should we be able to see so much?

[mikeadams]

When a scenario starts we are able to view the entire terrain in complete detail. I know the tactical maps were pretty good (at least some of the time) but should we be able to know that there is a clump of trees behind that house etc? Is it possible in future upgrades to show a limited view, which upgrades based on LOS knowledge?

[Guest tom w]

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

When a scenario starts we are able to view the entire terrain in complete detail. I know the tactical maps were pretty good (at least some of the time) but should we be able to know that there is a clump of trees behind that house etc? Is it possible in future upgrades to show a limited view, which upgrades based on LOS knowledge?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like that idea

maybe yes the commander had a topo map?

did the commanders have good maps after

D-Day? I don't know

were the maps out of date?

perhaps

I like the Line of Sight concept of

only seeing what your troops

LOS can see, the rest should be

greyed out in the Fog of war like

in (I hate to draw a similiarity here)

the fog of war of say, Warcraft or

Myth or Age OF Empires

I'm not suggesting you make the game

more "computer game like"

just that maybe

the allied commanders (Not the krouts

they have been there for a while, dug in) have

out of date map info?

maybe the map shows a bridge there

and when you can actually "SEE" the bridge

the bridge has a chance of "being seen" as

destroyed, same with houses, especially the

two story variety as they are more tactically

significant. Map shows house or bridge,

when your troops actually get line of sight to that

feature maybe there is a random chance its

there or its not there, if there had been

heavy fighting in the area earlier?

Thank-you BTS this is a Great Game

and thanks for the opportunity for all the input

and beta testing of the Beta Demo which is STILL

fun.

I think the suggestion is a good attempt to make

the fog of war more realistic and I like the idea

that you cannot KNOW ahead of time every last

terrain detail, you should only be able to actually

know or see features on the map, the terrain features or

structures your troops can actually see with their own

cyber eyes, (presuming, everyone

has a radio, which has been discussed before I think)

the rest of the "unseen" map is just a greyed out guess

based on your maybe out of date map?

thanks again

-tOm

[Mark IV]

This was one of my most cherished suggestions for future CMs. I would like to see the unspotted portion of the map displayed as a topo map (such as the poor commander got), which fills in with "real" terrain as it is spotted by friendlies.

Inducing minor errors on the map would be brilliant (though they'd have to be random- a scenario designer could be fiendishly tempted to display incorrect bridge placement to an opponent).

Some portions of the map could conceivably still be displayed as map-only at game's end. Imagine the importance recon would suddenly assume, particularly on the Eastern Front, where maps were notoriously inaccurate....

[Guest tom w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

This was one of my most cherished suggestions for future CMs. I would like to see the unspotted portion of the map displayed as a topo map (such as the poor commander got), which fills in with "real" terrain as it is spotted by friendlies.

Inducing minor errors on the map would be brilliant (though they'd have to be random- a scenario designer could be fiendishly tempted to display incorrect bridge placement to an opponent).

Some portions of the map could conceivably still be displayed as map-only at game's end. Imagine the importance recon would suddenly assume, particularly on the Eastern Front, where maps were notoriously inaccurate....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly...

Thank you Mark IV

I could not have said it better...

THINK OF THE ROLE OF RECON....

That should and could be a significant factor

in deciding victory, and tactics

Now that concept of Fiendish scenario designing

by the unscrupuless... raises its ugly head here for sure.

I'm Sure SS-Panzerleader will have plenty to say about it

BUT .. against the AI just for fun????? Why not

or in an "officially blessed" and sanctioned scenario

perhaps approved by BTS (?) or a body of volunteers to

sanction ladder "approved" scenario, this could add a dimension

of thrill fun and excitement and tactical playability

unheard of in ANY other wargame!

GO BTS!!

Thanks

-Tom W

[Black Sabot]

Hmmm, tough one...

Although i like the idea, i see a potential problem.

If a unit is scouting, gaining info about the terrain as it advanced, would that info be lost if the unit is wiped out? would the map revert back to it's original setting?

[Ron]

I like the suggestion too though it also depends on the scenario design. For example, in the CE briefing you are told recon elements have scouted the area reporting no opposition. In that instance the US force would probably know the general layout of the terrain they were advancing into, maybe not down to the last tree but you get my idea.

Ron

[Guest major_tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Black Sabot:

Hmmm, tough one...

Although i like the idea, i see a potential problem.

If a unit is scouting, gaining info about the terrain as it advanced, would that info be lost if the unit is wiped out? would the map revert back to it's original setting?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok

I see a potential solution

Like in warcraft or Age of Empires

if you loose the unit that spotted

somthing than the map goes slightly

grey and the last know information

about that area is "fozen" in grey

(but you can still see it) until

there are friendlies that can see

it. This technique is modeled

extremely well in other games

like MythII or Warcraft II or

Age of Empires.

IF a recon unit spots a blown

bridge or a destroyed building

the map brightens up and

changes to reflect the

new info. If the unit is killed

the area of the mapthat that unit alone could see (its LOS 360 degrees)

locks or freezes and dulls back

down to its undiscovered dull

grey tone and reveals only the

latest recon info that was spoted

(i.e. blown bridge) before the

unit died.

this sort of happens now in the demo

I think, I have been interpreting

the little U.S. or German Cross

markers that appear in the demo

when a unit is not fully identified

as the "last known sighting" of

somthing I can't see anymore...

is that correct.. ??

this feature is modeled

quite well in other real time

games. I would like to know

how this issue is handled

in Panzer Elite or Steel Panzers

or Panzer General or other

turn based war games. Which I admit

I'm not at all familiar with.

My preference is the Real time

action, but I would never

suggest CM try real time

combat the 1 minute turn and

simulteaneous execution are

IDEAL in my opnion.

I hope BTS doesn't mind all of

our suggestions

thanks again BTS

-tom W

[PanzerShark]

I have a original map used during Normandy. I think it's very accurate. I'll post a link soon.

[Black Sabot]

Ok,

I once played Warcraft so i'm familiar with what you suggested. However, If the map reverts to grey upon the units demise and the last known information is "frozen", then that implies (to me at least) that the unit relayed some information about terrain to someone else (a HQ perhaps). So that means as a unit advances it is constantly feeding info up the chain of command.

This raises another issue, for instance...

Assume a platoon (3 squads + HQ) are scouting terrain. The squads report back to the HQ which in turn report back to a higher HQ. Now assume the platoon HQ is blown away, what happens now? My understanding is squad radios do not have the range to contact units far away, therefore any info about terrain cannot be passed on.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Well, here's my take on this issue.

Some realistically speaking and some technically speaking.

Like Ron said, that the battlefield in CE was reported to have been scouted out before hand. Of which I think probably the majority of the battlefields were before the major engagements occured. I mean wouldn't the opposing sides scout out the surrounding area a bit before hand either by ground-based scouts or by aerial photography?

Now on the technical side. How would this added FOW affect the CPU? I mean we already have partial and mis-identification of enemy units. How would the addition of partial or mis-identification of terrain features enhance gameplay? My vote is "Let's not hog the CPU any more than we have to, cause we're already have good enough "partial" FOW with units." We don't need a "shroud" over the terrain, because this is a WWII combat simulation and not an exploration-based RTS game.

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-20-2000).]

[Mark IV]

I think the map view would be great for immersion, realism, and emphasis on the role of recon.

BUT...

I think this is also potentially a self-propagating code nightmare that, carried to extremes, would have less and less return on investment (of BTS resources).

Once it's spotted by a friendly, it's spotted. That's good enough for me. The unchecked quest for absolute realism would mean that,technically, only a unit in LOS of ANY piece of terrain could see ALL the trees and bushes. All the radio contact in the world won't let the commander see an individual tree.

On the other hand, the pre-game briefing by reconnaissance doesn't net me a thing in terms of visualizing the terrain, because while they may confirm the existence of a bridge or hill, they aren't going to give a travelogue description of every stand of trees, or gently sloping 2-meter depression contour that let's me get a hull down over distance.

That's the kind of thing a commander has to see for himself at Level 1.

Just dividing the map into the 3D visible vs. the 2D mapped unknown, adds the recon element and some more FOW. I think it would be a mistake to split the hair any finer than that.

It would require a heck of a lot of resources to continuously recalculate and render every tile from every unit's point of view with every change of position. It would hurt playability, slow up the release of future versions, and probably crash my CPU.

We have to admit that certain levels of reality can only be simulated by shooting yourself in the thigh with a .22 if your HQ unit is overrun.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Mark IV is right, the hit on the CPU to calculate the view from every units viewpoint would be unbearable, slow-down gameplay and really not offer any enhancement to gameplay. And trying to code such a monster would be a killer on resources monerical and time.

Besides which other Wargame offers a shrouded map? It's just not done. There really no reason for it. Enemy unit sighting is the only shroud any wargame has ever implemented.

In any kind of computer simulations, you have to draw the line SOMEWHERE in the way of realism and playabilty.

In CM terms, how would you be able to plot the extensive waypoints without knowing what the terrain looks like.

ALSO, isn't that what binoculars are for? To stand up on a high hilltop somewhere and look around and survey the battlefield?

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

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-20-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

While the idea definitely has it's merits TOm had my opinion pegged with regards to unscrupulous players and scenario design. The ramifications of not knowing the terrain you are about to play on at a compteitive level would really be bad

As an option for single player that would be kool with me - but for multiplayer It would really be the basis for alot of problems

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-20-2000).]

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Enemy unit sighting is the only shroud any wargame has ever implemented<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to be quite clear... I still think the 2D topo for unspotted areas is completely cool. If no one else is doing it, that's all the more reason to do it. It's real.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>isn't that what binoculars are for? To stand up on a high hilltop somewhere and look around and survey the battlefield?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but you don't always have a hilltop, sometimes it's foggy or smokey, and at least once a day, it's night. Plus you can't see through hills and forests.

Say you're the Ami commander in CE. You can't see around that corner past the woods, to your right of the church. Is it more woods, a swamp, a low, rolling plain? Dunno, and there ain't no hill to stand on. Glance at the map, and you maybe see a less-wooded area with minor elevation contours. Topo maps didn't used to show small stands of trees very accurately.

Plus, a couple of world wars fought over the old homestead tend to alter terrain features. Hell, my 1998 map of Fresno, CA is wrong. So I think the 2D topo idea is very cool.

[Guest major_tom]

ok...

I understand not turning CM into an RTS

exploration sim...

but what about the role of the recon units

in large operations, could there not

be a good compelling reason to do your

own recon with your own units to

really "see" what out there.

I think this recon activity should

be a bigger part of the planning

of the tactics of the battle

Ok the shroud of the RTS fog of

war (like warcraft)may not be welcome here but

I like the idea of some realistic

exploration, like recon, to

determine whats really out there

and not just what I see on the map

we have to do this already to

determine the strength of troops

in the woods for example....

All I'm suggesting is an enhanced

role for the recon units....

I'm sure we will all just be quiet

and get down to business and start

playing and stop yacking/bitching

when the gold master ships and the gold

demo is released but until then..

I still would like to see some

limited errors or inaccuracies in the

map, that could be determined by

good recon...

-Tom W

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts:

Well, here's my take on this issue....

......

... My vote is "Let's not hog the CPU any more than we have to, cause we're already have good enough "partial" FOW with units." We don't need a "shroud" over the terrain, because this is a WWII combat simulation and not an exploration-based RTS game.

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-20-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Well, OK, but let's REALLY look at what CM is ACTUALLY simulating. Is it not, more or less, simulating a computerized version of a table-top board game using WWII miniatures? I mean look at the boarders of the map. After that it's just a generic green "astro-turf" looking deal out to where the bitmapped mountain ridges are.

It's just that this board game lets you get down on the "table" with your troops and has computer generated and animated tracers and explosions. Now the question is, wouldn't you normally see the entire gameboard in a miniatures battle, such as say "Warhammer" or "Warhammer 40K", or Star Wars minatures battles.

Now if CM was truely a (quote) military simulation done in a high-tech simulator, then YES, you would need terrain FOW. But this is not what CM is about. It is mearly a computerized "table-top miniatures battle".

I see what all of you are getting at, but that aspect is really not in the scope of what CM is trying to portray.

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

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[Guest major_tom]

Hold on

I take exception to this statement:

"Besides which other Wargame offers a shrouded map? It's just not done. There really no reason for it. Enemy unit sighting is the

only shroud any wargame has ever implemented."

Well one minute turns on a 3D terrain map

with simulteaneous execution seems new

and radical as well, but that is no reason

not to do it.

Yes that is exactly what binoculars are there

for, but they should spot structures and terrain features and bridges as well as enemy units that may have changed since the map was

last issued or the last arial recon was conducted.

I think just like in good ole' Kellies Hereos

movie, "that bridge might be there or it Might NOT be there", actually looking at it to see

if it is still up is the ONLY way to know

for sure, same with areas of forest on

fire or buildings or towns reduced to rubble

the, the player should have to discover these things by having his units "look" at them.

I do like the idea of recon and

exploration from the point of view of the

LOS of the troops on the ground.

This is my MAJOR complaint and pet peeve

with 2D wargames on board games (card board)

or on computer like Steel Panthers...

There is way TOO much exact information available to the omniscient commander who knows the exact strength and location of every enemy unit, this simply the biggest single thing that is wrong with war game battle simulations in general.

So in CM I would like to see the LOS of ground units used to spot terrain features and enemy units. I like the fact that there are unknown

and unidentified units in CM, I like the

fact that you can't really know their

strength or operational status.

I would like to see a greater role for the

fog of war in general and less information available to the commander and let the units themselves "see" the battle field and "radio" back their reports.

I think it has been assumed (correct me if I'm wrong) that if one unit can "see" something

then the player/commander knows about it

right away as do all the other units

and cyber warriors, I highly doubt this

will ever change based on cpu and hardware

demands, BUT there is really nothing to

stop units from spotting terrain, bulding, bridge and structure features EXACTLY the same

way they spot enemy units.

Rather than saying.. "its just not done" lets consider it new inovative, radical and revolutionary, ground Breaking, even.

A new feature that will set CM apart from

all other 2D board game like "omniscient commander" type, computer computer

wargames. I consider Panzer General one of those type of games, just a 2d board game on

a computer.

Combat Mission is truly different and in

the subsquent updates and future releases

I do hope to see an enhanced role for

the recon units and more LoS spoting for

other things in like terrain features in

addition to spotting enemy units....

Remember "revolutionary and Ground Breaking"

you heard her First!

-Tom W

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it not, more or less, simulating a computerized version of a table-top board game using WWII miniatures?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's simulating WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I mean look at the boarders of the map. After that it's just a generic green "astro-turf" looking deal out to where the bitmapped mountain ridges are?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to end it somewhere. I guess there could be a painted drop like a movie set with clouds on it, but what does that have to do with anything?

Obviously there is a superficial similarity to a table-top miniatures game. But if CM was simulating a miniatures simulation, big hands would move your tanks around and there would be legs under the table .

Explosions, camera shake, smoke rounds, tracers, fire, fog, and night are all simulations of combat conditions, not miniatures games. The effort which has already been put into FOW is evidence that BTS is modeling reality rather than a sand table.

I'm gonna buy the next CM whether it does my map thing or not. I just think it would be VERY cool to make my plan from the map that the actual commanders often had, then have my recon "discover" the actual terrain.

Entrenched defenders would probably have full "vision" because they would have had time in the area to physically recon it. Attackers would have topos for unspotted terrain. Meeting engagements have both sides squinting at contour lines for terra incognito. O-o-oh, yeah!

PS: Even if aerial photos were available I don't think many would filter down to battalion level in time for the upcoming engagement.

[Guest tom w]

For the record At work My computer nows me here as

major_tom AT home I'm tom w

Same person Same Idea's two different computers

(both me's are too lazy to change the user name, now

I'll be tom w until Monday Morning.)

I completely agree with Mark IV

he and I see things EXACTLY the same way

(if I may say that, ok Mark IV?)

this is not a minutures simulation

it has smoke and snow and rain and

your tanks have a chance of getting

bogged in, line of sight is now

accuratly calculated to the mm across

hundreds of meters of

virtual 3D terrain. A simulation

of WWII minutures it surely is NOT.

I agree with Mark IV even on the

aerial recon photos. probably would

not get there in time any way

as these are small 1-2 hour

tactical battles.

I'm just saying lets let our

cyber units recon the forward

area's for us. Spotting things

other than JUST enemy units.

Clearly the POTD

shows U.S. Recon vehicles, why not use

them to actually find out what's in

front of us instead of looking at a map

and trusting it to be exactly accurate.

I'm sure there will be larger battle fields

than CE or LD. So I am looking forward to

"discovering" whats on them by conducting

forward recon missions. These recon units

should let me see as they do exactly what

lies over that ridge, whats behind those trees,

whose is dug in where, thats what Recon really does

so lets find way to simulate this activity.

This is new and radical because no other board

game that was played without at third party

"umpire or referee" could ever simulate any recon

activity (other than by chance roll of the dice,

but I don't know any that even tried that), as it has always

been presummed that each player or commander could see

and know EVERYTHING the opposing player had in the

way of units and their exact strength.

Then the mathimatical

geniuses amongst us calculated all the odds out and

tried to will battles by pitting their strongest units

against an enemies (known) weakest unit.

How unrealistic is that?

CM has already tried in JUST the Beta demo to get that

ridiculus notion out of our heads.

So lets move forward.

On to 3D FOW spotting of terrain features....

(and enemy units)

-Tom W

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

PS: Even if aerial photos were available I don't think many would filter down to battalion level in time for the upcoming engagement.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tom w:

I'm just saying lets let our

cyber units recon the forward

area's for us. Spotting things

other than JUST enemy units.

Clearly the POTD

shows U.S. Recon vehicles, why not use

them to actually find out what's in

front of us instead of looking at a map

and trusting it to be exactly accurate.

I'm sure there will be larger battle fields

than CE or LD. So I am looking forward to

"discovering" whats on them by conducting

forward recon missions. These recon units

should let me see as they do exactly what

lies over that ridge, whats behind those trees,

whose is dug in where, thats what Recon really does

so lets find way to simulate this activity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so let's pretend that you plot some movement points for your little RECON unit and just so happens that where your last point is, or even somewhere in between, there is a body of water and your poor little recon units decides to take a swim. And then you cry about it. Now how does terrain FOW fit your fancy now?

I mean JESUS! Fellas! Why don't you just take your fancy little butts and code that up for yourselves then. Because I personally hate a shrouded battlefield.

Yes, CM has many revolutionary features, but do we REALLY NEED a shrouded FOW battlefield?

Fine! You can, but I'll take the full field of view and KICK your ASS and laugh.

This is getting a little ridiculous fellas. OK, maybe by the time CM2 comes out we'll all have at least Athlon 850s then that won't be a problem, but with the minimum requirements being in the range of P233s or whatever, then I don't think it's gonna happen.

I have no problems with introducing revolutionary features, but you gotta draw a line somewhere. I mean, HELL, we've played the DEMO now for 6 months and the Gold game coming out shortly and you all are bringing this up NOW?

I don't recall that any of the veteran players and members have been requesting this feature.

Well, HELL, you want total REALISM? Why does the air support only show up as flying ammo and plane shadows? Programming limitations!

I don't mean to sound like an ASSHOLE here, but com'on fellas! At this point in time, there is a limit on what the CPU can handle. First it was the "smoke" issue. With the argument being that it would be too much of a CPU hog. So now you want terrain FOW. Well, gee, need I say more?

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

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OB&G said:

I don't mean to sound like an ASSHOLE here, but com'on fellas!

*******************************

anybody else see a pattern?

Tom W - Man I think what you guys propopse Is interesting - as I said before, and for single player could be a kool addition for later versions - for multi player I dont think I would like it tho - But the idea of enhanced FOW shouldnt be shot down jsut cause the peanut gallery doesnt like it

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest tom w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts:

I mean JESUS! Fellas! Why don't you just take your fancy little

butts and code that up for yourselves then. Because I personally

hate a shrouded battlefield.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I read and thought.....

"Gee perhaps this person prefers the "old" way

of war gaming, where everything was obvious and

known and seen by both sides"

I guess my first reaction is that you would

probably really enjoy the New SP W@W

I'm sure you will like it because it will be free

if you care to download a 280 meg file.

At any rate my point is, that game looks

just like a fancy 2d board game. If you like

an over head view of a 2d map where there is

no shroud and it would seem very little

FOW, then I'll bet you will think this is a

GREAT game, I've only seen the screen shots

I think you can see them at www.matrix.com.

BUT CM can be MUCH much more than just a

over head 2d computer wargame.

It sounds to me like OB&G's is looking

for a computer war game like a board

game that just saves you the

time of rolling the dice like you do in a board

game. If thats for you then the CC series and

the SP series and the new SP W@W

sound perfectly suited for you.

Its seems to me that BTS was looking for feed back

and suggestions.

I've only played the game for about a month

given the fact that I know the Gold Master

code is 99.9% if not more complete I know none

of these FOW idea's will show up in the Gold Master

(unless that is to be a pleasant surprise, which I doubt)

So what's actually happening here is that Mark IV and I

are lobbying, (making suggestions nothing more)

for enhancements we would like to see in CM2.

BTW no offense taken

-tom w

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Tom W said:

yah and SOME of us were actually able to pick up on that

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

SS_PanzeyLeader, don't get me started...

NO I love CM's 3D concept, but since coding on CM stopped over a month ago, there will be NO terrain FOW.

For one, there have been many discussions about what Steve and Charles intended CM to be, including a REAL TIME mode discussion, NOT!, and I don't think they ever had in mind incorporating a terrain FOW. It just doesn't fit in with the orders feature. How can you do efficient micro-managing with the orders menu without knowing the entire battlefield and without wasting time doing the ol' slow and cautious advance with your little precious recon units?

I have always respected what Steve and Charles want in their masterpiece, so I just find it rude for people to keep pushing for features that they don't want or have no intention to implementing. The request to have CM have a real-time mode was shot down just for the very same reason I am claiming that terrain FOW doesn't work for the current system. The only suggested changes that I have seen implemented are mostly texture tweaks, including the new smoke effects. And that didn't go off without a huge discussion on CPU hit.

So in other words while you dick around probing with your recon units, I'm gonna send a 75-88mm AP round your way with a little message written on the shell, "Ouch, did that hurt?"

Muwhahahaha!

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

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[SS_PanzerLeader]

ob&g SIAD:

SS_PanzeyLeader, don't get me started...

gimme a break man you never stopped

then ya said thiS:

I have always respected what Steve and Charles want in their masterpiece, so I just find it rude for people to keep pushing for features that they don't want or have no intention to implementing.

Man what is your deal?? BTS has been awesome about listenting to peoples Ideas and implementing them if they agreed

WHO ONE EARTH DO YOU THINK YOU ARE to tell people they cant have any ideas

YOU FIND IT RUDE???????????????????

MY god man read your own posts if you want RUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry all for my outburst but this was a bit much

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out