My very abbreviated take on what has happened

[Lt Bull]

Hi

I have been anticipating CMC since it was first announced (3-4 years ago?) and thought (like most of you) it would see the light of day before CMX2...seems like I was wrong.

How many of the people behind this game would have thought back then, that by mid 2007, that their potential customers would be more likely to be wondering IF this game will ever be released rather than WHEN it will be released?

Here is what i think has happened.

1. From what I understand, the guys behind this game are NOT game designers/developers, but primarily a core of overly ambitious/enthusiastic CM gamers/aspiring modders who took it on themselves to go out and make a campaign level CM game that BTS never had any intention of making for them. After convincing a reluctant BTS that it "could" be done "with a little bit of help", they are now realising they have bit off more than they can chew.

2. The practical side of what they were trying to implement and the skills required to do it was much more involved than originally thought. Basically trying to make a square peg (the very idiosyncractic CM engine) fit inside a round hole (their concept of the campaign layer of the game).

3. The work required and skill set needed to code a decent AI/CPU opponent for CMC was grossly underestimated (this is a an EXTREMELY specialised field of computer game design and one that I doubt any "casual" game developer would have).

4. They have found that they needed more help and assistance from BTS trying to interface and integrate CM (something it was never ever fundamentally designed to do) into their own campaign level software design.

Gamers/fans in the past HAVE been able to successfully "change" or "adapt" an existing game and basically transform into a new one. A great success story is Red Orchestra. Basically a fan based "mod" of the Unreal game that eventually evolved into a stand alone game and a VERY well polished and professional commercial release.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: Unlike the guys doing CMC, the Red Orchestra crew were NOT burdened with also having to also code an AI/CPU opponent as the game is primarily multiplayer! I wonder if coding a competent AI/CPU for single player was the elephant in the room they seemed to have overlooked when they first set out to do CMC. :confused:

Lt Bull

[ July 13, 2007, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[K.A. Miles]

Then perhaps they had better simply release the multiplayer version. *Problem Solved*

[Cornfleek]

OMG, I thought something happened :-(

[PeterLorre86]

It would really be nice to get some official word on what, if anything, is still happening with regard to CMC. Even if its just "WE'RE WORKING ON IT".

[hoolaman]

I don't get the impression Hunting Tank Software is just a couple of amateurs.

I think what happened is they lost a very important member of their team, and have had some other personnel problems, and the guy/s that were left are struggling to pick up the pieces.

Interesting link

AND HERE OR

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by K.A. Miles:

Then perhaps they had better simply release the multiplayer version. *Problem Solved*

You know what...you are probably correct and it may not be as ridiculous as you or others may think.

For some reason, many people (and computer game developers) have become fixiated with the notion that the main purpose or reason why people buy computer games is to play against a computer. This may have been true when computer games first came out, when the internet was not as popular or did not connect people up in the way it does now. In fact, I would even go so far as to say many people would even think that a computer game is defined as a game you can play against a computer.

I certainly do not. A computer game to me is just a game you play on a computer.

I will vouch that of ALL the computer wargames I have ever played that also have a multiplayer option, the computer opponent in each has been by far the LEAST intelligent and challenging opponent, undisputedly. This might tell you something of where I rank a computer opponent and multiplayer capability when evaluating a game.

NOTE: There is one very important exception to my statement that I need to point out (although it is not strictly a wargame, though in many ways it is). The game of chess. For some reason, the computer opponent of this very simple yet mathematically complex game has collectively been the subject of intense (worldwide) computer opponent development and has been taken to a level in which not even the worlds best chess player at times can compete with.

I think that computer game designers who decide that they are NOT going to design a game with an AI opponent are much more innovative, radical and forward thinking than the computer game developers that do, or feel compeled to. To me this "radical" approach is really just a "retro" game design mind set. I think many of us have forgotten that prior to the advent of computers, ALL games were designed and played without any consideration towards whether or not a computer opponent could be coded. The focus and efforts were primarily geared on the human game play experience.

By deliberately freeing themselves from the burden of havng to code a computer opponent, computer game developers open up a whole bunch of possibilities that would otherwise have been impossible:

a) They are free to make the game as intricate or as complex as they like without ever having to ask themselves the creativity stiffling and totally arbitrary question "Will we be able to code a decent computer opponent to understand these rules?".

No need to find or pay for specialised develpment cost related to computer opponent coding.

c) Money, resources and time that would otherwise have been spent and directed towards coding a computer opponent can be redirected towards improving other areas of the game (or even just pocketed).

d) Will encourage players worldwide to socially interact (online) to find opponents and play (hotseat, direct connect, PBEM etc).

Sure this "no computer opponent" approach to computer game design may not be suitable for some games, especially if the market is small, but the way the internet now provides a way for people of common interest to meet and engage each other quite easily, regardless of how obscure the intrest is, is a key reason why such a computer game design philosophy is not as stupid or "radical" as it might sound.

Lt Bull

[ July 13, 2007, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I don't get the impression Hunting Tank Software is just a couple of amateurs.

I think what happened is they lost a very important member of their team, and have had some other personnel problems, and the guy/s that were left are struggling to pick up the pieces.

Interesting link

AND HERE OR

Very interesting links. Hey, these guys seem to be based in the same city I live in!!

From the info in the links, Hunting Tank Software appear to have at least at some stage had personnel with professional software design/managment experience, but there is still no evidence of previous specific computer game design experience, let alone computer AI design expereince. So I too wouldn't necessarily refer to them as amateurs, but there certainly is evidence indicating that actual computer game design is new to them.

Lt Bull

[Urban Shocker]

The only evidence that something is happening is the CMC Beta Forum. There are still daily posts occurring so one has to assume that development is still proceeding. It makes me wonder, though, how these guys are paying their bills with something that has been 3-5 years in development!

[spartan1]

Once in a while I log in to this forum to find some news about the game.

At least this time I found some reasons why all this is happening.

Thanks for the info.

PS As for the multiplayer aspect.

There is a community - CMMC - that still plays the CMBB game and believe me is much more fun to play vs humans rather than a mchine.

So they better release the game only as multiplayer!!!

[BFCElvis]

Lt Bull, if I was Bruce I would be fairly insulted by your idea that this has all been a basement/chat room idea by a bunch of ameturs who thought they could build a game and found they are over their heads. (not as insulted as if the comment came from someone who has actually seen the software but still insulted.) Which brings me to my point. You have no idea of the complexity of this game or the ability of the people building it to make that comment. I think it would be nice if you said you were sorry. Maybe shakes hands.

[Bergerbitz]

Perhaps he's right, perhaps anyone is right...perhaps we're all wrong.

All I do is lurk and wait. When the time comes to purchase CMC, I'll be there with credit card in hand.

[Redwolf]

Some thoughts on these theories:

1) you cannot release a wargame, or any games, without computed opponent. It's commercial suicide. The publisher won't even let you try.

2) we already know the CMx1 codebase the pretty screwed up. We know Charles is the only programmer on it. Charles works on CM:SF. There will be many required changes to CMx1 to accept the new layer. This very likely got out of hand with a backlog of changes required and to be tested. As Steve himself pointed out right at the CMx1 beginning, all they get from being cooperative with other layer software is one feature request leading to the next.

I don't quite like all the "Xtreme Programming" emphasis in the links you gave above. Together with the unusual choice of Python for what is essentially a game engine this leaves an odd impression. I don't like programming buzzwords.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Elvis:

Lt Bull, if I was Bruce I would be fairly insulted by your idea that this has all been a basement/chat room idea by a bunch of ameturs who thought they could build a game and found they are over their heads. (not as insulted as if the comment came from someone who has actually seen the software but still insulted.) Which brings me to my point. You have no idea of the complexity of this game or the ability of the people building it to make that comment. I think it would be nice if you said you were sorry. Maybe shakes hands.

No need for anyone to be insulted and I make no apologies for what I have said or think and I stand by it.

I have not refered to them as a "bunch of amatuers", though words to that effect have been shoved down my throat.

It is no mystery that the CMx1 (as Redwolf has fully pointed out) is a complex bit of coding that only one guy (Charles) really understands and so interfacing a separate software layer with it can't be a walk in the park.

Going by the info in the links, I do have an idea on the abilities of at least one of the lead guys (current?) from Hunting Tank Software and previous game design/development/AI coding experience is not one of them, just an observation, not a show stopper.

I am sorry for all the people who try to make out that I am trying to insult anyone here.

No need for hand shaking as there is no issue here.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Some thoughts on these theories:

1) you cannot release a wargame, or any games, without computed opponent. It's commercial suicide. The publisher won't even let you try.

Commercial suicide mught be spending years on a game that is otherwise AWESOME for humans to play but is never released because you could not program a stupid computer to even be anything more than the stupidiest opponent that game could be played against.

Commercial suicide might be not realising that the Internet and human to human connectivity in the world today is at a level where finding another human to "play a game" against with whenever you want is not a hassle as it once was, and that the multiplayer market for games is booming while "play by yourself against a dumb a$$ed CPU opponent" type computer games are probably diminishing as a result.

So just because "a game" can be played ON a computer, game designers must then make the game playable AGAINST a computer? Says who?

I say BS! Computers are good at book keeping, massive complex calculations and doing mundane routine things (eg. act as umpires, officials, rule enforcers, score keepers etc.). They are absolutely NOT good at being or thinking like a human (the greatest strategic/tactical opponent we know, except when it comes to chess, sometimes ). Yes, I am sure many people who play games ON a computer also like to play their computer games AGAINST the computer as well. But why is it that you (and others) may feel compeled to think that THIS is what computer gaming should/is/will be always be about?

Would it really be a bad thing if there was NO CPU opponent anywhere and people had to "shock horror :eek: " actually find another human (or humans) to play their game against, just like people wanting to play any game have done for the last few 1000 years? WARNING: Developed social skills may be required in this scenario!!

I know it might tbe a weak example on it's own, but have you heard of VASSAL? Basically a way for boardgames (MANY classic wargames) to have played ON or via a computer interface but not AGAINST it. Many of those board games are great games (ASL etc) but they suffered from a lack of players. Playing them on VASSAL lets players conveniently find (via Internet!) and play (PBEM/TCP) perhaps x100 more potential opponents, making it worth your while to even get interested in those games if you otherwise would have thought you would not be able to find anyone (locally) to play.

I have already mentioned Red Orchestra, hugely successful wargame (albiet a FPS and maybe not the best example in thsi case) with no real CPU opponent, all played multiplayer online 24/7. I can mention countless other games (including those with a CPU opponet) that flourish in the multiplayer aspect, for the reasons I mention.

Maybe just some of us have realised that no matter how hard game developers try, their CPU/AI opponent has always/will always suck, especially as the game becomes more intricate/complex/detailed/subtled (as we tend to like it). This has got absolutely NOTHING to do with or is no reflection on the computer game developer or their abilities. They are responsible for designing and developing "the game" as understood by humans and not whether a dumb a$$ed computer can be an opponent. I prefer my computer game developer/designer to be focused on designing/developing games made FOR humans, to be played BY humans, AGAINST humans.

What/who is this retard CPU opponent anyway? An immature field of computer science that has tagged along like a ball and chain with computer game developement but has a LONG way to go towards being anything significant when it comes to understanding and being a competent and intelligent opponent of the more complex kind of computer wargames we play (or will play). Best off if we just pack him away and wait until it matures a bit more (via purely academic avenues) before we consider it worthy of being a challenge to a human as an opponent in any of the commercial games WE like to play.

ANYONE who is looking for the ultimate challenge when playing a wargame (or any game) will NEVER look towards or rely on the CPU opponent (except chess ).

NOTE: My comments on a "CPU opponent" is absolutely divorced from the kinds of roles things like the TacAI in CMx1, for example, bring to a computer game. These are essential "intelligence" elements you find in some computer games but they do not count as being "an opponent", and are therfore separate from my discussions.

Originally posted by Redwolf:

I don't quite like all the "Xtreme Programming" emphasis in the links you gave above. Together with the unusual choice of Python for what is essentially a game engine this leaves an odd impression. I don't like programming buzzwords.

?? Not sure what you are saying here. Was that directed towards me? :confused:

[ July 16, 2007, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[muzzlehead]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

.... It makes me wonder, though, how these guys are paying their bills with something that has been 3-5 years in development!

DUKE NUKEM FOREVER 10 years in development and at least 3 game engines LOL

[Michael Dorosh]

It may be worthwhile to point out that an NDA has several people necessarily tightlipped about what is happening behind the scenes with CM:C. Suffice to say, though, that the beta forum consists of more than just two developers talking about the weather. Conspiracy theories and silence of necessity always go hand-in-hand; too bad, really, since the theorists often end up looking like asses when all is revealed at the end of the day.

The idea of making a game without an AI is interesting. I suggested on these forums long ago that you could design CM without an AI since the internet provides fertile ground for finding opponents.

Steve Grammont is of the opinion that his fan base consists of a large majority of solitaire players who take on the AI exclusively. We're not talking about a small number of CM players, we're talking about the majority, and we're not talking about the occasional bored Sunday evening taking on the AI, we're talking about guys who have never played another human. That's what Steve believes, if I read his comments right. The majority of CM players have never taken on another human.

I found that hard to believe, but it does start to make some sense when you look into historical trends. I'm doing research on all the tactical board wargames published since 1969, and the literature of the period does mention even in the 1970s and beyond that the majority of gamers tended to be closet gamers who played solitaire - even games intended for 2 players. That the trend would continue into computer games, and with games that facilitated solitaire play, is no surprise, although one would think the internet would have changed that at least a bit.

The number of fellows who post on these forums, get involved in ladders and tournaments - these are apparently outliers, as they say. Most of the CM purchasers will have no desire to post on these forums, or get involved with other players, at least as far as Steve has been able to determine. Since he is has the iron grip on sales figures, I guess only he will know that. But one can look at the estimated sales figures, the number of registered users here, and the number of registered users who post in forums other than the CM forums (these have all been reasonably estimated in other threads and are readily available), one gets an interesting picture.

So the suggestion that one doesn't need an AI is unfortunately false. I'd like to believe it's true - I much prefer to play CM against humans - but we're nowhere close to the day when we can expect a publisher to put out a game not meant for solitaire play exclusively.

In short, Lt Bull, you've managed to miss the mark on just about all your comments, though in principle I agree with you.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'll also add that a point in favour of believing the solitaire gamer theory is the fact that co-ordinating "live" games is not all that easier than before - in fact, being able to play across time zones may even in some ways make it more challenging. I read a great article in Strategy & Tactics from 1974 or so where a gamer said he loved wargames, despised the other losers out there who played them. If I can find the article among my research notes I'll quote it here, but he had a point. The bad old days of inviting some overweight socially inept clod with bad breath who drops chips on your carpet into your home for a round of Squad Leader are over, to be replaced with the good old days of being lectured by PBEM guys on how you're not numbering your files correctly, how your email service sucks and you aren't doing enough to "fix" the problem, how your turn rate is abysmal, how you cheated in that last QB even though you both agreed to computer-picked forces (getting that AVRE meant you should have surrendered, apparently) and the occasional gem who starts a game then disappears as soon as it is clear he can't win, to change screen names and reappear on the forum as WAFFENGREANEDIERMEISTER27 looking to play anyone but you.

As Jerry and Elaine said - "People. They're the worst."

Oh - and if VASSAL was the be-all, end-all, there wouldn't be at least three different projects ongoing right now to produce a workable AI for VASL (ASL in VASSAL) to enable solitaire play against the computer. Even among the ASL buffs, there is a perceived need for an AI - in this, the most dense set of rules in history. Or, perhaps, because of that fact.

I'd love to see boardgames translated directly to the computer with an AI - Sniper! and Ambush! etc. For some reason, there has been no perceived need to do so. Too bad. I've done some artwork for VASSAL for direct, literal translations of Sniper! etc. that have been well received - an AI to guide them would be a lot of fun.

[ July 16, 2007, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[slysniper]

I say a campaign against all these closet players needs to be waged. Get them from out of the shadows, make them willing to accept possible defeat by another Human being. Instead of this hidden habit of playing a AI system that almost any fool can beat with a little pratice and time to learn of its flaws. They must learn that they are nothing until they can accept victories or defeats in a honorable manor agaist another Human being.

By the way, give up hope on CMC, it shall never succeed. You can breed a dog into another breed of dog but you cannot breed a dog into a cat. The same is true with this game, if it does see the light of day it will be a ugly dog, not the cat you were hoping to be breed.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by slysniper:

I say a campaign against all these closet players needs to be waged. Get them from out of the shadows, make them willing to accept possible defeat by another Human being. Instead of this hidden habit of playing a AI system that almost any fool can beat with a little pratice and time to learn of its flaws. They must learn that they are nothing until they can accept victories or defeats in a honorable manor agaist another Human being.

Given that by their nature the "closet players" as you call them (others calls them "core market base" incidentally - guess what, you're not part of it) are incommunicado, the chances of you "teaching" them anything are nil. You just wasted your "breath", or at least, the time it took you to type that.

By the way, give up hope on CMC, it shall never succeed. You can breed a dog into another breed of dog but you cannot breed a dog into a cat. The same is true with this game, if it does see the light of day it will be a ugly dog, not the cat you were hoping to be breed.

You can have or give up all the hope you want. Given that your comments in para 2 are every bit as mininformed as the ones in para 1, I think anyone reading them will know how much stock to place in them.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I agree whole-heartedly with Steve's premise about game players. Its no different in IL-2 and flight sims, et al. For all the many people that frequent the forums and like to play against other humans, there are innumerable people who will never even think about playing against anything but the AI. Sales figures are the proof. Single player games will probably always far outsell multiplayer games, in general.

Online MMO's show the same trend. Tons of people play them, but the vast majority will never fight against other people in pvp or rvr, but rather against monsters/npc's etc.

[kevinkins]

Michael's comments are spot on. We who play vs humans and frequent the forums cant understand those who lurk behind the scenes. But this remains the bulk of the people playing wargames. However, I am, not convinced the trend to human-human will not increase overtime from where it is today. If I were investing today in a wargame it who have to have AI. As Sgt. Kelly said, so as to allow the player to tutorial the game before they play a human. This also helps in playtesting scenarios. Without AI I am not sure there would be a wargame market today. I could not post not this subject therefore. Perhaps someday we will not need AI. So like Michael I agree in priniple with the concept of dropping AI. Its time has not come. But I think it has a chance in the future but we need a killer game.

Kevin

Kevin

[C'Rogers]

I like how a whole thread has developed on the validity of putting in computer opponents and that being the hold up, when it was just a floated theory (it seems) and the problem could be something much different.

On computer opponents and their necessity (though I play very few games against the computer), some people just don't want to play other people and there a couple reason people haven't mentioned.

1) Some people just aren't really competitive. They don't want to have to worry about taking a game that seriously. They want a semi-serious experience of playing a computer.

2) Winning. Not a problem to play a computer and win yet have it give you a slight challenge. If you are looking for relaxation that might help out.

3) Time. Playing a computer you control completely when and where you want to play. A person is a hugely different issue.

4) Practice. Even if you intend to play other people a lot of people feel the need for a half-way decent computer to learn the game.

[Lt Bull]

I think I have heard BTS also say what Michael said in the first part of his post, that BTS believe their fan base consists of a large majority of solitaire players who take on the AI exclusively.

I wonder how BTS can be so sure of that? Was there a CM buyer survey that's been done to confirm this?

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But one can look at the estimated sales figures, the number of registered users here, and the number of registered users who post in forums other than the CM forums (these have all been reasonably estimated in other threads and are readily available), one gets an interesting picture.

Just because you don't register or don't post here doesn't mean you are only concerned with play solo. Buying a copy of CM is not even evidence that the customer ended up liking, still plays or has any interest in the future features of CM. You could have bought the game, hated it and turffed it. Maybe the only real people who like and play and will continue to buy and play and support BTS are the ones who post on these forums and others.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I found that hard to believe, but it does start to make some sense when you look into historical trends. I'm doing research on all the tactical board wargames published since 1969, and the literature of the period does mention even in the 1970s and beyond that the majority of gamers tended to be closet gamers who played solitaire - even games intended for 2 players. That the trend would continue into computer games, and with games that facilitated solitaire play, is no surprise, although one would think the internet would have changed that at least a bit.

There is a difference between wanting to and having to. Those closet gamers who played their 2 player game solitaire were not playing their game solitaire out of preferential choice. There probably was no choice (unless they considered having that "overweight socially inept clod with bad breath" you have described come over their house just to be an opponent in a game a valid choice). So I think it is inaccurate to think that that same "trend" you mention there of playing 2 player games solitaire is one that should naturally be expected to persist with the advent of multiplayer capable/multi location based computer games.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The idea of making a game without an AI is interesting. I suggested on these forums long ago that you could design CM without an AI since the internet provides fertile ground for finding opponents.

What's so interesting about that? Contrary, prior to computers all games were made like that and people still bought and played them (not as if there was any other choice however). If there was a frustration it was finding opponents when you wanted them (if at all). Along came computers. People found that a game (perhaps even one that pre-existed prior to computers) could be represented by and played through a computer and on a screen. Not only that, they realised that with "a bit of coding", they could even create the "always there" opponent it seems the gaming world had all been missing and craving for the last few 1000 years...the ever accepting and ready to go CPU opponent. It was as if they had been able to cage the essence of a human opponent into a computer, and it became a gamers best friend and dream come true, or so it seemed.

All sorts of games emerged on computer, some games were straight representations of pre-computer games just repesented as a computer game (eg. chess), others were entirely and exclusively pure computer games (eg. FPS), while others were a mix of the two. They started off very simple, and coding the CPU opponent was easy. In fact it didn't really matter even if the CPU opponent wasn't as good as a real human opponent, or even if the game wasn't that fun either . The novelty of now being able to play a game (any game) against a "machine" without having to rely on the particiaption of other humans was all that mattered now. Anyway, who want's to play a game against an opponent that is too hard to beat anyway?

But then the games got more and more complex and involved and the task of coding a poor old CPU opponent to understand and be a good opponent for these more complex games wasn't as easy as it once was.

Not only that, but players, previous content with just playing CPU opponents, started to realise that the novelty of playing a sub-human (in some case retarded) CPU opponent, "man against machine" whenever they felt like it was wearing off. They realised that the CPU opponents in many games just weren't challenging enough and worth their time. In fact, some game designers lagged so far behind in CPU opponent development for their games, that they started creating "CPU opponent difficult settings" which tried to give the impression of a more challneging CPU opponent, but in fact all they were doing was giving the retarded CPU opponent bonuses and the player handicaps hoping this wouldbalance up the difference in intelligence, in effect letting the CPU opponent cheat and changing they whole feel of the game for the player.

Then came the internet/email etc and multiplayer computer games. Now all those players yearning for a more real gaming challenge/expereince could hook up with other players looking for the same challenges from anywhere in the world and return to something they thought that had left behind for good....playing the games they like against other human opponents. These players realised that it isn't the CPU opponent itself that is the attraction of the game anymore (though it certainly was the case in the early days and certainly responsible for getting hem interested in computer games in the first place). Now it is all about the game itself omce again as played by humans and the challenges it presents to the human opponents, which is exactly what games have always have been about.

Yes a CPU opponent is OK if you aren't that interested in challenges and just want to quickly play a game or two (or lack whatever facilities are required to engage another human(s) in a game), but if you REALLY like the game and REALLY like a challenge, you will ALWAYS go straight for human to human challenge (or at least want it), though you might give whatever CPU opponent is available a try just to get your feet wet before you do.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So the suggestion that one doesn't need an AI is unfortunately false. I'd like to believe it's true - I much prefer to play CM against humans - but we're nowhere close to the day when we can expect a publisher to put out a game not meant for solitaire play exclusively.

(Please do not use the term AI. It encompasses more than what a "CPU opponent" is refering to.)

If that "one" you are refering to is BTS, then I agree. They seem convinced their games (including CMC) must have a CPU opponent, which also means that they are subsequently limited to only designing games (one kind of skill) to a level which matches their own CPU oponent coding skills (a separate set of skills).

I feel that the burden (both in $, time and resources) that coding a CPU opponent places on computer game designers is distracting and stifling the possibilities of what kinds of games and feature in those games are otherwise possible. The fact that it makes the game designer even "think" of their game from a CPU opponent coding point of view is enough to illustrate that it at least takes their focus off the needs/game features their human customers would otherwise hope to find in the game. And the fact that that happens makes me wonder what kinds of games and game features we are missing out on as a consequence.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

In short, Lt Bull, you've managed to miss the mark on just about all your comments, though in principle I agree with you.

Wow, quite a general dismissal of just about all my comments, and yours are so spot on, thank you so much, but it is cool you still agree with me in principle. Maybe it is you who has missed the point of this discussion, or maybe I should just tell you exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Conspiracy theories and silence of necessity always go hand-in-hand; too bad, really, since the theorists often end up looking like asses when all is revealed at the end of the day.

Is that what you think of people sharing their ideas? Well then there is no possibility of our Michael looking like an ass then is there. He is in the know on all things BTS and speaks/knows truths, not theories, unlike us poor scum bag theorist just waiting to be labelled asses by him. Thanks again.

[Skinnedpuppy]

I'll chirp in here.

I've played CM since I downloaded the CMBO demo back in the day. I was instantly hooked and ordered the game, i've bought every sequel, pre-ordered CMSF and will probably buy every module and game setting that comes out in the future.

Nothing I have played has rivalled the detail and re-playability of this game. I can still start up a game now and encounter a situation I havn't ever before, which considering how many hours i've put into this that is amazing. I've made scenarios of my own and tinked with the editor, played the excel based campagin system that that ws released and if CMC comes out i'd probably try that too.

However I have never played a game against another human opponent, this's doesn't bother me i'd struggle to find time and I can well understand people who share my view.

In my opinion to release a game without an AI opponent would be a mistake and you'd be targeting a pretty specific group of people.

Anyhow just my opinion.

[slysniper]

Given that by their nature the "closet players" as you call them (others calls them "core market base" incidentally - guess what, you're not part of it) are incommunicado, the chances of you "teaching" them anything are nil. You just wasted your "breath", or at least, the time it took you to type that.

Oh, Thank you for typing that Mr Dorosh.

I Thought for sure that the 10 people who still visits this site were all closet players and that I was directly speaking to them. May I say respectfully " Who spit in your cereal today" what a attitude!!. All that you need to get out of the comment is, Maybe as gamers, we should do more to promote all these closet players in finding the benefits of playing others instead of the AI, thus helping promote the concept of "Do these games really need AI". Yes it was written sarcastically, but I thought some might see the point without having to show their debate skills.

"You are such a Master of that" thanks once more