BTS - - - troop quality pick change

[Jadayne]

Here's a thought, a bit off topic but I think related. I came home today and, as usual fired up CM. I had an urge to work on my Greyhound skills, so I thought I'd try a quickbattle pitting 1500 points of Greyhounds versus an assorted array of German armor.

Consider it a "training excercise"

When it comes time to select my troops, I realize that there's no way in quickbattle to select 1500pts worth of greyhounds. "armor" and "mechanized" forces won't let you mass the small quick stuff. You have to balance it out.

Then, I remembered this thread and Chup's suggestion. "Ok, I thought, I'll create the scenario" a bit more work, but with "autogenerate map" it shouldn't be a problem. Until, of course, I realized that having selected my force of greyhounds, I'll now have to select the entire German force as well -not only a bother to begin with but also effectively eliminating FOG of WAR. So, in effect, creating my own scenario doesn't cut the mustard either.

then I got to thinking...(philisophical rant follows)

So, I want to play a scenario that's not neccessarily historical, but I -as a game player -want to try it. Whether for training purposes or whatever. The army tries out different strategies between wars. The ones that are in vogue when when the war starts are the ones that make it into the history books and called "historical". Who's to say, if someone of less moral fibre was leading american troops into battle, he wouldn't have used a conscript recon screen to draw fire and flush out enemy positions for his veterans? Who's to say that someone wouldn't have created a formidable force of Greyhounds to flank and take out the Panzers' rears?

A simulation works on two levels. The first is a HISTORICAL SIMULATION which is accurate (obviously) historically. The physics may be abstracted, but the effect and immersion are pretty damn close to "being there". The second is a PHYSICAL SIMULATION which recreates the physical dynamics of whatever it is you are simulating, be it an f-16 fighter or a company of Patton's 3rd army. You then have free reign to do whatever the machine (or company) is physically capable of.

Each simulation attracts a different type of player. The person attracted to PHYSICAL SIMULATIONS lies somewhere between the HISTORICAL WARGAMER and the VIDEO GAME PLAYER on that thread a few weeks back. He's the guy that wants to recreate Normandy exactly as it was on D-Day 1944, but field an army of his own choosing. He's not looking for that killer combination that will dominate every PBEM, but does want to try them all. He's not necessarily looking to beat the system, but he does want to push the system to the envelope!

CM as it is works on the historical level. I'm very satisfied. I've got no complaints whatsoever. And, of course I respect Steve and Charles and any direction they decide to take their game. But when I see someone say that they'd like to see something like varied troop qualities or unlimited Greyhounds I can definitely see where they're coming from. Even if it isn't historical. Because, alas, the two are quite incompatable. The whole fun of Physical Simulation is throwing the history books out the window.

But maybe there IS a compromise. (Chup, Deadmarsh -now shake hands). I believe there was mention that the HISTORICAL button was going to be included in the next patch or CM2 regarding vehicle values. Perhaps it could be modified slightly (i.e. a third level) so that there was a completely AHISTORICAL button. When this mode is toggled, all rules go out the window. Any troop type or quality can be chosen. Any vehicle used. On any date. Hell, you could have Green troops supported by Elite Pershings in July of '44 if that suited you.

Ok, I'm done rambling. Just my two cents.

P.S. (by way of example)Before taking on the Austrians in Italy, no one had ever massed cannons or flanked with cavalry, yet Napoleon managed to alter the course of military thinking by using the same troops in a completely new way. If he were playing CM and not creating an empire, he wouldn't have that opportunity. He would be forced to use those troops in basically the same way as everyone else had up until then because that would've been deemed "historically correct". (disclaimer: this is not a CM put down!!!! It is simply the PHYSICAL SIMULATOR'S take on the situation)

[Priest]

Jadayne if you would be so kind as to let these same thoughts flow to a new post I am gonna start about tactics. You thought process is the same as mine. THanks

Priest

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

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Tiger]

quite off-topic, Jadayne

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Who's to say, if someone of less moral fibre was leading american troops into battle, he wouldn't have used a conscript recon screen to draw fire and flush out enemy positions for his veterans?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But when I see someone say that they'd like to see something like varied troop qualities or unlimited Greyhounds (ed's note: greyhounds, hunh? ) I can definitely see where they're coming from. Even if it isn't historical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so you're saying allowing regular troops with high quality picks and green with medium quality picks is not historical? If so what are you basing this on? This apparently has gone from allowing more choices in troop quality selection to hordes of conscript troops being ahistorically misused. I don't see the connection.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...AHISTORICAL button. When this mode is toggled, all rules go out the window. Any troop type or quality can be chosen. Any vehicle used. On any date. Hell, you could have Green troops supported by Elite Pershings in July of '44 if that suited you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

another "hunh?" here. This is not what was being talked about. The suggestion was for allowing 1 less troop quality type available for the "medium" and "high" quality picks in a QB. you seem to have mis-interpreted this thread into wanting some a-historical anything goes idea, which is definitely not what was being suggested.

-john

[Jadayne]

Sorry 'bout the misspellings and any ramblings. it is late over here.

It seems from the arguments I've read that the main argument against unlimited quality types (aside from the fact that it would get in the way of TCP/IP) is the fact that it would allow for unhistorical (i.e. "gamey") tactics.

It doesn't matter that troops actually were of mixed or not since BTS has decided that, for their historical simulation, troop qualities shouldnt be mixed. Therefore it now falls under the same catagory as rarity vehicle values, massed vehicles, date limitations, etc.

The AHISTORICAL setting simply kills all these birds with one simple stone, stripping

BTS's historical trappings from the game and leave us with an engine we can experiment with -a physical model of the Western Campaign we can shape as we see fit.

If our view of history is that the troops should've been more mixed, we can do it. If we want to see what would've happened if the Pershing was introduced from the very outset of the war, we can do it. If we want to train with 2000 points worth of Jeep MG's, we can.

This, of course, would in no way affect those that agree with BTS or don't have an opinion, since they can use the default HISTORICAL setting.

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[Guest barrold713]

John (Tiger) let me first emphasize my genuine affection (in the most manly sense...not that there's anything wrong with that) for your contributions and your obvious enthusiasm for the game we all love. There is no argument on my part that your efforts here are for the purpose of making the game even better than it is. I have the utmost respect for the dedication and work you have put forth thus far. This has led me to elevate your opinions on such matters to a different level from most of the posts requesting "fixes" to CM.

I also am a firm believer in the concept of tweaking the performance of the game as the mass experience of playing brings up well defined deficiencies that appear to tip the scale from "realistic" to "gamey". Since the results that are arrived from the shift from intensive grog testing to mass market game play must bring a different set of datum and experiences, it is only right to bring light to the possibilities of addressing particular items that arise in this volatile atmosphere.

Executing the changes through patches and reprogramming becomes an issue of the alocation of resources available and the relative value to the game that must be weighed by only those whose monetary risk is put into play by these evaluations. Given unlimited resources in a perfect world, I know BTS would put forth a maximum effort to implement as many of these suggestions fitting into their overall view for CM and future evolutions of the game.

Since we live in a far from perfect world, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If anything for just lessening the no doubt frustrating loss of satisfaction that I would feel if I had produced something I was rightfully proud of and then getting what seems to be an endless stream of "you should have done it this way" comments. I would be hard pressed to not get a little defensive in such an atmosphere and human nature would tend to close more avenues of communication than might otherwise have happened.

With your excellent mods, if you were barraged with demanding posts pointing out every nit-picked inperfection (not that my inexpert observations have noticed any...Damn I love those hi-res tanks!!!) I would presume they would lessen your interest in providing them for others instead of doing them for your own enjoyment.

Now back to the important subject of malted beverages, Canada is an available mid-point for travel. However, I am happy to state that Michigan has a large number of microbreweries and connected pubs producing a wide variety of excellent beers onsite so it is not difficult to find brews outside of the mass-produced and rightfully maligned offerings found in the average bar.

Given the wife's not too difficult to obtain permission, I would be happy to provide an introduction to a couple of these local institutions.

BDH

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

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since we live in a far from perfect world, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If anything for just lessening the no doubt frustrating loss of satisfaction that I would feel if I had produced something I was rightfully proud of and then getting what seems to be an endless stream of "you should have done it this way" comments. I would be hard pressed to not get a little defensive in such an atmosphere and human nature would tend to close more avenues of communication than might otherwise have happened.

With your excellent mods, if you were barraged with demanding posts pointing out every nit-picked inperfection (not that my inexpert observations have noticed any...Damn I love those hi-res tanks!!!) I would presume they would lessen your interest in providing them for others instead of doing them for your own enjoyment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barrold, don't delude yourself. For the most part, BTS is in this for the money. Sure, they have put a lot of love into the game, much more than Atomic puts into theirs but the fact is they are making money off of us.

The mod makers do their work for free. Two totally different things here. I don't see a problem with voicing my opinions on what would make the game better. By listening to us, BTS will only make better games in the future which means more money for them.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Guest barrold713]

You would expect them to expend two years of their life to program CM and give it to you free of charge along with the source code so anyone could make and implement whatever mod fulfilled their vision of CM as your perfect world?

In what other avenue of life do you expect others to devote themselves to giving you the fruit of their labor free with the allowance that you may then complain loudly that their efforts are not meeting your ever-moving standard?

I have done a complete search of the internet and have yet to find "Colonel Deadmarsh's Completely Realistic Perfect Yet Modifiable Simulation of the Western Front" available as freeware. I know my search engine must be faulty but I will continue to look for it. I know that when I find it, it will definitely blow CM off my hard drive and I will soon be worshiping at the CDM altar.

After I install your free program, I will no doubt be too busy playing QB scenarios involving Patton's entire 3rd Army that have every single man represented in glorious photo realism so detailed that I can see the beads of sweat on the forehead of the messcooks in the rear areas to properly acknowledge the effort that you really should have had completed a year ago, but I will grudgingly accept this as my inalienable right just because I exist...so thanks for nothing. Nevertheless, watch for my future post concerning the gamey nut gathering techniques of the squirrels found in the Ardennes Forest.

Jeesh!!

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

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[Col Deadmarsh]

Uh...does anyone know what he's talking about? Barrold, I am not suggesting they make the game open code or whatever. I thought we were talking about giving suggestions to BTS vs. giving suggestions to mod makers who do their work for free.

I know I was a little flamey towards you on that last post but this "BTS god syndrome" where BTS can do no wrong makes me ill. I see no problem in voicing opinions to make the game better.

As for making this game open code, however you got onto that subject, I'm against it.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Tiger]

Jadayne, I think you've misunderstood. Nobody has said they wanted unlimited pick of troop quality types. Re-read the thread from the start.

This was put forth as a suggestion, not a demand. I'm sounding like a broken record saying this. I've never said anything about open-sourcing the code anywhere. Go re-read the original post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You would expect them to expend two years of their life to program CM and give it to you free of charge along with the source code so anyone could make and implement whatever mod fulfilled their vision of CM as your perfect world?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barrold, maybe you have this thread confused with the thread about open-sourcing/bts taking advice from Id thread...?? Re-read this thread from the beginning.

The last two posts by Jadayne and Barrold713 have taken the original suggestion way out of context as wanting some real-world open-source mod or gamey tactics put in. Both are wrong. There's no need to keep repeating the start of the thread anymore. It's gotten off topic and will probably stay off topic.

As far as suggestions to my mods barrold, I get quite a bit of constructive criticism and it always made me try harder, not want to quit.

fini,

john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Jadayne]

whoa,

I'm not asking for open coding or anything. I'm not even asking that the AHISTORICAL button be put in the game. As I said before, it was just a stream of thought.

I'm aware that my argument may seem off topic, but I think what I've done is simply expand the topic into something which is, admitedly, much bigger than the original post. A player's desire to do something outside the current restrictions of the game would be solved if there was an option to remove those restrictions.

Yes, the end result is much broader than just including one more quality level in QuickBattles. But quality levels would also be addressed using this solution.

And, again, the only reason this came to my mind is that I remember BTS saying that they were planning on doing something similar anyway -so this would simply be an extension of what they're already coding.

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[This message has been edited by Jadayne (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Jackson]

Um, getting back to Tiger’s original suggestion, I see one possible problem. The computer selects troops of the same quality in a Quick Battle against the AI. Therefore, the computer could randomly select all green units. This is a bad thing. I have experimented with green units, and they suck. I would hate to be 30 minutes or more into a quick battle, only to discover that I was playing against green troops, who run away as soon as I drop a few artillery rounds on them. No fun.

Generally, I like the idea. But the computer should stick to selecting the higher quality units, regular or above.

BTW, this is a wonderful game. I've never seen anything like it before.

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

"One lesson I have learned in combat is 'there is no fox hole better than the one you are in'." Staff Sergeant H.F. Muschamp, 133rd Inf., Italy 1943

[jshandorf]

Lets keep in mind that rarely an entire platoon let a lone a squad would entirely consist of Green or Conscript troops. Maybe in the early months of the war for the Americans and Russian, and possibly late in the war for the Germans, this happened but typically platoons and companies would be attached replacements which would be Green or Conscripts which would then bring down the over all experience level.

I think that this is what BTS is trying to get across with the current setup.

If there was some way to limit the number of Green and Conscripts troops that would be an option, but currently there isn't.

Jeff

[Guest barrold713]

My perhaps too sarcastic comments were out of line in regards to the specific topic of choosing troop quality. Let me state that I am always going to be in favor of anything that improves the game either in realism or flexibility.

I just get my hackles up by the demanding tone of many of the request threads regardless of the validity of the new feature. I can see where this would be an added flexibility but as this issue has been answered by BTS and unless someone is going to hold a gun to their head to force them to code it, I would suggest that the point is moot.

I was more specifically addressing the colonel because he has consistently taken the attitude in several threads that he is owed an immediate patch for everything he wished were different in CM. I am a happy warrior in the defense of BTS and CM not only because I am pleased with the game but also because I resent certain attitudes displayed in his posts.

The position that BTS is somehow ethically diminished because they make money as a result of their labors is poisonous. Whether it is their primary motivation or not is irrelevant, because they have offered a product that meets and exceeds the expected value as advertised with the exemplary feature of easily allowing other parties to create added value to the original product. The point I was satirically attempting to make about deadmarsh is that his points would be considerably enhanced by his releasing a freeware version of West Front combat that contains everything he has demanded. It has nothing to do with arguing the points for or against releasing source code specifically but again just as a comment on demanding changes and the resentment at someone prospering from their honest efforts.

It was also a more general comment on the desires to accommodate all of the features thought of in the fertile minds of the denizens of this forum. Programming resources, current hardware capabilities, and BTS's vision for the game be damned, some people seem to disregard anything but their own image of what CM should be when they have no stake in it's success or failure.

I respect Tiger for his work ethic and his continuing odessy to improve his art. My point is not that he should be offended if someone points out something in a constructive spirit, but rather if someone posted something saying his work was crap because of some arcane detail was incorrectly modeled. I see this as a crucial difference in the way that such things should be addressed.

I hope this clears things up and makes the humor I intended in my satire more clear.

Off topic: I hope all that read this are well, happy, and full of the milk of human kindness. May the blessings bestowed on everyone here be bountiful and received with gratitude.

BDH

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

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My perhaps too sarcastic comments were out of line in regards to the specific topic of choosing troop quality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You joined this discussion basing your argument on sarcasm and then proceeded to discuss nothing to do with the topic. Wonderful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let me state that I am always going to be in favor of anything that improves the game either in realism or flexibily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently only certain people on this forum are capable of realizing what realism or flexibility is. I've never asked that people agree with this threads suggestion. I suggested it and threw it out here for discussion. Unfortunately it's degenerated into a weird "let's jump on Deadmarsh" thread, and "oh Tiger sorry about the footprints on your back". How about making some rational arguments for or against the original topic of this thread rather than dragging hard feelings from other threads in here?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just get my hackles up by the demanding tone of many of the request threads regardless of the validity of the new feature. I can see where this would be an added flexibility but as this issue has been answered by BTS and unless someone is going to hold a gun to their head to force them to code it, I would suggest that the point is moot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see how making a suggestion on a discussion forum is holding a gun to BTS' heads. Nor do I think you are qualified to determine the validity of others' suggestions for them without proper argument. Have I demanded this be coded? No. Have I said it must be in the game? No. Have I said anything about realism? No. Your replies show nothing but a complete lack of knowledge on what this thread is about and a sad intent of "showing up" another poster because of things he posted in other threads, as evidenced by:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was more specifically addressing the colonel because he has consistently taken the attitude in several threads that he is owed an immediate patch for everything he wished were different in CM. I am a happy warrior in the defense of BTS and CM not only because I am pleased with the game but also because I resent certain attitudes displayed in his posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then perhaps you should take it up with him via e-mail rather than using sarcasm, inneuendo and lots of long rambling phrases that have nothing to do with the topic. I hardly think that if someone says something should be in the next patch, it means that he must be taken so literally. Anyone could say they'd like this or that in the next patch, but most realize it's not a loaded gun to the head demand. I could say I'd like all shermans to be crewed by hamsters in the next patch but it does not mean anything IRL.

Even if someone was dead serious about it, do you seriously think it matters to BTS? The only time it does seriously matter to them is when it becomes abusive and foully worded on the forum or an outright lie detrimental to their sales.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The position that BTS is somehow ethically diminished because they make money as a result of their labors is poisonous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where does this come from? This thread?? You have yet to comment on the actual topic of this thread. Lots of generalized ideals about unrealated stuff so far.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whether it is their primary motivation or not is irrelevant, because they have offered a product that meets and exceeds the expected value as advertised with the exemplary feature of easily allowing other parties to create added value to the original product. The point I was satirically attempting to make about deadmarsh is that his points would be considerably enhanced by his releasing a freeware version of West Front combat that contains everything he has demanded. It has nothing to do with arguing the points for or against releasing source code specifically but again just as a comment on demanding changes and the resentment at someone prospering from their honest efforts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one never even noticed that Deadmarsh had "demanded" it be added "right away". Certainly I would not take something posted like that as holy writ.... Perhaps I wasn't specifically looking for something to argue about?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was also a more general comment on the desires to accommodate all of the features thought of in the fertile minds of the denizens of this forum. Programming resources, current hardware capabilities, and BTS's vision for the game be damned, some people seem to disregard anything but their own image of what CM should be when they have no stake in it's success or failure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, how does a simple suggestion get translated into the above BS? I guess your opinion is that there is no room for suggestion or dialogue on this forum, that such revolutionary notions must be quashed with sarcastic argument by a "happy warrior in defense of BTS". How awful of me that I did not realize that I was undermining CMBO and BTS by mere suggestion. Will they ever forgive me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I respect Tiger for his work ethic and his continuing odessy to improve his art. My point is not that he should be offended if someone points out something in a constructive spirit, but rather if someone posted something saying his work was crap because of some arcane detail was incorrectly modeled. I see this as a crucial difference in the way that such things should be addressed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When has non-constructive criticism entered this thread? So far it's only entered with you. No one in this thread has suggested that CMBO is crap because BTS won't add something. Quite the contrary. A "suggestion" was made. That's all it was, that's all it can be. Some of us realize this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope this clears things up and makes the humor I intended in my satire more clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

likewise

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Apparently I am doing something wrong by suggesting things to be added in the next patch. Stupid me, I thought that suggestions were just that--suggestions. I didn't realize I was criticizing the game by making these seemingly innocent remarks.

Perhaps to prevent any such confusion of tone of voice, in the future I should preface all suggestions with "Pretty please with sugar on top."

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Simon Fox]

Ummm.

It would be unfortunate if the atmosphere which pervades some other request threads should take over this one. I for one am suprised this one has grown as it has, since the proposal was so modest. I haven't noticed any declaration by BTS in this thread that they are deeply attached the the current QB setup in any way. Indeed I am fairly sure they are aware of a number of possible tweaks which may improve it. I think you can take it for granted that they have read the suggestion and will consider it. I personally consider it quite reasonable.

Suggestion threads should be viewed in isolation. I hope that the views of pathological suggestors aren't automatically disagreed with because of that and I don't think it is the case. It is unfortunate that sometimes there is an element of paranoia creeping into these threads. We need to doze a few firebreaks around here.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"