The_Capt

You see what you have done?! Even asking the question invariably leads to that question thread becoming ANOTHER Peng thread!! CDC protocols; lock this one up and then burn it!!

Shhh..do not speak it's name. It is a little known fact that the entire Dyatlov Pass incident was directly the result of the 'That P-thread', even though they are over 40 years apart in time....think about it before bringing it up again.

Well that is too bad but I will answer anyway because this is a 'forum' after all. Clarks sin was on Steps 4 and 5. Statements like "poor craftsmenship" and "Worst UI I have seen in a long time" really don't help and suggest some downright nasty things about BFC even couched by positives. Then outlining how this was all initial design errors that could have easily been avoided just adds to things. As to 'postal', now that hurts...really. I thought I had some pretty pithy stuff going on there delivered in a slick style. C'mon the "same as a guy building a deck" didn't hit at any level? I think I am losing my touch...damn. BTW the only person I was really going postal on was on Mr Redwolf who is a known entity from another dimension. I don't hang around the Public forum much anymore but if I do happen see any of that crew swing by for a quick hit based on absolute nonsense...well plug you ears. Either way it would appear that we are not going to be friends which is unfortunate. Odd thing about the Internet, kind of like driving. I bet if we all met in person we would get along great but put us behind the wheel or a keyboard and we somehow become other people entirely.

Huh? Come again? My first post was a simple opinion on the context of the review in contrast to the developer and its intended market: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100795&page=4 No flames there, nor calls for burning of the reviewer or people who agree with him. Then Mr Griswold jumps in with some stuff on the UI and state of BFC's production values that I personally think is 1) over the top 2) unmerited and 3) argued from a position of ignorance. No problem in telling him so. Things get heated from there, particularly when certain individuals start jumping in because they smell blood and will take any chance to jump in on a BFC-bashing. But you do raise a good question; "how to offer up criticism and or suggestions?" Let me see if I can help. Step #1. If you are jumping into a conversation or thread on an issue read the entire thread. This avoids mis-communication in what is a medium with inherent communication shortcoming. Step #2. Make sure what you are seeing is really what you are seeing. A lot of times there can be solid reasons why you are seeing a behaviour and anything you can do see if this is the case makes everyones life a lot easier. Step #3. Give as much detail as you can. For in-game oddities use screenshots etc. For general quality issues or changes try and really narrow it down. "I don't like it" is not very helpful. Step #4. Avoid if at all possible hyperbole and repetition. I cannot stress this one enough. Your particular observation/issue may very well be valid but couching between "Worst {insert here} ever!!" or any other type of broad statements does little to really motivate the guys in the back or the Betas. Step #5. Recognize that none of what BFC does is 'simple' and be patient. This game engine has grown a lot over the last few years and has tremendous potential. Give the little guy a chance. I have said this before. If you walked into a bar that brewed its own beer and told the owner/operator "This stuff taste like camel-piss, why haven't you gotten it right by now..it is so simple!!" See what happens. Somehow because this is the internet some people figure it should work differently.

Back to the original discussion...very good idea. I have no doubt the reviewer is a solid guy with a good background and you are correct 73% is not the end of the world and acutally represents a solid "Good" score not a shattered wreck in any one area. My point is that PC Gamer is aiming at a mainstream audience, who for a large part will have similar (or should if the reviewer knows his audience) viewpoints. What should be kept in mind however is that that for the core market of the game the viewpoint changes. The UI needs improvement, no argument. Is it totally unworkable, not at all. The rest of the game as a whole would probably score in the 80-90% range with the targeted market as their priorities and context is different. This is the market that BFC is aiming at and if they can widen it all the better. It amazes me when some people stand back and say "well they obviously should have done this or that." "Why did't they just fix this?" Like there is some sort of conspiracy. By that logic they are essentially accusing BFC of 1) Being lazy or 2) Being greedy and pushing an inferior product out the door for quick cash or 3) Being poor at their job. Well Point 1 is simply not true for anyone who has spent anytime working with the company. I have had emails from the crew asking questions time-stamped at 2am. I am not sure they ever actually sleep. Point 2 also doesn't hold water as they delay releases as many times as they have to in order to get the game as right as they can. If they wanted the quick buck they could do it with a whole lot less work. Point 3 is also incorrect as they have managed to stay in business (despite the predictions of many) for over a decade and keep putting out solid products. They also have shown no hint of slowing down. For those with UI gripes, ok we got it...we really do. Believe it or not Beta Testers don't all sit around and go "meh" when someone brings up an issue, usually it means someone running a battery of tests to isolate and repeat the issue. For something like UI, we have all put our issues forward and the guys will get to them in priority as no one wants a better product more than BFC themselves. For those who simply dislike the company based on something other than the games (and you know who you are) plse go back to whatever dark corner of the internet from whence you came.

You sir, have clearly never seen me on a Friday Night!! We love tights a la Dutch rock video. I am from Canada so from a lot of perspectives I have the "talk funny" criteria covered.

I have to respond to this one. "Representing the company". Am I some clerk at the front of the store, the one with the fake plastic smile trying to sell? I am I suppose to swallow my pride for the $50 BFC gets when you, the consumer, lays it down on the table with the creepy smile demading I take the G-string off? We Betas are the first line of quality control and quality assurance. We work this game for free for hundreds of hours. Many build the scenarios and campaigns for the very love of the hobby. The thanks we get from the community is enormous and in the end keeps us going. But when few (a very few), try and hold us up to some sort of "subserviant shopkeep" standard in attempt to bear-bait and prove their own personal points, I call bull****. The second BFC "loses the attitude", the attitude which keeps it focused on delivering the best tactical wargaming experience on the market no matter what. That day I walk away. This gentlemen is a day I never expect to come. You want to label me something children? Fine call me a "fanman". After two wars (one of which Steve spent personal effort keeping in touch with me) and twenty three years military service and nearly a decade supporting this company I think I have earned that at least. I and other Betas will continue to challenge and push for a better product. We do this not for gain or for fame. We do this because we love th hobby and desperately want to see it survive. You want to call me on something? Call me on that.

I welcome any scrutiny on my previous posts or opinions. Plse hit my handle and dig into my responses. You will find them (I hope) balanced and fair in my assessment of BFC's products and opinions. You are right, we are the only reason that BFC, doesn't get your point. We are all robots who will defend BFC regardless. Or maybe, we have already posted, fought for and accepted these points after roughly hundreds hours of beta play knowning what the stresses and strains are in producing a heavily realistic wargame. Or you could take look at other forums which also give a balanced view of the game like: http://forums.gamesquad.com/forumdisplay.php?5-Combat-Mission Here you will see a lot of names, like Redwolf, giving a fair evaluation of the games merits and weaknesses. We "bad betas" smashing constructive critique not with standing.

Redwolf...stop the bull****. Give us the BFC CMBN sales figures which underpin you position (as weak due to UI compared to if UI was perfect) or simply run back to a forum which will listen to your patent nonsense. Where are those "sales where they are suppose to be"? I await on top of that hill. Or more bluntly; "you are full of **** and bad manners, prove your point or get the f!@# out"

OOoo and just when you thought this was going to get boring... Ok Sunshine, let's dance (as I look longingly at my sixguns). Clark and Coy are lightweights by definition but I see Gamersquad has let loose what they consider heavy hitters!! So let's start with your baseline: "People who think that the CMBN interface isn't terrible, and that terrible interfaces don't do terrible damage to sales are simply delusional". Oh my, that is a violent statement!! Ok lets break it down. The interface is 'terrible'...as compared to what? The interface needs work, I was one of the first to admit it needs work but "terrible"? "Terrible damage to sales"? You of course have some sort of solid metric to apply to these theories? If course you being a wargame marketing expert know..right? "Been discussed but has been fanboied under" Another wonderfully over the top statement that I welcome some sort of proof. For the most part BFC and others have continuously tried to outline where the game needs improvement and where its strengths and weaknesses are. Some, on other boards in what amounts to a sad sort of self-justification for the amount of energy spent looking for the lone gunman, ignoring the explaination posts and rally forth with deeply painful and dramatic examples where BFC has "let them down" and where the "insolvency of BFC" will be the only thing that validates their POV. I will submit to the jury that other than the odd "drive by", people like Redwolf have offered little to know positive input into this or any other wargame. I am not sure what the history is here but these types of broad, uneducated statements are but a symptom of a sad demographic. This demographic is one of actual success in reality. For every weird "nutter" who is willling to invest an inordinate amount of time in slaggin a product, there is a fanboi willing to defend it. By that measure, Redwolf and I amount to a clear metric of success for BFC and I wish them the absolute best

Mr. Griswold Well your opinion is roughly worth the same as mine....just about nothing but lets kill some time shall we? "Just how I feel" automatically makes this an emotional argument, which it should not be. How you feel is a product of brain chemistry built on a foundation of historical stimuli and perception. To sum it all up, like opinion...nothing. "The worst UI I have seen in a long time"...seriously....get out more and take the tierra off, this UI has some rough spots but "worst ever"? Let's talk modern industry standard to which you cling so tightly for a moment, the mighty FPS and here I am talking a just released big production number getting 9.5s on reviews. Why is it I still have to dislocate a f@!kin finger to get my virtual ass to crouch. This little UI issue has been a pain since Doom but I don't see you outside Id Software with a sign. You work in the software industry. Well I am impressed. I will give you the point to assume it is somewhere in development and not a call center or the sanitation engineering dept. Your contribution based on your background is and I quote: "So, I think I might know a little bit about which I speak. Doing it right the first time is always preferable to doing it right the second time." Wow, I am really impressed at the state of the modern software industry. A guy who builds freakin decks for a living can drop that nugget and at least he might lose a finger if he screws up. Internet Sparring 101; when in doubt run to the strawman. No I was using the narrative of the Idiot actually. A common practice dating back to Greek philosophy was to couch arguments between (usually) three characters. The teacher (normally trying to convince the audience of a point), the student (representing the open minded masses who throughout the discussion achieve understanding) and the idiot or fool (representing the current view of things). You can decide where you fit into that equation. Numbers of Disgruntled. I am a bored guy sometimes so I actually counted and assessed the responses on the "what do you think" thread a few weeks after release and the count was 90 unabashed positive responses and 11 negative ones. So you must be talking about the Silent Majority who seeth in the darkness at the injustice of this game. Luckily they have a few very vocal reps. "Addressing these issues early in the development process requires LESS time/work/energy than fixing them after everything has been coded. I think the biggest problem here is that we're saddled with poor design decisions that were made 6+ years ago (during the development of CMSF). This far down the road, it's far too late to change course". And now we come to the crux...."If I was running this show, let me tell you where they all went wrong". Well you are not and BFC has survived in a niche market for over a decade and from all accounts are making a pretty good run of it. When you get to the same point send them a resume. At the end of the day they have success and a good product, which btw is what they tend to let speak for them. UI, needs some improvement...got it, thank you. Now call me a fanboi and we can all move on.

I am not sure where to start exactly, considering your opening arguement was to compare CMBN to a game where one throws cartoon birds at cartoon pigs, but lets try and find common ground if we can shall we? First off the UI is not perfect but it is nowhere near as bad as many have ranted about. I am willing to accept that the developers took conscious, game engine-centric decisions to lay things out a certain way based on what are probably a number of competing interlinked factors. You like many seem to think that: "It doesn't take any longer to code a good UI than it does to code a poor one. It simply takes a little more effort to design it right in the first place (effort that is more than made up later by not having to fix the whole thing)." That sweeping statement from anyone except someone intimately involved in the CM engine or at least a game developer himself simply screams ignorance. It does so because it lack any real depth or even perspective...it is at its root the analytical tool of the mob. "Down with Bears!! Down with the Bear Tax." The UI is "clunky". Not broken, not shattered and not a sign that BFC is happily spending our money on hookers and blow while a chained one legged monkey with an eye patch is churning out the next title as Charles puts out cigars on its ass. The "many" you described are a disgruntled minority that have some legitimate points but often the communication of those points is somewhat ham-handed and lacking. Any game on the market has trade-offs and no game is perfect in its balance. Every player on the planet has to accept that. For instance in Angry Birds, why can't I play the pigs? Some may cry that it is a gross short-changing of the customer on content and "how can you possibly have a bird tossing game without the pig-defence?!". For a small team with limited budget I would argue they need to get the centerpiece right. If this game had a perfect interface, wonderful graphics and a tactical wargaming model slightly left of World of Warcraft..well it wouldn't be Combat Mission would it? Will they work on UI, sure. In a review, should the reviewer take this into account? Yes.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. The games you have listed are nowhere near the level of complexity reqr to produce a 1:1 tactical wargame. You point is true that indie developers can produce first rate products but few if any are as ambitious in technical detail as the CM series. In addition a lot of indie developers license big-developer engines to build off. BFC not only has to put out a very complicated product, it has to create its own game engine from the ground up. You are correct being small is no excuse. Being small, building large & complex, building independently and corner-stoning a niche market does mean that trade-offs need to be made in order to stay marketable. This is not "poor craftmanship" and to suggest so is downright insulting. This suggests the guys are sitting around with their feet up: "Hey you think we should put more polish on the interface or the graphics?" "Naw, why bother, these losers will will buy any old crap we ship anyway...heh heh" Absolute nonsense.

Back in the day I wrote a few reviews and putting myself in the reviewers shoes the first question you ask yourself is, "who is the audience?" For PC Gamer the audience is far broader and general than the niche hardcore wargame set so the reviewer has to take this into consideration. The flip side is also, who is producing the game or what is the overall context of the game itself and what market is it aiming at? In the case of BFC it is at a small (and hopefully not shrinking) niche market. The review as posted would appear to be leaning farther towards the audience and away from the context but I would say drastically or unfairly so. For the hardcore wargaming market where modern-styled production values mean less than an accurate simlulation this game would probably rate in the 8.5 to 9.0 scale. To the average player on the street who is used to a much simpler interface and flashier explosions they would rate it lower. What is a little unfair is to expect the same level of flash out of a small developer as you would see out of a large one. That logic takes us down the road of pushing the small developer out of business altogether as they simply cannot compete on a lot of development axis compared to a large developer with millions of dollars in the warchest and large staff. BFC can improve on a lot of areas but at the end of the day the really should stick to their strengths because that is what keeps them and possibly the niche market alive.

Bocage is very interesting and in fact would depend on a lot of different factors. If the trees are the only problem (ie the slope of the mound isn't too steep) you could try and get away with linear charges placed at the base. But organics are a nightmare to try and work with when it come to explosives. They contain water and air gaps that make a predictable result difficult. In the end, BFC went with a simplified engineer model with generous work times. Much better than CMx1 but still room for improvement. Could we see more engineer play? Sure. There are a lot of obstacles and works not seen in the game. But here I think it came down to a question of prioritization of the core elements of the game or risk the game never being done.

We use the term "steel cutting" or "shaped charges", linear speaks to stuff like bangalore, necklaces or vipers. The real world answer to the question is "yes". HE can clear hedgehogs obstacles, even ones anchored in concrete or staked into the ground. You don't even need specialized cutting charges. Blocks of C-4 at the main junction or you can cut the legs to be sure will normally do the job. We use cutting charges for stuff like bridges made out of big steel or concrete. The problem in CMBN-sense is the time it would take to do it. Securing explosives to the steel isn't a simple "slap and go" as the charges are likely to blow right off. You need to tie them on or secure them as tightly as possible taking bit more time than is comfortable under fire.

I was speaking of engineer/pioneer play in general but as to wire specifically, CMx1 presented one type of wire only, roughly a Cat I or double strand obstacle, that your box standard infantry could muddle through at a reduced rate. In CMBN, we are seeing the equivalent of a Type II or possibly a Type III. These are very heavy wire obstacles that will not only effectively stop infantry but can pose a serious obstacle to tracked vehicles (I have personally seen a Type II de-track a 113). By "effectively stop", I mean the time it would tack to hack thru it by hand is prohibitive in the context of a CM scenario. In this case explosive charges are the best bet for a quick effective breach...enter the pioneers. In game this changes the "cost to effectiveness" equation for wire so we see more use (hopefully) and a richer combined arms employment that includes pioneers/engineers.

Problem with bocage and the berm in particular is it nowhere near a uniform structure. Concrete or steel for instance has a very predictable fracture characteristic when exposed to HE. The bocage berms have stones, voids, roots and other organics. So right of the march you are facing a lot of variables, so the engineers of the day did what they would do today...overkill. For a tank sized breach the engineers, as would have been noted would have boreholed at least a third of the way thru the berm (half would be better) and stuffed them with as much explosives as they could. The reason they had to attack the berm was the very steep slow that either ground out the nose of oncoming tanks or forced the tank up to a very high angle so when it hit the trees it had a high risk of bellying out or tossing a track. It has been thrown around in some corners that tanks should be able to get over low bocage but the reality is that bocage came in a thousand shapes and flavours. Sighting a possible crossing would have been an acquired skillset in-theatre, not something oyu can train for. I am sure a few Sherman crews got decent at it but this is a rare and still risky proposition. Then the question is what should be the failure rate and by what tank? 50%, 60%, 72.3%...no one really has found any data on this. The only thing we can go on is the very real fact that the Allies went to great lengths to solve the "bocage problem" which spells to me that there was no sustainable tactical solution to the problem. No for mansized holes the problem is a bit simpler. No need for a berm attack, I would go with three bangalores taped up stuffed thru the vegitation. That type of attack could happen in the timeframes seen in game. But it is a game and some abstractions have to be accepted.

Just checked and you would be correct. 15-20 seconds is damn fast. Basically a slap and go affair or bangalorepushed thru. Of course for a vehicle lane it takes two hits so that streches things out a bit.

Not sure why are people are clearing 20 mine squares. Normally you clear mines as part of an overall breaching operation. As the "commander" you need to read the ground and decide exactly where you want to conduct that breach, hence the "mark mines" command. Like "Blast" these are tactical decisions that reqr player input. If the player was left out of the loop you could wind up with breaches in the wrong place and troops moving thru them. As to hedgrow blasting. It is quick in game. This was a conscious decision in favour of the overall flow of the game. It is roughly 45 secs per charge, which means the explosives are basically stuffed into the top of the bocage and lit off. This could actually work but you would need very heavy charges and there would be failures, for tank movement at least...or more likely tanks could take a run at it but at higher risk of bellying out or throwing a track.

Gents, You have to remember that obstacles are designed to augment other weapon systems by slowing or channeling enemy manoeuvre units where you want them to and hindering their movement to keep them their or break up their cohesion. In short their are are a piece of the defensive puzzle, not a total blockage of all movement. Engineers can create total blockages but they usually take an enormous amount of effort or have to leverage a natural existing obstacle (ie blwoing a bridge over a river). You cannot measure an obstacles worth by how well it stops an enemy force or how many enemy units are killed by the obstacle. The worth of an obstacle is the extra 60 seconds it slows down an enemy platoon (in the case of wire by going around it, with mines it is the pinning of the troops after getting hit) while mortars are dropping on their heads or MGs are firing at them. This makes obstacles, particularly in QBs tricky. You need to carefully look at the terrain and use obstacles to reinforce the overall defensive plan where you think they can be used to best effect. You need to anticipate your opponents actions and approaches and combine all of your weapon systems to defeating them; direct fire, indirect fire and obstacles.

I am short on games right now. Email on the way.

Interesting staff college topic if there ever was one. I think if you are looking for any real plausible answer you have to pull out of the Harry Turtledove stuff ie "what if they went left instead of right" once the war was on and back the whole thing up to the geopolitical level. I think a second war in Europe was inevitable. The pressures between old Europe, Communism and Post WWI issues meant a fight was bound to break out one way or another. But as to whether Germany could have won, I think for this you have to accept the answer is "yes" but with entirely different leadership at the helm. This opens the catch 22 of "would the leadership needed to win have entered into another war in the first place?" The problem was the Nazis and Hitler were best described as "on fire". They had really nothing in the way of domestic policy beyond spend like lunatics in prep for war and then have to go to war to possibly pay for it all. The German people proved they could mobilize tremendous energies towards a wartime footing. The German military proved that they had learned the hard lessons of WWI and were probably the best field force in the world, which they proved repeatedly '40-'42. The problem was who was driving that ship of state. What was the long term diplomatic end-state envisioned by Hitler and the Party? A One Thousand Yr Reich that will rule the planet with an iron fist is not a realistic strategic objective. Wiping out entire nations based on racial beliefs is also not sustainable. As the Allies proved, if you want to win a war you have to compromise. Hitler and his crew did not understand the meaning of the word as far as I can tell. Even when they appeared to compromise it was only so they could screw someone else later on. The whole venture was a one way trip to death or victory. And if you really want to muddy the waters, define "win WWII". Hitler and the Nazis were a nasty bunch who distrusted each other almost as much as the enemy. Does anyone think they could have established a functional empire spanning the globe? The damn thing would have collapsed from within 20 mins after we waved the last white flag. Now put in German leadership that had a clear and workable end-state ie, we are going to rule Western Europe. And they called it done in 1940. Shore up against Russia because you know they are going to attack eventually but now you are defending against aggression, the US would be even less interested. When Japan commits strategic suicide, back way off and stay well out of it. Hell offer aid and comfort to the US against Japan and we are heading toward a sustainable partnership in Western Europe. But in order to do this we are no longer talking about the Nazi Party. We are talking about a reasonable government that probably would have never invaded France anyway. Bottom line, asking if Nazi Germany could have won WWII is like asking if a wolf could lay eggs. Sure it could but it would have to become a chicken first.

I call bullsh@t on this one. Let's take the entire cover issue. Not just walls as was noted but foxholes, trenches, bocage and the like. I personally spent hours..if not tens of hours testing out v 1.00 issues on this one. Being a military engineer it kind of fell into my area of humble expertise. After hour of testing and re-testing...what did we find? Short walls are an issue (patch incoming) foxholes need a bit of tweaking. This is after many have cried to the heavens that this is sign of the end times for CMBN and that Cover on the whole is "completely broken". I have never dismissed a legitimate complaint, especially if someone has done their homework. I for one welcome rational discussion, without self absorbed hyperbole, that outlines a complaint. We tend to chase after these. But when a complaint is delivered in an immature and narrow mainded manner, I for one tune right out. Now let's also call a spade a spade here. There are some...a very small minority of what I like to call "haterboys". A group of sad individuals who really do not have the games best intentions at heart. They sit in the tall grass and wait. As soon as anything negative come up about CMBN they are usually the first to cry "broken" and outline how BFC is failing their customers. You can usually tell these guys by the basic fact that when you actually take them on, point for point, they fold or quiet up pretty quickly except to shout as a parting shot how BFC and the "beta-brigade" have wronged them.

Hmm, you know the term "fanboy" is one I find very offensive. Like many beta testers I have over two decades of military service and multiple tours in warzones under my belt. I (and I am not the apex trust me) have done what you see in CMSF except it was for real with very different stakes than those sitting pretty pretty at home. Let's try the term "fantatic men" or "fanmen", most of us have earned that much at least. Beyond that, the "fanboi-land" argument is the inevitable fallback position of anyone who is unwilling to rationally debate their position. "I am right, you disagree...you are a fanboy". Aristotle would be proud. So let me open the curtain, just a small crack. Some of the most vocal and active voices for change reside in what you broadly paint as "fanboy" land. They wrestle with the more conservative voices for the soul of this game. Steve and crew forge what you see from that chaos in what can only be described as a "creative process". One that has stood the test of time for over a decade.