My greatest gripe with CM

[ianc]

Gentlemen,

let me preface this by saying that it is usually my nature to only offer constructive critism (and this is one of them) Whenever I think long about CM, my musings usually converge on one fact: That the graphics in CM don't portray a corresponding space-time reality on the battlefield. This issues was raised early on. Here's a quote from Steve from God-knows when talking about this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, not really You missed, and that is all that really matters. The graphical representation has absolutely nothing to do with anything when you get right down to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but this is what I dream of! I know portraying an accurate reality is very CPU-intensive (among other things). But it not being so is the cause of all sorts of problems insofar as certain disontinuities are experienced between what the player actually sees in his examination of the field, and what is actually being crunched in the CPU. This loss of continuity is in some ways critical; affecting hull-down calculations, LOS issues affecting bldg's, and myriad other info that would be plainly apparent on the field.

I just wonder what sort of system advances would be required to implement this sort of correlation. I have no idea of what would be involved, but I can dream about popping into a certain unit's viewpoint and being able to see everything they can see, having a clear view into trees, houses, etc...

I often think to myself, "Gosh dawg, I can't believe the good luck that somebody actually made this wonderful game"! And yet I still dream... Damn, I'm really anxious to see what CM2 has in store...

ianc

[This message has been edited by ianc (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Abbott]

2. No foul language. Standard decency request here. If people ignore this we do have the technology to block any word we want from being posted. Try and keep us from flipping the "censor" switch, will ya? We don't really want to use it.

[deanco]

Oh, come on, Abbott. It's a legitimate topic, and the curse words are to emphasize that he's happy about the game. OK, he could have said it differently but I'm ready to overlook it because it's a legit topic and not an effort to start a flame war or blatantly offend someone by their use. If you were offended than I'm sorry but I think you need to judge this sort of stuff by it's percieved intentions and not the actual words used, that is to say, on a case-by-case basis.

DeanCo--

[Olle Petersson]

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

... all sorts of problems insofar as certain disontinuities are experienced between what the player actually sees in his examination of the field, and what is actually being crunched in the CPU. This loss of continuity is in some ways critical; affecting hull-down calculations, LOS issues affecting bldg's, and myriad other info that would be plainly apparent on the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree this is a little troublesome.

My approach to solution differs from yours though. I'm happy with the information I get currently, but troubled about what I'm supposed to do with it.

The questions of exactly where and when LOS and hull down occurs are only relevant for the squad leaders and TCs, not for me as their supreme commander. Therefore I think this is a matter for the TacAI instead of me crawling around the entire map at ground view to find the optimum position for every waypoint.

I also realise that this is a huge challenge for anyone trying to transform "find a suitable hull down/covered position with a nice FOF and within 15m of the last waypoint" to a computer sub routine with optimum prestanda.

Anyone got a university Maths/Computer science department to spare? BTS would need the extra resources...

Also my current computer would go from "Bogged" to "Immobilised" if trying to run that added code.

Cheers

Olle

[Stephen Smith]

Deanco-

I ****in' agree with you, you cool-assed mother****er. Goddamn words aren't offensive by themselves, its how they are used! In this post for instance, this ****ty first paragraph shouldn't offend you in the least (you or anyone else-anyone who IS offended is just some kind of close-minded religious fanatic)-I'm agreeing with every ****in' A thought or idea you have ever had in your crazy, totally awesome, little head!

But THIS paragraph, where I disagree with you, and think words by themselves can be offensive and inappropriate, should, by your logic, be banned. Not because there ARE any offensive words (since there aren't), but because there are offensive 'intentions' (i.e. that I think you are completely wrong in your view towards foul language). So do we ban intention-I intend to disagree with you, or the status quo, therefore I should be banned (after all, its not the WORDS that are offensive, its the motivation behind the words)? Or do we agree on standards of behavior and speech that we should all ****in' go by, dude?

Steve

[Monticello]

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

Oh, come on, Abbott. It's a legitimate topic, and the curse words are to emphasize that he's happy about the game. OK, he could have said it differently but I'm ready to overlook it because it's a legit topic and not an effort to start a flame war or blatantly offend someone by their use. If you were offended than I'm sorry but I think you need to judge this sort of stuff by it's perceived intentions and not the actual words used, that is to say, on a case-by-case basis.

DeanCo--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that family members of all ages may read this forum, I support folks refraining from using profanity since it rarely adds anything to a topic. Besides... does anyone want their 10 year old explaining to Mom that Dad's internet buddies use curse words? Ah... I think not!

[Mr. Clark]

I have to agree that any posts on a PUBLIC forum should be toned down when it comes to "mature" language. (Heh... how ironic the word "mature" language is!)

It's REALLY not that hard to use Heck, Friggin', Darn, etc... try it sometime!

As for the TOPIC, I would personally rather have all the troops look like STICK MEN and have the game run on more PC's allowing more people to play, than have the game be brilliant graphically while only allowing the idle rich to have a go at it. I may be the only one that feels this way, but there it is.

[Chorizo]

Stephen Smith.......... I laughed my bottom off..... thanks for brightening up my day

I also tend to agree with the more serious sentiment of your post

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

Don't take life too seriously - you'll never get out of it alive!

[kunzler]

Ummm, this thread is not heading in a good direction. Time to lock it up methinks. Use of certain words is offensive to some and is prohibited here. Bottom line.

There may be certain times where minor usages of profanity gets missed or ignored, but the fact is, arguing that prohibited use of profanity is ok in certain instances is a slippery slope, and once it is allowed at all, then BTS has to spend even more time to police and decide when it is ok and when it is not. I think we all agree we would rather they spend their time on CM2.

Peng should break in here. Heavy reliance on profanity is IMO similar to the the reliance on smileys that he originally objected to. Literate idividuals should not have to rely on profanity to get their point across. Obviously, profanity is a custom in some circles, and is accepted there. Message boards, however, are by their nature global, and when one is exposed to it, we all are. Unfortunately, when those who do not want to be exposed to such language read the post, it is too late to "unread" it.

[This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-20-2000).]

[catullus]

So, original poster always plays with realistic unit scale? When playing any other scale, it's not even theoretically possible to have true graphic representation of the math/physical model.

C.

[David Aitken]

Stephen Smith wrote:

> Goddamn words aren't offensive by themselves, its how they are used! [...] (you or anyone else-anyone who IS offended is just some kind of close-minded religious fanatic)

How depressing. Is this some lame excuse to use 'cool' swearwords? Some words are offensive on their own, because they have no purpose except to be offensive. I do agree with you to an extent, that they are only words, and that we've simply learned to regard them as offensive -- but the fact is we do regard them as offensive, and whether or not we are physically shocked to see them, they still have a negative effect on us. If you can use the 'f' or 'c' words as easily as you can say 'table' or 'military', I am dismayed.

> But THIS paragraph, where I disagree with you, and think words by themselves can be offensive and inappropriate, should, by your logic, be banned. [...]

> So do we ban intention-I intend to disagree with you, or the status quo, therefore I should be banned (after all, its not the WORDS that are offensive, its the motivation behind the words)? Or do we agree on standards of behavior and speech that we should all ****in' go by, dude?

Are you trying to say that disagreeing is offensive, whereas swearing is fine? Am I wrong in my belief that it is possible to disagree or argue politely? If I say "in my opinion you are talking nonsense", are you no less offended than if I were to say "you are full of sh** you f***wit"?

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."

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

Deanco-

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this about says all we need concerning profanity on this Board:

2. No foul language. Standard decency request here. If people ignore this we do have the technology to block any word we want from being posted. Try and keep us from flipping the "censor" switch, will ya? We don't really want to use it.

Your post is a blatant disregard for BTS rules that you agreed to, when you registered concerning posting policy. Anyone who violates BTS posting rules is subject to moderation measures, regardless of how the words were used or intent.

As a parent who plays CM & reads this forum with his 10yr & 6 yr old sons looking over his shoulders I object to its use as well, I'd think the calibre of ppl we have posting here could find better more common words to express themselves then resorting to profanity. And yes I'm guilty of the occasional,use H*ll, D*mn etc myself.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

JOHN! Hey man, how the devil are ya? Ain't seen you since we was working on the SP scenarios... Hey, get in touch. Maybe we could do a PBEM. I lost track of ya with a new system I put in.

Oh, yeah, I agree with your post. You know, a damn here or hell there isn't a problem, but the more vivid descriptives are a violation of the BTS rules, and do nothing to contribute to the authors intent. BTS has come up with the wargame of the century (thus far, it ain't over yet), and so far it has attracted the cream of the crop of the wargame crowd. Even bringing in the old SL-ASL devoted board game folks, and a number of old AHIKS gamers from way back. I believe it benefits us all, to maintain a rather high level of self enforced standards to ensure compatibility between those of the old school and those of the newer generations who had computers in their laps before losing their virginity.

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

"Mer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"[p]

Bruno

[Abbott]

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

Oh, come on, Abbott. It's a legitimate topic, and the curse words are to emphasize that he's happy about the game. OK, he could have said it differently but I'm ready to overlook it because it's a legit topic and not an effort to start a flame war or blatantly offend someone by their use. If you were offended than I'm sorry but I think you need to judge this sort of stuff by it's percieved intentions and not the actual words used, that is to say, on a case-by-case basis.

DeanCo--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DeanCo,

I agree with you concerning the nature of the post. I would like to point out however the terms of use of this forum. They were written in a friendly manner and my post was meant as a friendly reminder. If it pleases you in the future I will toss in a for you.

______________________________________________________________

Stephan Smith,

Deanco-

I ****in' agree with you, you cool-assed mother****er. Goddamn words aren't offensive by themselves, its how they are used! In this post for instance, this ****ty first paragraph shouldn't offend you in the least (you or anyone else-anyone who IS offended is just some kind of close-minded religious fanatic)-I'm agreeing with every ****in' A thought or idea you have ever had in your crazy, totally awesome, little head!

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

That has to be the most juvenile post I have seen yet on this forum.

[Abbott]

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Walter]

This is so depressing, Stephen Smith tries to point out why intention is not the important thing and he gets lambasted for it.

And frankly, to some people Heck, Friggin' (do you *know* what this means?) and Darn are cursewords too, so please refrain from using them as well. If you're going to ride a high horse, please be prepared to tie yourself to the saddle securely.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[JoePrivate]

Yes very depressing, a nice piece of satire floats by unheard

[Walter]

Well, I think most people clearly didn't read his entire post. His point was quite clear, it really is depressing that people didn't realise it. Of course maybe we should have cultural sensitivity/satire comprehension classes before permission to post is granted, then maybe people wouldn't use the word 'fr*ggin', thinking that it's innocuous while blasting others for such nasy words as D*mn and God-d*mn.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[David Aitken]

Walter wrote:

> His point was quite clear, it really is depressing that people didn't realise it.

I don't see anyone here who has misunderstood him. His foul language was an attempt at satire, granted, but that doesn't make it any less foul. His point was clearly flawed, in my opinion. In any case, his post was offensive and uncalled for.

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."

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Abbott]

Oops.....

I apologize to all for starting this off. I felt as the "Terms of Use" have been written in such a friendly manner that a friendly reminder would not be out of line. Again my apologies to all.

[Mr. Clark]

This thread is getting WAY out of hand.

I really cannot believe people are (apparently) saying "go ahead and swear all you want" on a public forum... but, whatever floats your boat.

MY point was simply that I (as in myself and only myself) believe that over use of "swear" words on a public forum is annoying and uneccessary... NO MATTER WHY YOUR DOING IT. Is it really so hard to show a little constraint? I personally was not even directing a comment at any PARTICULAR post on this thread, but simply agreeing with the fact that... YES, I dislike the over use of profane language on public forums.

I also apologize for ACCIDENTLY using "Frigging" in place of "FRICKING" in my suggested words list. In fact I DO know what Frigging means and I assure all that its use was accidental.

I blame my nicotine craving mind...

[David Aitken]

I think 'freaking' is a nice alternative, personally... considering 'fricking' isn't actually a word – more of a substitute for a substitute for 'f***ing'. =)

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."

[Guest Michael emrys]

This whole discussion seems rather silly to me. Obviously, someone who perpetually uses off-color language needs to go back to the 5th. grade and expand his vocabulary. English is nothing if not a rich language, and there is usually a word or combination of words that will express exactly what you have in mind. On the other hand, I some times use earthy language because that *does* convey exactly what I have in mind. It creates exactly the unpretentious tone that I am seeking.

What's more, I think deanco is absolutely correct in that the intent to express hatred or contempt for persons (in a serious way; we're not talking about the cesspool here) is what is vile, not the particular configuration of letters. So, yes, it should be judged on a case by case basis, which it seems to me is what Steve et al have been doing all along.

Finally, for what it's worth, I find the use of such words as 'fricking' juvenile, silly, and offensive. Either use the original term for which it is a euphemism or find a different form of expression altogether.

Michael

[Slapdragon]

I think we should communicate using only emoticons from now on! (And I believe cursing is like a spice: to much and you have Indian Food).

- - (My name spelled in Emoticonian)

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Mr. Clark]

I think we should resort to smoke signals from now on...

NO WAIT! Then there would be an argument about WHICH TYPE of fricking (heh) smoke we should use... TRANSPARENT or FAST AND COMPATIBLE...

Sigh...

Isn't this thread dead yet?

(I like "Fricking", but then I also think Austin Powers is funny... and I would rather have to read the word Fricking to my kid, than the alternative.)

... and lets face it, we are all a bit childish and geeky... we play PC games!