questions re. CM

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pleasure to answer informed questions M Hofbauer!

#2 - Yes, good point. We are seeing what can be done about that. The existing system is, as you say, too easy to spot passengers in enclosed APC vehicles. I think it was on the tip of my brain a couple of times, but the last bit of thought never happened to come up with a similar concern Thanks!

#3 - Understand what you are talking about. It was easier to make all PAT weapons act the same way. The visual feedback is also important, though Ben has offered an alternative suggestion that yeilds the needed feedback AND the level of realism that we do wish to have. Changes are being looked into.

#5 - The sandbags increased standoff range of impact, thus actually INCREASING the optimal penetration range for something like a PF. Unlike skirt or spaced armor, which has air inbetween it and the main armor, the sandbags are a solid mass, which acts to funnel all the energy of the explosion towards the main armor. In other words, it acts in the exact oppoiste way skirt/spaced armor works. In one of the threads we had an engineer with a high degree of understanding on this issue explain it in even more detail. In any case, IIRC only one division outfitted their tanks with sandbags to any great degree (11th Armored?)

#6 - Yes, the different PFs are in the game. I don't think we included the 150 though, since it was so rare. Yes, a PAT round has the chance to cause casualties, or knock out something like a bunker, it just isn't as likely to do this as it would be to simply pin the target.

#7 - Any unit next to a unit firing a PAT inside a house instantly "takes cover". This includes the firing unit as well. We can not simulate the difference between firing from a small room, a big room with lots of flamable clutter, or a big room that is open. So it is either ban PATs from indoor use or allow certain abstractions. I think we all know what the best choice is here

I mistyped. THe Flak 37 is NOT in Combat Misison. Flak 36 is

#8 - Not sure about friendly casualties, but probably not likely. Just disruptive, which can lead to casualties.

#9 - I have read accounts of infantry surrendering to tanks that had no infantry support. The point about surrendering at long range is that you have to be pretty much ready to call it quits. Therefore if you walk up to the tank and see no enemy infantry, you aren't going to probably try and start fighting again. There were several threads on taking of prisoners and the abstractions we use.

#10 - The problems in Fionn/Martin's game was generally due to bugs/tweaks that needed to be fixed. No unit can be forced to not fire in self defense, but they are less likely to open up because of something that looks good but is non-threatening.

#11 - Just slowed down. This was the primary purpose of barbed wire. Keep the infantry tied up so you could bring fire on them BEFORE they got through. The means of getting through aren't very different, although banglores in the right situations could be more effective (we don't simualte these).

#12 - Although I too have read about the things that some crew members did after getting knocked out, it wasn't the norm. Problem with a game is that if you allow this sort of thing to happen you open up the game to abuse. Abuse is the #1 way to turn an otherwise realistic wargame into a gamey "cheap move" environment. So some small details need to be left out by design.

The question about the SMG was cleared up already.

#13 - Yup, very tough problem. So far there have been lots of ideas, but they generally involve "scope creep", and that is a no-no Be interested to hear your ideas for the next one.

#14 - No, not intentionally. However, the majority of cases where you would suddenly want to do this you can't because it is during resolution. Generally the TacAI makes the right call, but sometimes guys are too slow to make their desire to surrender and the enemy scores additional hits.

#15 - Planes have to "spot" their targets just like ground units. The smaller the target, and the more concealed, the less chance it is going to find it. Planes can also attack friendly targets by mistake.

I know of the award, but again stress that this is not something you would see in the front lines during a CM sized battle. Don't forget that a German unit was much more likely to see an enemy plane when not in combat, and the award says nothing about the conditions surrounding the shoot down. In other words, a unit not engaged in ground combat would shoot at the plane and would get the award if it were downed.

#16a - You are correct, and this has already been answered. We do have abstraction, but not tracking individual men in a statistical fashion is not one of them.

#16b - Hehe.. we actually held this up as an example of our ruthlessness in attacking gamey moves like this. In fact, Martin was never fooled, but we changed the code to ensure this. It can still happen at longer ranges (and that is VERY realistic), but closer ranges it won't. Also, Fionn paid a very high price for this move and might have even lost the battle because of it.

Thanks for the questions. We enjoy answering well informed, thoughtfull, but still understanding questions such as yours. CM will never be perfect, but through dialog and rational thought (with a good dose of research ) we can always make the game better.

Steve

[Guest JonS]

In relation to M Hofbauers point #7 “Firing PFs Indoors”

I know this has been covered before, but I’ve been thinking (famous last words…). The solution to the problem of firing PFs - and I think other inf AT weapons – indoors was that you now cannot target a unit inside the same building as yourself. This is fine, but the problem I have is that it creates a special case, when a more general rule would suffice.

The problem to be solved is that units were firing an HE round at such close range that the detonating round affected the firer too. Rather than the special case that has been used, what about giving all HE weapons (inf AT, grenades, mortars, and any others that I’ve forgotten) a MINIMUM range? This min-range could be modified for variables such as intervening terrain (which would allow a unit to flip grenades through windows), proximity of friendly forces, morale state of unit trying to fire, position of the moon, alignment of the stars, and so on. The advantage I see of this is that it is applicable to all situations where two units are firing at each other _at close range_, indoors or outdoors.

I realise that a) city fighting is where this is most likely to occur, there is already a fix for this most likely case, c) I’ve ignored back blast from RPGs, and c) it may well be too late for the fix to go in, but, well, I thought it was worth further consideration.

Thanks

JonS

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi JonS,

Weapons that have minimum firing ranges in fact do. I think the minimum range for a 60mm morter is something like 100m for example. In any case, these weapons can not be fired from inside a house. The minimum range aspect is also just as applicable in an open setting as it is in a city (though obviously lethality goes up in dense terrain). I am fairly sure units won't use a PAT at extreme close ranges (like under 5m or something?). But at such range the chances of the unit having the opportunity to use it are slim to begin with.

Steve

[Fionn]

Markus,

3. Oh don't worry about major ahistoricities like certain other games we know . No Sturmtigers in Caen just for fun . But the smoke trail is a very valuable visual aid and ensures you don't ever miss a rocket being fired. IF your units can see it. I've had tanks knocked out by bazookas many times when the shot has been unspotted and all I see is a sudden funeral pyre.

4. Nothing definite Markus but user modifications of the files ARE possible and it will be possible to create camo'ed vehicles. hell it'll be possible to create new graphics and sounds and put them in for the current ones if you want to go mad and do that. BTS games have always been very open that way.

5. Actually the whole thread was about the stand-off ranges of thw warheads. Heat warheads need to detonate at a certain distance from the armour for the shaped jet to be maximally effective.

Look at the current generation of heat warheads which have a projector sticking some distanec out from the shell which ensures warhead detonation at a standoff range close to the optimal...

Using sandbags you actually cause the Heat round to be detonated farther from the tank and closer to its optimal standoff detonation and thus INCREASING penetration. The question then becomes do the sandbags absorb enough of the jet stream to compensate for the increased efficiency which the standoff range they create gives the HEAT round.

That's the basic reason why this was decided IIRC.

6. Panzerfaust 30s, 60s 100s and 150s are represented. Only the 150 is fitted with a fragmentation sleeve and is thus more effective anti-infantry than the others. They're all in and correct that I can see.

7. Individual rooms inside houses are abstracted and so restricting bazooka fire from inside houses randomly (since a random factor would have to be introduced for a % chance of the zook being in a small room) isn't done.

I think Steve is talking about a 37mm-mounting Flak vehicle... If he's referring to an actualy Flak 37 (which I didn't realise was in) then it's just one of the many, many vehicles which will be modelled. FWIW if BF.C wants to put in some esoteric vehicles for fun BUT puts them in with the right data (as they do) then I'm all for it.

8. Well, if it was implemented you'd end up having people run over their men by mistake and complain that the men "would have had the intelligence to get out of the way." In other words, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't... Personally I think the way that penalises me least and assumes that my infantry have some survival instinct is the way to go.

9. I've had tank crew 400 metres from my units surrender after their tank was knocked out.. The fact that they were on the east side of a river and ALL the other enemy units were on the west side no doubt had a big part to play in their surrender LOL.

10. really, really hide is done by actually moving them into terrain where they can only see the enemy from close range (e.g. move them a few metres deeper into the forest) OR by setting an ambush marker. The ambush marker means they won't open fire until the enemy reaches a certain point (although poor troops are likely to mess up and fire early thus breaking the ambush )..

That happened to me in a game yesterday.. I had a great ambush with a German volksgrenadier platoon (2 veteran squads, 1 green squad). I set an ambush marker 40 metres in front of the platoon position.. As the enemy walked towards the houses I was hiding in I expected a massacre but the bloody green squad opened fire at about 80 metres and ruined my entire ambush :-(.

An entire US platoon I would otherwise have wiped out was spared.

11. Slowed in a general way. I think engineers might get a bonus for barbed wire and suchlike but I'm not sure..

12. Major Bake.. Yes he got those for dismounted attacks on Soviet tanks. Bake was one hell of a tank leader. The fact he had his own little Kampfgruppe heavy in Tigers and Panthers and elite Panzergrenadiers didn't hurt his functionality though it must be noted

P.s. Looks like it was an error in the alpha which has since been fixed. Remember that was only an alpha we were using and is a version which is now well over two months old. Given that your average game might be in production for 18 months 2 months is a long, long time in development. Lots of stuff you see there is much improved now.

14. Not in yet but your aim is to WIN !!! Anyways the AI does a good job in figuring out when to surrender. CM's global morale is a simple system but works very well at truly destroying fighting potential once a defensive position starts to fall.

16b. Well the good thing with having sneaky bastards like me playing the game is that I find and report any gamey ways to exploit the game. Then Steve and Charles eliminate them. This was gamey and the gameyness has been removed IMO. It can still be done but it won't work as well and thus really is taking your life into your hands.

Hope that helps some more

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 10-19-99).]

[MikeO]

Whilst we're discussing the AARs I thought I'd make a point that I'd held off mentioning because I thought the game was still in progress. It may seem minor but I notice the crews of the German half tracks were in black panzer uniform. I've read only panzer crews could wear black and even then they usually wore green overalls at this late stage. SP crews wore a field grey version but half- track crews in PzGren units would wear PzGren uniform. May seem like nit-picking but I notice Fionn's use of dismounted crews to pretend he had more infantry didn't fool Martin for a second when he saw their little black number!

Mike O'Brien

[Guest Ssnake]

"#13 - Yup, very tough problem. So far there have been lots of ideas, but they generally involve "scope creep", and that is a no-no Be interested to hear your ideas for the next one."

Well, in Steel Beasts we use mostly scripted unit behavior (instead of some high-level AI). My major concern when creating missions was so far, to show the player that there's always a bunch of buddies to his flanks. Now the player fight in conjunction with computer controlled units around him, and has a limited area of battle for his own.

Without precautions the player still can screw things up (e.g. by outmaneuvering the enemy AI units by moving throught his buddies's area). However, you can place "neutral zones" that will decrease your score if you stayed too long outside your designated area.

I dunno if that approach would work for you, too - but if you have a good strat AI for RED, why not have some AI controlled BLUE units, too. You create an "envelope of friendlies", and stop the scope from creeping.

[OSCAR]

Dave,

>Yourself, and several others, seem to be totally hung up on the notion that the 3d aspects of CM are nothing but "eye-candy" and "window dressing". That the actual 3d graphics that you, the player, will see on the screen are just that, while the game itself is nothing more than an approximation. Pretty

For YOU fans of this type of game i really HOPE it purely IS, otherwise it will prove to be MAJORLY flawed Some questions for you: How many polygons (details) do you think it will take to portrait the environment of these events with any credibility? (shouldn't be hard for you make a qualified guess with your engineer degree in 3D graphics, for me it's harder I only got a CS degree . If you like me come to the conclusion CM in its current state is insufficient, then, is there any need to model the importance of single object movement in inches? or calculate hits with pixel accuracy? Like I've said earlier, it sounds like cleaning dust in a room full of rubble. This is one of the problems with the 3D implementation, scale of game, micromanagement and the lack of, or balance in portraiting "micro" details are other areas where problems surely must arise.

Can you now understand why I still think "less" could be more?

...now, back to fort capuzzo

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

The HPS freak

[OSCAR]

ooops, my post was for Mike.

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

The HPS freak

[Moon]

Oscar,

you are still confusing the visual 3D effects of CM (polygons) with the 3D engine "under the hood". In other words -the basic game engine does not need ANY polygons. You only need them to give players something to look at.

(And since I have no degree in this I hope I am right...gulp)

Martin

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mike, yes, only tankers were supposed to have the black uniform. Armored engineers had a variation of it though. The problem is, at the moment, that all vehicle crews are treated the same in terms of uniform. There were three distinct uniforms at this stage (plus camo varaitions). Black = tankers, fieldgray (same design) = assault guns and certain other AFVs (like ACs), standard field uniform = infantry AFVs. There were exceptions to this, but it is more or less a rule. We hope to change this, but might not make it into v 1.0

Ssnake, this is "scope" creep I have forces, controlled by the AI, on my left flank. Great, but who is attacking them and who is on their left flank? Is someone else attacking them, or do they sit idle? And how is all this simulated It is an abstraction just as much as what we have now, but it involves a lot more work out of us and the CPU/Graphics card.

Oscar, you are so profoundly flawed in your logic it really is a shame. Not only are you confusing the visual look with what goes on underneath, you are subscribing to the "if you can't do it 100% correct, why bother doing it at all" camp. So, by your logic we should all be walking instead of driving since cars are far from the most perfect form of transportation (which is teleporting). Any notion that a 2D wargame is MORE realistic, or even CLOSE, simply because it makes no attempt to be realistic is a joke. The game you have tied yourself so blindly too is a HUGE abstraction, and therefore anything that is less of an abstraction IS AN IMPROVEMENT when it comes to reality. My challange for you to post exact where CM "falls down" in realism, especially vs. PitS, still stands. So far you have DODGED every criticism of PitS massive abstractions, especially when CM doesn't have them, so I wonder why you even bother? And again... I really fail to see how a 10 year old graphic standard found in your favorite games can even be compared to CM.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Martin,

You are correct. CM's underlying engine is not dependent on the visual polygons in any way. The polygons are visual-only. The engine takes three dimensions into its calculations, but not the pixels nor the polygons.

This has been pointed out to Oscar several times already, and yet he still does not seem to understand. Perhaps he is purposely ignoring it because it does not fit with his desire to discredit Combat Mission?

Charles

[OSCAR]

Martin,

>you are still confusing the visual 3D effects of CM (polygons) with the 3D engine "under the hood". In other words -the basic game engine does not need ANY polygons. You only need them to give players something to look at.

Well I figured, but the exact issue should stand for that underlying "basic 3D game engine", no matter what your screen displays...

>(And since I have no degree in this I hope I am right...gulp)

Neither have I to be honest, I went for work with one semester short

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

The HPS freak

[OSCAR]

Ok, Charles, post me graphical views of an object (i.e. house, tank, tree) the screen displays and the same plotted object of what the underlying engine works on, so I can get the picture on level of detail.

You got the chance to impress me.

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

The HPS freak

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ok, Charles, post me graphical views of an object (i.e. house, tank, tree) the screen displays and the same plotted object of what the underlying engine works on, so I can get the picture on level of detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a better idea. How about you read through the various posts here on the message board where this and many other related topics have been discussed in detail already. You do a little work, read up on what we've made public, understand it, and then come back and we'll talk.

Until then, pardon me for not spoon-feeding you but I have a game to write.

Charles

[Fionn]

Oscar,

Instead of Charles taking time off from actually making the game (his time is valuable) why don't you start off by addressing ALL of the errors in your thinking which I, others, Steve AND Charles have pointed out.

Instead of merely dodging those points and ignoring them why don't you prove PiTS is more accurate instead of simply making statements based on your "opinions" which are hugely flawed beause you have never even played CM AND stated before coming over here that your purpose in joining this forum was to discredit CM.

Come on Oscar drop the bigotry and address ALL the points which I and others have made pointing out errors in PiTS which are not present in CM instead of continually (Purposely?) misinterpreting or ignoring what others are saying to you.

If PiTS is better than prove to me and others that all those instances we have shown of errors and lack of realism in PiTS vis a vis Combat Mission are false.

IF, on the other hand, you cannot address ALL those points and disprove them then perhaps you should simply stop making baseless accusations ok?

It really is looking like you are going to hang onto an opinion formed in the absence of knowledge regardless of what anyone says. (And lets not forget your publicly avowed reason for coming here, namely to "dissasemble CM".. Talk about a vendetta and an ulterior motive eh? )

LOL I'm adding this line cause I see Charles beat me to the response . Glad to see you are focussing on the beta demo and leaving those who are rather intransigent to their own devices. Read up on it Oscar and then come back with an open mind. A LOT of people have shown up here thinking CM must be another piece of marketing hype and after hearing explanations to their questions have realised what it offers. Of course, they all had open minds and a willingness to learn. Exhibit both and you'll be more than welcome.

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 10-19-99).]

[Moon]

And meanwhile, Oscar, how about impressing us with how PITS models a house, tank, tree while using 100m hexes?

[Mike D]

Oscar,

I can see your point, but only to a minor extent. First though, let me clear up something. I'm a mechanical engineer. That's what my degree is in, that's what I do. In fact I've designed all sorts of things from control mechanisms and wing/body structures in aircraft, to tooling, to believe it or not, rockets. Lot's of having to understand 3d physics, mechanics and the like along with using numerous tools, including writing computer code and the appropriate physics equations in order to model real objects in a real 3d world in order to solve real problems. What I did not claim, nor would I, is that I have a degree in 3d graphics.

However, I don't need one by any means to speak w/ some degree of authority about modeling the real world. By pure logic it is easy to reason that a 3d model of a 3 dimensional system is inherently more accurate in every way shape and form, than some form of 2d approximation of a 3d system. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it. It's pretty much a pure and simple fact. If you took any physics classes in college you should know this (I'm not trying to slam you here by the way, just pointing out simple facts).

Next, by classifying CM as "this type of game" you immediately throw it into a category (I'm assuming here, but it sure is what it sounds like to me) along with other 3d games like Quake, Doom, and the like. In many ways CM is nothing like these games, so such comparisons really don't buy us much. Just as worrying about how many polygons each tree, tank, building, soldier, etc. is represented by don't either. Fact of the matter is as far as I understand how CM is designed it JUST PLAIN DOESN'T MATTER. Why? Because the game is a 3d mathematical engine which models the 3d physics of the CM world for the most part totally independentt of the 3d graphics themselves. That is to say that the 3d graphics are largely just layered on top of the true 3d game engine model if you want to think of it that way to form an overall cohesive picture (Charles/Steve please correct me if I'm wrong here). So worrying about how many polygons are used to model the entities in this world really doesn't matter that much. The downside of this is that certain approximations have to be made in order to make the system work, but they are:

1) Still wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better, and more accurate I might add, than having to deal with the approximations of ANY 2d model of our 3d world that you seem to cling to so dearly.

And

2) About as close as "we" can come to having a tactical game at CM's scale without having to run it on a CRAY super-computer. Which is probably what it would take (if not a whole lot more) to actually model every entity (tank, soldier, wall, tree, building, etc.) in the CM world, with a couple hundred polygons each, in order to derive an accurate 3d physics model based on the same 3d graphical model as the graphics themselves.

Think of it as if you wrote a purely mathematical based program to simulate a 3 dimensional robot for the next Star Wars movie. A program that simulates and models every last movement and function of the robot in all of its gory detail. 3d masses, accelerations, vectors and the whole bloody mess it all entails. And then a grahpic artist came along and built the actual 3d graphics of the robot on top of your model as it were, and together you tied the two together so that they work in unison as a single seamless entity on the movie screen. In a nutshell (although I'm sure there are some differences) this is exactly what is going on in CM (again Steve/Charles correct me if I'm wrong here).

"This is one of the problems with the 3D implementation, scale of game, micromanagement and the lack of, or balance in portraiting "micro" details are other areas where problems surely must arise."

I think you are dreaming up problems out of assumptions and inuendo here that in all liklihood simply don't exist. Hopefully when the demo comes out you can play it for yourself and I think you will find that the game doesn't suffer much, IF ANY, from these potential problems you are raising. Will it be 100% perfect? I very much doubt it. Will it probably be an order of magnitude, or even better, improvement over any other tactical wargame ever made modeling combat at the battalion level and available for sale to the public? My guess is you are going to find out it most certainly is. But only time will tell, right?

Finally, I think you've raised some very interesting questions and discussions here and over in the other earilier thread. It's always good to have someone with a fresh view on things and even a certain amount of skepticism can be a good thing too. Only problem is most of your arguments are based on false assumptions, total lack of facts, or comparison to another game which simply is not even in the same class as CM in terms of it's ability to model the real 3d world as near as I can tell. By the way I make no claim whatsoever about the accuracy, or lack there of, of the HPS games. I know nothing about them and have honestly never played them although I have heard that they were supposed to be farily good games. So what I say here in terms of comparing the two games is merely an inference from what I've heard about the game from here and elsewhere. Nothing more, and nothing less.

"Can you now understand why I still think "less" could be more?"

Yes, but I also understand that you can look at a glass that's 50% full of water and decide that it is either half empty, or half full. Only problem here is that you are looking at a glass of water in CM that is really way more than half full and still seeing a glass that is only, at best, half empty. Like I said before, you can give CM a chance and play the demo or you can close your eyes and crawl back into the supposedly better world of HPS and the like and never even attempt to see if CM really is a "good" game, or not. It's a free world, the choice is yours.

Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oscar, you are obviously on a bender to discredit CM before you even know anything about it. In any field of science this would be called "lazy", or worse. Neither Charles nor I will respond to your posts until:

1) you do some homework about what CM is before trying to rip into it. There are nearly 10,000 posts here. No need to read everyone, but the ammo you so despirately wish to find to support your prefabricated conceptions can be found here or not at all.

2) you rise to our challenge and tell us all the "confirmed" inaccuracies in Combat Mission vs. any game of your choice. Obviously you need to first figure out what is IN CM before you can do this.

3) answer all outstanding problems that others have pointed out in the PitS system, as well as not dodging future ones. I'm not talking the terrible graphics and horrible interface, but historical accuracy. It is plain to see that PitS can't compete in such categories.

4) Lose the attitude. You are not only making a fool out of yourself, but you are dragging HPS' hard work through the mud. We are perfectly happy to not compare CM to any of Scott's work, but if we must we must. And it is not going to be a pretty comparison.

There you go. Either behave like someone who actually cares about truth, or be ignored at least by us. We have no time to deal with someone who has shown not one ounce of credability as an open minded individual.

Steve

[Guest John Pender]

I think our Oscar is the same one who lives on Sesame Street, that would explain his grouch like attitude.

Seriously Oscar, lighten up. If you have honest concerns/complaints (as we all have had) and you genuinely want them answered, address them here in a rational manner and IM sure the BTS boys will go along way to answer them. Give the game a chance view it with an open mind. If you can't do that go play pits/tits and leave us alone at least until the game and demo come out, play them and if your still not happy then by all means come back and present your arguments.

Whoa how bout those ARR'S

[OSCAR]

>discussed in detail already. You do a little work, read up on what we've made public, understand it, and then come back and we'll talk.

Sorry Charles, but I just can't much info on how the 3D engine works underneath. Where's the thread? (I figure what's plotted is "." ) I *did* find an intresting thread where someone was asking for an option to get more combat result information ongoingly displayed on screen, something BTS clearly STOMPED its foot down onto, with explanation it was not of relevance or importance...

Steve,

>Any notion that a 2D wargame is MORE realistic, or even CLOSE, simply because it makes no attempt to be realistic is a joke.

Says who? Would you claim that i.e. assuming an object is 2/3 hidden is less acurate than the 3D modeling of this in a generalized way? The math behind such an estimation can be statistically proven, but I find it hard to believe the outcome from micromanaged events in a roughly outlined 3D model can, and given the scope of the game I wonder if this makes it adequate enough. The principle behind hexes is partly: What you can't model with great accuracy: don't!

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

The HPS freak

[OSCAR]

>The principle behind hexes is partly: What you can't model with great accuracy: don't!

hmmm... my english is not that good,

correction: What you can't isolate with great accuracy; don't!

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

The HPS freak

[fatherof4]

OSCAR,

What little credibility you had has just gone out the window.

1) You don't have time to look for the answers to your questions, just to find things to criticize. Sure. (BTW, you even managed to totally misrepresent the one example you picked.)

2) Since CM isn't perfect (no one said it was), the attempt to try to improve the genre of wargames shouldn't have been made.

Are you also a member of the "Flat Earth Society"? After all, the world is not a perfect sphere so people who say the earth is round are wrong. Should we ignore Christopher Columbus because his attempt to sail around the world was a failure?

I don't blame BTS for ignoring you.

fo4

[This message has been edited by fatherof4 (edited 10-20-99).]

[tgra]

Hi Oscar,

I'd guess you and the BTS chaps are quite familiar with each other.

However, I've been trying to follow your

arguments in this thread and must be missing something.

As I'm certain there's an interesting point

about 3D vs 2D gaming worlds can you explain the problem a little bit more?

If we take the LOS article as an example, I believe you're saying "It doesn't matter how accurate the 3D world shows LOS if the underlying code doesn't model it accurately". I apologise if I am wrong.

I can't believe that BTS are going to supply any code to support their argument. However, the movies and screenshots have convinced me the game will look good. The LOS and AI articles have 70% convinced me that the coding is good. The 'sound effects' threads have convinced me it'll sound good. The AARs have convinced me the game is atmospheric and involving.

I'm now waiting for the Beta Demo to convince me the game is stable and give the other 30%

LOS and AI (plus FOW) coding confidence.

Then all I need is the gold demo for an insight to the final product and, for Xmas, the game.

If I get all these things in a product and it's seems to play accurately for ME then I'm

not fussed what the engine is doing.

Cheers

Tony

P.s. I'm not sure it matters but I support CAD packages. Forgetting 2D drawings, the modelling is all 3D. The clash and interference detection is all within the maths engine but the Design Engineers still use the 3D model to visualise.

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

[OSCAR]

Tony,

>If we take the LOS article as an example, I believe you're saying "It doesn't matter how accurate the 3D world shows LOS if the underlying code doesn't model it accurately". I apologise if I am wrong.

Ok, considering the ingame "LOS engine" is at charge all times, and this is something Charles confirmed, I'm saying it's ALL that matters. If the 3D representation which the "LOS engine" is doing all it's calculations on is poor (visually I think it is), the whole concept falls in my eyes. Am I making sense?

[This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 10-20-99).]

[This message has been edited by OSCAR (edited 10-20-99).]

[OSCAR]

>What little credibility you had has just gone out the window.

Ok, tell me why?

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

The HPS freak