Jaded

Looks great in 800x600 now! Thanks for fixing that. I really appreciate the clean design, too.

Looks pretty good, but I do have one "aesthetic criticism." Any chance of you making the left frame a little narrower? If you build the page so that it is split horizontally first, then the bottom section is split vertically, you won't have to change the size of your logo. My request is so that the content can be read at 800x600 without scrolling the page left and right. While 1024x768 is becoming really common these days, Combat Mission is available for the Mac, and runs really nicely on an iBook. So a larger than normal proportion of your visiters could be coming in on an iBook, also. And the iBook screen only goes to 800x600....

SD, yeah 'cheating' wasn't the best choice of term there. This has probably been suggested before, but I wonder if for CM2 there could be an option to save a force separate from a scenario? I could see a few uses for this, from training neophytes (as 'example' forces) to PBEM tournies (the pre-set forces are distributed to each player) and so on. <blockquote> 2) Buy rare units rarely. I just had my first 57mm US RR in 70 games.</blockquote> See now this is a perfect example of where someone like me might back a 'cherry picker' choice. I had no idea that 57mm US RR's were rare (frankly, I don't even know what they are *blush*). Thus far I've stuck to pre-designed scenarios or quick scenarios letting the AI pick the forces (I actually like that since I enjoy the challenge of doing the best I can with the forces available.)

Any new news on this? With Ncrawler's 1.4 pack out, I'm trying to figure a way to get it installed on my Mac....

I have to say, I might do this inadvertantly [my kingdom for a spell checker]. I'm not a hardcore wargamer (though contrary to Slapdragon's comment, the topic doesn't piss me off) nor am I an avid historian. I'd know enough not to mix & match equipment from different nationalities, but more subtle things might slip by me. I'd much rather play a scenario that is as histroically authentic as possible, though. My rambling point being, if you're playing against a newbie it might make sense to bring up this subject before the game begins. Certainly you can't prevent your opponent from 'cherry picking' but if you at least make him aware of the topic, then an honest player might respond with "Um, then can we let the AI pick our forces?" or ask you for a third party that might be able to 'approve' his choices. Not every non-grognard is an asshole. Some of us just miss the details that you take for granted. Education is a great thing. I'd welcome the chance to learn why such & such was never deployed with so & so.... and I certainly don't want to play a scenrio where my opponent is annoyed or frustrated because I 'cheated' without realizing it.

Michael, thanks for the clarification. It's good to know that the 'goto target' is the truck rather than the location. And of course I wasn't really thinking in CM terms when I wrote that post, because in any event the squad wouldn't just stand there, would it? They'd dive for cover or whatever seemed best. What a cool game....

How about the opposite? If I want a squad to run to a waiting truck, embark, then have the truck take off, carrying everyone to safety, is there a more precise way than giving the truck pause orders to hold it until the squad's pause runs out, plus an estimate for the time it'll take the squad to get to the truck? My fear is that someday I won't factor in enough pause and the truck will take off out of there, leaving the squad standing in the middle of the road, sitting ducks. (I suppose the argument will be that this is realistic since the driver might panic and leave too early...) So I give the truck plenty of pause time, but then the squad jumps on board and squad and truck sit there taking fire for 10 seconds (or whatever) before they start moving.

David: You said: >That is a sales pitch, designed to get as many people as possible to take a look at the game. 3D graphics? Exactly. Clearly they want to get as much notice (and presumably, sales) as possible, and not just from the niche (ie, hardcore wargamers) market... And I think they should. I am not (obviously) a hardcore wargamer, and I love the game. BTS has come up with a brillaint design: one that satisfies (most) grognards yet is also a very fun game for more casual gamers to play. So why shouldn't they want to expand their customer base? DrDan said: >Further, the general openness shown by BTS to new/different ideas, which by all accounts HAS led to a better game, is a model for the software industry as a whole. I only hope, and I think this is part of Jaded's point, is their receptiveness not be drowned out by the "choir." Yup, that's a lot more my point that any particular feature. New players come into this forum every day, and David trying to swat them away with "That's already been discussed." isn't exactly sending a positive message. New customers deserve to be heard just as much as folks who've been playing since day 1 of the beta. Username: I didn't know about that. Thanks. I'll check it out. I can deal with kludgy until someone writes a hack to give us the LOS we're asking for. Of course, once someone DOES write that hack, it won't be a toggle thing, and so you won't be able to control the use of it in a PBEM game. That'll be a shame... Anyway, 'nuff said. Next time I have a feature suggestion I'll just email it to BTS rather than getting into a brawl here.

Ah, you know what? I may have been using the regular target command, not area target (which, in hindsight, was pretty dumb of me... heh.). Thanks for the whack on the side of the head, I'll see if that was it next time I have one of these units.

Hmm. Well, it was designated a spotter, so I assumed that meant off-map, but perhaps therein lies my confusion?

First, I did search the forum and haven't found a definite answer to this. Maybe my search skills suck. But before I get flamed for not search, understand that I did. From page 87 of the manual: "For the sake of this discussion, 'artillery' stands for any form of weapon designed to hurl an explosive charge at a designated target. This includes howitzers, mortars, rockets, and naval guns unless otherwise noted." ... "Off-Map Artillery Most of the time, an artillery battery will be represented by an artillery spotter team." ... "Plotting Artillery Missions ... When the spotter can actually see the target area, the speed and accuracy of the barrage are greatly enhanced, but it is not required. In other words, you can call in artillery anywhere on the map without having to trace a LOS." I have found this not to be the case with (at least) off-map 81 mm mortars. In a recent game the CM gave me an 81 mm spotter, and this unit could not target areas that it didn't have LOS to. Are there more subtle rules that I'm missing that may explain why I couldn't do this, or am I just missing the point? (I've been playing CM for a month or so and only now am I getting around to reading the manual, so I never noticed this before. I just accepted what was in the game... *grin*) Thanks for any clarifications that anyone can offer.

David: I promise to keep this one shorter, since its pretty clear we'll never enjoy a meeting of minds. You said: >...(2) Is it crucial to gameplay? The flying camera fits squarely in the second bracket. An LOS tool would fit into neither. I disagree. 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. (skipping around a bit) We said: >> 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? Why wouldn't it be completely accurate? We're setting up defenses, and I take young Private Udell aside and say "Scurry on up to that copse of trees on the hilltop and tell me if you can draw a bead on the crossroads from there." (Actually, this is a good argument for the unlimited LOS during set-up, at least for the player on defense.) You said: > 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. The Universal LOS Tool might not be logical, but it would be practical. Is "No FOW" logical? No. But is it practical as an option for newer or more casual gamers? Certainly. Same here (in my opinion). It would have to be toggle option so that grognards seeking the most realistic game experience could disable it. You said: >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. Have I missed something? Are you an officer with the company? You seem quite comfortable speaking for them. Here is a quote from Mr. Moylan from a Gamespot article (the fact that the article appeared in Gamespot alone tells me that they hope for a wider audience than you suggest... Gamespot is not exactly Grognard Central): "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." (emphasis mine... the entire article is at http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/features/pc/postgame_wrapup/index.html ) That doesn't describe a niche market to me, and -how- they sell the game (ie, not going through the traditional distribution channels) is a separate issue. You said: > 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 more time playing and less time manipulating the interface. The primary friend I have in mind was of the opinion that if you can get a certain piece of information by viewing replays multiple times and examing the details of each unit, then you should be able to access that same information in an easier-to-use format. Now, getting back to an earlier point and trying to honestly explore the issue a bit more: You said: >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. Right. And though you are, I think, of the mind that the 3D rendition is deliberately obfuscated to add realism, it is my understanding, from reading the manual, that it isn't 100% accurate because of the limitations of todays hardware. So I wonder if there'd be a way to add a 'full render of this frame' option? You'd get the camera pointed at where you want it point, then hit a hotkey and the scene will be redrawn, accurate to the game's internal model of the battlefield? It'd probably take a while, but you wouldn't need to use it often. David, I know you'll howl at this because of the realism aspects. The idea is more for the designers to kick around and knock down. Of course, just because you, the player, can see through a copse of trees doesn't mean your men will. It depends on where their attention is focused and such. 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. That's information that a commander should be able to get from a map, and its information I could get by popping around in 1 view, but from a playability standpoint it be nice to see, at a glance, the lay of the land (this wouldn't take into account buildings, trees or smoke blocking los, though). Well, it was supposed to be shorter this time... heh. Of, and for the record, Steve and the rest of the folks at BTS, I'm a huge fan of CM. My out-loud thinking of different features is just that, out-loud thinking. Sorta like you and Charles did in that bar back in the early days...

David: I've poked around this forum enough to see that you're one of those talented individuals with a sublime grasp of how to be inflamatory with actually flaming, so I'm probably wasting my time here, but I'll try just this once. You wrote: >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. It's easily as credible an argument as yours is. There's a scale here between realism and playability, and the question is, where do the designers draw the line? 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. Neither is the single correct answer. It has a lot to do with how wide an audience you want to attract. I'm not seriously suggesting we shouldn't be able to fly the camera around, since I want the line pushed more towards playability. 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 between one point and another of the terrain that you're defending in order to see if the trees on that ridgeline blocks that LOS is not acceptable... that sounds pretty arbitrary to me. 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? It's an arguable line, whether you choose to admit it or not. Moylan and Grammont are not gods, they are not infallible. They took their best shot (and a damned fine shot it was, too). But if you think game designers always hit the bullseye on the first throw, well, you might want to spend some time reading the Postmortem articles in Game Developer. I am -not- saying you're wrong. I'm just saying those of us who're for the LOS tool aren't either. Its essentially a personal preference issue. I did say in my post that 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? You said: > 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. Of course they dont want to include everyone's pet feature, but if they listen to honest feedback (and I doubt they get as much of that here as they might, since voicing an opinion here opens one up to attack, from what I've read) 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. If we don't ask, we'll never get, will we? Remaining true to a concept is all well and good, but Combat Mission isn't a painting hanging in a museum. It's a consumer good. And presumably they want to sell enough copies to feed their familes. And maybe make CM2 and have that sell even better. Your analogy, of course, is deliberately ludicrous. Probably an attempt to make me look silly. 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. Would this change be trivial? No, but it -might- be worth looking into. You said: >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. I don't disagree with the basic idea behind this statement. 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 (before you jump all over me, note I said "might" -- they'd have to do some market research to see how the numbers crunched). Not to drag another argument into this thread, but I've seen you stridently attack the idea of a roster. I know a few fairly influential hardcore gamers that passed Combat Mission by because of the lack of a roster. Is that example statistically significant? Of course not. But I didn't go out polling gamers, I just had a few mention to me that they'd liked the demo, but not having that roster -- which they saw as a usability feature -- was enough to turn them away. 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.

Well, here's one more customer that would like a point-to-point LOS tool, for many of the reasons Dan mentioned, and for some others as well. For me, it'd make playing the game a lot more convenient. I can zoom over to a point and hit the 1 key to see where a ridgeline is, but it'd be so much easier just to lay a LOS line down and see the topography of an area. (I do realize that we won't get this feature, but I still want to be heard.) I realize we're talking about a small company with limited resources so what I'm about to say is probably not economically feasible, but, in my opinion, the best solution would be to add the feature and make it a toggle option at the start of a game. Dan and I can get the tool we want to make the game more enjoyable for us, and folks who think it gives too much info can just toggle it off and never turn it on (having it only toggleable during setup prevents cheating in PBEM games). Another option would be to allow it, but only when one end is within a small radius of one of your units. What bugs me is when I move a unit to a place where I think I'll have a LOS (given the limitations of the engine) and finding I don't. OK, that much I can deal with. But then when I move this guys, they go 8 feet and suddenly there's in a gap in the cover (though I, the player, can see no difference in the tile of course) and they get cut to pieces. Giving me a LOS that can at least 'float' a ways away from my troops would represent what the men could see with their eyes if this were 'real.' (Just thinking out loud here.) The guys who want more realism really should ask for the 1 view to only work when the camera is locked to a unit, the 2-4 views to be scrapped. Then the 5-8 'god views' can represent a CO plotting out moves on a map. 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...