Gamey Recon Technique?

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

I really appreciate you playing Devil's advocate, Tom. I'd never even THOUGHT of trying to exploit this part of the game engine. We need gamey guys like you to find all of these loopholes! LOL! Seriously, thanks for the balanced, well-thought-out discussion. Maybe we can try a PBEM sometime - AFTER we close all of these loopholes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks MH thats the way I look at it too, But really the Thanks should go to Smoker1 as he was the first to post and say "gee this deep fast suicide jeep recon joy ride is so darn effective it should be illegal". Or words to that effect.

" Maybe we can try a PBEM sometime - AFTER we close all of these loopholes"

Your On! It would be a pleasure (I'm not really all that good, I just got my butt kicked, gamey play or not, in First Clash at Cambes, I was the Allies and I sucked big time)

how about this ?

Sometime in late Oct after the next patch is released I will play my first TCP/IP game with you, but only if our house rules, include only one rule "Rule #1 There are NO stinking house rules! "

ok?

I will look forward to it.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-22-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

God what a thread...

I have to throw this in. When in a rubber tired vehicle on a decent road AT HIGH SPEED ALONG A WOODED AREA you can actually see deeper into the woods than when stationary!

Try it while NOT driving. Look out the passenger window into the woods and focus far. The near trees will blur out and you will see into the woods. A moving target running in the woods will stand out! A nam vet taught us that in the army. It gives me a headache but it works. He said a convoy would just open up and not stop moving.

Ive been on M113, M9ace, mutts, humvees, etc and LOS is right, a cherry letting out the freaking flywheel wrong on a "deuce and a half" will loosen your fillings. Its a bitch to drive and sit in. You just sit in the back and knock helmets and feel woosey. makes you almost want to walk.

Lewis

Lewis

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

This is an interesting suggestion and honestly can't remember seeing it suggested before. However, it would be very difficult to know when a unit should have orders curtailed and when it shouldn't. Remember, it is infinately easier for a human to look at something and make a decision like this. Programming judgement calls based on complex and context sensitive situations is not easy to do.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

Ill leave it to the Search fiends..

I am trying to use the following in my game:

1. Expanded menus. Depending on troop training, quality, capabilities, there are more menu options. Yes an option is recon for recce and arm cav units. Units like conscripts have very limited movement and fire options. Just because a unit is an armored car, doesnt give it recon capabilities. I reserve this for agressive units and sometimes elite tanks can also do this function. An M20 section attached to a HQ might not get it.

2. Limited menus. Depending on unit state, there can be a limitation on "C&C" commands. A unit might be able to fire, move but not assault an enemy position. A depleted unit might have withdrawl away from the enemy as the only option.

3. Childrens Menus. A tasty selection of child faves like franks and beans lets say..

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-22-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

You're on, Tom Send me the setup when you're ready...

MT

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

You're on, Tom Send me the setup when you're ready...

MT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great, I hope you don't mind waiting until after the release of the next patch. (That will be fine with me things are a little hairy right now personally and proffesionally).

Sure I have time to post lots of messages here but getting into a game seems to take so much more time.

Do you prefer the Allies or the Axis forces?

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom,

I'll second what others have said. Devil's advocates often help uncover problems that need to be fixed up. My "not even Tom" comment was meant to show that you were playing the DA and not questioning the way recon works in the real world. I think you understood that is what I meant, but wanted to make sure

I don't have any wheeled MV experiences like Los and Lewis, but one time I went in a yellow schoolbus along paper company lands to look at their operations. We all had to wear hardhats IN the bus. Why? Because even though the driver was going at a snail's pace on a dirt road, people were litterally launched out of their seats! I was a kid then and thought it was fun, which also makes the story different than Los' or Lewis' Obviously a schoolbus is not the same as a Deuce and a Half, but the memory of what even slow speeds could do is still rather vivid. When I drive offroad in my 4x4 pickup I drive at about 5mph for VERY good reasons

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

Oooo! I like option #3. If we put in Hitler Youth units into CM2 I think we might very well add this one Of course it would be "Bratwurst and sauerkraut", but it is basically the same thing

Steve

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

If CM were more geared towards being a game about recon, I would agree. But for the vast and

overwhelming majority of battles, this feature really wouldn't accomplish much. Even if used, and used

correctly, it would most likely be under circumstances that would make people wonder why they bought the

vehicle in the first place. Also, you can already sorta do this. If you buy a Jeep and put a Bazooka team in it

you get the same functionality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a thread about this a while ago. The consensus was that

it's gamey to use bazooka as a forward scout.

[Grognerd_Fogman]

LOL you all. I didn't think it could ever happen in a thread like this that all parties (99.97%) are hugging an stuff at the end. This while not even completely seeing eye to eye! Steve -n- USER, MH -n- Tommy, Me -n- Foobar...Woohoo!! O wait, me an Foo never had a prob...lol.. Just wanted to say that this thread at this exact moment today made it for me. Really cool to see so many sides an perspectives an stuff be cordial an understanding of the other side even when issues remain. O :USER:, I been wondering where I can order your game at? I for one don't use gamey recon techniques very much, but look forward to trying your cardboard jeeps on a high-speed back-hills jaunt . Have a great day all...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There was a thread about this a while ago. The consensus was that it's gamey to use bazooka as a forward scout. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... I was wondering who would point this out first

Really, what should happen is someone from the HQ unit or point squad would get a "lift" to check out the situation ahead. The vehicle of choice for the US would most certainly be a Jeep. For the Germans it would most likely be a motorcycle (don't start with me on this!). British? I dunno. Perhaps a Pram?

Anyhoo... this is not possible in CM because we do not allow individuals to be sectioned out of a unit. This is a very necessary abstraction at CM's level, so it is not going to change.

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grognerd_Fogman:

LOL you all. I didn't think it could ever happen in a thread like this that all parties (99.97%) are hugging an stuff at the end. This while not even completely seeing eye to eye! Steve -n- USER, MH -n- Tommy, Me -n- Foobar...Woohoo!! O wait, me an Foo never had a prob...lol.. Just wanted to say that this thread at this exact moment today made it for me. Really cool to see so many sides an perspectives an stuff be cordial an understanding of the other side even when issues remain. O :USER:, I been wondering where I can order your game at? I for one don't use gamey recon techniques very much, but look forward to trying your cardboard jeeps on a high-speed back-hills jaunt . Have a great day all...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had to start a nasty incident in the ambush thread just to release my nasty venom on Mr Clinton. And make a new phreind of Mr pham.

Ahem.

Steve skipped over one of my retorts in this thread but Ill let it go.

My game is alot of fun. I am thinking of calling the turns "rounds" because it takes on a boxing match slugfest essence with alot of shuffling around and waiting for someone to launch the next tete-e-tete.

Positioning oneself and rationing "activation points" makes for tense play. I am reading soldat and have just finished reading the eastern front memoirs and want to capture the essence of eastern front fighting. Its brutal but theres alot of discretion being the better part of valour. Meaning FALLBACK! I am experimenting with defensive lines and the ability to fall back to them. Just dont do it when a mech recon company attacks. You will get over run. And thers lots of surrendering too.

Lewis

PS Glad we made your day. Think steve would realize that its futile to arguee with me?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hey, check this out. KwazyDog found some translations from a German Pz training manual. I found several points that readers of this thread might find interesting (esp. #22!):

"21. Other weapons and arms, cross-attached to you, should not be misused. Do not use them for purposes for which they were not intended, for example, do not use tank destroyers as assault guns, or armored infantry as tanks, or recon or engineer troops as infantry.

22. Unarmored or lightly armored units attached to you must be protected from any unnecessary losses until they are needed for their own operational tasks, for which reason they were attached to you.

23. Cross-attached units placed under your command are not your servants, but your guests. You are answerable to supply them and share everything they need. Don't just use them on guard duty! In this way they will work better and more loyally for you when you need them. And that will be often!

29. Never forget that your soldiers do not belong to you, but to Germany. Personal glory hunting and senseless dare-deviltry lead only to exceptional cases to success, but always cost blood. In battle against the Soviet- Russians you must temper your courage with your judgement, your cunning, your instincts and your tactical ability. Only then will you have the prerequisites to be victorious in battle and only then will your soldiers look on you with loyalty and respect and always stand by you in untiring combat readiness. "

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Tom,

I'll second what others have said. Devil's advocates often help uncover problems that need to be fixed up. My "not even Tom" comment was meant to show that you were playing the DA and not questioning the way recon works in the real world. I think you understood that is what I meant, but wanted to make sure

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve

Thanks for the clarification, I never had any doubt.

I just posted my position to state how I liked playing the game without regard for what is a realistically viable (Real World) recon tactic.

I feel a LARGE and potentially controversial RANT coming on.

I just got up and have been collecting my thouhgts on this one since I woke.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

OK I've been thinking, yes actually intellectualizing, the entire conceptual basis, of this jeep recon issue.

And now after I have read all this " its so nice to have this BIG HUGFEST" I would like to discuss some of what I consider some of the ROOT causes here.

First off if any of you stduents out there are wondering what you need to know about writting a good essay (and this one is likely to be lengthy) let me start off by sharing what a VERY good Military History University Proffesor at the University of Toronto once told us. He said all you need to write a good paper is to rememeber these four points:

Tell me what you are going to tell me.

Tell me.

Tell me again.

Tell me that you have told me.

Well now I'm going to tell you.

Lets start with the premise that MANY players like to play CM to model, excersise and explore Real World Military Tactics ™ (RWMTs). And to these players the the use of other effective tactics in the game that are not viable RWMTs, like the deep fast suicide jeep recon joy ride (DFSJRJR), represent "gamey tactics" which they find unrealistic and offensive when they play.

Ok all that has been made VERY clear.

BUT, the premise that RWMTs can be accurately modeled, excersised and explored is compromised at the Most fundamental level by two game design decisions that I now understand and support.

The foundation of this GREAT game is fundamentally build on top of two fundametally

non-Real World principles, (this is not new and Steve and Charles Designed this game with these issues in mind from the start)

#1 Absolute Spotting (the borg-like instant tranmission of ALL recon intel to all other friendly units)

#2 LOS determination according to Steve's "Method 2" "#2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't"

Here's a refresher:

Quoting Steve:

"Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to

crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween.

So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine.

(tom w opines: I interpret this to mean that Steve is saying that CM was designed to use Method 2 to save time to process or "crunch" the result of the round being fired, hence it does not, and cannot account for live or dead vehicles which are not smoking and burning in between the shooter and the target. It should also be noted that Pillboxes and bunkers are treated as vehicles and do not offer any form of cover and do not block LOS or LOF)."

So we can see here that two of the fundamental foundation priciples that the game was designed around are at their VERY core, abstractions or approximations of the physics of REALITY to begin with. I personally think these approximations of WWII Combat reality are the VERY BEST approximations and abstractions I have ever seen in a War Game so I am by no means complaining about them.

This is in no way a critiscm of the game just my personally explanation as to why it is not entirely realistic to expect other faccets of the game to be a completely accurate simulation of WWII combat.

These two abstractions from reality are BOTH necessistated by hardware limitations of our current crop of consumer level computer hardware.

So this leads me to wonder why so many other players and folks who post here EXPECT so MUCH more REALITY out of the game when these two fundamental prinicples compromise the actaul degree of integrity or reality this game can actually offer.

My main point after all this is that I am philosophically opposed to gentleman's aggreements and "house rules" that attempt to ban certain tactics because they are unrealistically effective. The DFSJRJR jeep recon trick is one such tactic, I know other such tactics will raise their ugly heads in time. To attempt to patch, with self impossed "house rules" a game that is at it core (due to current hardware limitations) not capable of Modeling Relative spotting AND not capable of modeling True Method 1 LOS Determination (refresher:Quoting Steve: "1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target.

The trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go

through all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did.")

Seems like any attempt to model Accurate WWII Combat reality on top of this contruct that is inherently unrealistic to begin with.

Its a GAME!

IT attempts to model the reality of POST D-Day WWII small unit combat tactics, it does this BETTER than other game out there!

This thread and for the most part (flaming and personal insult and mud slinging, aside) this entire Forum, and the contributors here can all help to make this and the coming CM2 a MUCH better game by posting thoughtful and contructive contributions.

I would like to conclude on a postive note and mention that while CM1 was designed with today's Computer hardware standards in mind, we can all hope that one short year down the road Moores law (brief refresher:

Moore's Law is that the pace of microchip technology change is such that the amount of data storage that a microchip can

hold doubles every year or at least every 18 months. In 1965 when preparing a talk, Gordon Moore noticed that up to

that time microchip capacity seemed to double each year. The pace of change having slowed down a bit over the past few

years, the definition has changed (with Gordon Moore's approval) to reflect that the doubling occurs only every 18

months.

In September, 1997, announcements by Intel of 2-bit flash memory and by IBM of chip circuitry of copper rather than

aluminum suggested a return of the original version of Moore's Law.")

will bring us a new faster base standard of a home computer system that will be TWICE as capable as today's base line standard and maybe then CM2 can be designed to include BOTH Method 1 LOS determination and Relative Spotting and (my personal Favourite ) Terrain Fog of War.

In my opinion I wish Combat Mission WAS Recon Mission as it is one of the aspects of the game that I enjoy the most.

Some one else said it best, No other game models the "Holy Crap! Where the Hell did that come from!" factor like CM currently does.

If CM2 could be designed on a foundation that included Relative Spotting and Method 1 true LOS/LOF determination the game would be TRULY revolutionary and the ""Holy Crap! Where the Hell did that come from!" factor would go right thruogh the roof as would the Sales figures of CM2

AGAIN this was in no way a critiscm of the current state of CMBO, just my personal opinion of the fundamental foundation of abstraction from reality that is the basis of the game design.

Now Will the Hug fest we were chatting about continue or will this long winded rant be largely ignored for being far TOO long and mostly to theoretical perhaps boarding on rhetorical?

Your comments, suggestions and even flames are always welcome.

I do indeed hope Steve and I will continue the positive and cordial dialogue even after I have perhaps exposed some of the more controversial issues at the core of the CM game design.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Good post, Tom. If nothing else, I think I've found my new sig in this thread!

MT

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

"No other game models the "Holy Crap! Where the Hell did that come from!" factor like CM currently does." - unknown

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Good post, Tom. If nothing else, I think I've found my new sig in this thread!

MT

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must find the original contributor and credit them with that quote, I'm sure they'll speak up soon if I don't., It's not my quote and someone here OPENED a thread a while back with it.

-tom w

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Tell me what you are going to tell me.

Tell me.

Tell me again.

Tell me that you have told me.

Well now I'm going to tell you.

Lets start with the premise that MANY players like to play CM to model, excersise and explore Real World Military Tactics ™ (RWMTs). And to these players the the use of other effective tactics in the game that are not viable RWMTs, like the deep fast suicide jeep recon joy ride (DFSJRJR), represent "gamey tactics" which they find unrealistic and offensive when they play.

Ok all that has been made VERY clear.

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the game to model real world military effects as seen in WWII. The "DFSJRJR" is not just a gamey tactic, it is an unrealistic modeling of motion, human vision and exposure to fire. It also gamily takes advantage of the omnisharing of battlefield info.

I like to see the effects of real world tactics in a real world modeled environment. If the environment uses abstractions like time slices and such, then other abstractions should weigh them out so that the overall effect either has a very realistic outcome (generally) or feel to it.

So if units have omniawareness of what each other friendly unit can spot, then having recon jeeps exposing units in the forward edge of a battle area is gamey. Its playing on the omniawareness and has nothing to do with recon.

So are your posts going to follow Moores law, double every ten minutes?

Lewis

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So this leads me to wonder why so many other players and folks who post here EXPECT so MUCH more REALITY out of the game when these two fundamental prinicples compromise the actaul degree of integrity or reality this game can actually offer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've taken the time to lay out your position very clearly, which removes my suspicions of your statements being simply rhetorical. This last post of yours has exposed a philosophical difference between us.

I think that you are possibly over-applying the notion of absolutes. We play a realistic simulation of combat that is based on rules that *include* some unrealistic concepts. The inclusion of these unrealistic concepts does not, by its presence, negate the realism of the game in whole. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is not a contradiction for people to accept existing "unrealistic" abstractions in the game, and at the same time strive for realism wherever possible. We want to get it as close as possible.

The reason we talk about jeep recon and not LOS calculating, is that we can do something about jeep recon. Only BTS can work on LOS, so why waste our breath on something we can't control?

I think the "absolutes" concept doesnt work here. It isnt black and white. I have had this conversation with others, on a different subject. Trade the word "realism" with "airline safety" and perhaps the concept is easier to understand.

Flying is not *safe*, or *unsafe*. It has a certain variable level of safety that we strive to improve as much as possible.

CM is not *realistic* or *unrealistic*. It has a certain level of realism that we try strive to improve wherever and however we can.

Now, as far the "House Rules", I don't think you need to worry. I personally am not worried about the slippery slope of people making rules. If I dont agree with a wacko concept of realism that someone applies, I simply won't abide by it. It has to pass the common sense test.

ALSO, to anyone trying to come up with house rules, they should be limited to tactics that exploit absolute spotting, and only the most glaring problems. Unrealistic tactics, in your opinion, that do not exploit the game should NOT BE TOUCHED. You will be a major buzzkill if you start trying to tell people how to make a squad of infantry go from point a to point b.

Thanks guys...

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I like the game to model real world military effects as seen in WWII.

So are your posts going to follow Moores law, double every ten minutes?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Lewis, sincerely

that was the best laugh I've had all day.

I will now stop ranting and try to be much more concise. (Concision is not really one of my strengths)

Thanks

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

You've taken the time to lay out your position very clearly, which removes my suspicions of your statements being simply rhetorical. This last post of yours has exposed a philosophical difference between us.

.......

ALSO, to anyone trying to come up with house rules, they should be limited to tactics that exploit absolute spotting, and only the most glaring problems. Unrealistic tactics, in your opinion, that do not exploit the game should NOT BE TOUCHED. You will be a major buzzkill if you start trying to tell people how to make a squad of infantry go from point a to point b.

Thanks guys...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off appologies to Lewis My grasp of consision just went right out the window.

Hi Captain Foobar

" You will be a major buzzkill if you start trying to tell people how to make a squad of infantry go from point a to point b. "

This was never my intention.

The point of my long winded post above was to explore the foundation of some of the game design descisons as they relate to Simulation of WWII combat "reality" in this game. I simply pointed out two fundamental underlying game design decsions that lie at the foundation of the way CM models the "reality" of WWII combat. I thought my conclusions clearly suggested that I was looking forward to moving the future of CM2 much closer toward accurately modeling LOS determination by using Method 1 (not in the near future I understand) and incorporating Relative Spotting to somehow (I must admit that how this will be done in a video game has me COMPLETELY stumped) remove the borg-like omniawareness of all spotted and identified enemy units by all friendly units. I thought I was encourageing all participants here to continue to contribute to makeing this a MUCH better game than it already is by starting at the begining and clearly identifying what, in my opinion, were good game design descions (necessitated by current hardware constraints) that compromise the current level of reality in spotting and recon and LOF and LOS determination we can expect at this time in the latest version of Combat Mission.

I thought my conclusions in included comments to the effect that this was a GREAT game and that if we all communicate and contribute in a mature manner the collective BrainTrust of this BBS might come up (by working together) with some truely exceptional suggestions the Steve and Charles and now Dan and MadMatt can attempt to incorporate into future versions of the game.

I was not really solveing any problems or really proposing any solutions, mearly, IMHO, identifing where the abstractions, necessary at this time to make this game work, begin to

compromise the degree of reality we can legitiamately expect to realize by contineuing to patch the original game engine.

Nothing more, and they are only my opinions and Maybe I'm totally wrong....

But I am enjoying the disccusion.

-tom w

From the Grateful Dead:

I might be going to hell in a hand basket, BUT I'm enjoying the Ride!

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

aka tom,

Re-read my post. Those comments are directed at people involved with, or in favor of House Rules. You have said that you do not want to see House Rules, and I undertand your reasons for feeling that way.

(I am in favor of said house - rules, but only to protect from gamey tactics. Ahistorical tactics are OK with me, as long as they dont exploit the game engine and cause unrealistic results)

I would be interested in hearing your response to the points I made.

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

Now, as far the "House Rules", I don't think you need to worry. I personally am not worried about the slippery slope of people making rules. If I dont agree with a wacko concept of realism that someone applies, I simply won't abide by it. It has to pass the common sense test.

ALSO, to anyone trying to come up with house rules, they should be limited to tactics that exploit absolute spotting, and only the most glaring problems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the WHOLE point of the misunderstanding of this WHOLE discussion, the illusion that warmaking can be governed by RULES. Since I'm deemed to be too dense to understand military concepts, here is what William S. Lind says in his "Maneuver Warfare Handbook":

-----------

I has been said "The art of war has no traffic with rules", and this is very valid.Especially when we are dealing with professionals well versed in the art of war, there is all the less reason to make them follow fixed rules.

William S. Lind, "Maneuver Warfare Handbook", p. 94:

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

If there are no "rules" for warmaking, it is artificial to make other rules to force players to follow such non-existent rules.

I hold that it is a delusion to try to make CM more realistic by enforcing so-called "rules" about what they can and cannot do in "real life". Each such rule imposes secondary constraints that force the player to play according to certain arbitrary conceptions, and forces the game into stereotyped play.

This misconception is not limited to wargaming, it is the source of the criticicism against US Army military doctrine in books such as Linds "Maneuver Warfare handbook" and Leonhards "The Art of maneuver".

A full debate of the concepts of these critics and of maneuver warfare is beyond the scope of this debate, but I am afraid that the same kind of thinking that is criticized by those authors is very prevalent on this forum.

Finally, just a note to point out that I have never objected to programming the game to make it better, I only pointed out that the programmers should be aware that slowing down fast vehicles to discourage fast recon might unbalance the game by making it more difficult to transport infantry with halftracks and trucks (never mind jeeps )

Henri

[Grognerd_Fogman]

I luv you Tom, see?, we all still like you...lol. I can't wait till I get the AAR from the match between you an Mannheim, probly could sell it on Ebay in a few for a pretty penny. AARs are so interesting cuz if you think you've thought of it...you aint. Also Tom you've posted basically the same stuff in the way I wanted too, but couldn't say too proper I think ist's mostly due to the stress Smoker1 has been putting on me in our latest game. He keeps killing my gamey Kubels with good tactics. Somehow I view that as unfair as gamey should equate to an advantage?? Now :USER:, I have my Visa out, jus gimme the website...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Before I begin... Henri, do NOT take this as some sort of attack like you did my last post. I can now understand why you react so negatively to the whole Jeep discussion. You have a fundamental mis-perception about what a simulation is. Or at least that is what your very strongly worded post above leads me to understand...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hold that it is a delusion to try to make CM more realistic by enforcing so-called "rules" about what they can and cannot do in "real life". Each such rule imposes secondary constraints that force the player to play according to certain arbitrary conceptions, and forces the game into stereotyped play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I addressed this before, but I obviously didn't do a good enough job. So let me try again...

EVERYTHING in CM is a "rule". I mean EVERYTHING. Some of them are more arbitrary than others, but they are all rules. So Henri... how can you chide us for putting in rules when in fact CM is nothing BUT rules?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If there are no "rules" for warmaking, it is artificial to make other rules to force players to follow such non-existent rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we took out the rules that "force players" into doing things all you would be left with is a bunch of BMPs and WAV files.

That is to say, we don't go out into the real world with some sort or "reality collector" and pour it into a mold and produce a game. Instead, we have made up thousands of small rules that work together to create a simulation of reality. Is it reality? Of course not. But the better the rules the closer to reality you get.

So... where do you draw the line Henri? Is it wrong to put in rules that "force" the player to get in a flank shot on a Panther in order to kill it? I mean, why not let any tank kill any other tank with any shot taken from any position at any angle? If you are so against rules that "force" the player into doing things, then you should be against realistic physics, armor simulation, morale treatment, etc. Or is there a special exception being made here so you can race a jeep around behind enemy lines in a way that everybody but you agrees is utterly unrealistic?

Telling us it is wrong to put in a rule because it is a rule is just silly because the WHOLE GAME is nothing but a set of rules. There are rules to say when a unit should break under fire, rules to say how many ammo points are expended for a certain action, how many meters a unit can run in a given terrain, etc. etc.

The fundamental problem here with this recon stuff is that we made some mistakes with some of the rules. No way should a wheeled vehicle, driving off road, be able to go as fast or spot as much as it does now. So a rule change is needed. NOTE, and this is so important that I will state this as a seperate thing...

The rules about speed, spotting, and so forth are ALREADY in the game. We aren't adding any rules what-so-ever. Instead, we are tweaking a parameter of the rules to more accurately portray reality

Someone who doesn't understand this core reality needs to do so. Not understanding this is like not understanding the concept of gravity when talking about Newton's "rules" of physics.

Tom wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So this leads me to wonder why so many other players and folks who post here EXPECT so MUCH more REALITY out of the game when these two fundamental prinicples compromise the actaul degree of integrity or reality this game can actually offer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the world is not Black and White. We can make things more realistic or less realistic. For example, having 3D physics in place of a 2D hex system is more realistic. Having a WeGo system is more realistic than a IGoUGo system. Having jeeps not drive around doing things that no jeep driver in WWII could ever do in real life is more realistic than allowing a jeep to zip around at 20mph spotting anything and everything.

So we make improvements to CM's simulation where and when we can. This is a rather easy fix in fact. The only reason why it is getting this much attention is that some people LIKE playing with CM the way it is now (gamey). Taking away the gamey tactic is, to us, no different than fixing a data entry mistake in a tank's armor data. We made an error, now we are fixing it. Plain and simple.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Thanks for clarifying the "rules" misconception, Steve. You did a much better job than what I could come up with, and ultimately gave up on trying to explain. Now, the reason for this post...

Tom: I found the original comment for my new "Holy Crap" sig...You'd be amazed at how many hits one gets when searching for "Holy Crap"! But I still found the answer within 5 minutes (THAT was for all of you search poopoo-ers)