Paul AU

Cabe, I dunno specifically what's made you suspicious in your game/s, but it's been shown in these forums that it is possible to 'hack' the game. For example, people are able to add extra weapons to each of their squads, which gives them an (in-game invisible) advantage. (I've seen squads with 15 LMGs - which is probably overdoing things...) Stuff like that. I think it's rare, and it's unlikely it's happening in your game/s. (You probably just suck) But chessmasters can and do cheat from time to time. How is it done? I don't know and don't want to know. Why is it done? Some people care far too much about beating other people. Speaking of which... ... judging from this thread and others like it, you're not the one who needs to grow up around here. (Which is one reason I don't post here much any more). "O! It is excellent To have a giants strength, but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant."

"You are stupid, that's it your problem."

(Join the club)

Cuirassier, You're stupid, a whiner, and insane.

I’d like to complain about Jason too. I’ve only attempted two conversations here (in these forums) , the first of which, Jason intervened to support my position. (After I’d given up). And thanks for that. (It was about immobilisations). So, he’s not entirely stupid. The second of which was about risk/reward ratio, at the end of which, Jason concluded I was “insane”. This rather saps one’s enthusiasm for further conversation. So, Jason is stupid. (Or insane, or full of horsefeathers, or maybe, just pounding sand. Or maybe he doesn’t agree with me. Or, I’m insane) Now, as to the subject: I am wondering about all this talk about “patience”. Surely no game has enough turns to provide the “patience” required by much of the tips given here. Or do you guys extend “normal” game duration?

Oooooka, flamingknives? You didn't read the thread either, did you.

" let's not forget about the 1.5% chance that a giant lobster will attack on turn 1." Unintentionally making the point, rather well. 2% of games (5%, 10%?) of games are crap on turn 1, because of this. This can be fixed with 12 minutes of programming. Do I care, 88% of the the time? Twelve minutes is less time than I spend setting up. [ September 30, 2006, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

“BTW, just for giggles”… Well. Already I can see where this is going. My posts were not “for giggles”. But I see now. Meaning, "the link Paul finds so overwhelmingly important actually defeats his argument IMHO." Well. That’s illuminating. (No intelligent person who reads the thread (for giggles) can agree with BFC's position, IMO). If you think that… then the Topic is closed. As for “majority”…. No, I think you’re wrong about that, or I wouldn’t have raised the issue. The majority hates the effect I’ve so painstakingly described. But you’ve shown you really don’t get it. (or don't care, and are ready to ridicule people who bring it up) Or don’t understand the system design fault inherent. So BFC’s wargames will still be the best around (by a mile), and will still be just a little bit crappier than they need to be. (16 minutes re-coding would fix it). But BFC could be “blinded by their own personal opinion”, so we (well, “me”, actually) ) must stop trying to help them. And there was much rejoicing

“BTW, just for giggles”… Well. Already I can see where this is going. My posts were not “for giggles”. But I see now. Meaning, "the link Paul finds so overwhelmingly important actually defeats his argument IMHO." Well. That’s illuminating. (No intelligent person who reads the thread (for giggles) can agree with BFC's position, IMO). If you think that… then the Topic is closed. As for “majority”…. No, I think you’re wrong about that, or I wouldn’t have raised the issue. The majority hates the effect I’ve so painstakingly described. But you’ve shown you really don’t get it. (or don't care, and are ready to ridicule people who bring it up) Or don’t understand the system design fault inherent. So BFC’s wargames will still be the best around (by a mile), and will still be just a little bit crappier than they need to be. (16 minutes re-coding would fix it). But BFC could be “blinded by their own personal opinion”, so we (well, “me”, actually) ) must stop trying to help them. And there was much rejoicing

How could you doubt it. BFC - read the thread.

We are actually increasing the number of... ...game-deciding events that are out of the player’s control? I’m sure that will add to the player’s enjoyment, in the same way that CMx1’s bogging regime did. (Why fix a problem, when you can multiply it). My opinion is that a sceanrio that is based around the success or failure of a single vehicle is a bad scenario. Or two, or three, or four vehicles? I don’t think there’s a full appreciation of the consequences here. I said I wouldn't re-iterate the original thread, but, I don’t mind getting my one (of three) Bradley’s shot because I did the wrong thing with them. Or bogged because I did. I do mind losing 30% of my armour on a random whim over which I had zero control. I don’t want to continue a fight where my opponent has just lost 25% of her armour on turn 1. Because she dared to move at all. The quote would be, "Well sorry, we all wasted our time setting up. I guess we have to start again." But… this had all been laid out in the original thread (which I can see from this thread, has not been properly read). Arguing that a tank bogging down ruins a scenario is like arguing that losing your tank to enemy fire runis a scenario. Actually, it’s precisely and definately not like that. Which is the entire point. Take a week to read the link I provided. But you won’t. But, ok, I have my answer. Thanks for responding.

Sequoia said: My two cents. I was not going to buy CMSF. Its setting was too close to todays headlines and it would have made me uncomfortable to play it. I agree. "Bad taste" is the least I can say. If BFC says they are locked into an America Invades the Middle East - Again, scenario, they can at least make the victim-country generic. Quoting Sequioa again: maybe that doesn't make sense but that's how I feel.

Here’s a CM:BB thread which I think contains a strong argument that the immobilisation regime in CMx1 represents a small game-design problem, and suggests a simple potential fix that should be incorporated into CMx2. It’s a long and often annoying thread, and I would have quoted what I think are the salient points here, but that may just encourage others to restate objections to ‘what I think’ and basically repeat the original thread here. I’m pretty sure everything that’s worth saying about the subject, and much that was not, has already been said at least twice – which is probably enough. I am however interested to know that BFC is aware of the sentiment about unavoidable game-detracting immobilizations, the reasons for it, and whether they think CMx2 will be any different. The game-spoiling critical-bog on-turn-1-on-the-road while-moving-slowly phenomenon is more of a problem the fewer vehicles there are in the game. I have the impression that CMx2 will generally involve fewer vehicles than a typical CMx1 game. If many people thought there was a problem with CMx1, they will have a bigger problem with CMx2. I will repeat one salient point: I’m not saying it’s a big problem, but I am saying it’s a problem that doesn’t need to be there.

I'll be playing CMBB/CMAK and will be designing scenarios for them for as long as I have a rig that can play them. So far, none of the products that are being talked about comes even close to being a replacement for me, based on what I read, and that includes CMx2. "Me too". It's a shame that BFC didn't think that there was easier money in a CMx1 II (as it were), an improved, tweaked, add-too CMx1. Rather than thinking a new engine with much (much) reduced game-scope was the way to go. (I know BFC says "yeah, but wait 'till you see CMx2"). "Civilisation", a game equally excellent and equally dependent on it's scope and range for it's addictiveness, is in it's fourth sucessfull iteration. Would have been nice if CMx1 could have gone the same way.

You can't but admire BFC's forum presence. Not over-gushy... but reponsive when appropriate... and personal enough that you know they are talking to *you*. That's pretty cool. Seeing as I was moved to post today, I could also say: you know... CMx1 was Very Good. No, really, Very Very Good. Six years from now, people will be talking about it, if not still playing it. I hope that BFC remembers what (in part) made it Good, was it's large scope, in time, terrain, nationalities and scenario editable variety. You know what I'm sayin'.

Interesting. I’m not particularly experienced or CM-knowledgeable, but that isn’t going to stop me commenting on this occasion. I’ve never been entirely convinced by Jason’s attrition-is-all view, well exposited though it invariably is. I think ones basic personality determines how one sees this issue. Perhaps it can be distilled at least in part, down to player’s natural preference for security vs. adventure. Some people, like myself, naturally prefer a high-risk, high-reward strategy – I think merely because it’s more interesting (dare I say, more creative and more exciting). Others could see it was a form of gambling; where the skill is - I would say - in creating or seeing favourable odds on a consistent basis. Some times the “adventure” is going to result in …piecemeal engagement… division of efforts (multi pronged razzle dazzle), or concentration of risk... Other times, it’s going to pay off with a large “attritional” or positional advantage. Others are simply naturally more cautious. Either they value winning more, or, I prefer to think - they fear losing more. “Why lose when you can win?” I think some don’t fear losing so much, as long as their victories compensatorily feel as though they've involved more than merely out-data-basing your opponent. He thinks he must be clever and bound to achieve more because be is trying to be clever and wants to achieve more. Nicely put. (That comment prompted my reply). If “trying to be clever” is a characterization of the Maneuverist, isn’t “trying to be dull” a definition of the Attritionist? For some people, “the dullest - wins” just isn’t much of a gaming experience. I think that “trying to be clever” is probably part of the “excitement” I mentioned. Jason automatically sees/says that “concentration of risk” is a bad thing in itself. But it’s not. And I think this is the crux of it. It’s not a bad thing if there’s an equal concentration of reward. Having the last pawn (eventually) standing is simply not as rewarding as checkmating in the mid-game. Conversely, I think that naturally cautious people would rather lose by a attritied last pawn than be checkmated in the mid-game. Because to them it feels less of a loss. All of that is not say that I prefer to charge into the Valley of Death every time just to see what will happen. But even when I am being cautious, and force myself to sit still and play the attrition game, I always have elements on some adventure or other… just to keep the game a creative adventure. Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - Somerset Maugham

Any decisions about adding an ability to script AI behaviour in scenarios? We gunna (for example) be able to set waypoints/delays for AI-unit advances? Stuff like that? What about the old immobilisation issue? CMx2 going stick to the ‘realistic’ model of CMx1? Or are you going to give us some kind of toggle that will optionally spare us the occasionally critical bogged-on-dry-ground/road-effect? (You’ll recall long threads on this). (And don’t forget to include a ‘ditch’ terrain tile).

Any direct fire gun firing from cover will also do the job, with small calibers not even being spotted in return. ATRs, even. If you've got nothing else, AT Rifles will do it, given time, even from a distance. (I saw from a recent game). (Did Russian ATRs really carry that much ammo?) EDIT: Oops... I'm a bit behind the thread, it seems). [ November 19, 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

It's interesting that BFC has let this thread run. "Reasonable, mature and rational posts, even when they take opposing views from what we believe are always welcome. Hof seems to believe that a discenting opinion will be quashed without question. That is not true." In general: while BFC may welcome dissenting opinion, a vocal proportion of forum-users do not. I've certainly seen reasonable, mature and rational contributors - that take opposing views - comprehensively mocked and ridiculed at length. Which does create a certain atmosphere. "This is our island. It’s a good island. Until the grown-ups come to fetch us - we’ll have fun." (appropriately from... Lord of the Flies)

Unrelated, but; I've always been curious about the 'knee pads' visible in the pic above. They were used in Somalia, I've seen. What's their story? Who uses those, and when? Urban use only? (And does anyone know when wearing sun-glasses became the norm?)

Excellent web-site, Carl.

Lotta threads on this, my own (lost) comment on them all; I'm annoyed that polite "customer feedback"-type comments are pack-attacked by "BFC cheerleaders" in such a nasty and prolonged way. The heavily used term "whining", is illuminating. I think that the people who complain about ‘whining’ are whining. If BCF only wants booster-positive comments on it forums, it should explicitly say so. I note that customers who are very polite in their “negative” feedback are ridiculed regardless. For my part: Fictional Setting: fine with me. “Modern” setting: fine with me. USA (“UN”) vs Syria…. Legitimate socicla/political concerns have been raised about this. But I understand that BFC is seeking to maximize it’s customer base. But, I really hated the “fanboy” ridicule of what seemed to be reasonable feedback. This is my reasonable feeback.

With the smaller-sized terrain 'tile', maybe this would be possible: Vehicles that drive over deep snow, create 'paths' of compressed (light) snow behind them that other units can follow with less effort. I've read of real-life examples of this happening in combat.

("Modules", Grrr). I'll feel like a carnival dupe. "Here's a taste, come get the rest!"

BFC can imagine, now, what if it's *not* "Private Ryan".