Feature Request: Point Line-of-Site

[Ron]

It is funny how a post defining a player's preference on something degenerates into irrelevant issues. How is one to respond to such things? Don't, play the game...

[David Aitken]

Dr Dan wrote:

> It really boils down to which compromises you are willing to accept.

My reply to you would be the same as I've just given to weasel.

Ron wrote:

> It is funny how a post defining a player's preference on something degenerates into irrelevant issues.

What are you calling irrelevant? If someone is stating their preference, and do not wish to discuss it, they can make this clear. If they say "I think X would add a lot to the game", that is a good basis for a discussion. Those who do not wish to participate in the discussion do not need to. If anyone indicated to me that they wished to cease a discussion, I would be quite happy to oblige.

Germanboy wrote:

> Does one of you three guys know how many angels fit on the pin of a needle while dancing perchance?

The Heavenly Health And Safety Directive 2000, section 32 clause 6, dictates that angels should not dance on sharp metal objects without the appropriate protective equipment and insurance cover, and without first obtaining written permission from God. Angels found violating this rule will be cast into reality to fend for themselves, and they won't get to fraternise with Natassja Kinski or Willem Dafoe either.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, I guess I should pipe in here...

As one can expect from previous discussions... we are not going to put in an "anywhere LOS tool". Trying to argue that we should add an unrealistic feature because there is something else realistic in the game is flawed thinking. I mean, why not have space aliens as well Just a bit of joke to stress the point.

And that point is certain things MUST be included for there to be a game worth playing. As David has put it so well, the "God's Eye view" is a manditory part of the game. Realistic or not, the lack of such a feature would make the game totally unplayable for the vast majority of people. Not having such a view point also causes realism problems (yup!).

For game reasons you need to plot your guy's movement for 60 seconds. Now... in real life a tank or squad would adjust its movement as it went along in order to reach its opjective. Right? Well, try locking yourself into a unit in dense terrain, or behind a hill, and plot a realistic 60 second's worth of movement. Can't do it. Why? Because if you can't see the terrain you can't click down a movement point. So once a unit gets behind a hill, it would NEVER be able to get over it. So the notion that the God's Eye thing is inherently unnecessary is, for a least this reason alone, incorrect.

The LOS from any point feature is, as David has also correctly described, an added feature. It has no other purpose than to give you extra information that you realistically should not be able to obtain. Ooops... you ordered your men are in the wrong spot? Realistic. Go out into the woods (a mountain side is best) and see how easy it is to choose where you can get a good line of site for something. Or stand in a hilly field and try to get to a good position to "fire" at something far away in another direction. It isn't easy to do, and that is a big part of the experience of CM.

Now the argument about the AI knowing the best mathematical spots is true to some extent. But as someone else pointed out, the AI utterly lacks human intuition and anything else that humans possess to dynamically take advantage/adjust to new and complex situations. So while the AI can put x unit in the PERFECT spot to see y location, the chances of it figuring out that x should go in y is FAR lower than the chance a human would do so. In other words, the AI is already so handicapped that this does not give it a general advantage. If the numbers happen to come up with a "brilliant" choice for the AI... well... even the AI can get lucky sometimes

I'll leave this discussion open for now, but it needs to be stressed again that a anywhere LOS tool will not be introduced for ingame use. PERHAPS for setting up and in the Editor, but NOT for use during the game. So all discussion that follows here is just shooting the breaze

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Dr Dan]

Well, this is certainly fun, isn't it? I sincerely suggest what might be a useful added feature (yes, I agree it would be a feature) and am repeatedly informed that my thinking is flawed, or that the request might as well have been to add space aliens to the game. Kinda sad.

I have to admit that the arguments against adding this feature seem rather arbitrary, with certain pieces of unrealistic information deemed acceptable and others taboo. Its O.K. if BTS chooses to design the CM world that way, but IMHO it is NOT flawed thinking to consider that it might be presented in a different way, especially in a game that simulates, but does not display, even its own "real world."

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

I'll leave this discussion open for now, but it needs to be stressed again that a anywhere LOS tool will not be introduced for ingame use. PERHAPS for setting up and in the Editor, but NOT for use during the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey now, this IS interesting. Actually, having such a tool during setup would be GREAT! Would you consider turning it back on (briefly) to help in deploying reinforcements, which in many ways is like setup? Setup and deploying reinforcements are the two times in the game when things can get complex and tedious, because you really want to try to "do it right" (and units are often far from where they need to be). During the rest of the game, adjusting unit positions seems to flow naturally from the action, with the existing LOS tool pretty much providing the information needed.

Anyway, GOD (the Deity of your choice) decides how many Angels can sit on the head of a pin. It probably ends up being an entirely right-brain activity meaning we can't discuss it further here.

Can I sleep now?

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-02-2000).]

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr Dan:

Well, this is certainly fun, isn't it? I sincerely suggest what might be a useful added feature (yes, I agree it would be a feature) and am repeatedly informed that my thinking is flawed, or that the request might as well have been to add space aliens to the game. Kinda sad.

Anyway, GOD (the Deity of your choice) decides how many Angels can sit on the head of a pin. It probably ends up being an entirely right-brain activity meaning we can't discuss it further here.

Can I sleep now?

Dan

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure! Or go off and sulk about not being declared God. When the Developers and any number of fellow players take the time to explain why thye feel your request would unrealistically affect game play, why they would personally not wish to see it enacted, and why they think that it would make other compromises on reality even more unrealistic, and you maintain that you still want the game's code reworked to give you this feature, I think you've earned a nap, and perhaps a time out! My nephews take the same attitude towards any number of different things. Of course, they can't write yet, so we can't yet see their reasoned arguments about the stupidity of the world. The ability to detail in full sentences and with a personal logic why we're unhappy with the world often serves as a great camouflage for the fact that we just want our way. You go have a bit of a lie down, and come back and use some more attempted irony. I respect your right to an opinion, I actually do, but I don't have much use for pouting. Sorry, this is just an expression of 'my personal feeling', rather than further debate on 'my transcendent reality'. Oh, I'll add a smiley so we know my sense of humour hasn't been negatively impacted.

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

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.

[Dr Dan]

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

Sure! Or go off and sulk about not being declared God. When the Developers and any number of fellow players take the time to explain why thye feel your request would unrealistically affect game play, why they would personally not wish to see it enacted, and why they think that it would make other compromises on reality even more unrealistic, and you maintain that you still want the game's code reworked to give you this feature, I think you've earned a nap, and perhaps a time out!

Oh, I'll add a smiley so we know my sense of humour hasn't been negatively impacted.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstand me. If you CAREFULLY read all of my posts, I think you will find that I have no desire for Godhood and that I greatly admire the developers of Combat Mission. It doesn't bother me at all that CM will not include what I request; rather my sadness derives from a perceived lack of civility, which your post regrettably confirms. Do you ever wonder about the number of potentially good ideas/contributions that are lost because 'Lurking' is a far easier way to "participate" than wandering into the "flames."

CM is a fantastic game now; it will undoubtedly get better. Why would anyone go sulk, when there is so much fun at hand.

Peace and Goodwill to all.

Dan

[David Aitken]

Dan, if you want to see flames, you've come to the wrong forum. I rarely see anything BUT civility here. Sure, a lot of people (including myself) feel strongly about certain things, but you should never confuse an argument with a flamewar.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[:USERNAME:]

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

For game reasons you need to plot your guy's movement for 60 seconds. Now... in real life a tank or squad would adjust its movement as it went along in order to reach its opjective. Right? Well, try locking yourself into a unit in dense terrain, or behind a hill, and plot a realistic 60 second's worth of movement. Can't do it. Why? Because if you can't see the terrain you can't click down a movement point. So once a unit gets behind a hill, it would NEVER be able to get over it. So the notion that the God's Eye thing is inherently unnecessary is, for a least this reason alone, incorrect.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-01-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly sure maybe what you are saying steve but you bring up some good points. I think.

I was thinking that IF the player CANT see where he is plotting some points, he should be limited TO 60 seconds worth of movement. That is, his plotted points cant be left over to the next move.

The player can give out more than 60 seconds worth of motion (with "leftovers" waiting at the next turn). I do it all the time and try to time a reverse move at the end of a turn as a gamey cheat. I can modify the leftover reverse string so as to quickly face a new found enemy/situation. Its a way around delay.

As in the "line Limit" thread, I think that movement plots (run/move/fast move) out of LOS should have an abstracted limitation to them. I also think things like fast move should be limited in certain terrain like tight streets, etc.

Theres a certain theme I see in your reasoning Steve. When you argue points you will often jump to examples from the individuals POV. Example: During a MG effectiveness thread, you start arguing from the individual squad members POV. Things like "wouldnt someone just run to the nearest cover" and such. The point is, it should always be the UNITS point of view. Lost factors (IMO) are the overall command "POV". If a squad of troops were to follow your reasoning, the effect would be actual routing all the time. Likewise with the tank plotting moves, you never realize that it takes alot of yacking, commo, hand waiving, nodding and coordination to make these movements. Dont take this wrong. It aint like joy riding in a weasal. Combat is careful and rarely freewheeling. Units like recce or armored cav would use such daring tactics but a infantry and tank support battle is a little less likely to.

A word of advice to the guy that started this thread, dont get concerned about people jumping all over your ideas.

Lewis

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Dan,

I think you have laid out your argument pretty logically, and the aspect that is most persuasive is the fact that we aren't playing in a 100% What You See, Is What You Get environment. The one situation that I find challenging is when trying to judge what my LOS will be OVER trees that are in a valley. This is difficult at times, but I think it was as difficult to judge these sorts of things in real life as well.

To fully understand the way I do, you need to play a game of CM in IRONMAN mode. This is "1" view only, and there have been small maps designed to be played this way. (Do a search on "ironman", you will find some resources)

This style of play is the closest to the combatants consciousness and perceptions as is possible with the CM engine. Dont bother disagreeing with that statement until you have tried.

OK, As I was advancing through scattered groves of trees in my 1st ironman game, I found that I had NO idea who was going to be able to see what, and when it would come into LOS.

I still fall in the no-LOS tool camp, as it applies to general point use. I think that the obstacles to a man in the field are reflected by this uncertainty, and in a way the lack of a 100% WYSIWYG environment can be covered by this uncertainty.

The disagreement in this thread is merely how each individual weighs Player Control vs. Combat Environment.

Cheers all...

[Dr Dan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Dan, if you want to see flames, you've come to the wrong forum. I rarely see anything BUT civility here. Sure, a lot of people (including myself) feel strongly about certain things, but you should never confuse an argument with a flamewar.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relatively speaking, you are absolutely right about this forum vs. others. IMHO, that is a reflection of the outstanding support BTS provides. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that sometimes passionate argument "scares away" open discussion and dissenting views. New ideas come from all over; often they are discarded because they don't fit the "model." However, once in a while, if there is openness to change, the "model" is revised. And yes, BTS generally seems to be pretty open.

Thinking about the "model" brings me to what I seem to need to understand (no arguing, I'm just interested):

Why is the goal maximum "reality?" Why can't the game include features that might enhance play simply because the tradeoff is deviation from strict realism ( space aliens not included )?

Dan

Hope everyone is having an enjoyable holiday weekend!

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why is the goal maximum "reality?" Why can't the game include features that might enhance play simply because the tradeoff is deviation from strict realism ( space aliens not included )?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple things here, it is a game first and last, talk of realistic this or that is just blowing hot air really. For some, including obviously the designers, what you are asking won't enhance gameplay at all but detract from it. The 'not knowing' makes for a better game for most people, think of it as an overall 'feel'. A lot of people want more FOW in various forms not less. You think otherwise, that's fine, and want something more exact. Since it is BTS's creation, are they under any obligation to cater to, or consider, this or any other 'want' someone has? I don't think so, to expect otherwise would be fanciful thinking. It is a credit to BTS that they do respond to so many ideas and suggestions from the gamers and still keep intact their 'Game'.

[David Aitken]

Dr Dan wrote:

> sometimes passionate argument "scares away" open discussion and dissenting views.

Oh, we get plenty of dissenting views. Problem is, most of them aren't new, and have probably been discussed within the past week or two.

> Why is the goal maximum "reality?" Why can't the game include features that might enhance play simply because the tradeoff is deviation from strict realism

There are obviously realism tradeoffs that need to be made in order to turn a realistic simulation into and enjoyable game. Just think of these as 'handles'. When you click on a unit you get a menu. This is a handle. You can move the camera all around the battlefield - this is another one.

As a rule, handles, although innately unrealistic, should have some basis in reality. When you're telling a unit where to go, you call up a menu and plot a path for it. The way you do it is unrealistic, but the functionality it simulates is not. The camera is the main example of an unrealistic handle, but this is an exception, because it's a fundamental aspect of a playable game.

So, to sum up - the meat of the game is realistic. The handles are less realistic, but this is a tradeoff, to be judged on (1) simulation of realistic functionality, and (2) importance to the playability of the game. To use the LOS tool example, it fulfills neither of these criteria - it doesn't simulate anything realistic, and its absence has no significant effect on playability.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, let's get rid of the word "flawed" when looking at each other's points. The real issue is that, like anything in the world around us, there is more than one way to look at any given subject. However, that does not mean that one side is not less correct than the other. In fact, it is rare when two arguments have equal merrit.

Dan makes a case for an anywhere LOS tool. Not a bad case, but one that we STRONGLY disagree with. As we have the last half a dozen times it has been laid out with the same logic (i.e. this is not a new discussion at all). So you might think we have suddenly slammed shut discussion on this issue, but in fact that is not the case. The discussion has already happened (multiple times in fact) and you have not introduced anything new to cause us to rethink our position.

The reasoning behind our disagreement is that this feature does NOT add any noticable degree of realism, but in fact detracts from it. In fact, it undermines a huge piece of what makes CM "great". And that is not knowing, with mathematical precision, what will happen when you order your men to do x, y, or z. I challenge you (in a good natured way) to do what I suggested out in the real world (see previous post).

The real world is very much WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet, correct? Using your logic, you should be able to know before you move someplace (in the real world) what kind of spotting opportunities will be available to you. The fact is that it is MORE difficult in real life to know this sort of thing before you actually plunk yourself down in the spot in question. CM simulates this at the moment, but would NOT if the anywhere LOS feature were put in.

So I am, in fact, challenging your notion that this feature would be more realistic as well as enhancing gameplay. And therefore I dispute your claim that our thinking is arbitrary or conveinent. You can still disagree with our thinking on this, but you should at least understand that it is neither of these things as it applies to this suggested feature.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-02-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was thinking that IF the player CANT see where he is plotting some points, he should be limited TO 60 seconds worth of movement. That is, his plotted points cant be left over to the next move.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is arbitrary and very "gamey". There is no rational reason to cut off someone's ability to issue orders when the clock strikes the magical number 60.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The player can give out more than 60 seconds worth of motion (with "leftovers" waiting at the next turn). I do it all the time and try to time a reverse move at the end of a turn as a gamey cheat. I can modify the leftover reverse string so as to quickly face a new found enemy/situation. Its a way around delay.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This only works, successfully, when you are in certain rather known circumstances. Doing this as a general rule will most likely yield more unfavorable results than positive. First of all, it assumes that your vehicle is sitting basically stationary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theres a certain theme I see in your reasoning Steve. When you argue points you will often jump to examples from the individuals POV. Example: During a MG effectiveness thread, you start arguing from the individual squad members POV. Things like "wouldnt someone just run to the nearest cover" and such. The point is, it should always be the UNITS point of view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct to a degree. The problem comes in trying to find a way to balance this out with the fact that Combat Mission is a game with a greater scope than any commander, at any level, ever has control over. As I said before, the only true path to realism is to remove the human player from the game altogether. So everything short of that is unrealistic to some degree or another. What a good game designer has to do is balance realism with game play. It was never our goal, and never will be, to put realism over game play value. If nobody want's to play something, who cares if it is a bit more realistic?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Likewise with the tank plotting moves, you never realize that it takes alot of yacking, commo, hand waiving, nodding and coordination to make these movements. Dont take this wrong. It aint like joy riding in a weasal. Combat is careful and rarely freewheeling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is obvious and has never been in dispute. Even "joy riding" involves a lot of confusion sometimes. I remember trying to drive around in my "back yard" the first time. I had scouted out some nice paths on foot, but when I came back in the Weasel I was looking for the paths from a different perspective and I missed the one I was looking for, had to stop, hop out, and backtrack on foot, find it again, then go through the process of getting back on the desired path. So the complexity of the battlefield is not lost on us (Charles was there too, as well as Scott Udel )

The problem is we need to find a workable solution for simulating this stuff. We have some aspects in the game that make coordination and precision knowledge more difficult (including not having an anywhere LOS tool).

Would we like to do more to simulate battlefield confusion in the future? Sure, but we have to have a carefully thought out, logical, and overall fun concept before we start screwing around with the code. The problem with your previous suggestion is that it failed several design tests and therefore, although perhaps not a horrible idea, is not something we feel will work in the game. And people should be very comfortable trusting our judgement on issues like this because of what Combat Mission is now; a carefully created and crafted wargame. It was either created by luck or through skill, and since luck has nothing to do with software development design and implementation...

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

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

Lewis Quote: I was thinking that IF the player CANT see where he is plotting some points, he should be limited TO 60 seconds worth of movement. That is, his plotted points cant be left over to the next move.

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

Steve: This is arbitrary and very "gamey". There is no rational reason to cut off someone's ability to issue orders when the clock strikes the magical number 60.

Lewis respond: I think you may not get the intent. You can issue all the orders you want. All I am saying is that at the end of the movie when its time for more orders on the next turn, the "leftovers" arent there (if they were issued initially in areas that were out of LOS of the present position). In effect you would have to issue new orders and the get the delay associated with them. It isnt arbitrary. Its an abstraction an very similar to your weasel driving. You seem to want to limit command and control but probably just want to think it up yourself! Notice that this abstraction DOES take the human out of the loop. It would reward players that were more REALISTICALLY cautious.

Lewis quote:

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

The player can give out more than 60 seconds worth of motion (with "leftovers" waiting at the next turn). I do it all the time and try to time a reverse move at the end of a turn as a gamey cheat. I can modify the leftover reverse string so as to quickly face a new found enemy/situation. Its a way around delay.

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

Steve: This only works, successfully, when you are in certain rather known circumstances. Doing this as a general rule will most likely yield more unfavorable results than positive. First of all, it assumes that your vehicle is sitting basically stationary.

Lewis: Try it then. I cant for the life of me figure out your last sentance here.

The known element is the time slice and being able to abuse it. In fact, I use it most successfully in unknown situations! I will fast move my panther into an intersection (maybe from the fly), and have him reverse so as to point himself in a desired direction. I make the reverse long enough so "it has a leftover" effect. You can then drag the leftover "reverse" (the next turn)so as to "rotate" your vehicle where needed IMMEDIATELY. Make it real short if ya like and add whatever else is needed. It allows me to get into unchartered terrain and yet keep delay and command and control lag down. Notice everything I described involved motion and no stationary objects.

How bigs your backyard?

Lewis

PS I wonder if you ever gave thought to unequal time slice. Like germans get a 45 second slice and the russians a 90 second slice? Make email a bitch huh?

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-02-2000).]

[Jaded]

Well, here's one more customer that would like a point-to-point LOS tool, for many of the reasons Dan mentioned, and for some others as well.

For me, it'd make playing the game a lot more convenient. I can zoom over to a point and hit the 1 key to see where a ridgeline is, but it'd be so much easier just to lay a LOS line down and see the topography of an area.

(I do realize that we won't get this feature, but I still want to be heard.)

I realize we're talking about a small company with limited resources so what I'm about to say is probably not economically feasible, but, in my opinion, the best solution would be to add the feature and make it a toggle option at the start of a game. Dan and I can get the tool we want to make the game more enjoyable for us, and folks who think it gives too much info can just toggle it off and never turn it on (having it only toggleable during setup prevents cheating in PBEM games).

Another option would be to allow it, but only when one end is within a small radius of one of your units. What bugs me is when I move a unit to a place where I think I'll have a LOS (given the limitations of the engine) and finding I don't. OK, that much I can deal with. But then when I move this guys, they go 8 feet and suddenly there's in a gap in the cover (though I, the player, can see no difference in the tile of course) and they get cut to pieces.

Giving me a LOS that can at least 'float' a ways away from my troops would represent what the men could see with their eyes if this were 'real.' (Just thinking out loud here.)

The guys who want more realism really should ask for the 1 view to only work when the camera is locked to a unit, the 2-4 views to be scrapped. Then the 5-8 'god views' can represent a CO plotting out moves on a map.

That seems pretty easily do-able and I don't see how it'd effect playability enough to justify the loss of realism you get by being able to fly around the map like superman...

[:USERNAME:]

I also was pushing a LOS tool in a hull down thread. There was precious little BTS prescence at the time (Steve was 'vacationing' at an institution where he was screaming 'I dont WANT a white straitjacket.. I want a 1943 SS splinter pattern straitjacket..'.

Anyway, my point was that if a unit would commit to trying to get a hull down position, a LOS check could be made from ssuch designated position.

Then alot of followup crap posts happened. Thats my story and I am sticking to it.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

Jaded wrote:

> That seems pretty easily do-able and I don't see how it'd effect playability enough to justify the loss of realism you get by being able to fly around the map like superman...

Steve and I have both carefully explained the necessary tradeoffs between realism and playability when designing a game. People keep saying "Oh, well if you want total realism, you shouldn't be able to move the camera around", etcetera. I'm afraid this just isn't a credible argument.

People also keep saying, when their suggestions for a new feature are opposed, that it should be included and made toggleable. But the fact is, regardless of whether BTS has the time or not, that does not mean they'd want to include everybody's pet feature in the game. They have spent a long time creating the game's concept, and they are going to remain true to that.

When someone requests a new feature, and BTS turn it down, they give a logical and credible reason. However, it always comes down to this - when people realise that the feature they want doesn't belong in the game, they switch into "I want it anyway" mode. They say it will increase their enjoyment of the game, and it should be included as an option.

I think an analogy would best illustrate my point. Say I write to Ford, insisting that I would enjoy their Mustang a lot more if it had a windmill on top. I argue that the windmill would be a source of power, and would therefore make the vehicle more economical. I say they can make it an option, and those who don't want it, don't have to use it.

Would Ford offer a windmill attachment? No. Why? Because it would bastardise the design concept of their car. Regardless of whether it would make a few customers happy, it just has no place on the car.

Making your customers happy is not the first rule of business. The first rule is, devise a killer product. The better conceptualised your product, the better it will sell, and the more people it will satisfy - not through pandering to their individual demands, but by being a great product.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I think an analogy would best illustrate my point. Say I write to Ford, insisting that I would enjoy their Mustang a lot more if it had a windmill on top. I argue that the windmill would be a source of power, and would therefore make the vehicle more economical. I say they can make it an option, and those who don't want it, don't have to use it.

Would Ford offer a windmill attachment? No. Why? Because it would bastardise the design concept of their car. Regardless of whether it would make a few customers happy, it just has no place on the car.

Making your customers happy is not the first rule of business. The first rule is, devise a killer product. The better conceptualised your product, the better it will sell, and the more people it will satisfy - not through pandering to their individual demands, but by being a great product.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David

That was quite a mighty effort you made. Windmills on cars. Hmmm. (Trying with all my mental and physical powers of self restraint not to have alot of fun).

I think ford has enough problems with firestone tires at the present moment to consider your 'blatently worst analogy in the history of written expression'.

People are putting alot of effort into expressing what they would like to see in a game. Its a good thing if BTS can handle such requests with dignified grace. The requests generally run in the vein of 'I want realism and Id like to have this..' and the responce is (BTS) 'Only so much is doable'

Your analogy is just plain wierd. Thanks for the ..uh.. whatever.

Lewis

PS Wow

PPS In retrospect, I have no self restraint. Not on the weekends anyway...

PPPS What business are you in? Plenty of great products have gone under without proper marketing. BTS marketed hard and listened (what you snidely call pandering) and how are you aligned so much with BTS?

PPPPS I wont sell you a copy of OSTfront Kampftaktic (new name) cause you are preachy and use bad analogys.

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-03-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Misc responses...

Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In effect you would have to issue new orders and the get the delay associated with them. It isnt arbitrary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every 60 seconds, like clockwork, all units will come to a halt if they weren't already. EVERY SINGLE UNIT. So that itself isn't arbitrary, but it sure as Hell isn't realistic. Think of it. I see a Panther moving. I know that in 60 seconds it will have to stop, and once stopped stay there for at least x seconds. With infantry it is even worse. Sorry, although more can be done to simulate command and control difficulties, your suggestion is something that would set the game back several notches in terms of realism and "ungameyness".

Your point about the Reverse thing was (obviously) not fully understood by me. Now I do understand. Well... I personally wouldn't use it. I simply choose the best way to rotate BEFORE I move and plop down a "ROTATE" command. Which, incidentally, acts just like your "Reverse" command but without involving backwards motion. This is not gamey, any more than several other things I can think of. Like being able to cancel your orders without penalty.

As I have said many times before, CM does not simulate everything perfectly. The trick is to figure out which things are in more need of attention than others, find ways to fix them without scewing up the rest of the game, and then figure out where in the HUGE list of desired enhancements it should go. Some of you think this is a piece of cake to do, which is understandable since you aren't the ones that have to do it

Jaded... we had a feature like this in the original design. However, it was more restrictive so that you couldn't "test" countless points to find out where the exact best spot was. But it was kinda clunky and we ran out of time so it was dropped. Perhaps something like this might crop up in the future though.

David wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Making your customers happy is not the first rule of business.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note *quite* correct. Here is the correct phrasing IMHO:

"Making all your customers happy is not the first rule of business"

Ironically, since this is impossible to make all your customers happy (especially for a wargames business ) it isn't even on our "rules of business" list!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-03-2000).]

[Jaded]

David: I've poked around this forum enough to see that you're one of those talented individuals with a sublime grasp of how to be inflamatory with actually flaming, so I'm probably wasting my time here, but I'll try just this once.

You wrote:

>Steve and I have both carefully explained the necessary tradeoffs between realism and playability when designing a game. People keep saying "Oh, well if you want total realism, you shouldn't be able to move the camera around", etcetera. I'm afraid this just isn't a credible argument.

It's easily as credible an argument as yours is. There's a scale here between realism and playability, and the question is, where do the designers draw the line? You say that the 'anywhere LOS' feature gives the player far too much information. The folks who play 'hardcore' games say that flying the camera around does the same thing. Neither is the single correct answer. It has a lot to do with how wide an audience you want to attract.

I'm not seriously suggesting we shouldn't be able to fly the camera around, since I want the line pushed more towards playability.

But following your argument, being able to plunk the camera down among the enemy troops and sight back towards your side of the battlefield to learn what the enemy can see is acceptable, while being able to lie a virtual ruler down between one point and another of the terrain that you're defending in order to see if the trees on that ridgeline blocks that LOS is not acceptable... that sounds pretty arbitrary to me. My boys have had time to set up target reference points, erect pillboxes and dig-in tanks, but they haven't had time to take a walk over to see what the lay of the land is like?

It's an arguable line, whether you choose to admit it or not. Moylan and Grammont are not gods, they are not infallible. They took their best shot (and a damned fine shot it was, too). But if you think game designers always hit the bullseye on the first throw, well, you might want to spend some time reading the Postmortem articles in Game Developer.

I am -not- saying you're wrong. I'm just saying those of us who're for the LOS tool aren't either. Its essentially a personal preference issue. I did say in my post that I realized that this feature wasn't going to be implemented, but that I still wanted to be heard. Should the designers only hear feedback from your side of that arbitrary line?

You said:

> But the fact is, regardless of whether BTS has the time or not, that does not mean they'd want to include everybody's pet feature in the game. They have spent a long time creating the game's concept, and they are going to remain true to that.

Of course they dont want to include everyone's pet feature, but if they listen to honest feedback (and I doubt they get as much of that here as they might, since voicing an opinion here opens one up to attack, from what I've read) and they find out that a significant segment of their audience would really like to see "Feature X" then it might become economically prudent of them to implement that feature. If we don't ask, we'll never get, will we?

Remaining true to a concept is all well and good, but Combat Mission isn't a painting hanging in a museum. It's a consumer good. And presumably they want to sell enough copies to feed their familes. And maybe make CM2 and have that sell even better.

Your analogy, of course, is deliberately ludicrous. Probably an attempt to make me look silly. A better analogy would be if Ford found out that a statistically significant portion of their market really wanted larger diameter cupholders -- ones that would accomodate a 20 oz soda bottle. Would this change be trivial? No, but it -might- be worth looking into.

You said:

>The better conceptualised your product, the better it will sell, and the more people it will satisfy - not through pandering to their individual demands, but by being a great product.

I don't disagree with the basic idea behind this statement. Battlefront.com has come up with a revenue model that will, hopefully, allow them to get by on the small grognard market share. But Combat Mission has the potential to be a much bigger hit than that. If CM2 was conceptualized with a wider audience in mind, they might sell a lot more copies (before you jump all over me, note I said "might" -- they'd have to do some market research to see how the numbers crunched).

Not to drag another argument into this thread, but I've seen you stridently attack the idea of a roster. I know a few fairly influential hardcore gamers that passed Combat Mission by because of the lack of a roster. Is that example statistically significant? Of course not. But I didn't go out polling gamers, I just had a few mention to me that they'd liked the demo, but not having that roster -- which they saw as a usability feature -- was enough to turn them away.

I'm amused by the fact that, after you posted, Steve came along and mentioned that the feature that I'm asking for just might eventually make it in... heh.

[Dr Dan]

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

Note *quite* correct. Here is the correct phrasing IMHO:

"Making all your customers happy is not the first rule of business"

Ironically, since this is impossible to make all your customers happy (especially for a wargames business ) it isn't even on our "rules of business" list!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-03-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, whatever happened to the customer is always right?

(JUST KIDDING!!!)

I just wanted to toss in here the fact that I went and played a small battle in '1' view. For infantry this was actually fun, if a bit hard. However, working with armored units was a nightmare, primarily because the targetting distances are so much longer, and, (here it comes ) without WYSIWYG or um, some other type of assistance, getting them to useful places (i.e. in LOS) was almost impossible.

I mean, my virtual self stood there at the top of the hill looking down on the clearly "visible" flag. My MK IV's obediently hunted into position and sat...and sat. Extending the unit LOS (which is tricky from ground level) indicated that these guys could only see about 30 meters over the edge of the hill, although they WERE hull down at least . So, I moved them over the edge and down the slope what I "guessed" would be far enough to "penetrate" the scattered trees.

The virtual "Dan commander" (batteries NOT included) riding on the back of V-1 insisted that he could still see the flag and surrounding terrain below. The MK IV guys just sat...and sat. The extended unit LOS tool yielded the dread "black line of darkness." "Still can't see, can you boys?," asked the commander. Unt. Eisenbahn snickered; Unt. Luft merely stared at the sky. The SS Motorized skittered around in a manner that reminded some of hamsters, while others saw formidable warriors "on hold."

The commander, who was beginning to believe that his vision needed checking, ordered the MK IV's to hunt again ... and again. Finally, THEY could see the flag, AND, oh oh, those nasty, heavily-armored Churchill's. Bye, bye MK IV's.

Sometime later, the commander was found in a virtual woods beside a virtual pond not far from a group of virtual light buildings (the nice ones with wood paneling). He swore he could see the bright red high-resolution roofs of the village, despite the intervening huge grove of virtual tall trees. His (remaining) men, who could see nothing but the forest and the trees, knocked him out, later putting him on a virtual train to the REAL Eastern Front.

The moral:

WYSIWYG actually means "What you see is why you're gone"

OR

Never send hamster men to do a Fallschirmjager's job.

Night all.

Dan

Oh wow, why I was "wandering" here, Jaded put up a really good post. Go Jaded, go!

[This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-03-2000).]

[JPS]

Dan & Jaded,

count me in as 'pro-LOS-tool'.

BTS: nobody is forced to use the tool (c.f. nobody is forced to use fog-of-war OFF option), and in some scenarios it would increase playability a lot. My last game was an operation in which I was attacking a big hill surrounded by many small hills and many small patches of wood. The defending Panther and JadgPanther found a great many openings in the LOS of which I wasn't aware at first (most were situations in which the LOS was over a small patch of trees) that I felt quite frustrated with the close-but-not-really WYSIWYG world of CM. Great game, though!

[:USERNAME:]

Steve: Every 60 seconds, like clockwork, all units will come to a halt if they weren't already. EVERY SINGLE UNIT. So that itself isn't arbitrary, but it sure as Hell isn't realistic. Think of it. I see a Panther moving. I know that in 60 seconds it will have to stop, and once stopped stay there for at least x seconds. With infantry it is even worse. Sorry, although more can be done to simulate command and control difficulties, your suggestion is something that would set the game back several notches in terms of realism and "ungameyness".

Lewis responce: I would suggest that momentum would be modeled. That is a tank in motion would retain some element of its motion command. I never said that units would be frozen if thats what you are reading into this. I am making a point about commands into areas that are out of LOS at the time they are made. I never said EVERY unit. Am I making a point that is that hard to grasp?

Steve: Your point about the Reverse thing was (obviously) not fully understood by me. Now I do understand. Well... I personally wouldn't use it. I simply choose the best way to rotate BEFORE I move and plop down a "ROTATE" command. Which, incidentally, acts just like your "Reverse" command but without involving backwards motion. This is not gamey, any more than several other things I can think of. Like being able to cancel your orders without penalty.

Lewis: You dont get it. Rotate means stationary. You only get to rotate at the end of a motion command. So lets say you have a bit of a move command left over and theres a rotate still sitting on the end of it. If you perhaps want to back up or move further, your leftover rotate is useless. It will be canceled. My reverse isnt delayed. I can shorten it to an almost psuedo rotate and go from there. I can face the enemy quickly and get some additional moves aafter it. Its subtle. Its gamey. I agree that modifying/canceling commands is also gamey. Two gameys dont make a reality.

Steve: Some of you think this is a piece of cake to do, which is understandable since you aren't the ones that have to do it

Lewis: Steve is only open to ideas about semantic details like armor thickness, grenade size, blah, blah. Any ideas about the game mechanics itself are often met with a resistance to put it lightly. People here are trying to be part of the CM process. You are really a funny guy about that. Certainly you could try seeing things with a little more humor. Its a freaking game and you act like its a horrible job making it. Lighten up.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

Jaded wrote:

> You say that the 'anywhere LOS' feature gives the player far too much information. The folks who play 'hardcore' games say that flying the camera around does the same thing.

Back to square one. How many times have I (in good faith) attempted to explain the tradeoff involved here? I'll say it again - there are two factors to account for when considering a feature. (1) Is it realistic, or does it simulate something realistic? (2) Is it crucial to gameplay? The flying camera fits squarely in the second bracket. An LOS tool would fit into neither.

> But following your argument, being able to plunk the camera down among the enemy troops and sight back towards your side of the battlefield to learn what the enemy can see is acceptable, while being able to lie a virtual ruler down [...] in order to see if the trees on that ridgeline blocks that LOS is not acceptable... that sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

As I've said already, CM is not currently photorealistic. Looking at the map, you do not get completely accurate information - the reason why you're asking for an LOS tool. But this makes it reasonable to be able to position the camera in the enemy's lines. It's like having a map - which you, as commander, would have in reality - it gives you a good idea of the lie of the land, but doesn't give you accurate information.

> My boys have had time to set up target reference points, erect pillboxes and dig-in tanks, but they haven't had time to take a walk over to see what the lay of the land is like?

You have this information, it's just not completely accurate - what's unrealistic about that?

> Moylan and Grammont are not gods, they are not infallible.

No-one is disputing this. But we are discussing a specific subject, and BTS have good reasons for their stance on this subject.

> I realized that this feature wasn't going to be implemented, but that I still wanted to be heard. Should the designers only hear feedback from your side of that arbitrary line?

Have I ever prevented anyone from speaking their mind? No. I chip in to offer counter-arguments where it seems necessary. As I've said, those who do not wish to discuss are not compelled to.

> voicing an opinion here opens one up to attack, from what I've read

I've never seen anyone 'attacked' for voicing their opinion. Even if they push for their pet feature, they do not get 'attacked'. What they do get are counter-arguments, and I can't quite see the problem with that.

> if they listen to honest feedback [...] and they find out that a significant segment of their audience would really like to see "Feature X" then it might become economically prudent of them to implement that feature.

This is quite correct, and many of CM's features were included this way.

> And presumably they want to sell enough copies to feed their familes. And maybe make CM2 and have that sell even better.

CM has sold extremely well, and we're all looking forward to CM2.

> Your analogy, of course, is deliberately ludicrous. Probably an attempt to make me look silly.

No, in an attempt not to be misunderstood ...

> A better analogy would be if Ford found out that a statistically significant portion of their market really wanted larger diameter cupholders -- ones that would accomodate a 20 oz soda bottle.

... and this is why. Your analogy is completely different from mine. The change you suggest would be entirely logical and practical, and would in no way compromise the design of the car.

> Battlefront.com has come up with a revenue model that will, hopefully, allow them to get by on the small grognard market share. But Combat Mission has the potential to be a much bigger hit than that. If CM2 was conceptualized with a wider audience in mind, they might sell a lot more copies

BTS have designed Combat Mission entirely with a niche market in mind. They do not want to make populist, catch-all games which they can mass-market through global publishers - they want to make realistic simulations which are true to their own vision, and will sell to people who will really appreciate their principles and attention to detail.

> I've seen you stridently attack the idea of a roster.

You must be mistaken. I have argued against certain things, but I have not made any 'strident attacks'.

> I know a few fairly influential hardcore gamers that passed Combat Mission by because of the lack of a roster. [...] not having that roster -- which they saw as a usability feature -- was enough to turn them away.

If they don't want to buy CM, they don't have to. If they must have a roster, CM is probably not their kind of game. It may also be the case that they are unwilling to adjust to playing differently from Close Combat.

> I'm amused by the fact that, after you posted, Steve came along and mentioned that the feature that I'm asking for just might eventually make it in... heh.

Good for you, but he was talking about the scenario creator and the set-up phase, not a global feature of the game.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT