aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
I agreeTo be clear, I have no problem with "instinct" play. It is part of acting on incomplete information, dealing with uncertainty, and adding a strong element of prioritization--much like FOW in general. Can be very fun, and quite a skill.I am looking forward to playing the demo the first time as the Syrian's in RealTime. My perefence would be to take on a much younger and inexperienced (CM Wise) RealTime 'expert" (read teenager) opponent playing the US side in RealTime, I think that should be managable and enjoyable.
My guess would be that for my aging (NON-teenager) senile brain, the fewer numbers of Syrian units would (presumably) make the RealTime game experience more fun and/or at least managable.
If I was to play against folks or other players with CMx1 experience who I have played CMx1 against in the past I think I would have to take the US in Realtime, or I would prefer good old WeGo.
BUT I am (as an old fan of WeGo!) looking forward to some smoking hot RealTime battles playing the Syrian underdog to bloody the nose of the "clickfest" happy US player.
he he-tom w
[ October 06, 2006, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Thanks Steve
This was the kind of answer I was looking for in this thread, it was posted last evening in the latest Small Bone thread.
here it is:
posted October 06, 2006 12:24 AMWildman ,
quote:
Part of the problem in RT developing into a "clickfest" is the need to micromanage units down to the squad level.
end quote
Steve says:
As far as I am concerned "clickfest" is more than just the need to do a lot of clicking. It can be better summarized as "he who clicks fastest wins". This is especially true for the traditional resource gathering/building RTS games. The guy that could manage to fight a battle and keep getting resources and keep producing stuff would likely win regardless of his strategic and/or tactical abilities. This advantage is usually compounded by the well known "tank rush" tactic made famous by Command and Conquer. All a player had to do to win was click really quickly to keep things being built, then group select a mass of tanks, and send them at an enemy's location. If the enemy in question had been instead trying to do crafty tactical stuff instead of brute force things he was more likely to lose in the long run. Hence the guy that clicks the quickest wins the most.
None of us here want a game that values the speed of clicking more than any other aspect of the game. Which is why CM:SF in RealTime is not a "clickfest" in my mind. Sure, if you put two players head to head, the one that can think faster and click faster will have an edge. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it is a realistic thing. One of the reasons why I hated playing boardgames so much is that I tended to play against people that got out the ruler and tried to see what each one of his 50 f'n units could do each individual turn. No gut instinct moves, no faith in his greater plan. Micromanage the Hell out of each move and bore me to tears. Guess what though? I usually won CM:SF RealTime will separate the intuitive players from the micromanagement players for sure. The former will love RealTime, the latter will hate it. Different strokes for different folks.
The #1 reason why CM won't fall into the "tank rush" "clickfest" combo is simple. Try taking a platoon of infantry and have them rush a single MG in the open in CM. No amount of fast clicking is going to overcome the morale, cover, and suppression problems that MG is going to dish out. Heck, the enemy player doesn't even need to be there to micromanage that MG... it's going to cut lose and chop those guys down without any need to be told what to do. In C&C, Warcraft, and other games that wouldn't be the case because units are robots and more robots win almost no matter what. And if you lose some, just build some more. In CM if you lose a platoon you might have lost 1/3rd of your force for the entire game. Not bright.
What this means is that the player that has the better sense of unit capabilities, terrain, and basic tactics will likely win no matter how fast the other guy can click. However, if the other guy has a similar level of knowledge and can click quickly, while you can't, then you are going to be at a disadvantage in some situations. Might be enough to lose the game for you, might not.
quote:
So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there. end quote
Steve says:
Not as such. That would involve a massive amount of AI work and we don't have time or money for that (BTW, Bruce70... I don't remember getting an email from you). What does happen, though, is when you order units close to good defensive terrain they will use it even if you didn't explicitly instruct them to. We are also trying to get in some "short cut" stuff that may or may not help.
Moronic Max ,
quote:
It is not; as Steve stated earlier in the thread (er, I think it was this thread), there's no order delay in RT because order delays are inherent in the system--while you're futzing about with one unit, you're giving no input to others. A delay would be redundant. end quote
Steve says:
Correct. Thanks for straightening that out To put in something I said earlier, if we allowed infinite pause/command combos then we would HAVE to institute Command Delays in the RealTime Mode. And once we did that we would effectively have WeGo. Since we already have WeGo we don't need a redundant feature.
Guys, keep in mind that one of the big differences between contemporary warfare and WWII warfare is troop density. CM:SF is therefore more or less optimized for a reinforced company vs. a slightly smaller force. Within the timeframe and size of a scenario, that is about right for combat these days. That should work out fine in RealTime. However, for you guys wanting to play a full Battalion on a full Battalion... RealTime is probably not the way to go.
Also keep in mind that the pace of a battle in CM should be SLOWER than what you are used to in CMx1. One of the unrealistic byproducts of turned based gaming is "time compression". Meaning, you have SOOOOO much control that you micromanage and therefore gain far greater efficiencies than you could on the battlefield. What takes you 10 turns (10 minutes) to do in CMx1 WeGo should take you 20 minutes or more to do in CMx2 RealTime and probably 40 minutes in real life. One of the reasons you'll have to go slower is because your forces will sit around while you think. Quick example:
I had one battle where my guys sat around in their jumpoff positions for 5 minutes or more. In real life they might have been there for a lot longer, but in CMx1 they would have been there for about 1 minute tops. When I started my attack (this is the one in the AAR, BTW) I was clumsy and didn't think through the tactics well enough. I got hammered and couldn't extract my forces before they were fully committed. In CMx1 I would have seen my first guy get hammered and then rethink my whole plan for 10 or 20 minutes while my guys were frozen in time waiting for the next turn. That thinking, combined with unrealistic control of everything else on the battlefield, would allow me to adjust my plan radically within seconds of game time, even though it took me 20 minutes to think it up and plan it out. This in turn would allow me to yield an unrealistic result. In RealTime, single player, I can pause and at least get in that long thinking time. But trying to change the plans would be a lot harder than WeGo because while I was changing the plans I would be experiencing the pain of a poor plan executed poorly. And THAT is what is going to make RealTime so damned exciting.
Now, I am not going to go so far as saying that RealTime is for the strong and WeGo for the weak. Not at all. What I am saying is that the two are pitched towards different types of players. The ones that thrive on quick thinking and action will do much better in RealTime than ones that feel they need to be absolutely sure about every little detail all the time, every time. This doesn't mean that the "instinctive" players are better, they are just geared differently than the "academic" players. However, in a real war I'd rather the "instinctive" type who thrives playing CM in RealTime be my unit commander over someone with a perfect record in WeGo who can't stand RealTime. Having said that, since all of you CMers would likely get me killed in the first 1 minute of combat, even if I were in an Abrams, I guess it wouldn't really matter
Steve
[ October 05, 2006, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]
That ALL makes sense to me and I am glad to hear it.
-tom w
[ October 06, 2006, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I thought it was clear (at least to me) that Steve said there would for sure be a command delay in WeGo as in the past in CMx1, just that there would be NO command delay in RealTime mode.
Or did I miss something?
-tom w
[ October 05, 2006, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Thanks Steve!
Thanks for all the time posting and keeping us up to date.
I think this could be repeated:
AND the real issue is most of those tens of thousands of people, don't post here, don't complain and the majority of them are happy playing solo against the AI most of the time. (I don't have any facts but Steve suggests most folks who buy the game, don't post and rant on the forum (like some of usWe've got tens of thousands of other people to consider every time we make a decision. We can't forget that. ) AND most folks play solo most of the time.)Hey Steve I hope you are keeping an eye on Field Ops, it looks like it has a large budget and is supposedly scheduled for a Feb 2007 release, and they already have a ton of screen shots out:
It looks REALLY good but somehow that implies to me that it might lack substance to be a good game to actually play. But it does make me curious.
Thanks
-tom w
-
yup that's interesting: (PC only)
hmmStrategy Informer: We are really interested in the main feature for Field Ops, where you are able to jump from RTS mode to FPS mode at any given time. Could you please give us some information about this feature and let us know what it's like?Mourad Majeri: This feature is very easy to use. The first time you play it, you won’t believe it! When you are in RTS view with one of your units selected, you simply have to press one key whenever you want to switch the camera/mode in FPS views (the camera slides in real time into the first person perspective). The player decides when he wants to switch in FPS view or RTS view depending on the situation/event that he has to handle, but also depending on his own skills and preferences.
-tom w
[ October 05, 2006, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I'll have BOTH, with thanks !We are offering two flavors of cake... chocolate and vanilla. You have your choice about which one to eat, on a meal by meal basis.
(one at a time of course, may I have the chocolate first?)
-tom w
-
So in your opinion apms or fast clicking many actions per minute won't be a decisive factor?Originally posted by Speedy:In my opinion the people who will excel at real time are planners. Those that study the map and plan extensively an overall battleplan as well as contingency plans for potential enemy actions before the battle will tend to dominate there opposition.
Just the fact that when situations develop they wont have to waste time thinking of and developing a response will be a significant advantage in a battle.
I tend to agree.
if you only have 15-20 (max) units to deal with in real time, FASTER actions per minute won't give you any advantage if you are a poor planner, or have no contingency plans or a good fall back position. I would like to think that quick thinking and the ability to react fast with a good plan or counter tactic, may be more important then simply apms or fast clicking. (or so the theory goes)
-tom w
[ October 04, 2006, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
My first question is how many "manouvre elements" are there in a reinforced Company?
3 platoons?
9 Squads?
Plus support elements?
I think that would be plenty for a realtime battle.
-tom w
-
I guess that is my point.
I am wondering if young teenagers will be interested in CM:SF?
There are no higher tech levels to get to. There is no building.
Except for maybe reinforcements designed into the scenario you have to go with what you have. I am not so sure the 'rush' in CM:SF will prove to be always the best strategy.
But I am curious.
-tom w
-
My guess is if they did what they said they would do by including the opportunity for the scenario designer to "guide" or hint or somehow script or program the AI defender (or attacker) I would suggest the AI might be almost unbeatable in RealTime.Originally posted by C'Rogers:I think realtime might make the computer a halfway decenet opponent.
I suggest this because if the AI can do all things at all times, then we know it is NOT slow and if it is not limited to any artificial "actions per minute" limitation code, AND it can be hinted or programed to be clever and at least given a fighting chance by the scenario designer, then I would suggest the AI should provide quite a refreshing challenge to most solo players.
-tom w
-
Hi Kineas
I think Rollstoy is requesting the "issue orders while paused" in RealTime feature which they have said is not currently an option in the game at this time but they said they would maybe look at it.
My understanding of the "artificial restraint" Rollstoy is refering to is the one about how you cannot issue orders while paused in RealTime mode.
-tom w
-
quick search:
web page RTS and apm notesI've tried to play sc:bw again time after time time... but my apm is like 120 compared to the pros 400 average... so I get slaughtered and all the cool classic ums's are gone.Every sc player here should go test their APM. Pros are at 400, although there is a very famous korean pro whos apm is like 180 or something but he uses insane strats.
APM and what it means to youTheGoodEvil posted in New Posts on September 12th, 2005
I am not so big on huge sustained APMs (APM = actions per minute, how many action you perform in the game world with hotkeys or mouse clicks), its not that it’s bad to have a sustained APM of 200-240 but how useful is it to have such a high APM and in what games does such an APM matter?
In Starcraft and Warcraft 3 APM is almost as ego lifting as penis size. The higher your APM in tactical RTS games the better you generally handle your armies, because tactical games depend less on empire building and more on building to fight. Micro is very important in any RTS game but in tactical RTS games micro is basically the game winner. You can be the most strategic player on earth but if you can’t handle your troops as well as your enemy then your strategy will turn to garbage in seconds.
In games like Starcraft and Warcraft 3 you can’t afford to lose units and since 80% of the game is fighting you need to really be moving fast to dance troops in and out of combat without losing any of them. This is where high APM pays off the most, if you have a 240 APM then you are generally considered a decent player, not because you know the game more or are smarter but because you can save your units before they are killed off at the same time as killing enemy units.
In historical RTS games like Age of Kings and Rise of Nations APM isn’t as much a factor unless you are just kind of wasting time clicking randomly. Since there is more of an economy base APM is lower, most combat is macro management because losing 1 unit isn’t nearly as bad as losing 1 unit in WC3. If you have a high sustained APM in most historical RTS games it usually revolves around hitting control groups then hitting building keys then repeating, some times just setting a waypoint 8 times instead of 1 time is used to keep APM high.
A 150 APM could be looked at in a wrong light but there are a lot of times a 150 APM will beat a 240 APM player. All a 150 APM player is is a player that may neglect the extra waypoint clicks or the extra move clicks, believe it or not those extra clicks don’t really make you any better. If a 60 APM player bursts into a 200-250 APM battle then they are still playing at a 200-250 APM level they just aren’t sustaining it. So a 150 APM isn’t as bad as some people think. As long as you are doing the majority of mouse work on your troop movement then you are still playing as well as a sustained 240 APMer.
If you are running a 60 APM for economy management and a 240 APM for troop management then you are playing at 150 APM, to sustain the 240 you need to add to your clicking which is when the way pointing and multi click moving comes in, just to keep that 240.
This is why I don’t care about my APM, as long as I’m not losing because I am too slow when I need to be fast than I am good to go. Once I start losing more units than I am killing because I can’t keep up with the other player’s micro then I will start working on my troop handling more in that particular game which in the end will raise my APM.
So don’t be discouraged if you are playing at 150 APM average, as long as you are winning than you are ok, and remember that when you are facing a 240 APM player and lose that it might not be because of his 240 APM but maybe because he is either more experienced in that game, smarter when he needed to be, or over all a better player. Once you start getting to the point you are playing 240 APM players you are at a high point in the ratings and should remember that a player’s unit control > player’s sustained clicking. I can randomly click all around the map for 20 minutes and have a 300 APM but unless I’m using it on what I need to then I am doing just that… randomly clicking.
TGE
-
This makes senseIf CM1 is any reference, gameplay in CMSF should be faaaar more slowly than in common RTS games.For instance, units in RTS games might cover whole maps in less than a minute and portable rocket launchers will fire every few seconds, while in CM1 Soldiers running across 100m of open ground would already need about half a minute and reloading a bazooka would take quite some time as well. This should give the player at least some time to breathe now and then.
I am not convinced the RTS "pro" player who can click 3-4-5 times faster then his not so RTS savy opponent will have a real advantage.
One factor not mentioned here is the number of units and the size of the battle. In what might be considered a really big scenario on a large map, perhaps the RTS savy (quick clicker) will have an advantage. But my guess is that in any average scenario, ANY non RTS, (average to good) CMx1 player should do very well playing EITHER the US or the Syrian's against a non CMx1 RTS "pro" youngster (under say 20 years).
On a larger map for reasons outlined by Kineas may be more evident....
"It's not that simple. If you average around 20-30 apm (action per minute = click per minute) and a guy comes with 120 apm sustained knowing this he will attack you on 2 or 3 sides of the map simultaneously. You just won't be able to keep up with this and there you go your fronts collapse. It's a perfectly valid RTS strategy."
The faster clicker may be in a better position, however a strong NON RTS CMx1 player should be able to hold his own playing the Syrian's quite easily against the RTS player with less experience commanding the US forces. FWIW IMHO
-tom w
-
If I had to guess, it would be my guess that there is NO Way in hell that BFC would ever intentionally limit the actions per second a human player could issue. I would suggest that the "clickfest" is just simply part of the whole RTS paradigm.Originally posted by Kineas:Realtime games have a macro management (strategy, tactics) and micro management aspects. More clicks means better micro. You can't compensate for your lack of micro over a certain degree.
Newer RTS games put strong emphasis on avoiding the clickfest but they can't really remove this factor. I see only one solution: limiting the actions per second from the engine itself.
You don't want to know how fast the pro RTS gamers click
But that is JUST me guessing :cool:
-tom w
-
well here's a hint about how Real Time will play:
NO command delays!
One practical issue is that there are no Command Delays in RealTime Mode. So a Pause would allow you a completely unimaginable amount of precision control over what happens, even more so than WeGo. So if we are going to allow Commands during a Pause in RT we are also going to have to put Command Delays in place for the entire RT environment. We don't think that is a wise idea.I'll head off this likely response..."WHAT? No Command Delays in RealTime Mode? Are you insane?" Nope, logical. Think about it... in WeGo we have Command Delays in there so that there is some simulation of the difficulty of getting Commands issued exactly when you want them whever you want them executed. RealTime has this built in as an inherent part of the system. The fact that the game continues as you move around checking on things and what not means that there is already plenty of delay happening. So adding MORE delays would be a bad thing as would unlimited ability to plot without any delays.
-
"In CMx2 things are very different. The CMx2 concept of tiles is gone. However, there is still an underlying grid and a separate terrain mesh. Unlike CMx1, the two can contain different sized blocks. This allows us to independently control the volume of data for the game engine and the graphics engine."
this is what I was talking about, and I may have been mistaken, there are still tiles, but the are superimposed on top of a 1m x 1m mesh.
correct?
from the same Post by Steve:
web page Steve's post and entire thread about terrain it is a long threadBattlefront.comAdministrator
Member # 42
posted August 25, 2005 04:17 PM
Since I've seen a lot of questions about terrain, I figure a quick compare/contrast with CMx1 is in order.
In CMx1 we had a fixed grid of 20m x 20m. This grid determined both the terrain data as well as the graphical appearance. We called these 20x20 spaces "tiles". CMx1 resolved the location of a unit down to fractions of a meter within a tile, however all units within that tile were treated as being in the same terrain regardless of position. Well, except for a few hybrid tile types, such as roads and small houses (i.e. things that were not 20x20, but instead contained within a 20x20 tile). The relative position mattered for LOS/LOF, explosions, movement etc. and therefore it did matter what your relative position was.
In CMx2 things are very different. The CMx2 concept of tiles is gone. However, there is still an underlying grid and a separate terrain mesh. Unlike CMx1, the two can contain different sized blocks. This allows us to independently control the volume of data for the game engine and the graphics engine. Say for example we find that the game data is a real pig in terms of RAM and CPU usage, but the latest graphics hardware can handle the graphics just fine. Well... we can tweak the fidelity of the terrain mesh without increasing the size of the blocks for the underlying game grid. Or perhaps it is the other way around... the CPU and RAM can handle more game data, but the graphics bottlenecks require a lower resolution of the graphical terrain mesh, so we increase the fidelity of the underlying game data. Whatever the case is, the sizes of these blocks can be adjusted by us, quite easily, as hardware becomes more powerful in years to come. That means we're not locked into one way of doing things for the next x number of years.
Why not just resolve everything down to individual pixels and be done with meshes and blocks of terrain? Hardware limitations. Unless we employ pathetically small maps with simplistic units this is just not possible. That means a certain amount of "grid" behavior will continue to exist for some time to come. Good news is that over time the grids will be smaller and smaller.
The 2D Editor UI will be a lot easier to use than in CMx1. Even if Charles winds up refusing to code 90% of the stuff I came up with, I can assure you it will still be better
No, you will not be able to cut and paste parts of one map into another, no matter how the mechanics work. All you can do is download someone else's map, bring it into the Editor, and work on it as you would do in CMx1. In order to do more than that we'd have to support the concept of placing "assembled" stuff instead of just creating it. It's not going to happen simply because it isn't necessary (it is also a time sink we ain't touching). If someone makes the Reichstag, then why wouldn't they also put the neighboring terrain around it? And if the person doesn't do that, why can't you just import the map, increase the size, and then work on it yourself? Piece of cake.
Steve
Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42
posted August 26, 2005 09:33 PM
Oh yeah... I keep forgetting to mention that the terrain mesh is 1m x 1m. So even though the terrain itself is measured in 8x8 pieces, the underlying shape is significantly more flexible. This is why you guys don't need to worry about houses in sides of hills and whatnot
Steve
AND
Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42
posted September 04, 2005 06:49 PM
Correct about the TacAI. It can figure out "I am here, the enemy is there. I need to find some cover. That trench looks good". It is the StratAI that needs to say "I don't know where the enemy is, but I suppose he is over there. Ah... a trench runs in just the right spot for defensive line. Let's see... the enemy's approach path is level so the trench actually will provide some cover. I think I'll put 2 platoons along this trench and my heavy wepaons behind it." Two different concepts. The TacAI is the easier of the two to do in this case.
Terrain grid is 1m x 1m, but every 1m a height can be assigned of between 1 and 100mm. This means that you can have a 100m long slope with the high point being 1m.
For every one tile you had in CMx1 you can have roughly 4 tiles. So even if there were no mixing of terrain within a CMx2 8m x 8m tile, you will still get (roughly) 4 times the varried terrain as you could get in CMx1. In reality, over a larger space of map, you get a little more than 6 tiles for every 1 of CMx1. That's a pretty huge jump in variety all on its own. However, we will allow some mixed tiles in CMx2. Some of the mixing will be dynamic, but some of it will have to be hand coded by us. In the latter cases we'll have to go easy on the variations simply because there is only so much time in the day
Steve
[ October 03, 2006, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I'm ignorant of the different styles of map you refer to above. I thought the CMx2 maps were just going to be roughly the same idea but with smaller tiles and therefore finer resolution. Are FPS style maps different than that?Originally posted by dalem:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kineas:
The problem IMO is that random map generation is applicable for 'tile-based' games, and the CMx2 maps will be rather FPS style maps. Like what you can see in the Battlefield series. Writing a random map generator for those is quite challenging, and the quality gap between the human made maps and the generated maps will be far wider.
-dale </font>
-
I did not like CMBB at all (no english speaking nation) but I bought all three as well. I did like playing the ETO scenarios in CMAK the best however.
-tom w
-
are there any other pics?Originally posted by MikeyJ38:Not sure if this has been posted before but here is another, very , small bone from Armchair General magazine (September 06 issue I think).
It was sent to me by a friend and this was the biggest he could get the picture. It was part of a one paragraph preview of the game which I don't think said anything new.
Have we ever seen this one online before?
sure its a month old, but I don't recall if I have seen this one before or not, it does sort of look familiar.
-tom w
-
HeyOriginally posted by Rollstoy:Oh my Lord, now all of a sudden some of us become die-hard real-time fanatics!!!
Brrrrr.
I think it great there is an option!
They have made what appears to be a breakthrough in a game offering.
Giving us BOTH WeGo and REALTIME in the same game!
I don't know of any other game that does that and it should be getting great deal more "hype" and attention that both styles of play are offered instead of the now routine complaining that you can't pause and give orders in RealTime ("because that's the way every other war game works").
-tom w
-
Good point, lets see how it actually works when we start playing the demo.Originally posted by Rankorian:If I remember a game like CloseCombat correctly, I doubt RealTime will be a clickfest. Indeed, I suspect the opposite may be the complaint.
As I recall, when a CC battle began, sometimes, if the attack was stealthy, you would see nothing, or do nothing, for large segments of time. (Again, if I recall correctly, after CC3 they cranked up the AI aggressiveness to make it more fun--even if it is smarter for the AI to stay put, more fun to fight off an attack.
I don't think Battlefront received enough credit for the We-Go concept. From a SP perspective, it meant that something was always occuring--either you were planning your moves, or watching the movie. One has total control of the pace.
3d, real-time, may be were everyone thinks they want to go, but it takes some subtle understanding to make a simulation a fun game.
Thanks
-tom w
-
I think Mr. Shirt has it nailed.Originally posted by Mr Shirt:I think the idea with real-time not allowing you to make orders is so that you can't just pause, give orders, pause, give orders, etc. Keeping the real time aspect involved.
[Rant On]
If you could pause and give orders, oh say, EVERY 60 secs, (!) why not play we go???
RealTime means nonStop REALTIME action, no whimpy pauses for orders. Its a good call, and it makes sense because if you want to pause to give orders play WeGo and be done with it!
[/Rant off]
-
reboot?
Clear the cache?
I can see the image fine...
here is the link to the actual directory on a server:
Can you see the directory?
there are other pics there:
that is the smaller version
the other one is HUGE
some pics there are BIG
the ones with "small" in the title view better on a smaller screen:
OK?
-tom w
-
"Plus, thirty seconds after debussing, all camouflage is the same colour anyway."
This could not be more true of guys playing paintball.
Some guys of all new cool camo outfits. (oooh.... cool... more money then sense, or no kids and no mortgage.)
Other guys just wear sort of dark green "work" clothes.
Guess what?
By the end of the day they are all equally stained and muddy and they all look like dried Temperate Woodland Mud Pattern. (TWMP) FWIW
-tom w
Small Bone
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Steve already said (about a million times) don't waste your time/bandwidth/energy lobbying for PBEM because it won't make any difference to them.
He said if you read his posts, (about a million times) PBEM is not a 'sacred cow' and if we have to leave it behind to move to RealTime and other cool features in CMx2... "SO BE IT"
(Meaning they plan to generate more sales offering a RealTime Game then they will lose by disappointing hard core fans with no PBEM available, and that makes sense to me from a purely profit motivation standpoint. For which I respect and appreciate their logic, and clear focus and shrewd business sense
)
Since it looks like some form of PBEM will be in anyway I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO
-tom w
[ October 06, 2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]