Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With all due respect to Charles and Steve who have crafted one of my favorite games of all time (including back to the days of Apple 2), I would like to propose a vote to all players.

As most of you are already aware by now, there are several "rules" in place in CM that do their best to prevent gamey tactics. One such rule is that crews are always identified as crews rather than unknown infantry types on the battlefield. Another does not allow players to abandon crew served weapons if they are bombarded so that the crew take cover and then return to and man a hopefully undamaged gun. (Correct me if I am wrong on those two examples. They were the first two to come to mind.)

Though the motivation and design behind these rules is well-intentioned - to prevent gamey type tactics from spoiling a game - "realism" if you will, is sacrificed along the way.

There are those that suggest that the game not have such implementations thereby allowing the player freedom to do what would be ordinarily physically possible during a battle (granted it is a computer game). Thus, players would then be confronted with "real" dilemmas and situations to overcome and likewise, real penalties for the loss of "important" troop types and equipment (tank crews, mortar crews, etc).

You see, the more such governors that are put in place, the more confined the strategies become. Remove those devices and give players total control over their troops.

So, for those that are interested, I welcome a vote if for nothing more than the gathering opinions for BTS' perusal. Please start your reply with a vote of either:

"GTP" - a vote for Gamey tactics prevention (keep those rules in place)

-or-

"TR" - Total Realism (players get total control - let the field of battle be the determiner)

I vote TP. Keep in mind this would be related to CM2.

Thanks,

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 05-31-2000).]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KwazyDog

The way I see it is that the governs that are put in place are minor, and if they are put in place they unfortunately WILL be used in gamey ways by people out there.

Yes, it is a trade of, but it is a very little one are really should have little if any impact on your playing strategy. From what Ive seen from the hundreds of games Ive played with the full version of the game very little reslism is lost having these factors in place.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Total Control does NOT necessarily directly equate to Total Realism. In fact, I would imagine in some cases the opposite would be true. And while some of the "governing" rules might be a bit of a pain at times, I think overall BTS has done a very good job of balancing all these factors in the game design. With that said, I think the game should be left "as is".

Therefore: Cast one GTP vote for me.

Mikester out.

[This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 06-01-2000).]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, GTP. But as has been pointed out above, it doesn't matter anyway - the game is designed, the game is done, and the game is Steve's and Charles' anyway, in my opinion. I guess that they *could* add the option of super-micro-management that you want, and heck, they might. But personally I hope it stays the way it is. Since it's not skirmish level (in my opinion) I shouldn't have that level of control over my pieces.

-dale

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"TR" - Total Realism (players get total control - let the field of battle be the determiner)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, giving players total control is highly unrealistic. Control on the battlefield at the point of contact is a myth. To be realistic, you would be able to control the HQ that represents you, but the AI should interpret your orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GTP.

Though I have to say that I'm not sure that the so-called "Total Realism" is really more realistic. If you've got LOS to a crew as it bails out of a tank, you see that it's a crew. Even if you didn't see the bailout, they're carrying pistols and probably not behaving too aggressively in most cases.

As for re-crewing guns, well, I'd guess that in most cases the current system is more realistic than the alternative. Having never crewed a mortar with HE going off all around me (thank heavens...), I can't say for sure. Also, BTS said they've tweaked the panic code for crews anyway, so this may be a straw man.

[This message has been edited by RudeLover (edited 06-01-2000).]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest grunto

To make it more realistic they could have turn timers... 1 minute per each platoon worth of strength on the mapboard... if you have 4 platoons you get 4 minutes to do your turn... that would help represent the time aspect...

As for not being able to re-man weapons, the only thing I think that would make it better would be to keep track of whether the weapon itself is damaged, and if not allow re-crewing. I don't mind it too badly the way it is... your weapon crew breaks you don't have that weapon any more... nbd... there's always another scenario... attack!!! that's the beauty of virtual soldiers... like they say in paintball... "it's only paint!!"

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

With all due respect to Charles and Steve who have crafted one of my favorite games of all time (including back to the days of Apple 2), I would like to propose a vote to all players.

As most of you are already aware by now, there are several "rules" in place in CM that do their best to prevent gamey tactics. One such rule is that crews are always identified as crews rather than unknown infantry types on the battlefield. Another does not allow players to abandon crew served weapons if they are bombarded so that the crew take cover and then return to and man a hopefully undamaged gun. (Correct me if I am wrong on those two examples. They were the first two to come to mind.)

Though the motivation and design behind these rules is well-intentioned - to prevent gamey type tactics from spoiling a game - "realism" if you will, is sacrificed along the way.

There are those that suggest that the game not have such implementations thereby allowing the player freedom to do what would be ordinarily physically possible during a battle (granted it is a computer game). Thus, players would then be confronted with "real" dilemmas and situations to overcome and likewise, real penalties for the loss of "important" troop types and equipment (tank crews, mortar crews, etc).

You see, the more such governors that are put in place, the more confined the strategies become. Remove those devices and give players total control over their troops.

So, for those that are interested, I welcome a vote if for nothing more than the gathering opinions for BTS' perusal. Please start your reply with a vote of either:

"GTP" - a vote for Gamey tactics prevention (keep those rules in place)

-or-

"TR" - Total Realism (players get total control - let the field of battle be the determiner)

I vote TP. Keep in mind this would be related to CM2.

Thanks,

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 05-31-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid we have a faulty dilemma here. "GTP" programing does not equate to unrealistic gameplay, nor does removal of "GTP" equate to total realism and vice versa. The reality of the situation is much more complex and can not be placed in such a simplistic either or box. If you narrow the subject to a specific coding issue, a more product debate might ensue. You may wish to start with one of the examples from which you infered the aformentioned dilemma.

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

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GTP

I don't know how common abandoning and recrewing weaponry was. I'm sure it happened but Charles and Steve have been very consistent about needing data to confirm gameplay decisions, so unless they could really grapple that, I wouldn't think they would want to put it into play.

About the issue of crews, tank crews are generally visibly obvious. Even US tankers were identifiable at considerable ranges. Gun & mortar crews are a different story perhaps, but I don't think it's enough of a deal to warrant changing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You see, the more such governors that are put in place, the more confined the strategies become. Remove those devices and give players total control over their troops."

That's the problem. I can't think of a time when a commander ever had total control over his forces. That's what I hate about Squad Leader and other games. There is to much calculation of moves and not enough battlefield confusion.

My vote is GTP.

-Matt

[This message has been edited by Matt (edited 06-01-2000).]

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...