David Aitken

Jarmo wrote: > A pillbox shouldn't survive a 14" hit. Nothing would. Define "nothing". David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Jaded wrote: > "But in the end, we've created what we think is a game that you'll really want to play if you have any interest in strategy or combat games, 3D graphics, or military history." > That doesn't describe a niche market to me That is a sales pitch, designed to get as many people as possible to take a look at the game. 3D graphics? You could say that everybody who plays computer games is interested in 3D graphics. That doesn't mean they'll be interested in Combat Mission. CM is a niche product, and that's a fact. > > If they don't want to buy CM, they don't have to. If they must have a roster, CM is probably not their kind of game. > So now you read minds, too? Ever consider that not everyone has the same kind of life? For some folks, gaming time is very limited, and they appreciate UI tools that let them spend moretime playing and less time manipulating the interface. This is getting into the Roster Debate. If someone dismisses CM because it lacks a roster, it is entirely fair to say it's not their kind of game. The omission of Close Combat-style micromanagment tools is part of CM's design concept. > I proposed removing the 2-4 camera views, and limiting the 1 camera view to being attached to a friendly unit. The game could certainly be played using the 5-8 views and the limited (in my model) 1 view. > I wonder if there'd be a way to add a 'full render of this frame' option? > Another option that'd help me is to be able to toggle contour lines on the overhead views, or maybe shade the overhead views according to terrain height. You're really confusing the argument with a lot of different ideas. The fact is, you can pick up on any slightly unrealistic aspect of Combat Mission, and then argue that another unrealistic feature should be added - or you can argue that it should be put in to please customers. It's all been done before. But the facts here are plain and simple - the unrealistic aspects of Combat Mission (principally the camera) are there for purposes of gameplay. Within that framework, everything else is as realistic and logical as possible. Nothing unrealistic which would not significantly improve the game, within BTS's vision, will be included. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

TeAcH wrote: > Im sure there are things in the game now that started with a request...eh David? Not in CM1 or CM2 you say? Tweaks are made which actually improve gameplay. Smoking craters are pure fluff, and the whole graphical realism of CM will have to move up a notch before you can expect this kind of thing. > If the fog was thicker, wouldn't it add to the FOG of war? No, it would make foggy scenarios more difficult to play. By all rights, fog and darkness shouldn't be represented at all - it's just there to make the scenarios more visually realistic. The information which matters is there no matter where you position the camera - the distance your men can see, the enemy units which have been spotted. Actually restricting what you can see from your camera position makes no sense in this kind of game. > And to top it off, you say that most people wouldn't like it. Overly presumptuous of you if you ask me. No I didn't. I said restricting visibility in fog and night scenarios would make them more difficult to play, which is perfectly true. From there it doesn't take a genius to work out that this would put many people off. The challenge in foggy and night scenarios is already there, because your men's LOS is restricted. Restricting what you can see from your camera is not a challenge, it's a nuisance. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

CavScout, you've been watching too many Hollywood movies. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Ataru *~ wrote: > Bunkers are still immune to artillery... or very close to it anyway. I seem to remember this problem being patched away Pillboxes were made more resistant to artillery. In the Gold Demo they were being taken out too easily. > large caliber arty can impact next to a bunker, carving out a crater that extends beyond the position the bunker is located in... without affecting it? Yeah, the shell didn't hit the actual concrete but jeez, the pillbox is sitting IN a huge crater. This is just a graphical representation. In reality the crater wouldn't go under the pillbox. > Lastly, how does one see the damage of a building other than by looking at the asterisks in the name of the terrain when looking at a unit placed in a building, or when using the LOS tool? Normally you don't, although there is a function which puts labels on everything. We might get damaged building graphics in CM2. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

aka_tom_w wrote: > Not being able to see so much "shuld" be the way it is so you ahve to actually use your soldiers eyes and ears to figure out whats happening on the battle field. But this would effectively require you to play night battles in 'ironman' mode, which, as I've said, would turn off the majority of people. Remember that what you see is not supposed to be realistic - it's an abstraction to allow you to control your forces, and enjoy the game. Fact is, you can see the terrain, but your squads still can't spot anything that's not right in front of them, which already makes night/fog scenarios much more challenging. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

The only way? What's wrong with simply having an out-of-ammo team fall back on pistols, instead of transforming into something different, which would be highly confusing to say the least? Both would require extra programming, neither are likely to be included in CM, but I think a lot of people are expecting to see the former in CM2. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

SPOILER X X X DaMilli wrote: > The german MG groups have very strong positions on the other side of the bridge, but the AI doesn´t hold it´s fire for an ambush and therby reveals it´s position. This is why I've warned that the AI doesn't make too good a job of the scenario. > Just two suggestions: > At first, my men had serious problems crossing the river at the two fords since the slopes were just to steep. The slopes directly above the fords are traversible, but elsewhere they're too steep. > Second, wouldn´t a flamethrower tank be a nice addition to the initial british setup? Possibly, but so would a lot of other things. You've got infantry flamethrowers if you really want to start fires. =) Good to hear you enjoyed it! David X X X ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Jaded wrote: > You say that the 'anywhere LOS' feature gives the player far too much information. The folks who play 'hardcore' games say that flying the camera around does the same thing. Back to square one. How many times have I (in good faith) attempted to explain the tradeoff involved here? I'll say it again - there are two factors to account for when considering a feature. (1) Is it realistic, or does it simulate something realistic? (2) Is it crucial to gameplay? The flying camera fits squarely in the second bracket. An LOS tool would fit into neither. > But following your argument, being able to plunk the camera down among the enemy troops and sight back towards your side of the battlefield to learn what the enemy can see is acceptable, while being able to lie a virtual ruler down [...] in order to see if the trees on that ridgeline blocks that LOS is not acceptable... that sounds pretty arbitrary to me. As I've said already, CM is not currently photorealistic. Looking at the map, you do not get completely accurate information - the reason why you're asking for an LOS tool. But this makes it reasonable to be able to position the camera in the enemy's lines. It's like having a map - which you, as commander, would have in reality - it gives you a good idea of the lie of the land, but doesn't give you accurate information. > My boys have had time to set up target reference points, erect pillboxes and dig-in tanks, but they haven't had time to take a walk over to see what the lay of the land is like? You have this information, it's just not completely accurate - what's unrealistic about that? > Moylan and Grammont are not gods, they are not infallible. No-one is disputing this. But we are discussing a specific subject, and BTS have good reasons for their stance on this subject. > I realized that this feature wasn't going to be implemented, but that I still wanted to be heard. Should the designers only hear feedback from your side of that arbitrary line? Have I ever prevented anyone from speaking their mind? No. I chip in to offer counter-arguments where it seems necessary. As I've said, those who do not wish to discuss are not compelled to. > voicing an opinion here opens one up to attack, from what I've read I've never seen anyone 'attacked' for voicing their opinion. Even if they push for their pet feature, they do not get 'attacked'. What they do get are counter-arguments, and I can't quite see the problem with that. > if they listen to honest feedback [...] and they find out that a significant segment of their audience would really like to see "Feature X" then it might become economically prudent of them to implement that feature. This is quite correct, and many of CM's features were included this way. > And presumably they want to sell enough copies to feed their familes. And maybe make CM2 and have that sell even better. CM has sold extremely well, and we're all looking forward to CM2. > Your analogy, of course, is deliberately ludicrous. Probably an attempt to make me look silly. No, in an attempt not to be misunderstood ... > A better analogy would be if Ford found out that a statistically significant portion of their market really wanted larger diameter cupholders -- ones that would accomodate a 20 oz soda bottle. ... and this is why. Your analogy is completely different from mine. The change you suggest would be entirely logical and practical, and would in no way compromise the design of the car. > Battlefront.com has come up with a revenue model that will, hopefully, allow them to get by on the small grognard market share. But Combat Mission has the potential to be a much bigger hit than that. If CM2 was conceptualized with a wider audience in mind, they might sell a lot more copies BTS have designed Combat Mission entirely with a niche market in mind. They do not want to make populist, catch-all games which they can mass-market through global publishers - they want to make realistic simulations which are true to their own vision, and will sell to people who will really appreciate their principles and attention to detail. > I've seen you stridently attack the idea of a roster. You must be mistaken. I have argued against certain things, but I have not made any 'strident attacks'. > I know a few fairly influential hardcore gamers that passed Combat Mission by because of the lack of a roster. [...] not having that roster -- which they saw as a usability feature -- was enough to turn them away. If they don't want to buy CM, they don't have to. If they must have a roster, CM is probably not their kind of game. It may also be the case that they are unwilling to adjust to playing differently from Close Combat. > I'm amused by the fact that, after you posted, Steve came along and mentioned that the feature that I'm asking for just might eventually make it in... heh. Good for you, but he was talking about the scenario creator and the set-up phase, not a global feature of the game. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Naw Michael, that's Andreas, and he's German. Unfortunately HM Customs didn't notice the hamsters when they let him in. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Yup, here's a very satisfied customer in Scotland. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Pacestick wrote: > it was always drummed into me that anti tank weapons are always sighted well forward Jarmo wrote: > I really can't see anything gamey in sending the AT's up front. The subject here is not sending AT teams forward, it's using them as scouts. Obviously AT teams are no use if they're not up front, but no-one is disputing that. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I'm sure this kind of graphical realism will make it into BTS's games eventually, but it's not exactly a priority that would merit inclusion in CM 1 or 2. As for fog and night visibility - I'm rather glad it's not entirely realistic, because those scenarios would be a pain to play if you couldn't see anything, and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't bother. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

He's talking about operations, where you end one battle in certain positions, and when the next battle starts your lines are reset. There needs to be a minimum distance between forces, so you get pushed back. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

> :USERNAME: wrote: > > I disliked the coolcolj thing also. Stunk to high hell IMO. Vanir wrote: > Agreed. But that's another flame war.... I actually saw him post a small message in a thread here about a week ago. It seemed to go completely unnoticed though. I think that was an old thread that someone dug up. David P.S. I also think THIS thread should be left alone. Please don't everybody wait for BTS to lock a thread up before they stop posting. ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 09-03-2000).]

Jaded wrote: > That seems pretty easily do-able and I don't see how it'd effect playability enough to justify the loss of realism you get by being able to fly around the map like superman... Steve and I have both carefully explained the necessary tradeoffs between realism and playability when designing a game. People keep saying "Oh, well if you want total realism, you shouldn't be able to move the camera around", etcetera. I'm afraid this just isn't a credible argument. People also keep saying, when their suggestions for a new feature are opposed, that it should be included and made toggleable. But the fact is, regardless of whether BTS has the time or not, that does not mean they'd want to include everybody's pet feature in the game. They have spent a long time creating the game's concept, and they are going to remain true to that. When someone requests a new feature, and BTS turn it down, they give a logical and credible reason. However, it always comes down to this - when people realise that the feature they want doesn't belong in the game, they switch into "I want it anyway" mode. They say it will increase their enjoyment of the game, and it should be included as an option. I think an analogy would best illustrate my point. Say I write to Ford, insisting that I would enjoy their Mustang a lot more if it had a windmill on top. I argue that the windmill would be a source of power, and would therefore make the vehicle more economical. I say they can make it an option, and those who don't want it, don't have to use it. Would Ford offer a windmill attachment? No. Why? Because it would bastardise the design concept of their car. Regardless of whether it would make a few customers happy, it just has no place on the car. Making your customers happy is not the first rule of business. The first rule is, devise a killer product. The better conceptualised your product, the better it will sell, and the more people it will satisfy - not through pandering to their individual demands, but by being a great product. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I don't think anybody would have cared about the Waffen SS site, but this was after you'd suggested that some of the people here be gassed. If you just think about what you do, and don't get too bothered about what people say on the forum, you can't go far wrong. It's often difficult to work out how someone has meant something they said, when you can't hear their tone of voice - that goes for what people say to you, as well as what you say. If in doubt, just don't post - better than risking saying something you'll regret. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

The least realistic thing about infantry is their shape. It's easy to do a realistic vehicle, because vehicles are boxy, but people aren't. In terms of textures, I don't think you could really improve on the soldiers - there's a lot more scope with vehicles, because their colourschemes varied a lot. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Check6 wrote: > David, something's wrong with the magazine on that dude's gun. It's upside down. Aha, but I'm British. We like to put our magazines in funny places. - The Bren LMG has its magazine on top. - The Sten SMG, and its successor the Sterling, have it on the side. - The modern SA80 AR has it at the back. The SA80 (Enfield L85A1) also has a cunning feature whereby, if used in warm climates, it falls apart. The British Army can be seen as a pioneer of human rights, ensuring that if we go to war, we won't actually hurt anybody. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

HAH, you think THAT's a smiley?? Oh, and back on topic... the hamsters are definitely to blame. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

We don't NEED any more reasons to appreciate BTS! =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

You don't know when the thread was locked, only when Steve posted to say he was locking it. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Madmatt wrote: > Yes but people IGNORE you! They're not ignoring me, they're just trying not to catch my attention, lest I set the Hamstertruppen onto them. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

As far as I'm aware, the only modular atmospheric which effects LOS is smoke. The smoke from a burning vehicle or crops will reduce LOS, but a fire will not increase LOS. People have been asking for flares, which would be a similar idea. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Madmatt wrote: > THIS is the correct link. Posted the same thing three hours ago. =P David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT