Jump to content

Wartgamer

Members
  • Posts

    939
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Wartgamer

  1. I would like to see mission types being chosen during Campaigns (or whatever Campaign holder is present in the new engine). So for a 4-5 battle 'Campaign', the attacking player may choose RECON and the initial goals for that mission are superimposed. The overall goals (main objective) is there but small dynamic goals are present because he chose RECON. An example of a RECON goal is a small house that overlooks parts of the map presently not seen by the attacking players initial setup. The type of Mission chosen could have effects on the overall morale/reaction to casualties/etc. It would also act as a dynamic turn length (there will be turns in the new turn Holder?) generator. A RECON mission might generate only a 10 turn battle during the 'Campaign'. [ February 17, 2005, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
  2. Comments about artifical delays to affect changes in Borg or God aspects... not our goal. Our goal is to model the real deal as beast we can. If there is a process that takes 1 minute in real life, it should take 1 minute in the game. Units that can see a unit in front of it should be able to see the unit in front of it. Even CMx1 behaved like this, though with some systems being themselves abstracted we sometimes were stuck with abastracted effects. I think this statement contradicts the 1:1 representation system that is being proposed. How does a 'unit' 'see'? A 10 man squad could have only 1 or 2 men actually see an enemy (the others could either be pinned/busy or just not have an LOS). The 1 or 2 men that actually 'see' the enemy may not get that info into the 'unit' shared-knowledge-base due to many reasons (others are firing, pinned, distance, seeking cover, NCO-dead, noise, etc). Is a 'unit' still either a 8-12 man squad, half-squad, bazooka team, HQ, truck driver, etc? Or will this also take some non-abstracted quantum leap also? Will the granularity of the 'unit' fall to a fireteam (2-5) men instead of squad? At some level in the new game, abstractions must be used soemhow. A WEGO type system requires some time chunk in some form to halt the game so that orders may be doled out by each side for example. The time chunk is an abstraction. [ February 17, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
  3. I like that the new game will model morale on more of a individual basis. The present model abstration is somewhat unrealistic at times. I always wondered why the game did not split off a half squad and send them off into some compromised morale state and leave behind a somewhat good order half squad. The compromised half squad being the one taking the casualties if any.
  4. I am commenting on this persons remarks about 'Grogs' and other game designers (the squad leader guys) that he has made. Please don't confuse that with the Service that BFC might provide with broken CDs, patches, etc.
  5. And change can be good again. As in the change in the very flawed CMBO modeling being revamped in CMBB. Were these changes implemented due to internal directions or from an outcry from external 'Grogs'? You seem to have an disdain for many of your customers and other game designers. Change is good. Evolution depends on it. But natural selection determines if haphazard change is really good. I have a quick question: If PBEM is possibly left out, how are you going to playtest the game?
  6. Does this website do surveys? I would like to see a survey of questions like the following: 1. If the future CM type product does not include PBEM, would you buy it? A. Yes B. Yes if the demo is great and offsets any PBEM needs I have C. No even if the demo is good 2. What time 'chunk' do you feel captures WWII gaming at CMs level? A. 1 minute B. 30 seconds c. Different for different command capability. Vets being 30 seconds Conscipt 2 minutes, etc.
  7. any ammo replenishment was proven to break the code in CMBO, CMBB and CMAK. even just a series of code that queried each unit during a pre turn would have overturned the apple cart. its impossible and can not be considered. its not that it would have been work, its just impossible. whats wrong with you people? think a computer can just opposite shoot (-ammo expediture) before a turn? you are not game designers and should be flogged.
  8. I might add: I do not see the real need for 1:1 but there may be some. The designer could explain with a few examples how it will improve the game and justifies its expense in programming time over other features or even to preclude others still. My own take is that I hope the 1:1 graphic is only 'seen' at ground and level 1. As you go to higher levels, the more traditional 2-3 man representation is seen. As you go higher still, the traditional 2-3 man representation becomes a military symbol or something that allows FOs, AT, etc to be discerned from above.
  9. I would say that anyone that would go out of thier way to write such a 'parable' is beyond bone throwing. When making computer programs; Think then Code. Saves time. I would discuss fundamentals before details. Perhaps thats the 'meaning' of the parable (since the writer got so hung up on the 'Grogs' contributions. So maybe thats the major disconnect here. Does the game company want to discuss fundamentals (and before I forget, I would not buy the game without some form of 'PBEM' capability) or just skip the customer input over?
  10. I guess I found it just so unbelievable. I read it the other day but read the 'pertinent' parts again. [ February 15, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
  11. No I don't believe they would have changed the turn length from CMBO to CMBB or to CMAK. I dont believe they changed that much of the basic structure. I think the point is that they have to let everyone in on the ground floor if there is to be any real discussion. They have to rough in the area before filling in the details. Someone in the company should state how the actual structure is going to change. Things like tile size decrease? Good. Things like WEGO stays in place? OK. Time in the game will be abstracted differently somehow? Good..will it effect having PBEM games???...uhhhh.. I dunno about that... [ February 15, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
  12. I think if there is to be feedback from customers: direct questions have to be asked. Such as: 1. Do you want us to keep the same 1 minute turn? Should it be variable? Should it be non-even (shorter or longer for one playter? This is how to open discussions. Not condescending awful parables and such.
  13. Ive read the 'parable' a few times and find it very prepossessing to say the least. The basic use of the term Grog is incorrect. Grogs are people with a great deal of interest in wargames and intense interest/knowledge in very specific areas. They may not know much about programming (but could), but they certainly do know much about the things being modeled by the programs and should have input in certain matters (I am assuming that Steve is a programmer?). The whole premise of the parable is stilted. The designer is acting like he is making a game about a futuristic war based product for WAR2012(like cars are furture products). No one is a qualified certified grog about the future. The reality is that even if the game is 'new', its based on historical parameters and the Grog may just have very good knowledge of them. There is no input about 'better' cups according to any ones needs as a consumer of the computer product. Heres an example: Designer: How would you like a 1:1 representation of a MP40 equipped soldier with 4 clips? Grog: They usually carried at least 6 and there could be some unloaded 9mm...etc. See? It has nothing to do with 'cup' size needs or anything like that. Its about past data and modeling events at a certain level.
×
×
  • Create New...