The end for CM

[Guest R Cunningham]

Kwazydog,

DOESN'T ANYBODY HERE HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR?

I am not out to defend CC. Fionn's opinions of the game and its developers are his own I do not care what he thinks about the game as such.

I responded to his remark that the said developer would likely balk at providing a review copy of CC4 to TGN if they knew that Fionn would be the reviewer.

I simply stated that, given his past run ins with the developer, he is biased against the game/developer and would not be objective if he did do a review. Apparently he takes his reviewing very seriously and was offended. He took offense where none was intended. I suppose a smiley face would have helped somewhat. Go back and read what I wrote and read what he wrote. See who tossed out more opinions of the other.

[fatherof4]

R. Cunningham,

If I'm supposed to consider insulting a person who's done nothing to deserve it funny, then I guess I don't have a sense of humor. Just because flame-wars are par for the course on the Usenet doesn't mean they have to happen on this board too. It's not hard to disagree without being disagreable if you really want to.

I really enjoy this board so I check in several times a day and read every message. I've learned a lot about WWII and even some modern stuff too. You probably know a lot more about that kind of thing than I do so you don't need the "education" like I do. I'd like this "school" to continue so let's all do our best and be civil with each other.

fo4

p.s. I also suspect that you're trying to provoke the wrong fellow. If you were to criticize me, I don't think anyone else would care very much. Fionn, on the other hand, has put in a lot of time here over many months and made many friends. I'm sure they appreciate his efforts even more than I do. Even if he gets to play CM while we can only sit on our hands.

[SGTRock]

Hey, I got a sence of humor look at the last post.

Heh heh heh he....ah well, the hell with ya..

I'm not wishing for peace, just war at this point.

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

Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[kingtiger]

Mr. Cunningham,

I did as you suggested and read your responses.

In one statement you said:--------->

And for the record none of the CC series boxes I own make any claims about being "ultra realistic." The CC3 box does talk about "unequalled detail, realism and scope." Unequalled doesn't mean ultra realistic. Unequalled is a clever marketing tool and I'm willing to bet it was penned by MS flacks and not Ätömik. It merely states that no other game has the same level of detail, realism and scope that CC3 has. Some may have more, many have less.

CLARIFICATION:

First, "Unequalled" according to Webster is: not equaled; unmatched; unrivaled; supreme. Please note the use of the word supreme referring to superior. In no way shape or form does the term unequalled refer to inferior. So, clearly the advertisement for CC3 states unequalled in realism, etc., etc. Which clearly states it's superiority in terms of realism, detail, etc. So, clearly your statement above holds no water.

DETAIL:

Clearly many games have far more detail than CC3 and are far more accurate. Actually, CC3 reminds me a little of PLASTIC ARMY MEN the software and the real-world plastic toy.

CC3 cannot be the superior product in terms of detail due to it's innacurate use of eqipment like flamethrowers, etc. I just love the way my flamethrower in CC3 comes rushing up and from 60' away just terminates a dozen soldiers. Tanks wander aimlessly, pivoting, then stopping and pivoting back, then aiming, then loading, then pivoting, all the while being lit up from behind. Come on Mr. Cunningham, that is far from attention to detail.

If having a bunch of dead bodies all over is attention to detail, then woo hoo hooray, CC3 does real good then. Although, I can't see how this provides any wargaming benefit to me, especially in CC3. I constantly highlight dead soldiers, trying to get them to move.

REALISM: Fact is that AI is weak, and for CC3 the realism factor of playing WAR in real-time is linked more to your ability to mouse and point and click, and mouse and drag and drop and click and mouse and hurry and mouse, click. Come on Mr. Cunningham, RTS is nice, but it doesn't result in a more/most realistic wartime simulation. Hidden & Dangerous, SpecOps offer realism.

SCOPE: I never looked down the scope of a snipers barrel in CC3. Although I did watch a flamethrower melt a number of my soldiers (or should I say plastic army men). Hidden & Dangerous, SpecOps exceed CC3 in Scope. (SCOPE=the area or field with which any activity goes on). I am playing a West Front Scenario with thousands of units. I am half way through the scenario and have over 50 hours in so far. Please explain to me how CC3 can compare to West Front in terms of Scope?

From the sound of it (this board) and looks of it, Fionn's and Martin's AAR, it appears as though CM will offer an outstanding war simulation.

Mr. Cunningham you are clearly a knowledgeable guy and will clearly be a tuff opponent in Combat Mission. You also have a number of good points about tracking individual soldiers and I look forward to hearing BTS's responses. Be constructive and quit pickin on Fionn. Please.

Sincerely,

Richard Kalajian

[Guest John Pender]

Cunningham apologizes to Fionn, Fionn apologizes to Cunningham, a big confrontation is

defused we all get along. We all agree both parties assumed incorrectly what the other

was trying to say. There is room for both of you guys here.

WE don’t all turn on Cunningham even though he is trying to defend an obviosuly flawed

game (note the smily face Cunningham). Yes Fionn is quick to react to adverse

remarks (most likely tender from all the previously unsubstantiated attacks) Cunnigham

trying to defend a game he enjoys (with a more accurately modeled psyche system) upset

with Fionn for his perceived bias.

Ramble ramble ramble, One and a half bottles of wine latter all I can say is stop, stop,

stop. This forum is a place for cyber friends to meet and exchange ideas, not a place to

make enemies. I know we are all moody either because we are dying to see the next AAR

or because we are about to get married(go for it Fionn, it’s been nine years and so far I

can’t complain, my wife is truly my best friend and I hope your wife is and continues to be

your best friend). My biggest reason for being moody at this time personally is because my

beautiful wife Sonia has been underway for the last eight weeks on a patrol that has her

circumnavigating South America and won’t be home for another eight weeks. We are both

COASTIE ship drivers and even though we miss each other I know she is doing

something she enjoys but I still miss her( thanks for listening to me rant, I needed to get

that off my mind)

Bottom line is for over a year I haven’t seen a true argument on this forum and let me say

what I have seen between Fionn and Cunningham has left me flat, disappointed with the

both of you to be honest. Could you both PLEASE post public APOLOGIES to each

other and get along? Fionn you are a bit quick to assume the defensive and Cunnigham

you are a bit to quick to exploit what you know is a justified response. Again

remember(now two bottles of wine, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH) this is a place for friends to

meet, cant we all get along? Please can you both post your apologies so we can all move

along?

PS: Has anybody else thought it strange all the low probability AFV kills? House on fire

kills Sherman, Allied aircraft kills Panther, Stug G and 251/1’s. Sherman killing German

tank while on the move (10% chance) recent post by Steve. How about HE generated

fires in winter conditions? Lets all contain our future posts on trying to identify issues that

pertain to CM as it stands now, not on issues on what we WISH could be.

Take care all

John Pender

[Guest R Cunningham]

Kingtiger,

Why make more of this than there is? I am not trying to make CC out to be more than it is. I was disppointed with CC3 like almost everybody else.

I got your definitions from Webster's. We all seem to agree that CC3 cannot meet the standard posed by all possible definitions of that key word "unequalled." I still think that word was very carefully chosen because of the opportunity to take the narrow interpretation that unequalled means only "not equalled." This offers many benefits for the marketing guys at MICROSOFT. It is deceptive advertising, but isn't all advertising deceptive? I wonder what will be on the CC4 box when it comes out.

Regarding detail. All very good points about the problems in the game, but detail and attention to detail are not synonymous. No other game names each soldier, tracks his individual mental state, fatigue level, health, weapons, leadership skills etc. Screwy flamethrowers, tanks doing the dance of death, prisoners that provide intel for their side, mortars and bazookas that are magazine fed etc are just some of the attention to detail problems. They do not detract from the detail that is present.

Regarding realism. It many ways CC is a very realistic game. It many ways it is not. But realism is a goal that will never be reached in a one player computer wargame. The most realistic wargame ever made is run at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. It is run in real time. Real soldiers run around in real time. I don't claim that any game is realistic because it is "real time." C&C, and all the other gather and overwhelm games are very clearly not realistic, not do they try to be. Being turn based is an abstraction that allows one guy to issue orders to many units. In reality a battlion commander would issue orders to his company commanders not each and every team and squad. CC is limited precisely because by being real time it has to have a controllable number of units for the lone commander. CM is breaking new ground by going hybrid. I hope it is very successful.

Hidden and Dangerous may be fun, but it has its share of problems. Is it realistic that german sentries ignore their dead comrades around them? I've never played Spec Ops.

Regarding scope. Again from the perspective of the marketing guy who writes the blurb for the box, unequalled scope is another winner. I've never played West Front, so I can't make comparisons. I will say that this scope thing for CC3 was one of its biggest failings; trying to deliver the entirety of the four-year war in the east at the scale of a company combat team. That is what I presume to be their reference for scope. Again the narrow, legalistic interpretation of unequalled is key here. Civilization exceeds the time span of CC3.

I'm not trying to pick on Fionn.

John Pender,

Again I was not trying to defend CC from any attacks. I was merely stating that given the negative remarks made by Fionn about CC, and his acknowledged conflicts with the head of the game's developer, that I would not be inclined to accept a review he wrote at face value as objective. If hadn't posted the remark about TGN not getting a review copy because he would do the review, I would never have posted any comments about the remarks he made. His opinions of the game are his.

Father of 4,

I wasn't trying to insult or provoke him. And I see hazards in challenging one of the conoscenti of the board. I have never been to the fabled usenet forums.

[Fionn]

1. John, sometimes one side clearly did "start" whatever it was. I'm willing to forgive and forget but I don't think I have misinterpreted Cunningham's posts one whit.

2. As for your other points:

a) House on fire kills Sherman... Not realistic and has been fixed.

The Allied aircraft kills. Well, apart frm the killing of the StuG (which was a bug since the plane seemingly should only have had ONE bombdrop and NOT TWO) I found the plane's performance quite realistic. Disregarding the StuG the plane would have killed 1 Panther and 4 SPWs (2 of which only died because they were right beside eachother and so the strafing run got both of them instead of only one of them.)

c) 10% chance of hitting.. Well, probably you weren't told how many shots the Sherman fired. (I don't know since I'm not reading the other AARs). Anyways the point is that if you fire 3 x 10% shots you have a pretty good chance of hitting. If it was the StuG then it should be pointed out that it was fired at at least 8 times before it was knocked out. With a 10% to hit chance that's pretty reasonable IMO.

d) HE-generated fires.. I think that's been fixed also.. I haven't seen it happen in a few tests I've made with the beta in snow anyway so I think it's been fixed.

CM IS still a beta and the game you saw was being played on an alpha so there was and is still tweaking going on . Anyways, thanks for the game-related post John. I MUCH prefer discussing the game than trying to fend off personal attacks.

If anyone has any more questions like that fire away. I'm only too happy to answer whatever I can.

Ps. Sorry about your dissapointment but I won't sit idly by when someone is writing unjustified and incorrect things about me and I know of no court or body of people which would find anything wrong in my defending myself against what are clearly incorrect public statemtns. I defend others if someone does it to them and I'll defend myself. A simple thing I'd like to point out is that if no-one put in writing unjustified and incorrect things about me personally then I wouldn't have acted in response.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) 10% chance of hitting.. Well, probably you weren't told how many shots the Sherman fired. (I don't know since I'm not reading the other AARs). Anyways the point is that if you fire 3 x 10% shots you have a pretty good chance of hitting. If it was the StuG then it should be pointed out that it was fired at at least 8 times before it was knocked out. With a 10% to hit chance that's pretty reasonable IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only skimmed this thread because I really should be programming right now (shhh! Don't tell Steve!) but I want to mention something about the to-hit system. Just because you point the mouse at a target and it tells you a certain to-hit percentage (say 10%) that does not mean that all subsequent shots will have only a 10% chance of hitting. In fact, CM simulates target acquisition, whereby every subsequent shot (up to the fourth, IIRC) is more likely to hit. "Bracketing" is an example of this phenomenon. So perhaps the first shot might be 10% (though this is quite low and would probably only occur at long range, or if the firer is moving, or is using a very low-velocity gun) but the next could be 20%, the next 40%, and after that 50%. It's those third and fourth shots you really have to look out for - even from someone you think has a poor chance of hitting you.

But now this thread has grown too long so I'm shutting it down.

Charles