sage

guachi, you win. I was being lazy. My point was this: Jews were, depending on place and time, prohibited from owning land, owning businesses, owning property of any kind, military service, service as doctors, or, in various forms, doing things that they could make a living at. I spent a year in college taking two classes on this subject from a guy who knew it inside and out. The christian prohibition on "usury" has been historically flexible. Usury was judged to mean, at various time, any interest on a loan, excessive interest on a loan, compounding interest on a loan and so forth. Therefore, Jews often became money lenders. Local rulers would put up with this, and then, needing money kick the Jews out and take their money and property as "moving tax". This often strangely coincided with same local ruler owning those same people $$$. These expulsion were often violent and fatal for the victims. Mass killing of Jews happened a number of times in middle-ages, such as during the leadup to one of the crusades, when the crusaders murdered and killed tens of thousands of Jews along the Rhine. What it basically boiled down is that being a Jew sucked a lot, and that, more importantly, the Holocaust wasn't the temporary madness of the German people, nor was it the fiendish machinations of a one-testicled teetotaller vegetarian. Rather, it was a the nadir of a long history of violence, incidents of ethnic cleansing and robbery. Sage

Occhams Razor: Hitler probably hated Jews because there was a 10 century long European history of hating, expelling, killing (and so forth) Jews. The opinion of many people in Europe ranged from "dislike Jews, except for Mr. Soandso on the corner whose nice to my kids" to "They killed Jesus, so let's kill them." It's difficult to count the number of times that Jews were expelled from this country or that from about 900 on. Charlemagne was the last major ruler who did not treat them badly (he saw them as a valuable resource of highly educated people in a time when education was lacking at best). If the "History" channel wants to come up with bad history that will entertain people... well, that's why I don't own a TV. Sage

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: To put in smoke that you would find realistic NOBODY'S system would be able to handle it We could put in translucent smoke sprites, but different colors, patterns, etc. are out of the question. So we don't think the CPU hit would make anybody happy. And I hate to tell you a P200 is the low end that would be cut out by stuff like this. We are already overtaxing these systems, although the frame rate is OK. But play on a P400 and you will see a whole different game! Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think translucent sprites would be an improvment. The smoke currently looks pretty aweful.

My grandpa drove a Higgins boat (landing craft). I believe he was at the landings at Leyte, Saipan, Guam and Okinawa. His ship was present at Coral Sea; at Leyte they were rammed by a suicide boat. It blew a big hole in the soldier's barracks. The soldier's tried to run out as the water came in, but the lights in the section were out, and the deck had buckeled and opened, so that they ended up falling back into the flooding compartment. I believe most of the soldiers in (60 or 80) were killed. A friend of the familily, since dead, was some kind of special forces liason in the Philipines. He was delivered there via submarine in (I believe) early 1942. He, and everyone with him, was immediately officially listed as MIA for the remainder of the war. He spent the next three years organizing philipino guerillas and providing intelligence. I believe he was dropped with six or eight men, and he was the only survivor. He was captured by the Japanese at least once, but escaped after being badly beaten (which led to later health issues and brain damage). I never had a chance to speak with him about this, as he had severe memory and motor cooridination problems, probably resulting at least in part from having someone hit him in the head with a rifle butt.

Eridani -- by that method of judgement, "Titanic" was the best movie ever (or at least the most successful). While it certainly was in $$$ terms, I have difficulty in believing Leonardo de Crappio could ever be in anything that was successful in anything other than monetary terms. I would hope there might be a few other ways to definte success. Sage

Well. I personally have both TTRL and SPR on DVD. And think they are both excellent movies. SPR has been done to death, although I disagree with some of the historicaly criticisms; for example Xavier notes the column of infantry behind the tank would be unrealistic. But OTOH, on the tactical level, I am sure exactly that kind of dumb decision happened from time to time. Truth is stranger than fiction can ever hope to be. Now. TTRL is a long movie. It is also a very ambiguous movie that studies war with ambivalence and curiousity. There are strange moments of clarity (think of Witt's run through the jungle or the soldiers popping out of the grass to fire a few shots). There *is* character development, and it is relatively close to the book, if you don't mind that some of the characters have been combined into composites and the like (pretty common). Additionally, literary conventions have been replaced by film conventions; the voice-overs are a good example of this. Where these concepts are communicated one way in the book, they are communicated another way in the movie. Doing this successfully is very difficult. The fact that TTRL is long and rambling doesn't bother me. So is Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago. They are still good movies. TTRL *is* a critics movie, if by that you mean a difficult movie to enjoy. I drink scotches that are also difficult to enjoy -- but they are still very good. The in TTRL cinematography is nothing short of miraculous, the soundtrack (which, strangely enough, I am listening to right now) is one of the best ever written (IMHO); and most importantly, I feel that the slow (glacial) pacing of the movie and its refusal to work with standard narative conventions works in the movie's favor. I think that despite "plot" differences from the book, the movie managed to capture the feel (pacing, among other things) of the book utterly. My impression is that a lot of the people who didn't like TTRL (though by no means all) are more into "instant gratification media." You know, not having to wait around while the camera dwells on something irrelevant and "artsy." Finally, I do agree with a number of the criticisms level against it: the cameos are distracting and add nothing; it, at times, crosses the line to pretentious; at times the different narrative threads are not as well balanced as they could be. And so forth. But, I think that pushing boundaries like that is the sign of someone with a vision. Maybe it's not always successful, but if it doesn't get done than cinema (or game design or cooking or poetry or whatever) will just stagnate. I enjoy movies like Conan or Navy Seals where you don't have to wait around for **** to happen, too. To complete the analogy, I drink scotches that are easy to enjoy as well. Well. That "stumbled on for yet another half hour like a meth addict with a spear through his head." Sage [This message has been edited by sage (edited 01-18-2000).]

Ooops. I agree completely with trooper that this game will likely loose points on the review for not including a direct multi-play feature like that. I also believe that the lack will translate directly into lower sales. (I think you can title this email, 'Why Project Management and Pre-Project Proof of Concept is Important'). That being said, the obvious decision is to ship. I have no doubt that BTS came to this conclusion before puting it up to vote (and was sure what the answer would be), but it points to very good P.R. on their part -- "see it's what YOU wanted." My own personal take: bummer. Will I wait to buy because of this? Probably not. But TCP/IP is actually a big deal for me, because I play with my housemate on our LAN. Currently we use a shared directory and drop the PBEM files in there, but because of the clunky PBEM turn sequence, this can be very tedious (and hot seat is lame -- we both try to get work done at the same time we're playing). Now, am I surprised that TCP/IP is missing? Not at all. This particular element has a long, long history of causing problems in the game industry in all sorts of games for all sorts of reasons. Finally, if TCP/IP is missing (and it will be), here is what I would suggest in return: check out what Stars! did. They had a seperate 'generate' app which would generate a turn once all orders were present, and simply replace the orders with 'results.' This works GREAT on a LAN. It's basically just PBEM bit with less exchanges per turn and a designated server. If the dev time on this, even as a "beta" feature were not too large (and this functionality appears to be mostly present already), I think it would be great to see. Oh well. Off to Australia for three weeks. Should make waiting for CM easier. Sage

Wargame with better AI? That's easy: TacOps. By far. Ask, and you shall receive. Why does TacOps have a better AI (aside from the fact that it doesn't have to worry about 3d pathfinding and is generally a simpler model)? This (as I understand -- MajorH can probably do a better job of explaining than myself) is why: Pre-scripting. Each one of this battles has a number of different pre-scipted possibilities for the enemy. There are enough of these, and enough that look "close" to each other that it is not immediately obvious what the AI's plan is. Because the tactical AI is very good at reactively changing the line of advance, you can't even be sure once you have figured out the line of advance that it will stay on that line. Why is multiple (or, in this case, many) scripts for an attacking AI preferable? Well: teaching an AI to defend is easier than attacking. So defending is basically taking care -- but attacking is where AI's suck. Why? Because they don't often come up with a credible "plan" like a human player. The slowness and lack of deciveness that the CM AI gets attacks off the ground is a prime example (I say this after complete anhilating the American attack on what's it town -- why? Because while he was pussyfooting his tanks around, he managed to drive them into my 88's LOS, one at a time -- he should have charged through the killzone -- probably would have lost, at most, 2. Ditto for infantry). Scripting + a reactive AI creates a situation that is much close to real life. Afterall, what is a battle plan? It is a script for your forces. (Okay Coy. A to here, provide covering fire while Coy. B advances to here. Keep your platoons close. Rush when you get close.) Naturally, the plan goes all to hell, and the reactive AI kicks in. TacOps is great at attack decively (or feinting AI, while attacking B, or having a large attack at AI, while keeping enough pressure on B that you can't adjust your forces, or or or...). So, technically, does TacOps have a better AI? Probably not. But I dislike the term AI -- it is misleading. When I play against the computer, I don't want an "Artificial Intelligence." I want a "Computerized Opponent." If the scenario designers has the option to provide it with "rally points," "killzones," and good defensive locations and half-a-dozen different scripted plans, then great. I think the Compterized Opponent will become more challenging. Sage

Or would be if such a thing could exist in CM. Sage

That sounds like a problem with your video card/driver. Try to upgrade. It probably doesn't support a necessary DirectX "special effect." Sage

It's good to know that we have people around who can pull historical trivia like that out of the uhhh out of the air. There was a lesser known "Gaseous Fuel" version, which was even more unstable. It's usage often had catostrophic results, as the gaseous fuel initiator version exerted a much higher foot/pounds pressure than the liquid fuel verion. Sage [This message has been edited by sage (edited 11-06-99).]

E. B. Sledge, "With the Old Breed." Has a good, detailed anecdotal story about just that, plus includes photos of marines throwing smoke grenades (seperate from his story). So it was used in the pacific at least. Sage

I've had better luck. First game, Last Defense as Americans. Major Victory. Second game, Last Defense as American. Total Victory. Third game, Germans attacking, LD. Minor victory, but held the town by turn 10, when I lost all three tanks and three hts in one turn from the M18s. Fourth game, Germans attacking, LD. Total victory. Fifth game, American attacking, Reis whatever. Total victory, although I did get luck by not losing any armor -- an 88 pen'd one of my Shermans but didn't kill anyone inside. Sixth game, PBEM. Let's see what happens. :=) Regardless of whether the AI is good or not, I don't find the AI challenging. I'd like to see a dif. setting where I can increase the number of troops the AI gets, withOUT using the scenario editor (i.e. so the scenario will still be a surprise for me the first time I play it -- I'll just be confident that I better play REALLY good).

I have a feature suggestion to that same effect on the board somewhere. It's probably pretty low priority, but it would be nice.

I find it difficult to understand the nay-sayers perspective. There is no reason why bodies/blood/crosses couldn't be disabled/enabled based on user preference. If you don't want it (frame rate, moral issues, aesthetics), you don't play with it. It seems to me the best argument in favor is simply the number and variety of people who DO want it. There have been many reason given for it, most of which are reasonably valid, although not compeling enough for BTS. That's fine. They have a vision for their product. *I* happen to think it's the wrong decision. I do not design game software, but I *do* design software for a living (as a project manager). I have generally come to the conclusion that when a significant segment of the market (10%? 20%? -- it's an intuition thing for me) feels strongly about a particular feature (and this seems to be the case), it should be put into the product, unless: a) It require a very large amount of development time. It is a high-risk feature, that is likely to cause a lot of bugs, or break other portion of the product. c) To include it would dilute the purpose of the product. d) It just can't be done. BTS hasn't address a) or publicly, and shouldn't have to. c) is not valid for a purely visual feature that can (and should be) enable/disable-able. d) Is the only reason they have given, i.e. that it can't be done in a satisfactory manner -- but I have seen no evidence that they have actually tried to mock this up. Comments such as "billboarding looks bad" are completely bizarre in light of the fact that billboarding is used for smoke and trees -- a few casualties would hardly change that. Ultimately, this is just me shooting off my mouth, because it's apparent that there is not a single argument for including bodies that BTS finds compelling (enough). I do want to say, though, that the usual dimissal of "we have blah blah many years of game design experience" doesn't seem terribly relevant here, as I'm trying to keep this less CM specific and more software project gernalized. Sage ps -- Harold Jones: your comment on bodies for NATO icons doesn't seem relevant here. The whole point of CM is visual feedback (in this case 3d) to provide intuitive access to information that would otherwise be un-intuitive. I just happen to think that there is an element missing that would add to my ability to intuit information from the visual feedback (which is pretty weak anyway).

One could also state that "It is cheesy, lame and gamey" that nothing appears for bodies, as well. NCrawler is just doing his part for this issue. :=)

Y'know what? Screw you and the beta you road in on. Thbbbbbbbttttttt. <pouts bitterly> Sage P.S. ummmmmm... feel free to give us more AAR tidbits. Hint. Hint.

'Course, we can't use billboarding for bodies 'cause that would look BAD. Or something. Thhhbbbbt.

Just started an email game. It's a guy I trust (i.e. I know where he lives), and I'd like to see an 'easy' email option where it's basically one email per turn & the host is always the same. I understand it would be easy to cheat, but that's not an issue in a game like this. There current mulitple emails per turn is kind of dull, although I understand its need. Like I said, low priority. Sage

Absolutely. Any tool that speeds up the game without affecting game play/sacraficing realism is valuable. I am in favor of an OOB that presents the same info that is already available. Why? Because I'm a busy guy, and can't devote half my life to a game. An OOB would reduce the tediousness of watching a turn many times, but put me on equal footing with someone who doesn't work 70 hours a week and who CAN watch a turn over and over and over again. The 3d view of the game is the UI. Right now it's good at some stuff and bad at others, like most UIs. An OOB would help remedy some of its defecies (i.e. being able to gather status and jump to your units). Hey -- not all of us are visual learners (i.e. good at translating visual feedback into data). Sage

Ahh... see, I dislike it because it is NOT realistic. Essentially, you have modeled three TD's 'teleporting' onto the top of a ridgeline, not cresting that ridgeline as they would have done 'IRL.' I think the best way to model this situation within the limitations of your game engine would be to extend the down-hill side of your ridge about 100 more yards, so that the TDs appear juuuuust out of LOS, and are forced to move into view (potentially just hull down as well) and THEN aquire targets. That is more like real life, unless the US Military isn't telling us something... Mind you, now, I'm just arguing for the hell of it, as I consider it a really minor issue. Sage

Okay. It's a preference in Scenario design. Fionn actually agrees with me on this one, i.e. that the tanks should probably appear in an area with restricted LOS. I don't like it, either as attacker OR defender. But it's a pretty minor issue. Sage

Airsoft -- I'm a member of Puget Sound Airsoft Command. There are about 20 of us and we play every single sunday. Check us out: http://www.get.to/psac We were recently presant at Operation Savage Garden, in the Santa Cruz mountains (central California). Bodies: there are solutions. The developers have decided none of the solutions are adequate for technical or aesthetic reasons. I think this is an unfortunate decision in light of the fact that this has not been presented to players in the beta (and beta demo) for public feedback. Regardless of the realism, validity or usefulness, I think this will probably hurt the feel of the game, especially for a more public audience (e.g. the other 25k people who will need to buy this game for it to be really sucessfuly as an online product <I'm pulling that number out of my butt>). I've been thinking about this issue more, and I think the real reason to have bodies is not any game-usage rational reason. I think it's the irrational, "goddamn, so that's what it looks like when a platoon charges an Mg42," visceral feel. I don't expect that this is going to change. This issue has been talked inside and out by many people. But I almost guarantee that it will be mentioned by reviewers, especially those that are not necessarily hardcore wargamers. Sure, their review will be 'unknowledgable' -- but it still may cost a few sales. Ultimately I want two things 1) for CM to be "Sage's Perfect Game" and 2) for it to sell very well, thereby proving this method of sales and development as sucessful. The former is impossible, the latter is a worthy goal of all of us, as it will mean more 'speciality' games, ala CM in this day and age of spiraling development costs. counting bodies: it's not the detailed body count that matters. It's the 'pile o' bodies in the house' syndrome that gives you some feedback on whether the German HMG42 was able to pull back sucessfully or not. in game OOB: this seems to be personal preference. I say give people all the tools possible to act effectively within the interface and let them decide invidually on whether to use it or not. Sage

Charles -- That's perfect.

And zoom in/out with the mouse wheel?