Tris

Tris wrote: Anyway, this struck me with interest as I can easily see, due to time constraints in development, the scenario editor receiving relatively minimal attention in the days ahead, and this can only negatively impact the input of willing and able scenario designers, something which itself must affect (in the wrong direction) the overall quality of the game system and thus the gaming experience for everyone. Steve replied: What leads you to believe that we are going to slack off on Editor improvements in the future? I did not write that. Or anything close to it. What I wrote is printed above. The pertinent passage is this: "...due to time constraints in development, the scenario editor receiving relatively minimal attention in the days ahead...." I wrote "relatively minimal attention." that means relative to the development time to be pored into other aspects of the project. Why would I write this, why would I have this opinion? Well, it all started with this question: Jeff Heidman wrote: I was wondering if BTS has any intention of adding additional programmers to the CM project, or whether it will continue to be just Charles? I was thinking about the Operations/Scenario creator, and how it could use a lot of work. Currently it has some issues, and could really use a rather major re-write to add a *lot* more ability for a scenario designer to customize various things. Wouldn't it be great if you could designate dynamic victory locations, victory conditions, force pools, entry zones, etc., etc.? The thing is, there is very little chance that it would get done to its full potential with just one primary programmer trying to do the game itself and this as somewhat of an afterthought. I am sure you could have a full time person doing nothing but designing and implementing the scenario/operations tool. I know BTS has added MaddMatt and KwazyDog, but IIRC they are not coders. Is there any thought in the future to expanding the actual software team? To which you replied: Our medium term plan is to expand our programming capabilities. This probably won't be for at least 2 years though. In order for this to work, from our perspective, the Combat Mission engine needs to be rewritten. The only person to do that is Charles. So first we finish CM2, then we start to think about what comes next Your reply above read (and still reads) to me as if CM2 were the major priority for BTS, not the scenario editor. Hence my observation that the scenario editor would likely receive relatively small attention. Why would you want to take exception to that? I mean, I didn't know you were privy to our secret plans to ruin the gaming experience... Where did I write that BTS intended to "ruin the gaming experience" for its users? Please point that passage out to me, Steve, because I don't see it up there. ...("wrong direction") over time. If you think that's the "passage," you are mistaken. All you're doing is assuming the worst possible motive on my part for an innocent remark. I spoke to the greater project of writing future scenarios for the game and how this effort to improve the game system would be negatively impacted unless the scenario designer were beefed up. To me that is just something obvious, must also be obvious to Jeff as he raised the original question. This must be obvious to anyone who designs scenarios and has to work around the limitations of the editor we have. Damn, and we thought we were being so clever publically lying about planned future enhancements to scenario creation (i.e. the Editor). I suppose it will all come back to haunt us, since we obviously aren't really planning on doing any of them "due to time constraints in development". This must be a bad dream you were having. Are you trying to put thoughts in my head, words in mouth, or do you just like sarcasm? Some advice for you Tris. You are not even remotely qualified to pontificate about how CM will be developed in the future. I am as "remotely qualified" as your remarks upon this subject in this forum allow me to be. That's how qualified I am. Not only do you lack the first hand experience necessary to do this in a general sense, but you haven't even bothered to look at what we have said about future development plans. I read everything, Steve. I seem to read it more closely than you. In other words, you just make stuff up in your head... Sorry, but the stuff I just quoted is still up over on p. 4 or 5, whatever it is. ...type it, and try to sound as if you know a thing or three when in fact you haven't a clue about what you are commenting on (at least as it pertains to us). I know exactly what I'm commenting on as far as anyone in my shoes could be. In this case, should it be that I'm mistaken and BTS will indeed commit much of it resources into improving the scenario editor at the expense of getting its next game out then all you would need to have said to Jeff is as much. Instead you wrote something else, which prompted my remarks. Sheesh, you could at least make SOME attempt to show why it is you think that we are going to get lazy based on our past track record. You ascribe words to me which I did not write, you ascribe feelings which I do not have. Oh, and if you had bothered to read the thread you cited, you would see that we did respond. In detail, on the same day it was started up IIRC. I have read that thread, and there is nothing in there that makes any of my comments off topic, erroneous or bizarre. Neither are they attacks on your person or the integrity of the company. Just simple observations on the status of the scenario editor as I believe that to be, this based on your feedback to Jeff. (Your subsequent remarks in that thread hold little bearing on this.) [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-28-2000).]

. . . while I refuse to pursue the argument re lines and such further, a couple of additional comments were made that made sense to me. One was by Steve: BTW, resistance is a necessary part of the design process. Otherwise everything remotely rational or logical that is suggested gets confused with the more important things. And as always, there are differing viewpoints on historical reality and how best to simulate it. This is healthy for CM. And I can say for sure that we have reversed our positions even when we have put up initially strong resistance. But only when presented with a strong, logical, and rational case for change. Calling us names does not do much for such a case I agree this is a good approach to design philosophy, good because it is necessary. But you must realize that the obverse of this coin, as it manifests itself from the consumer end, is to insist on good changes when these are apparently called for. These two forces at work, though opposed in a sense, tend to act in synergetic fashion--at least in theory. Your second comment, Steve, was made rather less wisely and points to one of the problems at this site: ego. And while it is the case that others point fingers at me and say I am the egotist, nothing could be further from the truth. I just can't see the wisdom (for the reason there is none to see) of telling people what they want to hear . . . unless you are of the selfish persuasion that it is a good idea to go through life with the sole purpose to look out for number one. It is far better (and far more difficult) to tell others what we actually think. This makes for a simpler life in the long run, opens the door to all sorts of good possibilities. That the majority fail to see this is neither surprising nor significant: the majority almost always takes the low road in life, another painful fact. So be it, and it is foolish to blame me when I point it out. That is a preamble to this: I have never, not once, on this board directly come for anyone. Period. I have merely responded in kind. To outright idiocy, I might add, in all too many cases. And don't even get me going on the low-brow, boorish behavior of some elements around here. The closest example one might cite for an "attack" on my part was when I volunteered the opinion that BTS practices a form of censorship on the board.--and of course BTS does just that. You, Steve, then immediately chose to take this as some demented "personal attack" on you and the company and your collective good reputation. As I have tried to note, that is on you. Go deal with it. Not news here that you still are in denial on this issue, even though many of my worst detractors clearly articulated at that time the situation in reality: that in fact BTS does censor the board, but that it has a right to do so. Well, who ever said BTS does not? My thesis, my plain statement, was that I'm for free speech and I find censorship to always be a bad deal. That's all. All this nonsense about "attacking" you is just that. Nonsense. Clearly, you simply don't want to hear certain things, no matter how true they might be, and you are not above throwing a tantrum when you do hear these things. For my part, I fully expect this. I've seen it many times. It is old hat. Just as predictable is the group-think "Let's get Tris" reaction. This, too, is not new or cleverly presented. This is, afterall, why we call it group think. I'm over the top? I don't think so. In fact, I know not. Occasionally others who are more independently motivated do come out of their lurker statuses to add their quiet opinions, but then they scurry back to cover for the reason, I suppose, that they have no wish to buck this group and all that that implies--which brings us right back to group think, a mentality which possesses not only this forum in a death grip but society as a whole. I hardly blame these other people who run from this stuff. Now I have a thick skin and so I can endure all the slings and arrows. Also, admittedly, I am perverse enough of nature to enjoy (at some modest level) the "action." But my primary aim is to affect good change, always. This is what motivates me. Is CMBO excellent software? You do yourself a disservice to so phrase it, for the product is nothing short of revolutionary. But it has problems, if you care to know, and when I point these problems out it is not for some mean purpose to hurt you, or for the more selfish purpose to hear my voice raised in public, but rather for the altruistic purpose of making things better--in particular, making something better that I happen to own and play and wish to enjoy to the fullest. That is why I bother, that is is the only reason I hang around this site. Anyway, left to my own devices I get in and out of topics. I write well-considered opinion and I buttress this opinion (almost always) with practical examples on both sides of the problem, all in an effort to illustrate my position as well as I am able. If anyone has a better idea I'm all for it. But after I've made my mind up on something then it will take a pretty strong argument and more than a little good logic to turn me around. If I feel any frustration it finds its roots in the way BTS continues to dig in its heels in on change for no better reason than it doesn't want to admit error. At least that's how it seems to me. No better example is this topic at hand: lines of demarcation in operations. You say I can't entertain other opinion. Oh yes I can, only it needs to be better considered than mine. Everyone has an opinion as everyone has a southern hole, but that doesn't mean the crowd ever knew what it was talking about. That is one of the problems. Too many think that just because they have the right to spout off any way they please that this makes everything they say of equal value to the next person. It does not. Any man of reasonable intelligence who bothers to listen closely will know the truth of this. Otherwise, you're just not paying attention. The issue of "lines" strikes me as such an obvious design flaw and of such flagrant and wholly dubious nature that I admit to felling a bit dumbfounded that to broach this subject might have sparked any debate at all. I can hardly believe I'm the first person to point this problem out to you, the first to complain out loud, the first to ask for these bad devices to be eliminated outright. Tell me that isn't the case, please. But enough on lines. I have nothing further to add which might be constructive. Leave them in your game if you want, but as sure as there's a nose on your face everyone who plays this game will be the loser for that decision down the road. I forget now who posted this next bit, but since it was calmly and politely presented I thought I'd touch on it: One thing that you don't seem to be able to realize is that there is one person working on this game and there are only 24 hours in a day and you're not going to get every little niggle fixed exactly when you want it fixed. Would you relax??? Jeez. I have helped to develop software for 15 years, for whatever that's worth. For the past eight years I have worked closely with an English gentleman (now displaced to Australia) on a particular joy of mine--call it a pet project. This person left British Aerospace, where he was an engineer, years ago. He discovered one happy day that he could make more money designing sports games then sending people hurtling like rockets through space. And have more fun in the process. Since then he's been up and he's been down, in terms of "success" both financial and personal. I feel I know him. For sure I number him amongst my friends. And? And nothing, I guess. Except that I know the best service I can render him is not to say his product is the best thing since sliced bread but to provide upward pressure in the hope that he will rise and not fall back on past laurels. Somehow he survives this "abuse" from me. Now I don't know. Maybe it's just the case of where one individual can withstand this sort of constant upward pressure--like I said, he's a real bright guy and something of a survivor, and that's hardly the norm. But I do what I do and it works with him so it can't be all bad when you think about it. So you suppose I don't realize the time constraints on BTS, seeing it's such a tiny team? You either have a small imagination or you are simply not willing to presume I've common sense. Which is it? You might have figured this out for yourself, since I am not (which the record clearly shows) one of the many people who visit this site with presumptuous requests for changes sundry and dumb. Instead, I limit myself to suggestions for system enhancement which I feel are of a more critical nature, changes which might be more easily affected and which stand to benefit the most for the least cost of time and energy. Apparently some feel that that's still a waste of BTS's time. Well, I am of another frame of mind. As for the rest of it: what can I say? It is easy to take potshots, to stand in a crowd, hurl stones and make wiseass remarks about this, that and the other. None of that is mature behavior, intelligent behavior. It is mob behavior, it is disgusting. But that's fine. I've a sense of humor. "Three shots for a quarter here!" [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-27-2000).]

Who said "conservatives" didn't have senses of humor?

Oh yeah, and now I'm outta this thread, too.

Wonderful, and all this advice coming from someone with your stellar record of treating others with respect at all times. Fact is you're the kind of person who will not brook any criticism, Steve, either of yourself or the game system you're here to sell. As for my long history of making personal attacks on you: well, if terming the locking of threads and the deletion of posts "censorship" is a personal attack on you then I stand convicted, but I really don't believe that so I think I'll walk away free this time afterall. Thanks again for your insight and respectful manner, though.

Quit while you still have a small measure of dignity, Tris. That's your opinion. I feel as though I am in the right re lines of demarcation--being a "minority" doesn't faze me in the least. Also, if I am in the right, then it doesn't say much for BTS, does it, that they would sit on the issue just because I'm not an especially ingratiating fellow? This seems all the more clear in this case since the elimination of said lines would not pose much of a programming issue--as far as I know. (I've mentioned that point any number of times; as no one has bothered to correct me I presume to believe I'm right on that score as well.) Just a suggestion. It's also a good idea, when you next frequent a BBS, to not assume that everyone who posts there is a company hack and yes-man. I never assume anything of the kind. I do think people behave as they think, however, and when they behave like company men or gladhanders or whatever you have then I suppose that is precisely what they are. If calling them such "insults" them that's a crying shame. Re this board in particular: it is chock full of people of the description I've given elsewhere, and they always come out of the woodwork whenever anyone presses home his point with BTS. These people are abusive and, as far as I can tell, not very well educated. In a nutshell I consider them a sorry lot. For what it's worth, BTS itself (at least as represented by Steve's conduct on more than one occasion, and not just in relation to me on this thread) is not without fault with this sort of behavior in mind. The terms "shallow," thin skinned" and "crude" come to mind when I think about it, though I try to not think about it much. Now just go ahead and ignore that if you choose and continue instead to heap responsibility for the behavior of other people onto me. If that pleases you it tickles me pink. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

In honor of this damned thread, KwazyDawg and I are starting an Operation.. Wish us luck! You'll need it after the first battle unless the map runs absolutely N-S or E-W and comes awful skinnny. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

Agreed, Jim. After some false starts I have managed to adjust to this idiosyncratic behavior of the scenario designer, but as you correctly point out that does nothing to invest the map with the kind of geographical variation the designer might otherwise have been tempted to put into his work. I can tell you that my maps, though the roads all work right visually, are much flatter than need be in places, flatter than I wish them to be. A similar effect is seen when, say, you place a row of road tiles at level 5 running past terrain which is at level 0 somewhere near to the side. This situation can occur when you want to place a pond tile near the road--perhaps alongside a house. Same same if you wish to place walls or hedges along roads, or for that matter fields. Unless you keep the wall/hedge tiles all on the same terrain, and for an extra tile width out from the object in question (the hedge or wall) then the picture becomes crooked and weird looking. So the designer naturally enough goes back in and corrects this by flattening out the offending terrain, only with unfortunate effect. At the least the scenario is crippled to the extent that more variation in elevation is either limited, or the price to be paid is high in terms of aesthetics. It would also be nice if a general "rounding off" might be achieved for all tiles in terms of elevation, so that when, for example, you want to establish a cliff, you need not look at the spikes we're left with at present--without resort, again, to the use of a lot of extra land around the cliff in order to more or gradually scale the desired cliff upward without the resluting "point" at its top. But then points are achieveable just by placing a 5m tile alongside 0m tiles. Someone asked BTS a couple of days ago to consider hiring a person outside the present team to take over a redesign of the scenario editor. I can't recall if BTS replied or not to this request, as there was another request and thread of similar nature re the overall "hiring" picture for the company near term. Anyway, this struck me with interest as I can easily see, due to time constraints in development, the scenario editor receiving relatively minimal attention in the days ahead, and this can only negatively impact the input of willing and able scenario designers, something which itself must affect (in the wrong direction) the overall quality of the game system and thus the gaming experience for everyone. Better scenarios benefit all who play, and a more sophisticated scenario design tool would only seem a fitting implement for the serious designer.

I agree and would be happy only to be rid of . . . the line.

Hey, a sycophant discussion! Oh boy! I missed the first one, maybe I can get in on this one! You mean to say there was a first one--must I do . . . a search?

Yeah, I am happy to be a sychophant, hoping that if I lick enough boots around here, follow blindly, and don't rock the boat, some game designers and people I have never met mightlike me better.. (huh?) That pretty much sums it up, Captain Foobar, and doesn't that just sound silly to you?

When you say "be himself in all situations" what you mean is to dare to insult someone if they disagree with your point. That is, after all, what you have done and is what I was talking about. You're trying to make your actions sound far more noble than they are. People must take insult. Insult is not something one "gives." It is much the same as the verb to teach, which is a misnomer of sort. This is because in reality you cannot really teach anyone anything--you can only help them, perhaps inspire them, to try to learn for themselves. Think of the addage: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." So true. I also note that in my experience people take insult when and why they want to and for reasons peculiar to their circumstances. I get around this (if not exactly with ease) by simply refusing to take insult. That's not to say I can't imagine something being "insulting," of course I can. But I do not allow myself to feel this reaction. If you or anyone else is not strong enough or possessed of the capacity or whatever it takes to see and act on this wisdom, that's too bad. Then go through your lives feeling all the insult you want. It's on you, though. That's about as far as I care to take it, Vanir. The rest of what you've written is more or less of a brutish nature. You go around "clocking" people just to add "spice" to your life? Whatever. It's a large planet and I need not live next to you. I wish you well, sir. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

Tris said:You mean to tell me you cannot conceive of anyone able to go through his life not worried about what other people think of him? No, we can't conceive of someone being such an assh*** for no reason whatsoever other than because his ego is so inflated that he can't think straight because of his swollen cranium. I know you don't care what I think of you nor the others. Your the crusader of all war games championing the cause where ever you find it being stomped upon and only your arrogant attitude is worthy of anyone's attention! Without your refreshing, authority defying views all of us weak and unispired boot lickers would not know the glory of wargamedom as you would have it be. You are the people's champion! Thank god you have arrived! No matter how you RATIONALIZE the methods in which you attempt to enlighten us all with your superior intellect, it still comes out the same. A turd is still a turd even if you tell me it's a rose. You dig? Now go head and tell me to go to bed. Let's see, Mord. You rant, you scream as would a child, you throw little tantrums, you wantonly call others names . . . in brief, you generally conduct yourself in public like some unwashed and unread cretin, and yet you wonder why I look upon you and this behavior askance? Well, I guess I shouldn't expect better now that I think on it. No matter. Continue as you please.

I really don't think BTS is amenable to sensible change on this topic. It seems to be the case that they've simply decided to ignore the issue altogether, judging from the poor response I've had to date from Steve. Incorrect. As usual, you have drawn conclusions in your own head that run contray to the facts and decided to abuse us instead of offer reasoned and reasonable discussion. It does not surprise me. As a rule we do not feel the overwhelming need to respond to rude, insulting, egotistical, hyporcritcal, demanding, whining, childish, horses' asses personalities. More name calling. Why can't you stick to the issue at hand? Yet we still try and address the issues even when such a person posts here. I in fact gave you a straight answer to your previous question inspite of fitting this definition and then some. What you gave me was more like a straight brush off, Steve. And you were none too polite to me then, at the very least you displayed clear signs of taking umbrage, and all that before any of this other unpleasantness arose. Thank you. First of all, we have made the most innovative wargame in at least the past decade. It is totally beside the point, but I happen to agree with you on this. We not only say this, but every single review that has come out has said it. Again, beside the point. Get on with it. We have also put in litterally hundreds of user suggestions when they are both positive and practical. We have had a discussion forum second to none in the gaming community, involving the free discussion of our work BEFORE we even released it to the public. And because of that Combat Mission gets even better. We never ignore or abuse anybody that makes suggestions, but we do not like it when self centered know it alls... More name calling. More bragging. When will it end? Listen. You need to get into control. You also need to exercise a little discipline, learn to keep away from the keyboard when you are angry. ...think they know more about what we do than the people that actually do it. I don't know anything about programming. I know quite a bit about wargames, though, and as much and perhaps even more about what works and what doesn't work in general. And the lines in your operations do not work. I challenge you to find even ONE example of this. One example of what? Please be more clear. Even my answer to your initial question was neither abusive nor an act of blowing you off. I beg to differ. This all began in the "Pillboxes" (now residing on p. 3) thread, where I noted in passing: "And as long as I'm on it: one major change which needs to be made is the way the engine draws a straight line of demarcation across the entire map between battles of an operation. You need to sit down and devote the time necessary to allow these lines to be drawn preciesly in accord with whatever the opposing force dispositions are at the end of each battle phase--yes, this will result in crooked lines, not straight lines . . . as it's supposed to be, I might add. Now. Should the AI and/or human player(s) wish to set up their force(s) farther back from this line, that's something else. But the imposition of your magical line just doesn't cut it. Look. The way it is makes it impossible to conduct an intelligent operation even on a map which was designed (gamey as can be, this) with absolute attention paid to terrain integrity with reference to a north-south axis, and don't even get me going how phoney it soon becomes on a map which is designed with something approaching creativity (i.e., one which has angled roads and start lines in corners with an objective diametrically opposed and so on). Got it? Good boy. Now go to bed, get lots of sleep, then wake up early tomorrow morning and call Charles and get him cracking! P.S. " NOTE: Please understand that I tried to exit this post of mine as gracefully as possible, even to the inclusion of a smiley, along with a good-natured jibe re "bed" and "Charles." To this you decided to reply: "First of all, we don't "need" to do anything. Perhaps we "should" do something, but that is up for debate." Can you see that? Right away you sound like someone who has his dander up. You want to argue semantics and not the issue at hand. You'd rather get personal than to keep it professional and objective. I suppose this goes back to your ill feelings toward me from the "Censorship" thread, but I don't know. No matter, it is prevalent here and how. You go on: We originally had a crooked line system. I can not even begin to tell you how hard we tried to make it work. It was so difficult and filled with variable special case problems (which might only come up once in a lifetime) that Charles was thinking of scrapping Operations from the game. ENTIRELY. I and a few others convinced him that it would be better to do what it took to make it work better and keep them in the game. The solution was to make the line straight. Again, I must interject. The problem is any line at all. We do not require lines. We require no lines. Lines don't work. How simple does something have to be for you to see it? However, I think you overestimate how "crooked" a frontline would be at this scale, after an hour or more of downtime inbetween battles. For the most part forces would consolodate their positions to form more sensible defensive/jump off lines. In other words, straightening them out. And nothing says you MUST have a straight line. You can stagger your forces if you like. You just can't have them staggered evenly with similar frontline on the other side. So is the system 100% realistic as is? No. But from a realism/simulation/game standpoint it works, overall, far better than the previous system that allowed the frontline to be more generalized. And it also works far better than not having Operations at all : In my mind that's a blowoff. You addressed not my concern but yours, which seems to be to deflect any and all criticism of CMBO reflexively. Just look at the comments you penned above, all this chest beating about glorious the reviews of your game are and such. Do you really need this kind of support, Steve? Why can't you just face criticism as it comes and take that on individual, case-by-case merit? Anyway, your response above to me from "Pillboxes" addresses nothing but offers only a spirit of disinclination on the part of BTS to make a change I feel is necessary. And it wouldn't be a difficult thing to code since in this case we're just talking (correct me if I'm wrong) to pull the switch,, as it were, on the code extant which enables these lines of demarcation in between battles for operations. They don't work, they cause lots of problems. it's totally unrealistic, and no matter how much you deny it the lines were a capitally bad idea from jump. I plainly stated that we had innumerable problems with doing things with the frontline, so that is the way it is right now. I even said it isn't perfect, but of course the Almighty Tris got offended and decided to go on one of his Hollier Than Thou Rants™. You ran around the issue, just as you want to run around it here. We don't need the lines, the lines are a bad c-o-n-c-e-p-t in and of themselves. The game should never have lines. What the game ought to have had for operations, in lieu of these silly lines, would have something more like objective flags and entry points for reinforcements, stuff like that. We could have used such. The lines are perfectly useless, the lines are perfectly dysfunctional. Why Tris, tell me why, is it that you are even here? Because I bought your game, enjoy to play it, want to get the best gaming experience I can from that activity. I suppose it was in my mind that I might be able to broach such a simple subject, that the lines in operations do not work, not a whit, and get something like a reasonable response. Instead I've received denial, name calling and general abuse, both from you, another BTS employee (he told me) and several gentlemen from the forum who don't seem awful sharp but do seem real keen on acting just sycophants act where I come from. You know, yes men, gladhanders, the kind of people who are happy to tell people of your description just what people of your descritpion are so eager to hear: "Gee, Steve, your game makes me weak all over. I just can't waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit for CMBO 2. Can we have a Super Stalingrad scenario? Puhleaaaaaaaaase?" You see, I'm just not the adoring kind, Steve. I don't golly or gush. I do give credit where it is due, I criticize when I believe I have something constructive to offer. You don't seem to go for that combination of style. You want it all good, all golly and gush. Just to be the Voice of Reason and Truth? We don't need it. Combat Mission was made without the benefit of your infinite wisdom and knowledge, and I can assure you that it will become better in the future. It amazes me how much contempt you have for the people that made this amazing game. I have contempt for the way you handle yourself in public. I have admiration for the overall quality of your product. Can you not see the distinction between the two, and why I might be forced to draw this distinction? If we did such a shoddy job making it... You put words in my mouth. You continue to ignore the issue at hand. The line is the issue at hand. Address that, please. ...including HOW we made it (user feedback)... If your user feedback mandated the institution of lines of demarcation between battles of operations then I'd say you 1) had bad user feedback in this instance and 2) were unwise to listen to it. That is for the reason that your lines do not work . . . . ...why the Hell are you wasting your time playing and discussing it? Because I want the lines fixed. In that manner operations would make a lot more sense. One would expect you should have much more important things to do with your life than waste it here discussing your brilliance with us morons. There is probably more than a little truth in that . . . but why don't we try to control "ourselves" and get back to the issue at hand. The lines. They don't work. Why can't you just flat out admit that if nothing else? No one can force you to make good changes to your game, but common sense dictates that this denial can do you no possible good, and who knows, it might become a worrisome habit over time. (ifithasntbecomeaworrisomehabitalready) Sheesh... Sheesh back to you, Steve. So how about the lines? Also, please rethink your implied stance that customers need approach BTS "hat in hand." I find that unacceptable. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

The Almighty Tris wrote This is the way you conduct yourself in public, with a customer a no less, and then anyone wonders why the airheads follow suit, why anything which approaches criticism of the system is shouted down? You must feel awful insecure to have to address me in such a demeaning manner.

"........." You were saying, Mord . . . ?

As a matter of fact, yes, I've forged a life for myself where I can and do say exactly what's on my mind all the time and without exception. No how does that sound to you? Aren't you just a bit envious? And you sir, are almost certainly a liar. Why do you say that? Or at least an exaggerator of considerable scale. Do you really think we are such complete morons as to actually believe such a laughable boast? You mean to tell me you cannot conceive of anyone able to go through his life not worried about what other people think of him? Let me ask you something else: is it possible that you yourself are so worried about what others think of you that this colors your objectivity to the point where you simply refuse to believe that anyone else might not have a different slant on this and therefore does, indeed, dare to be himself in all situations? Think about that some time. No rush, you have the rest of your life. Don't answer. Thank you, but I think I will reserve the right to answer whomever I please, and in the manner I please. Your previous posts have made it clear. If you are 250 lbs. of solid muscle. No, I'm 6"0" and go about 200 at the moment--but I'm threatening to diet some of that away. you may be able to get away with it, but otherwise few people would tolerate the level of condescension in person, face to face, that you display here. I certainly would not. You wouldn't eh? So tell me, what, exactly, would you do about this ever-so-bold person who dared to speak directly to you? Some of your ideas do have merit. The elimination of the line in operations would seem to solve some problems, if creating a few more. Its elimination would create no problems at all. It is the line itself which creates problems. It is the line which is the problem. It is a problem because it does not work. It is a problem because it imposes loads of gaminess and ahistoricity and in some cases (too many, I would argue) simply blows you out of the water with its uncanny ability to completely screw up the whole operational map, and thus your game--and all in the blink of an eye. That is the problem. Elimination of the line would solve this problem. It is unfortunate that you defeat your own purpose by alienating the very people you are trying to convince. If you were even half as smart as you claim to be you would have realized this by now. BTS seems to get "alienated" not only by my feedback but, as far as I've been able to tell by reading most everything on this board, by anyone who challenges its authority to do what it pleases with its game. I've read any number of posts by players who strike me as fairly mature people judging by their writing skills and historical acumen who've been chastised not only by BTS but by the crowd of sycophants who hang around boards of this type and champion The Company (whatever the name of the company happens to be--it doesn't matter) on all points great and small. None of this is new, none of this is original, none of this is intelligent, as far as that goes. It's just the way it is. Call it one of life's many pities. Thankfully, I know better. I have been down this road many times and realize the only way to affect good change is to first understand the problem, then figure out a better method, then stick to your guns when, more often than not, your logical appeal is thrown back into your face. And since I do know what I speak about, and really don't care what you think about me, that's a snap. Now no doubt you will paint that as some sort of personal attack, but it is nothing of the sort. Only the truth as I see it. Good for you. I never take umbrage at criticism, not even personal criticism of the harshest variety. Just keep it intelligent and reasonably polite and you and I shall never cross swords. But if you get silly on me, or nasty . . . well, then I own you. Okay? Meanwhile, have a nice day. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

triss point taken, but Mediterrean Europe has a very different architectural style to northern Europe. Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Franco and Celtic architecture is very different to Spanish, Italian and southern French architecture, if you visit Britain, Normandy (Northern France in general), and Northern Germany you will find the vast majority of churchs laid out in a cross form. It was the architectural style, churches even had to lay in a certain direction as did their graveyards. Maybe I shouldn't have said all of Europe, as there is obviously different styles across Europe, but the region CMBO is involved in, particularly Normandy, cross shaped Churches are the norm. I'll see if I can find some pictures but I dont know how to post them anyway. Please do post any pics you come across. It seems to me that I have read something or other re the layout of graveyards in juxtaposition to the church, per your note, and I don't argue (cannot argue in light of my ignorance) that churches of Protestant denominations, as opposed to the Catholic faith, were not designed in forms of the cross. I just didn't see this in my travels. Dan: even in the northern areas of Europe earth colors are the norm. You'll see use of more bright colors, I think, in the far northern regions, but earth colors even there still predominate. This is partly cultural (certain sub societies of greater Europe today stress subdued color for clothing, especially men's clothing--for example, look to the Basque country) and partly practical in origin (earth colors have always been the easiest to get pigments for--even in American rural areas it is earth colors you see most often for the reason they're both traditional and used to be, at least, the cheapest to obtain). Anyway, this is why I think Magua's buildings are so appealing--he seems to understand the European ethic, its dynamic as this relates to architecture, and subsequently his buildings art reflects the region's peculiar societal cast. Of course Magua also aces his armor mods, so maybe he's just some frustrated Rembrandt who happens to play wargames.

Well, at least I've tried to contribute to this game by offering suggestions to improve play. What have you done lately along those lines? Or are you content to just be part of the anonymous crowd and conveniently groupspeak your way through what passes for life where you live? Meanwhile, for anyone interested . . . I mentioned earlier in another thread that I think Panzertruppen's building art is gorgeous to behold. And it is! But then I turned right around an hour or so ago and reloaded Magua's church--this was one of the two Panzerturppen mods I had installed, the other being his stone wall, which I've also re-replaced with Magua's again. Anyway, I agree with Magua's assessment: something isn't perfect about that steeple of his. Anyone know what that might be? I think the steeple would look better open, at least to the front and rear. I'm trying to recall a vision of European steeples I've seen and those slats Magua employs just don't appear in it. What do you think?

These people are gladhanders, hangerson, gadflies--call them what you will--and it is rarely the case that they themselves ever offer suggestions of their own as to how to improve play but rather just raise their ugly collective head and try to shout down anyone else who does through the pathetic veil of "do what's what's right by" . . . The Company. This kinda talk is why most people come after you. Not for making suggestions,but for being so arrogant. That remark is not what caused you to write what you did. That remark is in response to the kind of insipid babble we all too often find on boards everywhere. It is groupspeak at its most base level and I, for one, do not intend to put up with it when it is directed to me. If you want to go round and round on this, fine. I eat dumb food for breakfast. You always make it out like you are the rebel that dares to defy the Godhead which is BTS and we are all sycophants lapping the scraps from the floor... I do not 'always' make this point, but in a respect aren't you and others around here sycophants in a certain respect? Isn't that how you choose to go through your lives? Don't blame me for pointing this stuff out. Go stare in the mirror and tell yourself over and over again that you like what you see. Call it therapy. ...that Steve throws, because some don't agree with how you approach things. 90% of your posts are selfrighteous and uppity and smeared with your dicky attitude. Your not the only arrogant person on here but you are one of the biggest offenders. Thank you for that wisdom. Now go to bed. It's not the suggestion making that pisses people off it's the tone in which it's made. Your tone is usually insulting, as I see it. I'm not here to please you. I only want my games to be as good as possible. If that happens to rankle you or anyone else along the way I couldn't care less. Do you walk around in the Realworld acting like you do on here? As a matter of fact, yes, I've forged a life for myself where I can and do say exactly what's on my mind all the time and without exception. No how does that sound to you? Aren't you just a bit envious? Seriously. I was perfectly serious. If you do you are either handicap or really old 'cause I think you'd get your ass kicked alot. Like I said, Mord, go to bed. In a few years you might be better off for the sleep. Your not a rebel. Your just a game player like the rest of us. Lighten up a little and maybe others will as well. I don't need to lighten up. If left to my own devices my copy comes clean as the driven snow and it sticks to business. I make points, good points, and I buttress my arguments with common-sense examples of how to make things better. If you don't like that, if you think that's the manner of a troublemaker, then . . . . . . go to bed. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

OK, I see where you are coming from. You push forward in one part of your front line, and the line is straightened, forcing you out of the territory you just fought for. Yeah, that sucks. I don't like that it happens. Well it might happen, but this decision needs to be made by the player (TacAI) for reasons of tactical necessity. At times it will not be possible to retract one's lines, or to get isolated units out of their predicaments. And that's just too tough, now isn't it? Just like in real life. One idea that might help (not fix) the problem is to build operation maps in a relatively narrow attack lane. If a map is 800 meters wide, you could build it 2000 meters deep. It could limit the effect of the straight line situation. That's really no good approach at all; indeed, the example merely serves to emphasize what terrible play issues arise from the use of lines to begin with. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

But the vinegar isn't working, try some honey. You are mistaken. Telling people what they want to hear is never the way to good change.

.....Tris, bad news, I actually work for those people you claim I am trying to "rub elbows with". That hardly makes the situation any better, now does it? And no, I did not make my comments above based on this fact, but based on the fact that I have played dozens of operations over many many months, and have enjoyed them very much. Great, you've enjoyed all of the operations you've played over the past x months. What does that have to do with the price of pickles in Australia? I was hoping here we could have a polite and reasonable discussion on the further expansion and improvements of operations in Combat Mission... . . . and here it comes . . . ...but I see you already know you are 100% correct, and thus, as you say, we will get nowhere here. I can see past my prejudices, I had hoped you could. I have no prejudice, unless it be that I have no time for things which do not work coming in. If that's a prejudice then call me prejudiced, by all means. Meanwhile, my discussion thus far has been nothing but reasonable. For every point I have made re the use of lines and how they do not work in the game I have offered a better alternative approach. If that is not reasonable then I have no notion of what "reasonable" means. The best solution to the problems of lines is to simply eliminate them. That would be easy to fix since you'd only have to disable the code affecting these devices. Presto! No more lines. And it wouldn't hurt play one iota while it would solve many obvious problems in the blink of an eye. But nooooooo. BTS has to have its little way. Okay. But like I wrote earlier, that attitude stands diametrically opposed to the company's otherwise inspiring manifesto, and one day all this might very well lead directly to the loss of customers. You don't believe me? Then go take a gander at the histories of companies such as SSI and Talonsoft. But go ahead, have it your way. Thus, unfortauntely and much against my wishes, that is where I am ending my involvement in this discussion..... That is the easy way out and quite typical . . . of those who stand on shakey ground, that is.

Firstly, I want to say that Ive been playing ops almost solely now for about a year, and Ive lost count of how many Ive played but its probably nearing 100. Yes, I agree there are areas that can and will be improved, but I also think they play out very well and can be a lot more fun than standard battles. They could be. They should be. Tris, a couple of points you mentioned were... At the scale CMBO wants to model a period for "regrouping" is wholly inappropriate. It is also not at all realistic. Soldiers in real life do not take mutually-agreed-to "regrouping breaks" every half hour but fight until they fight no more. To be honest, I disagree totally here. Ive read many account of battles that have lasted for days with periods of inactivity between major engagements. What you are suggestings would lead to all battles being fought continuiously, with no time in between engagements, is that realistic? For operations, "breaks" in the action of the nature you envisage would be better achieved if BTS programmed a "strategic" function into the the scenario editor, this to be implemented after so many turns at the designer's discretion. As it stands at present, the model is not well-suited to fight a 30-minute battle here on one day and another 30-minute battle there the next day. For that matter, why do all battles within an operation have to be the same length? Why can't some battles be set to terminate earlier or later? Or how about variable battle lengths which work off randomization? Did anyone think of that during playtest? At this scale it would lead to entirely more realistic results than what we have now. We're not fighting actual operations here, aferall, but "operations" within the context of this squad-level simulation. No, even soldiers need to sleep, resupply (this is a big one, Ive youve played many ops you will find ammo runs low after probably 20mins of combat)... Which is why I have given my men full loads to carry in the operation I'm designing--60 small arms, 2 demo packs, etc. Yes, resupply is an issue, but that should be taken care of between battles by the computer with no real problem. ...and yes, regroup, even at this scale. At this scale any regrouping will be done either along "the line" or directly behind it. When you think about this, regrouping of any kind no matter the scale takes place either along the line or behind it. What the system does is to draw a perfectly silly straight line across the map and impose this new jumping-off point on the players between battles. This leads to ludicrous results, especially with river lines and cities depicted on maps which are not conceived with absolute directional axes taken into consideration. Tell you what. Since you are apparently one of the players around here who has an "in" at BTS, let me ask you: how did that lunacy get past the playtest crew? Was there no one around to point out the utter fallacy of this approach? Could no one discern 100 actual problems it created for each one you might care to imagine it solves? Maybe what you are suggesting here is that you would like to play an operation right from beginning to end without the breaks, even through the quiet periods, Im not 100% sure...? That approach might be addressed by allowing players to create battles with infinite turns, plus the engine would need to be coded to allow for resupply every half hour or so. This was mentioned above. In any event, at the moment I am only here to solely advocate the elimination of lines of demarcation in operations. The basic concept of lines is flawed. It is flawed for the reason that it doesn't work, that it causes real problems in play, that is adds nothing to the historical model and detracts a great deal in many instances. What could be simpler? A "front" is defined by where troops happen to be, to put it simply. There is no need for the computer to do anything between battles except affect resupply and bring on reinforcements. Ok, *but* how do these units get resupplied? By trucks and men I imagine, but the problem is that if units end where they were last placed then chances are many are in direct LOS of the enemy. So is it realistic for these units to be resupplied between battles....of course not. You apparently have never been to war. While supplies might be "trucked in," they are delivered as a rule to the front by grunts who carry this stuff in on their backs. Or at least in WW II this was the case. In Nam choppers helped out a great deal in this respect, but then troops there would often be lifted into inaccessible areas which only choppers could reach out to for purpose of resupply--and even then you couldn't be sure. But this isn't Nam it's Europe over half a century ago and grunts hauled their own ammo out to the front line if they wanted it. That, or runners might be sent back for it, say a man from each squad, something like that. Whatever, that's fundamentally how ammo gets to the front. Sometimes maybe it doesn't get to the front at all, in which case the men caught short are in deep doo-doo. (At this juncture my best counsel would be to make tracks.) As Sherman noted, "War is hell." Do you really think that in war both sides take convenient breaks for nicely painted trucks to roll up at their leisure and toss down ammo and K-rations and mail to their respective troops? You think that's how wars are fought? You believe that's what CMBO ought to model? So which would you rather, a tank to stay at the front and have low ammo next battle, or pull back to resupply? A tank will need to pull back for resupply because no one's gonna lug all those rounds on their backs, but again, at this scale that can mean many things and might be modelled in various ways. In no manner, shape or form does this need to resupply tanks oblige the designers to "draw lines" in between battles. That is plainly unjustified. Sometimes it's the case that one's side will have tanks without ammo while the other has tanks with all the ammo they can carry. **** happens, **** like that happens all the time in war. That's just bad luck for the ammo-less tank guys, by the way. But that's how war works--it cheats like nobody's business, and if you'd spend your time trying to get that notion though the head of Charles we'd all be further down the road. Get Charles to code that sort of realism into the model instead of justifying the inclusion of these silly lines, which cause nothing but problems and gross ahistoricity. Ok, so what Im trying to point out here is that the problems are much further reaching than what they first seem, and are also much more complicated. This is getting us nowhere fast. You sound very much like a man in denial. If so, I suppose this is because it's easier to be in denial when that lets you "get along" with the people you wish to rub elbows with. That's an old human condition and you will need to address it squarely one day if you hope to get on efficiently. Now no doubt you will paint that as some sort of personal attack, but it is nothing of the sort. Only the truth as I see it. I will repeat: instead of trying to convince me that black is white it would represent a much better investment of your time to write a nice friendly chatty be-sure-not-to-scold email to Charles and inform him as pleasantly as possible that his hare-brained concept of lines between battles is . . . all wet. But again, I will say that there are areas that I agree, need to be looked at, and will be. I think I am probably the #1 biggest operation fan out there, so trust me when I say that Im looking forward to future improvements in this area You won't see the biggest improvements until the lines go. So go write that email to Charles. Hop to it! P.S. I like some of your mods. Good job. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

OK, all sparring aside.. Tris, have you tried setting the no-mans land at 0 meters yet, as was suggested? If so, did it do anything to improve the problems you cite? Of course I have. That's the first "remedy" I went to for the reason it's the only one available. Anyway, it effectively makes no difference. Setting no-man's land to 0m ameliorates to a degree the damage done in terms of "pushing back" the defense, but no matter the distance set the line still runs N-S (or E-W) straight as an arrow and that is the problem. The line itself is the problem. We don't need the line. Armies in real life have successfully fought wars all over the planet without "lines." Please get rid of the lines. The lines make no good sense. There. Now that I've got that out of my system . . . you tell me how to design an intelligent operation with those lines. Please, I'm all ears. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]