Revolution?

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PC sales data is tabulated from in-store sales. Since BF.C sells direct via the net such sales data won't become public knowledge AND the big boys won't make changes without such full data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What irony. The same methods that destroys interesting wargames will backfire. I like that.

[Thomas Davie]

>Lastly, people who get it need to be >willing to stand up in other forums and >argue against those who are too tied to the >old ways.

Er ah, like me Fionn So, considering that I'm going to have the game AND I'm too tied to the old ways (hexes, phases, what have you), I should uh, be taking myself to task?

I'm sold on the game (not pre ordered though) and *I* don't buy into all of CM. Enough to purchase it though. Should I consider my purchase of the game as a vindication of Battlefront's vision or as a downpayment on what I *hope* computer wargaming can be? I'm really curious on this one.

All I can say is 'thank god that the game is flexible enough to allow me to play exclusively in 2d mode'.

Defend it? Heck, why not. Mind you, I was slightly aghast that my girlfriend's son thought West/East Front looked 'COOL, ITS LIKE COMMAND AND'....you get the idea. Assuming that CM ends up looking half as good as the screenshots indicate it is also going to have to battle against the 'it looks blonde therefore it must be blonde' phenomena.

If you get the idea that I'm rather jaded and cynical, well....you'd win a prize.

Tom

[Guest KwazyDog]

Well, I have a blonde girlfriend, so I guess I can comment here, hehe

Personally, I see the 3D nature of CM as a leap ahead for the wargaming industry. Remember that CM's 3D is nothing like that in EF. Its true 3D, not just another 2D mode faked it to look 3D. The reason we play these games as wargamers is to simulate a battle environment. I feel that the 3D gives us an even more in depth feel for what actually being there would have been like, and gives us a good feel for the battle field.

Thus far in a computer wargame I think the Close Combat series has given us the best 2D maps out there (ok, lets not talk about the rest of the game ), and even these dont give us a true feel for the battlefield. In CM, you will be able to move the camera to the top of a hill you have taken and see excatly what can been seem from that hill. You can get a feel for the terrain, and a feel for where the best enemy positions would be.

I think this is where CM's 3D engine will make the most difference. It will give you the feel for being there, and allow you to make considerations you normally wouldnt be able to envision.

Anyways, just my opinion Each to their own. Ive actually played very few board war games, but have been playing computer wargames since the idea was born back in the mid 80's. For me, simultaneous turns, the attention to detail with regards to shell penetration etc, and the hexless maps were things Ive been waiting for for years (ever since a little game called Panzer Strike by Gary Grisby did simultaneous turns, actually, in about 87, been a long wait ). For me, the 3D is just a VERY big bonus

[Herr Oberst2]

"Chacun a son gout"

For me, I am really curious to see how my "old habits" live or die.

"Hmm, that T-34 is about that far, and I have LOS to him. My MkIV might nail him with this flank shot. Let's go for it."

No drilling into my muzzle velocity, his armor thickness, his armor slope, my relative vertical angle, etc...

It will be really nice to play a game with all the attention to detail in the engine, but I don't necessarily want all that information all over my screen all the time.

I'm positive the interface will have me howling for a while, but all new interfaces do that to me. I was even pissed when they changed the resolution in the CCI->CC2->CC3 series.

The key for BTS is "Build it and they will come." Some will even post money up front to help make it come. In essence, that is what our pre-orders are.

[Thomas Davie]

>The reason we play these games as wargamers is to simulate a battle environment>

The SOLE reason I would like to play them is to examine the statistical outcome of any given battle with *my* additional input on one side or the other. To this extent, we need the following;

On the tactical side of the matter, I would like to see a 'physics realistic' turn based game.

Implementing turn based rules and a physics realistic system is very difficult though (although SPI's 'Air War' is a very good example). I'd like to think that this is being accomplished with CM. From the data, screenshots and turns that I've seen played, I think this is happening.

Tom

[Fionn]

Thomas, while you are indeed tied to the hex and quite sceptical about various parts of CM (which for the record I think add to the game ) I was refering more to real bigots with closed minds out there who enjoy serially thrashing released games.

Not only do they trash them, they trash them for not being what they (the bigots) want and NOT for being all-round poor games. E.g. Fighting Steel was trashed for not being more sim-like... People quoted the advertisements for it which mentioned the word simulation 3 times (forgetting it mentioned wargame once)....

It still seems some don't fully accept that saying a wargame simulates naval combat is NOT the same as saying it is a simulation. Any game which breaks genres is in danger of attracting bigot reaction IMO for not being what "they" consider it should be and I think CM is going to be a big target for some of those *people* (language removed to protect the young).

Thus my statement that if you like it there will be a need to perhaps set the record straight publicly when these guys come a shouting.

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Interestingly the vast majority of people on that forum ( all but one in fact) did nothing but stand by

and let the game be maligned by this *person* on spurious data.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn-

If you're referring to that guy who trashed 'Dragoon' in the historical games group,then it seems to me that he merely 'got away with it' because most of the people(including myself) hadn't played the game,and therefore couldn't accurately refute him.He came across as crass to me from the beginning.I am much more likely to play the game after reading your review-my main problem is limited time.

If you're referring to some other incident,or some other forum,then 'never mind'!

Mike

[Rick]

I was introduced to wargames through the boardgames and at first all I wanted the computer for was to do the bookeeping and math. However, over time I've come to the conclusion that the computer can do much more for wargames. The simplest thing that it does, it's in almost every game, is fog of war.

The point is I still want the control a boardgame allows, I'm not looking to understand the problems of controlling troops in combat. However, I do want the computer to make most of what it can to make the thing more realistic. The things that CM does; simultaneous execution, no hexes, accurate LOS computations, modeling most characteristics of the vehicles - are exactly what I've been looking for. The good looks of the game are an extra. I'm a little worried about the "looks like a blonde" issue myself, however. It would be a real shame if a game did poorly because it looked too good.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm a little worried about the "looks like a blonde" issue myself, however. It would be a real shame if a game did poorly because it looked too good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be quite ironic too. Only a scant few months ago, just after we posted very early pre-pre-alpha graphics for Combat Mission to the website in response to gamers' demands, we were blasted for "poor" graphical quality.

So we've done a lot of work to make CM look better. And now what? People are worried that it looks too good. Sigh. I'm beginning to think that there's nothing we can do to make people happy on the issue of graphics. First it's not pretty enough. Now it's too pretty. (Does such a "problem" even exist?). Anyway, some people are just never satisfied. You give them A and they want B. So you give them B and they want A again.

Charles

[Fionn]

I was referring to a lovely little Fighting Steel thread at cdmag.com (I'm being sarcastic.) in which someone managed to personally attack me, threaten to sue me (and another poster who disagreed with him), threaten to try to have me fired, question my integrity, accuse me of lying and being (and I quote) a "blackmailing criminal" IN PUBLIC IN THE FORUM without any action being taken by the forum members etc.

Needless to say I figured the forum would self-police but it didn't. No-one from cdmag stepped in either so I defended myself myself. (it seems the forum moderator was away so thats ok of course) Now it seems that since I wasn't cowed by his threats but continued to point out errors in his erroneous claims and defended myself from slander I'm not allowed to post in the Fighting Steel forum there any more (despite the fact that I am the only person posting there who had some input into the game, having gone over the ship database and weapons etc prior to release) by virtue of a decision made by a cdmag staffer.

In fact, I get the same punishment as the person who personally attacked, slandered and threatened me merely because I disagreed with him (he's done it before on forums to others and no doubt will do it again).

Still, I'm glad I stood up to his bigotted posts cause every time you let someone like that get away with posting ill-informed comments you do games and developers AND gamers a disservice. Also if the forum moderators don't moderate then that's also a VERY telling point. Then it becomes a case of poster beware since any rabid poster is going to be free to attack you on those forums.

Generally in most forums if someone just rabidly attacks you personally for having your own opinion (as opposed to just disagreeing strongly with your opinions which is always ok) the forum members will self-police. There are some bad forums though so probably if everyone else (including moderator) stands by and lets you be attacked for no good reason then its probably time to spread the word and avoid that forum.

I'm sorry to post this to BF.C but I'm pretty disgusted by what's happened.

If this continues then next time someone attacks you and you defend yourself with FAR less force than they exercise you could be looking at years in jail.

I honestly think cdmag would prefer it if I'd just sat there, let someone who returned the game within 48 hours, never even read the manual, only played two scenarios and quite frankly wouldn't know scientific methodology for critiquing something if I gave him a planbook about it, attack me continuously without response. I'm pretty sickened by the fact that if I'm attacked on cdmag I'm supposed to smile like a moron and take it (cause they sure as hell didn't stop it).

How fair eh?

(Yes I have a serious character flaw wherein I constantly am offended when I see a company or person treat someone or something unfairly and often try to correct the error. IMO however the world would be a better place if more companies were more interested in fair treatment than currently are.)

Anyways, unfortunately this whole litany of events is becoming more and more common on the net wherein every half-knowledgeable bigot feels free to post unresearched and barely understood opinions as gospel. And unfortunately, most of them are more than willing to attack personally if their opinions are shown to be false.

[Fionn]

Looks like a blonde eh?

Well, I think a key issue here is that in most wargames previously there has been a clear choice between ones which concentrate on realism and others which want to look nice.

HPS goes for realism. Atomic goes for pretty sprites more so than realism.

But going for both doesn't mean you will miss one. I think CM will hit both. It looks good and Charles and Steve surely know their stuff as far as realism goes IMO.

Again the refrain to "relearn" needs to be bugled .

[dano6]

My 2 cents on the subject:

As I see it, the true 3D representation of the battlefield will bring about a new realism in wargames. Realistic tactics become supreme when cover and terrain actually have an impact on combat. 2D games don't give a good representation of either. And as far as the hex movement system, this should have been outdated the minute computers were introduced to board games. There is no realism with a hex system only a compromise.

I have been waiting a long time for actual real life tactics to be used and modelled in a wargame. The use of simultaneous turns is another great implementaion to the reality of the wargame. The IGO/UGO movement and combat is completely unrealistic and results in the developement of tactics that would never be used in the REAL WORLD battlefield. So any result that is obtained in a historically based scenario is scewed due to both the unrealistic movement and terrain limitations.(Negates the move your half-tracks first theory of the SP series, so you opponent uses his reaction fire up) Anyways in real combat there is no "you move" then "I move". All movement, firing, etc.. occurs at the same time.

The interface for the game is also extremely important, giving the player the amount of information that he wishes to see. This means not too little but also not too much unless it is desired. There have been many games where the interface caused me to quit playing due to the amount of information provided and the staggering amount of buttons and decsions. I am glad to see that information will be available in CM but not always necessary for every move and every situation.

And as far as telling people in other forums about CM, I would not have pre-purchased CM if I had not heard of it in a CC3 forum. I believe that word of mouth will sell many copies of this game.

As for morons blasting games they have not played much, I have seen this many times in many different forums. Some Grogs only want what they deem as satisfactory. They don't want to try an idea that might be better(of course they don't know it because their small minds can't absorb the idea of something new).

Anyways my hat is off to BTS for the idea, by itself, for this game. I can't wait to play it, as I have already pre-ordered it just to show support for BTS.

dano6

[Patrick]

Well, I got some comments by people who said that they didn't like computer wargames. The main reason I think is that these people still see wargames as an abstract, mathematical game ...

With the computer we finally get a whole new environment which more faithfully reproduces battle conditions that any other game system before.

I'm not saying computer wargames are the be-all end-all, but they certainly can offer some incredible potential !!!

[Rick]

BTS,

Personally, I love the graphics in CM. I was only stating that I am afraid that some grognards may look and say it's an RTS or maybe even an FPS and stay away. On the positive side however, the graphics may grab a few non-wargamers and get them playing. Another thing I think our hobby could use is more hobbyists.

I showed a neighbor most of my wargames and he about fell asleep with boredom. Then I showed him your web page - screenshots, movies, etc. - and he said "now that looks cool!" So your excellent graphics stand a good chance of expanding the genre. Like Fionn said though, we are used to detailed accurate games looking crappy.

Personally, the only problem I have with CM right now is that I can't play it right now. Seems perfect other than that.

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Ahh Fionn, you bring back found memories when I let in my male cat at 2 in the morning. Sometimes his eyes were gashed or his ears torn. I didn't have the heart to neuter him. Keep on truckin.

PS I'n not surprised wargame forums get nasty. After all we're not interested in Barbie Dolls.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 08-11-99).]

[Mike Oberly]

Fionn-sounds ugly.Not sorry I missed it.

Regarding CM's 'blonde-ness',the thing I am most looking forward to is actually being able to get a feel for terrain and lines of sight,rather than just trying to imagine it as is the case with a 2D representation.

Mike

[Simon Fox]

"Fionn-sounds ugly.Not sorry I missed it."

Actually after reading Fionn's post I had to go and have a look and I freely admit that from my exalted position of total indifference to the cause of the argument it gave me considerable amusement .

As for the topic of this discussion I couldn't put it better than how I put it myself on another forum (does that make sense?): "I for one don't think that enjoyable gameplay and reasonable modelling are mutually exclusive. A game can be simple to those who don't care and transparent to those who need to know such details."

[Fionn]

Oh, well they removed all the posts in which he threatened to sue and basically went completely off the deep end .

They don't make suitable reading for young ones trust me .

Onto the topic here: I agree fully with Mike and Simon. 3D has LOTS of advantages and just cause the game looks great doesn't mean it can't be accurate and detailed.

[Guest Big Time Software]

As Fionn says, graphics and game mechanics are totally seperate. HPS gets points for having the game, but not for its graphics. Close Combat gets points in both sections, but lots of points off in the first. Some games get practically no points of the mechanics and none for the graphics etc. CM should get very high marks in both. Obviously we think the HIGHEST marks... but that is just our humble opinion

The truth is that CM's level of simulation is more detailed and accurate than ANY wargame out there. If we had no graphics at all, and just a text interface, we could still make that claim. The 3D graphics are just an outgrowth of our attention to detail and sense of what a good wargame SHOULD look like. Counters are a thing of the dark past, isometric and overhead sprites the recent past.

The "blondness" issue doesn't bother us. Anybody that plays CM and thinks that it is all graphics obviously is ill informed. Such people either don't know squat about WWII or didn't bother to play the game. Looks can be deceiving, but only to those who aren't very serious about giving the game a fair shake. In other words "Yeah, I played it for 5 minutes and think the game is just a bunch of pretty polygons". Ignorance is not something we can effectively combat, other than making the person look like an idiot (not that we have ever been forced to do that...)

Steve

Steve