Paul AU

I'd like to re-state that the recent thread in the CMx2 Forum, and the original thread started by me in the CM:BB forum - made clear, rather repetitively, I thought, that the realism or otherwise of some kinds of immobilisation were irrelevant to the game-design issue at, er, issue.

IMO, CMMODS (Yes, I sent cash) best contribution was that of gridded terrain. What a brilliant idea, and so very obvious after someone else had thought of it. Who was that?

There's nothing wrong with being Desperate. Most people are.

Flamingknives How often do you fall victim to random immobilisation on firm ground? I’ve already said it’s rare. I’ve already said it’s a game-buster that’s easily fixed - to no one's detriment. stikkypixie What's I also don't get is that someone who claims to enjoy the tactical challenge of fighting Stuarts against King Tigers, does not enjoy the challenge of fighting infantry against tanks. In fact, that’s one of my favourite type of scenarios. The desperate defence. But a sudden ridiculous random withdrawal of any semblance of fairness just makes any victory or defeat - hollow. A waste of a game. I hope it's obvious that if such 'misfortune' befalls my opponent, I feel the same. I don't want to beat a guy who's lost his armour because it tried to move. If you play QB and you buy two tanks and you know there is a chance bogging then you better have back-up plan or make one up on the fly. That's a tactical challenge. This is BFC’s position. I’ve stated mine. I guess birdstrike re-stated it too well. (Thank you) But then there’s dieseltaylor observation: Playing with a couple of tanks just makes bogging too important It does.

The thread’s gone mobius. But you don’t mind? Then, try this: I’m going to use the term ”forced immobilisations”, by which I mean (as I’ve said before), immobilisation over which you have no control (other than never moving a vehicle at all – and you’d be pushing creativity if you argue that doing nothing is a form of control). Let’s imagine that you’ve settled on a game with an opponent. You’ve decided the size of the game, settled on the map (”I want one with lots of firm open ground, because I enjoy the crap-shoot, er, I mean the “challenge” of random forced immobilisations, and I always enjoy the idea of a game being unfairly over at any moment due to no-ones good thinking. This is precisely why I’m into war-games, because they’re random crap-shoots over which I have no control). So, you ‘buy’ your forces, and go to Set-Up. But wait a minute, that pair of Shermans you ‘bought’ aren’t there. Then you remember that BFC has extended their immobilisation regime to include realistic deployment delays. Those two Shermans, 100% of your armour, broke down on the way to the front, and will not be appearing. Do you then think: a) Well done BFC, that’s realistic. Not only will I enjoy this random challenge, (which is now a game decided by BFC and not by me), but I will start a very long thread on the forum about just how often this happened in real-life, and cite many instances from history, as though it were relevant. Or Well, that sucks. Now I have to settle on a new game with my opponent. Decide the size of the game, settle on a map (”Let’s make it all swamps this time, I’ve given-up, really”), and again wonder why such a beautiful gem of a game has such an obvious dumb flaw in it. Or c) Suddenly remember that ”hammer-scissors-rock” is a game replete with unexpected tactical ‘”challenges” and perhaps we should be playing that? I’d certainly use the word “emotional” a lot when talking to anyone who suggests otherwise. CM’s current immobilisation regime is functionally exactly the same as I’ve described above. It sucks. But can be easily fixed. BFC isn’t arguing that it’s hard to fix. They’re arguing that it’s fundamentally wrong to fix. We just need to remind BFC that it’s a game and we’re not looking forward to their proposed “Random tank-commander sudden heart-attack module”, no matter how realistic it might be, or how “emotional” it may seem to oppose it.

BFC continued with: Sure, but why don't you abandon a game when you lose a vehicle to a fluke shot? I might. But I might not, because it was enemy action, not my action. Because you ask that question, I see you don’t get it. Why do you not abandon a game when you see you're opponent has a King Tiger and you have Stuarts? Because I love a challenge. Why not just call it quits as soon as you start up a game and realize you bought the wrong units for the randomly generated QB terrain? Because *I* chose the units, and I love a challenge. Bogging is ABSOLUTELY AND EMPIRICALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN A DOZEN OTHER THINGS. I can see that my time here has been well-spent. I'm simply trying to point out that you're asking for something based purely on emotion and that your rationalizations of your request are pointless because they don't hold any water. (I’m counting to ten). Ok. In other threads you’ve all talked at length about the balance between realism and the Game. Your dumb “realistic” immobilisation regime, every now and again, kills the game. It really does. (‘Dumb’ as in – no one’s controlling it). But that’s realistic, and anyone who thinks that can be fixed is “emotional” (Hey! was called insane!). You can easily give the players control over this, but you are emotionally fixed on not doing so. (It’d suit me if you close the thread, because I just can’t help Replying, even though it’s all been said before)

I'm faintly bemused as to how it's possible to spend 40 minutes setting up a battle with only one or two tanks. I'm including negotiating with your opponent, settling on a map, 'buying' troops. And yes, then 39 minutes placing your two Marders so they don't have to move for the rest of the game in case you sustain 50% casuaties from firm dry ground. Firm dry ground is your worst enemy. Because there's *nothing* you can do about it. I'm bemused by that.

(Now, I told myself I was done with this thread, but…) Kwazydog said: most people don’t’ consider this an issue at all… Actually I got a high agreement rate in the original thread. I think most of the CMx1’s aren’t reading this, but 40% would be on my side if they were. (I’m just saying that I don’t agree that democracy is on your side. Necessarily). I thank you for your polite and insightful responses. You’ve been giving Steve lessons? Because he’s looking pretty good in this thread. BFC said: I think you should re-read this post of mine from back at the bottom of Page 10: I think you should re-read my OP, page 1. Quote: “I understood BFC’s opinion to be: ‘the current immobilisation regime is realistic. End of argument. “Do you think we should mitigate lucky random shots too?”’ No change. Ok. Steve said: So when one looks at this rationally, empirically, and gamewise... it's better to have a vehicle get a fluke bogging than it is to get taken out by a fluke shot, even though the circumstances leading up to each are nearly identical. Well, we disagree. I guess that’s the heart of it. Moving is… I was about to repeat myself. Again. “Emotional”? Yes… but games are about emotions. (Plus I hate spending 40 minutes setting up a game that has to be abandoned on turn one). Frustration is an emotion too. (That wasn’t so hard? You replied to ‘criticism’ with wit and good humour). I’d like to thank BFC (and others) for bothering to reply in such a comprehensive way.

BFC (and Kwazydog) said: ...how many times have you had a vehicle bog on a dry road surface? How many vehicles have you driven down a dry road surface over the years you've been playing CM? I'd be surprised if it is more than a fraction of a percentage. That’s true. Kwazydog also wrote: I like the fact that I have to think twice before sending a Tiger across soft grasslands in the rain. Yes, I said that. I just hate having to think twice about moving my T-34 anywhere. Especially if I only have one of them. My point is, oh, I’ve already made my point. Redwolf: Also, things get more complicated when you have two players as both would have to agree on a set of switches. Hm. People agree before they play. Just like any other set of parameters. Which they do. No problem. Yair Iny …iumpteen places in the code that deal with bogging… It should be one place. I bet it is. A subroutine referenced every time a vehicle enters a new cell. It’s just four lines of code. (Not counting the interface, which, yes, should take less time than I have spent bleating here). Do you think they don't do "toggles" out of the meanness of their hearts, that it's only 4 lines of code but they are just being spiteful or dogmatic? really dude... Well I kinda do. All the best games have toggles. It’s part of what makes them the best. Because they’re easy to put in. Value “x” – you toggle it. Four lines. I explained how, previously. flamingknives Equally, I am amazed that people feel that there is a difference. Interesting psychological difference then. I see (no, I feel) (as I’ve said twice), there’s a difference between something you must do, ie, move, and enemy action. You don’t. Well, ok. I’d just like to re-state that the actual probabilities of immobilisation have no bearing on my thread. It’s irrelevant (but I’ve said that already) Well, I can see that from my perspective this is going nowhere. I did my best strategic nagging, and it made no impact. I’m immobilised. (At least I haven't been called insane, yet) ps, BFC; Please include a “ditch” terrain element in Normandy. (All the better to be immobilised by)

You "just don't get it". You don't. Ok. (Edit: Jason was right)

Why not implement the toggle I suggest? It's four lines of code. (Er, not counting it's representation in the interface)

Redwolf BFC is not into the habit of giving player toggles for this kind of thing, for game mechanics. That option is out, I can promise you that. Well, that’s just dumb on their part. It’d take them less time than it has for me to explain it, for them to implement (what I suggest). Panzfest mostly agrees with me. flamingknives said: A bogging doesn't ruin a battle any more than a fluke shot, it just seems that way. It’s fundamentally different, as I have endeavoured to explain. Once more into the breach: I have to drive down the road. (Oops, you’re bogged, you lose). Game screwed, everyone’s time wasted. It’s worse than a fluke shot. I agree “It just seems that way”. But it’s a game. It’s about what you do. Again, I’m amazed that so many people don’t ‘feel’ there’s a difference between losing because you decide to move, at all - and being hit by a lucky shot. They’re in different categories.

"I just see this thread as an example of how hungry we are for another WW2 game" No, (well yes), but more me trying to pick a 'sweet spot' in BFCs development of Normandy where they are in a coding mode to fix the bogging thing. Like, the right time to nag.

flamingknives As I argued, the difference is (in part), that I *decide* to put my T-34 in the way of that Mk 4 or that swamp. I have *no choice* but to drive it down the road. I lose because I drive down the road?

Can completely end the game. No skill, no planning. Realistic? "Er; I win, it's, er realistic."

Well, considering how much emphasis BFC puts on realism, I don't see how you can dismiss it as irrelevant. Read my OP, and you might see.

I don't know what the real frequency was of tanks throwing tracks or having some mechanical failure was... Let's please not have another thousand page discussion on this, only because it's completely unimportant.

Now that ‘Normandy’ is on it’s way. I'd thought I re-hash… Immobilisations. I’ve only had two real conversations/debates in these forums, and one was about terrain-caused immobilisation’s. (The other was about the relative value of fire vs manoeuvre, at the conclusion of which, Jason C. decided that I was “insane” - so, you may want to skip the rest of this). If not (and you were warned) my argument is: An untimely immobilisation can be a game-killer. Especially in games with a low numbers of AFVs. “Oops, 50% of my tanks (ie, one) got bogged on the road while moving at normal speed”. Nothing I could have done to prevent that. But I lose 50% of my armour, possibly on turn 1. (Fair) game over. I say this wastes a lot of time and makes games with a small number of AFVs a crap-shoot. I said, the chance of immobilisation should be toggle-able by the players. I explained a simple way in which the players should be able to ‘set’ the immobilisation probability to their liking. It’s easy to toggle things from “normal”, default CM values to “never immobilise on a road”, to “never on a road or firm open ground”, etc, while maintaining unchanged immobilisation probabilities in soft ground, woods etc. I contend that with CMx2’s smaller scale, and relative smaller number of vehicles, that this becomes even more important. I said that if you want to drive your tank at high speed through the woods or into the swamp, you take your chances. Fair enough, and an interesting tactical choice to make. I understood BFC’s opinion to be: ‘the current immobilisation regime is realistic. End of argument. “Do you think we should mitigate lucky random shots too?”’ I argued (to no avail) that enemy action was different, and that losing a game by just trying to move your tank from behind the barn, only to have it bog - was a game-killer. No tactical choice there. I said it’s not a BIG thing, I agree that most of the time it’s not a factor, but when it happens, it sure sucks. I said it’s easily fixed.

(It's cool how BFC steps in (so quick, most times) and answers questions. Or criticism). Here's still hoping for a 'ditch' terrain element in Normandy. Seems to me most of the war was fought from ditches. (War's a ditch).

Actually, unless you appropriately Submit, they get quite nasty. And then get annoyed, when you out-nasty them (or, him, to be fair). It's a private thing.

BFC wrote: "In order to be lumped in with the "I hate Steve and Battlefront, but I spend almost every waking hour obsessing over both" club you'd have to reject rational discourse and start describing my genitalia instead. Oh, and be paranoid, bitter, and all kinds of nasty." None of which was apparent in the OP’s quote. The quote was a critical opinion, well expressed, and I think, not without truth, which is perhaps why BFC also said (for just one example of ten similar paranoid, bitter, and nasty responses in this thread): "A pile of poop is so hard to trace back to a particular person by smell alone." Which makes this BFC statement in the same thread: "…but based on the rough treatment given to a (person) who posted a fair minded (yet still critical) opinion... I'm not hopeful. A handful of agenda driven people have done a pretty good job keeping objectivity out of the discussions." …all kinds of ironic. If you don't live in a glass ego, you’d could spend less time throwing stones. BFC’s response to criticism is usually twice as ‘rough’ and ‘poopie’ as the criticism itself. It's not a good look. (That’s my fair-minded, critical, opinion). “I only said, ‘Jehovah.’”

I re-played that 'Nashorn' scenario just a coupla weeks ago - and I concur with 'Ali-Baba'

I'd never heard of Battlefront, and probably still wouldn't have if I hadn't come across Combat Mission by 'accident' in a retail store years ago. (I saw CM:SF on a retail shelf once... once). So, sometimes you get very lucky. And BFC should maintain a (bigger) retail presence.

Not a 'flavour object' but: I'd always wanted a 'ditch' element. A drainage, roadside-type ditch, a shallow muddy/grassy linear feature which could be chained like CMx1 trenches to follow roads, or line fields etc. It would be easy to enter, hard to leave, good cover and very slow to traverse (perhaps depending on the weather/season). 'Ditches' seem to feature prominently in eye-witness accounts.

Yes, but everything you said works both ways, as I tried to say. “Some moderators are very skilled at constantly belittling people, but never enough that each little event on its own is enough to warrant a comment. You'd think they do abuse for a living, they're so good at it. With Infractions, they will be able to incrementally abuse people with no recourse by the abusee.” - Infractions make bans (and warnings) more transparent to everyone. Do they? Aren’t these “infractions” issued privately with no possible discussion? Hence my initial comment. It is much more difficult to abuse such a system for personal dislikes in that way. I haven’t seen how BFC will go about this, but unless it’s substantially different from how it’s implemented elsewhere - I disagree entirely. As I said. It’s a perfect vehicle for disguising and legitimising personal grudges. Specifically designed for, I start to think. I’ve earned myself another infraction. (And if I had, who would know? Where would I contest it?) Don’t get me wrong, this is your forum, your home. You are fully entitled not to like people. To eject unwelcome visitors. Indeed, I hope you do. I don't want a forum full of d-heads either (er, except for me). I guess the history of recent ‘bans’ here have me riled. (Nothing to do with me, except in principle). As for an unbiased appeal system: Obviously not possible on your scale, I know. So my point stands - it’s down to just what you guys personally reckon. It’s more honourable not to dress it up. (That’s about all I have to say on this).