A Case For Full Squad Representation

[Los]

It's not just adding enough additional models so you get 10-12 per squad in itself, though that enough would be sufficient to choke any high end system out there today trying a battalion-sized operation, but unless you make and track the indiv. models within the squad doing differnt things, (Joe facing left, Bill facing rear, Pete scratching his ass, ed pointing out tgts, Sarge giving hand and arm signals, etc etc) then just having 12 robots out there doing the exact same thing will look plain stupid and add nothing at all to the game.

Forget about the resource requirements to decide and invoke what each model animation will do diferently while still keeping them together as a squad, lets just figure out how long it will take BTS to code up model animations (and of course the next inane request will be that each soldier has a differnt face)and include them into an engine that would have to be rewritten from nearly the ground up to incorporate all this. Sure we can do it, lets just shelve all real enhancements to the series like CM2, TCP, one large movie, new terrain tiles, OBs, vehicles and equipment, research, theaters and other unimportant items so we can do this for you. I'm sure Charles can handle it. As usual I'll dutifully pass it along.

Los

Director of Meaningless Requests

Big Time Software

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 08-30-2000).]

[Dilger]

Eye-candy, Eye-candy, Eye-candy...Hamsters, Hamsters, Hamsters.................

[Jeff Heidman]

Elijah, I think YOU missed MY point!

How is showing 10 men instead of 3 more

"realistic"? It is not. In either case, it is graphical representaiton of the squad.

The point is that the men ARE modelled, they are just not individually displayed since there is no reason to, and ample reasons not to. You cannot give them individual commands, hence there is no reason to display them individually, at least as far as "realism" goes. DO you claim that non-tactical wargames are incapable of realism since they do not display every man in a 12,000 man division?

Now, you can argue that it LOOKS better, and maybe it would. Personally, if BTS is going to increase the number of polygons they want to display by an order of magnitude (which is almost what it would take) I would rather they had more polygons per figure instead of just piling on more figures to clutter the screen up with. I'll take a photo-realistic representation of a squad over a cartoonish representation of all ten men.

Moores law apparently does NOT apply to monitor real estate or resolution, so the fastest graphics card in the world is not going to make my eyes be able to see all those little teeny men on a 17" monitor anyway.

Wow! I cannot beleive I am not only agreeing with my nemesis, David Aitken, but I am agreeing with him on an issue of what would be an improvement to CM!

Anyone who knows me would laugh at the idea that I am some kind of crusty CM grognard who is resistant to change!

Jeff Heidman

[L.Tankersley]

I disagree with Elijah's reality-improvement argument; that is, I do not think that representing every man individually would increase the "reality" of the simulation. On the contrary, I contend it would decrease the reality, for practical (implementation) reasons.

The reason doesn't have to do with graphics or clutter (although I think those are far from trivial issues) but on decision-making and other calculations. Assume for the moment that we've all taken a trip through the time machine and have a new, shrink-wrapped copy of "CM17:When Hamsters Attack" in our hands, complete with the vaunted new "One Hamster, One Figure" feature. What must CM17 do in order for this new feature not to suck?

Every individual man needs to be able to take independent action and have a unique location while still remaining part of the squad/team. (This is central to Elijah's request in the first post of this thread; if you don't do this, then I contend that all you're doing is increasing clutter.)

Presumably the player will still be issuing orders to squads rather than individuals. This means the game must be able to translate the basic movement and combat orders into individual actions for every member of every squad. Each man needs to move, take cover or fire independently. When squads advance, instead of all moving at once they should move by bounds in small groups. Some men are slower than others whether due to physical differences or because they're carrying different loads, but the squad has to stay more-or-less together. LOS and fire effects must be calculated individually for every man, because they are located in different places and possibly in dramatically different cover/concealment.

The men need to react at least somewhat differently (it's not realistic for 12 men to all panic at the same instant, for example). This means CM17 must remember the state of mind of every person on the battlefield. Individual differences like initiative, leadership, etc. could (should?) also be factored in. We're starting to get close to the Close Combat model of soldier representation. (Not intended as a slam; I think CC took an interesting aproach to this idea, but I think it is spectacularly impractical at CM's scale.)

I think I've probably only scratched the surface here. But my point is, if a game claims it models individual men, they for damn sure better be acting individually (and reasonably), or I'm going to cry foul.

So we're tracking the positions of roughly 10 times the entities, for a start. We're also tracking additional information about each entity (every squad member belongs to a squad, just as every squad does to a platoon). We have approximately 100 times as many LOS checks to do during turn processing. (You could use heuristics to filter out a lot of these beforehand, I'll admit, but when the fighting gets thick and heavy this is what will be required, and where the lack will be most sorely felt.) Let's not forget the Individual AI layer that has to make decisions for every man on the battlefield, plus the new-and-improved Tactical AI that issues appropriate orders to individual members of each squad (Griggs, lay down covering fire with the BAR while Tompkins and Dizzy move up behind that rock. When they get there and open up with their rifles, the rest of you guys run forward to that wall.) So the Individual AI needs to be like the TacAI, but for 10 times as many figures, and the Tactical AI is essentially changed to another strategic AI (and instead of only one strategic AI execution per turn, you have one execution for EVERY SQUAD).

Plus, I would contend that if you somehow managed to implement a system like the above, you would need to improve the fidelity of your terrain model by at least an order of magnitude as well. Abstractions for areas of woods, trees, and brush are ok if you're using an abstraction for the squad; but if you are tracking individual men I think you need individual trees, rocks and depressions or else you're not going to get "realistic" results anyway.

This is no longer a Small Matter Of Programming; this is a Huge Lodestone of Requirements Gold-Plating.

Now, this is not to say I think the notion is undesirable or worthless; but I strongly believe that any implementation that might be achievable will also be profoundly disappointing from both a graphical and realism standpoint.

[LOL - after submitting this I got to read the 15 or so messages that were posted while I was composing. Every soldier with a different face, Los? ;p ]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 08-30-2000).]

[The Commissar]

Elijah and others,

As many have made clear through many points, modeling each individual man would be too much of a hassle, because it would require those individual men to behave realistically, have their own animations and skins, and represent different actions and inactions individually and not in unison as they do now.

I too wanted to see this feature, but then I realised this is not something we are liable to see in CM2 or maybe even CM3.

What is required for this is not only significant processor and video card speed above even the 1-2GHz mark we are approaching now, but also the expansion and willigness of the development team beyond what it is now. If due to future success Battlefront decides to devote people to seeing this feature come into a gutre CM release, I am sure they will do it. This might be influenced by more demand for the feature, their own decisions, or other factors which would deem the feature profitable and worth the investment.

As of now, those who want to see full squads are a minority, and although most of us agree that having full squads would look cool when watching big firefights in replays, commanding fully represented squads of men would be a hassle. Of course, this can be scaled from the now present 3 person to full squad, much like the "scale" of units is scaleable.

It is possible and may be a feature, but don't hope for it in the next or maybe even the third CM game.

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Teamski]

I think that if you have full squads, the clutter factor would ruin the game. You would have to leave the scale at it's smallest just to keep squads from overlapping. Then you would have to enlargen the actual map areas because the actual scale of having full loads of men. Hell, for realism sake, let's make sure we include the folks in services! How many times have you heard of cooks fighting for their lives! Quite a bit. At what price for graphic realsim do you go for before the game is ruined?

I think that the current system works fine, especially in eliminating the confusion of clutter. Until monitors reach double the current resolution and monitors go standard 21 inches, it's not a realistic option. How many of you out there playing Steel Panthers pounded fists because you couldn't select the right squad because they were so damned packed in?

Just my thoughts.........

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

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[Pvt. Ryan]

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

Play with your units...

Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now was that really necessary?

I would like to see each squad graphically represented by the number of men it contains, but I think hardware limitations is the best reason not to. There is nothing wrong with eye-candy. We might as well go back to text based games or X's and O's if visually appealing graphics are uninportant. I also don't think screen clutter is really a problem. I was playing a D-Day scenario with 3 US companys on the beach and I thought the beach looked oddly empty. I have enough trouble locating some of my infantry units with the sizes turned up. It is nearly impossible to see them at the realistic level unless I am on view level 1 and close to the units.

One other reason, however, not to have a squad of 10 men represented by 10 figures is that is highly unlikely that you would see 10 men bunched together on the battlefield. They would most likely spread out rather than huddled together.

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

Ow, my leg!

[aka_tom_w]

Short and Sweet:

Things like Squad representation (Hell you can even represent hlaf squads) are modeled just fine the way they are.

Really.

We need TCI/IP next and attempting to model every soldier is not what CM was designed (from the beginging) to do.

Squad representation in CM is JUST fine the way it is IMHO.

Thanks

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Hamstersss]

Too many responses in too little time so I will move piecemeal.

CM2 will not be out in a year. This directly contradicts what BTS has said about when the sequel will come out. However, even in a year, there will be a continuation of technology trends and there will be better systems.

The resource issue is too esoteric to argue here. Men who have a firm understanding of the elements of this game (Armor penetration, squad tactics, etc.) do not have the same understanding of system resources. If BTS were to say, "We won't model full squads because it will bring our baseline system to its knees" then I will shut up. They know the code, which is as unique as a snowflake, not you, not me nor anyone else. With that, hopefully, out of the way, I'd like to stick with the gameplay issues.

First, this bogus notion about clutter is just that. The crux of this argument is "Too much detail." People defend this argument by saying, "Its just a game." Those statements go against every other legitimate post on this board. We all crave MORE detail and less gameyness. Look at the requests for Rangers, Brumbaurs (sp?), rare varients of HTs, etc. and reconcile this for everyone's sudden defense of low detail. Yes it is a squad-level simulation, no you can't command individual troops but they're still there.

Second, I'm very happy with my Tank/Squad compare and contrast, so I'm going to stick with it. I think it contradicts the argument used by full squad detractors if they support detailed representations of tanks and other vehicles, as more simplified version would be more easily managed. The same goes for the complex AFV related details I've mentioned before.

There's my salvo.

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

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[The Commissar]

As I said in my previous post, I'd LIKE to see this feature but it probobly won't be done. To do justice to full squads of men, we would need something like what CC does.

Then again, CC is 2d and doesn't have any problems with having to make each soldier out of polygons, they are little sprites.

I think we should ALL just shut up and ASK THE DEVS! Arguing over it really gets us nowhere, since people are typically very entrenched in thier personal views and it takes very long and very good evidence to convince them otherwise. Sometimes it takes a kick in the head, which (arguably unfortunately in some cases) we cannot do over the net

So again, ASK THE DEVS! Steve, relieve our bickering hordes and say if the feature has the slightest posibility of coming true and when that possibility might be able to arise. That's it. Debate over, no need for pointless bickering.

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

I disagree with Elijah's reality-improvement argument; that is, I do not think that representing every man individually would increase the "reality" of the simulation. On the contrary, I contend it would decrease the reality, for practical (implementation) reasons.

The reason doesn't have to do with graphics or clutter (although I think those are far from trivial issues) but on decision-making and other calculations. Assume for the moment that we've all taken a trip through the time machine and have a new, shrink-wrapped copy of "CM17:When Hamsters Attack" in our hands, complete with the vaunted new "One Hamster, One Figure" feature. What must CM17 do in order for this new feature not to suck?

Every individual man needs to be able to take independent action and have a unique location while still remaining part of the squad/team. (This is central to Elijah's request in the first post of this thread; if you don't do this, then I contend that all you're doing is increasing clutter.)

Presumably the player will still be issuing orders to squads rather than individuals. This means the game must be able to translate the basic movement and combat orders into individual actions for every member of every squad. Each man needs to move, take cover or fire independently. When squads advance, instead of all moving at once they should move by bounds in small groups. Some men are slower than others whether due to physical differences or because they're carrying different loads, but the squad has to stay more-or-less together. LOS and fire effects must be calculated individually for every man, because they are located in different places and possibly in dramatically different cover/concealment.

The men need to react at least somewhat differently (it's not realistic for 12 men to all panic at the same instant, for example). This means CM17 must remember the state of mind of every person on the battlefield. Individual differences like initiative, leadership, etc. could (should?) also be factored in. We're starting to get close to the Close Combat model of soldier representation. (Not intended as a slam; I think CC took an interesting aproach to this idea, but I think it is spectacularly impractical at CM's scale.)

I think I've probably only scratched the surface here. But my point is, if a game claims it models individual men, they for damn sure better be acting individually (and reasonably), or I'm going to cry foul.

So we're tracking the positions of roughly 10 times the entities, for a start. We're also tracking additional information about each entity (every squad member belongs to a squad, just as every squad does to a platoon). We have approximately 100 times as many LOS checks to do during turn processing. (You could use heuristics to filter out a lot of these beforehand, I'll admit, but when the fighting gets thick and heavy this is what will be required, and where the lack will be most sorely felt.) Let's not forget the Individual AI layer that has to make decisions for every man on the battlefield, plus the new-and-improved Tactical AI that issues appropriate orders to individual members of each squad (Griggs, lay down covering fire with the BAR while Tompkins and Dizzy move up behind that rock. When they get there and open up with their rifles, the rest of you guys run forward to that wall.) So the Individual AI needs to be like the TacAI, but for 10 times as many figures, and the Tactical AI is essentially changed to another strategic AI (and instead of only one strategic AI execution per turn, you have one execution for EVERY SQUAD).

Plus, I would contend that if you somehow managed to implement a system like the above, you would need to improve the fidelity of your terrain model by at least an order of magnitude as well. Abstractions for areas of woods, trees, and brush are ok if you're using an abstraction for the squad; but if you are tracking individual men I think you need individual trees, rocks and depressions or else you're not going to get "realistic" results anyway.

[LOL - after submitting this I got to read the 15 or so messages that were posted while I was composing. Every soldier with a different face, Los? ;p ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tank,

Your argument is sound on all points, especially your point regarding the loss of abstraction and its effect on the rest of the abstraction in the game.

Tactical AI within squads is the biggest problem, I don't want more guys hanging out like the 3 guys do right now. However, the choice isn't between total realism and total abstraction. You can have a mid-point with abstract versions of squads taking cover, opening fire, panicking, etc. without making the full leap into a totally real battlefield. Templates for squads could be used to determine the animation, for instance a Fanatic template for when a squad should break and run but doesn't shows the twelve (Or less) members fighting in a reckless or heroic manner. This would happen by referencing Squad K3 (7/12) like so:

K3-1 (Reckless_ScriptA) -Sarge is firing his Tommy like a madman.

K3-2 (Reckless_ScriptB) -Johnson doesn't care about that damn MG42.

K3-3 (Heroic_ScriptD) - Wilkins grabbed the BAR and he's holding off that entire FJ squad like some kinda hero!

Etc...

Thus BTS is still abstracting but at less of a level than now. This is not a leap into total realism (Which I realize now is what people think I am promoting) but rather a step forward.

Then we could have MDMP-12 add new "Kelly's Heroes" scripts that change the actions of the squads.

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

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

(Edited because, while I don't mind seeing a squad "Opening fire" when a squad is "Ovening fire" it can be a little too gory for me.)

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-30-2000).]

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, this bogus notion about clutter is just that. The crux of this argument is "Too much detail." People defend this argument by saying, "Its just a game." Those statements go against every other legitimate post on this board. We all crave MORE detail and less gameyness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What part of my "It's a Matter of Opinion" post did you not understand? You respond by using words like "bogus" and suggesting that only the posts that agree with YOU are legitimate. Then you state that we ALL crave more detail. Do not presume to tell me what I want in a game. I think you will find wide agreement on this board that it is possible to have TOO much detail, if not in this particular instance then certainly in others. IN MY OPINION, full squad representation is not only unnecessary but undesirable. You have a right to your opinion, I don't begrudge you that. Kindly allow me mine.

Joe

[JoePrivate]

Elijah, you can be as firm in your convictions as you want but until you make an attempt to read and consider all the well-reasoned replies to your post you end up coming off as a crank.

[Hamstersss]

Joe (Shaw),

You chose to enter into this debate. I try my best to back up my opinions with evidence and expect others to do the same. When I am proven wrong (Or discovered to be a multitude of Hamsters) I have no problem with admitting it, regardless of my opinion. While by no means do I mean offense to anyone when I advocate this issue, I will also not let it go, as I think it is worthwhile.

Addendum to JoePrivate,

I'm not sure what you meant to accomplish by calling me a crank. I've responded to many people's posts (Most recently to L. Tankersly) and I don't think I've been unreasonable when I've done so. I'd also like to remind you that ad hominems do not add anything to any discussion.

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

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-30-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

"each soldier has a different face".

Yes, LOS, this will be the next big request until "CM 45: The Armies of Peng", when every soldier HAS the same face, that is:

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[David Aitken]

Elijah Meeks wrote:

> I'm very happy with my Tank/Squad compare and contrast

Your example is of simple incremental improvement. Your squad suggestion is a matter of totally reworking the game's code to be 100 times more complex.

> However, the choice isn't between total realism and total abstraction. You can have a mid-point

The fact is, all of Combat Mission is abstracted. It's just one big abstraction. At this stage, there's no point in trying to model all the men of a squad, because it's a level of realism which is currently both unfeasible and inappropriate.

The three-man squad looks like the most unrealistic thing on the battlefield, but it's not. It's of an equal level of realism to everything else.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You chose to enter into this debate. I try my best to back up my opinions with evidence and expect others to do the same. When I am proven wrong (Or discovered to be a multitude of Hamsters) I have no problem with admitting it, regardless of my opinion. While by no means do I mean offense to anyone when I advocate this issue, I will also not let it go, as I think it is worthwhile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed I did enter into the debate. I also try to back up my opinions with evidence when possible. In this case, however, it seems to me that (barring the technical issues which you and I both admit we are not qualified to judge) the issue is nothing BUT opinion. I appreciate your statement that you do not intend offense, and I will, therefore, take none. I know that this issue is one about which many people feel strongly. I wouldn't dream of limiting debate on it beyond the fact that BTS has made it's position clear. That being said, and having made my position clear as well ... knock yourselves out but try to avoid using knives ... blood is hell to get off these keyboards.

Joe

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Tactical AI within squads is the biggest problem, I don't want more guys hanging out like the 3 guys do right now. However, the choice isn't between total realism and total abstraction. You can have a mid-point with abstract versions of squads taking cover, opening fire, panicking, etc. without making the full leap into a totally real battlefield. Templates for squads could be used to determine the animation, for instance a Fanatic template for when a squad should break and run but doesn't shows the twelve (Or less) members fighting in a reckless or heroic manner. This would happen by referencing Squad K3 (7/12) like so:

K3-1 (Reckless_ScriptA) -Sarge is firing his Tommy like a madman.

K3-2 (Reckless_ScriptB) -Johnson doesn't care about that damn MG42.

K3-3 (Heroic_ScriptD) - Wilkins grabbed the BAR and he's holding off that entire FJ squad like some kinda hero!

Etc...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that the above isn't really adding anything to the realism of the simulation, but only to the outward appearance of the simulation. And I can see lots of looming potential problems even with the scripted appearances: are they appropriate in all terrain types? How many different action scripts do you need to have in the game to keep execution from being tiresome and repetitious. (Ho hum, Wilkens is firing his BAR from the hip while yelling like a nutcase again - been there, done that.) How are you customizing the scripts for different numbers of men and different weapons? Who builds all the different model animations, and how much time does it take?

Personally, I would find scripted animations like you describe to be a big turn-off. One of the things I really like about CM is what I call its "design elegance." There's not a lot of chrome layered onto the software; pretty much everything you see is significant. Seeing scripted animations depicting actions at a level of detail that may have little or no relation to what's actually going on in the CM engine would violate this design aesthetic, and I think it would also call extra attention to other abstractions and actually decrease the immersion factor. (As it is now, I can accept the abstractions because they are all consistent. Decrease the perceived level of abstraction in one area, however, and the other areas will appear wanting.)

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[The Commissar]

PEOPLE! LISTEN TO YOURSELVES FOR A FREKIN' SECOND!

YOU'RE CLAWING AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS!

I say it once and I say it again, WAIT TILL THE DEVS RESPOND! DO YOU REALISE ALL YOUR GOOD REASONS DON'T EQUAL TO ANYTHING IF THE DEVS SAY "NO"?!

[Mark IV]

This "isn't really adding anything to the realism of the simulation, but only to the outward appearance of the simulation."

Bingo. We're talking about a feature that drills my already-modeled squads to march in those complex hexagonal formations, a la SP.

Anyway, given the havoc that multiple versions and PBEM directories is already wreaking on my PBEM life, I hope BTS doesn't fix much more for a while ('cept TCP/IP, and maybe a "choose PBEM save folder"). A file manager is what I really need, so I can save each victim's turns in his own little sarcophagus.

Game works great!

[Hamstersss]

Commisar,

We're having civilized debate, you're the one yelling like a loon.

Joe (Shaw),

Yar!!!

Tank,

Yes, there are pitfalls, but the scripted events would be directly tied to the situation of the squad. While I agree with your "Design Elegance" argument, and commend it, I don't think any of us ever say, "Ho hum, my three guys are throwing grenades at a King Tiger again." do you?

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

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Philistine]

Graphic of all men in a squad?

Sure. Do it. IF:

1. It doesn't impact game performance too much; and

2. It looks OK.

My big question is why change? What is the "realism." It seems as if it is just graphical realism, which, while nice, can go to extremes. Since the full squad is already modeled in the game, just not grapically shown, the only point (it would seem) of adding full squad representation is to make the game look nicer.

But if you're going to triple to quadruple the amount of soldiers represented in a squad, don't you have to reduce the size of each individual soldier to 1/3 to 1/4 of its original size?

I already play with my units at +2 size (and that's at 1024x768). I think by increasing the # of soldiers shown, you will have to decrease the detail level of each soldier dramatically.

Ultimately, as someone else has pointed out before, the limiting factor is not going to be the video card or the cpu, its going to be the # of pixels that your monitor can show.

With 12 soldiers in a (US) squad, it seems either 1 of 2 things will happen. Either (1)the soldiers will be so small that no detail will be distinguishable, or (2) the size of the terrain viewable will be small, because it takes a sizable portion of your monitor just to adquately show 12 men.

While YMMV, it just doesn't seem to justify the extra time coding it.

--Philistine

[Pham911]

Well, it's not that the other viewpoints have no merit, it's just that they aren't really all that arguable. I've got to agree that it's a question of resources.

To claim that the extra units would cause clutter is a matter of personal opinion. You may find it too cluttered to use and decide to toggle the extra men off, whereas I may find it not only as easy to use, but very informative as to what my men are doing when a 3-man squad graphic representing 12 men moves into a house, or into woods. It's a matter of personal taste, and arguing it seems like arguing if chocolate or vanilla is a better flavor.

It's resources, and coding. The resources issue isn't a huge deal, actually. If you can toggle the graphics to between the classic 3-man squad, and the full squad, then if you use a map that takes a performance hit from the 12 man squads, just toggle it back and be happy.

If BTS can't do the coding(and it would be quite a job to go from a static squad that moves as a single unit to a dynamic squad that move individually), that's another issue.

[aka_tom_w]

Wow

this LZ got HOT in a big hurry.

I thought somoeone here quoted Steve's lastest post on this subject.

Its in this thread is it not.

I'll bet they have not changed their minds even with all the new fast hardware out there.

All the flaming in here is really a big wase of time.

Lets just relax and play the game

(I know, I can't either because I'm at work )

-tom w

[Hamstersss]

Ya, what Pham said.

Also, when BTS comes around to lock this (And us) up, can you please then take a look at the Add. Tournament Save Feature posting, it has an important CMMC-related technical request to BTS.

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

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu