CMX2 and Vehicle Passengers

[juan_gigante]

Whoa, PLM, I was on your side until that last paragraph of your most recent post. Maybe you should calm down a little. Remember, the guys making CM are an independant developer. They're the good guys here. I don't know exactly who you were attacking there, but I hope it wasn't BFC. Because even though we might have minor quibbles about little stuff (which I actually admit I'm kind of wrong on), these guys are fighting the good fight, trying to help us out. And they deserve our respect.

[Battlefront.com]

CobaltTiger

You make a good point, but "Wait for troops" has nothing to do with a second unit. There might not be a squad coming. The vehicle might sit and wait indefinitely if the player forgets to tell a his squad to hop in the truck or if the squad gets shot to pieces on the way there. The vehicle simply checks a flag -- Am I loaded or am I not loaded? Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

It's what the action is simulating, not what it takes to program the thing. It is a piece of cake to give the player all sorts of control over stuff. But just because we can doesn't mean we should if we want to have things be realistic.

My example of the difference between a single unit making a targeting decision and a truck coordinating with infantry was not about the programming. It was about the problems, in the real world, with the coordination aspect. That is the answer to the question you've been asking about why we treat targeting "differently". It's because it is different in real life from a conceptual standpoint. Again, we get back to the main problem of this thread. What you transport guys are asking for is inherently unrealistic within the context of the CMx1 game system. All arguments about Playability and Useability that you trot out are therefore unimportant. So we come right back to the realism bit once again...

It is unrealistic to have a truck drive from A to B and pick up troops with precision. At least in the vast, overwhelming situations that would be the case in CMx1 style tactical battle. Therefore, any feature that makes this easier to do, in game terms, means that the simulation becomes less realistic. Period. Are there exceptional, situationally sensitive, situations that one could argue for more control along realism lines? I'm sure, but the problem for a game designer is trying to figure out how to allow the exceptional stuff without opening the door to abuse. Oh, and keeping the system Playable and Useable. Which brings me to...

Now you're just being silly.

I knew you'd say that It is almost always the answer I get when I start to make this point. So obviously I have a response at the ready. A little dusty from lack of use recently, but oh boy it was used a lot back in the months following the release of CMBO and CMBB. So here it goes...

Nobody is asking for those things and nobody in their right mind would expect them to be considered. All of your examples are talking about a much much finer level of control than I am proposing. I doubt I would be playing CM if it was that complicated.

Exactly The problem is everybody thinks that their pet request is reasonable, wouldn't have a negative impact, and is far more important than any other suggestion made by anybody else. But why should we select your idea over all others, especially ones that have far more merit and would probably increase realism (like a Follow/Convoy type command)? This is the typical thing I find with "it's very simple and wouldn't be a problem" arguments is that they are never made in the context of the hundreds of other similar suggestions we get. So if we lower the bar to let in yours, why should we not also implement all the others?

Just because it's deliberate doesn't mean it is the best way to do something.

Oh, of course you're absolutely correct. And I never said the way we implemented it is perfect. What I am arguing about is the Realism aspect, not Playability or Useability. Unless I am convinced that there is a problem with the Realism, a problem with the Playability, and a problem with the Useability... I don't see any reason to change the way it is. The problem is that the arguments here are being aimed at Useability and Playability at the expense of Realism. That's why there is resistence to change.

Did you forget all those posts you made about how the grogs will hate it but the change is for the better?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I don't care about pissing off the Grogs if it is in the best interest of the simulation. Ironically, the Grogs are the ones arguing against changing the system. Usually they are first in line for wanting more micromanagement control, even at the expense of Realism.

Steve

[jim crowley]

Steve,

this is a bit off-topic for this thread but while you are here....(assuming you still are)

I know its not quite cat-out-of-the-bag time yet but you recent bones vis a vis graphic details and all those dead parrots left me wondering.

Whilst very detailed representations will no doubt increase the immersion factor will they have any broader application?

Currently, a squad with its three generic figures is largely, as I understand it, an abstraction.

The CMX2 squad however, with its 9 very detailed(?)figures, all doing their own little things, sounds very un-abstract.

So, if a grenade hits, say, the MG42 team will the firepower of the squad immediately change to reflect this and might the MG42 be damaged and out for good? And so on. In fact, will we see the grenade hit a specific part of the squad?

Or, is the CMX2 squad just a prettier abstraction and the MG42 or whatever reappears elsewhere ,as it does with CMxx and the grenade does generic damage to two random characters?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

Steve,

this is a bit off-topic for this thread but while you are here....(assuming you still are)

I know its not quite cat-out-of-the-bag time yet but you recent bones vis a vis graphic details and all those dead parrots left me wondering.

Whilst very detailed representations will no doubt increase the immersion factor will they have any broader application?

Currently, a squad with its three generic figures is largely, as I understand it, an abstraction.

The CMX2 squad however, with its 9 very detailed(?)figures, all doing their own little things, sounds very un-abstract.

So, if a grenade hits, say, the MG42 team will the firepower of the squad immediately change to reflect this and might the MG42 be damaged and out for good? And so on. In fact, will we see the grenade hit a specific part of the squad?

Or, is the CMX2 squad just a prettier abstraction and the MG42 or whatever reappears elsewhere ,as it does with CMxx and the grenade does generic damage to two random characters?

Hey Jim - this was discussed in detail previously - a search of the forum, or a look at aka_tom_w's bones thread will yield you dividends.

[jim crowley]

Hey Jim - this was discussed in detail previously - a search of the forum, or a look at aka_tom_w's bones thread will yield you dividends. [/QB]

[CobaltTiger]

Steve, believe it or not I'm happy with that answer. :eek: I think you were correct that I was looking more at those rare exceptions than at the broader picture. Or perhaps you simply bonked me over the head enough that the gears started turning again. In any case, thanks for taking the time to explain your view to me. It's deeply appreciated.

My last comment about "how the grogs will hate it" was just drawing a paralell between you telling the grogs they're wrong and me telling you you're wrong. But since you've won me over you can feel free to disregard that bit.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ironically, the Grogs are the ones arguing against changing the system. Usually they are first in line for wanting more micromanagement control, even at the expense of Realism.

Gee, and all this time I thought it was the grogs who always argued for more realism. I guess I'm not a grog after all.

:confused:

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks Colbalt

Michael, you are correct that Grogs are the ones who THINK they are always arguing for more realism. Usually theory and practice line up nicely, but sometimes the arguments wind up being more like this passenger thing. Yes, it might be more realistic for more control in some situations, but if there is no good way to control the context of the use... things can become LESS realistic oveall.

To see what I mean, go back to the ASL rule list and check out all the low level details that are simulated. Each one of them can be seen as Grognardy since the average gamer wouldn't care about them (and would steer clear of the game because of the sheer volume of them!). But how many of those Grogy rules, which in and of themselves are realistic, lead to totally unrealistic (gamey) tactics and usage? From what I can tell, quite a few.

The trick is to balance individual features in with the Big Picture of the game. This might mean that something realisitic, but uncommon, can't be simulated or simulated to the extent realism would encourage without making the simulation as a whole less realistic. We've had long and involved discussions about such things, such as crews from abandoned weapons/vehicles, exotic weapons, the whole Rarity pricing system, etc. We're willing to sacrifice the outlier stuff so that the core can be better. In the words of Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

To see what I mean, go back to the ASL rule list and check out all the low level details that are simulated. Each one of them can be seen as Grognardy since the average gamer wouldn't care about them (and would steer clear of the game because of the sheer volume of them!). But how many of those Grogy rules, which in and of themselves are realistic, lead to totally unrealistic (gamey) tactics and usage? From what I can tell, quite a few.

Such as?

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, now your testing my memory about discussions that took place, largely, in 1997-1999. That hurts my head

The one that leaps to mind is lighting buildings on fire. Sure, it is realistic to be able to light a building on fire, but in reality (at least in the West) it was rarely done. In the East it wasn't common either, except for scorched earth operations which aren't combat ops.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, now your testing my memory about discussions that took place, largely, in 1997-1999. That hurts my head

The one that leaps to mind is lighting buildings on fire. Sure, it is realistic to be able to light a building on fire, but in reality (at least in the West) it was rarely done. In the East it wasn't common either, except for scorched earth operations which aren't combat ops.

Steve

Ah, good one. I suspect demo of a bridge is another one.

Yes, I remember the odd scenario of Crescendo of Doom with all of Board 5 (the forest board) in flames...

I will, however, lobby for inclusion of that most famous of all grog-rules that never seemed to make it into the official rule books: the "Damsel in Distress" rule. You know, like the DYO Squad Leader or Sniper! scenario where the hottest girl in school is being held hostage by your current enemy of the week, and you and your friends - represented by the best units in the order of battle - have to go rescue her. In fact, this should be the demo mission for the first CMX2 module.

<font size=0> Ok, kidding, but only just...I know you all did such things in high school...</font>