Opinons on Scenario Balance

[Guest Big Time Software]

I have to say that if we tried to hard code in some special case for each and every weapon/vehicle because of some subtle difference in the TYPE of training the human manning it has... I'd shoot myself

The argument that there should be something else other than experience opens up Pandora's box. Is an SS man out of one school better able to plink the nuts off a fly at 400m with a Kar98k than some WH guy because at the SS school they had a better instructor? How about an AT crew trained specifically on how to KO Soviet armor, should they be less proficient than a crew that was trained on Shermans? Or some greenhorn that just so happens to have aim like an eagle, yet runs whenever he hears a loud boom?

The list can go on and on and on and on and on. To simplify things, we have the Experience rating, and it stands for ALL things related to the interaction of training, human condition, the weapon system being manned, and the conditions being manned in. Want the unit to be better, up the rating. Poorer, put it down.

If you want to simulate a StuG crew that is better trained at anti-infantry stuff (assuming your point is valid), then just notch 'em up a bit vs. some lowly AT trained slob. NO YOU CAN NOT have them be better at one type of target than another, so a bump up is a bump up. But the overall effect will be largely the same.

And do not forget that if you got 10 "experts" in a room I bet you would have 15 different opinions about how to weight subtle differences like this Since we can only have one set of rules, that means that we run afoul of 14 other opinions (and probly 9-10 of the bunch). And in the end... I can tell you that even if we went through all this torture 99% of the people playing CM wouldn't be able to tell the difference because so much other crap is going on in a game and whatever special case thing you are talking about might only come up 1 in 5 battles (or never).

Nope, even if Lewis manages to somehow convince me that some StuGs were überweapons vs. infantry and vs. other StuGs, there will not be one line of code created to support it. It is a slippery slope and is not worth our time or effort to get on it.

And to add to some of the comments above...

Lewis, I have no idea WHY you feel the need to intentionally piss people off during a discussion, but you have shown a very good knack for doing so. If you want respect, if you want good honest intellectual challenge, try it without the poor attitude. If you don't want either of these things, then you really don't belong here.

There is no quicker way to become an outcast than to dig at others for no reason other than to bolster ones own ego or shore up some sort of insecurity. Of course there are more reasosn than these for intentionally pissing people off, but they are much worse IMHO. Lewis, do everybody a favor (including yourself) and take whatever chip is on your shoulder and leave it aside when you are here. You might find that people will actually look forward to your posts instead of thinking, "cripes, who is he pissing off now". I know I am pleasently surprised when I come upon one of your posts without some sort of snipe at someone, even if I am not involved in the thread at all. I'd rather it be the other way around, and if you wanted it to be it could.

Steve

[Username]

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

Lewis, do everybody a favor (including yourself) and take whatever chip is on your shoulder and leave it aside when you are here. You might find that people will actually look forward to your posts instead of thinking, "cripes, who is he pissing off now". I know I am pleasently surprised when I come upon one of your posts without some sort of snipe at someone, even if I am not involved in the thread at all. I'd rather it be the other way around, and if you wanted it to be it could.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have close to 200 posts on the board. I think the vast majority of them relate my real world experience and extensive military historical outlook from my silly devouring of books. The interactions of others with my posts is a reflection of them as much as me. If anything I have tempered myself to ignore others questionable responses and tried to interject a certain self-effacing humor. I find alot of people here equally interested in the general issues of the game/genre and some others kind of .. kooky. I guess I shouldnt interact with anyone I disagree with.

It is a little humorous that a board called Battlefront has such problems with people having differences of opinions.

So anyway lets get a little constructive. What do you think of the idea of limited/expanded menu options? I think that it enhances the differences between experience levels. Just an idea..throwing it out there for discusion. No big whoop. I outlined it in the TD or Tank vs.. thread.

Lewis

[Simon Fox]

Steve,

I really think you should lay off Lewis a bit. Yes he is very 'snipey' but generally they are so lame that I am sure no one is really offended. Right, Bastables?

[Guest Big Time Software]

There is a big difference between disagreeing and being obnoxious. The name of this company has nothing to do with anything (we aren't named "Obnoxious.com" are we?). Disagree, fine, but keep the digs and other crap out of it. There is no room for such behaviour in an intellectual conversation.

Simon, when I get emails from people complaining about someone on this BBS, I take notice since this VERY rarely happens. When I am also the brunt of such behavior by the same person, I take notice. I think Lewis probably has the highest ratio of probelms ostings since Schrodi.

Obviously Lewis, you do have some valuable things to contribute, so why belittle yourself by getting in people's faces? That is all I am asking here. It is possible to carry on a debate, even a heated one, without resorting to playground level name calling. Simple as that. And if you mean such things in some sort of humorous way, I don't think anybody gets it (the lack of a smilies doesn't help either).

As for:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So anyway lets get a little constructive. What do you think of the idea of limited/expanded menu options? I think that it enhances the differences between experience levels. Just an idea..throwing it out there for discusion. No big whoop. I outlined it in the TD or Tank vs.. thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw it, then lost track of the thread before responding. In general, it seems very gamey and not very realistic. For example, a Green unit should be able to use "Crawl" just as much as an "Elite" one. Besides it being a part of even the most simplistic training, it is a natural thing to do. So why should any unit be prohibited from crawling? The difference comes in how WELL each unit Crawls.

This can be applied to anything really. Shoot and scoot is also a natural thing to do, for example, but command delays make it much more difficult to do effectively for poorer units. They can still try it but luck had better be on the unit's side or it won't get a second shot.

I think CM has got things covered quite nicely.

Steve

[Username]

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

I saw it, then lost track of the thread before responding. In general, it seems very gamey and not very realistic. For example, a Green unit should be able to use "Crawl" just as much as an "Elite" one. Besides it being a part of even the most simplistic training, it is a natural thing to do. So why should any unit be prohibited from crawling? The difference comes in how WELL each unit Crawls.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I gave an "example" for a conscript unit not a green one. Conscripts usually dont get that much basic training. I believe you are missing the intent also.

As you move up in experience levels, there should be more options available for you, the commander, to order to your troops. Its a general idea proposal at this point. Not a fully developed design change. To expect better trained or experienced troops to have expanded capabilities seems more realistic than "gamey".

As for crawling. Maybe you can expand on how well you differentiate between crawling styles and techniques? Are some units better low-crawlers? Just in case you care, The better a low-crawler you are, the slower you do it. You stop often to look for the smallest undulations in the ground and its just not easy to move without lifting your ass off the ground. Crawling just isnt a very common thing to do. I would say most conscripts are more apt to know a bit about running as opposed to crawling.

But I realize that anything I say could have a knee-jerk negative response at this point. I should try some reverse psychology perhaps.

Here goes: I dont and never do ever want to be able to give a pause command in the middle of a string of commands. I think its gamey and unrealistic and BTS would make me so mad if they were to implement something like that. Furthermore, I think conscripts should be able to do everything an elite unit can do but they will suck very much at it. I think if there are "Ranger" type units in a future CM game, that conscripts should be able to scale cliffs, repel off helicopters but they would fall alot.

Rev-Psych OFF

Steve, I think you have demonstrated your "open mindedness" in a previous post regarding the sturmartillerie thing. Try not to focus on me. Its flattering in a way but as a front man for a company, I think its counter-productive.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-17-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

USERNAME said:

quote:

As for crawling. Maybe you can expand on how well you differentiate between crawling styles and techniques? Are some units better low-crawlers? Just in case you care, The better a low-crawler you are, the slower you do it. You stop often to look for the smallest undulations in the ground and its just not easy to move without lifting your ass off the ground. Crawling just isnt a very common thing to do. I would say most conscripts are more apt to know a bit about running as opposed to crawling.

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

This is more than nitpicky I played paintball for years and became quit adept as crawling lol _ Sorry I dont see any major differences in crawling techniques, unless you are a professionally trained sniper.

This is expanded upon by CARLOS HATHCOCK and is a VERY specialized form of movement, which involved the minutest of movements, over the period of days. Consequently a good crawler may find himself crapping hisself regularly in order to avoid detection - ANY OTHER CRAWLING is simply CRAWLING - gimme a break

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-17-2000).]

[Username]

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

This is more than nitpicky I played paintball for years and became quit adept as crawling lol _ Sorry I dont see any major differences in crawling techniques, unless you are a professionally trained sniper.

This is expanded upon by CARLOS HATHCOCK and is a VERY specialized form of movement, which involved the minutest of movements, over the period of days. Consequently crapping oneself regularly in order to avoid detection - ANY OTHER CRAWLING is simply CRAWLING - gimme a break

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-17-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW SSPNZRLKR disagreeing with Steve. He claims there is a difference if different units can do it better than others.

Actually as a veteran I assure you that it matters. Keeping ones ass and head down while moving under fire is hard (and tiring). Height is what gets you killed. You try to stay really low and move forward (preferably with someone giving cover fire).

Snipers practice stealth movement. They take hours to move about buildings/terrain so as not to give the slightest motion, contrast in background, etc. Its not the same thing. Just like paintball does not put hash marks on your class A's. No offense.

Lewis

[SS_PanzerLeader]

oops

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-17-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Originally posted by Username:

WOW SSPNZRLKR disagreeing with Steve. He claims there is a difference if different units can do it better than others.

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

PLEASE LET ME CLEAR THIS UP - I'm disagreeing with YOU - I think your modifications are WAY to nitpicky - this had nothing to do with Steve _ CRAWLING is represented just fine and it doesnt need to be more complex - period . I think your additions to improve detail hold a small amount of merit, and CRAWLING is NOT one of the areas I agree with.

QUOTE:

Actually as a veteran I assure you that it matters. Keeping ones ass and head down while moving under fire is hard (and tiring). Height is what gets you killed.

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

Yes you said it as a veteran - this is reflected in CM, which is exactly what Steve said - ITS Simple and you've just argued against yourself with your above statement

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

You try to stay really low and move forward (preferably with someone giving cover fire).

Snipers practice stealth movement. They take hours to move about buildings/terrain so as not to give the slightest motion, contrast in background, etc.

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

UGGH I just said that and more

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

Its not the same thing. Just like paintball does not put hash marks on your class A's. No offense.

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

sorry i disagree. Crawling is crawling, some may be a little better than others - granted, but to reflect it by giving a major adjustment to certain units is silly - with exception to snipers

Lewis

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-17-2000).]

[Username]

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

Originally posted by Username:

PLEASE LET ME CLEAR THIS UP - I'm disagreeing with YOU - I think your modifications are WAY to nitpicky - this had nothing to do with Steve _ CRAWLING is represented just fine and it doesnt need to be more complex - period . I think your additions to improve detail hold a small amount of merit, and CRAWLING is NOT one of the areas I agree with.

sorry i disagree. Crawling is crawling, some may be a little better than others - granted, but to reflect it by giving a major adjustment to certain units is silly - with exception to snipers

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SS

Actually you agreed with my pause command command in the middle of a string of commands in a different thread. (TD?) I think others agreed that it would be something they would like to see also.

But the "unit command menu options" isnt about "crawling" and I hate the way any issue on these boards gets absolutely muddled by BTS and the posters here. Steve latches onto crawling like it is a cause celebre and people like you further cloud the issue.

I hope you dont take offense, but you arent a veteran, paintball aint battle or military training, I cant follow your reasoning ("I played paintball for years and became quite adept at crawling"? Whats that have to do with conscripts?), and would rather not discuss this with you. Post what you like of course, but I cant respond to someone that cant see the forest for the trees.

Since Steve has already said he wouldnt change anything regarding the sturmarty no matter what and would rather focus on my unpopularity than anything else.. I am going to drop it. I am begginning to wonder if there is a general lack of military experience in BTS period. Is Steve or Charles (Fionn or Madmatt) veterans?

Lewis

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Username:

Quote:

Actually you agreed with my pause command command in the middle of a string of commands in a different thread. (TD?) I think others agreed that it would be something they would like to see also.

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

Yes I did - that is one of the few points about the ammendments to the command menu I do agree with, and stated that plainly

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

But the "unit command menu options" isnt about "crawling" and I hate the way any issue on these boards gets absolutely muddled by BTS and the posters here. Steve latches onto crawling like it is a cause celebre and people like you further cloud the issue.

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

I hate to say this but as far as clouding the issue goes - you seem to wear the crown

Your posts are very difficult to follow at times and often become symantical as well agressive when you case is lost

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

I hope you dont take offense, but you arent a veteran, paintball aint battle or military training, I cant follow your reasoning ("I played paintball for years and became quite adept at crawling"? Whats that have to do with conscripts?), and would rather not discuss this with you.

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

BOy this statement is based on fact lol :-p

How do you know I'm not a veteran? for all You know I could be a Damn general or a buck private

A MIGHTY BIG ASSUMPTION on your part

As far as the paintball comment went that was sarcasm - sorry if you missed it

Basically I was conveying my feelings that CRAWLING is NOT some MAJOR skill that requires EXTENSIVE training, therefore reflecting at such in CM is absurd

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

Since Steve has already said he wouldnt change anything regarding the sturmarty no matter what and would rather focus on my unpopularity than anything else.. I am going to drop it. I am begginning to wonder if there is a general lack of military experience in BTS period. Is Steve or Charles (Fionn or Madmatt) veterans?

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

Once again you take a cheap shot - Whether or not they are veterans or not doesnt mean they are unqualified to handle their job as you imply. IF you are so unhappy with what they have done then my suggestion to you would be to stop talking and start acting, design your own game. THAT is not a dig its a serious suggestion.

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

Post what you like of course, but I cant respond to someone that cant see the forest for the trees.

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

Well Lewis it's a shame that ya can't take as much criticism as you dish out . I don't disagree with everything you say _ I do disagree with your nitpicking, and unwillingness to accept an answer after a reasonable debate. I also do not agree with STEVE on every issue as you implied earlier with your sarcastic dig at me. I form my own opinions, as I am my own person. I don't feel the need to be with the in crowd, nor do I have any trouble letting people know what I think. Although most times when I have cause to disagree I try to do it in an amicable manner, and will ADMIT when I'm in the wrong.

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Ben Galanti]

Lewis,

I know several of the beta testers are either current military or vets. I'm pretty sure they've had a lot of input from them.

As for a couple of your posts. You mention that you think your arguments/ideas get convoluted by the posters on this forum. That may be true, but I guess I haven't seen a clear set of things you think should be changed and why.

You mentioned that you think sturmartillerie (I'm sure that's spelling is wrong...) StuGs should behave differently then other StuGs due to better training. I guess I don't see how that is any different then bumping up the 'quality' (green, vet, elite, etc) of the unit, since in CM the units quality actually is a combo of experience, moral, and training. (Now, a long time back, there was a suggestion of splitting those three out into seperate catagories, which is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it adds all that much in the long run). Just curious as to why this doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution for you.

As for the different commands for different levels of units. I would think that any unit should be able to be given any of the current commands, whether they do it well or not would depend on the quality of the unit. What commands do you think shouldn't be allowed for lower quality units?

Finally, for the pause during a turn. I can see both sides of that one. There are pros and cons for both, but I guess I fall on the side of not really seeing a glaring need for it.

Also, I'm not sure why you seem to be calling foul for being sniped at a bit in some of the responses (by both Steve and others) you have to admit you've been doing your fair share of the same. You've admitted yourself in a post that you have a chip on your shoulder. If you start putting in unfounded attacks, you're going to get them too... Of course, if everyone involved would just stick to discussing the issues it wouldn't be an problem (as I ramble off the topic myself )

[DanE]

Argh!!! I'm confused now. Can't you already issue a pause command in the middle of a string of commands?

I haven't played in awhile, but I remember being able to issue a pause after other commands. (At least I think I remember. )

Am I wrong, or am I just completely missing the point here?

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

Dan

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

You mentioned that you think sturmartillerie

(I'm sure that's spelling is wrong...)

Of course, if everyone involved would just stick to discussing the issues it wouldn't be an problem (as I ramble off the topic myself )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good idea but first lets sing a song and check our spelling ...

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8662/sturmartillerie.htm

Everybody SIIIIINNNGGGG!!!!!

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-17-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

UGhh dead link Lewis

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Username]

should work now

Lewis

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Kool man where did ya dig that up ?

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Username]

OHHH Ive been doing my homework.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve latches onto crawling like it is a cause celebre and people like you further cloud the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, this is called citing an example and expanding upon the original suggestion to see where it goes. I can't list 15 different examples and prove why each and every one of them doesn't work. I only need to do one. I gave more examples than crawling too, but you seemed to have missed that (shoot & scoot, and the words "anything else"). Point is there isn't a single basic command in CM that should be restricted solely to better units.

Seriously, you mean to tell me that a bunch of Conscripts would not crawl behind a wall to get to an objective? If we took out that command as you suggest Conscripts would have to WALK UPRIGHT behind a wall. Now, I'm no veteran but I think it is safe to say that is silly.

Now, take the logic above (and it is logic) and apply it to ANY command in CM. That is what a game designer does. So I put it back to you, what commands do you think are justified for being restricted by experience? Running, Crawling, Targeting, Moving, what?

Lewis said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually as a veteran I assure you that it matters. Keeping ones ass and head down while moving under fire is hard (and tiring). Height is what gets you killed. You try to stay really low and move forward (preferably with someone giving cover fire).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EXACTLY WHAT CM SIMULATES Try crawling some Conscripts around under fire in sparse terrain. Then do that with Veterans. I promise you will see a HUGE difference in how effective each is. That is entirely realistic and entirely justifiable. Again, apply this logic to any command in CM and it works.

Lewis:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, I think you have demonstrated your "open mindedness" in a previous post regarding the sturmartillerie thing. Try not to focus on me. Its flattering in a way but as a front man for a company, I think its counter-productive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now *THIS* makes me laugh I challenge your points and you challenge my credibility instead. This gets back to my politician comment. Stick to the discussion please. We have taken hundreds of suggestions off this BBS, some of which were not easy to put in code wise. When a suggestion is good it goes in or at least I say something like "good idea, but not practial". Our "open mind" is a well established fact by virtue of the plethora of suggestions that have been incorporated into CM. You know, I can disagree with you and still be open minded. I have listened to what you have to say and think you are wrong. Or am I supposed to simply agree with whatever you say to be classified as "open minded"?

Sorry, but your training nitpick about StuGs (even if correct, which I still challenge) is at best not practical. I clearly stated that if someone wants to nitpick to this degree we would have to go about hardcoding dozens, perhaps hundreds, of minor little exceptions. And what would we use as the basis for the effects of each nitpick? Slippery slope that we don't need to go down. I thought I made a pretty clear statement about that. And as is with ALL of my statements about the meat of the discussions in this thread, it goes right to the heart of the matter and doesn't have anything to do with you or your personality. That is a seperate issue that I have always broken out as a distinct part of my posts. And there they are, above, just in case you missed that deliberate seperation that you seem to feel isn't there.

As for making different orders available to different quality units... that is simply not a good idea as it is unrealistic. Again, this is nothing personal even if you try and make it be. You simply made a suggestion that doesn't mesh with reality. Lots of people have made lots of suggestions that fall into this category so why you are taking it personally is beyond me.

And as for veteran input into CM's design, we have plenty of it. One of our main testers is a 23 year Special Forces (formerly Airborne) veteran who has seen small unit combat with less than good troops under his command (Africa somewhere). Although he has been playing CM for almost 8 months now, and made lots of core system suggestions, I have yet to hear of core problems with Experience, but in fact have heard the opposite.

Well... enough of that Just be clear with this Lewis, I am challenging your ideas and concepts. I am sticking to debating the issues. I do have an open mind. But I can not be bullied into agreeing with you when you are (in my opinion) wrong. You can try and paint it that way, but I take comfort in the fact that the only one that might possibly believe this is yourself.

Steve

[Username]

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

Nope, even if Lewis manages to somehow convince me that some StuGs were überweapons vs. infantry and vs. other StuGs, there will not be one line of code created to support it. It is a slippery slope and is not worth our time or effort to get on it.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

Hey a "No Win" scenario just like Star Trek. I believe the above paragraph kind of negates any debating much of anything.

I will supply some good references because I said I would (SturmArty) and they make good reading. I won't debate anything that doesnt have a chance of being considered for a future improvement.

I am not bullying anyone. Just making suggestions and backing them up.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis, the important part of my statement is not what you quoted by the reasoning BEHIND what you quoted. So even though it is but a few posts up, here it is again:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The argument that there should be something else other than experience opens up Pandora's box. Is an SS man out of one school better able to plink the nuts off a fly at 400m with a Kar98k than some WH guy because at the SS school they had a better instructor? How about an AT crew trained specifically on how to KO Soviet armor, should they be less proficient than a crew that was trained on Shermans? Or some greenhorn that just so happens to have aim like an eagle, yet runs whenever he hears a loud boom?

The list can go on and on and on and on and on. To simplify things, we have the Experience rating, and it stands for ALL things related to the interaction of training, human condition, the weapon system being manned, and the conditions being manned in. Want the unit to be better, up the rating. Poorer, put it down<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can not put in everything including the kitchen sink. That is simply impossible to do. You seem to be confusing "close minded" with "well thought through difinative answer". I have the same type of answer when someone asks to have each indvidual soldier modeled in 3D, tracking where each individual bullet goes, mm by mm treatment of a unit's position, etc. There are practical limitations to what *any* game can do, so understand that even if a suggestion is historically accurate AND beneficial for gameplay, it might not be able to go in. Nothing personal, nothing close minded, just something called reality. In the case of some sort of bonus for StuGs I think it is not realistic, but in any case is not practical or even necessary. The latter is the KEY element here...

if you want to have a StuG that can hit the nuts off a knat at 1000m... make 'em Elite or something. Bingo, all set. No need to make a single code change and you get what you want.

What you have asked for, even if historically accurate, can already be simulated by Experience levels. No, perhaps not to the nth degree, but the end result is pretty much the same. So why go down the slippery slope (see my examples of why this is such a huge issue) when the game handles things just fine as is? The answer is very obvious from a development resources issue at the very least -> it isn't going to happen. Please try not to confuse our understanding of reality with being close minded. It really is insulting.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-17-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

As for how we decide what can go in or not, here is the set of tests. You start at the top and work your way to the bottom. Even one flunking grade means the idea (at least as is) won't go in. Obviously at this late date, nothing new is going in for 1.0...

1. Historically correct?

2. Historially relevant? Or, does the proposed feature really matter?

3. Does not have a negative impact on gameplay, either conceptually or interface wise?

4. Does it have a net positive impact on the overall gameplay?

5. Is it physically possible to simulate (hardware for the most part)?

6. Is the potential benefit (see 1-4 above) in line with the potential outlay of resources?

That is pretty much it for any suggestion. If something passes all these tests it is then stuck onto The List in rough order of importance. So something can pass all tests and still not see the light of day because there are 50 other more important things ahead of it on the list. Pretty straight forward actually.

(DUH! Forgot to tie this into the debate above )

Right now the Sturmartillerie bonus is stuck in test #1. The case for it being historically correct hasn't been successfully made. Even if it passes #1 it is unlikely to pass #2-4 (though #3 isn't such a big deal here). And since it opens Pandora's Box to dozens of other minute nitpicks, it is unlikely to ever pass #4, and because Experience already does the bulk of what is being asked of CM, it is a sure bet it won't pass #6. So it has an uphill battle to say the least. The notion of seperate orders for different Experience levels dies a quick death at #1. Sometimes we have to say "no", but it is always based on rational, logical, and a deep understanding of game design. Any suggestion that we do otherwise is baseless.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-17-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Lewis,

I got an idea for ya...

If you want all this nit-picky **** in CM, you code'em up. And leave BTS alone and their masterpiece that they've created. Because obviously, most of us don't really give a rat's ass about all this little nit-picky ****.

[Username]

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

Argh!!! I'm confused now. Can't you already issue a pause command in the middle of a string of commands?

I haven't played in awhile, but I remember being able to issue a pause after other commands. (At least I think I remember. )

Am I wrong, or am I just completely missing the point here?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you are right. Check out the "TD Suvivabilty thread" or the "Tank vs. .." thread.

Lewis

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Lewis,

I think Steve is right by saying that most of us can care less about whether or not a StuG crew can shoot the balls off of a fly at 1000 yards. We don't care about that. All we care about if they can hit the broadside of a Sherman with some degree of random accuracy.

I mean, you sound like my buddy, KILLEM ALL, that is like that. Wants every little thing in a game to make it realistic down to the feather count on the CGI bird that just flew by your Tiger. A simple solution to this whole arguement is that CM is a WARGAME. It is not meant to portray EXACTLY how the war was and how each and every soldier could shoot a man-sized target or a spider at a 1000 yards.

The things you propose are not only very trivial, but immpratical to have in a game even as realistic as CM.

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

"I am not interested in the names of your fathers...nor of your family's lineage. What I am interested in...is your breaking point!"--Gen. Chang