Bullethead Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Fion said (in the Large Tank Battle thread): >>>>>>> At the moment I'm "testing" a scenario I made which is totally ahistorical, unrealistic and should destroy my reputation for being a stickler for realism but its just so much damn fun <<<<<<<<< As I sit here dreaming of getting my own twitchy, skeletal fingers on the editor, my musings occasionally go beyond mere possession and on to what I'll actually do with it. And here I hit a snag... There were only a finite number of actual fights. Only a small subset of these are documented in the detail required to make a truly accurate scenario. I have access to only a tiny fraction of this documentation. And those people with better access will certainly make and upload all the historical scenarios I could possibly want. So, what about realistic hypotheticals? Hmmm, not much luck there, either. There are only so many variations you can do with the standard types of battles and keep any kind of balance. And again, other folks will be doing this left and right. So then it hit me.. Throw all contextual realism out the window! Just make FUN schlachtfests. Steal ideas from multiplayer Myth, for example . I'm already envisioning making a CM version of the classic Myth map "For Carnage Apply Within" and designing a "Last Man on the Hill" scenario for it . Gawd, wouldn't that be great? . I know, I know, the realism fanatics will burn me at the stake for abusing such a god-given miracle as CM. "Blasphemy!" they'll scream. Well, here's my answer to that. The historical context of such scenarios is that they are taking place in Valhalla or Hell or that Purgatory described in "The Defense of Hill 782." It's not blasphemy because the Gods of War set it up that way . I hope others feel the same way. I look forward to playing some REALLY wild games in the future . -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucifer Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 DUDE!!! Could you EVEN imagine a king of the hill game with like 4 people in a TCP/IP set up??? WOW!!!!! with this game!! That would be JUST incredible!! See!! that is what I mean about letting the game live up to it's full potential!! The possibilities are endless... ------------------ Brucifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Solution : Label the scenerios/campaigns as 'Historical' or 'Not...Just for Fun' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Well, CombatHQ IS going to offer scenario hosting and there will be ratings for the historical accuracy of the scenario. I think that I'll simply make 3 or 4 categories ranging from "I researched every single tank type and used satellite maps for the map-making" to " hey, I had a cool idea about what would happen to 25 Shermans vs 2 JagdTigers... Here's the scenario " I'll let the authors nominate which section their scenario should go in and then, hey presto, there you go. A simple, effective way to categorise scenarios quickly. I for one would love to see people converting lots of conflicts modelled poorly in other games to CM ... The MAPS to these games are there so I see no reason not to copy them over. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 If you want satellite imagery, go to www.terraserver.microsoft.com . There's satellite imagery of the terrain in Market-Garden and some of Bulge, but none of Normandy. Of course, you have to realize the Europeans built some news buildings and highways in the last 50 years if you take a modern satellite image and turn it into a CM scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 AAcooper, Nothing beats photo recon photos at the time of the battle. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Bullethead, oh so correct about the research materials. However, I think you totally underestimate how many "plausible", but not historical, scenarios you can make. If you have a deep understanding of the weapons, forces, timeframe, objectives, terrain, etc. that went into battles in general you will be able to make far more scnearios than you have time to play. The three that you guys have played took me pretty much about 9 hours to make (roughly) and then a few more to test them adequately. I changed hardly anything from my first draft. Just remove something here, add something there. No major redos. IMHO, all three of these are quite plausible, but none are historical. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted November 21, 1999 Author Share Posted November 21, 1999 Steve said: >>>>>> Bullethead .... I think you totally underestimate how many "plausible", but not historical, scenarios you can make. <<<<<<<<< I guess I didn't express myself well on this score. Sure, with all the different types of units included in the game, the number of believable confrontations you could make is very high--much higher than we'll see get uploaded, I'm quite sure . What I meant was, despite all the variation you can have in OOBs and terrain, you still have only a few basic types of fight happening. Mostly meeting engagements, raids, attacks/advances, deliberate assaults, and a few others. IOW, although your tactics each time will have to be based on the units and terrain involved, you still have one of the same old missions to accomplish. True, this is a limitation imposed by the nature of war, not due to any feature of CM itself. It's what you see in real life, and as such, it's what you see in all wargames. Nothing wrong with this--lotsa fun, gives you realistic tasks and decision-making, etc. etc. This is why we all play wargames. And CM's ability to deliver this with such quality is why we're all in a state of rapture over it. But, even so, it WILL be nice to break the mold once in a while. CM's editor will give us the ability to invent totally new mission/battle types that have no basis in reality, except for the units involved and the mechanics of how they interact. Just-for-fun stuff. While I certainly plan to spend the bulk of my CM time playing historical or plausible scenarios, I also plan to embrace the off-the-wall potentials of the game wholeheartedly . -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted November 21, 1999 Author Share Posted November 21, 1999 Fionn said: >>>>>>>>> I think that I'll simply make 3 or 4 categories ranging from "I researched every single tank type and used satellite maps for the map-making" to " hey, I had a cool idea about what would happen to 25 Shermans vs 2 JagdTigers... Here's the scenario " <<<<<<<<<< Very good idea. For future reference, where can we find this place? >>>>>>>>> I for one would love to see people converting lots of conflicts modelled poorly in other games to CM <<<<<<<<<<< Or even well-modeled boardgame scenarios that you just want to see in CM. Yup, I plan on plagiarizing all my favorite SL and ASL scenarios . -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 AH! Now I see what you mean Yes, you are talking about things that wouldn't have happened on the battlefield, not so much because there isn't lots of other stuff to do, but because you have a warped mind like Fionn Gotcha! BTW, you should discover the joys of UBB's quoting parameters. The first bit is and then the last bit is the same thing but with a slash before the q ([/qu...]). That way you get this funky thing: Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wargames are so cool!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 http://combathq.thegamers.net It is in the final stages of a redesign based on the fact that when I do html it's an unmitigated disaster Soon you should be given reasons to visit though ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 did steve really say.. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> wargames are so cool!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> if so, he is right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted November 22, 1999 Author Share Posted November 22, 1999 Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, you should discover the joys of UBB's quoting parameters...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, at least I had the initiative to improvise my own field expedient method . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>AH! Now I see what you mean ... you have a warped mind like Fionn<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I KNOW you've got to be a closet WW2-Myth crossbreeder, too . Whenever somebody camped on me in an LMOTH game, I always wished from some off-board arty to teach him a lesson. And can you imagine the point-blank schlachtfests around the rim of the volcano crater on a map like "For Carnage" ? -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted November 22, 1999 Author Share Posted November 22, 1999 Fionn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>http://combathq.thegamers.net<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks. I'll be sure to victimize you with whatever crap I create -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 Bullethead, Victimise away . As for Myth I'm one of those who owned neithe Myth nor Myth II./ They're real-time you see and I don't do much real-time strategy gaming. I do enough to review the odd real time strategy game but I play mostly turn-based (and some flight sims ). ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 Just to lighten the mood a little, let me interject a dumbos anecdote from the archive. A guy visited our local wargames club when i was a lad. He went around taking to task all the rules and so forth we were using for inaccuracy. This is fine after all picking apart games for inaccuracy is a marvellous partt of the hobby. Anyway, once he came over to our table where I was with my opponent ,Bruce, who was a gruff sort of fellow at the best of times. This new guy started on critizing Bruces army list choices as unhistorical, there was a pause but no response from Bruce. Being a polite person and unable to bear the pregnant silence, I engaged the new guy with some chat about my list and asked his views, during which he then glady warbled on for a few minutes. Bruce just went on moving his units and taking his move. Then the new guy looked closely at one of Bruces tanks which he had painted and pointed out that the painting scheme was wrong. He ended his little lecture with the line "I mean if you cant be bothered to paint your tanks properly why should they fight for you?" Quick as a flash Bruce turn to him and said in a flat tone. "Becuase they are little bits of lead thats why." Amid blushes at reality the new guy shuffled away. I always get a chuckle out of that one. When it comes to realism I have always thought Guy Sajer got it about right when he says "War novels shouldnt be read in an armchair but knee deep in freezing mud." Hey ho. Now back to the main channel. _dumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted November 22, 1999 Author Share Posted November 22, 1999 Fionn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for Myth I'm one of those who owned neithe Myth nor Myth II./ They're real-time you see and I don't do much real-time strategy gaming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I get this a lot whenever I bring up Myth amongst grognards . Bungie called Myth an RTS game because it's sho'nuff realtime and it's definitely not historical. I guess they did this to cash in on the C&C/Warcraft RTS mania going on at the time. It must have paid off for them, but it had the unfortunate effect of keeping wargamers away from it . Deal is, Myth is a purely tactical wargame. DYO your force for that particular stand-alone battle and go for it, none of that RTS base-building crap. Myth is basically the same thing as Close Combat or Sid's Gettysburg. The only thing it has in common with the C&C-type game is realtime. Of course, Myth isn't a serious wargame. It's all about how big a pile of body parts you can make . Still, it's a wargame and a lot of fun. Real tactical principles apply, etc. You should try it when you feel the need to let your hair down . -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 Dumbo, that is a GREAT one Bullethead, Myth is a great game. Of course, I like "traditional" RTS games too, if they are good The guys at Bungie are also my all time heroes. I've know them for... 6 years now? Seen them go from 2 man company to 101st fastest growing company in the US (Forbes? last year?). They did it their own way and are one of only a handful of independent publishers left. Myth II came out while I was too engrosed in CM to do much gaming ;( Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts