I love CM....but I hate it when.......

[Lt Bull]

Steve,

You are correct that I would've bought CM regardless of this Method #1/Method #2 issue. This game is a landmark game and is definitely worth my $!

The point of my post was to simply understand more about how the CM game engine is actually modelled and to get a better feel for how it compares to other games which apparently use the "on the fly" real-time computation approach of Method #1.

I was originally surprised somewhat to have established that CM is a Method #2 type game because, although I read it over a year or so ago, the CM FAQ does have a section in it that made me initially think it was using a Method #1 type of system. I thought nothing more of it until the issue was raised recently.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As written in the CM FAQ page

What kind of Line of Sight model does Combat Mission have?

Think of the most accurate, real-life system possible. In CM if a unit can see something, it can shoot it (when within range of course!). If you are moving a tank down a street, and there is an alleyway, beware! CM tracks every contour of the earth, every building wall, every hedge, and every smoke column in the game to determine if it is blocking a unit's ability to shoot. Whether it is a building, tree, or burnt out vehicle CM's LOS model takes it into account. Check this out: <insert picture>

Not only are horizontal coordinates used, but the verical is calculated as well. Height, as you will find out, becomes much more important with the addition of vertical tracking. This is just one of the great features which CM's true 3D environment allows you to experience. Every house, every cluster of trees, every ground contour is modeled. No other wargame offers you this level of detail.

What other benefits does Combat Mission's 3D environment offer?

Lots! Probably the most cool (and unique) feature is CM's accurate high-velocity "rounds tracking". In every wargame we have ever played shots that miss their targets simply vanish. This is so far removed from reality that even the Warren Commission can't explain where the rounds go. In CM you can actually see a round leave the muzzle, follow it in flight, and watch it impact. It looks like a real firefight! As in real life, shots often hit something other than the target, like a building or a tree. Shots can also whiz over a target and smash into something hundreds of meters behind it, or plow into the ground right in front of it. The important thing here is that a missed shot is still a shot, so it is tracked and simulated until impact. Keep this in mind because in CM such misses can often lead to unintended casualties (enemy or otherwise!).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After reading this with the hindsight of the discussions in this thread, I would say you could be excused for concluding CM was either a Method #1 OR a Method #2 game.

The fact that CM is apparently a Method #2 game though, should be more of an issue for the programmers than for the player.

I have no yardstick by which to measure how much more difficult/complex it would be to have programmed CM as a Method #1 type or to gauge what sort of system would be required to run it, but I would be confident in saying this...to the CM player, most probably wouldn't notice the difference between the two Methods in actual gameplay....but to the programmer, they would probably have to code the entire game again from scratch!

I agree that anyone who would reject CM on the basis that it is a Method #2 game and not a Method #1 is really throwing the baby out with the bath water and probably is the sort of person who reads books just to find grammatical errors so they can flame the editor.

Just face it. CM rocks! For what it set out to be, nothing out there beats it.

Lt. Bull

(As an aside, it's funny how we sometimes "invent" our own temporary user defined terminology out of neccesity to replace complex, previously described concepts too tedious to explain again...kinda like gammatical algebra!! Method #1 = blah blah blah blah...hehe)

[This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 05-01-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">

<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">

<TITLE>> The people that would NOT buy CM based on a odd example of something</TITLE>

<META NAME="Template" CONTENT="C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\OFFICE\html.dot">

</HEAD>

<BODY LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080">

Let me try to explain again....</P><DIR>

<DIR>

<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2>

The people that would NOT buy CM based on a odd example of something like spotting here and there are not going to buy CM for any reason in all likelyhood. That is my point. The HPS guy you spoke of is just such a person.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

</FONT>

I agree, but I think you are missing my point.</P>

I am not suggesting that you make a (vain) attempt at convincing these 'pain-in-the-arse-never-happy-grognards'.</P>

No, the people I was concerned about, and the ones I think you should direct your statements to are those on the fringe. Gamers who may not know the details of CM, but they hear an awful lot of people whining about the lack of a 'true' 3D model, and how "CM is not as realistic as it claims"....over and over in flames on USENET.</P>

Like I said:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2>

But how many OTHER gamers who would otherwise have purchased CM and been happy with it...now 'shy away' from a game they know little about, made by a small company they have never heard of, that sells only via the internet when this game is supposed to be very realistic and yet there is a flame war in the newsgroups regarding its two main selling points: its true realism and its 3D environment?</P></DIR>

</DIR>

</FONT>

Sure, you can address these flames one at a time on USENET and the forums as the come up...or you can just write off the sales to otherwise happy customers because of a few rotten apples...or you can attempt to de-fuse the issue before hand.</P></BODY>

</HTML>

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 05-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott,

I do see your point, I just don't see that there is anything that we really need to do beyond a blanket statement in the manual.

Your statement that an "awful lot of people" will be there bitching about CM's realism is something I also don't agree with. CM will not take a massive knocking when it comes out, just like the Beta Demo didn't (gameplay wise at least) since its shortcomings are tiny compared to those of other games that have been released in the past, yet its benefits are many. And if some nuttball can't see the forest through the tree in front of his face, there will be plenty of rational people telling these few individuals to get a life.

This simple statement covers it all very well:

"Combat Mission is the most realistic wargamer ever made. We challenge ANYBODY to prove us wrong on this count. However, CM is not a 100% accurate representation of 100% of the elements that contribute to warfare 100% of the time. No game is 100% perfect, and any developer/publisher that makes such a claim is guilty of false advertising and most likely a bloated ego.

Since no game is literally perfect, CM by definition *MUST* have some elements that have been approximated in some way. More often than not such design decisions were made, consciously, to work within the constraints of hardware limitations. However, it is our opinion that none of these real world constraints fundamentally affect the overall accuracy of CM's simulation of squad level warfare.

As designers of Combat Mission we feel no shame that CM is less than 100% totally realistic since it is an impossible goal to obtain. Yet we have come closer to this goal than any that have come before us. And in the future, as hardware constraints become more flexible, we will push ahead even further. We intend on keeping ourselves well ahead of the pack for the forseeable future."

My point is that the above covers EVERY POSSIBLE NIT PICK THAT COULD EVER BE PRESENTED. Instead of trying to build a manual around CM's shortcomings, we simply acknowledge that they are there in one easy to read statement. Sprinkled throughout the manual we do address certain limitations as needed, but it would be a waste of our energy and resources (i.e. page cost) to try and guess what the super pain in the ass people are going to bitch about ahead of time. Why? Because such people will bitch anyway, or will find something that we forgot to mention about and say "AH-HA! I found the thing that proves CM is really a piece of crap". There is no pleasing such people.

It really is a waste of our time trying to deal with this proactively because it is NOT going to negatively affect our sales in the end. A few close minded, short sighted people, who generally are clearly seen as blathering simply to stroke their own fragile egos, should not be determining how we spend our time before they even open their mouths. Especially because the kinds of arguments they will come up with will not matter to anybody who basically likes what they see. And that is the key point. Bitchers, who habitually bitch, are not taken very seriously by anybody. That is what cracks me up about these people. They think they are making some sort of difference by complaining, when in fact they have marginalized themselves to the point where nobody has respect for their opinions.

For every loser we get bitching, out of context and usually incorrectly, about CM, there will be a few dozen telling that person to get a life. The "fringe" gamers you spoke of either have a brain or they don't. If they do they will side with the informed majority, otherwise they will go over to the close minded idiots. And I think they would have never bought the game anyway if they do the latter since it would be the direction they were leaning towards.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-01-2000).]

[nijis]

Ignore post. Many apologies.

[This message has been edited by nijis (edited 05-01-2000).]