[PBEM-fans unite!]

Wow

This is a spectacular demostration of tolerance and restrait, on the part of BFC to not lock this thread.

Maybe it can cool down now and just fade away.....

please...

(see my signature line for details)

-tom w

[How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb?]

Reference material:

The World's Most Complete Collection of Light Bulb Jokes!

Just in case more research is necessary.

referenced:

Q: How many Internet mail list members does it take to change a light bulb?

A: 1,331:

One to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed.

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.

53 to flame the spell checkers.

156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list.

41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.

109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb.

203 to demand that cross-posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling, and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped.

111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list.

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty.

27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs.

Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list, which makes light bulbs relevant to this list.

33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them, including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too."

12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three."

Four to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.

One to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup.

47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it here.

143 votes for alt.light.bulb.

[PBEM-fans unite!]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yet still, the PBEM Bigots out there aren't satisfied. That menas neither simple logic nor reassurances that they have nothing to worry about aren't good enough.

The PBEM Bigots are, at least, consistent in that not even your reassurances will make them stop.

So, Steve, why do you hate PBEM???

</font>

[No blood at all?]

I seem to recall some well done mods in CMx1 of head bandages (white) with spots of red on them?

no?

Maybe we can mod blood on to some uniforms?

now that won't be the same as registering a spot of blood on a uniform of a wounded man, but once again that one small feature might delay the game unnecessarily. IMHO

I can live with it either way.

(blood spots or not)

-tom w

[PBEM-fans unite!]

John Rambo to Steve:

"They drew first blood" !

"That's what started it!"

-tom w

(I smell the lock coming....)

[PBEM-fans unite!]

"and people who buy BFC games usually play them for 5 years. Protecting us from ourselves is not required."

um....

and while we are at same thing for wide screen LCD displays and over size monitors/larger resolution requests.

Protecting us from ourselves is not required.

-tom w

[PBEM-fans unite!]

I'm Still Laughing !

Steve's "Me - we agree that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in." post was brilliant and histerical.

Maybe Steve would consider stand-up comedy or at least an appearance of the Jay Leno show if he weren't making so much cash selling video games!

Nicely done Steve! VERY entertaining....

and oh.... one final thought:

"We agree (!) that PBEM is important, but it might not be technically possible. That's the only reason why it won't go in.

-Steve"

-tom w

[ October 18, 2006, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Interesting new Game Global Conflict Palestine]

How many billions of people in Muslim countries currently, and what proportion of them under the age of 20? I can imagine a game like this showing up on PCs around the world

Um

OK

But did any of them actually PAY for the game?

As you say, look who it appeals to and ask your self how many of them will actually pay money to legally buy the game?

wondering

-tom w

[ October 18, 2006, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Interesting new Game Global Conflict Palestine]

I thought it looked like an interesting idea foor a game which is why I posted it here. (I had considered titleing the thread CM:SF meets The Sims in the Middle East but that did not really sound right...)

I am also wondering about its potential sales?

I am not in the video game business (NOT even close) but this does not look like a big seller to me?

your comments?

Will it sell well? or be a dud and flop, destined for the bargin bin in SHORT order?

-tom w

[Interesting new Game Global Conflict Palestine]

The Middle East is far away. This is your chance to get closer. Play a young journalist that has just arrived in Israel, and shape the region's future in a peaceful direction. You must complete your assignment at all cost navigating between Palestinians and Israeli sources to get your article. Will you be able to stay objective and maintain trust on both sides as the conflict escalates. What happens when people become much more than just your sources...

While playing the game as a student or player you will learn about the conflict. You will engage with real personal stories seeing the conflicts from different perspectives and experience why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just won't go away. The game will have extensive support for educational use with features like encyclopedia, primary sources, assessment and teacher's manual.

web page Palestine Global Conflict home page

This game is in no way a competitor to CM:SF but the setting is similiar and the movie trailer (from in the game) that they show on the web page is interesting.

The music was very nice. (Good Middle Eastern Music I think)

I have watched the trailer a few times now, and the graphics are not specatular, (maybe one or two "notches" above CMx1 style graphics) BUT the soundtrack on the video was somehow haunting and moving, like the opening theme from a movie, like Blackhawk Down. IMHO

I mention it here only becasuse it is new, and game is set in the Middle east and it has civilians in it. Set in an urban Middle East setting (Israel/Palestine) with cars and checkpoints and the like. (But the player does not direct any military conflict, it looks like you are journalist and you "just" watch it go by. I think)

-tom w

[ October 18, 2006, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Starshells, fire and burning objects.]

Dynamic lighting

Yes, dynamic lighting has been in and working great for a long time. Time of day is set by the scenario and that changes, obviously, how things are lit up. Dynamic lighting game effects -> honestly I don't know. Not sure what Charles is planning on doing. It likely is something that can be improved upon even if we don't do much with it right away.

this was the last official comment as far as I can tell

-tom w

[Synopsis: BFC’s recent comments on the CMx2 engine [Long]]

bump

[Suppressive Fire / Area Fire]

"It would be nice to be able to "light up a treeline" for suppression - my mg platoons might actually be able to really support an attack that way.

-dale"

I agree

I expect to see more in the way of MG and HMG supression in CM:SF

(maybe)

-tom w

[The other side...]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

There have been dozens of threads on this topic.

My thoughts are that it will be much easier to play as the Syrians.

snip

As the Syrians you could lose all your armour and take 70% infantry losses but if you kill 5 Americans and wound 18 and destroy a Styker and damage a M1 and hold up an enemy force for an hour then you will have done your job and will probably win.

Roger that! (depending on the victory conditions and points scheme/allocation)

I agree.

Nicely put!

Good post.

-tom w

[Small Bone]

What about good old "warning labels".

That was the best way in CMx1 IMHO

Turn on warning labels in the first turn, but they don't actually "pop up" until the unit has something to report. When the lead starts flying warning labels show up and you see where its from from very far away, like level 5 way up over the action.

NOW true, once you get into the battle everyone is reporting EVERYTHING and they all in trouble and all the labels are useless so then you turn off warning labels. That system worked very well for me.

Thanks

-tom w

[Small Bone]

thanks for the update

-tom w

[I am wondering about who will do well playing in RealTime?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, I forgot to say that a "BioBreak" pause is something we can do separately. It could work like Cease Fire in CMx1. A player makes a request to break, the other person agrees, and the game is paused. However, unlike the system I just suggested the game would be FROZEN in all respects. Meaning, the only thing the player can do is request an end to the BioBreak. No moving the camera around, no checking on stuff. This is purely to pause the game for non-game reasons. Once both players have asked for an end to the BioBreak, the game starts again.

Steve

Excellent!

Its gets even better!

" the game would be FROZEN in all respects.

Meaning, the only thing the player can do is request an end to the BioBreak. "

Perfect, that is exactly what I had in mind when I posted the first time about the bathroom break.

-tom w

[I am wondering about who will do well playing in RealTime?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

At present time we aren't planning on allowing a multi-player game to be paused at all, ever. Mav1 illustrates why better than I ever could

However, I would personally like to implement some sort of "Time Out" feature where each player has a set number of 30 second pauses he can use throughout a game. This is similar to organized sports. Not sure if we can do that for the initial release, or what form it will take, but it is at least being kept in mind.

Steve

OK then!

That's the Spirit!

Don't sit down and play RealTime head to head if you have a problem with frequent "bathroom breaks"!.

A 2 minute time out for a bathroom break to relieve your self once or twice might be ok, but again if it take extra time to program you can always add it in later. Maybe something like a simple formula of one 2 min time out for every 30 mins of Realtime. For a 60 min battle you have have 2 "time outs" of 2 mins each at anytime, after that you just have to "hold it in".

-tom w

[ October 10, 2006, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Fluff or cool feature?]

its Fluff

if that idea delays the release of the game for even one day its not worth it.

-tom w

[I am wondering about who will do well playing in RealTime?]

Note to Self: Don't challenge Mav1 to play RealTime.

Will there be an option in two player Realtime to prevent constant pauses in the action?

I don't mean to be too draconian here, but I am wondering if there will be some mutally agreeable setting, to allow two players to play realtime without one player constantly pausing the action, if they can't think/click fast enough?

Just wondering ?

-tom w

[ October 10, 2006, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Will it be possible to exploit the RT game system?]

My guess would be that one of the 'strengths' of most RealTime games is the build cycle. After MASSIVELY harvesting resources you build units as FAST as you can and build up a technological superiority as fast as you can.

Then overwhelm the defender with both your numbers and your superior tech. A classic RealTime strategy.

BUT in CM:SF there is NO production cycle and No resource harvesting. I am every bit as concerned about the Realtime fast clicking exploits as the rest of you, but as Steve as told us, simply clicking fast or sending all your tanks in the classic tank rush is simply not going get it done in CM:SF because there is no build cycle to replace your losses. That fact alone takes away a HUGE Realtime fast clicking "exploit". (Some might say in RealTime games like Warcraft it is simply SOP or a well known tactic that should not really be considered an exploit.

There should be some advantage to thinking FAST and clicking fast, but wise use of your available units should be the first consideration, and any foolish player that thinks a massive crazy suicide tank rush will lead to victory will soon be disappointed depending on how skilled his oppenent is.

I am curious about the RealTime Exploits as well.

But one thing we should all remember Steve and BFC hate cheesy/gamey exploits as much as the rest of us and I think we can count on them for a patch if the gamey exploit is reported to them and perceived by the design team as an exploitation of the game system in a way they had not expected or intended.

Just look at the evolution of the MG and HMG "protocol" in the CMx1 series,from CMBO to CMBB they removed so much opportunity for gamey exploitation (around MG's and suppression) of the game system, that some people REALLY disliked it, but it did make the simulation more realistic.

(as intended in the first place)

They are shooting for max realism in their military simulations, so I am guessing if a really glaring exploit or gamey tactic crops up they can deal with it in a patch if they don't catch it in beta testing, in the first place.

(IMHO)

-tom w

[Small Bone]

I know that RealTime is not going to please everybody, but neither is WeGo. What we are doing is giving players the choice and keeping those choices distinctly different from each other.

Steve

Excellent Smithers ....

That should keep most folks more then happy.

(IMHO)

Thanks for keeping us up to date!

-tom w

[I am wondering about who will do well playing in RealTime?]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Let us not forget another potentially enormous advantage of real-time. Games should take a lot less time to play to completion.

YUP

that's a big advantage and for me it is an incentive to get good at REAL time to play more games more often in RealTime.

You could (for instance) practice CM:SF in RealTime sole against the AI and (presumable, but who knows) savour a few lengthy PBEM battles as well. OR (hopefully) connect over TCP/IP and play head to head in RealTime with an opponent who as spare time when you do, and get more time to play quicker battles.

It all sounds good to me!

-tom w

[Wide Screen Support.]

In the past in CMx1 those games played fine on wider screen Apple Laptops

I am running at 1280 x 854 now and I hope that is no problem.

It should not be something that has to be build specifically into the game to support a non 4x3 screen aspect ratio. (I think.)

I could be wrong but in CMx1 the screen aspect ratio did not matter at all as the Video RAM just cranked out as much of the game as the player had screen real estate to display. (At least on a Mac it seemed that way.)

No current plans for it, though it is possible we could introduce it later. The main problem with the wider screen is it jumps the hardware requirements up quite a bit. The other problem is the code might not be friendly to such a suggestion. I don't know the answer to this last point. I know that the UI certainly won't be a problem.

I am a little perplexed by this statement because, as I recall, CMx1 had no such limitation. Unless this was something specific to PC's and Windows that I know nothing about.

It should be this simple, if your video card or video memory is up to the task (enough resources or memory or whatever you need) your computer "should" JUST fill your screen/monitor with the game in any aspect ratio you are using.

But I could be all wrong about that.

Sure the Game interface may be designed for 4x3 but the game and the landscape should still fill the full frame irrespective of the aspect ratio. (no?)

I don't know the answer to this last point. I know that the UI certainly won't be a problem.

I would like to think this statement holds promise or optimsm because ALL new Mac laptops and displays are wide screen.

But I may simply be confused. :confused:

What does Charles have to say about support for anything other then the "old" 4x3 aspect ratio?

-tom w

[Small Bone]

oh

oh well I was just trying to help....

I do apologize if my comments offended you.

Sorry

-tom w