David Aitken

Mr. Johnson-- wrote: > They MG42 IMHO sounds much to weak in CM. In the WW2 mod it sounds like God is tearing a huge piece of canvas to sheds. It is truely scary. We're talking about realism versus effect. Enough said. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Germanboy wrote: > I think David sees through you. Huh? What? Where? Uh... oh, yes, yes indeed! Nobody escapes my steely gaze... I can penetrate a brick wall at 500 yards! Okay, well, when I say brick wall... I'm talking about the papery kind, y'know... and give or take 500 yards or so. But anyone without a plentiful supply of paper and yards is in dire trouble!! David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Germanboy wrote: > Talking about those Germans? Robert Shaw never even bothered with the random Z's. He obviously had no concept the language. ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Consider that, in reality, you might not know the enemy is there at all. Allied forces chasing after retreating Germans, or German forces rushing to the front line, suddenly run into the enemy. So when you start your meeting engagement, just rushing for the middle of the map isn't too unrealistic. It's the way you handle the engagement that matters, not how you get to it. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

spcwrnglr wrote: > these are simply suggestions that would make it much better! > Tanks need a "hull down" command. > Simple. > the entire battle should be able to > there should be a "director" mode available. > there could simply be > I look forward to seeing this improvement Despite your disclaimer, your choice of words is still less than ideal. Please don't claim that your personal suggestions would necessarily improve the game, or that they would be 'simple' matters, or make comments to the effect that you expect to see your suggestions implemented. Your post came across well in nature, but as far as the content goes, you needn't have bothered. There's no harm in saying things that have already been said, but it's best to ask things and suggest things, not jump straight in and claim that X and Y would transform the game. Just a point of order - I'm not singling you out, we just get this a lot. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

You're not going to get 'realistic' and 'fun' together in a WWII FPS - end of story. There isn't much inherently fun about an infantryman's work. Sure, you could substitute spaceships with trenches and laser guns with rifles, but the actual experience wouldn't be real. This is what I've always felt about FPS's - they may look real, but the reality of sneaking around with a gun is nothing like any game can hope to emulate for a long time to come. Even if someone eventually creates "Virtual Reality WWII Infantryman", which will involve a full-body suit which (among other things) simulates cold, dampness and fatigue, it still won't be much of a game. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

This would just further confuse people about what they're actually seeing. As I'm sure you know, the three men effectively form a single 'counter' - they're just a man-shaped counter, not models of your men. The kind of actions you see - firing, throwing a grenade, taking cover - are acceptable indications of what the squad is doing. Anything else is just fluff, but it also creates the impression that you're seeing individual men, and this will create more confusion. Best the way it is! David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Germanboy wrote: > Unfortunately our country persists in the atrocious habit of dubbing and renaming Spiel uber, mann, spiel uber! =) Can't get enough of those old warfilms where you've got Americans speaking English, and Germans speaking... English, but it's not actually, it's German... and then you have the Americans and the Germans speaking to each other, the former in English and the latter in English (German). Or would that be English (English)? Ummm... ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-18-2000).]

Germanboy wrote: > That [...] made my customers think I was weird. Ah, so the CM forums will seem just like old times, eh Andreas? Golly, I've just realised... > That coming from a man who obviously enjoyed Alien II I don't know many people who enjoyed "Alien II". Aliens wasn't all that bad, though. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Fionn wrote: > The rescue guys are consciously risking their lives for just a few more minutes of trying to help their comrades in the Kursk. I'm not disputing your point, but this is to do with individual Russians, not the government. All credit to the rescuers for their superhuman efforts - but that is removed from the issue of what the government has done to empower the rescuers. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

tailz wrote: > And as far as "dire threat to its image" generating action... Viet Nam, Afghanistan... both meatgrinders for their respective combatants with widespread public opposition that didn't influence government direction at all. Vietnam is the benchmark by which all new military engagments are gauged. The US government is constantly seen to be "avoiding another Vietnam". That isn't an example of how the government can ignore public opinion - it's one of the reasons why the government is so concerned about public opinion. A lot has changed in the past ten years, let alone thirty. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Never mind... [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-18-2000).]

That's what the chain of command is for. It's way too much to expect an infantryman to both fight, and assume that the other guys with him will also fight. You can't stick your neck out if you think you're going to get done over, and hence you'll be a poor fighter. So squads have Sergeants, platoons have Lieutenants, companies have Captains, etcetera - and in combat, one of their most important responsibilities, is to make sure the men under their command will fight. This is why a leaderless group of infantrymen is useless - no matter how committed they are, they just can't trust each other to the extent that they'd be willing to risk their lives. They need a superior who they know is going to keep everybody in line. Sorry if I'm preaching to the converted, but like Jeff I find this subject fascinating - psychology is SO important in war. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

1280x960 on a 19" monitor? Surely you can do better than that... BFGSAHQ - expect a visit from our good friend the CM Borg. Welcome aboard! David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

tailz wrote: > Exactly what type of insurance should they have? The ability to rescue men slowly asphyxiating in a submarine. Training accidents certainly do happen in every army, but this situation isn't just an accident, it's a crisis. The men weren't killed instantly, they are/were waiting for help, which is very different. > What 'dangerous mission' was the KURSK on? The dangerous mission which ended up with an explosion and left it lying crippled on the sea bed. In the military, even training missions are dangerous. Fionn wrote: > My simple point is that I think you are taking too "populist" and "uninformed" a view of things. Well, I'm looking at things more from a political viewpoint. If this happened to a British or American sub, the government would move heaven and earth to get those guys out, because they're extremely PR conscious, and this would be an image disaster for them. I agree that the Russians' situation is technically complicated, but a government under dire threat to its image has a surprising capacity to do the impossible. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Sitting Duck wrote: > I'm not so sure it's irrelevant is it? [...] Then so too the exploding buildings, shaking camera option, flying debris, etc. Well, as it stands, bits of men flying around would be irrelevant, because individual men are not modelled. Until CM models individual men, sorry, no entrails - and that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

killmore wrote: > The idea is to give player a choice. The choices which are applicable to the game, are already there. There are plenty of options for personal preference. 'Choice' does not entail tacking on any new feature that somebody says they want. > Why do you think this question keeps coming back? Because people ignore the concept of the game - something which Combat Mission is unique in having by the truckload - and decide they want X feature and Y feature because they saw it elsewhere and they couldn't be bothered playing the game the way it was intended. If you don't like the way CM is done, don't play it. It was done that way for many, many extremely good reasons, and BTS are not about to bastardise it to appeal to people who aren't really interested in realising its full potential. I'm not calling everyone who wants realtime a lout. However, the demand for realtime is small - and among the most long-standing fans of Combat Mission, it is negligible. While some people, such as yourself, would find it useful in certain circumstances, it would only truly be worthwhile if BTS were seeking to attract a much wider audience - but this audience is not the kind which is likely to fully appreciate the game. BTS don't want to make games which will sell to everyone on the planet and their dog - they want to make games which conform to their standards, and which they can be proud of. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

jshandorf wrote: > I understand completely, but what I am curious about is how is the squad's overall morale effected? As far as I know, the squad is treated as one. If a man becomes incapacitated through panic, he will be recorded individually as a casualty - but recoverable panic is a squad-wide characteristic. ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Regardless of what should be done now that the disaster has happened, the Russian government is guilty of sending men out on dangerous missions without proper insurance. It's ridiculous that they should be unable to rescue the men themselves. They're desperate to portray an image of military strength, but it's really just a fragile facade, and it's the Russian men and women who suffer the consequences. jshandorf wrote: > On the other hand... Our politicians I feel respect (fear?) public opinion more than thier Russian counter parts. Very, very true. If the British or American governments let the crew of a sub asphyxiate on the sea bed, there would be anarchy. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Men in Combat Mission are not modelled individually. The three-man 'squad' you see is effectively a 'marker' to indicate a squad - it does not represent the men themselves. As such, you are not seeing the true action of the battlefield. Combat Mission is a tactical simulator, not an action game. As Andreas says (thankyou Andreas, have a sweetie), this kind of eye candy is irrelevant to the game. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Philistine wrote: > most of the posters to these threads seem to recognize that any "consensus" reached will not necessarily be implemented From what I've seen, it's as much one way as the other. Some people know it's just an opinion poll, whereas others, justifiably, assume that this is the place to post their serious requests, not understanding that a strong argument needs to be made before their request becomes significant. > BTS has brought this on themselves by being so willing to consider changes/additions and opinions from posters in the past. In the past, most of the people on the forum were extremely knowledgeable in military history. Since the release of the game, the forum has filled will less learned and less fanatical people (no bad thing, but a fact nevertheless). BTS have done the right thing by listening, but this fact should not be abused. There are too many people who seem to think that, just because BTS are listening, they suddenly have the right to dictate the development of the game. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

killmore wrote: > Up to 15 units RT battles might be fun. Bigger are not possible. You could slow down real time to say 1/2, 1/4 or 1/10. Well, okay, lets make CM real time! Oh dear, it's actually too difficult to play now... so... Let's slow it down to a fraction of the speed! Yeah, that makes sense. A lot of point in making in realtime there. Worth all the time spent rewriting the engine. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Quango wrote: > For example I've had situations in CC where the enemy surprised me with a tank attacking my forces. In real life the commander would be in a mad scramble or even panic to tell his units to withdraw, move a reserve tank or AT team up to counter. Spoken like a true action gamer. In real life the commander would order his men to close-assault the tank, and it would be toast. > In the CC FAQ there is even a question: "Why didn't you make it turn based?". Their answer - because it killed the action stone dead! Atomic want action. BTS want realism. > It is interesting to note that it took me about seven or eight hours last night to play the four scenarios in the demo (both sides). Given they are 60secs x 40 and 60x35 in reality I was actually 'fighting' for only about two and a half hours. I bet the real WW2 commanders would have thought such 'thinking time' a real luxury! As other people have already said, you are thinking for all of your Company and Platoon leaders, so you need extra time to do this. > That's what you read. I said that it would remain a niche product. If the developers don't want success/money/etc. then fine, I won't try to convert them, or anyone here. I won't buy shares in them either though Your self-assured attitude doesn't cut much ice. BTS have achieved considerable success by doing things differently. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Quango wrote: > Depends on whether you are concentrating on modelling realistically or just representing units as 'tokens' but in 3D. I think we'll all have to differ on this one. Well, you represent yourself. Everyone else represents the long-standing community of Combat Mission fans who understand the (incredibly extensive and exhaustive) thinking behind the game, and really respect the way BTS have chosen to do things. > [sigh] look I was trying to make reasonable, clear and logical points. This sort of tosh isn't clever.. "Naa naa naa, Atomic's gonna put BTS out of business" doesn't strike me as reasonable. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

tero wrote: > David seems to forget about our previous encounter on the "So what's 1.03 fix ?" tread You can't be serious. Where did I put those kid gloves...