OSCAR

Correction2: >>The hexbased system has NO problem handling these things at all, since things that can't be simulated well enough is generalized and >..."pictured" or "visualized" may be better words >>estimated (in PitS case an outcome of calculation with *plenty* of factors in effect). Argh,...my english needs practice, an even better word is "isolated" ...no more corrections I promise ------------------ The HPS freak

You don't rock Brian, >Anyhow, CM's 3D combat environment will allow higher fidlety resolutions of combat than any other system presently available. It's approach makes possible a more realistic approximation because it accounts for a wider range of factors, in more detail, than any other system, bar none. <yawn> >I do share Fionn's distaste for hexes, because they are a high level of abstraction. To mention just one point, in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is more likely to succeed than an attack to the east or west. This is ludicrous. So, just because TS can't get things right the whole hex system is wrong? >IGO-UGO systems produce strange outcomes too. PitS is no more IGO-UGO system than CM is, neither is any HPS game in the series. >Units that sit and watch entire corps rush past without reacting, and so on. No, in PitS they won't (allthough a myriad of factors decide if they do), they will "spontaneously" engage with ambush fire and also go for the close combat if their engagement range is adequate and the passing object is of their selected or ordered type... strange, I suddenly hear that "WROOONG... DO IT AGAIN" from Pink Floyd's "The Wall" echo in my head hmm... those guys rocked >Now these games may be fun to play, but they could provide better respresentations of the reality if we moved past these abstractions. <yawn> >How important this is is up to you. I know of at least one reviewer who finds attempts at realism in a wargame a *failing*. His argument is that a wargame cannot be completely True, but they can come CLOSE! Also: How important is it for Fionn (and company) to misscredit and write off the everything but CM? ------------------ The HPS freak

Correction: >The hexbased system has NO problem handling these things at all, since things that can't be simulated well enough is generalized and ..."pictured" or "visualized" may be better words >estimated (in PitS case an outcome of calculation with *plenty* of factors in effect). ------------------ The HPS freak

Hmmm... It seems I'm just about to get the whole wargaming community as my foes This is something I don't want at all, but I think Mick Conmy sum up the reasons for my emotions in "Otherwise a valid argument despite being the biased pre-release hype of a paid lobbyist [and if youre not getting paid ya should]" ...ok, back to some nagging Charles, >I think you've misunderstood something about CM's system. We don't use the 3D graphical polygons themselves to determine things like armor slope, LOS, etc. The engine tracks data like unit location (to the sub-millimeter ), elevation, "tilt" (i.e. a tank on a hillside), etc., and that's what underlies the game engine's equations. So in this sense, yes, there are of course Ok, (don't know if it came through or not) but I figured this and want to add that I admit that the CM engine possess a great deal of detail, and if generalization of for example unit angles is avoided when calculating impact of a hit (is it?) it sounds very nice indeed. >I think the original point of the thread (though Fionn can correct me if I've misinterpreted) is that CM allows the user to see and therefore clearly understand how the third dimension directly impacts his forces and outcomes of shots fired, LOS, etc. It allows him to make decisions based on this information and therefore make direct use of it as part of his strategy. A 2D game, as Well, to me, the original point of Fionn's article was to bin the concept of the hex system in general. Ok, the 3D of CM is (majorly?) an visual aid just like I figured, and since it comes with a price (limiting scale of game, environments simulated, simulated forces and units for example) I rather go without that aid and press the LOS button Also nothing prevents a 2D game from having visual aids, PitS for example gives you a 2D picture (with additional data) of what terrain look like between LOS points. >Personally I think that yes, this is a very big deal. Sometimes moving your units just a couple of meters around the corner of a stone house can mean the difference between hiding out or >How do hexes improve simulation of terrain and LOS? Please be specific. I don't think hexes help here at all. If anything, they hurt - especially LOS. Yes, but as I said in prevoius posts: doesn't this place INCREDIBLE demands on the level of detail in the simulated environment? In my mind just thinking of this rises some questions about how sighting is implemented in CM. Is the "LOS engine" in charge at all times? even when talking about metres in a village or a forrest for example? or does the "LOS engine" only apply from some distance and on? If "LOS engine" is at charge at all times we're talking 3D visual aid alone, and if not I have my fears that sighting could be somewhat unrealistic because of the unability of the 3D engine to portrait the complexity of surroundings. For example I figure a decently camouflaged veichle or squad could avoid detection at VERY narrow distances (metres) in any environment (village, forrest). How does CM handle this? The hexbased system has NO problem handling these things at all, since things that can't be simulated well enough is generalized and estimated (in PitS case an outcome of calculation with *plenty* of factors in effect). John, I might KwazyDog, >it IS hex based. I mean, how many battles in WW2 can realistically be simulated with 100m hexes? Well, it depends on scale of events. If we're talking squad to squad combat between three barns I figure the 100m hex is less accurate, but at greater scales (like the battle or operation scale) I think a resonably granulated grid and small slices of time does very well indeed... John, >one am glad there will be atmosphere. Remember, machines don't win wars, men do. Some adrenaline will be appropriate. Well, if CM is your cup of tea... >PS Thanks for telling me PitS uses simultaneous turns. I'd like to go try out thier demo. However it does seem that CM has everything PitS has and so much more. Don't you guys know about HPS games? I would say that CM has some that is not present in PitS, but PitS has PLENTY that's missing in CM, see for yoursef ------------------ The HPS freak

Dave, >From what I’ve been able to get out of these almost 10,000 postings, every inch or pixel IS taken into account when a vehicle is being attacked. Every little shaped detail? Not likely. >When troops are the target, some abstraction is used, since squads are represented and not individual soldiers Ok, like PitS then. Is also every bullet accounted for, like in PitS? >How do you place a unit at an exact spot in PitS? I’ve You don't the computer does it for you, that was the point. >Does a commander order, or unit ever decide to travel 137.68m exactly?” Yes, they do. To see around the corner of a building or just over a rise, you would move a very short & exact distance, maybe inches. Certainly Ok, but when we are talking sighting in forrests and inches at corners of buildings or over a rise it puts huge demands on the DETAIL of the simulated environment to achieve realism (and having the 3D visuals really come into play gamewise). In future we probably get the computing power needed on our desktops to provide us with this, but from what I've seen of CM it's not even close. Therefor I put my money on well implemented hexbased abstraction ------------------ The HPS freak

>have the unit move either 1 or 2 hexes per turn. It is impossible to move it 1.5 hexes since the entire idea of a hex is like binary code. Something is either there or not there. It is either a 1 or a 0; it cannot be a 0.5. Doesn't need to be true (read my post above), but I figure a binary effect is EXACTLY what you get to some extent (maby to a large!) if sighting is up to the 3D view in a game, and not to a LOS "engine" because the incapability of portraiting the surrounding world in all its complexity. Sure makes you wonder if 3D equals accuracy and realism... ------------------ The HPS freak

>have the unit move either 1 or 2 hexes per turn. It is impossible to move it 1.5 hexes since the entire idea of a hex is like binary code. Something is either there or not there. It is either a 1 or a 0; it cannot be a 0.5. Doesn't need to be true (read my post above), but I figure a binary effect is EXACTLY what you get to some extent (maby to a large!) if sighting is up to the 3D view in a game, and not to a LOS "engine" because the incapability of portraiting the surrounding world in all its complexity. Sure makes you wonder if 3D equals accuracy and realism... ------------------ The HPS freak

>hmm, you really want to compare a hex based LOS system with a 3D-based LOS system? Yes, why not? since it's up to the 3D *SYSTEM* to decide what you can see and what you can't, even if you zoom in or peer 'till you drop Where's the difference, except your game taking up the entire diskspace, RAM and available CPU cycles displaying that nice 3D? Do you actually believe just because it's 3D it's going to so much more realistic? >Guess you better stay with the 5 year old system then... You bet, until PoA2 hit the shelves ------------------ The HPS freak

Hi Fionn, I got some thoughts and questions on you article... >“X Hexes of Y meters by Z = A Dinosaur” Well, maby but not yet... >Why would a three-dimensional map lead to more realistic outcomes? Well, quite simply since fired round, vehicle and infantry locations can be represented with far greater accuracy, the results of movement and explosions can be tracked to a far more detailed degree. Thus, Ok, but ARE they? does CM take "every inch", or pixel of an object into account when deciding outcome of a hit? For example does a soldier get wounded in the leg if that's the point one bullet hits? Does it calculate ALL flying fragments (and their directions) of an exploding shell? Are there no abstractions regarding impact, distance and angle calculating combat results in CM? >it will be possible to differentiate between a unit moving seventy-four metres and one moving seventy-five metres with ease and to account for actions by and against that unit at the same time. Throw in increased accuracy in LOS calculations, impact calculations, realistic, three dimensional representation of blast radii and calculations of casualties based on the distance of the unit from the epicentre of the blast (all of which are then accurately, visually represented) the realism and immersion level possible both increase drastically. True, but you don't really NEED an 3D system to simulate this, you can "place" them at an exact spot WITHIN a hex (as for example PitS does), same goes with angles of objects, no problem at all. Only loss is your (the player) abillity to place them at that exact spot, but is this such a big deal? Does a commander order, or unit ever decide to travel 137.68m exactly? As I see it what you loose on control you gain on simulation of other factors, like terrain and LOS. To me terrain features in CM like forrests seem poorly portraid, all the same litte 3D trees put as closly togheter as the engine allows. Any soldier looking at the right level of hight should be able to see right through the whole forrest. I rather have my MIND visualize this "forrest" and the computer to generalize the density and foliage level of it. Don't get me wrong; I know this ingame soldier of CM couldn't see through that "forrest" because of LOS restrictions, but what's the point with the 3D gfx then? I for one can do playing without watching "the movie" with "cool" explosion effects, I rather have more features, flexibility on scale and simulated environments instead. >Hopefully such a change will also be accompanied by a move away from the IGO-UGO system that hamstrings so many other games. The five year old hexbased PitS system has 1 min simultaneous turns like CM, where's the "revolution"? ------------------ The HPS freak

Actually infocoms Zork's and their Hitchikers guide to the galaxy where AWESOME!!! even with compared to the adventure games of today... ------------------ The HPS freak

Original or proposed doesn't make any difference, since neither can compete to the visuals my MIND can give me ------------------ The HPS freak

Well, HPS has the firefly listed under commonwealth weapons section instead of us weapons section in their encyclopedia published '97... excellent book btw! ------------------ The HPS freak

But where's santa? ------------------ The HPS freak

I'm here Scott, the picture/s actually looks pretty cool