Combat Mission unrealistic

[Sergei]

Why would anyone want to ruin a perfectly good bread by toasting it? :confused:

[AslakH]

You finns only eat flatbread ("knekkebrød" in the almighty Norwegian language).

[pawter]

Skcx****

**** a brik

Mord: Your post has alerted me that I posted an email to this forum and vice versa. But bugger it; rather than expunge it and leave your post hanging without a start and any other poor benighted souls who've followed this post thusfar in mid-limbo I'll leave it as stands.

The sentiments I express, though private at the time of writing, I'm happy to leave stand in public. In this forum or many other, more much more arduous.

[Dadekster88]

If it really is such a big deal to the OP, then maybe just try self-limiting yourself to what you can see on the map by sticking to eye-level point of views of your units.

Or duct tape on the monitor. :-)

Now that is an interesting idea...the first part that is Printing out maps and so forth I think is stretching it a bit lol. You want more realism then that, go find a recruiting station.

[Battlefront.com]

Wow... that thread got to this point rather quickly!

Sometimes it's not what you say, but the way you say it.

Just saying.

Don't bother, it's a point that is lost on the very people who should be understanding it. After about 12 years of doing this I can predict, with pretty good certainty, who is going to get their knickers in a twist about responses to their posts. In this case, I made the prediction when I saw the subject line of the post. I kid you not. Why? Anybody who would post such a thing clearly:

1. Wants attention (OP even said "now that I have your attention")

2. Thinks the opinions of others hold no value (as someone pointed out, not even a "?" in the title)

It's not a really good way to start off a thread. The initial post wasn't either.

But to get back to the suggestion about map revelation, I agree with JonS from several pages back. If we could do relative map spotting, that would be a really cool thing to have in the game. That would require things like imperfect information from before the battle relative to what each unit would know based on specific circumstances (such as X unit has been fighting over this terrain for 2 days, Y unit just came in from Paris after a nice lunch). It would require a lot more than that, but why bother listing these things when technically it is impossible to do. There simply isn't the hardware available to make such a thing a reality.

"Blacking out" parts of the map is technically feasible, but it comes with a host of practical problems which would take a long time to code around. It would also likely require computers faster than what we currently require. And a more VRAM and RAM too. But it could be done. It would still be "unrealistic" because once the blacked out terrain was shown it would be 100% perfect and accurate. However, the point is moot because...

Such an arrangement would be unplayable.

In real life decisions about how to move in an environment are made in real time by individuals. They are also often require the barest information, such as "march 100m down this road and take a right into the big field to the west. Set up defensive positions there". How does one go about physically ordering his units to do this when the field isn't visible before issuing orders? You'd have to micromanage the movement of those forces on a second by second basis. This is completely impractical from a game standpoint. Even WeGo doesn't address the problem (and in some ways it's worse for WeGo).

Bottomline...

If someone thinks the only way to play a realistic game is to have FoW Terrain features, then be prepared to never play a wargame ever again. Because this sort of feature will never be adequately addressed now or into the future*.

Steve

* there were attempts at blacked out maps by some computer wargames in the past, but they tended to be at a higher level of organization and 2D. That made it technically more feasible from both a playability and hardware standpoint, but ironically at the higher level FoW for terrain is actually largely unrealistic. So the approaches seen in the past were actually detrimental to realism instead of enhancing it. Which is why so few realistic minded games have tried FoW Terrain.

[Mord]

The sentiments I express, though private at the time of writing, I'm happy to leave stand in public. In this forum or many other, more much more arduous.

And you would still be wrong...

I've been here for ten years and these forums aren't any different now than they have ever been. Every once and a while we get another guy coming through who doesn't get the exact response he wants (usually it's a variety of all types of responses, good, bad and indifferent) and then waxes nostalgic (insults everyone else) about how much better it used to be back in the days of myth. There are still a great bunch of dedicated posters, testers, scenario designers, modders and gamers here as there's ever been (and who STAYED and helped shape CMSF and CMX2 when everyone else left). And soon enough there'll be more "old guys" and newbies amongst us...and there'll be the same drawn out threads with guys trying to out WWII each other, arguing and debating and even blowing gaskets....just like it was in 2000...just like it was in 2005...just like it will always be...

Stick around and enjoy the game and forum...sounds like you have lots you could contribute. But lets put the myth to sleep...the debates now aren't any more civil or uncivil than they have ever been...and as far as I am concerned it's a pretty nice place to hang out and talk gaming with like minded dudes.

Mord.

[Mike Victor]

Really, if the game were any more realistic you'd spend half your time on base beautification details.

[Wodin]

Well said Mord....And to all those who stayed with CMSF and helped shape it my hat goes off to you...for without you CMBN would most likely not be as good as it's going to be...

I first joined here in 2000 under another name...was offline for awhile and forgot my user name and it was linked to a dead email...I loved CMBO and CMBB and thought it sad the way CMSF was on release...however I re discovered a couple of years ago now and what a revelation it was...

[AslakH]

Or just hanging around in the rain, waiting for orders.

It's not realistic unless I feel the cold rain, and the warm stuff filling the back of my trousers as 105's are falling around me!

[Blackcat]

Mord,

I fear that you may well know "pawter" under a different name from the old days. Going through his posts again there is very strong evidence to suggest he/she is one of the old gang who has been absent from BF forums for a long while but, perhaps, active on another site where the awfullness of BF games and the wrong direction the company has taken is regulalry discussed amongst like-minded people.

In short, I think pawter is a troll.

[pawter]

On second thoughts Mord, given your Join Date .... do you not harbour fond remembrances of what life was like back in the day; when wild winds whipped through our flowing locks. When CMBO was the antidote to the logical & social impasse that advanced squad leader represented? Do not turn renegade to the pure and worthy impulse of that time. Though I expect this thread is destined to be submerged beneath the hitcount of the usual 10 second tap and send celebrity “Hi I’m here where are you?” I’m wittereing away …. do you still hear me. hello?

But now I read that Blackcat curses me the name of troll on the grounds of my former past postings. Well I honestly cannot remember them much from so many years ago. I was probably drunk at the time and usually quite frantically involved with arranging IP assignations when not frigging myself for want of same. Life seemed freer and fine back then, though I’m sure you hoi polloi would fail to understand.

[sburke]

Mord,

I fear that you may well know "pawter" under a different name from the old days. Going through his posts again there is very strong evidence to suggest he/she is one of the old gang who has been absent from BF forums for a long while but, perhaps, active on another site where the awfullness of BF games and the wrong direction the company has taken is regulalry discussed amongst like-minded people.

In short, I think pawter is a troll.

BUT he has successfully allowed us to kill just a bit more time waiting for the release. It's like standing in line waiting for tickets to a dead show (remember those days when we stood in line?) and listening to the stoned out (purportedly profound) musings of just another pot head, shaking your head and laughing as the conversation went way off the deep end. There is nothing that obligates any of us to respond. However again it's like standing in line, what else have we got to do. :-P

[Barticus]

BUT he has successfully allowed us to kill just a bit more time waiting for the release. It's like standing in line waiting for tickets to a dead show (remember those days when we stood in line?) and listening to the stoned out (purportedly profound) musings of just another pot head, shaking your head and laughing as the conversation went way off the deep end. There is nothing that obligates any of us to respond. However again it's like standing in line, what else have we got to do. :-P

So....you're equating this thread with watching a train wreck, horrified enough to know you shouldn't watch but too fascinated to look away?

[sburke]

So....you're equating this thread with watching a train wreck, horrified enough to know you shouldn't watch but too fascinated to look away?

well now that you mention, pretty much except you need to have an occasional motorist passing the scene and yelling obscenities out the window.

[Comandante]

If it really is such a big deal to the OP, then maybe just try self-limiting yourself to what you can see on the map by sticking to eye-level point of views of your units.

That's actually how I play CM. (I play in WEGO mode).

During the orders phase I use the overhead view (zoom 6 or 7?) to issue most commands, thus working with a 2D map like the one I would have in my map case or in the CP. I do use isometric views for fine control when needed.

Then I lock my view to the commander's tank/APC/building etc. at zoom 1 or zoomed out to 2D level while the turn plays out - so I can only see what the commander can see within his LOS, or I can see things plotted on the map. In this mode, replay in zoomed out 2D view models the reports coming in from my sub-units.

I find that this gives me a satisfying 'real-life' challenge, even though I lose more games than I win by playing this way!

[Dadekster88]

Now get one other honest person to play you like that and I bet that would make for some interesting AAR's This provided you could handle all the backseat Rommels that haven't tried playing it that way.

[Mord]

Well said Mord....And to all those who stayed with CMSF and helped shape it my hat goes off to you...for without you CMBN would most likely not be as good as it's going to be...

Thanks, man. Appreciated.

I first joined here in 2000 under another name...was offline for awhile and forgot my user name and it was linked to a dead email...I loved CMBO and CMBB and thought it sad the way CMSF was on release...however I re discovered a couple of years ago now and what a revelation it was...

Yeah, it was a hard start but the guys pulled, pushed and punched into shape. It was quite a teething process and turned out really sweet in the end...and not only do we have CMBN to look forward to but also the new patches for CMA and Nato...gonna be a great year.

Mord,

I fear that you may well know "pawter" under a different name from the old days. Going through his posts again there is very strong evidence to suggest he/she is one of the old gang who has been absent from BF forums for a long while but, perhaps, active on another site where the awfullness of BF games and the wrong direction the company has taken is regulalry discussed amongst like-minded people.

In short, I think pawter is a troll.

There was a hint about hanging on another website at the end of the last post. So, could be.

On second thoughts Mord, given your Join Date .... do you not harbour fond remembrances of what life was like back in the day; when wild winds whipped through our flowing locks. When CMBO was the antidote to the logical & social impasse that advanced squad leader represented? Do not turn renegade to the pure and worthy impulse of that time. Though I expect this thread is destined to be submerged beneath the hitcount of the usual 10 second tap and send celebrity “Hi I’m here where are you?” I’m wittereing away …. do you still hear me. hello?

My locks are still flowing, man.

I never played Advanced Squad Leader, I was too interested in girls by the time I could've understood the rules. Chicks trumped nerdom after the age of 15 so CMBO was just a nice surprise when I discovered it. But IT was a great game...lots of fun...and yet my mind, even back then, was waiting for this moment in it's evolution...so I am right where I want to be. I don't miss anything about the old boards except maybe when some mod was gonna be released, like Magua's Normandy Mod or something...other than that, to me CMX2 is way better than CMBO. I am glad the wait is over...just wish I hadn't had to age 10 years during it.

Mord.

[JonS]

well now that you mention, pretty much except you need to have an occasional motorist passing the scene and yelling obscenities out the window.

WANKERS!

(gah, padding)

[sburke]

WANKERS!

(gah, padding)

LOL this should come as an inclusion to the commonwealth module when a UK unit sees an enemy unit break.

[Wodin]

^^I agree...we need alot of profanity in the speech of soldiers...for realism purposes at least

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh God ladder players!

I have always laughed at people who felt ladder play was in anyway justifiable use of the CM engine. People who understand WW2 warfare would play with random casualties, even fitness, etc so that a more realistic game could be had. And of course using huge battlefields so edge hugging would simply take you away from the VP's rather than give an advantage.

Ladder play was for people with egos that needed feeding and who felt chess did not have enough explosions. : )

Given that you seem to be some sort of authority on the psychological makeup of various categories of Combat Mission players, perhaps you could explain to me the difference between people who play on ladders and people who enter into tournaments -- people such as yourself.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Didnt the germans used this "concentrated attack". Strike at the weakest point with most of your forces. What's unrealistic about it? Good timing in artillery can counter mass assaults very well.

That's how I see it. Infantry tactics in CM are largely about how to concentrate fire while minimizing concentration of your force. When I see a heavy concentration of enemy infantry I click on my spotter and get the countdown started.

Armor is a different story, but I believe concentrating armor along a narrow front is realistic.

[dieseltaylor]

Given that you seem to be some sort of authority on the psychological makeup of various categories of Combat Mission players, perhaps you could explain to me the difference between people who play on ladders and people who enter into tournaments -- people such as yourself.

From the limited experience I have had with ladder folk, and looking at their sites I have noticed the constant refrain for balanced games. Now to be fair I have probably not looked at one of these sites for years so things may have improved.

I do know that if I wished to play ladder matches I would learn all the wrinkles in the game engine. I would also learn all the statistics for suppression or breaking a unit, for knocking down a house. And I am already acquainted with the tanks and movement rates. But it would not be fun because of the effort involved and at the end of day Lady Luck could do you in. Even less fun,

One thing I can be sure of is that during WW2 the opposing sides did not arrange balanced battles so what ladder clubs seem to try and create goes against what warfare is about.

I suppose I have played over 300 games and probably100 different players and winning is not that important provided I played my side well. My mantra has always been I would rather play a good game and lose than a boring game and win. Not really useful attitude for a ladder player except for holding up those who are "better".

I do not play a lot of tournaments. There are exceptions where I want to play though - Nabla tournaments work because you can have unfair battles and lose in points but win by doing better than most of the other players. No balanced game required for a good contest and a great FoW.

I have played some other tournaments such as an All Random everything , that was really bizarre but fun. And even downright funny.

You will make your own mind up as to what the non-ladder type is. I think non-ladder types are those who what a degree of realism to the battle, history buffs, those who just want the excitement of seeing what the next film brings, those who feel gaming the engine is a form of cheating.

If I have maligned Ladder players too harshly and they actually do only play for fun, and unbalanced games are welcomed as being more realistic I apologise.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I mostly object to the accusation that ladder players are some form of egomaniac. I hate broad generalizations like that. Of course you run into your fair share of jerks, but that isn't the case for the majority of ladder players that I have met. You can look on any large ladder and find players who have played a lot of games but lose most of the time. If they are there looking for an ego boost it begs the question of why they keep coming back.

As for learning the game mechanics, if you don't want to be bothered then I can understand not wanting to be in a competitive environment. But becoming a better player will help you all the time, including tournaments and unbalanced games.

Speaking of which, kudos to you if you enjoy games where your opponent has a huge advantage. But I would venture to guess you're in the minority on that, and I don't mean among ladder players. I can see it having some appeal if you are playing a historical scenario where you can judge performance against history, but otherwise I don't see the point of it. The Nabla tournament is different as the advantaged side is played by the AI and your performance is compared to other players playing the same scenario.

[bump]

I think that it wouldn't be bad as an option. Just as we have now an option to do WEGO or realtime, so might we be able to set a complete, partial or no Fog of War setting for our battles. This would allow some interesting scenario design options in cases where neither side really does know where it's going!