questions re. CM

[Ben Galanti]

Oscar,

I think what people seem to be objecting to is your assertation that 2D would be inherently better then 3D. Nobody is going to say that just becuase it's 3D, it's realistic (and I don't think anyone has). Obviously, a game could be 3D and still be all wrong. A crummy game is a crummy game no matter how many dimensions it has.

On the other hand, it seems silly to argue that if a 3D game has to make some assumptions and take some shortcuts, it would be better for it to be a 2D game. A 2D game MUST take some shortcuts that aren't necessary in a well programmed 3D game, by it's very nature. Going by your line of reasoning, there should be no 2D games (and no wargames at all for that mater) since they don't represent reality perfectly.

Again, you're right, a good 2D game will be better then a bad 3D game, but I don't see how you can even begin to argue that a well though out 3D game is inherently worse then the same game in 2D (of course, this is for tactical level games, like CM)

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

[OSCAR]

hmm...hj

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry Charles, but I just can't much info on how the 3D engine works underneath. Where's the thread?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is not just one thread about this. About every fourth or fifth thread on this board contains information about our game engine. Oscar, I simply don't have time to hold your hand and point out to you the hundreds of messages (not to mention the FAQ!) readily available here on this website that give detailed explanations about CM's engine. If you are too lazy to spend even five minutes looking for it or reading it, which seems to be the case, then there is little point in bothering to talk with you further. You have to make some effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you had looked a little harder, you would also have found a recent thread where we changed our minds, and added on-screen hit results for anti-vehicle fire as a direct result of input from gamers on this board. This was just in the last week or two and not hard to find here on the message boards. Oscar, your limited efforts and laziness astound me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The principle behind hexes is partly: What you can't isolate with great accuracy; don't!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we can model certain things with great accuracy. Not everything, of course, but we never claimed that. Oscar, I will ask you again and please do not dodge the question this time: What are the features of CM that you think cannot be modeled accurately? BE SPECIFIC. We have asked you this simple question over and over and over, and you IGNORE IT EVERY TIME. Could it be that you don't have a good answer and are too embarrassed to admit it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>if the 3D representation is poor, the whole concept fall in my view...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here we go again! One more time... repeating myself again for people who seem incapable of listening...

OSCAR, PAY ATTENTION. THE 3D GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE UNDERLYING GAME ENGINE.

How many times do we have to repeat that before you understand? I apologize to the audience for saying this, but it needs to be said: No one can be so stupid that he "forgets" what about ten people have been telling him multiple times in one message thread. Oscar, I can only interpret your inability to comprehend this most simple of facts as willful ignorance. You obviously wish to spread misinformation about Combat Mission by purposely ignoring the truth. We have laid out simple, straightforward information about Combat Mission and you completely ignore it, just posting ad nauseam the same ridiculous, baseless, false observations about a game you've never even seen, and clearly haven't spent more than ten minutes trying to research.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>>What little credibility you had has just gone out the window.

Ok, tell me why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because you willfully ignore the facts, make no effort to learn the truth, are completely prejudiced, closed-minded, and lazy.

Charles

[OSCAR]

>OSCAR, PAY ATTENTION. THE 3D GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE UNDERLYING GAME ENGINE.

Ok, now I know I'm an lazy idiot, but wouldn't it be easyer still to give me facts on level of detail of that "underlying" 3D engine? I assume that underlying engine is an 3D engine? It should be so easy to knock me out, since I'm exposing my chin here saying that engine result is probably GROSSLY rough and portraiting 3D objects with GREAT abstraction (making little sense letting small distances count calculating combat results).

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

The HPS freak

[OSCAR]

>I think what people seem to be objecting to is your assertation that 2D would be inherintly better then 3D. Nobody is going

Ben, if you for example read Fionn's article (or read some of the BTS info on CM) on this subject you get the *exact* opposite impression. This is what gets me going...

>to say that just becuase it's 3D, it's realistic (and I don't think anyone has). Obviously, a game could be 3D and still be all wrong. A crummy game is a crummy game no mater how many dimensions it has.

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

The HPS freak

[Fionn]

something BTS clearly STOMPED its foot down onto, with explanation it was not of relevance or importance...

*Sigh* WRONG !!! Actually I said it was unecessary and didn't think it was needed but I think Steve and Charles said they'd look into it. Charles looked in, liked it and has added labels and such text info to the game. I've had it in a build for a few days and it is a very, very good addition. That is the strength of this board.. MANY suggestions are thrown at Steve and Charles and while some are shot down as being totally impractical any which are of merit AND possible are given very serious consideration both publicly and behind the scenes.

Thanks for misrepresenting the situation again !

Tgra said "Hi Oscar, I'd guess you and the BTS chaps are quite familiar with each other."

Not being from BTS but knowing Oscar from another forum I can say that Steve and Charles had never heard of or from him until a couple of days ago.

Ben said "Nobody is going to say that just becuase it's 3D, it's realistic (and I don't think anyone has). Obviously, a game could be 3D and still be all wrong. A crummy game is a crummy game no mater how many dimensions it has."

VERY true Ben. The funny thing is that if Combat Mission was hex-based but had the same engine (modified slightly to fit hexes) then Oscar would be waxing lyrical about it. Of course, he'll deny this but it is true. It's sad that simply because a very good game tries to be innovative certain elements feel the need to disparage it. It's not that Oscar has concerns or worries that is concerning anyone.. A LOT of the people who are most interested in Combat Mission came here thinking it was all hype and had LONG, LONG explanations given them ( like what is happening with Markus' questions right now) and since they had OPEN MINDS they were reasonable. It is the fact Oscar came here with a stated agenda and is simply ignoring everyone else's counter-arguments that is annoying. Well, whatever he's into.

FWIW Charles is a VERY placid guy and if he gets exasperated then there's a reason. Come on Oscar... Read the posts people make and respond FULLY to them instead of ignoring anything which challenges you ok? It's not much of a mature debate if you fail to engage in discussion.

LOL. Oscar in your last post are you SERIOUSLY asking a company to reveal its engine to someone who has consistently failed to respond to any of the company's counter-posts?

Also, don't you think that the fact you publicly stated, before visiting this forum, that you were coming here with the express intention of dissasembling CM speaks of an agenda?

And FWIW I firmly believe that you will simply look at the engine, ignore the 95% which is more accurate than PiTS and pick on the 5% of things which are abstracted in a minor way forgetting that these same 5% are abstracted even MORE in PiTS' engine.

Face it you're not interested in the truth here. You just want to slam a game and I for one think that after the gross display of laziness (no research) and bias and ulterior motives you have displayed you don't deserve a thing. Get the beta demo and whine about that. I'm absolutely certain you will get it and spend evenings nitpicking it. It's sad but I think you'll do it.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[scoop88]

I am getting VERY TIRED of reading the ongoing debate between Oscar and a cast of thousands. I vote that EVERYBODY SHUT UP about this and discuss more meaningful topics. No one is going to convince either side, so why don't we wait until the game comes out and everybody has a chance to play it? Then Oscar and anyone else can criticize or praise the game based on what we actually experience instead of on assumptions of what the game is going to be like.

[tgra]

Ahhhhh!!!

I understand now thanks to the explanations from yourself and Ben.

I have seen, heard and read enough to convince myself of the game's pedigree.

Personally, the demo(s) will be the clincher how accurately the 3D perspective works for me.

I suppose it's all a personal thing.

Good Luck

Tony

[Los]

"you mean there is no restriction of firing these weapons -Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck and Bazooka - from any confined spaces such as rooms etc.? It should not be possible in very small rooms. that it shouldn't be portrayed to have such a weapon hit a target in the same room is obvious and it's a good thing this has been rectified. Same goes for grenades, i guess."

A quick semi-relevant note (or not). Recoiless weapons can be fired from within buildings given sufficient openings to that space. Anyone who's ever been through MOUT training in the army would have been trained in quickly judging how much open space is required for each weapon type. For example a LAW requires 65 square feet of openings (window space, blown out walls, missing roof, doors, whatever) in the room to prevent injury to the fire. That's normally three or four windows and a door. In a prepared defensive position, it's not much of an issue,(there is other things needed to be done to prep the firing area also) though a run and gun situation could be dicey. I like the idea of modelling backblast also.

Los

p.s. I'd love to respond to a lot of these non-issues but I can't ...sigh

p.p.s sorry to see this degrading to an Pits/CM pissing contest..

[Larry Marks]

Oscar, I have heard some good things about HPS' games and I respect the fact that you feel strongly about their quality. But do me a favor before you start criticizing CM play the damn demo. How can you validly attack a system that you have never played before? Once you play the demo you will be able to determine if Charles has not delivered on what he has promised. In addition, you will be able to develop an impression based on your experience as opposed to representations by others. At that point, you can have a rational discussion with this forum and point out your objections. The best thing is.....if you don't like the demo, don't buy the game. No one will have a gun to your head (although I can think of several people waiting in line for a turn to do that). This forum invites your opinions, but I puzzled by your agenda at this point. In my view, you are jumping the gun a little.

Charles and Steve......do me a favor.......forget Oscar.....If he doesn't buy the game you should still be able to avoid Chapter 11. You have made attempts to deal with him on a rational level. I think you have done all you can do.

Larry

[Guest Big Time Software]

scoop88- your point is well-taken. This has gone on long enough. I just want to say this before ending my involvement in this futile discussion.

Just above, I asked Oscar, yet again (in all capitals and italics and boldface, no less) to name his specific gripes with (his notion of) the CM engine, and not to ignore the question this time like he has repeatedly ignored it before and guess what... he ignored it again.

It is pointless to have a discussion with a person who listens selectively, and dodges all of the points made by others, only to continue spouting off the same false information over and over like a broken record. I have a mental image of Oscar sitting at his keyboard, with his fingers stuck in his ears, eyes shut tight, shouting, "I can't hear you! Nyah nyah nyah! 2D is king! Hexes rule! I can't heeeeeear you!"

Perhaps, Oscar, if you decide to drop your anti-CM agenda and spend a few minutes to open your mind and learn something rather than mindlessly slam things you refuse to understand, then we can have an intelligent discussion in the future. Until then I have no choice but to ignore your pointless, lazy, and utterly biased posts. Goodbye Oscar.

Charles

[SGTRock]

"I am talking about being notified of their arrival during the orders phase before they come on the map. They would then arrive and drive on during the TAC AI phase(or whatever it's called)immediately following. A commander would at least have that much notice they were in his sector. And probably more notice than that in reality(i.e. he would see them or hear their engines, have radio contact with them, etc). "

Sorry, I still don't know how to do quotes and I've been on this board how long? 3 months..

In any case;

I totally agree with Bil here, if it's not too much to ask for I think it should be implimented in ASAP.

This may cut down on the slaughter from the "SS-AI" Factor..

(let me know if you didn't get that joke)

PS. Nice Thread!M HOFBAUER lots of thought went into it.

Kudos!

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

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

[Thomas Davie]

>OSCAR, PAY ATTENTION. THE 3D >GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION HAS >NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE >UNDERLYING GAME ENGINE.

Give OSCAR his 2d hex based game then

Tom

[Fionn]

I've really resisted the urge to respond to Oscar's bashings here in anything but an informative manner but by this stage I'm a little annoyed at how he has misrepresented everyone and everything here.

Since Oscar won't try to prove any of his assertions regarding CM since he actually can't prove them then how about Oscar responding to a little example from PiTS and telling us how much more realistic this is than CM..

In PiTS units are randomly assigned to subportions of hexes. IIRC they are placed in one of 100 subportions of the 100 metre x 100 metre hex thus each subportion is 100 metres squared (10 metres by 10 metres).

When a tank moves from one hex to another hex it is randomly assigned to a subportion of that new 10,000 metres squared hex.

This leads to some very interesting and very false issues. Let's presume a tank moves just 1 hex eastward.

If it moves from the westernmost subportion of the first hex into the easternmost subportion of the second hex the tank will have moved 200 metres in effect whilst only having moved 1 hex.

IF, however the 1 hex of movement was from the easternmost subportion of the first hex into the westernmost subportion of the second hex (to the east of the first hex then the tank will only have moved 10 metres./

In PiTS it is possible for a 1 hex movement to result, over the course of a minute, in EITHER a ten metre move or up to a two hundred metre move.

How's that for ahistoricity Oscar? Do you think that such plainly unrealistic variations are realistic? Remember a movement of 1 hex per minute = 6 km per hour thus in 1 minute the tank should move 100 metres. Instead it moves some distance within the range of 10 to 200 metres randomly. Are you going to try to say that that's realistic?

I'd really LOVE to hear your explanation of why such variation in the distance moved when at a constant speed is more realistic than CM's system whereby a speed of 6 km per hour results in the moving of 100 metres per minute?

Would you like to tell us how PiTS is more important in this way?

Also I'd like you to tell me how PiTS which uses 100 metre hexes AND calculates armour penetration based only on 100 metre intervals (and at best some randomly assigned ten metre subplots within those 100 metres) is more accurate than CM's system which takes the distance and angle to target into account to within a metre and a single degree.

I'd be really interested to actually see you address some of these points Oscar. I don't care to compare CM with PiTS since I don't want to antagonise PiTS players but your brand of bigotry needs to be openly challenged IMO.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest R Cunningham]

If, say, a stupid person were to give oscar a copy of CM, couldn't he still play it using the top down only view and pretend it was a brilliant 2D game? Last year this option got some attention when CM was born of the ashes of the Computer Squad Leader project. In fact didn't CM even have, dare I say it now, a hex grid superimposed on the maps for polygonally-challenged individuals who are still waiting for SL/ASL to show up on a computer?

In defense of this oscar fellow, though, I get the impression from his posts that he actually has a valid point to express but he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in communicating it effectively thus far.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Not only is this thread pointless now, it is also WAY over the danger limit and is starting to get messed up. I am closing this thread.

Oscar, if you ever learn how to debate someone propperly (i.e. keeping an open mind, doing research, not dodging questions, presenting evidence to bolster your positon, etc.) you are welcome to start up a new thread based on my previous challenge to you. But your single minded purpose of discrediting something you know nothing about is not only tiring, but makes you look like a total idiot (not knowing you personally, I can only assume that you are now, even though I tried hard to give you the benefit of the doubt).

Basically... either act like an adult with a brain or simply go away and make someone else think you are a closed minded individual with little to no ability to debate anything that requires thought instead of blind faith (if there is such a thing!).

Steve