Frontlines in Campaigns

[Tris]

Keeping units where they end the previous battle is definitely not a good idea because they'll start in sight of whoever was firing on them in the last battle.

What's bad about that?

One side almost always needs to regroup between battles and re-setup a coherent defense/attack and doing the regrouping on the move during a game turn under fire just doesn't sound like a lot of fun and isn't realistic.

At the scale CMBO wants to model a period for "regrouping" is wholly inappropriate. It is also not at all realistic. Soldiers in real life do not take mutually-agreed-to "regrouping breaks" every half hour but fight until they fight no more.

It seems simple but I think we just have to recognize that front-line calculation is more complicated than we think it is. I can think of one problem right off the bat.

1. Battle ends and computer draws front lines but gives defender in a surrounded town option to keep guys there.

2. Defender decides he doesn't want the town after all and moves everyone back.

3. Now the attacker has to set up but there's a huge black hole where the town is where he can't set up but should be able to.

It is only complicated for the reason you make it so. The computer doesn't need to "draw" anything. The problem as it stands is that the computer has been directed to "draw" front lines. What we need is for the programmers to leave this aspect of play to the gamers (and TacAI) to handle as best they might "on the fly" as it were . . . just as they do it in real life battles.

Would that be doable? Of course. It would take no programming at all, except the ability to strip the code now in the engine that draws these lines to begin with.

The thing is, a "front" is defined by where troops happen to be, to put if simply. There is no need for the computer to do anything between battles except affect resupply and bring on reinforcements. Drawing lines for gamers to sit behind and "arrange themsmelves" accordingly is as phoney as it gets. The more I think about this the more stupid it strikes me to be.

By the way, in the course of your remarks you hit upon another shortcoming of the operations: there are no reinforcement locations but rather these assets are simply heaped en masse onto one of the map edges.

More dumbness.

Let me ask you this: how hard would it have been, really, to have figured this out during playtest and arrived at something better? Did the playtesters all suffer from lockjaw, did BTS simply ignore intelligent feedback? What's going on here?

I'm sure there's tons of little nasty situations like this that Charles has discovered already.

I'm sure there are any number of "problems" one could dream up . . . especially if BTS continues to approach the problem with the peculiar view that it's necessary for the computer to draw front lines for everyone.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

OK, all sparring aside..

Tris, have you tried setting the no-mans land at 0 meters yet, as was suggested?

If so, did it do anything to improve the problems you cite?

[Tris]

IPA: you hit the nail on the head in my case re the quality of this game system. It is the best I've seen of its kind and one of the best wargames I've ever played of any description. The plain truth is I don't even like games at this scale, being an "operational" kind of guy, yet still I pour hour after hour into the little beastie. Hell, I just stepped out and spent some $400 on a new video card so my damned trees wouldn't twinkle . . . .

(somethingisntrighthere...hemumbled)

[Tris]

OK, all sparring aside..

Tris, have you tried setting the no-mans land at 0 meters yet, as was suggested?

If so, did it do anything to improve the problems you cite?

Of course I have. That's the first "remedy" I went to for the reason it's the only one available. Anyway, it effectively makes no difference. Setting no-man's land to 0m ameliorates to a degree the damage done in terms of "pushing back" the defense, but no matter the distance set the line still runs N-S (or E-W) straight as an arrow and that is the problem. The line itself is the problem. We don't need the line. Armies in real life have successfully fought wars all over the planet without "lines." Please get rid of the lines. The lines make no good sense.

There. Now that I've got that out of my system . . . you tell me how to design an intelligent operation with those lines. Please, I'm all ears.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi Guys,

Firstly, I want to say that Ive been playing ops almost solely now for about a year, and Ive lost count of how many Ive played but its probably nearing 100. Yes, I agree there are areas that can and will be improved, but I also think they play out very well and can be a lot more fun than standard battles.

Tris, a couple of points you mentioned were...

"At the scale CMBO wants to model a period for "regrouping" is wholly inappropriate. It is also not at all realistic. Soldiers in real life do not take mutually-agreed-to "regrouping breaks" every half hour but fight until they fight no more."

To be honest, I disagree totally here. Ive read many account of battles that have lasted for days with periods of inactivity between major engagements. What you are suggestings would lead to all battles being fought continuiously, with no time in between engagements, is that realistic?

No, even soldiers need to sleep, resupply (this is a big one, Ive youve played many ops you will find ammo runs low after probably 20mins of combat), and yes, regroup, even at this scale. Maybe what you are suggesting here is that you would like to play an operation right from beginning to end without the breaks, even through the quiet periods, Im not 100% sure...?

"A "front" is defined by where troops happen to be, to put if simply. There is no need for the computer to do anything between battles except affect resupply and bring on reinforcements."

Ok, *but* how do these units get resupplied? By trucks and men I imagine, but the problem is that if units end where they were last placed then chances are many are in direct LOS of the enemy. So is it realistic for these units to be resupplied between battles....of course not. So which would you rather, a tank to stay at the front and have low ammo next battle, or pull back to resupply?

Ok, so what Im trying to point out here is that the problems are much further reaching than what they first seem, and are also much more complicated. But again, I will say that there are areas that I agree, need to be looked at, and will be. I think I am probably the #1 biggest operation fan out there, so trust me when I say that Im looking forward to future improvements in this area.

This could be a very interesting discussion guys, with some good ideas put forward, but when comments are made that come across as rude it unfortuantely puts a bad overtone over the topic. Im just asking guys is to keep responses polite, that isnt a lot to ask, and the result is that it is much easier to take responses seriously...

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

OK, I see where you are coming from. You push forward in one part of your front line, and the line is straightened, forcing you out of the territory you just fought for. Yeah, that sucks. I don't like that it happens.

One idea that might help (not fix) the problem is to build operation maps in a relatively narrow attack lane. If a map is 800 meters wide, you could build it 2000 meters deep. It could limit the effect of the straight line situation

I don't know, I can't think of anything else right now. But I still believe that operations are playable. I would like to see improvements in this, too. I am certain that everyone here feels that way too.

But the vinegar isn't working, try some honey.

[Tris]

Firstly, I want to say that Ive been playing ops almost solely now for about a year, and Ive lost count of how many Ive played but its probably nearing 100. Yes, I agree there are areas that can and will be improved, but I also think they play out very well and can be a lot more fun than standard battles.

They could be. They should be.

Tris, a couple of points you mentioned were...

At the scale CMBO wants to model a period for "regrouping" is wholly inappropriate. It is also not at all realistic. Soldiers in real life do not take mutually-agreed-to "regrouping breaks" every half hour but fight until they fight no more.

To be honest, I disagree totally here. Ive read many account of battles that have lasted for days with periods of inactivity between major engagements. What you are suggestings would lead to all battles being fought continuiously, with no time in between engagements, is that realistic?

For operations, "breaks" in the action of the nature you envisage would be better achieved if BTS programmed a "strategic" function into the the scenario editor, this to be implemented after so many turns at the designer's discretion.

As it stands at present, the model is not well-suited to fight a 30-minute battle here on one day and another 30-minute battle there the next day. For that matter, why do all battles within an operation have to be the same length? Why can't some battles be set to terminate earlier or later? Or how about variable battle lengths which work off randomization? Did anyone think of that during playtest?

At this scale it would lead to entirely more realistic results than what we have now. We're not fighting actual operations here, aferall, but "operations" within the context of this squad-level simulation.

No, even soldiers need to sleep, resupply (this is a big one, Ive youve played many ops you will find ammo runs low after probably 20mins of combat)...

Which is why I have given my men full loads to carry in the operation I'm designing--60 small arms, 2 demo packs, etc. Yes, resupply is an issue, but that should be taken care of between battles by the computer with no real problem.

...and yes, regroup, even at this scale.

At this scale any regrouping will be done either along "the line" or directly behind it. When you think about this, regrouping of any kind no matter the scale takes place either along the line or behind it.

What the system does is to draw a perfectly silly straight line across the map and impose this new jumping-off point on the players between battles. This leads to ludicrous results, especially with river lines and cities depicted on maps which are not conceived with absolute directional axes taken into consideration. Tell you what. Since you are apparently one of the players around here who has an "in" at BTS, let me ask you: how did that lunacy get past the playtest crew? Was there no one around to point out the utter fallacy of this approach? Could no one discern 100 actual problems it created for each one you might care to imagine it solves?

Maybe what you are suggesting here is that you would like to play an operation right from beginning to end without the breaks, even through the quiet periods, Im not 100% sure...?

That approach might be addressed by allowing players to create battles with infinite turns, plus the engine would need to be coded to allow for resupply every half hour or so. This was mentioned above.

In any event, at the moment I am only here to solely advocate the elimination of lines of demarcation in operations. The basic concept of lines is flawed. It is flawed for the reason that it doesn't work, that it causes real problems in play, that is adds nothing to the historical model and detracts a great deal in many instances.

What could be simpler?

A "front" is defined by where troops happen to be, to put it simply. There is no need for the computer to do anything between battles except affect resupply and bring on reinforcements.

Ok, *but* how do these units get resupplied? By trucks and men I imagine, but the problem is that if units end where they were last placed then chances are many are in direct LOS of the enemy. So is it realistic for these units to be resupplied between battles....of course not.

You apparently have never been to war. While supplies might be "trucked in," they are delivered as a rule to the front by grunts who carry this stuff in on their backs. Or at least in WW II this was the case. In Nam choppers helped out a great deal in this respect, but then troops there would often be lifted into inaccessible areas which only choppers could reach out to for purpose of resupply--and even then you couldn't be sure. But this isn't Nam it's Europe over half a century ago and grunts hauled their own ammo out to the front line if they wanted it. That, or runners might be sent back for it, say a man from each squad, something like that. Whatever, that's fundamentally how ammo gets to the front. Sometimes maybe it doesn't get to the front at all, in which case the men caught short are in deep doo-doo. (At this juncture my best counsel would be to make tracks.)

As Sherman noted, "War is hell."

Do you really think that in war both sides take convenient breaks for nicely painted trucks to roll up at their leisure and toss down ammo and K-rations and mail to their respective troops? You think that's how wars are fought? You believe that's what CMBO ought to model?

So which would you rather, a tank to stay at the front and have low ammo next battle, or pull back to resupply?

A tank will need to pull back for resupply because no one's gonna lug all those rounds on their backs, but again, at this scale that can mean many things and might be modelled in various ways. In no manner, shape or form does this need to resupply tanks oblige the designers to "draw lines" in between battles. That is plainly unjustified.

Sometimes it's the case that one's side will have tanks without ammo while the other has tanks with all the ammo they can carry. **** happens, **** like that happens all the time in war. That's just bad luck for the ammo-less tank guys, by the way. But that's how war works--it cheats like nobody's business, and if you'd spend your time trying to get that notion though the head of Charles we'd all be further down the road. Get Charles to code that sort of realism into the model instead of justifying the inclusion of these silly lines, which cause nothing but problems and gross ahistoricity.

Ok, so what Im trying to point out here is that the problems are much further reaching than what they first seem, and are also much more complicated.

This is getting us nowhere fast. You sound very much like a man in denial. If so, I suppose this is because it's easier to be in denial when that lets you "get along" with the people you wish to rub elbows with. That's an old human condition and you will need to address it squarely one day if you hope to get on efficiently.

Now no doubt you will paint that as some sort of personal attack, but it is nothing of the sort. Only the truth as I see it.

I will repeat: instead of trying to convince me that black is white it would represent a much better investment of your time to write a nice friendly chatty be-sure-not-to-scold email to Charles and inform him as pleasantly as possible that his hare-brained concept of lines between battles is . . . all wet.

But again, I will say that there are areas that I agree, need to be looked at, and will be. I think I am probably the #1 biggest operation fan out there, so trust me when I say that Im looking forward to future improvements in this area

You won't see the biggest improvements until the lines go. So go write that email to Charles.

Hop to it!

P.S. I like some of your mods. Good job.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

.....Tris, bad news, I actually work for those people you claim I am trying to "rub elbows with".

And no, I did not make my comments above based on this fact, but based on the fact that I have played dozens of operations over many many months, and have enjoyed them very much. I was hoping here we could have a polite and reasonable discussion on the further expansion and improvements of operations in Combat Mission, but I see you already know you are 100% correct, and thus, as you say, we will get nowhere here. I can see past my prejudices, I had hoped you could.

Thus, unfortauntely and much against my wishes, that is where I am ending my involvement in this discussion.....

[Tris]

.....Tris, bad news, I actually work for those people you claim I am trying to "rub elbows with".

That hardly makes the situation any better, now does it?

And no, I did not make my comments above based on this fact, but based on the fact that I have played dozens of operations over many many months, and have enjoyed them very much.

Great, you've enjoyed all of the operations you've played over the past x months. What does that have to do with the price of pickles in Australia?

I was hoping here we could have a polite and reasonable discussion on the further expansion and improvements of operations in Combat Mission...

. . . and here it comes . . .

...but I see you already know you are 100% correct, and thus, as you say, we will get nowhere here. I can see past my prejudices, I had hoped you could.

I have no prejudice, unless it be that I have no time for things which do not work coming in. If that's a prejudice then call me prejudiced, by all means.

Meanwhile, my discussion thus far has been nothing but reasonable. For every point I have made re the use of lines and how they do not work in the game I have offered a better alternative approach. If that is not reasonable then I have no notion of what "reasonable" means.

The best solution to the problems of lines is to simply eliminate them. That would be easy to fix since you'd only have to disable the code affecting these devices. Presto! No more lines. And it wouldn't hurt play one iota while it would solve many obvious problems in the blink of an eye. But nooooooo. BTS has to have its little way.

Okay. But like I wrote earlier, that attitude stands diametrically opposed to the company's otherwise inspiring manifesto, and one day all this might very well lead directly to the loss of customers. You don't believe me? Then go take a gander at the histories of companies such as SSI and Talonsoft.

But go ahead, have it your way.

Thus, unfortauntely and much against my wishes, that is where I am ending my involvement in this discussion.....

That is the easy way out and quite typical . . . of those who stand on shakey ground, that is.

[Tris]

But the vinegar isn't working, try some honey.

You are mistaken. Telling people what they want to hear is never the way to good change.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Tris:

These people are gladhanders, hangerson, gadflies--call them what you will--and it is rarely the case that they themselves ever offer suggestions of their own as to how to improve play but rather just raise their ugly collective head and try to shout down anyone else who does through the pathetic veil of "do what's what's right by" . . . The Company.

This kinda talk is why most people come after you. Not for making suggestions,but for being so arrogant.You always make it out like you are the rebel that dares to defy the Godhead which is BTS and we are all sycophants lapping the scraps from the floor, that Steve throws, because some don't agree with how you approach things. 90% of your posts are selfrighteous and uppity and smeared with your dicky attitude. Your not the only arrogant person on here but you are one of the biggest offenders.

It's not the suggestion making that pisses people off it's the tone in which it's made.

Your tone is usually insulting, as I see it.

Your not a rebel. Your just a game player like the rest of us. Lighten up a little and maybe others will as well.

Mord.

P.S I also agreed with some of the things you had to say.

[This message has been edited by Mord (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Tris]

OK, I see where you are coming from. You push forward in one part of your front line, and the line is straightened, forcing you out of the territory you just fought for. Yeah, that sucks. I don't like that it happens.

Well it might happen, but this decision needs to be made by the player (TacAI) for reasons of tactical necessity. At times it will not be possible to retract one's lines, or to get isolated units out of their predicaments. And that's just too tough, now isn't it? Just like in real life.

One idea that might help (not fix) the problem is to build operation maps in a relatively narrow attack lane. If a map is 800 meters wide, you could build it 2000 meters deep. It could limit the effect of the straight line situation.

That's really no good approach at all; indeed, the example merely serves to emphasize what terrible play issues arise from the use of lines to begin with.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Tris]

These people are gladhanders, hangerson, gadflies--call them what you will--and it is rarely the case that they themselves ever offer suggestions of their own as to how to improve play but rather just raise their ugly collective head and try to shout down anyone else who does through the pathetic veil of "do what's what's right by" . . . The Company.

This kinda talk is why most people come after you. Not for making suggestions,but for being so arrogant.

That remark is not what caused you to write what you did. That remark is in response to the kind of insipid babble we all too often find on boards everywhere. It is groupspeak at its most base level and I, for one, do not intend to put up with it when it is directed to me. If you want to go round and round on this, fine. I eat dumb food for breakfast.

You always make it out like you are the rebel that dares to defy the Godhead which is BTS and we are all sycophants lapping the scraps from the floor...

I do not 'always' make this point, but in a respect aren't you and others around here sycophants in a certain respect? Isn't that how you choose to go through your lives?

Don't blame me for pointing this stuff out. Go stare in the mirror and tell yourself over and over again that you like what you see. Call it therapy.

...that Steve throws, because some don't agree with how you approach things. 90% of your posts are selfrighteous and uppity and smeared with your dicky attitude. Your not the only arrogant person on here but you are one of the biggest offenders.

Thank you for that wisdom. Now go to bed.

It's not the suggestion making that pisses people off it's the tone in which it's made. Your tone is usually insulting, as I see it.

I'm not here to please you. I only want my games to be as good as possible. If that happens to rankle you or anyone else along the way I couldn't care less.

Do you walk around in the Realworld acting like you do on here?

As a matter of fact, yes, I've forged a life for myself where I can and do say exactly what's on my mind all the time and without exception.

No how does that sound to you? Aren't you just a bit envious?

Seriously.

I was perfectly serious.

If you do you are either handicap or really old 'cause I think you'd get your ass kicked alot.

Like I said, Mord, go to bed. In a few years you might be better off for the sleep.

Your not a rebel. Your just a game player like the rest of us. Lighten up a little and maybe others will as well.

I don't need to lighten up. If left to my own devices my copy comes clean as the driven snow and it sticks to business. I make points, good points, and I buttress my arguments with common-sense examples of how to make things better. If you don't like that, if you think that's the manner of a troublemaker, then . . .

. . . go to bed.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

My favorite Tris statements:

#1 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You make awful good games, Steve, and for this I am pleased. I don't know about your capacity as the moderator of a board, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(not bad. good jab at the end.)

#2 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, you could use some thicker skin. I sure wouldn't go into a combat zone with what you've shown thus far.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(yeah, probably the other guy's fault...)

#3 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now please go back and read that post again, see that I am correct and that you have made a fool of yourself, then come back here and humbly beg my forgiveness. I may or may not grant you dispensation, just depends on my mood at the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(nice, nice...but not as good as lew..um nevermind)

#4 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really don't think BTS is amenable to sensible change on this topic. It seems to be the case that they've simply decided to ignore the issue altogether, judging from the poor response I've had to date from Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(good, but not great..not personal enough)

#5 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, I've endured this garbage for many years and I am not moved, not impressed, and not about to act on it any further than to respond to such idiocy just as harshly as I deem necessary in order to ensure that the relatively few people around who can (or care to) entertain original thought are provided sufficient elbow room to do so, and hopefully to then publicly voice same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Brilliant! I'm not being a jerk, I'm a crusader!!!)

#6 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is getting us nowhere fast. You sound very much like a man in denial. If so, I suppose this is because it's easier to be in denial when that lets you "get along" with the people you wish to rub elbows with. That's an old human condition and you will need to address it squarely one day if you hope to get on efficiently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(LOL...KD was trying to impress himself)

#7 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can stoop, I can stoop. Only believe this: I can stoop way lower than you and much more articulately.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(I don't doubt it...what a fun guy to be around..)

#8 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Meanwhile, my discussion thus far has been nothing but reasonable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. This one's my favorite!

Tris, go to bed...

[Tris]

Well, at least I've tried to contribute to this game by offering suggestions to improve play. What have you done lately along those lines? Or are you content to just be part of the anonymous crowd and conveniently groupspeak your way through what passes for life where you live?

Meanwhile, for anyone interested . . . I mentioned earlier in another thread that I think Panzertruppen's building art is gorgeous to behold. And it is! But then I turned right around an hour or so ago and reloaded Magua's church--this was one of the two Panzerturppen mods I had installed, the other being his stone wall, which I've also re-replaced with Magua's again.

Anyway, I agree with Magua's assessment: something isn't perfect about that steeple of his. Anyone know what that might be? I think the steeple would look better open, at least to the front and rear. I'm trying to recall a vision of European steeples I've seen and those slats Magua employs just don't appear in it.

What do you think?

[Mord]

You proved my point better than I could Tris.

All you have to do is type...

Mord.

[This message has been edited by Mord (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Vanir]

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

You sound very much like a man in denial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I do not 'always' make this point, but in a respect aren't you and others around here sycophants in a certain respect? Isn't that how you choose to go through your lives?

Don't blame me for pointing this stuff out. Go stare in the mirror and tell yourself over and over again that you like what you see. Call it therapy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to be making rather broad assumptions about how people live their personal lives based upon a few posts about a computer game. I know, I know: it's just the truth as you see it.

I must say, Tris, that the arrogance you consistently display in your posts is at such a level that I can't help but wonder if it's genuine or if it's an act you play for your own entertainment. Your "internet persona" if you will. I admit, it does make for humorous reading, however.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a matter of fact, yes, I've forged a life for myself where I can and do say exactly what's on my mind all the time and without exception.

No how does that sound to you? Aren't you just a bit envious?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you sir, are almost certainly a liar. Or at least an exaggerator of considerable scale. Do you really think we are such complete morons as to actually believe such a laughable boast? Don't answer. Your previous posts have made it clear. If you are 250 lbs. of solid muscle you may be able to get away with it, but otherwise few people would tolerate the level of condescension in person, face to face, that you display here. I certainly would not.

Some of your ideas do have merit. The elimination of the line in operations would seem to solve some problems, if creating a few more. It is unfortunate that you defeat your own purpose by alienating the very people you are trying to convince. If you were even half as smart as you claim to be you would have realized this by now.

Now no doubt you will paint that as some sort of personal attack, but it is nothing of the sort. Only the truth as I see it.

Now, Tris, take Captian Foobar's advice and go to bed... no, really, go to bed

P.S.

Captain Foobar, you forgot this example of Tris reminding us of his formidability (in case we had forgotten, I'm sure):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I am an able man, though, and I do not apologize for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someday soon we should make a comprehensive collection of Tris quotes and publish them. It would probably have to be sold in the humor section though...

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

You mean my Java coded Real Time Bar Fight Simulator Madmatt Mission: Beyond BiteMe ISN'T going to be published?!?

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Mord]

[This message has been edited by Mord (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Tris]

As a matter of fact, yes, I've forged a life for myself where I can and do say exactly what's on my mind all the time and without exception.

No how does that sound to you? Aren't you just a bit envious?

And you sir, are almost certainly a liar.

Why do you say that?

Or at least an exaggerator of considerable scale. Do you really think we are such complete morons as to actually believe such a laughable boast?

You mean to tell me you cannot conceive of anyone able to go through his life not worried about what other people think of him? Let me ask you something else: is it possible that you yourself are so worried about what others think of you that this colors your objectivity to the point where you simply refuse to believe that anyone else might not have a different slant on this and therefore does, indeed, dare to be himself in all situations?

Think about that some time. No rush, you have the rest of your life.

Don't answer.

Thank you, but I think I will reserve the right to answer whomever I please, and in the manner I please.

Your previous posts have made it clear. If you are 250 lbs. of solid muscle.

No, I'm 6"0" and go about 200 at the moment--but I'm threatening to diet some of that away.

you may be able to get away with it, but otherwise few people would tolerate the level of condescension in person, face to face, that you display here. I certainly would not.

You wouldn't eh? So tell me, what, exactly, would you do about this ever-so-bold person who dared to speak directly to you?

Some of your ideas do have merit. The elimination of the line in operations would seem to solve some problems, if creating a few more.

Its elimination would create no problems at all. It is the line itself which creates problems. It is the line which is the problem. It is a problem because it does not work. It is a problem because it imposes loads of gaminess and ahistoricity and in some cases (too many, I would argue) simply blows you out of the water with its uncanny ability to completely screw up the whole operational map, and thus your game--and all in the blink of an eye.

That is the problem. Elimination of the line would solve this problem.

It is unfortunate that you defeat your own purpose by alienating the very people you are trying to convince. If you were even half as smart as you claim to be you would have realized this by now.

BTS seems to get "alienated" not only by my feedback but, as far as I've been able to tell by reading most everything on this board, by anyone who challenges its authority to do what it pleases with its game. I've read any number of posts by players who strike me as fairly mature people judging by their writing skills and historical acumen who've been chastised not only by BTS but by the crowd of sycophants who hang around boards of this type and champion The Company (whatever the name of the company happens to be--it doesn't matter) on all points great and small. None of this is new, none of this is original, none of this is intelligent, as far as that goes. It's just the way it is.

Call it one of life's many pities.

Thankfully, I know better. I have been down this road many times and realize the only way to affect good change is to first understand the problem, then figure out a better method, then stick to your guns when, more often than not, your logical appeal is thrown back into your face. And since I do know what I speak about, and really don't care what you think about me, that's a snap.

Now no doubt you will paint that as some sort of personal attack, but it is nothing of the sort. Only the truth as I see it.

Good for you. I never take umbrage at criticism, not even personal criticism of the harshest variety. Just keep it intelligent and reasonably polite and you and I shall never cross swords. But if you get silly on me, or nasty . . . well, then I own you.

Okay?

Meanwhile, have a nice day.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Tris]

"........."

You were saying, Mord . . . ?

[Guest Big Time Software]

The Almighty Tris wrote

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really don't think BTS is amenable to sensible change on this topic. It seems to be the case that they've simply decided to ignore the issue altogether, judging from the poor response I've had to date from Steve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. As usual, you have drawn conclusions in your own head that run contray to the facts and decided to abuse us instead of offer reasoned and reasonable discussion. It does not surprise me.

As a rule we do not feel the overwhelming need to respond to rude, insulting, egotistical, hyporcritcal, demanding, whining, childish, horses' asses personalities. Yet we still try and address the issues even when such a person posts here. I in fact gave you a straight answer to your previous question inspite of fitting this definition and then some.

First of all, we have made the most innovative wargame in at least the past decade. We not only say this, but every single review that has come out has said it. We have also put in litterally hundreds of user suggestions when they are both positive and practical. We have had a discussion forum second to none in the gaming community, involving the free discussion of our work BEFORE we even released it to the public. And because of that Combat Mission gets even better.

We never ignore or abuse anybody that makes suggestions, but we do not like it when self centered know it alls think they know more about what we do than the people that actually do it. I challenge you to find even ONE example of this. Even my answer to your initial question was neither abusive nor an act of blowing you off. I plainly stated that we had innumerable problems with doing things with the frontline, so that is the way it is right now. I even said it isn't perfect, but of course the Almighty Tris got offended and decided to go on one of his Hollier Than Thou Rants™.

Why Tris, tell me why, is it that you are even here? Just to be the Voice of Reason and Truth? We don't need it. Combat Mission was made without the benefit of your infinite wisdom and knowledge, and I can assure you that it will become better in the future. It amazes me how much contempt you have for the people that made this amazing game. If we did such a shoddy job making it, including HOW we made it (user feedback), why the Hell are you wasting your time playing and discussing it? One would expect you should have much more important things to do with your life than waste it here discussing your brilliance with us morons.

Sheesh...

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, at least I've tried to contribute to this game by offering suggestions to improve play. What have you done lately along those lines? Or are you content to just be part of the anonymous crowd and conveniently groupspeak your way through what passes for life where you live? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I am happy to be a sychophant, hoping that if I lick enough boots around here, follow blindly, and don't rock the boat, some game designers and people I have never met mightlike me better.. (huh?)

Actually, read up on me to come up with more accurate accusations. I try to contribute where I can.

But the difference is respect. You can "stick to your guns", and still treat people with respect.

Being hard to get along with is not a virtue.

So smile, Tris. This is all supposed to be fun.

So BTS doesn't see eye-to-eye with you on something. At this point you want jihad over it.

The way I see it, they have shown a damn good track record of trying to make this the most accurate / best wargame around. I give them the benefit of the doubt at first when I encounter something like Operation lines.

They answered basically that something "might" need to be done to them, that it is a very complicated issue, and (iirc) that they would improve in the next version of CM.

Unacceptable to you? Well, too bad really. It's their game, deal with it. I imagine that you and I agree on almost all things that should be improved in CM, but YOU are an obstacle to the cause. Your sales-pitch sucks.

[Vanir]

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

You mean to tell me you cannot conceive of anyone able to go through his life not worried about what other people think of him? Let me ask you something else: is it possible that you yourself are so worried about what others think of you that this colors your objectivity to the point where you simply refuse to believe that anyone else might not have a different slant on this and therefore does, indeed, dare to be himself in all situations?

Think about that some time. No rush, you have the rest of your life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you say "be himself in all situations" what you mean is to dare to insult someone if they disagree with your point. That is, after all, what you have done and is what I was talking about. You're trying to make your actions sound far more noble than they are.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You wouldn't eh? So tell me, what, exactly, would you do about this ever-so-bold person who dared to speak directly to you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Speak directly to you". Heh, you have quite the way with euphemisms.

Oh, I don't know. I may ignore him or "speak directly" back at him. Or if I've had a bad day I may just clock this ever-so-bold person on the spot. I've done such things a few times in the past just for the hell of it. What is life without some spice! And there would be nothing wrong with such an action, of course. I would simply be "being myself" in that particular situation. And I wouldn't care what he thought of me. See how open I am with my feelings toward others? How admirable I am!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Thankfully, I know better. I have been down this road many times and realize the only way to affect good change is to first understand the problem, then figure out a better method, then stick to your guns when, more often than not, your logical appeal is thrown back into your face.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Thrown back into your face". Ah, the euphemisms just keep coming. Let me ask you something. What was it that KrawzyDog said that constituted him throwing your logic back in your face? He simply disagreed with parts of your proposition. Politely. Is anyone who dares disagree with your superior logical appeal throwing it into your face? Is this the justification you use for insulting him? Is anyone who agrees with BTS on this subject either "in denial" or a sycophant? That's pretty much what you have said here. I could cut and paste but you know what you wrote.

Do you really expect to change minds using such tactics?

As someone wrote above, you seem to view yourself as some sort of noble crusader; a lone ranger fighting the good fight against The Man (BTS). Your're nothing of the sort. It wasn't your challenge of the current BTS policy on the line in operations that drove KrazyDog away, nor was it fear of your awesome intellect and powers of reason. It was your abrasive and condescending tone.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And since I do know what I speak about, and really don't care what you think about me, that's a snap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you know of what you speak. You're Tris. A capable man who makes no apologies. And KrazyDog, despite playing over 100 operations, does not know about what he speaks. How could he? He disagreed with you after all.

Let me give you a small revelation: Not having a care in the world what anyone else thinks about you is not a virtue. It's true that many become too concerned with the opinions of others. However, people often have blind spots when viewing themselves. The thoughts of others can help at times, if one can set aside his pride.

Another small revelation: People who genuinely do not care if others like them or not often do so, in part, because they know themselves to be unlikable people.

Think about that some time. No rush, you have the rest of your life

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

You mean my Java coded Real Time Bar Fight Simulator Madmatt Mission: Beyond BiteMe ISN'T going to be published?!?

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Silver Stars]

Yeesh......sounds like someone didn't get a pony when they were a kid.......

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

"Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something."

[Chupacabra]

Hey, a sycophant discussion! Oh boy! I missed the first one, maybe I can get in on this one!

Oh, by the way, this game is becoming a synopsis of the dying PC games industry, you refreshing monkeys! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 11-26-2000).]