[hirr]Leto
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by [hirr]Leto
-
-
The CM titles have always attracted two type of player. Those who want to *WIN!* (all caps with an exclamation point), and those who want to *experience*. The experiencers want to be placed into 1944 Normandy. Not just 1944 Normandy but 11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon. whether or not they win the battle hardly matters. The others want to WIN! preferably on a mirrored map against carefully balanced forces without any pesky acts of God intervening in the battle.
Pretty accurate...
: )
Leto
-
Wow, if rules for blowing up things could be transposed upon the activities of Al Quaeda or the Taliban... computer gaming could make the world a safer place!
: )
Cheers!
Leto
-
Where is Fionn Kelly by the way ?
As perhaps the last person to play him, I think he withdrew from the scene due to his perceived views of how the game of CM was not being played within the purity of his worldviews (realism, no flags, abhorrence of gamey force picks, etc) and likely from burnout.
That is just my opinion from my short time playing him and reading his posts. It should not be construed as putting words in his mouth, nor inferred as badmouthing him: simply as best an answer to your question as possible.
Cheers!
Leto
-
To lead a ladder means nothing (so, what would be the point to invest time). I play since years pbem against opponents of different skill level. I still can lose against a 'noob', when the dice fall the wrong way. And winning is not winning. If you play Uncons in CMSF you will mostly NOT win, the 'skill level' you have just gives your 'likeliness' how much you are 'a pain in the butt' for your opponent when he drives home his 'win'...
WAR is not 'fair', a condition for true 'competition'. The point of CM is to simulate WAR as a 'game'.
Play Chess.
...And don't come with the argument, that ladder-CM should be played only with equal forces. That would miss the point of CM in the beginning.
I play no game with CM (would be a profanation), I play THE WARGAME.
My question was simply looking for normative responses, not philosophical viewpoints of how the game should be played that run the risk of introducing stark dichotomies that may create arguments between dogmatic positions. My question should therefore not be inferred as introducing philosophical discussion, but feel free.
To each his own.
: )
Cheers!
Leto
-
...as Speedy.
What is 'competitive'? Even if I go against the AI, I want to win.
Head to head in a ladder game where the results are recorded to provide a record and inevitably to use as a measuring stick for skill level.
Tournaments where scenarios are tested for balance or where one side competes against another where balance is not always a necessary control (skill is netted out across the one set of players who play a side in the scenario).
Cheers!
Leto
-
What are your thoughts on how the new evolution of CM may work in head to head ladders, competitive gaming and tournaments and other areas that are very important to competitive wargamers?
WeBoB is now entertaining a ladder system, but are there other clubs out there that have in the past run ladders and competitive tournaments seeing a resurgence?
Cheers!
Leto
-
The blitz has a ladder for CM. I don't play there anymore, as I am a WeBob member. I can attest to the awesomeness of that club with respect to fair gaming and dealing with "game droppers".
Cheers!
Leto
-
I just received a file from my M8, but have no idea as to how to start the pbem from my end.
I have followed this process:
-save file to incoming emails folder
-open file in saved games on menu page
-insert password
-save game file
and then "poof" I am booted back out to the main menu.
Lil help?
Cheers!
Leto
-
But the point here is the two games aren't the same, so nothing has been "removed" from CMx1 no more than all the new stuff were "added".
There's several people in this very thread who are saying exactly this. And trust me, every time this topic comes up there's plenty of people who say "I didn't like CMx1 random maps".
There's 300+ included with the game and I'm sure people will put up "packs" with even more. So your point isn't really valid. You could say that you don't think 300 will be enough, but you can't say it's a lot of work to use what is already included because that's not true. This seems to be a point you're not understanding, so I'll state this again...
The ONLY difference between starting up a QB game with CMx1 and CMx2 is with CMx2 the choice of maps is limited to what is installed. To start out with that's 300+ maps.
There's no difference other than that.
To some it is. We think it is as well, but we don't mind agreeing to disagree. But you should understand that just because this is a step backwards for you doesn't mean it isn't a step forwards for someone else.
Better maps or better games? There's a difference. I think most will say that the overall QB experience with CM:SF wasn't as good as CMx1. But I do question the honesty of saying that the quality of hand made maps are, on average, worse than randomly generated ones. I certainly can't see much truth in that statement.
It's his opinion that hand made maps are better to play on than randomly generated ones. This is a point of view that many support, though obviously you do not. Again, you have to accept this to be a valid point of view if you expect anybody to accept your point of view as valid. After all, both of you are expressing an opinion.
Steve
Whoa. Hold on here. I hope you are not suggesting that dkchapuis must accept MikeyD's point of view to make his own point of view legitimate... especially when it is obvious that MikeyD obviously does not reciprocate?!?!
What kind of twisted logic is this?
Opinions are opinions, and whether they are respectful of others opinions is superfluous to their being exactly what they are.
I think the better route to take here is that everyone perhaps should cool down and realize that these are just that: opinions.
Sheesh!
Leto
-
Maybe I just want a snickers at home instead of having to go find a godiva store ...
This really isnt that complicated. When comparing CMx1 game features to CMx2, CMx1 has a good feature (whether you want to admit it or not) that is not included in CMx2, i.e. auto-generated maps. I know they will never be in CMx2. Im not even asking for them to be added. But dont try to act like NOT having auto-generated maps is an improvement ... or whatever point you are trying to make.
See this is where it gets ridiculous.
1. So CMx1 would be a better game without auto-generated maps? Absolutely not. Then why do you say that CMx2 is better without that feature. Makes absolutely no sense.
2.Do CMx1 games have 10 x 200+ hand crafted maps that are better quality than the auto-generated ones? Yes. Do at least a portion of gamers prefer the simplicity & time savings of auto-generated maps than trying to find user maps for their QBs. Absolutely. So the fact that there are lots of pre-made maps does not mean that having an auto-generated map feature would not be even better for gamers like me. And there are plenty of us.
Why is this such a sacrilege?
Uhh, beta testers have exchanged years of sex for helping to develop the new game...
Isn't it obvious?
: )
Cheers!
Leto
-
I thought it was "tube guy" tm*?
Cheers!
Leto
-
We detected a person named 101paratrooper in our club that had actually found a way to manipulate CMx1 using PBEM helper. There was also discussion on how he was able to change ammo loads for his units. I know so little about the game mechanics, that I just took the word of the techies at our club to resolve.
Gamey is fine, especially in a tournament with an objective to win but cheaters are the lowest of the low and should be flung into the nine hells when at all possible.
Cheers!
Leto
-
How did the ROW tournaments monitor for/deal with cheaters? This is of course, making the bold presumption that there are actually people out there who would actually consider this/have the capacity to do so.
Cheers!
Leto
-
Let's make it official: sign me up too.
-
Is this Peng thing you wankers refer to so much in these threads:
a) a comedic savant that may be closer to the middle left of the Belushi - Farley 'fat stupid guy' spectrum?
a name someone adopted from an overturned chinese take out box that lay on the floor next to his convulsing body for two days and is now a symbol of strength that represents surviving the compound effects of diptheria and bad kung pow chicken food poisoning?c) an acronym / brand name of a penus enlargement product that is well used (but largely ineffective... pun intended) by the purveyors of these threads
d) the omnomatopeia of the sound that the first AP shell impacting upon the upper glacis of the first ever cyber beta panther model ever made in Combat Mission?
e) A new iteration of the slang term "dirty sanchez".
I am dying to find out which path the olde historians of the Peng challenge thread will actually take to get to its earliest foundational moments.
Cheers!
Leto
-
I have nothing against Nabla, my question was more focused on how do we incorporate the CMBN scoring system (which appears to be very different in intent, function and purpose than CMx1) so that it is similar to previous ROW tournaments.
I may be ignorant here, but it appears to me that there are no longer per centage based scoring outcomes in CMBN.
Cheers!
Leto
-
I recall scenarios like Across Moltke Bridge has a lot of statistical variance due to the "puzzle" nature and inherent non-replayability.
That being said, how shall anything work in CMBN if there is not an adequate scoring system for us number crunchers?
I hope that gets fixed before we go to gold... or else there will be a real monkey wrench thrown into any attempt to revive ROW.
Cheers!
Leto
-
Some tidbits you guys might find interesting...
The fact that PC:O is coming out around the same time as CM:BN is a coincidence as far as we know. At least from our perspective. It has to be because until a few weeks ago we didn't even know the game existed. Seriously. I thought PC was a dead product. For their sake I'm glad it isn't, but we long since stopped considering any other wargame out there "competition" that we needed to be concerned about. Maybe someday a significant competitor will arise out of seemingly thin air, but for 10+ years nothing has come about and we don't think it's a good use of our time being distracted by things which don't exist.
This isn't a position of arrogance, it's just a simple statement of fact. For people who want a detailed, realistic, 3D tactical game experience we're second to none. That doesn't mean we're Gods or everything we do is the best it can be, it's just a simple acknowledgment that in order to judge something there has to be something to judge against. We don't see much that can even be considered relevant to what we do.
I think Sergei's post a few pages ago (Here) summarizes why it's stupid for us to be distracted by things which never materialize as significant challenges to what we are doing.
In the end, the wargaming market could use a couple more Battlefronts. So if PC:O does well, great for them. Doesn't impact us a bit, doesn't bother us a bit.
Steve
I fully agree. It's good for the moral to chant we're #1, but when considering that they are the only guys out there in a niche genre, a bit superfluous. I think that in itself should be heralded over anything else: BFC seeks to make it in a space that would otherwise not be populated, to the benefit of all of us.
Competition would only mean that BFC would be over a barrel and beholden to the ubiquitous and ceaseless grindings of our many whims and desires when it comes to let's say, throwing in the Finns and other Axis minors into an East Front module.... heh heh heh...
: )
Cheers!
Leto
-
Right now... BFC is stumbling so far out in front of the others, that they don't have to look back... Those other games are just Legends in their own mind!!!I have PC:K.... IMHO... "IT SUCKS"
I have been using the CMx2 engine for a couple years... and it just keeps getting better...
And I don't know who mad the comment about CMBB not running on newer hardware, but CMBB runs on Win7 64bit without any problems for me... (though I am thinking of gettin some kind of killer rig for CM:BN and beyond)
CMBB runs fiine on my new rig avec (notwithstanding) Vista (bleaccckk).
Never tried PCO before as I also am a CM guy (limited amount of time, ergo, not too curious about other titles). I will probably buy PC and get the Ostfront update just to support the efforts of fellow wargamers.
Cheers!
Leto
-
Actually, WHAT IF a Finnish battalion held Bastogne?
The point is moot, as we all know that Bastogne was out of supply and that when the Vodka ran dry, the Finns would have immediately sobered up and surrendered.
Cheers!
Leto
-
It's a leadership modifier, of sorts. It's a way of saying he does not have the best leadership skills. 2nd Platoon HQ has a +1 (Von Steuben). He would have better leadership skills compared to an HQ that has no number at all, much less a negative one. Edit Added: That number is for the leader (CO, XO, Sergeant, etc) of that particular unit/squad/what have you. It counts towards the morale of their subordinates.
Thanks M8!!
But how exactly does this translate into anything tangible? What are the effects? How do we best utilize them?
Cheers!
Leto
-
Shows how little you know! If impotent minors such as the Brits and the Waffen SS get included in modules for CMBN, you can bet that the single most important armed force to grace the East Front will not be ignored!
And I'm not talking about Bulgaria, btw.
Romanians then?
; )
Cheers!
Leto
(yes, finns, I know and love them too!!!)
-
Poor BFC just keeps stumbling along making wargames. Honestly, I have no idea why BFC continues to compete against such cracker jack games like.... like.... what the hell were those games names again? Yeah, legendary games to be sure.
I also have no idea why people keep piling it on (sarcasm sorted through) when BFC is so absolutely rock star great. Rally to the standard to fight as brothers on St Crispins day I suppose.
But more to the point, although the CMx1 games were legendary, I don't see why they are referred to at times in the same manner as how dark wizards are referred to: dare not speak aloud their name! CMx1 was great, still is great and I still play it prolifically. I also intend to play CMBN... hopefully it is as near as good. I just don't see why the lines are drawn and the polearms displayed menacingly all the time when the products BFC put out speak for themselves?
There has got to be better things to do with one's time.
Cheers!
Leto
-
Ultimately, Panzer Command is just a different type of game to what Combat Mission (CMx1 or CMx2) is, so comparing them is pointless. It is like comparing them to Close Combat. I have a ton of respect for the PC:O team for widening the scope of the game so much, but to me it's still Panzer Command so I'm not all that interested.
Besides, there's no Finns in PC:O. What's the point?!?
Neither is there in CMBN.... (and from the conversations, it will be a snowball in hell type day when we get a module on the east front from BFC that includes the beloved axis minors as it just does not make "economic sense"... let's hope that is not the end case result)
Cheers!
Leto
a name someone adopted from an overturned chinese take out box that lay on the floor next to his convulsing body for two days and is now a symbol of strength that represents surviving the compound effects of diptheria and bad kung pow chicken food poisoning?
Right now... BFC is stumbling so far out in front of the others, that they don't have to look back... Those other games are just Legends in their own mind!!!
A quick survey: is CMBN conducive to competitive gaming?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Uh-oh... enter the philosophical....
: )
Wasn't everyone warned about this!
LMAO!
Back to the topic of the thread though, for those of you who have been competitive ladder or tournament players before in CMx1, what is your honest opinion on CMBN being as conducive to competitive play as CMx1 has obviously proven out?
Cheers!
Leto