You could have National Modifiers scale that up or down as well, even perhaps work in the HQ Command bonus somehow. It would take some testing but I really like it as a basis for simulating C&C. It is simple and unobtrusive, would affect play but not playability.

... Not singling you out MrSpkr but remember CM is a historical game first and foremost. Reading threads on unbalanced Attack/Assaults, or such and such unit is too powerful, or what constitutes "fair play" or balanced Ladder play so *I* can win makes me wonder where the "historical" part is or the importance it plays. A more developed C&C will make CM a better historical game period and if done well won't affect perceived complexity or playability.

Ron

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:

... Not singling you out MrSpkr but remember CM is a historical game first and foremost. Reading threads on unbalanced Attack/Assaults, or such and such unit is too powerful, or what constitutes "fair play" or balanced Ladder play so *I* can win makes me wonder where the "historical" part is or the importance it plays. A more developed C&C will make CM a better historical game period and if done well won't affect perceived complexity or playability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree it is a historical GAME first and foremost. I also think it does a much better job at portraying aspects of the history, too (at least better than, say EF, Axis and Allies, VITP (old AH bd game) etc.). It is historical in force pool, weapons pool, shell impacts, armor effectiveness, etc. I would venture to say that BTS did a very good job of assimilating that information and presenting it in a format that is playable and enjoyable. That is what made CM such a great success, particularly among non-grogs.

Howver, when the grogs' demands for historical accuracy make the game burdensome to play, a lot of people (myself included) are going to say something obscene and find something else to play. Maybe that makes me a goon, though I doubt it. I rarely pick forces of say, all jeeps and artillery or all flamethrowers (although that does sound fun, in a visceral sort of way). I usually pick a balanced force of infantry and armor, with a few vehicles, support weapons and arty thrown in. Do I worry about whether an American airborne infantry company would have access to a 75mm AT gun and an M-10 TD in the particular month at hand? No. Do I consider whether historically the unit would be green, regular, crack or elite? No. Do I worry at all whether the tactics I use are consistent with US/BRIT/German field manuals of the day? No, no, a thousand times no!

I do worry about whether the game will be fun to play, and mildly interesting. I like the God position BTS has set me in. I am not just a battalion commander or a squad leader or a battery commander or a forward observer - I am all of these things. As company commander, I determine how to manuever to achieve overall objectives. As platoon commander, I determine how to disperse my troops and herd them in the direction HQ wants. As squad leader, I specifically decide to stay about 30M inside the treeline to avoid that darn SPG the Germans have on that hill. I have the flexibility to do those things in the game, and I like it that way.

Would I enjoy it if I tried to manuever into the trees and was told, sorry, not enough CP's to do that. (HQ GUY to SQUAD: "Guess you'll just have to sit here and do nothing for a turn, men. Break out the smokes, because HQ has just decided you aren't competent enough to follow the lengthy orders they gave you a while ago, and, well, A & B squad need to move more than you. Hope the mortar fire doesn't interrupt your naps."

No. That would be frustrating. Keeping track of the number of command points left and how much everything costs in CP's and whether I have enough to implement this move this turn or not would be boring, frustrating, and would ultimately drive me (and a substantial number of those who, like me, play just for fun) away, just as the complexity and sheer burden of AH's SL/COI/COD/GI:AoVand ASL rules drove a lot of casual gamers away. Sure, the grogs might get goosebumps at simulating the command process. They might croon about how realistic it is to only be able to disperse a platoon in a certain way in one turn, or that a squad has to wait 45 seconds to move becuase they are three meters outside the platoon command radius. But they would be the only ones. Such implementations would cost BTS many of the casual gamer crowd. We are the ones who helped make this game such a success -- we deserve to have our opinions heard and our needs addressed. Heck, if you want to simulate C&C problems, do it voluntarily. Put a 15-30 sec pause command for all your units out of C&C, if you want. But don't slow down my gameplay for your fetish.

MrSpkr

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Howver, when the grogs' demands for historical accuracy make the game burdensome to play, a lot of people (myself included) are going to say something obscene and find something else to play. Maybe that makes me a goon, though I doubt it.

I do worry about whether the game will be fun to play, and mildly interesting. I like the God position BTS has set me in. I have the flexibility to do those things in the game, and I like it that way.

But don't slow down my gameplay for your fetish.

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to wait for all the "you tell ems" and "right-on MrSpkr!" to die down but I cant resist.

No one is flaming you. I cant say many people even care one way or another about what you are saying. But others here have posted, and I believe its been said before your post; that this would be optional. Like FOW (You play with FOW off I take it). So that, people like you can play your way and others can play theres.

No one wants to ruin your playtime. We want to improve ours. BTS is saying that they are looking into some element of C&C control so you better let them know about how you like your playtime. Nice and easy for you and everyone you elected to speak for.

So dont take this as a flame. I dont consider you a goon but rather soemthing else instead.

Lewis