rammer4250

I have my opinions still and probably won't change them anytime soon but I still havn't had my question answered fully. Why do you who like playing in RT like it? MikeyD You came closest to answering my question and I think this is what you are saying. RT is quicker playwise. I guess in WEGO it's closer to a wargame. Like I mentioned WEGO has a more fog of war feeling for me. For instance: You plan to send a squad to flank a certain building thinking the way is clear. All of a sudden a hidden unit pops up. In RT you can immediately (ie: instantaneously) react. In WEGO most of the fun for me is the surprise and not immediately being able to do anything about it. Now it's excruciating to watch all your plans go down the drain and try and rectify it after the minute is up hoping you have something left. I can imagine the major in his HQ screaming what the f is wrong with that damn captain. Again just a flavor.

My view: I believe WEGO is the way to go. You can't get reality out of a game unless of course your're on the deck of the USS Enterprise (Star Trek). As a simulator though I believe WEGO comes closest for the following reasons. When a battalion commander receives his orders and then transmits them downward he basically is issuing his intent and what he wants to use. Same with Company commander; then platoon commander; then squad leader. In this simulator we are playing all. So when we issue our orders and setup our forces we then have a phase of watching that order play out for good or bad. If in reality a battalion commander learned his intent actually is not being carried out he then issues new orders or further directions to the offending lower HQ. This takes time. In that time things could go wrong before his further directions are carried out. WEGO I believe simulates this time lapse well and allows us to micromanage (ie step into the shoes of each lower HQs) to steer the fight in the direction we want it to go. I believe RT gives us too much unreal control. And yet because of the size of certain engagements we lose control because simply put any AI at this day and age are retarded. They can't even carry out the order of move safely without our micomanaging. This is no knock of Battlefront because we are not on the deck of the Enterprise with real intuitive AI. I am curious to hear from others about this topic. Especially those who say that it is more realistic in RT. How can that be? I must be missing something. We really don't have control of the most basic level (the soldier). Even a squad leader in real life doesn't have that control. A FNG (@#$%ing new guy) panics, stands up or flees and gets shot. In real life from what I have read if you can last long enough to gain experience you have a better chance to survive combat. So how is it that just because you have control at every second in RT that it's closer to simulating reality. RT may be close if you are controlling a very small group such as a squad but above that no way. I prefer a larger engagement then squad level so I can't understand why so many people like RT or say it's more realistic. On a strategy/tactical level RT is just a game. WEGO gives us a chance to issue orders with the intention of seeing our tactical plans carried out and with the minute out of our complete control Fog of War is simulated. Just curious and just my opinion.

I started my interest in military history after reading Battle of Britian. Got interested in casual wargaming after getting Avalon Hill's Blitzkrieg for Christmas when I was a kid. I'm 48 now. I was in Civil Air Patrol as a teenager and joined the US Air Force in 1977. My interest in things military have never waned. Retired from the Air National Guard after 24 years in 2004. I love Battlefront's Combat Mission series. Even this one. I also play Falcon 4 because I have been connected with F-16s for years. First as Security Policeman and then as Life Support Tech at an F-16 base. I received a ride in an F-16 years ago when I was a seurity policeman. I pulled 8.5 gs as this was a real training flight where the pilot was shooting at a dart with the M61. Battlefront keep it up . As far as I am concerned your company is eons beyond the nearest comp. I have the same loyalty to Falcon 4 with all its faults. Both projects are awesome simulators.

Thanks KNac I fixed my sig. Also you are entitled to your opinion. I really didn't want to hijack thread so moving on. See you in another discussion. Rammer

I know this has been talked to death but the size of the battles really should be played in WEGO. Obviously if the AI was up to it you could give each squad or platoon mission type orders and if they execute them in an acceptable manner than yeah RTS would work. But let's get real the AI can't handle it now. I know this is opinion but everybody crying RTS is more realistic is nonsense. Combat takes time. I love military history so I prefer WEGO. And unfortunately the only way to have a more realistic experience is to jump into each squad leader position; each platoon commander position; and each battalion commander position. And that can only be done by micromanaging at this point of time therefore WEGO is the best representation. RTS is for kids who have a short memory span (sorry couldn't resist). Rammer

Wait a minute, doesn't Akmaddinmamboob play those games already?

Lt Bull I guess you would be right. But I don't believe you are correct now. I love all the Combat Mission titles yet I won't buy something just because Battlefront produced it. Just for kicks I downloaded the Theatre of War demo but I am not going to purchase it just because it's from battlefront. I hate RTS and all the pretty graphics is not going to change my opinion no matter how good the game is. I have tinkered with war games of all types (AH boardgames,squad leader and ASL, miniatures, and computer games) since I was 12 or 13. I am now 48. My main interest is military history (mostly World War II). I have never played nor intend to play against a human player for a variety of reasons. Mainly I have no interest in competiton. I want to play at my own pace and not even finish if I don't want to. Yeah the AI is pretty bad at times but at least I don't have to move for the other side like I had to with the boardgames. As far as I am concerned the greatest {sims} I have played are Falcon 4.0 and the Combat Mission titles. My relationship will definitely end with Battlefront if they ever decided to go strictly with RTS and/or multiplayer only. If Battlefront thought they would make more money with what you suggest and went that way God Bless them because I am sure that they are in business to make money. Doing what they love is just a bonus. I apologize if I have totally misunderstood your statements. Rammer

posted by Lt Bull: 1. People buy the game in basically the same numbers or more than other similar themed CPU opponent-centric release CONCLUSION: You have just proven that if people like "the game" within your computer game, they will buy it and play it (by finding opponents to play) REGARDLESS of whether it has a CPU opponent. Just playing your game is so good, they are prepared to "forgive you " for not releasing it with a CPU opponent. You have basically achieved in much less time and at much less cost (and therefore at much higher profit) what other CPU opponent-centric game developers aspire to do. """" Lt Bull You are so totally wrong. I will never buy a game, wargame or otherwise, that doesn't have at least a playable AI. Once the game states multiplayer only I will not even look further. And as Michael says, I am in the majority. For now anyway. Rammer Oh yeah, forgot, back into the closet I go. [ September 02, 2007, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: rammer4250 ]

Thewood Basically from what I have seen as long as the center of the squad is not in LOS neither of the squad members will be either no matter where they are depicted. In my little experiment there were a couple of squad members ahead of the center and in line of sight of the enemy. They were not engaged until the center position was in LOS. Then they were gunned down.Therefore the placement of the individual soldiers does not matter and therefore you see anomalies such as shooting through buildings and the ground. I believe that the individual soldiers fire (bullets,203 launches) as long as the center has line of sight to the target. Only the center position is important just as in squad leader center hex to center hex. So suppose the center of the squad is behind a building and some squad members appear to be in the open. It doesn't matter until the center dot is in the open (abstraction). Another example: suppose a squad is behind a wall but the center of the 8m grid is on the enemy side of the wall. Squad is visible therefore shot at (appearing to be engaged through the wall). At least this is what I am seeing; could be wrong though. I am not the programmer so therfor I don't know how line of sight/fire is conducted.

I may be just plain wrong here but... I just had another revelation. This is concening the trench debate whether trenches are offering any protection. If this center dot thing is correct then if the center dot position is at ground level and not say 8m under ground level then LOS/LOF is being measured from that ground level center dot and therefore any units in the trench are defacto at ground level therefore being able to be seen/shot at. How are the building levels being depicted? Probably by a 3D grid system whereby the center dot (as far as height goes) is at the center of each level. So to fix the trench have a negative grid level.

I just did another experiment and I noticed that the LOS/LOF is indeed measured from the center of that grid square. I used the last training scenario. When I parked behing the first(middle building) I noticed that when the enemy HQ unit in the last left building started to shoot at a squad that was crossing the street to the leftmost front building the Grenade launcher stryker started to fire at the enemy HQ.seemingly through 3 buildings. I wanted to see where the center of the grid that the Stryker was in (so using the target tool) I clicked close to the Stryker and sure enough the center of that grid was towards the center of the road and in LOS of the enemy HQ squad building. I bet the reason for seemingly being able to be shot through walls is because of this center (dot) thing. I bet the center of that grid is on the side of the wall that the enemy has a line of sight to when the squad is in that grid space. Someone care to do a little experiment with this? [ August 16, 2007, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: rammer4250 ]

I was just thinking from watching turns play back in wego that the squad was not spotted until the center of that squad position was in LOS(therfore not fired upon until the center of squad was in LOS). I think the dot marking would help out tremendously.

Since the terrain is somewhat abstracted to 8m how about marking each center of each 8m with a dot which can be turned on/off. That way we have an idea of where the LOS is pointing at so we can have vehicles/squads not get shopt up when we think they are behind cover. Sort of like squad leader where line of sight was always measured to the center of the hex. Rammer guys, I am editing this post because I think I am totally wrong on all counts. I have no idea what the hell is going on. All my assumptions have been proved wrong so sorry for the headaches. Only BFC knows! [ August 16, 2007, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: rammer4250 ]

sorry double post! [ August 14, 2007, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: rammer4250 ]

sorry something went wrong! KNAC I have to disagree with you. The infantry doesn't play all that bad. In the first battle of the battle section I used my infantry to scout and then to suppress before I sent my Strykers forward. I lost one Stryker by mistake towards the end of the scenario. I mostly played with infantry only. I didn't even use javelins as I believe they are a little strong right now and only use them to eliminate really stubborn defenders. I didn't lose all that many infantry either (only 1 squad). [ August 14, 2007, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: rammer4250 ]