Guest Madmatt Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 WARNING>> I COVER ALLOT AND RAMBLE SOME SO PLEASE ALLOW ME TO INDULGE! Well I used to be on the side of 'pro bodies' then after allot more game play and consideration of some very interesting posts by others I was convinced that bodies really aren't all that necessary. I must admit that the above picture does look good but BTS has spoken repeatedly on the subject and (to me at least) the case is closed. I once mentioned that I felt that bodies would enhance the 'feedback' that a battle commander would have. I know take back that opinion. Allow me to elaborate... The more I play the more I see that this game does in fact require a great deal of un-Learning in order to be successful. If I lose contact with a MG or anti-tank team then it's my JOB as commander to either keep an eye out for um or pay the consequences! If I don't want to take the time to track them down and issue orders or check their status, then it’s my problem not the games! Many things in a game like this MUST, by their very nature be abstracted and this 'command chain breakdown' falls into that category. Let me put it this way, CM by its very design is a dirty, hands on simulation of combat command. If I play the entire game from a camera view 7 or 8 I get an antiseptic view of the action all at once. A traditional counter pushing view, if you will. Can I win from this view? Gonna be hard. To really get the full experience of CM you have to KNOW what to look for. I mean, you ordered that attack against the town, doesn't it make sense that you should watch it play out?!? Watch as a MG team in a bell tower stitches your assault squad to shreds. All the info is there, you need to LEARN what to watch for and you don't need little pools of red on the field to accomplish this, no matter how realistic or cool or whatever it seems. In my first game of CM demo I was struck with how well the scale was depicted as I watched from the fender of my Tiger. A deployed MG-42 team started laying down suppressing fire on the town ahead and I was awed at how the tracers looked. Sure, CM isn't going to win any 3D graphics awards (not trying to be mean, and the tanks are beautiful but lets be honest here ) but they convey, better than anything ever before, the aspect of combat. I could just tell, by the sheer volume of fire, that anyone in the building would be keeping their heads down. Later on as I watched my assault across the open field, my brave soldiers were hammered by fire from several positions at once and I knew that unit was doomed. Did I click on my unit to see how many casualties it had taken? No, I could just tell....It's hard to explain, but when you see fire coming from 5 or 6 locations and all directed at one little unit, you just know its taking a beating. From that point on I was hooked and become more so with each game I of CM I play. WATCH how the units move and you will understand its status far better than any pop up list or little dead body could ever convey. When I view (usually from camera 3 or 4 BTW) my battles, I pay particular attention to the whole FLOW of the engagement and I can tell what requires my attention. I pay attention to WHEN my units move out, WHAT they are shooting at, WHERE incoming fire is coming from, and most importantly, HOW they react to things during the phase. Do they get up and then drop back to the ground immediately? Do they start to move out and then reverse their direction? Do they overrun the defenders position? Each of those examples represents something unique and significant. CM is packed with visual indicators, you just have to pay attention and take it all in. Read on to get my take on that subject... You need to become a priority driven commander in order to succeed. What this means is that during a battle certain events need to take your top priority. It is those priority events which you need to focus on. Focus both literally (the camera view during playback) and tactically (issuing specific unit orders). In real combat you could think of these priority areas as 'Axis of Advance' while on the Attack and 'Fields of Fire' and 'Kill Zones' for Defense. Broad characterizations I know, but they fit Once you know where to look, then its a matter of training or un-training (for those unfamiliar to this game style, umm err all of us at first ) yourself on what to look for. Compare a unit’s status during the Order Phase to what happened to it during the previous Action phase and you will quickly see the connections. A unit that reverses direction and runs into the woods during a attack is more than likely gonna be 'Broken' or 'Routed' during the next Order Phase. Seems pretty basic doesn't it, but once you start making these connections between a unit status (the textual info as seen during order phase) and what it 'DID' during the Action Phase, you begin to gain that 'feel' and 'flow' of events. After a while you can watch (from a comfortable camera view, 3 is good for me) a part of the battle in which maybe a dozen or so units are in view, and after the 60 seconds is up, you will KNOW how all the units are behaving without having to click on each unit in turn (although, you probably will just to change orders etc...) How, is this done? You just watched it! Ok, time to wrap up this rather long diatribe What I am trying to convey is that the game gives you ALL the info you could ever need or at least all the info, and more in some cases, that a commander would ever have, in a visual way. Sure the details are there for you when you want, but IMHO you will ultimately be a more successful commander if you start to TRUST your eyes. What does this have to do with little dead bodies? Well, if you are watching the fight effectively (as any capable leader should ), then you damn well KNOW what happened to 3rd Platoons Bazooka team or that routed Panzer Grenadier Squad. They would have been in your focus at some point during the turn and you will see what became of them. If not, then FOW or Chain of Command breakdown or what have you will rear its ugly head and you will lose the battle. It's called leadership people, CM demands it. If you don't learn to lead then you will lose. And no amount of little bodies littering the ground can make you a leader. And besides, Charles doesn't want to program little bodies! Sorry I dragged this out for so long.... Your Obedient Servant, Madmatt p.s. Bonus Points to who can first tell me what famous general always signed his messages that way! Umm not the 'madmatt' part though! hehehe [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 11-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCrawler Posted November 5, 1999 Author Share Posted November 5, 1999 Madmatt>P.s. Bonus Points to who can first tell me what famous general Always signed his messages that way! Umm not the 'madmatt' part though! hehehe Montgomery... ------------------ Jon Johnson Steel Lightning Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Ncrawler, Umm not who I was thinking of, keep trying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCrawler Posted November 5, 1999 Author Share Posted November 5, 1999 Madmatt>Ncrawler, Umm not who I was thinking of, keep trying! Eisenhower... ------------------ Jon Johnson Steel Lightning Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 It appears the approach to do a "clean", violence-free war game seems rather hypocritical. Or, rather, isn't a "clean" wargame an oxymoron? War - absolute violence that causes endless suffering, something to be entirely avoided and despised; and "Game" - entertainment, joy, laughing people, amusement etc., something to be desired and enjoyed. Anyways, I guess you now what I mean. BTS's approach is no doubt noble, and I *am* fully aware of the inherently morally problematic nature of wargames (it is increased when also taking into account the inherent moral problem of portraying national socialist troops when making a WW II wargame). Nevertheless, to show casualties would be not only realistic but also add to the game. I do not mean to criticise the parties in the AAR, but when you think about it, don't you think / get the impression that they handled infantry (representing human lives) rather carefree / carelessly / negligantly (not sure of the right words here, hope you understand what I am trying to convey)? I do not blame them. Did it never even once happen to you too that in the result screen you were (even if only a little bit) surprised at how much casualties you really had? Did you never underestimate the actual losses (for both sides)? Seeing CM's abstracted infantry and blood-free batlefield, where the only losses occure in detail numbers, you easily get the attitude "A few losses here, a few losses there, well, it's war and we are bound to take losses. You can't fell a tree without creating chippings." etc. I think the graphic representation, as shown in the image above by Thomm, does a lot to bring home on you the reality what consequences your negligent or even intended endangering of your infantry has to them. You would get more "feel" for your infantry and their vulnerability. You wouldn't be so easy to sacrifice them. Apart from that, blood spots (or any other type of casualty mark) IMO *do* help to account for disappering units or the debrief-question "what happened to...?" or "just how effective was my artillery onto that unit in the wood" or "how effective was my machine gun covering that sector etc." I do not revel in gory detailed violence. But to create the illusion that war is clean is also wrong. So both arguments cancel each other out. What remains is the benefit for the game that it would have. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Thomm, I just think those "blood" spots are the cheesiest thing I've ever seen. Can you imagine how a map where over 500 men became casualties would look. Pretty much like it had a bad case of the measles I think. Also, no cartoon depiction of dead bodies will ever come close to showing how violent and wasteful combat is. Ask your self this, if the units were 2d counters with standard nato markings would you be wanting little casualty markers everywhere they took damage? PS: I will not be able to access the Internet for the next three days, so I will be unable to respond to any questions or rebuttals until Monday at 8 am CST. Also, I will not be able to play CM until Nov. 13th. Moving really sucks. [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 11-05-99).] [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 11-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 If this item could possibly reduce frame rate by a single frame per second I say NO. I think the general in question was Robert E. Lee. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Scott gets it! Ole' Bobby Lee it was! Madmatt out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ask yourself this, if the units were 2d counters with standard nato markings would you be wanting little casualty markers everywhere they took damage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh, nice point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 What an interesting looking game. I play Myth II and I actually turned off the blood. I think it's a better "game" without the gore. I completely agree with avoiding the gore, for all the reasons stated above, and, I believe gore attracts a different type of player. - xerxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Markus, Read the AARs more carefully. At MANY MANY places I metaphorically kicked myself for taking losses. I also thought my losses were HIGHER than they actually were. Ps. Markus, re: the " a casualty here, a casualty there" point.. In WAR combat commanders HAVE to make those decisions. That's war... Sometimes you DO have to accept casualties to cross a field and a wargame must simulate that... ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 I find it difficult to understand the nay-sayers perspective. There is no reason why bodies/blood/crosses couldn't be disabled/enabled based on user preference. If you don't want it (frame rate, moral issues, aesthetics), you don't play with it. It seems to me the best argument in favor is simply the number and variety of people who DO want it. There have been many reason given for it, most of which are reasonably valid, although not compeling enough for BTS. That's fine. They have a vision for their product. *I* happen to think it's the wrong decision. I do not design game software, but I *do* design software for a living (as a project manager). I have generally come to the conclusion that when a significant segment of the market (10%? 20%? -- it's an intuition thing for me) feels strongly about a particular feature (and this seems to be the case), it should be put into the product, unless: a) It require a very large amount of development time. It is a high-risk feature, that is likely to cause a lot of bugs, or break other portion of the product. c) To include it would dilute the purpose of the product. d) It just can't be done. BTS hasn't address a) or publicly, and shouldn't have to. c) is not valid for a purely visual feature that can (and should be) enable/disable-able. d) Is the only reason they have given, i.e. that it can't be done in a satisfactory manner -- but I have seen no evidence that they have actually tried to mock this up. Comments such as "billboarding looks bad" are completely bizarre in light of the fact that billboarding is used for smoke and trees -- a few casualties would hardly change that. Ultimately, this is just me shooting off my mouth, because it's apparent that there is not a single argument for including bodies that BTS finds compelling (enough). I do want to say, though, that the usual dimissal of "we have blah blah many years of game design experience" doesn't seem terribly relevant here, as I'm trying to keep this less CM specific and more software project gernalized. Sage ps -- Harold Jones: your comment on bodies for NATO icons doesn't seem relevant here. The whole point of CM is visual feedback (in this case 3d) to provide intuitive access to information that would otherwise be un-intuitive. I just happen to think that there is an element missing that would add to my ability to intuit information from the visual feedback (which is pretty weak anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Markus, Read the AARs more carefully. At MANY MANY places I metaphorically kicked myself for taking losses. Fionn, I know you did that. I enjoyed your and Martin's AAR *very much*. Read my post, I didn't mean to say you ignored your losses. But I think the way CM shows (or does not show) casualties lessens the feeling of loss. I think a graphical feedback on your forces would still increase that awareness of one's own mistakes etc. Ps. Markus, re: the " a casualty here, a casualty there" point.. In WAR combat commanders HAVE to make those decisions. That's war... Sometimes you DO have to accept casualties to cross a field and a wargame must simulate that... But Fionn, that's exactly my point: "a wargame must simulate that". I don't want to, how do you say, "flog a dead horse", and yes the game can be played without it, I am just stating my opinion that I am in favor of some form of feedback, gorey or not, on casualties. greetings, Markus Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 11-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 Sorry, but I have to say that this is the most TEDIOUS topic that there ever was. We have answered all the criticisms time and time again (including the ones Sage says we haven't). It is a waste of our time to keep repeating ourselves. Use Search and look for our answeres. Our opinion has NOT changed, and neither have the arguments against our stand on the issue. This is why the discussion is SO UTTERLY POINTLESS. The two camps are at loggerheads and neither one is presenting anything different than before. So what is the point of continually rehashing the SAME THING over and over again? Without new angles there is none. Sorry for the rant, but unlike some of the people participating in each new discussion, we have had to read ALL of them for over one year. Really boring at this point. Steve P.S. No, we don't put in features just to silence criticism , so that won't work either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alhazred Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 While repeats of the same arguments might not manage to persuade BTS, that doesn't make them invalid... just tiresome to people who've made up their minds. What about the morale effects of moving units into defensive position that have had whole squads destroyed in them? CC does it. Without some representation of what took place in the area, how could this feature be handled in a way that allows the gamer to make good choices? In the larger battle fields I can see whole companies vanishing into oblivion under arty fire, with gamers scratching their head wondering WTF they went, on the next turn, gamers making decisions based on a threat that no longer exists, simply because among 10 or 20 skirmishes, he or she didn't isolate on that one unit when it happened to be antiseptically removed from the battle field... In a board war game, you watch the piece(s) get removed, in CM you don't even have that much feedback. If the magical vanishing units aren't bad enough, and the unquestionably disorienting effect of having a unit no longer be in an area from one second to the next, isn't a "good reason" I don't know what is. By those standards any graphical representation at all is of no use. Why not just represent everything with text and numbers? In fact that's how most damage is currently handled; Currently you must click a unit to see if it's taken damage. You must also remember exactly how many units it had the last time you clicked on it, to compare to it's current status... Not intuitive and most definitely not feedback at a level most gamers have come to expect. With at least rough approximations of the consequences, you at least know at a glance that the unit is or isn't being effected (and how much or little). You have abstracted squads with three models representing 8 or more men, no damage feedback, and an abstracted "poof" mechanism to represent the destruction of the squad... One or the other is no problem, both combined lead to treating units as statistics "hhmmm I'll just try and run this last "unit of data" across the open field to get that tiger off my back for a bit" Hell I've played but 3 or 4 total times, and already I have run my empty mortar crews from tree to tree during a turn to get the Tiger and stugs and german MG's to "bite" and take the heat off my more important front line units... Why not, the consequences are that the unit might warp out of existence for the remainder of the scenario. While not necessarily true in campaigns of course, they took no casualties and were consistently targeted by arty and main guns, reason enough to pull that maneuver. To roughly paraphrase someone else's argument THAT is just "lame and gamey" ------------------ Simon Aka Alhazred http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 Just like the name says, this topic is developing a certain smell to it... Anyways, Simon - <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What about the morale effects of moving units into defensive position that have had whole squads destroyed in them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM has something called Global Moral and you'll find it (for your side) in the interface window on the bottom of the screen. The more casualties your men take, the lower their global morale. This simulates what you are asking for. No, it is NOT linked to any particular location, but it works just as well. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In a board war game, you watch the piece(s) get removed, in CM you don't even have that much feedback.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um... say, when the playback starts, what do you normally do? I normally watch the turn play back and not only see the units removed, but also see what removed them - tracers here, mortars there... no problem at all. Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguments at all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hell I've played but 3 or 4 total times, and already I have run my empty mortar crews from tree to tree during a turn to get the Tiger and stugs and german MG's to "bite" and take the heat off my more important front line units... Why not, the consequences are that the unit might warp out of existence for the remainder of the scenario <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AND you will lose a lot of points for this sort of thing and might end up losing the game, too. But in the end nothing can prevent you from doing stupid things like these. Hey, you want to drive your Tiger off map? Well, there you go. How about squashing your own mortars with a tank? You can do that if you want. Hey, it's your game. I am playing mine and enjoying it a lot, too... (tongue in cheek) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alhazred Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 > CM has something called Global Moral and > you'll find it (for your side) in the > interface window on the bottom of the > screen. The more casualties your men take, > the lower their global morale. This > simulates what you are asking for. No, it doesn't, in CC as in real life the presence of dead allies in a location has a detrimental effect to morale on units moving into that area. You're talking about morale in general, I'm talking about a specific effect of occupying an area that was obviously very dangerous to the previous squad, and the effect of seeing friends and fellow combatants dead/dieing, in said area. CC simulates this, I guess CM can't effectively simulate it, partially because without rote memorization, a player wouldn't have any way to make the decision to avoid a bloody area. > Um... say, when the playback starts, what > do you normally do? I normally watch the > turn play back and not only see the units > removed, but also see what removed them - > tracers here, mortars there... no problem > at all. Sorry, but I cannot follow your > arguments at all. Um... well not everyone (in fact I'd hazard not many at all) have the time to play and replay the action phase while inspecting what happens to every single unit... In last Defense such inspection is already prohibitively time consuming, as I understand it the game will have MUCH larger battles. Ad to this the fact that actually VIEWING your soldiers without first selecting them (so their status is visible) is only marginally informative of their situation. That you would HAVE to select and RE-PLAY for every single unit to know how there status has changed is needless, when the (otherwise wholly realistic) presence of blood or dead bodies would give you an approximate idea at a glance. > AND you will lose a lot of points for this The last time I paid attention to points I was "flipping" an asteroids machine, in the early 80's > sort of thing and might end up losing the > game, too. But in the end nothing can > prevent you from doing stupid things like Well just how stupid is it? Consider I lost no mortar teams, and I drew the attention of stug and Tiger main guns, and enemy arty for an extended period of time, from MUCH more important front line troops. > these. Hey, you want to drive your > Tiger off map? Well, there you go. How > about squashing your own mortars with a > tank? You can do that if you want. Hey, > it's your game. I am playing mine and > enjoying it a lot, too... Please lets differentiate between doing something brainless; and exploiting something to gain an advantage. And that only because there's no visual attachment to troops, no humanizing of the "counters" or visible consequences for their misuse... all the mortar teams lost an abstract digit or two, but who gives a crap about digits? ------------------ Simon Aka Alhazred http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 All this conversation on blood. Yikes. I never liked blood. I remember an event when I was a very small boy. Well I was never really all that small, so I often played football with the neighbor boys. I was ruffed up running a 4-1 dive. That is basically give the football to Richard and have him run right up the gut so the bigger boys (older not larger) pound me. Well, I got just pummeled and everyone said, "allright let's play again later". An hour or so later one of the little girls(also not that small because I grew up in Wisconsin) screamed, "Richard, your arm is bloody". I said, "Uhh Uhh - looked and saw the blood from an hour ago and cried". Q: What do you call a 300 pound female Packer fan? A: Anorexic. Q: What do you call a Packer fan with half a brain? A: Gifted. Oh, and my brother and sister and I all have middle names after Green Bay Packer greats. Sincerely, Richard Taylor Kalajian [This message has been edited by kingtiger (edited 11-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 I'm closing this thread up because it is completely pointless. Every single time this thread gets started it winds up the SAME way. The PRO body camp totally disregarding all arguments against bodies, the CON camp totally defending the system as is. Nobody listens to each others arguments. They are also the SAME arguments that have been tossed about for over a year. Then things tend to get nasty, and for what? We have made our decision. If you do not like our design, fine. If you respectfully disagree, then do us the tiny little favor and show of respect and let it go. If you think we are idiots for it, well... go design your own game and heap the bodies up as high as you want them to be. This is our game, the voices from those that disagree with our choices have been listened too. But now it is taking on the air of simple badgering and bickering. The matter is closed until someone can come up with a NEW line of argument. If that can't be done, then WHAT IS THE POINT of bringing this up YET another time?!? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts