Disappointed in CM Demo

[Hagen]

I downloaded the much anticipated CM demo last night and played it a few times. Although I really wanted to like the game, I must admit that I was sadly disappointed.

CM misses the mark on many levels. First, the graphics are very subpar for 1999. The game has a pre-Wolfenstien 3D look to it, and the guys moving around look like cut out paper dolls.

This itself is not the end of the world, especially for those of us who care little about how a game looks but are rather concerned with how it plays. Unfortunately, CM fails here too.

There is little feedback from the game during the moves; nothing to tell me if what I am doing is effective or not. I have my various units shoot at an enemy, but I am given no indication if their fire is doing any good. (Yes, occasionally an enemy unit will drop down as if supressed but that's all)

This is a real problem as in any game the player needs feedback to determine if what they are doing is working or not. Sure, if my tank blows up a building I know something happened, but short of that all that happens is a lot of fire moving back and forth.

When moving my troops it is hard to determine if they are in cover or not. In fact, it is hard to learn anything about my troops at all. I may have 25+ units on the board, and each turn I am expected to right click on each one to check it's status?

CM is an ambitious project done by a development team that I am sure does not have all the resourcesor time they would like. The game tries to both look realistic and play realistic and the resulting compromise fails in both regards.

The orignal Computer Ambush was a black and white map with letters representing squad members. However, other information was provided during the game which made it very playable and very fun. This info was provided as simple text each time an event occured. It wasn't pretty, but it worked great.

Close Combat is a game where the psychological effects of enemy fire(and other things) are hidden from the player. However, the graphical display along with the unit status bar combine to give the player an excellent idea of what is going on.

Sadly, CM fails at providing necessary feedback to the player both graphically and via text/info bars. I fear the dev team simply tried to do too much and ended up failing at everything. Overall the game has an unshakable feeling of being imprecise, leaving me with the feeling that little I do has any effect on the outcome of the game.

I could write more, but I am sure everyone is interested in rebutting/flaming me, so I will save my additional comments for responses.

Thanks,

-Hagen

[CoolColJ]

Hi

I agree somewhat with some of your statements - the first 15 mins of playing the game, I felt really confused and isolated, not knowing what the hell was going on, and what the status of each unit is - but when I think about , this is how real war is! If you zoom out and look at the whole picture , you see the battle from a higher point in the command chain, zoom in and you get the need info from the movie, you have to watch each area at a time I feel. You learn about your units from the movies as they play and so that saves you clicking on all of them to find their status - I hope you understand what I'm getting at

But in the end - everybody has different thought processes and like different types of things.

My gripe is that the Graphics are way to dark - gamma wise, need brightening up - may look OK on a MAc, but Pc graphics look different, especially D3D, which looks horribly compared to Open GL. teh WInter graphics look really nice, but I find the green distasteful. My thoughts from an artist point of view.

------------------

CCJ

aka BLITZ_Force

My Homepage -

www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448

[Preacher]

I won't touch the graphics comments because folks hold widely diverse opinions about what they see, and i'm not interested in going there...

I will comment on the 'lack of information' argument you make. Simply stated, in CM, as i see it, we as the player get the same information that a real field commander gets. He has to make decisions and plans based upon assumptions - things he has assumed because he witnessed them personally, or because someone else in his command witnessed them. I love CC1,2,3 and other games, but we players are given way more information in those games than we would have in a real battle. How do i know if my fire is suppressing the enemy? Watch him. Does he go to ground? Does he reduce his volume of fire? What about my armor that is spraying likely ambush points with fire - is it working? Who knows, but i'd keep it up until my units clear the (probable) danger area. How's the enemy morale? Again, watch them to see how they react - are they withdrawing? If so, does it seem to be in good order (i.e., are they taking up new fire positions? Or, do they seem to be milling about, looking for the best and fastest route to the rear? etc., etc.

The point of CM is to simulate tactical warfare in as real a way as possible. No ifs, ands, or buts. I respect the fact that you are disappointed and in no way am i 'slamming' you for your just opinion. However, i do disagree. I believe that BTS may have just completely revolutionized PC (and MAC!) wargaming. Give it some more time and see if you change your mind. Good luck.

Btw, i'm in no way affiliated with BF.C or BTS. I'm not a tester, either. To tell the truth, I'm a.....

Preacher

[This message has been edited by Preacher (edited 10-29-99).]

[Herr Oberst]

Just 3 words Hagen...

Fog of War

If I command an inf team and direct fire at an enemy unit, do i know exactly how many are hurt, suppresssed, KIA? Hell no.

How do I rate my fire effectiveness?

If I don't see anyone left, Excellent!

Are they still on the ground? Lay down supression fire and advance.

Are they still shooting back? Hose 'em down even more this time, or give Uncle Arty a call.

Is all I see asses & elbows? Yeehaw! Exploit and pursue...

You seem to want a numbers game. CM is more a "command by feel". Knowing the capabilities of units is required to do well. Knowing the relative strengths and weaknesses of different units for a particular task as well.

How can anyone quantify the state of a squad effectively? Watch the status window for a unit in CM. It gives you general state information on the unit. As a squad takes hits, call up the detail window to see what was lost due to reduced squad size.

Any game that hands you a "53% Fatigued" or similar level of detail for an individual unit is doing one of two things: either blowing smoke, or removing the uncertainty of battle, which is patently false. The last time a commander had perfect information on his men was at roll call for breakfast, and that was true only for the next 15 minutes or so.

CM will tell you all you need to know about YOUR OWN units. It will tell you what you SHOULD know, due to battle field conditions, about your opponent. As you get closer to your enemy, and CAN get better information, CM will give you that info.

Playing the town defense as Germans, my 88's smoked 3 US tanks before they were ever fully identified. First hint of the units was "armor sounds", then "generic tanks", then smoking hulks. It wasn't until one got close enough to one of my infantry units that I could clearly designate what version of a Sherman it was.

Until an infantry unit opens up, they all pretty much look the same, except for head count. A bunch of guys all wearing the same clothes, and speaking roughly the same language.

Maybe CM isn't the game for you, but don't trash the game because it wasn't what you were looking for. No game can be everything to everyone.

It might not fit your desires or expectations, but it is the *best* representation of what a number of us have been searching for for a long, long time.

Figures and graphics: I also play the Descent I/II/III series. Now those ARE killer graphics. BUT, when was the last time I sat a Descent level that covered the same sized virtual space? Never. The same number of units, all modeled in 3D? Never. Why? Because if you try it, video performance sucks. Even putting 8 ships in a fight in a big room on a 100MBit ethernet lan in Descent kills video performance. Be careful of the comparisons you draw.

I also happen to like the Close Combat series, and I own them all. I still play most of them. Alot of what Combat Mission is, Close Combat should have been (data integrity & AI are the two keys for me).

-- What poor AI would have a tank turn its rear flank to a known AT gun position (aka, Dance of Death)?

-- Smoke is *supposed* to obscure line of sight.

-- Snipers are *not* Ubermen of some sort in hand to hand combat.

-- The list goes on.

-- Sprites are not modeled in 3D, they're pasties.

-- Data accuracy in CC was horrible, but this is helped somewhat if you use the RealPara or RealRed data mods done by players, but these edits are ignored by the developers/publishers, even when offered freely just to make the game better for everyone.

-- The AI we players cannot do anything about, AND Atomic doesn't listen.

-- For all its "psychological" modeling, CC doesn't handle the "greening" of troops properly, which if you really are modeling individual men in a unit sense, (rather than "bins" to collect awards, experience, kills, etc) has to be there, especially for the American soldiers. And the effects of greening should be differential for different nationalities.

There are an awful lot of posts on this site by BTS explaining the limitations of the interface AND the rationale behind their decisions. Data accuracy and realism are the twin kings of CM, IMHO. Where compromises in the interface are made due to VRAM and polygon counts, BTS has been very up-front about it and their reasons. Spend the time, read the posts, try it for what it is with your newly educated eyes open, not through the lenses of every other game you ever played.

If you had read all the posts over the months about what we longtime posters have been saying, you would understand why CM is getting rave reviews from the longtime posters. We knew what to expect, and the BETA has delivered that and more.

[This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 10-30-99).]

[kingtiger]

Hagen,

Hello. I will agree with Preacher, and also would like to emphasize that I wouldn't flame anything you say about CM. I would like to comment on 2 points you bring up.

________________________________________---

You said:

There is little feedback from the game during the moves; nothing to tell me if what I am doing is effective or not. I have my various units shoot at an enemy, but I am given no indication if their fire is doing any good. (Yes, occasionally an enemy unit will drop down as if supressed but that's all)

This is a real problem as in any game the player needs feedback to determine if what they are doing is working or not. Sure, if my tank blows up a building I know something happened, but short of that all that happens is a lot of fire moving back and forth.

____________________________________________

In real war, you typically don't know what type of platoons you are facing until the combat takes place for some time. CM is the first game that truly provides "Fog of War". CM only lets me see what would be seen or known in the course of battle. from a distance of 200 meters I may only be able to make out that the attacking group is an infantry platoon, I know litle of it's size, morale or attrition rate. After some exchange of fire and close observation, I may dtermine in fact that it is a platoon of eight soldiers and clearly two of the eight have died. this is the first demonstration of clean,clear and precise "Fog of War" to date. I can name dozens of games that provide some level of "Fog of War", but nothing to this effect.

My guess regarding your frustration on this front is due to the newness of the CM form of "Fog of War". Many posts/discussions on this board have addressed your concern. It was known that some wargamers would not be comfortable without all the feedback. I was one! However, in my case, I spent months reading the posts in this discussion area, reading the AAR's and preparing myself mentally for the newness. Hopefully, you will be able to adapt.

Some tips to help you with the feedback: watch the soldiers closely, they will provide other clues about being hit. An example is head will bob backwards. Another example is the arghh sound made immediately after being hit. My favorite is when the soldier cries "MEDIC".

Let me comment on another briefly:

____________________________________________

You mentioned that the graphics are not up to 1999 standards.

____________________________________________

I am an avid player of games like Unreal, Halflife and System Shock 2. Typically those games have no more than 10 characters on screen at any one time. Consider the number of 3D characters within CM at any one time. Many discussions came up regarding the complexity of the graphics. CM determined that this is a reasonable level of detail and realism for graphics at this time. I would venture to guess that most wargamers are not also FPS(first person shooters) gamers. I am in the minority. In any case, when I saw the graphics in motion I was impressed. Keep in mind I own Half-life, System Shock 2 and Unreal. As far as standards for 1999 go, the last I checked CM clearly provides the best graphics for any realistic war simulation.

Sincerly,

Richard Kalajian

[Fionn]

Well, some valid points and some I wouldn't agree with BUT here goes.

1. Hagen, you mentioned not having feedback on casualties caused. Well, this is a portion of fog of war. Just yesterday I was testing a scenario by storming an elite US paratroop company's position (2 platoons) with 3 German paratroop platoons (veteran and regular IIRC).

Anyway, I sufferd about 50 % losses to my attacking company within 2 minutes AND I had only definitely wiped out 1 enemy squad ( out of 6)... This led me to call off my attack and retreat and surrender the game since I was convinced that the enemy was unbeatable.. I looked at the game map after the game ended and found out that the enemy's 2 platoons which had equalled about 70 men at the beginning of the scenario were down to approximately 15 men and that I NOW outnumbered him 3 to 1 and if I'd pressed the attack would have been sure to take the hill.

WHY did I not press it? Simple, CM's fog of war showed THREE MAN units since at night I couldn't get a good feel for how many US troops were in each position. This led me to think I was up against 5 almost-full-strength 10 man squads when in fact most of these squads were down to 1 or 2 men.

What you are pointing out is actually one of the BEST features of CM BUT does take a lot of getting used to after games like Close Combat which spoil much of the Fog of War situation for players. The amount of info you'd have in Close Combat is unrealistic IMO.

2. Psychological and game imprecision. Ah.. Again a point of interest. In REAL combat you don't know the exact state of every soldier at all times. Things are imprecise. Imprecision is a hallmark of war and important to the Fog of War. That other games don't model it is NOT proof of CM's unreality but of theirs IMO.

Check out what happened to paratroop landins in Sicily and France (hint... paratroops were dropped into the sea and into minefields and marshes... Sure it's an extreme example but MOST wargames give you totally unrealistic amounts of information about what is going on.)

If anything CM STILL gives you too much information to be realistic but it is closer to being realistic as far as C3I (Command, Controls, Communications, Intelligence) goes than most other games.

Hagen, don't interpret this as a flame... I'm simply trying to point out that the imprecision you complain about (which IS there) is not due to flawed game design BUT due to a proper appreciation of what combat was like and an attempt to bring a gaming experience which transmits that imprecision and fog of war.

BTW If I was you I would TURN OFF FOG OF WAR in the options screen in the beta demo. THEN you can click on ANY enemy unit and see ALL its data...

You might prefer playing it like that until you become more comfortable with Fog of War. (We all had to get used to the weirdness of Fog of War at one time or another... I think this is your chance to move your appreciation of wargaming and the mechanics of warfighting onto another level.)

Hagen, I completely understand where you are coming from and my opinion is that you simply haven't been exposed to a realistic representation of Fog of War before.

I know it can be frustrating at first BUT once you get involved in it then it REALLY adds spice to your game as the uncertainties add up JUST like you read about in books.

BTW go to http://combathq.thegamers.net to see an After Action Report I and another alpha tester for CM did some months ago...

We go into a LOT of detail about how Fog of War influenced the game... I think you will find it a very interesting read and will show you the value of Fog of War.

Again, not a flame at all but merely a post trying to get you to embrace Fog of War. Once you get used to Fog of War you'll NEVER go back.. It adds entire levels to your wargaming (and will make you a better wargamer).

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Ken Talley]

Hagen, my first impression was that the game looked absolutely great. After playing awhile though, my first thoughts were very similiar to yours-little feedback as to results except with armor. But as I continued to play, I noticed something different. The better I accomplished coordination, the quicker and more decisive results. It was a real pleasure to coordinate my units. I really got a kick out of coordinating an assualt of pzgrenadiers supported by a Stug and 4 halftracks in realtime. One change that helped me was the "shift-P" (?) key to display movement routes. It helped me to focus on my plans and the results I wanted to achieve. I started enjoying watching my plan progress. The more I play it, the more I enjoy the simultaneous aspect of resolution. Althuogh I was a little surprised by the similarities in gameplay with Close Combat. But then it just keeps going beyond CC and with greater realism. I believe this will truly be a classic game. It seems the "fun' factor comes from coordination of your units rather than immediately and constant feedback of seeing losses inflicted on your enemy. Which sounds like realism to me. Although, of course, we may see casualties in the future-that would be a form of feedback < > Personally I congratulate the Battlefront team in achieving a tremendous work. And I very much look forward to CM2.

Ken

[Guest PeterNZ]

On feedback.

Yeah, i felt the same at first too.

Then i worked out how to gain the info i needed.

What i did in the last game, for example, will provide a good example of the kind of thing i recommend folks do.

I was watching some germs advance up one flank, the 60mm mortars on the hill had a bead on them so get ordered to pound away. Then when the turn is played out, i get closeish to them, watch the booms, hear the "AARRrggGGg" and figure "hmm must be doing ok "

I think this is a pretty realistic feedback, and i like it. If you hear screams, people are dying, if you don't, you're probably giving them something to think about, which is often half the battle.

O i love the stereo sound, btw. On numerous occassions it's alerted me to my own guy's dying by screams 'off screan' :/ hehe

PeterNZ

Home Page

[Guest L Tankersley]

Just to address one point Hagen made about the difficulty of knowing what the status of your own troops is -- you can turn on labels using CTRL-L (or maybe Shift-L, don't remember at the moment - the Hotkeys list tells you) - this will put a colored floating warning label above any friendly units that have "problems." Some examples are "shaken," "pinned," "low ammo," and "abandoned." They don't tell you everything, but they do give you a sense of how your units are doing. You still need to check on them all periodically, but what's the fun of issuing orders on turn one and then sitting back and not doing anything for 5-10 turns?

Leland J. Tankersley

[Moon]

Hagen,

no need to right-click on all the units. You can simply use the + and - buttons to scroll through all of them one by one. That goes really fast and provides all the necessary info. There is something else - when you actually play the game for more than five minutes and issue orders here and there, you will know what your units are, how they do and what's going on by simply looking/listening. Other than that, everybody is entitled to his opinions and yours happen to be not understandable for me at all, but rest assured - we all here are going to do just fine without you

[Hagen]

Thanks for all the replies. You all make good points about the fog of war and realism aspects of the game. After looking at the game again and keeping in mind all the comments, I've decided that CM still falls far short of the mark.

The problem is very simple. If you are going to develop a game that realistically simulates the fog of way, then the game needs to represent the available information in a useable way.

If the only way I am going to know that my mortar team is hitting that advancing enemy squad is by zooming in close to the enemy team and listening for the paper dolls to go 'ouch' and 'medic' then something is wrong.(I can't do this is real life, can I?)

The graphics in CM are not accurate enough to provide information necessary to play a game that is based on 'fog of war'. Why didn't they just use arbitrary symbols instead of paper dolls to represent the troops? Because they wanted the game to look nice...sadly it doesn't look nice. At least if they used sybols they could tell us what is going on.(or at least tell us what they want us to know)

The 'Fog of War' effect should come from the game design, not from the inefficiencies of the graphics and interface. It is like trying to do the NY Times crossword puzzle when the puzzle itself is missing, leaving you only the hints. Sure you can still do it, but it is much more difficult. Doing the crossword becomes less about your ability to interpret the hints, and more about something completely unrelated. This is the feeling I get with CM. I am fighting against the interface and graphics to figure out what is happening, rather than using what little info I DO have to plan my moves against the enemy.

The arguement concerning how much better the troops could be made to look is a tricky one. Yes, the troops could be made to look better.(And still run on a PII) They could be motion captured with the appropriate textures to indicate who/what they were. Comparing this to Decent or Quake is unreasonable, since they are real-time games(or real-time multiplayer game)....CM is a turn based plotted movement game. The graphics engine is not running at the same time the combat resolution engine is, or at least it doesn't need to be.

I could point to products like Homeworld as examples to decent graphics with similar scales to CM, but that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that while CM graphics could certainly be better than they are, the development team doesn't have the time, money or people to do it.

So in the end we have an ambitious project undertaken by a small and energetic dev team that comes up short. It is a shame because our industry needs more games along the line of CMs concept. The fact that some of you here have found something to enjoy in CM gives me some solace. (As opposed to those of you who will blindly defend the game to the death, regardless...and you know who you are)

I am not sure how many units of CM they expect to sell, but I really doubt they will sell more than 4 or 5 thousand units. Let's just hope they make enough to enable them to try something else after CM.

Thanks,

-Hagen

[Guest Mikeman]

Someone once said, "You can please some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time; but you can't please ALL the people ALL the time." Great game!

Mikeman out.

[Moon]

"Our" industry, Hagen?

[PanzerLeader]

Hagen, have you seen the screenshots from HAD expansion pack? I saw them in PC gamer, and boy, it really took my breath away for a while...They're the best WW2 graphics I have ever seen. The vehicles particularly look superb.

If only a wargame could combine realism and good gameplay with that kind of graphics then I guess we'd be pretty close to (war)gaming nirvana

But hey, dreaming won't get us anywhere so I'll just shut up

[Fionn]

LOL. I see you noticed that also Martin . ( the "OUR industry" comment). There's so much industry-speak and absolutely identifiable industry mindset in his posts that it's almost funny.

SO Hagen, what part of the industry do you work in and what work of yours has gone out to the public that I and others might know? ...

Oh and before accusing others of agendas maybe you should make sure you don't, by a slip of the tongue, make yours obvious LOL.

BTW just a few points:

1. Regarding your mortar point... Umm why don't you simply WATCH from afar.. The explosions of mortar rounds give quite a lot of info. If you're incapable of determining what a mortar barrage will do to exposed troops then that's not the game's problem

2. HAGEN !!! Have you read the LOS and FOW article at http://combathq.thegamers.net I think most unbiased people would find it interesting reading. I suggest you check it out with an open mind... I think I demonstrate how FOW is achieved BY THE ENGINE there.

3. Regarding graphics... This is so plainly the writing of an industry insider its painful. So, how would you have approached this.

I am asking in a non-confrontational manner HOW you would have simulated conflicts CM simulates if you could write an engine from scratch?

Since you're in the industry you know the tradeoffs but for those who aren't I'll spell some of them out:

1. Better graphics, same scale: You lose all the wargamers with lower spec systems (Some people with P 166s with NO 3D card are running CM)

2. Better graphics, lower scale: Now you can only run company sized games since the extra polygons are used to make individual soldiers nicer.. Lots of people would get bored with company-sized games IMO if that was ALL they got.

3. FOW: VERY interested to see how you'd handle that? Would you want text icons or some other such obvious sign to indicate when individuals get killed to aid your eye?

4. How would you handle SOUND contacts? Would they be precisely located or only generally? Would the sound be audible to the player or not?

I guess what I'm REALLY asking since your "big company" ethos (and I'm assuming your location) is obvious how would a big company approach CM and make it a BETTER WARGAME as opposed to a flashier game (if I wanted Flash I'd buy Wargasm.)

VERY interested to hear your replies Hagen... As always something constructive and reasonable is always welcome

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Fionn]

Panzerleader?

HAD ? What's that the TLA of?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Hagen]

By 'our industry' I mean those of us who want to play computer games that have the balance and playability of traditional board games, instead of the mass market stuff that has little or no depth.

My only agenda here is to put my finger on exactly why CM doesn't work. Or, to find out where it does. I do this through offering up points and listening to the responses from players who enjoy the game.

Fionn, I am not interested in your trolling. Let's talk about CM and what works and doesn't work.

I will say again that FOW needs to be achieved through the restriction of information from a design stand point, not through the restriction of the game engine. As it is now, I do not know what is going on in the game not because I can't see it, but because the game can't depict it, either visually or through the use of text.

We are making a cause/effect arguement here. The game doesn't look like it does because they wanted to add FOW, the FOW comes from the game looking like it does.

It is a better to limit the information the player receives, not limit the player's ability to receive information.

-Hagen

[Fionn]

BTW on a non-flashbang note could you define the following:

T/D mismatch (or ratio of course)

Brinnell Hardness (extra points if you know how it is measured)

ballistic protection co-efficient.

effective thickness.

What is the importance of 3-dimensional modelling of angle of incidence of sahell impacts versus simply taking the data and assuming a single plane applies?

Explain why using "50mm L60 penetrates 60mm of armour at 250 metres." Is WRONG and a completely simplistic representation of armour penetration realities?

Explain the term "brittle" as it applies to armour in WW2. Extra points if you can name the single tank "brittleness" is most associated with.

Explain what flaking is and how it occurs.

How many Panzergranate 40 rounds were available for Tiger I units in 1944 ? (It's an easily found figure and one which is well known for a good reason. Extra points if you know why it is well known.)

I'm asking these to make a simple point. The people who could pump $100,000 into graphics and give all the soldiers five o-clock shadow etc etc are NOT the people who would bring you anything similar to Combat MIssion.

Charles will tell you that many of the factors I've mentioned above are the BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS of the penetration calculations of CM OR are far too basic and/or abstracted to be actually used in a game of CM's realism. What actually goes on is much more complicated and realistic than what I've just hinted at above BUT most companies simply:

a) don't know about all these intricacies or

don't care about them.

Let's talk about material stress and how a wargame which MANY voted as Wargame of the Year in 1998 completely misunderstood what material stress is.

TOAW (original version) misunderstood material stress ( which basically deals with the decrease in armour resistance around a point which has been previously weakened by a near-penetration) and in the game engine TEN 10mm penetrations were calculated to have the SAME KILLING POWER as one 100mm penetration.

E.g. the 50mm German AT gun is rated as a BETTER AT weapon than the 75mm L48 because it had a higher rate of fire BUT penetrated far less armour.

In other words, a basic misunderstanding of penetration realities resulted in this game allowing US 37mm AT guns to kill King Tigers. This is what happens when big companies try to do wargames.

I've seen the equations for Steel Panthers and they are equally strange with certain provisions which are COMPLETELY unsupportable using any understanding of physics.

There are other examples I could go into since this is something I've looked at in the past year (and I've been involved in correcting data errors in some big company games which have been released in the past year.)

So, I have no doubt money could be thrown at graphics BUT I think what would be lost would be far worse.

We'd end up with simply another wargame churned onto the market in time for x-mas whether it was ready to ship or not which was dumbed down since things were "good enough".

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Ps. As for trolling.. Umm I disagreed with you. I hope that's allowed.

Other points:

A) you did avoid my points re: how you would do things better PLUS I think you should read the article on LOS at http://combathq.thegamers.net before you make any more comments about the engine not implementing FOW. That is just plain wrong.

As for trolling.. You trolled, I responded with some facts and counter-points. Sorry you can't take disagreement.

Hint: In a discussion it is customary to debate points the other person makes. It IS the redoubt of a person who cannot debate those points to dismiss them as trolls.

C'mon, I'm willing to talk engine details etc with you so long as you are willing to listen to the points I bring up and read the articles I point you to. This just may be a chance to realise what FOW is REALLY like.

As I've said to others who questioned the FOW in CM.. "You should read good combat books and personal accounts of combat and rely on them more than the flawed FOW models in previous games. I think that opinions will then change."

As Charles says later, playing without FOW might be what you want.

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 10-30-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hagen, I think you would personally enjoy the game more by turning off the Fog of War option. You can do this from the startup screen by clicking the Options button. Then you will get full information on all enemy units, including casualties, suppression, morale, experience levels, etc.

We'll probably discuss this issue in the intro to the game manual. A lot of people are used to other games which don't accurately portray the fog of war, so when they sit down to CM something "seems" wrong to them even though it isn't. They expect to see things like "enemy squad at 72% morale, 87% fatigue, 65% shooting accuracy". Of course no soldier ever sees such a thing in real life, and so you don't in CM either.

But since the lack of this kind of information can be jarring to a new CM player I think we'll suggest that people start out their first few games by turning off the Fog of War option. Then once they've learned the basics of the game, turning FOW back on and really getting into the meat of things.

Hagen said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FOW needs to be achieved through the restriction of information from a design stand point, not through the restriction of the game engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM does handle FOW by restricting information by design, not a shortcoming in the engine. Please support your statement with specific evidence. I think what you are saying is wrong, and so I'd like to hear your reasoning behind it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As it is now, I do not know what is going on in the game not because I can't see it, but because the game can't depict it, either visually or through the use of text.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is incorrect. CM purposely hides much from the player because he (actually, his troops) cannot see it. If your troops can't see it, then CM won't show it to you. What - specifically - are the things you think CM "can't depict"?

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-30-99).]

[PanzerLeader]

Fionn,

HAD is Hidden and Dangerous(assuming TLA means initials).

About TOAW:yes, the combat engine is very obscure, making it possible for a jeep army to defeat a Tiger company, but overall, providing the scenario is well designed( I mean the scale of the scenario too), the game is fairly realistic. What this game lacks in accuracy is compensated by incredible flexibility(it's tough to design a game that covers everything from 1939 to 1955 and that features companies and corps, from every significant nationality).

BTW, the game was designed by Norm Koger who is very renowned in the world of wargames, and Talonsoft have already a lot of experience concerning wargames so it's very risky and probably inaccurate to describe them as a "big company that tries to do wargames."

Sorry for being a little bit off-topic here.

[Moon]

I think it's a huge compliment for Combat Mission and its developers when its graphics are being compared to a first person shooter like H&D. Sure H&D has stunning graphics, but that's easy - they only have to show a tiny little piece of the terrain that CM does and can comfortably hide the rest behind "haze" (did you notice how jumpy the games becomes in the one island scenario where a German platoon attacks?)

[Tim]

I think the problem is that Hagen wants a wargame and not a tactical combat simulator, which CM in my oppinion is. I must admit that the game seemed a little weird to me the first couple of times i played it, but that changed very quickly. Keep up the good work BTS, I'm sure it will be an excellent game.

Tim

[Bill Rom]

Hagen is a friend of mine. Within two hours of downloading the demo he had made up his mind (what little there is of it) about the game. He said: There is no game there." He was adamant and certain that he was right.

Over the last ten years we have tried most computer games. Most times we agree about games especially the universally recognized dogs. There is a difference in our taste in games. I don't care for real time games like C&C or Age of Empires. I thought the first Close Combat was terrible. He liked it. Many times we have called each other and said: "You got to go out and get ______." About half time we call each other back and say "How can you seriously like that game?" Ultimately enjoyment of a game comes down to a matter of personal taste.

I have yet to make my mind up about CM. Overall, I have a favorable opinion based on my experience to date. I view it as a vastly better Close Combat. My opinion may change with continued play. Even if I like the game, over time I may become bored. How many scenarios will be significantly different from the others?

There is a fatigue factor in gaming. I absolutely loved Panzer General, Civ I & II and Railroad Tycoon. Alpha C. and RRTII (both well received games)didn't ring any bells for me. The magic of the orignals was not there. I bought Panzer Elite earlier this week and returned it after three hours of play (I loved the orignal M1TP). I just didn't enjoy the game. I loved Reach For The Stars. Will I love the sequel? After so many games, we keep looking for the next one that will knock our socks off. CM didn't knock Hagen's socks off.

Are Hagen's points valid? I agree with some. The fog of war can be debated endlessly without reaching agreement. Ultimately CM is a game. Hagen didn't enjoy it. I didn't enjoy Panzer Elite. A lot of people probably will. Hagen gave his opinion of what he didn't like and why. It is not the game he wants. I have often suggested that Hagen put his opinions to the test by designing his own game.

CM is the designers statement of what he considers to be a good WWII tactical combat game. An objective measure of CM's success will be its reception in the market for which it was intended.

P.S. Hagen is a good guy and a passionate gamer; even if he is totally unreliable about returning calls and playing more than once every six months.

Bill Rom

[This message has been edited by Bill Rom (edited 10-30-99).]

[This message has been edited by Bill Rom (edited 10-30-99).]

[Bill Rom]

I disagree with Hagan about fog of war and graphics. His most cogent comment remains unanswered. "Where's the game?"

I have played two times now. Under another topic I asked why my troops ignored my targeting commands and fired at other units. I got the answered I expected. The troops make a decision to fire at what they perceive as a more immediate danger.

If that happens all the time, why bother to have the option to select a target for your troops. Doesn't game play come down to ordering your troops to go to a certain spot where they will then decide what to do?

What we may have then is a game that looks nice(sorry Hag)with bells and whistles and unique 3d views. Decision making consists for the most part of simply odering your units to move in various ways to specfic spots and watching the results unfold. Where's the game?

I have not made a final judgment. CM may have well have the best and most accurate engine details as to penetration, facing etc. What good are they if your troops decide what to target? If that's all there is, then for me the game is not ultimately different from other games with limited decision making. Good games offer several levels of decision making the results of which determine the players success in the game. I am not certain that CM offers that challenge.

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Rom (edited 10-30-99).]

[This message has been edited by Bill Rom (edited 10-30-99).]

[Kraut]

Uhhhh ... my second post for today, my lurker-status is a goner

I think bill has a point here, with the infantry-AI shooting at the more immediate threat issue. I do think there is a lot of "game" there despite this, but it definitely is reduced.

I played a PBEM game where my opponent had his tiger out in the open. I ordered a MG to fire at it in order to make the commander button up. Well, he fired one burst then selected a more juicy target, and the commander didn;t button up. This in my view is a very disturbing thing. I NEED the MG to make the commander button up. I don't want him shooting at other targets, unless his life is in immediate danger.

Maybe this thing just needs some tweaking ... maybe you guys need to change some values so the units will only fire at targets that are a lot more valueable, instead of only a little bit more valueable ...

Ohh also, this has not just happened with my MG's firing at tanks, but also while firing at other infantry. It really isn't that bad, but can hurt gameplay quite a bit in some cases.

MK