tracks

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

Oh come on. However you feel about the design decisions made by BTS, that post is going too far. You're implying that your criticism is "unwelcome" because you're somehow exposing the Truth about CM. Rubbish. Your criticism is unwelcome only because others (often with better arguments) have posted it countless times before, and BTS has stated their official position on it in many of those threads. The fact is, BTS operates their board in one of the most liberal fashions I have ever seen.

As for your argument, remember when you try to convince all these board members of the Truth in your position that Steve and Charles made this game. You, to the best of my knowledge, have not developed a piece of commercial software (a post proving me wrong would be appreciated), nor have I. Therefore, I'm going to trust their word over yours. 'Nuff said.

-Andrew

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certain types of criticism are not welcome here, and I stand by that. Your off the wall, spiked and barbed rant just proves my point. I never said that criticism was unwelcome by BTS directly, just that certain types are unwelcome *here*.

The *reason* that the thread will be locked is as follows(had you bothered to ask me to to explain my comments, you would have learned this before shooting off your mouth): I make an "unwelcome criticism". Person A cries foul. Person B cries foul and makes some ill-fated quip about my never having produced a video game(I suppose seeing a game that does what I claim doesn't count for some reason). I respond. A and B chime in again, and C, D, and E decide they need to get heard. Continue through the alphabet until a higher power on the board decides that it's too much of a bitch-fest flame war to let go on the way it is and closes it down. And you can definatly trust them, or anyone else over my poor non-software producing unless I offer proof ass. It's your choice, 100%. It doesn't make you right, and it doesn't negate the fact that there are products produced by non-slack jawed oakies(unlike me) that do what is being claimed can't be done.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Let's get something VERY straight here...

Because Game A can do something it does not mean that Game B can. No two games are alike, outside or inside. What we object to is totally uninformed (i.e. never have programmed a game like this themselves) claiming that we are full of crap. That is like telling a surgeon he doesn't know what he is doing after watching a couple dozen "Emergency in the ER" shows. Unless you are qualified to say we are full of crap, put a cork in it. Suggestions for improvements are very welcome here, but uninformed whining is annoying at best.

Myth had an outdoor enviroment and tracks too, and that game is 3+ years old. I haven't seen Ground Control (besides some screenshots), but I am aware that it is an outside enviroment with tank tracks. But I am also quite sure that if I did see it that I could find about a dozen differences between it and CM. Those differences, like it or not, can make something impossible in CM that is possible in something else.

Laying down polygons for trackmarks (and they would have to be polygons) is too much for CM to handle. OK, maybe if we raised the hardware requirements, limited the number of AFVs, and had the tracks magically vanish after a time we could probably do it. But we are not going to do any of these three things, so for now it isn't possible.

The number of polygons that would be required to show tracks is unthinkable unless they magically wipe themselves clean. And if we did that... would we be immune from criticism and second guessing our programming skills? Nope.

CM's graphics will be improved over time. However, we are going to invest our time and the computer's resources where it makes the most sense. There isn't enough days or CPU cycles to do everything, plain and simple. So look for graphical improvements that won't hobble the game's speed AND will improve gameplay AND will not keep us from releasing CM2 in a timely fashion. All graphical improvement suggestions that do not fit this description will be kept in mind for the next one.

Steve

P.S. Criticism is very much welcomed here, but it can be presented in such a way that makes the post specifically not welcomed. This is our "house" and our game. We need respect for giving you both the game and the place to discuss it in. Otherwise we get a bit miffed.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-10-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh... and don't hold your breath for CM like games from other companies. It won't happen. 3D WWII games, perhaps, but I VERY MUCH doubt that any will be even remotely comparable in detail, realism, playability, and fun. Big publishers aren't interested in making anything even remotely similar to CM. We also don't see any of the smaller publishers doing something like CM in the near future either.

Steve

[Herr Oberst]

*applauds BTS*

Gentlemen,

Please enjoy the feast that BTS had laid before us.

Perhaps it would do all you newcomers (yes, I pre-ordered some 6 months before the Gold Demo even came out) immense good to start with a chonological reading of all the posts that have preceeded you.

You probably missed the online debate about smoke trails from a PanzerSchrek or Bazookas, as well as the one about backblast of those weapons. Go do some research, it may prove enlightening. Sprites, bodies, vehicle tracks, candy bar wrappers, cigarette butts, it's all been suggested before. And BTS has stated their opinion as well.

As players, we should suggest what we'd like to see. We should not harangue Steve and Charles. I mean, jeez, they just built what I call the coolest WW2 land warfare game out there. I have seen more than one other company try it and fail (in my opinion, and I recognize it as such).

Vote with your wallet. If you like CM and would like CM2, but a copy. If you really like it, buy two. If you want to give the development a real goose, buy 1000.

BTS has already proven themselves to be the most cooperative, open-minded game development company I have ever encountered.

This is their game to create and enhance. And it is not our position to tell them what is and isn't possible inside their engine. Technically, yes, there are innumerable ways to code a 3D engine, some better than others. If you are king of developing 3D engines, and say, "Yo dude, what kind of game is this going to be?" you will come out with a cool looking game on the edge. If you are going for an immensely accurate game engine, the graphics aren't the #1 priority. How about modeling accuracy, Strategic AI and Tactical AI. CM beats the pants of any others I have played. Who knows better than they what will and won't fit their current model?

The basis of my opinion? Well, I write code for a living as well, 13 years of it. Analytic engines for the most part, not mushy UI stuff.

Oh, BTW, personally, I'd rather see eastern front with new vehicles, bigger maps, and maybe nationalistic AI before I asked for vehicle tracks, or bodies.

My own 2 cents.

[deanco]

Hi Steve,

You said,

"Oh... and don't hold your breath for CM like games from other companies. It won't happen. 3D WWII games, perhaps, but I VERY MUCH doubt that any will be even remotely comparable in detail, realism, playability, and fun. Big publishers aren't interested in making anything even remotely similar to CM. We also don't see any of the smaller publishers doing something like CM in the near future either."

Now this is very interesting to hear you say this. I am very surprised, to say the least, to hear that, in your informed opinion, other companies will not follow your lead. As far as the "detail, realism, playability, and fun" part is concerned, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Any CM clones would be inevitably compared to the daddy of 'em all. Whether those games would be any good or not is another matter entirely. It just seems to me that a developer could take the salient aspects of CM (wego, topnotch TacAI, 3D topography, fuzzy logic routines for spotting etc.) and stick it in another wrapper and tout it as the answer to RTS. You haven't read all my posts surely but I am a staunch supporter of your game system. Developers are always asking, "what's the next big thing"... it just really surprises the heck out of me that y'all are not considered visionaries due to the success of CM. If you could spare some time to talk a little more about why you think other companies will not follow your lead, I'd be very interested. Thanks.

DeanCo--

[This message has been edited by deanco (edited 09-11-2000).]

[David Aitken]

As far as I understand it, Combat Mission - succesful though it has been - is still a niche product. The reason BTS have had such success is because they're selling directly to a core of devoted fans. I don't think you could mass-market CM - it just doesn't have the wide-ranging appeal to take on the world. That's not to say it isn't a brilliant game - it's just not the kind of game that everyone could get into. To get the best out of the it, you really need to be a Second World War enthusiast and an aspiring military tactician.

Big companies and marketeers look for products with whiz-bang impulse-buy appeal. They go for eye candy over quality. The kind of games that sell in bulk offer instant 'wow' factor and instant gratification - the novelty quickly wears off, and the game will be ignored after a few weeks, but the fact is it sold.

Combat Mission is the kind of game where the more you put in, the more you get out. It does take a while to become a good player. The more you know about the war and about military tactics, the more you'll enjoy the game. This is the kind of game that will be loved by a relatively small group of people, who recognise the quality and are willing to invest the time to get the most out of the game.

That, I think, is why other companies won't be following BTS's lead. Charles and Steve basically have the wargame enthusiast market, and anything trying to compete would just be a second-rate clone which the big boys wouldn't want to market because it wouldn't ship enough units.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That, I think, is why other companies won't be following BTS's lead...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And in addition, BTS has the "luxury" of being able to call their own shots. Witness the recent deletion of multiplayer option from B-17 2, Hasbro needed to get the game out the door, so they told the developers to drop multiplayer from the mix. That "luxury", of course, comes with a rather large price tag, specifically the years upon years it took Steve and Charles to develop the game WHILE THEY WEREN'T GETTING PAID! But it resulted in the best wargame I've ever played ... and I've been doing organized wargaming for over 30 years.

Finally, I get really annoyed when some people get on these boards and DEMAND that certain things be done or categorically state that something CAN BE DONE. If you haven't coded Combat Mission (which excludes everyone except Steve and Charles) who the hell do you think you are to DEMAND anything or state the something CAN be done? Let's show a little common sense and ... dare I say ... common courtesy. If you'd like to see something, you could ASK for it, politely. If BTS says something can't be done, be willing to accept that they mean it can't be done within the parameters they are willing to accept for the game. It's their game and they have to decide what will and won't be acceptable, let them do their job.

Joe

[Von Fauster]

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

Let's get something VERY straight here...

What we object to is totally uninformed (i.e. never have programmed a game like this themselves) claiming that we are full of crap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read the whole thread, and just have to toss in my $.02-

The man's got a point: If you are not qualified to speak to a given topic- what the heck are you talking about?

Personally, I would rather see Steve and crew polish off the very few remaining issues with CM and move on to CM2. A large number of the eye candy requests and issues can be dealt with by Mods, and if you're here for how the game looks instead of how the game plays- well you're probably in the wrong place. The graphics serve to represent the gameplay- not the other way around. From that point of view- the graphics are more than adequate.

Thanks for letting me spend my $.02-

And thanks BTS for an extraordinary game.

If other developers don't catch-on to what you've done here, well, it's their loss.

Down With Mediocrity!

Von Fauster

[This message has been edited by Von Fauster (edited 09-11-2000).]

[John Hough]

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

Myth had an outdoor enviroment and tracks too, and that game is 3+ years old. I haven't seen Ground Control (besides some screenshots), but I am aware that it is an outside enviroment with tank tracks. But I am also quite sure that if I did see it that I could find about a dozen differences between it and CM. Those differences, like it or not, can make something impossible in CM that is possible in something else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Myth had any tracks (and various other things) visible at any distance. FoW extended only to actual units. This was kinda a neat thing, 'coz of the added strategy of checking people's tracks, and making sure to stick as much as possible to rock or ice on the sandy or snow-covered maps, but not realistic, and not something I'd want in CM.

Ground control's tracks fade fairly quickly, and are only put down when the unit producing them is in view. If, for example, a slow vehicle is moving away from you, out of los, then you move a faster one to get it back into view, until the track fades, you'll see a track with a mysterious gap in it. This would maybe work with CM, and would also solve the problem of what size to make the tracks (being entirely eye candy, make them the size of the treads at whatever visual level you're at). But I think in the context of CM that would look kinda funny, and don't really like that solution either.

On Ground Control and full figure representation (raised by someone): Thanks to power armor and certain convenient aspects of the futuristic technology, the soldiers in Ground Control appear to require considerably fewer polygons than WW2 infanrtymen. And you have a limitation of 12(16? I forget.) squads, of all types, per side and the largest squad has 8 men. That handles 2 platoons and a few support weapons.

Ah, well, give it a few years....

-John

[Abbott]

I am truly at a loss here with the graphics issue. I have been wargaming for 23 years. Board, miniatures and PC games. When I first encountered Combat Mission on the web one of the first things I noticed from (the alpha) screenshots was the quality of the graphics for a miniature wargame. They have improved. When I installed my copy of CM the first thing I said to myself is “Wow, great graphics!”. The graphics work excellent with the game play and look very nice. I enjoy them everyday.

I purchase approximately 15 games a year. I have been comparing games to the 3 classics (IMHO)(classics for their day, games that were so good and playable when released you were overwhelmed) for years. I compare everything (or wonder at the time of purchase) will this game look as good or be as fun to play as Doom, X-com or Jagged Alliance? Well, I now have to wonder will it look as good and play as well as Combat Mission also! I like the graphics, they look great and I am pleased that I have been fortunate enough to purchase another “Instant Classic” to add to my new Top 4 list.

[Priest]

Hey guys haven't posted just had surgery. Guys lay off BTS. I am a graphic freak. I just bought a 700 mhz pIII with 700+ mb of RAM and a Gforce 2 GTS 64 mb video card because I love good graphics in games. Now that being said I think CM has great graphics. Does it push this or even my old machine to it's graphical limits.....hell no but it does not need to. It is great. The different camera angles and such integrate together to become a great gaming engine. AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO APPRECIATE. I have a whole pile of games that have tracks and blood and dust and smoke and stars and pixie dust and blah blah blah blah but are about as playable as a square ball. Steve and Charles thanks for a great game. Another example of this is the tactical sim games. Now without starting a disscussion on them look at the three or four titles out. S.W.A.T., Delta Force, Spec Ops, and Rogue Spear\Rainbow Six. S.W.A.T. has beautiful eye candy and you could argue that the larger land area in Delta Force is better but know one can argue against Rogue Spear having the best engine. All the others came later and tried to mainstream the idea. Rogue is better because it's game engine works well like CM's does. If CM does ever get "emulated" it will probably be a poor substitute that is more streamed to RTS and FPS gamers and not wargamers to sell more copies. Rogue has a dedicated following and have no interest in capturing the FPS players and so the game is "truer" to itself. Most FPS players hate Rogue (at least that I have met). Same thing BTS is not interested in the RTS crowd but the wargaming crowd. And in general what would you rather be complaining about tracks in the dirt or the fact that you don't have enough crystals to build the upgraded "siege" Tiger. See what I mean we are blessed so stop being picky. Contructive is the key word in the phrase "constructive critiscm".

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

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

-Priest

[Guest Lord General MB]

Sirs,

I feel I have to appoligize to BTS, for my rant on tracks, ect. I stand by ONE thing though: CM must stay up to date. I'll end with that idea...

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

Cheers,

Lord General Mr. Bill,

1st Army

[David Aitken]

Lord General MB wrote:

> CM must stay up to date.

Combat Mission is a wargaming revolution. It knocks the socks off every previous wargame of every kind put together. It is the wargame. I don't think you need to tell BTS about staying up to date.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

If BTS says something can't be done, be willing to accept that they mean it can't be done within the parameters they are willing to accept for the game. It's their game and they have to decide what will and won't be acceptable, let them do their job.

Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shaw, Damn Your Eyes, your argument is Rubbish, Complete Rubbish, and so are you!

I've noticed several times that certain kinds of 'support' like my own are 'unwelcome' here. I try to let people know that something is unlikely to happen and that the game developers have posted about it in the past, and the next thing I know, someone's comparing completely unlike games to each other and raving about how they "know a thing or two about a thing or two", and then some poor, drug whacked fool says something that might remotely be construed as supporting what I said, and then a whole gang of angry little weasels piles on yipping 'bodies!', 'eye-candy!', '1 Ghtz processors', and the like, and the next thing I know, I have to skulk back to the Cesspool ashamed of having ever possessed a brain that might try to raise a point in public debate. Well, laddie, I've certainly learned my lesson! Anyone who tries to point out the reality of constantly reiterated, revisited, and extensively discussed posts without angry abuse of counter-posters is living in a fool's paradise, and certainly deserves to have his posts locked down, if not banned completely as a warning to anyone who doesn't enter a thread spraying spittle and hinting darkly that 'there are powers that don't want my words to be heard'.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Abbott]

HA HA HA! Great post!

[Seanachai]

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

HA HA HA! Great post!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. I couldn't have done it without people who think everyone else is a freaking idiot.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Renaud]

I think Combat Mission would move a lot of copies in retail if you could get it on the shelves in a nicely done package and sufficient quantities. I think a publisher could make some good money off it. The problem, of course, is how to get it on the shelves in big numbers. You have to have a major distributor for that, and those are precisely the businesses that would not go for CM. CM is the equivalent of an 'art-house' release in the movie industry. Publishers want things which sell 500,000 copies and more, not CM which might sell half that. Why make $5 million when you can make 10 (or 20 or 100). Look at the half-life phenomenon...over 2 million worldwide. Publishing executives are staying up nights kicking themselves and wishing to hell they'd found that studio before Sierra. Ah well... A big publisher would just gunk up the works with eye-candy at the expense of realism. It's all for the best.

Ren

[Guest Lord General MB]

Sir,

It seems quite apperent to me (as almost all peopel have made clear {execpt Shaw[you'll get your medal in the mail Soldier]}), that CM is as good as it will ever get and will never make anymore major changes (exect in much farther realses: "CM5" ?!). Almost everyone claims that CM2 is the remidy. Why is this the case? CM2 is still in the works, and will PROBALLY (i.e no garrnety) not include many MAJOR changes. SO all we can do is sit tight and play CM in the knowying that it IS the best, and won't get any better. Does this about sum up all these prevease posts?

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

Cheers,

Lord General Mr. Bill,

1st Army

[Guest Lord General MB]

Sir,

Shaw, and... Pham!! Medals are in the Mail...

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK folks, thanks for the round of support. Let's end this part of the discussion with John Hough's post above. These are the "differences" I mentioned in my previous post. Ground Control can afford to put down tracks because of higher hardware demands and lower polygon counts through fewer units with less detail. We could have done this too

Enough said on that, so let's turn to my previous statement about CM "quality" clones not being likely...

CM is seen as revolutionary by wargamers, and even a decent number of general strategy gamers. If CM were published by a large company, like Sierra, I am sure we could sell hundreds of thousands of CMs around the world. It could happen, but I doubt if it will since the publisher would have to first belive this from the production people to the PR folks. And the latter are the ones that need convincing, right along with the sales people who sell to retail.

My point is that no publisher is going to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a CM clone, nor spend the same pile of cash on promoting it. Too risky. They might like CM, but they also know that they are very unlikely to reproduce what makes it great.

Sure, they can make a flashier game and they can certainly make a slick box to stick it in. But who here thinks that they would make a decent AI (Tactical or Strategic)? Who thinks they would simulate the myriad of historical details we do? And who thinks they would really try to get them right? And I doubt that many of you think that corrections and suggestions would be added fast and freely post release. And does ANYBODY think that they could do all this in about 18 months, which is the planned development time for a game these days?

This is my point... the thought that a large publisher is going to make something that rivals CM is flawed. Publishers do a lot of thinking, and we can't see how such thinking would get them to make a rival to Combat Mission in the true sense of the word.

Small developers could do it, for sure. But how many out there have shown their ability/willingness to make such a game? Not to mention without pay for 3 years

So there you have it. CM is what it is because its formula is complex, well executed (or so you guys keep telling us ), and hand crafted over a long period of time with MASSIVE customer feedback along the way. That is what it will take to produce a rival CM game, and that is why we don't see it happening.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-11-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Let me restate something that I have said many times before, just in case someone thinks we are going to sit here and rest on our butts

CM's graphics will improve over time. But we are going to use our limited time and the computer's limited abilities to the best use. One improvement slated for CM2 is more varied buildings. I think most people would agree that this is a far better use of polygons and programming time than tank tracks (as cool as they might be in theory). So we will constantly raise the bar, even if we are only raising it for ourselves when we go to make the next one

Steve

[Lorak]

Lord General.

That sums it up in a general way.. If a wrong one.

No one is saying that CM is perfect. It isn't. But it by far is the best thing going. CM is going to improve and things will be worked on. What most people are pointing out is that suggestions are taken seriously if they enhance gameplay, can be done, and are discussed in a civil manor. What most people don't like is the "It needs to be done this way!" approch.

For example. I would like to see added terrain tiles, random vehicle textures, buildings in several states of damage.

These would be nice. Would they be hard to code? would it tax the graphics? I don't know. It is BTS game and they will do what they see fit. Thats the way it should be. $50 bucks doesn't buy me a place on the design team. BTS has done a wonderful job bringing this game to us, and I for one trust them to do what they think is best.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

[MrPeng]

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

Shaw, Damn You, your argument is Eyes and so are you!

{smiley edited for the sake of the Queen's English}

I've noticed several times that certain kinds of 'support hose' like my own are here. I try to be unlikely to happen in the past, and the next thing I know, I know a thing or two about a thing or two. Some drug whacked fool says something 'bodies!', 'eye-candy!' 'yipping ' I have to skulk back to the Cesspool. Try to raise a point in public debate. Anyone who tries to constantly reiterate, revisit, posts without angry abuse is a fool spraying spittle. There are powers that don't want my words to be heard'.

{A Nother smiley edited becasue I hate them...otherwise this quote is completely verbatim from MrSenileTea's previous post. really never touched the delete key or anything.}

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK MrS~Tea: I am very sorry you feel that way about things but please just take these blue ones and have a nice sit down over in this comfy chair. never mind those straps. that's it just ease on over here and hava nice sit. shall i make you a nice cuppa? good good now take these yellow ones with your tea and let the nice attendant empty your drool cup. goooood boy. now don't you fell better?

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Shaw, and... Pham!! Medals are in the Mail...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I do NOT agree with either you or the inestimable Mr. Pham. There is no conspriracy nor (at least from me) a sychophantic chorus of huzzahs for BTS simply because they ARE BTS. I repeat, if someone has a request they should make it politely. If BTS says they chose not to do something or that something is not possible given their code and/or their parameters then the subject should be dropped. I trust BTS to know what is and isn't possible with CM far more than anyone else ... that's simple logic. If my statements were misunderstood ... I apologize for not being more clear . If I misunderstood someone, I apologize. If my apologies are misunderstood ... to hell with it!

Joe

[Seanachai]

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

OK MrS~Tea: I am very sorry you feel that way about things but please just take these blue ones and have a nice sit down over in this comfy chair. never mind those straps. that's it just ease on over here and hava nice sit. shall i make you a nice cuppa? good good now take these yellow ones with your tea and let the nice attendant empty your drool cup. goooood boy. now don't you fell better?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoo, I am laughing, yes, I am indeed laughing...it seems I am laughing quite a bit! Ah, Peng, my lad, thank you for the er...attitude adjustment. All done through the use of humour, no one got flamed at all, at all, and everyone good as new! If we can just keep a good and positive attitude, I'm sure we can all make Combat Mission whatever, 1 through X, a wonderful bit of work for everyone. Let's keep in mind, people, we're actually all friends here, and dedicated to this game. Good lord, what a jolly bit of fun! I was in danger of losing my sense of humour!

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.