Jump to content

DanE

Members
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by DanE

  1. 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...
  2. 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...
  3. 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.
  4. <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".
  5. 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
  6. Perhaps all of those smoking AFVs are playing a part in the slowdown...
  7. Well, just out of curiousity, what was identified in the woods and how far away was it?
  8. <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
  9. <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).]
  10. <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
  11. <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...
  12. <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>
  13. 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
  14. <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
  15. <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.
  16. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: Perhaps a system of Rules of Engagement? "Fire only when fired upon" "Open fire only when the enemy is within a certain range"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In CM: Wouldn't #1 be covered by "Hide" Wouldn't #2 be covered by "Ambush" Just curious...
  17. Hey! What's all of this talk about snipers? I don't have ANY snipers in my version of the game. I only have sharpshooters. BTS: I want to know what is going on here.
  18. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fuerte: It may be, but that thread is the most visible and obvious problem in this forum anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But I ask you, why is it a problem? It is taking up only ONE space on the list. If it is that bothersome to you, just don't read it. And since everybody stays "on topic" in that thread, you don't have to worry about missing something. That thread is for CM players to taunt each other as they play games with each other (Combat Mission included). The only thing that thread may be hurting is the people posting to it. (And I think some of them even get pleasure from it.) For the most part, the cess stays in the pool. And when there is a leak, somebody is there to clean up the mess in a timely manner. I have not documented this, but I believe you would find that most leaks occur in other "useless" threads started by non-poolers. The leaks seem to serve a useful purpose as they tend to get those "useless" threads closed up. Have a nice day. ------------------ Dan
  19. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fuerte: I propose a NNTP server just because I could then easily filter out the Peng thread and all other off-topic posts as well. I don't think that any other solution enables user-defined filters. Then everybody would be happy, even the Peng-posters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is up with the negative Peng Thread vibes? I dare say that is the EASIEST thread to skip on the whole board if you don't want to read it. Here is what you do: Don't click on it! With that said, I just had a thought/vision/episode. Call it what you like, but here it is: Think about this for a minute... that thread is being used the correct way. It is one continuous thread that people keep posting to. They are not creating NEW threads every day/hour/minute so everything stays in one spot (for the most part). Think how less congested the board would be if people stopped creating NEW threads using the following reason: "I just did a search and found a 10 page thread about this subject, but I want to start a new thread talking about the same thing." (Hint: Post to the exsisting thread. Not only will it keep the discussion in one thread, but it will be easier to follow.) or "I know the other thread was locked because we were flaming about (a subject), but I just wanted to let everybody know why my view on (said subject) is right." (Hint: IF BTS tells you not to open a new thread on subject, don't. It will only get locked. Sometimes it helps to restate your subject to avoid possible flareups.) or "I have something really important to say about this subject, but my post will be on page 3 of the thread and nobody will read this far down so I'll start a new thread and have the first post." (Hint: If people are interested, they will read a post even if it isn't on page 1 of the thread. By creating new threads, the subject becomes hard to follow and the discussion losses steam.) See, there is a lot of cluster on this board. And this was just three quick examples and I didn't even get into the whole "the members are mean because they tell me to search" mess. So, trying to imply that the Peng Thread is the cause of the problems is very unfair. Have a nice day. ------------------ Dan [This message has been edited by DanE (edited 12-07-2000).]
  20. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: Isn't it odd in Florida that the Democrap Attorney General responsible for the Recount is also Gore's Campaign manager in the State. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just for the record, the recount is not handled by the Attorney General. The recount is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. And yes, the Secretary of State for Fl is a Republican. This message paid for by ..... ------------------ Dan
  21. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: I guess this is the part I don't understand (not just about you, but everyone that makes "gamey" play negative). To me, no rules were broken, and he played the game, within CMs rules and limits. There is nothing wrong with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do not use "gamey as a negative term. "Gamey" is just one way of playing the game. The best way I can try to explain how I look at this issue is this: Gamey players will use any tactic allowed by the code to win the game. Non-gamey players will try to adhere to RL tactics to try to win the battle. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: He used an option that was available, and won. Traits exhibited were cleverness, resourcefulness, and proper execution, at the right time. Seems to me, he has a great grasp of military strategy by meeting those criteria.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From his description it sounds more like this: He got into a nasty fight, suffered heavy casualties and was beaten back. He looked at the turn counter and saw it was the last turn. He then decided to throw what little force he had left in a meaningless "massive assualt" against a superior enemy. Good fortune and a lucky break? Yes. Great grasp of military strategy? Perhaps so but not in this case. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Oh well. Let's agree to disagree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, there is nothing wrong with that idea. So much has been said about this already that I am willing to leave this dead horse alone. Have a good day. ------------------ Dan
  22. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: I understand your "complaint," but as I said, it is a game. To me, this doesn't "teach" much (from actual combat). There are rules, and limits in every game. And, to be honest, a good "commander" will EXPLOIT every option in order to win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, this is a game. But when a player EXPLOITS known game limitations in an effort to win, that is gamey. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Why/ He perhaps took to many causlties thinking he could not win? Ask him. But, he was smart and clever enough to see his mistake, and use an excellent tactic his oppoenent did not account for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't trying to make a point with my Bonus question, just asking a question. I was just curious how a player could have the forces available at the end of the game to make a "massive assualt" but think there was no way for him to win. And how do we know that his opponent did not account for this tactic? Perhaps the VL was properly defended for the massive assualt. Perhaps the only thing the assualt hoped to accomplished was to dispute the VL for one turn (the LAST turn) of the battle before being crushed after a couple of minutes. Hard to really say since we don't have much info. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Point is, he saw he could win, and used his game peices at his disposal to accomplish that. His oppoenent didn't. Good game by his part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I still say, based on the original description, PershingII did not think he could win. He launched a meaningless assualt on the last turn and he won the game. Lucky? Yes. Great tactics? Not enough info. Now, if he knew that taking/disputing the VL would give him the victory then it was a good move. Still GAMEY but a smart move to "win" the game. Have a good day. ------------------ Dan
  23. But Doc, you left out the first part of the question: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PBEM Game, is my last turn, the game is lost many casualties. my troops try a massive assault and i win. is this gamey? tnx.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Answer this question: If a player feels the battle is already lost, why order a last turn attack on a VL? Bonus question: If a player is capable of launching a "massive" assualt on the last turn, why would that player be convinced that the battle is already lost? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: No. You played the game well. Excellent use of forces to win a scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Excellent" use of forces? He even admitted that he thought the battle was lost and he had suffered many casualties. This is why I do not like gamey tactics; they teach players the wrong way to try to win battles. But this has all been discussed before... ------------------ Dan
  24. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Johnno: This is dense as I made a scenario where they had to exit the other side of the map for points. THIS HAS TO BE A BUG!!! Phoenix is perhaps right in saying that the AI will not magically drive into enemy territory. However, this is an ambush, they don't know you are there! The AI is cheating in this aspect knowing you are there before you show yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kind of harsh words there, Johnno. Let me ask you a question: When you start a QB do you drive your unarmed vehicles down roads in front of your line that have not yet been secured by your fighting force? No? Why not? When a battle takes place in CM, the enemy is assumed to be on the map. The AI seems to be rather "smart" when it comes to not wanting to move unarmed units into possible danger spots. ------------------ Dan
  25. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: As for the Civil War you bet your ass those Southerners were on the line. Manpower was more important than it is now. Everyman that could, did!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is fair, everybody is entitled to their opinion. However, I do not recall reading any mention of the tactic of including Civil War crews on an offensive assualt. On day 3 at Gettysburg, who was cheering on the advancing Confederates as they left the safety of their own lines? The artillery crews. Who was preparing the Confederate line for a possible Union counterattack after the failed assualt? The artillery crews. If Lee had commited all of his available troops in the assualt and had no reinforcements to send, why did he not use the available artillery crews. (Remember, the artillery ammo was extremly low at this point so he could have used a bunch of those crews.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I ask you, if BTS modifies the jeep in the future is this still "gamey"? We must judge the tactic not the CM engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The jeep rush is gamey because it takes advantage of a known limitation in the game design. If BTS could ever solve this limitation to reflect real life, at that point the jeep rush would not be considered gamey. Why? Because the player would simply be using bad tactics, and would not gain information due to the game design. Remember, all of the above is just my opinion. ------------------ Dan
×
×
  • Create New...