Fionn Posted April 14, 1999 Share Posted April 14, 1999 http://www.ga-source.com/community/editorials/fionn1.shtml http://www.ga-source.com/community/editorials/fionn2.shtml P.s. I KNOW the author doesn't include CM as one of the "guilty". Not by a long shot . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 14, 1999 Share Posted April 14, 1999 Gadzooks! I didn't catch that author's name, but what a moron. You don't happen to know who wrote that crud, do you Fionn? Hehe Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 14, 1999 Author Share Posted April 14, 1999 No, I have no idea at all . Seems he felt the need to have a little rant about the lies printed on some game boxes (CC3 I'm looking at you here ).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Arabian Posted April 14, 1999 Share Posted April 14, 1999 Fionn, Well said - guilty as charged on the 'triggers'. Not that I'll change my ways, but... Will you be notifying us of the sure to follow responses by the CC development team? (I know it wasn't your goal to necessarily harp on them SPECIFICALLY, but they tend to be a bit, er, well, sensitive these days I think) I'd be curious to see what the retort is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 14, 1999 Share Posted April 14, 1999 Let me guess - somebody from the CC team is going to write a ten page rebuttal against Fionns article claiming that it's all wrong what he said... Great stuff, Fionn... give 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 14, 1999 Share Posted April 14, 1999 Either that or someone from the cc3.gamestats.com group will. They seem to be part of the problem Fionn talked about. Many over there seem to think that if you can hack around someone else's mistakes that means the original shouldn't be criticized as being a let down. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 14, 1999 Author Share Posted April 14, 1999 Adam, Let's just say that I wrote a grognard review of CC3, sent it to mr. Zabalaoui and when I received his rebutal to my piece I pulled the article and am having it rewritten by another editor at The Wargamer. Why did I pull it? Well phrases like calling me "sloppy and unprofessional", "a moron", " a big fat waste of time" and capitalising such nice phrases as "DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT" are not the sort of things I am prepared to allow in print about myself, particularly from someone whom I had to EXPLAIN the concept of ballistic sloping to and he THEN had the gall to state that his game modelled it "100% accurately" when he didn't even know what it was until I explained it to him. Unfortunately it seems that I had a choice of either publishing with the rebuttal or not publishing at all. SO I've taken the time-honoured fudge of allowing someone else to rewrite my article a bit so that it isn't MY work and so their rebuttal won't have to be published alongside it. ANYWAY it won't stop me mentioning it on gasource as part of my editorials on realism although I will be drawing a few other games in for a dishonourable mention too .. However I can assure you that if anyone involved in CC3 writes I'll give them an honourable mention in my editorial too although after Mr. Zabalaoui's last email which included the immortal lines "I (MR. Zabalaoui) think you're a moron. There, now its personal." ( Ooh I'm shaking in my boots ) I don't expect him to write to me again... At least I don't expect a rational email from him.. irrational babbling perhaps .. P.s. yes, i think CC3 is a fun game. but no I'm not the greatest fan of Mr. Z (could you guess LOL) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Arabian Posted April 14, 1999 Share Posted April 14, 1999 Carrying on the off topic discussion, I'm somewhat curious as to what has happend to Atomic. When CC1 came out, (which at the time I thought was the greatest thing since sliced bread and resulted in a great deal of wasted time in which I should have been improving my thermo grades) I remember emailing Atomic with thoughts and suggestions for CC2 about gameplay, realism, etc. I frequently (though not always) got responses, and they were always cordial, addressed the point, and gave views as to why they would or would not show up in CC2. So what changed? Is it the 'evil' microsoft influence (well, more a change to a marketing driven rather than a 'good game' driven company) or what? Any comments from the gaming industry folks who've been 'behind the lines'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted April 15, 1999 Share Posted April 15, 1999 In my opinion there are many, let me repeat that, MANY, shortcomings and very strange/unrealistic occurences in close combat series of games. ALL OF THEM. As an example of the complete and utter inaccuracy of the game let me cite the following. My friend was playing the Germans and I was playing the Russians in a recent campaign game in CC3. In the pregame set up I targeted a wooden house in the German setup zone that I suspected might have an AT gun with a KV II (150mm gun, HE ammo only if I recall correctly). In any event the game starts and the KV launches its first round into the side of the wood house. I didn't know it at the time, but there were two Stug 40 C's just behind the house. One almost right against the opposite wall to the one a fired into, and a second about 10m or more away. Blammoo! The 150mm round explodes in the house, I was looking right at it. Center of the explosion about 10m from the nearest Stug which is shielded from the blast by the opposite wall. Almost immediately thereafter I see two more explosions where the two Stug's were, even though I couldn't see the tanks at the time. Later on I find out from my friend that the two Stugs behind the house are taken out by this single shot that detonates inside the house. And it was only an HE round to boot. That, in my opinion, is totally rediculous. Would never, EVER, happen in real life. Just goes to show that even the most basic modeling elements in close combat are pretty much absolute crap. And regardless of what Mr. Zabouli might claim, the game is filled with such "mistakes". The game is still somewhat enjoyable, but as far as being realistic, it most certainly is NOT! And this is just one example. Trust me when I state that I have seen many another strange happening in the close combat series of games. That's why when I see a game like CM come along, I start to literally drool. It is about high time someone made a tactical wargame that actually models reality instead of some hocus-pocus abstraction of that reality such as occurs in close combat, among many other wargames. Can't wait to see the final product BTS. Mike D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 15, 1999 Author Share Posted April 15, 1999 My all-time record with a KV-2 is 4 tanks killed with 1 shot (HE only)... I've had mails from quite a few other people checking out about the KV-2 for the same reason. It's HE shells are renowned for exploding tanks up to 10 metres from the epicentre (NOTE.. not disabling them due to crew casualties caused by spalling but actual brew ups ). Let's put it this way... There's a column in CC3's database which basically gives the "kill radius" of a shell. Now, after a little experimentation I've come to the conclusion that this kill radius is in effect for soft AND hard targets and that once you get a gun of an artillery-size calibre you have a REAL chance of taking out tanks within this "kill radius". The figures to back this up are all in the database BTW. One of my favourite database errors (which Mr. Z would disagree with) is the fact that a tank can fire it's main gun at ANY target within 5 metres regardless of the actual model of tank etc ( Another case of totally generic modelling) BUT snce the Tiger (with an 88mm gun) has a "kill radius" of 6 metres it SHOULD actually damage itself at such close ranges if it fired. Smart huh? I haven't managed to test this since ifantry usually dies much farther than 5 metres away . Oh and another doozy in the game is the TOTAL absence of blind spots. I have diagrams of panther blind spots extending out to well over 40 feet in certain directions which CC3 just does not simulate for any vehicle.. If I had to apportion responsibility here it would go pretty much entirely to the head of Atomic since I think he doesn't even care that the game is in error on a lot of these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted April 15, 1999 Share Posted April 15, 1999 Big Time has handled the accuracy/gameplay balance very well. Soon enough CM will hit the beta beaches. The beta testers are huddled inside thier landing craft. Some thinking of the fight ahead of them, some thinking of sweethearts back home. Suddenly I'm jolted back to reality as I hear the voice of Sgt Fionn yelling over the motors of our landing craft, ' get up maggots!, time to hit the beaches'. The bay doors of the craft open, the cries of one thousand men were heard as we disembarked. The day had come..Beta day. Ahhh I can't take it anymore ahh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 15, 1999 Author Share Posted April 15, 1999 Ok, I've broken.. Someone tell me how to make the wide variety of yellow-faced smileys here (or at least where I can read how)... I'm sick of my posts being the only ones without colourful faces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 15, 1999 Author Share Posted April 15, 1999 Looks like I figured it out Still, I'd be interested to read the full range of smileys I can make (angry smileys etc ) I know its kind of oxymoronic though (an angry smiley ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted April 15, 1999 Share Posted April 15, 1999 The second question in the FAQ (the web board FAQ, not the CM FAQ...) has 'em all. www.bigtimesoftware.com/discuss/faq.html#smilies The FAQ is also linked at the top of this page. I do wish there was one for the tongue sticking out though [This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 04-15-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Wilson Posted April 15, 1999 Share Posted April 15, 1999 Well... I don't know about colored little smiley, but you can get a better toung than a capitol "P". Hold down alt and hit 0222, let go, and what does that spell? Þ! Mix that with your eyes and you get the very slick :Þ and with a nose :-Þ Sweet, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 19, 1999 Author Share Posted April 19, 1999 http://www.ga-source.com/community/editorials/fionn3.shtml There's a new one for you. Steve, I liked your post so much I posted 95% of it (all except the American democracy bit ). Also mentioned CM a few times . Can't hurt to mention it eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Posted May 7, 1999 Share Posted May 7, 1999 Fionn, Thanks for the link to the articles. I read them 'after' I pre ordered Combat Mission though. I now feel like a vulnerable fluffy white rabbit frozen in the harsh glare of Big Time's marketing headlights. Although I am somewhat reassured by the level of discussion on this board, they hit every one of my 'buy wargame' triggers and it worked brilliantly for them. Yeah, I bought cc1, 2 and 3 and all the other 'serious' games too. The funny thing is that in my real life I thought I was a rational and 'in control' human being. Hopefully I just fall apart when it comes to new wargames. Hmmm... must look more closely at other areas... The real value in your message is that maybe the level of games development will rise in direct proportion to the awareness of the consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 7, 1999 Share Posted May 7, 1999 Dallas, If it makes you feel any better, we're diehard wargamers here at Battlefront too so we've completely hyponotized ourselves with our own marketing message. If it rings true, it's only because we really believe in what we're doing. We might be insane though. Can't make any promises. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 7, 1999 Author Share Posted May 7, 1999 Dallas, BigTimeSoftware is one of the VERY FEW companies I wouldn't lump in with the Atomic's of the world... I've talked with Steve and Charles a little which is enough to know they mean what they say. My favourite game with computer games is to pick holes in the thinking and find historical errors and I'm pretty much drawing a blank on CM which is a testament to its quality. Also, The Wargamer has a couple of interview with Steve and Charles which will be going up soon which I have read and they are VERY reassuring as far as game quality goes. I have CM singled out as one of my most awaited games of the year. I honestly think this one will rock... (and if you've read my editorials and messages on various sites you'll know I don't give praise easily. In fact, I give it rarely indeed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 7, 1999 Share Posted May 7, 1999 The articles at wargamer are up... http://www.wargamer.com/articles/battlefront_interview.asp http://www.wargamer.com/articles/combat_mission_interview.asp http://www.wargamer.com/articles/combat_mission_aar.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Posted May 9, 1999 Share Posted May 9, 1999 I KNEW I wasn't a sucker! BTW is there any field glass 'zoom in' type feature offered? Will you be able to personalise (name) your commanders in multiplayer? Can you save\resume the game at any stage? I love the idea of replaying your battles after the event. I think at one stage Maj Holdridge was toying with this idea in Tacops but it became too resource intensive or something... hope this feature makes it into CM. Can't say how glad I am that wargame lovers are IN CONTROL here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 9, 1999 Share Posted May 9, 1999 Yes to zoom, no to naming, yes to saving at any point. We also expect to have the whole battle playback thing for the shipping version. It's just too cool to leave out Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 23, 1999 Author Share Posted May 23, 1999 http://www.ga-source.com/community/editorials/fionn6.shtml Should be an interesting read for ya'll/ Controversial too I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted May 24, 1999 Share Posted May 24, 1999 Interesting read, but it essentially continues what was never a particularly good *review* of TOAW in the first place I would have less trouble with the whole messy affair if The Wargamer had not posted the original article as a *review*. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 24, 1999 Author Share Posted May 24, 1999 Agreed but I think while tone etc of the original piece can be questioned I think its basic realities and points are excellent. It SHOULD have been called an analysis piece and others like it will be so-called. And yes it does continue the discussion by hopefully showing people how TS has twisted the truth a little too much this time. Anyways, apart from the error about calling it a review when we should have called it an analysis any other comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts