DanE

No problem Abbott, I didn't mean to come across as slamming you, I was just curious if any other 'changes' had been made to the game. I could have worded my response better. Sorry. The rest of the post was not directed towards you but was meant to be a reminder to everyone that, while each of us thinks we know what would make CMBB a better game, in the end it comes down to what Charles and Steve want to do. I'm sure user feedback is important to them, but there has got to be a point where we, the gamers, must respect BFC's decisions concerning the development of the game. I'll add that I would have no problem with a well implemented campaign feature being put into the next CM game. I may or may not use it, but I would have no problem with one being added if it did not take away from the other aspects of CM. Now I believe you mentioned something about a drink in your message. It is now late enough in the morning so I think I will take you up on that. Relax and enjoy, I know I will...

Really? :eek: I was not aware of these compromises made by BFC. Please let me know of what compromises were made to the realism of CMBB. Please provide a link detailing these compromises. Of course, I hope the you not referring to a simple name change and the removal of a couple of bmp files. I doubt many would consider those "compromises to realism to reach a wider audience." I think they would fall under "compromises (which have no impact on realism) made so that the game can be legaly sold in other conutries." Also, I think there is some confusion between "reaching a wider audience" and "trying to reach a NEW audience." As far as I can tell, BFC's target audience for CMBB is the same as it was for CMBO. The distribution deal with CDV is in place to reach more members of that audience that would normally be unable/unaware of CMBB if it was only sold at Battlefront. It appears BFC is simply trying to reach more people in its taget audience. Now, I'm sure BFC won't mind if people outside of this taget audience buy CMBB, but I just haven't seen anything that would indicate that BFC has decided to abandon its stance on providing the most realistic wargame in an attempt to please and sell to the masses. If that was the case, I'm sure CMPW (Pacific War) would be coming out at Christmas and would have a campaign game that covered the entire war, would represent each individual member of each squad, would give the player the option of controlling land units and/or naval units and/or air units, and would have numerous other features collected from the many lists of 'missing features that would make CM a great game' found on these boards. As always, Charles and Steve have decided what they want CM to "be". It is their baby and they can raise it as they see fit. As in real life, it is much easier to tell somebody how to raise their child than it is to have and raise one of your own...

I have a couple of points from the peanut gallary: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I have merely pointed out that Bren gun tripods existed, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I beleive everybody agrees on this point... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> they were used <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I also beleive everybody agrees that they were used. But how they were used and when is what is being questioned... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> and their existence was widespread and sufficient to have pictures taken in widely different and divergent places over an extended period of time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How widespread? How sufficient? The point being argued here is that we cannot jump to these conclusions based soley on these pictures. If that were the case, then certianly UFOs have to exist because we have lord knows how many pictures of them. The same for Loch Ness and Bigfoot. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> - indeed if you go back to my very first message on the subject in the other thread, I even pointed out that I had always understood their use had been largely discontinued after about 1940.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Their use was largely discontinued after about 1940? Then what exactly is being argued here? If the use of the tripod was largely discontinued after about 1940, then is it a big surprise that the tripod is not modeled in CM:BO? The time frame in CM:BO is June 1944 and beyond.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: If you don't like it..fine, come up with something else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, I'd like to see all future Combat Missions use a WEGO system. I do not think it should be very hard to program this into the current code. And on another note: How can a game claim to be "real time" if it has a pause button/variable time/save game option? None of these are present in real time and therefore make a game using any of them "non-real time." Hopefully I didn't sound like an "anal" "creatively constipated" "zealot".

In CM, one shot does not = one bullet. One shot = one "burst" of firing. This is not a bug, just a crack sharpshooter doing his job. ------------------ Dan

Perhaps all of those smoking AFVs are playing a part in the slowdown...

Well, just out of curiousity, what was identified in the woods and how far away was it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: Also, as slapdragin mentions, there are a few people asking BTS to prove the change. I am not part of this. I was simply asking for the actual discussions prior to the change, as BTS had mentioned taken place. Nothing wrong with this. In prior posts (Dont know if you have read them Dan E.) but I never asked BTS to prove anything. I have always taken the stance as to try and understand something with more clarity and soemtimes I like to ask questions to clear stuf up. So STOP with your "stop making a stir" b.s. at least aimed at me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Panther, My bad. This post should not have been directed towards you. I guess I became frustrated after reading some of these posts and unfairly throw you into the "never-ending cycle" group. Hopefully no hard feelings. ------------------ Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: Ok...BTS, I would like to see what kind of discussions were taking place before the betas and 1.1. Do you have a link for a thread on this or was it all in e-mail? I did a search, but found nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Round and round it goes, where it stops...who the hell knows? The first demand was for BTS to change the points back to v1.05. Then came the demand for BTS to explain why the change was made in the first place. Now comes the demand to see the discussions that BTS had that led to the change. What next, a demand to know why BTS listened to that group and now won't listen to this discussion? And what comes after that, a demand to change the points back to v1.05? I mean, BTS has explained why the change was made. If it is a truely unfair change, it should not be that hard to prove your case. And we must all remember that this is BTS' game. They can make changes without first getting approval from us. ------------------ Dan PS: How many topics on this subject are under discussion right now anyway? [This message has been edited by DanE (edited 01-22-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WolfLord: I have praised BTS's decision to leave QB Combined Arms forces make-up to the player in the past, but now I find myself lamenting the fact that I am now forced to play those boring Armor QBs if I want a balanced meeting engagement <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So what exactly makes a balanced Armor meeting engagement QB boring and not a Combined Arms one? Is it too much for two people to select an Armor QB and agree not to spend more than xxx on armor? I know this is not the answer that some people want, but it seems to be the answer to what they are looking for. Almost like arguing at Burger King because you can't get a Big Mac when there is a McDonalds right next door. ------------------ Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ksak: It was your pontificating rudeness that drew me into this thread and with that revelation I am exercising the better part of valor and withdrawing from what has rapidly become a fuitless discourse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ksak, Since you have proven your point on the correct historical use of tank/gun crews so well, I have another question for you. If you have 4 posts in this thread (one of which declares BTS' stance on crew usage total BS) before Germanboy's first post, by what reasoning do you claim that Germanboy "drew" you into this discussion? Just curious...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: God help us! Instead of replaying the entire argument here, those unacquainted may be interested in the following threads. I think everything that can possibly be said on the subject has been said here: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the links David. For those that still do not see the advantage of searching, here is BTS' offical reply to this very subject: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Big Time Software Moderator posted 08-09-2000 11:22 PM OK, probably time to lock this one up So folks, what have we learned from this and other threads? 1. The lack of an OOB in CM 1 was an intentional design decision. Because of that, there are reasons for not having one. We do not expect everyone to agree with them, but we DO expect people to understand that it wasn't blind oversight. 2. Since most everybody appears to agree that we have pushed wargaming into an entire new arena, we therefore must know what we are donig. Great games of detail are not made by some sort of freak accident. Therefore, agree or not with our decision, we deserve a decent level of respect for it. Enlightened people can respectfully disagree. 3. Yes, many people have asked for OOBs. Many people also asked that we make CM 2D instead of 3D, use sprites instead of poligional figures, have continous time as the heart of the game, etc. So simple head count does NOT mean the feature is either good or necessary. We are the keeper of the vision, and it damn well better stay that way or future CMs will get muddled. 4. Large numbers of requests does mean we need to listen to the well reasoned arguments to see if we should do something differently. Perhaps not exactly what those users are directly asking for. 5. Whining and abusing us doesn't count for anything in our books If anything it INCREASES our desire to keep things as is. Best to state your case clearly and rationally, debate it in the same way, and then leave it be at least for a time. 6. The lack of an OOB has not hurt our review ratings OR our sales. Nearly all reviews have put us over the 90% mark, which is damned impressive. 7. An OOB feature, even if rather simplistic, would be a significant investment of programming time. If the feature is worth the investment, then it would certainly go in. But this is debate And finally... We have stated in the past that we are keeping in mind a PURE OOB feature for future CMs. This would be something that would allow you to see little more than the unit's name, type, and command structure relationship. You would also be able to "jump" to a particular unit by double clicking (or something) on the entry in the OOB. We have no firm design in mind, but this is one thing we have kicked around as a possible compromise. The time to debate this is really over for the moment. Try again in about 6 months when we know better what we might or might not do Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry guys, but this is funny. Here is BTS "patching" the game in order to get it right to their liking. (Note: CM worked better right off the bat than most companies final version.) They could be taking a Holiday break or working on CM2, but they are in effect, patching the thing for us. The patch is called a "Public BETA" for a reason. This is so any little bugs that might be crawling around inside of the code can be fixed before the "Official" patch is released. If it is too bothersome or annoying to keep up with the versions of the "Public BETA", then just play v1.05 until the "Official" patch is released. Sorry for the rant, but this really is funny if you think about it. ------------------ Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crepitis: Schrullenhaft,hi, I'm getting a bit confused now.CM II and CM2,are different games?Actually,from reading your post I think I understand,But tell me,do you know when CM2(the Eastern Front)will be released,(aproximately)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM2 will be the next game and will cover the Eastern Front and should be ready in about 18 months. CM II will be the next game engine by BTS and I believe BTS has stated that it will be 3-4 years down the road. ------------------ Dan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: Vanir, it would be great if you could find some info on this, because I was always of the impression that BTS had little to no interest in hypothetical conflicts. If I'm wrong, then great, no big deal. If you or someone else could point me to the answer, I'd be much obliged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Croda, I believe you are correct. Somewhere, BTS has commented on this. I believe the subject was brought up about letting both players play the same nation so they could have "even" games. Also, it was requested that the players be allowed to fight with allies. BTS' response was in the negative. I can't remember the exact response, and I'm not going to go looking for it , but basically BTS said (IIRC) "That wasn't the way they designed CM to be played." Sorry I can't be of any further assistance.