David Aitken

Yes, I too was shocked at the omission of a jewel case. Note that most other companies give you a jewel case, and omit the manual. =P David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Dr Dan wrote: > sometimes passionate argument "scares away" open discussion and dissenting views. Oh, we get plenty of dissenting views. Problem is, most of them aren't new, and have probably been discussed within the past week or two. > Why is the goal maximum "reality?" Why can't the game include features that might enhance play simply because the tradeoff is deviation from strict realism There are obviously realism tradeoffs that need to be made in order to turn a realistic simulation into and enjoyable game. Just think of these as 'handles'. When you click on a unit you get a menu. This is a handle. You can move the camera all around the battlefield - this is another one. As a rule, handles, although innately unrealistic, should have some basis in reality. When you're telling a unit where to go, you call up a menu and plot a path for it. The way you do it is unrealistic, but the functionality it simulates is not. The camera is the main example of an unrealistic handle, but this is an exception, because it's a fundamental aspect of a playable game. So, to sum up - the meat of the game is realistic. The handles are less realistic, but this is a tradeoff, to be judged on (1) simulation of realistic functionality, and (2) importance to the playability of the game. To use the LOS tool example, it fulfills neither of these criteria - it doesn't simulate anything realistic, and its absence has no significant effect on playability. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Try this URL: ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/patches/cm105.exe The problem is, the link from BTS's front page says cm105.zip instead of .exe . David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 09-02-2000).]

Dan, if you want to see flames, you've come to the wrong forum. I rarely see anything BUT civility here. Sure, a lot of people (including myself) feel strongly about certain things, but you should never confuse an argument with a flamewar. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Here's a link: A Case For Full Squad Representation David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Hi hakujin - If you're wondering about a unit list (a roster), read the following threads: Interface needs work. I want a roster, a roster !! Vote ! Roster War, ceasefire David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Von Brizee wrote: > He cried "Gamey" and ended the game right there. I have to side with you here. You may be using bad or unrealistic tactics, but the fact is they worked. You're not utilising a flaw in the game, you're simply doing something you wouldn't get away with in reality. If your opponent had half a clue, he could easily counteract your bad tactics. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Sigs don't accept the UBB image tag. Try HTML. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

guachi wrote: > I was (as far as I can tell) the first one to suggest that one figure represent three men. Sorry, did someone confuse you into thinking the CM community is democratic? Credit goes to the guy who can claim it loudest and most often, and threaten his opponents into submission. Understand that this is a historically accurate model, based on Nazi Germany. Got to create the right atmosphere for the game... David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Gunslinger wrote: > Didn't mean to piss in anyone's cornflakes. I'm glad about that... I prefer to eat Cornflakes with my own piss. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Ellros wrote: > just as we used the MG42 as the base for the M60. MG42 and FG42. The similarity to the latter is striking. Formerly Babra wrote: > The distinctive sound emitted by the empty Garand is generated by the clip ejecting from the rifle, not hitting the ground. Depends what kind of ground it hits. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Germanboy wrote: > Let me just say I got a really good laugh out of your spider. Had to dig the bloody thing out of my wardrobe first. Took a mugshot so I'll recognise it if it comes back. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Dr Dan wrote: > It really boils down to which compromises you are willing to accept. My reply to you would be the same as I've just given to weasel. Ron wrote: > It is funny how a post defining a player's preference on something degenerates into irrelevant issues. What are you calling irrelevant? If someone is stating their preference, and do not wish to discuss it, they can make this clear. If they say "I think X would add a lot to the game", that is a good basis for a discussion. Those who do not wish to participate in the discussion do not need to. If anyone indicated to me that they wished to cease a discussion, I would be quite happy to oblige. Germanboy wrote: > Does one of you three guys know how many angels fit on the pin of a needle while dancing perchance? The Heavenly Health And Safety Directive 2000, section 32 clause 6, dictates that angels should not dance on sharp metal objects without the appropriate protective equipment and insurance cover, and without first obtaining written permission from God. Angels found violating this rule will be cast into reality to fend for themselves, and they won't get to fraternise with Natassja Kinski or Willem Dafoe either. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

KwazyDog wrote: > Babra, I love that pic!! Half-close your eyes and you see just how effective it is. Quite amazing. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Pvt. Ryan wrote: > Or was this just in the movies? Sounds like a good tactic. Chances are it's true. Reality is stranger than fiction... you'll find far more bizarre occurrences in war than you will in any film. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

PvK wrote: > (seems like maybe 15% light woods, 50% woods) This seems pretty reasonable to me. I take the Woods in CM to be pretty dense. We're not talking simple canopies here, like a rainforest - we're talking a three-dimensional maze of branches. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Gunslinger wrote: > I would like to try to make a CM Mod for it. By the sounds of it, you would like lots of people to volunteer to do it for you. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

weasel wrote: > But we already have at least one huge feature with no basis in reality, which was included for no reason other than the player's convienience. You can't compare camera movement with an LOS tool. Camera movement is hardly a self-contained 'feature' like an LOS tool - it's one of the most fundamental aspects of the game. As you say, the alternative - locking the view at 'shoulder' level - would make the game practically unplayable. An LOS tool serves one purpose only, and a purpose which (1) is not at all necessary, (2) would create an anomaly in the game's concept, and (3) has no basis in reality. The basic design concept of Combat Mission is obviously unrealistic, in order to make it an enjoyable game. But the details within this structure are as realistic and rational as possible. An LOS tool is a detail, and one which has no place in the game. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Hawkeye wrote: > I think we'd all like the game to be a perfect photorealistic recreation of WWII if the programmers had the time and our CPU's had the horsepower. That about sums it up. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Formerly Babra wrote: > As long as I'm sending up a scout, why not give him a PIAT? Because someone trying to avoid the enemy using stealth will not want to be lugging around heavy AT equipment. Germanboy wrote: > Being methodical, predictable and boring, I won't give anything away by saying that I only use half-teams for the job. I have to say, these are the kind of words spoken by people who win. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

weasel wrote: > Well, you can indeed see what they might be able to see, but you certainly can't see what they will be able to see, for various well-known reasons The point I'm making is, you can already see far more than you would in reality. The inaccuracy of what you see is comparable to the inaccuracy of a printed map, but what you see is much more informative than a map - so in being inaccurate it makes perfect sense, and if anything it should be less accurate. > Is a magic string realistic? Probably not, but then neither is the ability to zoom about the map at will. As I've said to Dr Dan, it would be impractical to prevent you from zooming around a map. This is a necessary compromise. Adding an LOS tool would be a new feature, and one which has no basis in reality. In other words, you're looking at information the game gives you which you shouldn't really get at all, and requesting that you be allowed to measure it more accurately. Flawed argument, I'm afraid. I wouldn't endorse inaccuracy, but there is actually a 'terrain fog of war' function in the game, something some people have been requesting. You're allowed to see the whole map in detail, which is unrealistic - but it's not entirely accurate. You only get accurate feedback from your men, which makes a lot of sense. This is why the LOS tool should be restricted to your units. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I used +1 scale while I was playing at 800x600. Then I got a new graphics card, and now I won't settle for less than realistic scale at 1600x1200. =) If you're tempted to go any further with the number of men represented in a squad issue, don't. Read this instead. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

No defend arcs in CM. Frankly, this feature appeared in the first Close Combat, which was purely linear - Germans on the left, Americans on the right. You couldn't get your troops to face a different way for love nor money. The thing to do in CM is to rotate your men where you think they should be looking. The issue of tank turrets has been addresssed in the latest patch (1.05). Tanks should continue to point their turret in the direction of a previous threat, rather than resetting to 'forward'. However, you can't tell them to anticipate a threat. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

In case anyone's wondering... David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Thanks for the info, Bullethead! It would be all too easy to get caught up with the accuracy of armoured vehicles and such, and forget about the accuracy of the battlefield environment. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT