OSCAR

>------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? blackadder, goes forth eh? ...has to be the quote of the year!!! [This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 08-02-2000).]

>Today I was putting some order on my WWII books shelf when I was hit on the head (literally) by a falling copy of HPS Simulations' "Encyclopedia of Land Combat" Volume 1. It is a thick spiral-bound book that describes weapons, vehicles, equipment and even different types of infantry squads from 1936 to 1945. It includes all major and minor countries which fought during WWII and even short sections about airplanes and ships. Their tactical games kicks aswell, especially if you're into realistic events of things and less on-screen explotions... (just had to tease Fionn...) ------------------ The HPS freak [This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 08-02-2000).]

>Well, it's not my problem any longer since I'm not going to post until something is done to protect people from being abused and bullied on this forum. Well, what goes around comes around, Fionn. ------------------ The HPS freak

You know Steve, just by looking around in all these forums I get *nice* contributions of areas where PitS seem to beat the living crap out of CM Keep the questions coming dudes, I'm enjoying myself!!! ------------------ The HPS freak

Instead of paying $80, you can from HPS get an encyclopedia at $25 that contains over 3000 weapon systems. HPS claim (and I for one belive them) it covers virtually every single weapon that was used by, or in support of, ground operations in Europe, North Africa, China and the Pacific between 1936-45. look at http://www.hpssims.com ------------------ The HPS freak

>In most wargames I have played they seem to gloss over this and let units fight till 100% percent casualties are reached. ...SOME wargames get it right ------------------ The HPS freak

Just want to say that I'm quite sure that if you think PG3 is a great ride, CM will be the ride of you life guys. The PG series in my eyes don't even compete in the same league, and now that you seem to go for the 3D stuff, there's no doubt in my mind. ------------------ The HPS freak

>I think what people seem to be objecting to is your assertation that 2D would be inherintly better then 3D. Nobody is going Ben, if you for example read Fionn's article (or read some of the BTS info on CM) on this subject you get the *exact* opposite impression. This is what gets me going... >to say that just becuase it's 3D, it's realistic (and I don't think anyone has). Obviously, a game could be 3D and still be all wrong. A crummy game is a crummy game no mater how many dimensions it has. ------------------ The HPS freak

>OSCAR, PAY ATTENTION. THE 3D GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE UNDERLYING GAME ENGINE. Ok, now I know I'm an lazy idiot, but wouldn't it be easyer still to give me facts on level of detail of that "underlying" 3D engine? I assume that underlying engine is an 3D engine? It should be so easy to knock me out, since I'm exposing my chin here saying that engine result is probably GROSSLY rough and portraiting 3D objects with GREAT abstraction (making little sense letting small distances count calculating combat results). ------------------ The HPS freak

hmm...hj [This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 10-20-99).]

Sorry, f**k up... ------------------ The HPS freak [This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 10-20-99).]

>What little credibility you had has just gone out the window. Ok, tell me why? ------------------ The HPS freak

Tony, >If we take the LOS article as an example, I believe you're saying "It doesn't matter how accurate the 3D world shows LOS if the underlying code doesn't model it accurately". I apologise if I am wrong. Ok, considering the ingame "LOS engine" is at charge all times, and this is something Charles confirmed, I'm saying it's ALL that matters. If the 3D representation which the "LOS engine" is doing all it's calculations on is poor (visually I think it is), the whole concept falls in my eyes. Am I making sense? [This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 10-20-99).] [This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 10-20-99).]

>The principle behind hexes is partly: What you can't model with great accuracy: don't! hmmm... my english is not that good, correction: What you can't isolate with great accuracy; don't! ------------------ The HPS freak

>discussed in detail already. You do a little work, read up on what we've made public, understand it, and then come back and we'll talk. Sorry Charles, but I just can't much info on how the 3D engine works underneath. Where's the thread? (I figure what's plotted is "." ) I *did* find an intresting thread where someone was asking for an option to get more combat result information ongoingly displayed on screen, something BTS clearly STOMPED its foot down onto, with explanation it was not of relevance or importance... Steve, >Any notion that a 2D wargame is MORE realistic, or even CLOSE, simply because it makes no attempt to be realistic is a joke. Says who? Would you claim that i.e. assuming an object is 2/3 hidden is less acurate than the 3D modeling of this in a generalized way? The math behind such an estimation can be statistically proven, but I find it hard to believe the outcome from micromanaged events in a roughly outlined 3D model can, and given the scope of the game I wonder if this makes it adequate enough. The principle behind hexes is partly: What you can't model with great accuracy: don't! ------------------ The HPS freak