[MOUT and Urban Warfare is unplayable]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

On reason may be, that self-preservation is currently not very high on the list of objectives for the virtual soldiers. Maybe we are thinking about the same video, where soldiers try to enter a building from the roof and haul a$$ after the first shots are fired.

Now, try that in CM:SF!!

That's true, but I think it's a pacing issue as well. Such modeling of infantry combat would be hard to convert to a video game - we'd need 8 hour time limits and a far heavier reliance on artillery and air assets. In most scenarios, we don't have the option to withdraw and just call in an airstrike, or wait an hour and a half for a Bradley to reduce an entire structure to pieces.

I do feel that the 30 minute stuff is ridiculously short and in no way a function of reality, but the full realism side of it would be the complete opposite of the spectrum. It has to be playable at some point.

[MOUT and Urban Warfare is unplayable]

Give the campaign that was just released a try. It deals with mostly infantry combat in non-MOUT settings - the engine seems to deal with that type of combat much much better than the typical scenario included with the game.

The longer ranges reduce lethality a fair amount, and maneuver becomes far more worthwhile. Lots of tactical thinking involved.

[Time to bash!]

Excellent campaign so far! Infantry battles, just what I love, they haven't been done right yet.

My only complaint is lack of ammo, mortar support, and air support. The maps and tactical spaces are excellent.

Thanks for doing this!

[A-10 Gun Run]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

And I'm not accusing you of whining. I am, however, baiting you because I'm bored and in need of diversion from a rather dull and uninteresting day at work. Thanks for playing along.

But wait! Before you declare victory - I was actually the one baiting you the entire time.

Thank you for providing my day's entertainment. Dance on, court jester.

Heh. Does that mean I win?

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Adam1:

It's a whole lot different. I have a real tool I can use to make a campaign with if I have the time. If it wasn't there I wouldn't have that potential. Therefore there is an easy value there.

That makes sense. The value is certainly different depending on if you're a casual customer who just plays the game, or a scenario designer.

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Flamingknives - that's fine. I haven't seen any user made campaigns, and it's my belief that a feature doesn't have value until it exists in the form of playable content. If those types of things hold value to you - then let me say this - I have the perfect wargame in my head, it just doesn't exist yet. I'll take your money as soon as you're ready

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is flawed only in the sense that it does exist, you just don't wish to use it or haven't found someone else willing to make the thing you want to see. There is nothing "unfinished" about the game in any material way. It's just not to your liking.

I hope you at least understand that you could put a piece of cat dung in a box, ship it, and make the same argument. My confusion is that the statement that "there's nothing unfinished" about CMSF doesn't jive with the literal fact that the Battlefront team continues to fix bugs and finish out blank features every working day.

Contrary to Dale's position that opinions don't matter when they differ from our own, I don't disagree with your fundamental point of view. The game doesn't do what you want it to do in the form in which it was shipped. The difference is that I don't see there being any obligation on our part to make it behave the way you want it to, you do see that obligation existing. So we're going to have to agree to disagree here because there is no one right answer.

I don't believe I've ever mentioned any type of obligations - you're legally within your rights to never touch the game again. My opinions have been about what would make a CMSF campaign better.

Now, perhaps you would like to get back to discussing different campaign designs and the issues surrounding them? I did make a post last page about this and I haven't seen you respond to it yet. I can keep a discussion going while at the same time having fundamental disagreements with people, it would be helpful if you could too.

Sure, it's a long post, so I haven't digested it yet and haven't figured out if there's anything useful to add to it.

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Well, if I'm not involved... then why bother having the discussion at all? If you care enough about your position then you must have me involved because otherwise there is 0% chance of your concerns being address. Right? Perhaps I'm presuming too much here... I'm presuming that you've got enough of a life that you don't need to waste your time here complaining about things with no care if they are ever addressed at all. And based on that presumption I am engaging you. If I have it wrong, let me know and I'll ignore all future posts from you. I know I certainly don't want to waste my time discussing things with people that don't really care about what they are saying.

My interest is discussing a topic with like-minded people. I do not think that is in any way a waste of time - you've done the same thing with unrelated topics in this forum - discussing the merits or failings of the Stryker vehicle, or US military doctrine in Iraq, or whatever else. The people deciding those things are not on these forums, and your opinions will have zero effect on the design of the Stryker, or US doctrine in Iraq, or anything else. There's nothing wrong with that and there's nothing wrong with anybody sharing their mind on any topic.

My point was simply that if you're uninterested in my opinions, or that you think they are simply random rantings, or that your goal is to let people know that you disagree with every point they make and that what they say is not important because they are merely opinions, or if your goal here is to reaffirm over and over that each decision your team made was the only correct one - then why waste my time and yours replying to anything that I say? Doesn't make much sense, to me.

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Flamingknives - my opinion is that an uninteresting campaign is one that requires more work or a rethinking in terms of design - my opinion is therefore that CMSF is an unfinished product. It is not an unwarranted conclusion.

If an advertised feature doesn't exist in the final product, it literally holds no value to a person playing the game - ie, the customer. I do not understand how this is flawed logic.

"Small child throwing a trantrum" - you may say whatever you wish, the more obscene the statement, the less likely people are to care about what it is you're saying.

I think the key difference is that my points are about the topic at hand, and not merely a critique of a person's personality or writing style.

[A-10 Gun Run]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Exaggeration for comic effect is, to my mind, a time honored and fairly effective technique. In logical argument, it is generally less so.

But point taken. I misinterpreted your degree of attachment to the aircraft sound feature(s). How's this:

_____

Fer crissakes, can you even crack a joke around here without somebody whining about a feature that they think would be nice to have in the game, but no necessarily their absolute favorite, or most preferred?

I wasn't whining. My intention was to provide a useful piece of information to somebody that I had thought was making a statement.

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Assuming I do get your position you need to understand that it is just an opinion

Where does this keep coming from? Did you literally not read the post where I explicitly pointed out that everything I had said was an opinion?

I understand what your opinion is, it's sitting on my harddrive. If you do not want my opinions on the game's successes and failures, you are absolutely free to not read or reply to a single thing that I write. I am not requesting responses from you, writing you a personal email, or knocking on your door, insisting with a gun to your head that you do anything. I'm having a debate with some like-minded people in a forum built for the discussion of the video game that I purchased.

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You see it, I see it, but Molotov_billy sadly does not. His logic is akin to sitting in a new car, not finding a place for his coffee despite a half dozen cup holders, and then decrying the car isn't a finished product. It might be that the car maker didn't want to put in something to hold a 48oz monster coffee jug from Dunk'n Donuts. Nothing wrong with the car in my opinion because I don't drink coffee, nor would I ever want to have a 48oz monster drink of anything.

This type of stuff doesn't seem alltogether useful. I suppose that in this example, the cupholders would exist in the blueprints, but not in the final product - and most people like cupholders.

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And others have had a similar feeling of frustrating "debating" you. I tried to debate you earlier in this thread and found you unwilling to engage. As I see it you have no interest in seeing things from any other point of view other than your own. That is my opinion of your behavior and I'm sure you beg to differ.

Not true. My interest here is in expressing my opinion and seeing what others have to say about it. On the other hand, you've explicitly dismissed people's opinions for one reason or another in nearly every one of your posts.

And I disagree. Since this is just your opinion, and not an established fact, then it is possible that the game is finished instead of unfinished. However, the finished product isn't to your liking.

I've repeated numerous times that these things are my opinions. Did you see me previous post at all? I put an (OPINION) tag in front of everything that I wrote. I'm not sure what else I could even possibly do.

It is finished... it's just not what you want it to be. Where in this line of logic of yours is there room for the possibility that there isn't anything to fix?

Strange statement, considering that your team has been working on a series of updates and patches for 6 months, and is even doing so as we speak.

Even considering that direct contradiction on your part, I will simply repeat again that it is my opinion that the product is unfinished.

OK, it is my opinion that you're wrong on all counts.

I've never seen anything different from you. You need not repeat yourself, because I haven't asked for it.

There isn't anything broken and therefore there isn't anything to fix. So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

It seems like the topic and content of nearly every other post on this forum would disagree with the sentiment that there isn't anything to fix. Your own actions contradict your opinion.

[ January 03, 2008, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If I might make a suggestion, strong statements like "CMSF is not fine" come across badly even if you do preface them with "(OPINION)". While everyone is entitled to opinions, some of them are based on flawed logic or unwarranted conclusions.

"CMSF is not fine" isn't a terribly strong or offending statement. It is clear and to the point.

Please point out the flawed logic or unwarranted conclusions.

The same list with items 1, 3 and the first sentence of 4 omitted would convey much the same information. Possibly swapping "BFC" to "somone" as well.

I'm not interested in walking on eggshells. It's far more useful to make statements as clearly and succinctly as possible, so there's no confusion.

[A-10 Gun Run]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Well, for starters, we're talking about the existence (or lack thereof) of *a* sound, not sound in general. Exaggeration rarely reinforces an argument.

Sounds in the game that should exist do not. The sound for the A-10 cannon does not exist. Existence of sound. Here's a good example of exaggeration:

"Fer crissakes, can you even crack a joke around here without somebody whining about their pet missing feature?"

Strange how that works.

6. favorite; most preferred: a pet theory.

From your previous comments, I gathered that aircraft attack sounds is a feature that, in your estimation would be a "favorite" or "preferred" one to have added to the game. Hence, I believe my word usage fits. If I misunderstood your meaning, then apologies.

An A-10 gun sound is neither my "favorite" nor "most preferred" feature. It is not a pet feature.

[A-10 Gun Run]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Fer crissakes, can you even crack a joke around here without somebody whining about their pet missing feature?

Nice!

I missed the humor in your 'joke.' It looked like a statement, to me. I was letting people know that there isn't a sound slot for the A-10 cannon, so it cannot be modded or replaced.

The existence of sound is not a pet feature.

[A-10 Gun Run]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Hmmm. . . sounds like a call for a sound mod, if I ever heard one!

Unfortunately, I don't think aircraft attacks even have sound files to replace right now. I added it to the 1.06 bug list thread.

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You see, this is the problem with your rants here... they are rants.

Probably tells us more about your sensitivity to the subject, considering that other people in the thread are perfectly capable of having a debate on the topic and do so without dismissing others' opinions as "rants."

On the one hand you insist that you're just posting an opinion and that you understand, and respect, that there are other ways to make campaigns. Then you categorically state, in no uncertain terms, that the game is defective and unfinished because it isn't doing it YOUR way. When I point out that it can be done your way because the tools exist, you then say you have no interest in using them or waiting for someone else to make YOUR type of campaign.

Show me how any of it isn't an opinion. My opinion is that the game is unfinished, in that the campaign provided doesn't take advantage of any of the interesting campaign features that people are talking about. Telling me to make that product on my own isn't an answer to any of it - it's an absolutely useless proposition - I am not a developer of this product, and do not wish to finish it.

Can you not see that you can't have your cake and eat it too? Either there are more ways to do it than your one way, and therefore CM:SF is fine but not to your tastes, or you have the expectation that the only way it can be done is your way and therefore CM:SF is defective because it isn't what you want.

To make it simple and straightforward:

(OPINION) CMSF is not fine.

(OPINION) I don't think the campaign is interesting in that it doesn't take advantage of any interesting features - it's a string of unrelated scenarios played in order.

(OPINION) CMSF is an unfinished product.

(OPINION) If the editor's campaign features are to be of any real value to a customer, BFC should create a campaign that takes advantage of those features and include said campaign into the game that people have purchased.

[Got myself a soundmod... any takers?]

Put it up at cmmods.com. Plenty of people will check it out.

[A-10 Gun Run]

Sorry for the video spam lately, but this is just amazing - don't believe I've ever seen this quality of video on an A-10 strafing run.

A10 in Afghanistan

[Got myself a soundmod... any takers?]

Absolutely! I'd be glad to give it a whirl!

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We certainly ascribe to this notion. We always have, actually. It isn't laziness as Molotov_billy insists, rather a fundamentally different take on how real combat unfolds.

So I looked through my posts for the term "laziness" or anything remotely related to it. Didn't see it anywhere. Could you provide the quote where I "insisted" that it was laziness on anybody's part? You're probably incorrectly reading into something else I said - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just making stuff up. Then again, I may be honestly missing what it is you're referring to. I don't remember saying any such thing in this thread.

As far as I can tell the sort of thing Molotov_billy is looking for is akin to CMx1's "Operations", but at a strategic level (see further down about Steel Panthers).

No, what I'm asking for is a dynamic campaign that changes based on my successes or failures. Battallion-level descision-making would be a fantastic perk. I won't argue semantics with you over "strategic", but the decisions I had in mind and related in my posts were not at that level.

The campaigns in Steel panthers were not what I had in mind.

This gives us the designer the ability to customize each battle so that it has "balance" (which, ironically, is exactly what Molotov_billy is asking for).

Most of the scenarios in the shipped campaign were fairly lopsided affairs, engagements where I generally only took casualties due to the scenario tricks I mentioned earlier, the type of stuff that generally wouldn't happen in the real deal. The 2nd mission, the airport, was enjoyable and challenging.

Terrain, forces, etc. are all pretty much the same and if you lose significant forces you have to call it a day.

My arguments were based on a solution to this problem. The dynamic features I mentioned would allow a player to continue after such a loss so that the campaign would not arbitrarily end.

What I suspect Molotov_billy wants is something like Steel Panthers had. We view such systems as extremely unrealistic (aka "gamey"), which is why for 10 years we've kept saying we'll never go down that route. It's just ridiculous to think that a lowly tactical commander has control of even a small portion of the variables that Steel Panthers made available. Now, I've NEVER said that the Steel Panthers system wasn't fun (I found it boring, but I know many hold the opposite view), just not realistic. So in my view arguing for an unrealistic system for the stated purpose of realism is not a strong argument to make. It's certainly not impressed us in 10 years so it's not likely to impress us now.

I didn't ask for the Steel Panthers campaign. If you're suggesting that anything I've said is an unrealistic proposal to the problem of realism, then you haven't read everything I've written, or it wasn't even remotely clear to you. If that's my failing, that's fine, you weren't my intended audience and I have no illusions as to what your response would be if you had been so.

It doesn't seem like anybody else here had any troubles interpreting what I was saying. I'll be happy to continue the conversation with those people.

[ January 03, 2008, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What Molotov_billy doesn't seem to appreciate is that there is NO ONE RIGHT WAY to make a campaign or individual scenario.

I appreciate fully that there are multitudes of ways to approach any problem. Because I was asked, I provided my opinion on what I think would be an effective approach to the problem. It's seems like there's as much or more intolerance to others' opinions in each of your own replies.

That way if OUR vision of how campaigns and scenarios doesn't mesh with a particular player's he can do it his way instead. If he's too lazy or disinterested, that's fine because someone else will likely make something he'll be interested in playing.

Laziness and disinterest have nothing to do with it. I am critiquing the product that I paid for, and offering possible solutions to the problems that I perceive.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It appears you don't understand that your tirades are OPINIONS, and therefore only as good as your arguments. In my mind, and in others', you're wrong. In your mind we're wrong. Taking on an air of infallibility isn't doing your point of view any favors.

I'm giving my opinion on a forum - you're welcome to leave me alone if it offends you as such. I'm having a conversation with a couple of people here who have used real information as a source of their opinions, not accusations or personal judgements. I'm happy to continue the conversation with them. It's okay to disagree.

Right... and what does the tactical have to do with the operational or strategic? And how much time elapsed between each of those battles for the tractor factory or the random hill at Kursk? And why is it that you think these situations aren't possible in CM:SF?

It's an answer to the notion that battles did not take place unless one side was assured of victory, assured of a 3:1 odds ratio. Here is your quote that, in part, I was addressing:

"For example, in WW2 days the attacking side was not supposed to attack unless it had 3:1 (or greater) force at its disposal. If it didn't have such a force, then in theory it wouldn't attack and therefore no battle would take place."

You're using the phrase "in theory" here, but at the same time, using the piece of information as an argument as to why a WW2 campaign should consist of lopsided engagements.

The information I'm providing to this is that the 3 to 1 notion is a rule of thumb, difficult to apply in situations of limited intelligence, different levels of training, different levels of equipment, different terrain advantages, etc (ie, most of the time.) Equal engagements can and do happen. In a game made for both realism and entertainment, they are optimal solutions.

You seem to be of an opinion that every battle fought was some titanic struggle of epic proportions, with each side evenly matched down to the last set of shoelaces. That's simply not true. The majority of tactical engagements were pushovers for one side or another, the rest were usually turned around because someone applied the right leverage at the right place at the right time even when the forces were suboptimal. You can do all of this in CM:SF, so I'm dumbfounded why you think it isn't possible.

Where did I say titanic, epic, anything of the sort? Balance is not attached to scale. The rest of it isn't addressing anything I've said. You're putting words into my mouth, or arguing with someone else in a reply to me, or merging everybody's opinion into one.

You still haven't proved your case at all. You've only complained a bunch. That's not the same thing at all. So...

You may have missed 5 or 6 posts, then. I've addressed all of this stuff several times over.

OK, so in words only, tell us how you would make "historically accurate" and "balanced" scenarios that fit your particular definition of each. Actually, please start with your definitions of each since it is probable you are defining each in a different way than I would.

A couple people have said, including yourself, that lopsided scenarios are optimal. Here are a couple of quotes:

""Historically accurate" battles in CMx1 were no more likely to be balanced than in CM:SF. In a real war neither side wants a balance. "

"And yes, the Campaign we shipped with the game is designed to have the Blue win most of the battles most of the time provided there is competent leadership (i.e. a good player)."

I've explained my side of that argument very thoroughly, and I do not wish to repeat myself.

It's all there, but if you don't care to use it that's not our problem.

My critique is of the stuff shipped with the product. Doesn't matter if it's existence is potential held within the editor - the end product is not there. There is a single campaign in existence for Combat Mission: Shock Force, so it's fairly easy to ascertain which one I'm talking about.

I am not a developer for BFC, and I have no wish to finish your game for you. Telling me that I can make my own product is not an answer to a critique of your product.

I'm still waiting for perfect customers. I have a feeling we'll both be disappointed for a while to come, though at least we're working on improving our side of the equation

I've held up my side of a deal between two parties - I did not pay half price, or promise to pay you in 6 months, I paid you upfront for a finished game, one that was advertised as such. The party that has not held up their end of the bargain is Battlefront.

A person is not inferior because they have a differeing opinion.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Opinions of 1.05?]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Molotov Billy

I am working on a campaign at the moment and it is quite possible for the results in one scenario to have an influence on what happens later. It is definitely possible to create a dynamic campaign, as well as linear if the designer wants to do that.

The campaign scripting allows branches which means that if your company takes 50% casualties in one scenario, easy enough to check with the variety of victory point options we have available, then it won't be available until scenario 6 or 7 or never. It's up to the campaign designer to do the work.

The designer has the options to give the core units full resupply, reinforcements, or any percentage so, in my campaign at least, if you lose a core unit, it's not coming back, ever. You'll get some more ammo but depending on how well you defend at the start, you may get a lot less in the later scenarios.

For me, the scenario editor is one of the very best things I've found in ANY game. It's an incredible piece of programming. And the campaign branching structure means that pretty much everything in your last post about it being linear is just plain wrong. Really, I'm not joking, picking a fight with you or trying to wind you up. Screw up in scenario 2 and you'll be defending in scenario 3, not attacking.

Thanks for the info. I look forward to a campaign that takes advantage of those features.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]