David Aitken

Joe Shaw wrote: > Mind you it was a long time ago ... and in a galaxy far, far away. Surely not further than Manchester?? It takes at least four bloody hours to get there, and twice as long at rush hour.

What, the air support in Combat Mission isn't well enough simulated for you?? Death to the heretics! =) David

Welcome, you are a true member of our ranks! Expect a visit from our friend the CM Borg, to confirm your promotion. I can't count the number of times I've dreampt about CM. It's no big deal - you dream about completely random things from your life. Yes, no big deal... none at all... I'm normal, I'm normal [downs a handful of pills] David

Chupacabra wrote: > Does this mean Star Wars didn't happen either? Are you stupid or something? Duh. Duuh-uh. What an idiot! Oh GEEZ. Of COURSE Star Wars happened. Cripes, what do they teach people in schools these days? =) David

The faster your vehicle is going, the greater the chance of bogging. Best to issue Move commands unless your vehicles are on roads or dry ground. In the Gold Demo when my Shermans bogged, they would try to unbog themselves. I think this behaviour may have been removed, as I haven't seen it happening in the full game - which would make sense, because it gives you a chance to decide what to do. If a bogged vehicle thrashes around too much, it may become immobile. Best remedy is to give a reverse order. > This game and this forum are taking over my life !! Tell me about it! It's not often you get a game where you spend less time playing, and more time discussing it! David

Naw, he was real. Or was he? Hang on... Ummm... Yeah, I'm sure he was in a book I read about the Ardennes offensive. Oh cripes, of course! He was the leader of the Germans who posed as Americans during the German assault. That was it. David

As Fionn says, you can't ask for a thread to be locked, so don't post on that premise. This thread may run off at some tangent, in which case there would be no problem. But if it continues on the subject of rosters, it'll probably get locked up - just not before the flamewar has got well underway. David

The Commissar wrote: > After all, our plagerizing friend could have got it from a number of sorounding countries who are similar in language to us Russians. Do you mean Skorzeny, or the fellow mentioned in the poem? I've read about Skorzeny, pretty damn recently too, but I can't for the life of me remember where. He was a German... a member of the Waffen SS, I think. David

Smack - If you'd read MY post, you would have seen the light-hearted tone and the use of smilies. It's just a useful point of order that when a thread is locked up, you should NEVER start a new thread on the same topic. BAD idea. =) The normal thing to do would be to read the thread in question. Admittedly the one on rosters may be somewhat impenetrable, but the information is there. If it doesn't make any sense to you, best to leave it be. =) You say we've started fighting here... we haven't as far as I can tell. For the benefit of everybody: ** Please do not continue the roster discussion here. Any such discussion will lead to a flamewar and the inevitable padlocking of the thread, which is never a nice thing to see. If you are interested in the subject, read the three threads I have listed above, and especially the post from Steve at the end of the third. Thankyou! **

Purple4Ever wrote: > in most posts that I've read from David Aitken, they are in the vein "you should not discuss this or that" or "you should not request this or that". Sorry, my grasp of the English language must be far poorer than I've been led to believe. It even seems that, when I specifically say "I am not saying X or Y", it still doesn't click with people that I am not saying X or Y. The key to what I have said here, is not that you should not post, but that you should not post if you have certain purposes in doing so. Post what you like - see if I can stop you. But I see a lot of people here making statements "the game should X" or "I should be able to Y". These people should be reading the relevant threads, instead of firing out their wish list here, clearly in the hope that BTS will take notice. If the above does not apply to you, congratulations. If you have a problem with me seeking to put people right, I'm terribly sorry, but you'll just have to live with it. The fact is, I'm not some blinkered megalomaniac - I wouldn't be posting if there was no need, or if I just wanted to boss people around. So do yourself a favour, and stop being so paranoid. David

ianc wrote: > Back off and stop telling people what to post. Back off and stop accusing me of saying things I never have.

Tyro - I do not hold any official position of authority, but I do like to keep people right. What I have posted here has to be taken in context. This forum has been around for a long time (much longer than I've been here), and for all that time, there has been constant and in-depth discussion by very knowledgeable people. As I have attempted to make clear, I have nothing against threads like this. My purpose in posting - as I have said - is to make it clear, for those who might post here with serious requests, that this is not the best way to make such requests. Every aspect of the game has been discussed exhaustively from every angle, and against that background, simple "top ten" requests are inadequate. They're fine as an opinion poll, but they invariably become more serious. I have done my best not to step on anyone's toes - my posts are simply designed to inform. I have no purpose in picking fights. If what I say is of no value to you, you're quite within your rights to ignore me. David

When I've got something big like 105mm, and I'm on the attack, I like to do a Target Wide to keep people's heads down. I'm less inclined to throw all my shells at one specific target. David

Personally, I never play without donning full battledress and helmet, and loading up with 40-odd magazines for my Bren gun. Then I fill the room with ankle-deep mud and ask my neighbours to toss grenades through the window every couple of minutes. If I ask very nicely, sometimes they'll operate the computer while I shout instructions at them from my foxhole. I wonder how long before Edinburgh Flying Club starts to miss that plane I shot down? Well, it was his own fault - he didn't have invasion stripes or anything.

Command lines always exist between a Platoon HQ and his squads. If they are black the squads are out of range, of they are dark red the squads are within range. There are two exceptions. 1) If a squad is out of range of its Platoon HQ, but within range of a Company HQ or higher, the new HQ will take over. This is only temporary, until the squad either goes out of range of the Company HQ, or meets up again with its Platoon HQ. 2) Teams have no fixed HQ. They are not as badly affected as squads if they are out of range - they work well on their own. If there is an HQ nearby, they will come under his control. In other words, platoons should be kept together, but the rest is up to you. David

I love it... in his previous thread he quoted some irrelevant technical data about 150mm infantry guns. It had no purpose in the discussion, but he was expecting us to respect him for it! I laughed when he stepped on Fionn's toes though. Fionn is the nemesis of smartarse newbies and charlatans everywhere. =) David [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-10-2000).]

Daveman, Claymore: I know that the best programmers always take the opinions of their fans into account when doing fixes or modifications to software. However, the Combat Mission forum is not the kind of forum where fans' "top tens" are much use. Most of the discussion on this forum is about the accuracy of the game, and possible tweaks that could be made - there is no need for BTS to ask, because everyone is already making their opinions known. This discussion is grouped under appropriate headings - you'll get a thread about .50 cal accuracy, a thread about rosters etcetera. This works very well. A thread which has lots of people asking for lots of different things is not a useful summary - it's more of an incoherent mess. What we get are suggestions which - as I've said - have either been discussed previously, or have not yet been discussed. In the former case, the discussion can be found in the appropriate threads, and BTS will have already taken note. In the latter case, simply making suggestions is of no use. I'm not saying this thread is stupid - I just wanted to point out, for those who might not be aware, that this is not best way to get your suggestions over to BTS. If you have a specific quibble, first do a search, and see if it has been discussed before. If it has, that's great - no need to bring it up again (and even if you still want to, best not). If you can't find anything about it, start a new thread on the subject, and politely ask if anyone else has noticed what you have. In most cases where there really is a problem, it will have been noticed. Flamewars are borne out of people coming in and announcing "This is wrong!!". This way, all the topics and discussions are nicely organised, and will get the notice they deserve. You don't need to bring up old subjects, because BTS are well aware of them already. "Top tens" should not and will not be taken seriously - not because they aren't serious, but because this is simply not the way to lobby for tweaks to the game. David

Oh my God, PLEASE... when a thread is locked up, don't just start a new one on the same subject!! =) If you want to know what the debate is on the roster, read these threads (the names are approximate): 1) Interface needs work 2) I want a roster, a roster! Vote!! 3) Roster war, ceasefire Just because a thread is locked doesn't mean you can't read it. And many thanks to Steve for restating BTS's position at the end of the last thread. Now let's please let it be - we don't want this thread to become no.4 in the argument! David

cward wrote: > I would appreicate it if there was a way to cross under those lovely arches when crossing perpendicularly The game doesn't model this perfectly, but it is possible. Basically, you can't move under a viaduct, but you can move through it. Put a waypoint on the other side, and your units should go underneath. It's just a 2D-3D thing. The CM engine isn't true 3D - technically it's extruded 2D, so it doesn't handle under-over situations like viaducts very well. David

He's right you know. Personally, I stopped watching when Clint Eastwood appeared - I mean, he wasn't even _born_ during WWII! How on earth can they have made this film? It was obviously a fake. David

Germanboy wrote: > the difference between the two was the slightly improved design of the shade-holder, enabling the gunner to draw his shades 0.0005sec faster on the P-22 Best laugh of the week. What an awesome flamewar! What a brilliant thread! I love it!! David =D

I don't see the point in this. Call me a spoilsport (I am) =) , but simply listing things that have already been discussed is not going to achieve anything. Most requested changes are not definite problems - they are just opinionated requests. BTS pick up on anything which is discussed here, and they probably have their own ideas about 1.04. Anything you suggest needs to be discussed, so either (1) it's already been discussed, BTS have taken notice, and that's that, or (2) it hasn't been discussed, in which case simply listing it is not enough. So please don't come up with your lists and expect them to have any effect. The only two things that matter are subjects which have been discussed, and the list which is drawn up by BTS. No list of requests on this forum is going to make any difference whatsoever. David

Remember that in general, when we're talking about FOW, there is a limit to how confusing it's practical to make things. You can reduce the amount of information a person has about their opponent - but when you start actually _making_ things confusing, that's when it gets really complicated. Tom mentioned the map debate which surfaced a while ago (and possibly not for the first time). I think this is a very good example of unnecessary (and more importantly, impractical) FOW. If you're going to display a map that is not 100% accurate, you have to _make_ it inaccurate. This would be a programming nightmare - how do you take a map which the game has generated, and then distort it to make it inaccurate? Either you show the map as-is, or you don't show it at all. So you blank out unexplored parts of the map. Either you have a black shroud which recedes as you advance, or you have a paper-style map image showing the rough layout of the battlefield. In my eyes, this is far too gamey for Combat Mission. In almost every battle situation, you're going to have glimpsed the battlefield from some angle, and have a pretty good idea of the layout. You might not know the exact position of every wall and tree - but neither do you know so little that it merits a total blackout. To model your perception of the battlefield would be far, far too complex. The fact is, you can't have grey areas in a game like you can in your mind - either something is there or it's not. Combat Mission does not model what's in your mind - what's in your mind is gleaned from what CM models. So you ask yourself "is there a building near that bridge?", and check the map to see. The map can't just say "maybe" as your mind could - and it can't just not depict the bridge, because you know it's there. So it has to show you the way things really are. So to bring this back to the original topic, FOW isn't an easy thing to model. I think Combat Mission does it very well - but ultimately, there can be no "maybe" - any FOW has to be a specific mechanism for hiding things from you. For the purposes of gaming, any slightly unrealistic aspects of FOW don't really matter. As far as unit experience is concerned, I don't think it's unrealistic for your men to see an enemy squad in action, and gauge how good it is. You know, "look at those idiots - they barely know which end of their rifles to point at us!", or "Geez, watch out - we've got a real bunch of commandos working round the flank!". You might say that experience could be misidentified, but for the purposes of a game, this would be too confusing. In the case of a spotter, yes, it definitely is unrealistic to know the calibre of his battery. But in technical terms, I can understand why it's there - the battery is his weapon, and you have information about everyone else's weapon. If you identify an SMG squad, you know what guns they use. I doubt having this info about a spotter is going to change the course of a battle, but I imagine it's something that could be removed. On the other hand, maybe it would be complicated - and in that case, I'd say it's no big deal. David

ASL Veteran wrote: > I think this thread was more like Roster War Open Fire!! I think Mr DI FOLCO has a way with gasoline and matches. [ducks] David Oh, and that reminds me of my favourite quote from A Bridge Too Far: "Open fiah... fiah!!" - Colonel Frost / Anthony Hopkins mod... keep forgetting less than / greater than signs are taken for HTML... [This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-09-2000).]

I'm rather glad that this thread has lost its gravity and become rather more light-hearted. However, I must maintain my reputation as a humourless pedant, and reply to this comment by Pascal: > Yes, it sucks having to browse through a 100+ long pile of responses to posts, so I open a thread WHENEVER I WANT ! Okay, a discussion begins in Thread 1. When it reaches 100 posts, you decide it's too long, and you start a new thread on the same subject, Thread 2. Now people are obliged to decamp to the new thread, which is attracting more attention. However, much discussion has already taken place in Thread 1. This does not become irrelevant. Anyone seeking to develop the discussion in Thread 2, needs to have already read Thread 1 - so the new thread saves nobody any time. If your goal is just to stoke the fire of argument, you're succeeding - but most of us involved in such discussions are seeking progress. Progress will not happen if you keep fragmenting the discussion for your own amusement. I'm not a moderator, this is just common sense. I know I'm being heavy, but just because what you're doing serves your own needs, doesn't mean everyone else will benefit too. As I've said before on another subject - say or do what you like in a post, but don't mess around with threads. David