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

Ok, Charles, post me graphical views of an object (i.e. house, tank, tree) the screen displays and the same plotted object of what the underlying engine works on, so I can get the picture on level of detail. You got the chance to impress me. ------------------ The HPS freak

Martin, >you are still confusing the visual 3D effects of CM (polygons) with the 3D engine "under the hood". In other words -the basic game engine does not need ANY polygons. You only need them to give players something to look at. Well I figured, but the exact issue should stand for that underlying "basic 3D game engine", no matter what your screen displays... >(And since I have no degree in this I hope I am right...gulp) Neither have I to be honest, I went for work with one semester short ------------------ The HPS freak

ooops, my post was for Mike. ------------------ The HPS freak

Dave, >Yourself, and several others, seem to be totally hung up on the notion that the 3d aspects of CM are nothing but "eye-candy" and "window dressing". That the actual 3d graphics that you, the player, will see on the screen are just that, while the game itself is nothing more than an approximation. Pretty For YOU fans of this type of game i really HOPE it purely IS, otherwise it will prove to be MAJORLY flawed Some questions for you: How many polygons (details) do you think it will take to portrait the environment of these events with any credibility? (shouldn't be hard for you make a qualified guess with your engineer degree in 3D graphics, for me it's harder I only got a CS degree . If you like me come to the conclusion CM in its current state is insufficient, then, is there any need to model the importance of single object movement in inches? or calculate hits with pixel accuracy? Like I've said earlier, it sounds like cleaning dust in a room full of rubble. This is one of the problems with the 3D implementation, scale of game, micromanagement and the lack of, or balance in portraiting "micro" details are other areas where problems surely must arise. Can you now understand why I still think "less" could be more? ...now, back to fort capuzzo ------------------ The HPS freak

... hmmm... did someone, somewhere talk about the difficulties simulating the REAL world with 3D? ..sorry I JUST couldn't resist guys. ------------------ The HPS freak

Ok, I have decided to not post more on the topic in this forum. Reasons is it just seems to get more and more of a flameing type.I don't want this, but I guess it's a (natural?) sideeffect of argumenting. The guys at battlefront in my eyes don't deserve my harsh ranting. And they probably would look bad if they threw me out. I guess I feel kinda quilty Peace on you all and bye. ------------------ The HPS freak

Fionn, >PS the same goes for Oscar who oh so willingly latched onto your statement and then made a few of his own. Can you stoop any lower Oscar? I'm quite sick of people popping up and Ok, this I did because I don't like the overall ruling commandment that CM is the best thing since sliced bread, also It seem strange to me that although you're so neutral you can't find ANY shortcomings on CM, I think I've pointed out a few areas that surely must contain some intresting threads to pull. >is frankly disgusting. Can I expect that insinuation to be withdrawn? For what? the insinuation Mick posted, and I quoted? I can admit it's a bit low, but it's just for laughs, nothing else... >skeptical.. The KEY here is you are criticising a game you've never played simply based on assumptions you are making. That is a VERY foolish thing to do. When those who have played But I'm getting pretty good feedback on my assumptions here and elsewhere, so I figure my picture can't be THAT bad, also If future will prove me utterly wrong I'll have to face that... >games. I refer to a multitude of wargames. Stop thinking PiTS vs Combat Mission as you so obviously are doing and read the article as it was intended to be read. I'm not, PitS is just such a great game to use in comparison. >innacurately than Combat Mission? And BTW since I’ve played BOTH I know exactly how superior to LOS in CM is to PiTS. In CM if you hide a tank behind a house it is hidden. Move it 5 metres to either side and it becomes visible again. Try doing that in PiTS !!! Oh, I forgot, It seems to me you're just not getting the picture. >majority of wargames out there Combat Mission beats the pants off them as regards realism. I Quotes like this pretty much speak for themselves... Brian, To me it sounded like you meant that TOAW was an adequate representative for hexbased wargames in general, and since it was flawed everything in the genre must be. Dave, >this. You think 2D can do a better job of portraying the "real" world than 3D? The real world IS 3D! I honestly think it might. Really. John, >Oscar, are the simultaneous turns in PitS exactly the same as in CM or are they only similar? From the demo, I saw that there were simultaneous phases but it appeared that units were taking turns in the phases. Is that what was happening or was the game showing results of combat in an order even though it happenned simultaneously? The game uses phases to put (some) things in proper order, for example an ambush should affect directly so that phase has to be in front of the DF phase. If you look more closely you'll see that even if you take a unit out in the DF phase, the same unit still has the opportunity to fire back at you or someone else. This is simultaneous action. It doesn't matter in which order the information was displayed, as long as in-phase actions work like they should. ------------------ The HPS freak

BTW: Brian >in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is Who's talking ADJACENT? In PitS units (can be quite a bunch of them) engaged in close combat occupy the SAME 100m hex. Also most units can engage at very long ranges, so there's not much adjacent combat taking place in PitS compared to TOAW's operational scale, I'd say it probably works pretty same as CM does... ------------------ The HPS freak

>The "LOS engine" is on all the time. So your fears about abstraction are unfounded. I urge you to go look at the LOS/Spotting pages too. They are ooops... I jumped this somehow. Ok, then the 3D is a visual aid, with I figure sometimes very binary effects on what you see and what you don't. I.e. suddenly a squad or vehicle "appear" out of nothing 10m away from you. I also wonder about another thing, since small distances can be so critical for an vehicle, and the game allows scaling of objects, doesn't this mean you actually have to get inside EVERY vehicle, and take the personal view of personel to know if you're possible to spot or not? That's what I call SERIOUS micromanagement in a game You really want me to list all what's contained in the PitS system that atleast appear (some is confirmed) to be missing in CM? I could do it you know ------------------ The HPS freak

>Once the game system is moved into a 3D environment all the dimensional abstractions necessary for 2D go away. If you HONESTLY find no value in a true 3D system then we are at a loss to explain ourselves, just as certain forward thinkers were at a loss to convince people the world wasn't flat Yes, the abstractions may go away, but new issues may rise, like my fears that the 3D world will be unable to portrait the complexity of the real world. I'd like to hear you comment on my sighting example with the squad/vehicle "hidden" at very narrow distance. What will you see in a game such as CM. Is the "LOS engine" at effect at all times or is it not? Also given the desktop computing restrictions of today, wouldn't this 3D implementation render in a very small scaled game? And given for example the scale of battle or operation (what I like to play!), is it really important to know a tank was taken out just because he forgot to move 2 inches or so? In my view this seems to be cleaning dust in a room full of rubble. Same goes with calculation of impact of hits, just because angle is generalized to facings, how far away from reality do we actually land calculating the results? I can buy new ideas of gaming, but not just becase some "grognard" with 50 years of gaming experience tells me so ------------------ The HPS freak