Schrodi

Hi Dar, Well, I think I agree with you for the most part. Especially about most software companies having money as the bottom line. But, to be fair I think that they way the market is structured that *has* to be the way the function. I think that it just may be the case that CM *is* a labour of love, BUT, part of the problem is, I think, that their a few opportunities for people with talent to exercise their labours of love in the gaming world. And what are the financial prospects for CM? Is the fact that they strive for excellence and will serve no code before it’s time a detriment to their profitability given the market? Even though this seem refreshingly novel and welcomed approach is great-loved by all, could it be economically punished? I agree with the middle management problem you point out, but is middle management the price of success in this business, thus starting the whole mess again in yet another company? It also seems that catering to the grognars(?) does have an negative effect on the bottom line. Despite the superiorly of this game I doubt it will out sell the well advertised, corporate supported crap games that have been discussed here.

Well Maxm2, You say that in your view it has “nothing to do with how the business or agency is structured, it has to do with the quality of leadership and weather there are institutional restrictions on how much freedom the leadership has.” Well, you sort of contradict yourself in the first place since the institutional restrictions, if any, ARE how the business is structured. Also, I totally disagree in you assessment. In the first place there are many people of talent out there and very few superlative products, as you yourself mention. This has to do more with institutional structures than leadership. There are plenty of good and potentially good leaders out there. You views on leadership and it’s restrictions being the cause would have gone down well with certain circles being depicted in this game though. Further, if you have great rules in place you CAN’T have bosses who are “tyrannical maniacs” This applies much more broadly too. BTS may, in fact, be a “lucky” mixing of talents. But that lack of other such companies I think has less to do with *bad* luck and more to do with our surrounding institutional structures. ---

You are red, you are white, you are Danish dy-na-mite! you are red, you are white, you are being gouged for the right to fight! Ahhhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha (but you have a great country, really)

OK, despite some tweaking that apparently will take place in the final addition of the commercial product(before release - imagine that). BTS has come up with a really great game. I think most people who are even marginally interesting in playing them, and right up to those of you who obviously have no life outside of war games, think this is one fantastic effort from BTS. So the question I think, as an important and perhaps worrisome aside to the specifics of the game, is: why have market forces been such a dismal failure in producing good war games( and games in general) and good companies that we don’t all end up hating? Is it because corporations like Microsoft are involved and the vary nature of monopolies (and corporations in general) is market interference? Does big adverting campaigns(corporate propaganda) lead to inferior products? It seems to me that there will be a powerful grass-roots word of mouth campaign for CM because of the high quality of the product. Do others suffer from a lack of spontaneous applause without having advertising dollars? So...don’t we all know great gamers and programmers out there that can’t get on a good team or get involved with a company that even cares about it’s product? One of the best artists/graphic designers I know-tons of talent-worked for two years making great stuff for, in the end, the worst games. At the time I didn’t believe him when he told me stories of how his company operated. Only later did a learn that this is the rule, not the exception. If, as it seems to me, that there are other talented people out there than just those who work for Big Time (and they seem very talented) then it must be in our market structure at the present that is causing all this crap. I mean really, isn’t there only really about 3 or 4 fantastic games out there? What do you guys think?

Hi Tankerslely, Your first two paragraphes can be attributed to some kind of drug re-hab you are attending, I'm sure? But the last, and relevant to the discussion at hand, paragraph supports what I was saying about lots of possibilites for a interesting game. Thanks.

Well John H., I think that there are plenty of examples during the Tet offensive, NVA attacking dug in positions. Meeting engagements in the bush. Fighting for Hill such and such. Black Opps into Cambodia. I'm sure there was a lot of boredom, as in most wars, but you would filter out all the pointless humping, which, as a percentage, I'm sure was the overwhelming majority. That still leavs lots of battles of a interesting charachter. However, like I said, the scar of Vietnam on the American psyche prohibits this kind of game. It would negativly effect sales, I think. Especially given all the U.S. atrocities etc.

Oh, I think that the possibilities for a interesting Vietnam game are only as limited as your imagination. I think the big stumbling block for Vietnam is the fact that the americans lost. That might not bode well for sales in the U.S., the biggest market.

Hi Titan and others, No, it's not necessarily best tech wins. What I'd like to see is Indochina/Vietnam. It would be fun to do that war where a small third world peasant army beats the worlds leading super power.

Hi again Big Time, In the first place, I'm not dragging your mud through anything, because, you don't have a name, you are posting though your companies alias. Secondly you ARE censoring material that was in no way profane or vulgar. I didn't' swear once. So I take it you're position is that I'm not entitled to my opinion? Also I'm well aware who owns this BBS. I guess you figure private tyranny can't really be censorship? Interesting idea of free speech you have. I don't' believe I have in any way broken the agreement of this BBS. My judgment of Fionn's actions are my own and you can agree with them or not. Censorship is the thin edge of the wedge to intolerance, NOT free speech.

See, now Chris posted just to hurl an insult in a discussion he wasn't directly involved in. I guess he'll be censored as well... BTW Chris in was just over 170m not 150m. And I'm really impressed with your German. I'll bet it was a real accomplishment learning it, what with your obvious intellectual limitations. Good for you.

Well, at least Big Time Software sticks up for their (albeit pathetic) minions by deleting my post, which was not "over the top abusive". Anything I said regarding Fionn was true, or obviously poking fun at him for his intense ridiculousness. I can't believe that Big Time would stoop to fascist censorship just to protect Fionn's egg shell ego. Incidentally, I did keep it clean, as I never ONCE used profanity. I'm sorry Fionn can't take honest criticism and has the intellectual honesty of a Commissar. What I said are judgments. Not abuse. They are founded on my interaction with him. It's insane to censor remarks that are not vulgar or profane in any way. At least we know what side you are cheering for when simulating the war with the fascists.

Deleted because it was over the top abusive. [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-21-99).]

Hello Fionn, I can't believe your first paragraph ( Beginning with "I've done much debating at what the Americans would call state level") in your last response, what nonsensical ass covering gibberish. What is you "state level" debating experience and how is it in any way relevant? Certainly stating "facts" "blandly" is of much use in formal debating? Not that is matters here. Basically you are explaining how you can't get the facts straight AND come of as being civil at the same time. Fionn: "I'm a bastard with the answers, or a tab dancing little ignoramous-and nothing in between". Is that right? To the points you made: 1. This undermines your other posts. Congratulations for wasting our time. 2. Wasn't being debated. 3. This is redundant et al (see 1.) 4. Now you start trying to justify in all when you just admitted the problem in point 3. Advise: less drinking before posting. You also didn't address the issue of historical precedent, a precedent that you were "confident" existed and could be cited...just not by you evidently. ...oh and your "taking it easy" (what ever that means) on me and others as a display of magnanimity is really nauseating. Could you pretend you're an adult for a while.

Hey Moon, Don't worry, I'm relaxed. Just exclaiming! Not SHOUTING(not much anyway). Anyway, I'm glad to here that they are fixing it. That makes a lot of the responses, particularly Fionn's, even more bizarre.

No chance a "Manager of Historical Research" could look it up, Fionn?

And that other Stug (RE: Rons post) is at 190m !! 2%??!! I think not.

Hey Leli, In the first place I'm no "obsessed" with seeing a historical account. I've just been posting about this afternoon. I am interested though. It seems some are more obsessed with obfuscation rather than getting to the bottom of the matter though. As the game trades on historical realize, in part, I think it's incumbent on the designers to live up to that claim. This is where this line of inquiry begins. As to the rest of your post, it WOULD be answered by some historical analysis sine all you wonderings are moot in light of actual historical reality.

Well Coolguy, that's my point, a whole lot of luck was involved-to the point of absurdity almost. And if no historical precedent can be cited than I think they have to tweak the efficacy of the game bazooka down a notch or two. And Titan, the problem is that they say that you should plan you tactics historically and think that way. Well, I doubt that the team would have even fired in that situation let alone get a hit. I think Fionn recognizes this as he sort of gave me a really round-about response. He wants what's best for the game but I think he's invested a lot of time into it and has such high hopes we even see the response of a commissar or as he titles himself MANAGER of Historical Research. (Orwellian emphasis mine)

Yes Fionn, I know the difference between the PF/PS and Bazooka. But that is not the issue at hand. Is there a historical precedent for the kill?....and, if so, can you cite the source? I highly doubt it. Given that this game (and it's very fun) trades on it's historical realism, I think this issue should be addressed. I've seen this kind of shot before too, but didn't record the particulars. Incidentally, you didn't mention the most famous case, I think, in Russian rip-offs. The AK-47 was basically just a copy of the MP-44. Also the americans weren't immune to this as well. Take pretty much the whole US space program, their Germans were better than the Russian Germans, so they won the space race...jet aircraft, armour, automobils, chemistry etc.

A bit long? Can anyone cite a historical precident where a bazooka hit and killed a Stug(or better) from the front at 170m or further, while in a building when they are going to draw massive fire? Or even just at that range? That seems completly ahistorical.

In playing the new scenario as the Germans with PBEM. I had a Stug killed with a bazooka-frontal shot, at 170m. What the heck is that? As far as what I've read, I can't believe he would even take the shot(from a building too). He was imediatly fired on from another Stug and other unit fire(and would konw that his pot shot would result in this as well). Is this in any way realistic? I knew full well that the LOS was there, but never though that a Bazooka would even take a 170m frontal shot on a Stug. Wasn't 100m pushing it in combat conditions(under fire as well)?