Wartgamer

BTW, there is no shame in being in the minority. It doesn't diminish the value of your point of view as a valid way of thinking. But it is not the only way of thinking, and therefore in the final analysis not the point of view catered to. Please. Thats like saying there is no shame in having a 120+ IQ. Combat Mission PBEM play represents the best wargaming experience period. There is not anything better in the whole industry. This thread has certainly shown that there are different species within this hominoid group. I find it hard to believe that anyone would not move on from playing against the AI to some form of human-human play.

I would like to throw out one other thought. Does it matter to BFC if people buy the game and not play it? By this I mean people buying the game and deciding after a few games, or a week or so, that they really don't like it that much. Some companies make demos, so that is one way of dealing with this. You can say "Try the demo, buy the game, its yours now". But what I see is people 'borrowing' the game from companies. They buy it, try it for awhile and then sell it. Usually on ebay. Sometimes for close to new prices when stocks are low or sold out! This 'ebay return policy' must cut into sales. In the worst case, people copy the software, and then sell it. The one nice thing about PBEM or any human-human game capability is that it makes games keepers. People hold onto them. While the PBEM grumblers may be a minority, they are probably teh majority as far as human-human play?

Yes. And can we have a cmx2 forum so that threads there can be locked also?

Supersize it. I want a PBEM with 50 megabytes and a chocalit' shake. I feel like someone is making a new ski resort and all the trails are 'bunny hills'. And I am supposed to get excited because there will be three McDonald's concessions and I can rent skis that are exciting colors. [ March 05, 2005, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

That it hasn't been coded? Damn the Torpedoes, and the PBEM, and perhaps the length of even solo play 'crunch' time, and whatever else too, FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!

I don't believe that the core engine needs to be compromised. This is all getting tiresome. In many threads, the designer goes balls to the walls saying "what will be, must be and what will not be, won't". In another thread its, "we haven't coded it yet, so we will see". If anyone followed the 1:1 threads, its apparent that its an idea that needs some more gestation. It is not parable-worthy in any regards. I would not spite my face over it. Many other supposedly 'core' items, like changeable terrain 'states' might be toned down or optioned. Do I need 256 different types of terrain states to keep me happy? I really think not. Poking a sharpened stick into a hungry, rabid dog usually gets predicatable results.

My gut feeling, only overuled by my butt feelings, is that the game will support smaller games at some form of non-TCP/IP asynch play. Perhaps some of the 'core' elements can be toned down. Another issue is just solo crunch time. Right now its acceptable on my system. But if turns crunch beyond the 'sip n chip' moments, I will get frustrated.

Yes! The field of Speculative Math has reared its head. This isn't an election. Are you really saying its 24%?? So if they lose one out of four, they will pick up (insert speculative math algorythym) to replace them?

Perhaps. But has the Pusher Man decided that the infinite crack hit needs to be replaced with 6-8 month fixes? His diabolical plan to divide and conquer the Cranky Grogs? "Hi, my name is Gilbert, and I am a cmx2 junkie.." Deformable terrain seems to imply that each 1 meter square has state(s). It could have many states I suppose. Smoke/Dust being a state as well as shellholes, trenches, what have you. [ March 04, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

A 30 second turn may not be that bad an idea IF the game's new C&C can keep the player from abusing all the info like he does now. Also, the 30 sec movie playbacks for the individual units (ugh) CAN be 'compressed' in that instead of a continuous play, they are just 5 sec 'jumps' or snapshots of what that unit 'experiences'. The mechanics of why all the small movies get big has been discussed in the other threads. Basically, you must have a 'chronology' of all his relative info for each time incrememnt. This database includes all his personal states as well as his database of relative spotted units/spooks/whatever else. My personal view (yes I realize its just mine) is that the most realistic setting (no individual unit movie playback) is easier for the game to crank out for PBEM. I would want to play PBEM this way typically. The movieplayback view is just from the 'company' HQ units (modified by relayed info). So the game just needs to pass the databases needed for 2-4 movieplaybacks instead of a database for every bazooka, squad, section, LMG,etc. It would also pass the last timeslice database for these units, of course, so that you can always 'see' what they see during the orders phase. Thats my understanding of it. Low level? Prehaps. [ March 04, 2005, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

You are not reading carefully. Not once have I, or I think anyone else, said, please leave out 1:1 representation et cetera for PBEM. I am actually questioning it,not only because it was mentioned as a PBEM 'hit', but also because I do not believe it lives up to its hype. Since many functions can NOT be brought down to 1:1 level to operate with 1:1 soldier modeling; what is the point of it? Reality? No actually the opposite might be the truth. 1:1 needs a rethink. Computer Upgrade: For many people who can not afford a better computer, PBEM may be immaterial. They just can't buy a game that their computer can't crunch very well. Hopefully, the demos will reflect medium sized games so people can decide.

BTW, here are a few things we would have to "hobble" to ensure PBEM would work: 1:1 soldier representation 1m terrain resolution Deformable terrain Relative Spotting 1:1 was discussed in a few threads. Did it really get sold as such a needed feature? In many threads, it just brought up so many questions as far as how it clashed with other game issues. 1m terrain resolution. I assume a 1m square actually. Are individual trees and soldiers driving this? Would 4m (2mx2m) work? Deformable terrain. Not discussed that much. Relative spotting. Subtle but its actually the Relative Movie playback that would be a memory hog. The need to pass back and forth all relative unit relative movies being the worst case perhaps. Since these individual movie playbacks mat just be an option, and some might argue quite unrealistic actually, this hog could be reduced.

I would like to see a demo scenario with three different strategies 'waypointed' for that same scenario. In other words, be able to play the same scenario but have the AI play differently each time. This would demonstrate the power of the new scenario design capabilitys.

I downloaded the demo for TACOPs and played it for quite awhile. I never bought the game. I just felt that it wasn't a 'keeper' (I have no clue if it had email either). It just gave everything out in the demo and I really didnt want more. So even though I am a hard core wargamer, and something like tacops would seem to be up my alley, it just didnt get the bucks. Cmx2 would have to really put on a show to get the bucks.

On a serious note: Many people think that the Military customer is like someone with a shopping cart. They need more bulletts, they go down an aisle and pick them up. They need new technology, they just go out and shop for some. If you have been involved with this customer, you know that it is a proactive process of getting your proposal up for consideration. You have to hunt in the orginization to get soemone to champion what you are selling. That person champions you, and it works out, then you are a feather in his cap. It is no more than writing a very good proposal and submitting it to the right people. The next step is a Grant. Basically, they will pay for your initial R&D and you must have something to show for it at the deadline. In the case of the private software industry, which has already self-financed much of the work (to sell to the entertainment market), getting a grant and meeting the proposal (paid up front programming really) is a no brainer. It is something that BFC should look into.

I once impersonated a Doctor but that was at a Sorority.

If they meet this specification and accept the $50.00, they relinquish to me, the marketing of cmX2 to all military orginizations in existance. I will purchase cmx2 at a reduced price of $21.50 each and sell them for $169.99 each to the military.

I am prepared, as a captain of industry, to offer BFC $50.00 dollars to meet my specifications.

I think you would have to say something like belonging to an orginization no? If I said " I am Captain Nemotoad from the West Choad Central Investigative Alliance", then maybe then. See?

Who said I was an Officer? Are you talking about DrD? [ March 03, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Getting back to the car analogy its like... There's someone building cars and it meets almost every specification except for the wheels and tires. You mention, "hey! if you put the correct wheels and tires on that, you could sell it for twice as much!". And the answer is "NO! I wouldn't want to drive if it had those wheels and tires!".

What I especially enjoyed about our friend was the way he lost his sense of proportion, kept posting repeatedly and maniacally, and then slid from rude to malicious when he felt he wasn't getting enough attention. You are speaking about the designer from the company no? He seems to be very stressed. I hope he reconsiders the military as a possible 5000-10000 a year sales market. The smart thing is that certain companies are offering products in different levels of capabilities and charging more for these features. This really does justify the extra design/programming/testing efforts.

Is 'Tigers in Normandy' a game?

Have you ever been involved in military procurement? R&D? Grants? Different levels of acceptance/testing/fielding?

Is your "business" being an irritating t****r? </font>