New CM Article ! (posted here)

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oscar, this is not aimed at you personally, but it looks like your mind is pretty much made up that CM is not all that much better than the other offerings out there (especially those from HPS). Therefore, time to address the points

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would say that CM has some that is not present in PitS, but PitS has PLENTY that's missing in CM, see for yoursef <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be VERY curious to hear what those thigns are. Perhaps you should wait to see the Combat Mission demo before rushing to the conclusion that a game system that is, what, 5+ years old, is ahead of CM in terms of technical acheivements (visuals are only one aspect, interface, gameplay, and of course realism are the others).

I know that no wargame system out there can hold a candle CM in general, but not even tank sims have CM's armor and balistics realism. This is partly due to the 3D nature of the game, but also partly to intensive research and NON-ABSTRACT math for calculating things such as shell drop, angle of imapact, angle of armor, etc. all in realitive positions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, but as I said in prevoius posts: doesn't this place INCREDIBLE demands on the level of detail in the simulated environment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it does, and that is why CM is the first to break into this level of realism. The "LOS engine" is on all the time. So your fears about abstraction are unfounded. I urge you to go look at the LOS/Spotting pages too. They are dated in some ways, but the information in there is still the basis of the game system. You will see what else we have to offer in this area (check out the Resources section)

www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/cm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ok, the 3D of CM is (majorly?) an visual aid just like I figured, and since it comes with a price (limiting scale of game, environments simulated, simulated forces and units for example) I rather go without that aid and press the LOS button <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are only reading what you want to. The 3D is NOT just a visual aid, no more than the 3rd dimension is in the world around you. The simple truth is that the world we live in comes with at least 3 dimensions. Anything less than that is pure abstraction. In theory you can simulate 3D in a 2D environment, but it is so difficult to do that nobody has done more than a modestly good job at it. Once the game system is moved into a 3D environment all the dimensional abstractions necessary for 2D go away. If you HONESTLY find no value in a true 3D system then we are at a loss to explain ourselves, just as certain forward thinkers were at a loss to convince people the world wasn't flat

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>if generalization of for example unit angles is avoided when calculating impact of a hit (is it?) it sounds very nice indeed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly why the 3rd dimension is not a visual aid. Exact, to the partial degree and partial meter measurments are the direct result of the 3D system. If a tank is tipped on its side by 15.6 degrees, that is factored in, as well as the angle the shell strikes it from. No abstractions. And anybody that knows anything about this stuff also knows that a few degrees often makes ALL the difference. Of course, the attention to detail and skill of the programmer has a lot to do with what can be done with this data, and that is where CM shines brighter than all other games before it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How important is it for Fionn (and company) to misscredit and write off the everything but CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because Fionn has seen Combat Mission in action. Once others do, you will be hearing a lot more calls for "death to hexes"

An interesting note here... both Fionn and Martin were quite skeptical that CM was all that it claimed to be. They have become champions of the game only after playing it.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-18-99).]

[OSCAR]

>Once the game system is moved into a 3D environment all the dimensional abstractions necessary for 2D go away. If you HONESTLY find no value in a true 3D system then we are at a loss to explain ourselves, just as certain forward thinkers were at a loss to convince people the world wasn't flat

Yes, the abstractions may go away, but new issues may rise, like my fears that the 3D world will be unable to portrait the complexity of the real world. I'd like to hear you comment on my sighting example with the squad/vehicle "hidden" at very narrow distance. What will you see in a game such as CM. Is the "LOS engine" at effect at all times or is it not? Also given the desktop computing restrictions of today, wouldn't this 3D implementation render in a very small scaled game? And given for example the scale of battle or operation (what I like to play!), is it really important to know a tank was taken out just because he forgot to move 2 inches or so? In my view this seems to be cleaning dust in a room full of rubble. Same goes with calculation of impact of hits, just because angle is generalized to facings, how far away from reality do we actually land calculating the results?

I can buy new ideas of gaming, but not just becase some "grognard" with 50 years of gaming experience tells me so

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

The HPS freak

[elwood]

Just a comment in defense of OSCAR. I too play the HPS tactical series and when CM started coming about I followed its development closely. While very excited about its release and impressed at the apparent level of detail, I realize that, other than the interface and hex-based view, the HPS games had almost everything else at a larger scale. The 3-D-based view is a great step forward, but I do not think HPS has been given much credit on this board for the level of detail and "realism" built into thier games. I do agree with FIONNE that hexes are a hold over from old designs and it is about time someone did something like CM. The HPS games only use hexes as a visual reference and a lot happens within the 100m hexes, although it is sometimes abstracted.

[OSCAR]

>The "LOS engine" is on all the time. So your fears about abstraction are unfounded. I urge you to go look at the LOS/Spotting pages too. They are

ooops... I jumped this somehow. Ok, then the 3D is a visual aid, with I figure sometimes very binary effects on what you see and what you don't. I.e. suddenly a squad or vehicle "appear" out of nothing 10m away from you. I also wonder about another thing, since small distances can be so critical for an vehicle, and the game allows scaling of objects, doesn't this mean you actually have to get inside EVERY vehicle, and take the personal view of personel to know if you're possible to spot or not? That's what I call SERIOUS micromanagement in a game

You really want me to list all what's contained in the PitS system that atleast appear (some is confirmed) to be missing in CM? I could do it you know

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

The HPS freak

[OSCAR]

BTW: Brian

>in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is

Who's talking ADJACENT? In PitS units (can be quite a bunch of them) engaged in close combat occupy the SAME 100m hex. Also most units can engage at very long ranges, so there's not much adjacent combat taking place in PitS compared to TOAW's operational scale, I'd say it probably works pretty same as CM does...

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

The HPS freak

[Fionn]

“True, but you don't really NEED an 3D system to simulate this, you can "place" them at an exact spot WITHIN a hex (as for example PitS does), same goes with angles of objects, no problem at all. Only loss is your (the player) abillity to place them at that exact spot, but is this such a big deal? “

Umm, YES ! It is EXACTLY this sort of inflexibility and inability for the player to place units exactly that I was talking about. In CM the ability to place a tank exactly where you want is crucial. There is no more computer assignation of placement. Now you CAN set the tank behind the 3rd house on the left facing east with a clear view down the dirt track but hidden from view of anyone on the road only 60 metres to the south of the dirt track. If you can’t see how that is more realistic and more immersive to gamers than having the computer randomly place a unit somewhere in a hex without human input then I think you’re missing out Oscar

“I for one can do playing without watching "the movie" with "cool" explosion effects, I rather have more features, flexibility on scale and simulated environments instead.”

Can you conceive of a game which has BOTH “cool effects” and all the features. Why do so many people say it must be either or.. Why can’t you accept you can have both to a great extent?

“The five year old hexbased PitS system has 1 min simultaneous turns like CM, where's the "revolution"?”

Well Oscar, even though you may not be aware of them, there are many other wargames apart from PITS. When I refer to wargames I don’t limit myself to only one game or series of games. I refer to a multitude of wargames. Stop thinking PiTS vs Combat Mission as you so obviously are doing and read the article as it was intended to be read.

“since it's up to the 3D *SYSTEM* to decide what you can see and what you can't, “

As opposed to PiTS where the hex-based system decides what you can and can’t see FAR more innacurately than Combat Mission? And BTW since I’ve played BOTH I know exactly how superior to LOS in CM is to PiTS. In CM if you hide a tank behind a house it is hidden. Move it 5 metres to either side and it becomes visible again. Try doing that in PiTS !!! Oh, I forgot, you can’t do that in PiTS because the game engine won’t allow you to control locations within a hex it allocates them for you. So, we’ve established not only is PiTS exact unit location allocation system outside of player control it is also unable to account for being hidden behind specific and precise terrain features.

There are two MAJOR failings in PiTS system which 3D allows CM to totally take into account in the game. I know you are REALLY attached to HPS games Oscar but it doesn’t excuse this flailing at Combat Mission on a whole variety of untrue issues. In PiTS a tank takes up a specific location determined by the computer within a 10,000 metre square hex. In Combat Mission I can tell it where to move within an area of well under a metre. I can literally order it to inch forward if I want.. Please explain how PiTS is more accurate than combat Mission in this way since I’m really failing to see it.

“I think the original point of the thread (though Fionn can correct me if I've misinterpreted) is that CM allows the user to see and therefore clearly understand how the third dimension directly impacts his forces and outcomes of shots fired, LOS, etc. It allows him to make decisions based on this information and therefore make direct use of it as part of his strategy. “

YES.. To a large extent that is it. I also happen to think that compared to the vast majority of wargames out there Combat Mission beats the pants off them as regards realism. I would go make some points about PiTS but I have games to play and don’t want to get embroiled in a pointless debate about PiTS which, let’s face it, is five years old and barely comparable to Combat Mission if we’re to be honest about it. I’m glad you like PiTS but I don’t appreciate the fact that you are making many baseless statements here to prop up PiTS in the face of valid criticism.

As for LOS.. hexes make the MINIMUM distance over which LOS is altered equal to the size of the hex. DOH !!! Unrealistic. Does PiTS have LOS calculations whereby units at the back half of the hex (farthest from the enemy ) are out of LOS while those units at the front of the hex are within enemy LOS? Does it have this discrimination within a 100 metre hex?

CM has this level of discrimination and more. I can hide units in woods just out of LOS from any enemy marching past by putting them 30 or so metres into the forest and then move them forward and out of concealment and have them ambush the enemy. In PiTS your ability to order movements from the back half of a hex to the front half or TOTALLY ABSENT and the LOS degrades per hex not per metre. Again my binary point is proved functionally correct.

Anyways Oscar I hope you really love POA2 but I think you should not make statements which are so innacurate. I understand you love PITS but that doesn’t mean you need to attack other games (especially not when those attacks are innacurate).

Show me PiTS accounting for all the LOS intricacies like CM does, accounting for tilts etc and you can say it is the equal of CM then in those areas BUT to try to attack CM by saying PiTS is better when it can be simply shown that PiTS simply can’t model all these important areas in detail is a bit too much.

Fionn

Ps. MOST importantly, I'm not easy to impress and am more commonly critical of wargames. I am impressed by CM and was ONLY impressed AFTER I played it when I had seen the proof. Beforehand I believed there was a lot of hyping going on myself. Once I saw it in action, asked all the questions etc I believed Steve and Charles fully. Before that I was skeptical.. The KEY here is you are criticising a game you've never played simply based on assumptions you are making. That is a VERY foolish thing to do. When those who have played it are telling you your assumptions are wrong you should accept that since you simply don't have any data to counter that.

P.p.s. Stop your insinuations Oscar. You've done it on cdmag and now you're doing it here and it's sickening. "How important it is to Fionn and company" that other games are rubished... Answer: NOT important to me cause I'm not getting a penny out of this. I'm a wargamer and I'm giving an opinion. That you try to insinuate other things without any proof is frankly disgusting. Can I expect that insinuation to be withdrawn?

P.p.p.s It's pretty obvious you've pretty much made your mind up. At cdmag you berated CM BEFORE you even visited the site and the posts are there to prove it. Now you've come over with your mind already made up and are just doing more of the same as well as freely casting basless insinuations around.

If I write something based on my interpretation of events I should have a right to expect people to read it with an open mind. Unfortunately people like you are reading it and putting in intentions which weren't there. Face it you ONLY read that article thinking how it applied to HPS games and CM as opposed to reading it and thinking about wargaming in general and how it was applicable to wargames in general. it is this blinkered and pre-formed attitude that I find most objectionable (even more so than the freedom with which you and others are making baseless and false accusations and insinuations.)

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Dave]

I would be very interested in reading what Oscar thinks the HPS games have that CM doesn't. I've been a long time player of PitS and ToP2, and while I think they're good games, much is done abstractly. The scale of the game (large hexes & units containing several vehicles or many troops) causes this.

"Yes, the abstractions may go away, but new issues may rise, like my fears that the 3D world will be unable to portrait the complexity of the real world." I'm afraid I don't understand this. You think 2D can do a better job of portraying the "real" world than 3D? The real world IS 3D!

[Fionn]

Mick(xe5) said

“And thx again Fionn for ALL you do in the wargaming world.”

Pleasure. I tell it like I see it. BUT…

Mick(xe5) also said

“Otherwise a valid argument despite being the biased pre-release hype of a paid lobbyist [and if youre not getting paid ya should]”

You put a smiley there but you should be MUCH more careful what you write. What you have written is quite offensive and insulting to me personally and totally inaccurate to boot. I have worked on a couple of games as historical consultant, have tested quite a few and have never, ever received a single penny for that work. I never received any money towards my research costs or anything and when I offered Keith help with the data for CC4 (which he turned down.. surprise ) I made it clear it would be for free also.

Mick, I’ve had two game companies threaten to sue me for articles I wrote about their games (which were uncomplementary ), I’ve only given glowing reviews to two games in the past year and given average to bad review writeups on about 6 games. I’ve written openly about the way the market manipulates gamers and how it takes advantage of them (think the people in the industry who read that, apart from people who think much the same as I do, liked those articles ? No they did not.)

I’ve done many unpopular things because I wanted to continue writing the truth and have always felt contempt for writers who let themselves be pressurised or bought to peddle marketing hype or lies. I’ve withstood having a VERY, VERY large companies lawyers brought in to threaten me over an article and I kept it pure. A site I’ve written for had a lot of advertising pulled by a company whose game I wrote about. At all times I could have simply softened some opinions or left out some facts and everyone would have been happy and I’d have been a good little lapdog to the company and gotten their betas etc in return for more nice coverage.

I have NEVER ever compromised my reviewing or reporting integrity and I never will. I like Steve and Charles and admire what they are doing but they will tell you that my first message to them on receiving the CM alpha was that I was glad the game was so good since otherwise I wouldn’t have continued being involved with it. I’m getting NO money out of any of this and never have and never expect to. I’ve organised a lot of things for the buyers of CM in months to come all of which I won’t get a penny from and take GREAT exception to you writing what you wrote.

Hell, I once reviewed an SSI game I was involved with and gave it a good review because I thought it was good BUT I didn’t give it a great review and I pointed out all the valid bugs etc I had found while reviewing it. Later I got an email from one of the people at the company who worked on it thanking me for giving it an even-handed review. I’ve also gotten a lot of emails from people who read the review thanking me for an in-depth and honest review also.

1. I am NOT a lobbyist. I am a gamer who has been involved with a great game and is talking openly about it.

2. I am not, have not been and will not be paid for this.

3. I strenuously object to you characterising this as biased pre-release hype. This is an article I wrote outlining what I see as a new path in wargaming. I think when you look back years from now you’ll see I was right.

4. You obviously do NOT know me Mick(xe5). I take my integrity very, very seriously and Steve and I have had long chats about integrity in the gaming industry and press. I think that if you think I would tell lies or over-exaggerate for money or “to get in good” with anyone you are sadly mistaken.

More than that, if you think Steve and Charles would have ANY respect for someone who tried that approach to them than you are sadly mistaken.

Mick(xe5) I think you should reflect on what you wrote. Do you know me well enough to make those hurtful and unwarranted and publicly disparaging remarks about me? Have you read all of my articles or just read this one and wrote your response quickly? Would you call me a “paid lobbyist “ to my face on the basis of zero proof? If you wouldn’t say it to my face then you shouldn’t be saying it in a PUBLIC FORUM for God’s sake. Do you not realise that you are not simply talking to me but publicly insulting and humiliating me and calling my integrity and character into question in front of several thousand people ?

I have a policy of zero tolerance to such incorrect statements and assertions about me personally and think an apology or some proof of what you are saying is in order. I think you should also realise that whatever you say is being read by a lot of people. If you wouldn’t say it to my face in front of 2000 people or more in real life then don’t say it here.

Go hunt down some of my articles and read them. I’m highly critical of the wargaming industry in general at the present moment and certainly don’t pull punches in those articles or my posts. You are on the Close Combat forum at gamestats and you should realise that I have posted there telling the situation as I see it many times and said some things which some probably found hard to swallow but which are true. You’ll also see that I’ve had NO qualms about confronting Atomic when they said something untrue about me and that they’ve backed down now. People who have known me for a while know I don’t have any time for the PR crap and buying which goes on in the industry. I tell it like I see it and know it’s appreciated by the true gamers out there. I would thank you to stop saying totally untrue things unless you have some proof.

BTW simply saying that I say nice things about CM is NOT proof I’m biased. Read Scott Udell’s previews. Read what he’s said about CM in his war newsletter at cdmag.com … Scott knows what he’s talking about and he certainly thinks CM is deserving of a lot of attention and an excellent game. Sure, you haven’t seen the game yet so you don’t know from your own experience but that doesn’t give you the right to sit there and type untruths about someone you don’t even know. How would you like it if I replied that this was proof you were in the pay of Atomic and this was something they had asked you to do? I bet you wouldn’t since it’s untrue and I have no proof. Well so is what you said and you have zero proof anyways.

I expect a retraction!

To everyone else. This may seem harsh but I am not in the habit of allowing throw-away, incorrect and disparaging comments to simply go unanswered. There are some who would take any silence from me to be a tacit admission that Mick(xe5) is correct and this is totally not the case.

Mick, that’s not intended as a flame towards you. I believe you wrote without thinking but I think it is highly regrettable that you wouldn’t think before writing something so hurtful and damaging. I’d have gone public with Atomic if they’d written that. I think you should really think about the 2000 people thing everytime you write something like that next time. This is not a private email where I have the luxury of slowly proving you wrong this is a public forum and what you have said is now public record. Since it is wholly false I hope I can trust you to withdraw it.

PS the same goes for Oscar who oh so willingly latched onto your statement and then made a few of his own. Can you stoop any lower Oscar? I'm quite sick of people popping up and insulting me and making stupid and innacurate statements about me simply because they're safe and anonymous behind their computers.

If you have proof and the guts to tell it to my face then do so otherwise I think you should just be a bit more sensible, moral and decent in future.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Brian Rock]

Oscar,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You don't rock Brian,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, just because TS can't get things right the whole hex system is wrong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

The world is not made of hexes. They are a useful abstraction, and a reasonable approximation, but flawed nontheless. They work better in some situations than others, but produce too many curious artifacts for my liking. The one mentioned in my previous post was just one example. I also find they don't work very well for simulating linear tactics. There is the movement-rounding effect Fionn mentioned. I could go on, but it doesn't matter. You will continue to like them. Fine. I don't.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>>IGO-UGO systems produce strange outcomes too.

PitS is no more IGO-UGO system than CM is, neither is any HPS game in the series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. Relevance being...?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>>in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is...

Who's talking ADJACENT? In PitS units (can be quite a bunch of them) engaged in close combat occupy the SAME 100m hex. Also most units can engage at very long ranges, so there's not much adjacent combat taking place in PitS compared to TOAW's operational scale, I'd say it probably works pretty same as CM does... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is annoying. You are defending PitS against a criticism I did not make.

Oscar, you seem a bit fixated on defending HPS games. I clearly said TAOW. I also said I have played and enjoyed HPS games. Why do you think I'm attacking them?

[Fionn]

Because he thinks everyone is attacking them always and everywhere.

let's play spot the bunker mentality shall we?

BTW for those who have sickened me by making false and baseless accusations.. check out http://www.strategy-gaming.com/editorials/grognards_and_graphics.shtml

it's be another strategy editor who just sent me this link at 2:45pm GMT. See, MOST strategy editors out there are keeping an eye on CM because they realise what it truly is going to do. if you can't see that Oscar that's fine but keep your accusations to yourself OR ELSE just accuse every strategy editor everywhere.

I happen to know quite a few of them and know they are keeping an eye on CM.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Bil Hardenberger]

Oscar,

The only real comparison I can make between a 2D representation of the battlefield and a 3D representation is what I do for a living. I am a 3D animator. I know how powerful 3D can be. I fully expect CM to be as big a revolution in wargaming as 3D animation has been to the motion picture, Forensic, Scientific, and Commercial industries. Do you think there is a correlation between the amount of animation in movies and the reality that can be achieved now? Is it any different for wargames? In my opinion, no. Using the power of 3D to recreate reality is a force that has taken us into never before dreamed of realms. There is nothing that cannot be done today in 3D; it is only limited by your imagination. And your imagination seems lacking, or perhaps it's just your vision. You remind me of the old Disney animators that shot down 3D animation as lacking art and passion. Now these same Disney animators utilize 3D for what it is, a tool to create a superior, deeper picture.

I know what kind of "tricks" and abstractions are used while working in 2D. I also know that these tricks are unnecessary while working in 3D. To say that 2D is superior to 3D is not only fooling yourself, it is the most ridiculous rhetoric I think I have ever heard. Perhaps you live in a 2D world and are speaking from ignorance?

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Oscar, are the simultaneous turns in PitS exactly the same as in CM or are they only similar? From the demo, I saw that there were simultaneous phases but it appeared that units were taking turns in the phases. Is that what was happening or was the game showing results of combat in an order even though it happenned simultaneously?

Fionn,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I’ve organised a lot of things for the buyers of CM in months to come<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... What do you have in store for us Fionn? I'm guessing you are working on coordinating individual players battles into higher level engagements. How about a sneak peak on this vision?

[Guest Lokesa]

Mr Conmy, welcome

Good to see you've made it. And that goes to all the other CC nuts too, it's good to have you here.

Fionn, chill... in your enthusiasm for the game you're generating tons of hype, comparable to a paid lobbyist, hence the "ya should be" line. Honestly I figured you and Martin both were put on the payroll around 3, 4 months ago. I dont mean this as an attack on your character, just the impression that I had. Having read others posts here it would seem at least several of us feel/felt the same.

I think part of the reason for this stems from your descriptive style. The way you talk about the game sometimes, being that you're a reviewer, seems like marketting.

Although directed at Mick I'm going to jump on this as well, you said something like 'you dont know me, you cant make such conclusions' we'll your right, we dont know you. I've been reading your posts articles etc for a while and value your input but, I dont know you. Thats one of the limitations of the internet all I know about you is what you choose to show. Sorry if I haven't known about you for the entire span of your internet carreer, thus having more of a base to draw conclusions as to your character/motives, but I haven't and being that I'm jaded from experiences with previous games claims pre-release, it seemed logical to me that either BTS are your best buds or your getting paid.

I hope I haven't offended you with this post Fionn, I really do value your input. It just seems that your getting riled up over what seems to be a natural reaction shared by many of us. Then again would a lighter hand have gotten your message across?

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Hey Guys,

In Fionn's defense (like he needs my help ) there is a little history behind this 'debate' on the www.cdmag.com site in the forums.

I gave up on Oscar awhile back regarding the serious (IMO) bugs in PiTS. You can check it all out there if you really want too.

But I will post one quote from Mr. Oscar that I think will shed a lot of light on this whole thread for a lot of you guys. Apparently English is not his first lang. but I have no problem understanding this statement:

(Oscar)

...I will disassemble CM regarding

realism if I get the hands on the

game, don't worry. This time I'll

do it just for the sport

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Nice catch

No that's not me in the picture, (I'm better looking) .

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 10-18-99).]

[OSCAR]

Fionn,

>PS the same goes for Oscar who oh so willingly latched onto your statement and then made a few of his own. Can you stoop any lower Oscar? I'm quite sick of people popping up and

Ok, this I did because I don't like the overall ruling commandment that CM is the best thing since sliced bread, also It seem strange to me that although you're so neutral you can't find ANY shortcomings on CM, I think I've pointed out a few areas that surely must contain some intresting threads to pull.

>is frankly disgusting. Can I expect that insinuation to be withdrawn?

For what? the insinuation Mick posted, and I quoted? I can admit it's a bit low, but it's just for laughs, nothing else...

>skeptical.. The KEY here is you are criticising a game you've never played simply based on assumptions you are making. That is a VERY foolish thing to do. When those who have played

But I'm getting pretty good feedback on my assumptions here and elsewhere, so I figure my picture can't be THAT bad, also If future will prove me utterly wrong I'll have to face that...

>games. I refer to a multitude of wargames. Stop thinking PiTS vs Combat Mission as you so obviously are doing and read the article as it was intended to be read.

I'm not, PitS is just such a great game to use in comparison.

>innacurately than Combat Mission? And BTW since I’ve played BOTH I know exactly how superior to LOS in CM is to PiTS. In CM if you hide a tank behind a house it is hidden. Move it 5 metres to either side and it becomes visible again. Try doing that in PiTS !!! Oh, I forgot,

It seems to me you're just not getting the picture.

>majority of wargames out there Combat Mission beats the pants off them as regards realism. I

Quotes like this pretty much speak for themselves...

Brian,

To me it sounded like you meant that TOAW was an adequate representative for hexbased wargames in general, and since it was flawed everything in the genre must be.

Dave,

>this. You think 2D can do a better job of portraying the "real" world than 3D? The real world IS 3D!

I honestly think it might. Really.

John,

>Oscar, are the simultaneous turns in PitS exactly the same as in CM or are they only similar? From the demo, I saw that there were simultaneous phases but it appeared that units were taking turns in the phases. Is that what was happening or was the game showing results of combat in an order even though it happenned simultaneously?

The game uses phases to put (some) things in proper order, for example an ambush should affect directly so that phase has to be in front of the DF phase. If you look more closely you'll see that even if you take a unit out in the DF phase, the same unit still has the opportunity to fire back at you or someone else. This is simultaneous action. It doesn't matter in which order the information was displayed, as long as in-phase actions work like they should.

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

The HPS freak

[Preacher]

Stop The Madness!!!!

sorry....tiring of this..

Preacher

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>so that phase has to be in front of the DF phase<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems kind of abstract. In real life, the shooting and the ambush happen *and* appear at the same time. The confusion is part of war. CM's turn system seems more intuative.

[OSCAR]

Ok, I have decided to not post more on the topic in this forum. Reasons is it just seems to get more and more of a flameing type.I don't want this, but I guess it's a (natural?) sideeffect of argumenting. The guys at battlefront in my eyes don't deserve my harsh ranting. And they probably would look bad if they threw me out. I guess I feel kinda quilty

Peace on you all and bye.

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

The HPS freak

[Guest Big Time Software]

This will be my last post directed towards Oscar, as I have found that there is little point arguing with someone who has already made up their mind wihtout engaging it (sorry, but your recent posts have made this pretty clear).

Oscar, we challange you to list all the "confirmed" features CM is lacking vs. any game out there. Note we aren't singling out HPS wargames, but *ALL* wargames. If you wish to take up the challenge, post a brand new Topic and I will respond.

On another note... your concept of how 3D works in CM is fundamentally wrong. It isn't that you have an opinion that we disagree with, but one that is totally incorrect in undisputable fact. You should probably look at the demo, or listen to those that have played the game, before defending your positions with imaginary ammo. You appear to be a bright fellow, but defending undefendable positions with nothing in hand but zeal will win nobody over to your position.

FWIW, I can understand why some people think that Fionn is somehow in pay/biased buddy with us. This is the problem when ANYBODY champions a game (or anything else for that matter) to the extent that Fionn can (i.e. writing articles on top of posts). All I have to say is that Fionn is his own keeper and we greatly value his support because it comes from the heart, not from our bank account. We told him from DAY ONE that we didn't want him to be our lacky because it was his objectivity we sought for the benefit of CM. He assured us that we couldn't sway his opinions even if we bribed him If Fionn has any "faults" it is that he truely loves CM for exactly what it is; the most realistic and fun wargame to date. Personally, there will be many more people with this "fault" very shortly, so give him a big 'old break

Thanks,

Steve

P.S. Also FWIW Fionn, I don't think Mick meant it nearly as negatively as you took it. However, I have seen others attack your credability in very shamefull ways so I for one understand your sensitivity to the issue. Plus, you are Irish (sorry, couldn't resist a jab, but I know you will get a chuckle out of it too)

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Too bad you feel you have to leave Oskar. The force is strong in you. You would make a good jedi knight. The dark side awaits your return.

[Fionn]

John,

No, not that but lots of other stuff .

Scott,

Yes, that's the point. Oscar is coming in here with a stated agenda and that's what I find so objectionable.. That he's not listening to reason is just fuel to the fire.

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-18-99).]

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Well I'm glad that's settled.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 10-18-99).]

[Fionn]

LOL Steve..

Always with the Irish jokes .

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 10-18-99).]

[MikeO]

Must say when I read mick(xe5)'s post I thought it was just jokey banter but then I'm used to his sense of humour on the CC2 gamestats site Most of his post seemed complimentary. Sometimes irony doesn't come across too well on these forums and is easily misinterpretated, especially if the person is unfamiliar. Mick is always incredibly patient with newbies, especially when explaining CC2 editing. Fionn puts fantastic enthusiasm into the gaming stuff he does. Just hope it is a misunderstanding.