BTS: graphics request for CMBB: seperate bmps for KIA Infantry

[Stacheldraht]

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

That would open a whole other can of worms Maybe a little tombstone that reads "Here lies Dieter Hermann, rudely run over by a Sherman"

[Jeff Heidman]

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

That would open a whole other can of worms Maybe a little tombstone that reads "Here lies Dieter Hermann, rudely run over by a Sherman" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point. I did not mean to insult all those non-Christians out there by assuming that the virtual playing piece would prefer to be marked by a sign implying their belief in Christ.

I will keep my request to the previously mentioned label, which is the minimum necessary to convey any tactical information needed, and hence the optimal solution.

Jeff Heidman

[BloodyBucket]

I have heard that it was not uncommon for well intentioned French civilians to put flowers on the mounds the Americans left behind them with white crosses marked "Latrine Closed 6/15/44" or somesuch date.

[Panzer_Meyer]

WTF does it matter if you add blood or not. Tiger want to be able to MOD it that is all.

If you don't want the mod than don't get it. simple as that.

I do not see the harm in moding little red dots on a soldier or an arm torn off. It's reality or something like that.

Do you people get this pissed when you watch a war movie and guy is shot and you see the blood. Damn I can just imagine some of you at the theaters screaming "that is disrespectfull to the real veterans, how dare they put blood in that movie". Damn, must of been terrible for some of you to watch SPR.

This is ridicilous, people arguing over if there should or should not be blood in the game. It's just a game, remember that.

[Spook]

That's a humorous tangent, B-Bucket . But as you noted, it's the thought that counts.

And my impression is that for the various US cemeteries in NW Europe, there is more respect shown in the upkeep of those than for, say by example, Amer. Civil War cemeteries in the Richmond VA area.

("There's an old cemetery in the corner of that field? So what?! We need more acreage for our mini-mall parking lot.......")

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

WTF does it matter if you add blood or not. Tiger want to be able to MOD it that is all.

If you don't want the mod than don't get it. simple as that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duly noted. But the central issue is whether or not BTS should make the code-change effort that "opens up" CM for modmakers to apply gore to casualty figure markers at their own option.

If the code-change was easy (and easy to trace for debugging), and enough gamers want the mod option, then who knows? Maybe BTS might reconsider. But I presently don't expect (nor require) BTS to reconsider on this minor graphics issue. "Fun" things for BTS's CM2 coding efforts, like relative spotting, will probably have higher priority.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hey, Germanboy, if the shoe fits, wear it. Someone who DOESN'T have a hidden agenda would have read that line, thought, 'well, that person isn't me', and moved on. Or one would have thought. Or perhaps you are defending the rights of those unknown people who DO have a hidden agenda, if they exist.

As for the free exchange of ideas, that is NOT what is happening here in this thread. What is happening here is this. A guy has an idea that has been discussed to death, and because of this he is shouted down in a most unceremonius manner. It's not discussion, it's browbeating. I've seen real discussions before, and sorry, but this ain't that. The recent 'discussion' on variable length turns and RTS is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

My point about the interface was not that people should stop using it, of course. My point was that my interfaces are unnecessary eyecandy as well, as are the hamster faces, the modded splash screens, etc. No tantrum meant at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Deanco, what you and several others like Jeff actually are espousing is the limitation and reduction of all debate from this semi-public forum.

For example, someone posts: "I think that King Tigers should be able to fly across the battlefield." A group of gamers read this and recoil in horror, then say, no King Tigers should not be able to fly. Then the original poster comes back and says prove to me that King Tigers could not fly otherwise BTS us a bunch of pigs for not making them fly. Then people say, here are 8 reasons why King Tigers cannot fly.

Then, as soon as teh debate gets to this point, you get yourself, Mr. Hiedman, and others who chime in and say that any debate against a game change is browbeating evil hooliganism and should be crushed immediately. This happens without even bothering to read the reasons for the change possibly not being a good idea, and without attempting to even address the issues in an adult manner. Usually then BTS comes on the thread and explains why something is done the way it is done, the Jeff and others go to Usenet and bitch their about the evil censors here.

Well Deanco, that is stupid. Anyone who cannot have their idea debated, has a pretty lame idea. I know an idea is lame when every starts pulling out the lame "woe is me, I am being oppressed" crap. So this idea that I was neither for or against -- just concerned that people did not realize exactly what a casualty marker was (most still don't because they just post, not read others posts) now I am against, because the people who are for it cannot create a better argument than "wahhhh they are oppressing me, I may leave for all this oppressing" like some two year old.

I for one am happy that Andreas and others are willing to act as a peer review process for ideas on this boards despite the amount of childish posting that occurs. If you want a rubber stamp of ideas, start your own group like that freak did six months ago (and no one posted to) and invite people who agree to agree with you, and have a great time. This is a forum of adult debate and juvenile fun (I am talking about the Peng thread here) not a goose stepping NAZI circle jerk. Getting a change into the game requires a lot more work than most people are willing to do.

My advice is to read more of John Waters' posts. Personally, he is often on the opposite side of things from me, but he presents good arguments and never whines about the evil sinister board people who (boo hoo hoo) want to discuss ideas in an open manner.

[Andreas]

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

Hey, Germanboy, if the shoe fits, wear it. Someone who DOESN'T have a hidden agenda would have read that line, thought, 'well, that person isn't me', and moved on. Or one would have thought. Or perhaps you are defending the rights of those unknown people who DO have a hidden agenda, if they exist.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I knew you would come up with this one. Pretty weak, don't you think? If you want to capture the moral high ground, you should not be afraid to name the people you disagree with.

So far you have not done so, but broad-brushed all of those who dare to disagree and actually think that the game is quite good the way it is (lo and behold!). While nobody on the side of wanting to see modable markers is addressing the real issue - that it is not correct to display a fallen soldier, or a tombstone, since not all members of the squad in question have fallen. To do so would reinforce the faulty perception of many people regarding the casualty issue. Unlike with tanks, which really got knocked out at the space where they stand.

Anyway, I see the usual suspects (Jeff H, Stacheldraht) have weighed in on your side. Maybe you should just all ask for asylum from the persecution debate in a different place. I pity you all for being victims of the persecution brigade, no really I do.

[Panzer_Meyer]

Deanco is right, IMO the hamsters are the biggest disrespectfull thing ever made for CM. To me that mod is laughing in the face of WWII veterans. That mod is saying "you were all mindless animals". I found the hamster crap the most disturbing and people liking it was even more disturbing.

I don't care what happens, if BTS does allow for dead bodies to be moded or not, I don't give a crap. Basicly this comes down to being ablle to choose what you want. Don't like don't use. Simple as that.

[Slapdragon]

Again, no one has read Germanboy or my comment, which makes it hard to answer them intellectually. The blood issue is a non issue. At CM scales, no one could see the blood spatters anyway. Plus, and this will be bolded, italliced, and quoted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Casualty markers do not represent a pile of dead bodies. To repeat for the hard of reading, casualty figures do not represent a pile of dead bodies. They represent that last location that a squad was together in a cohesive team. They are totally different than destroyed tanks, buildings, and other units. They are just markers, and they almost did not make it into the game. Although originally I lobbied for them as a marker of where a squad ceased to be effective, I now admit that all this time later I was wrong, and people cannot handle these markers because they are genetically incapable of understanding there meaning to the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Kingfish]

I gotta ask, when is the last time anyone of us zoomed in on a casualty marker and said 'Hmmm, this needs sprucing up".

[Philistine]

I'm a bit puzzled by some of the arguments against allowing such modding. The change would allow each "type" of player to use whatever he wanted (assuming suitable modders out there): bloody mods, crosses/gravestones or nothing at all.

I don't see how this should philosophically be a problem to any player of the game, as it is no different than the moddability of any other aspect of the game. (Hamster faces comes to mind). No one is forcing you to use one mod (or even making such a mod standard).

That being said, BTS does have the ability to make philisophical decisions about what they want to allow or disallow. Previously, they had come out pretty strongly against any "casualty marker" that would suggest gore. This seems reasonable. While you can agree or disagree with their decision, it does not seem to be an arbitrary decision, but rather based on their "vision" of CM.

So, I don't see a problem with asking for a change, but I don't think anyone should be suprised if BTS decides not to do it. Given that, perhaps a general lightening of tone would not be out of order?

--Philistine

[Ron]

That's just too reasonable Philistine Now back out with the knives! :eek:

Ron

[NightGaunt]

This is to David Aitken? hope I spelled that right.

I find your views on this game facinating to say the least and want a better understanding of where exactly you are coming from. Now I am not going to go back and forth and check exactly what you wrote, so if i misrepresent your pov, don't take it personally.

your pov is:

1. cm is a game not about war

2. blook and guts are sick and promote a bad image and you wouldn't play if it had it because it would make the game a bad morale view.

Now my general response to you would be

1. I am amatuer war historian. I read/learn everything I can about the history of warfare, whether that be wwii or the war of 1812. From social to political impact on the world to reasons behind it.

2. CM is a simulation of WWII combat. It is simulating a part of war. In combat people die and are injured and it isn't pretty. It is not chess (which could be argued is a type of combat).

3. When I play any game, I want as much realism as can possibly be brought out of a computer. So to me, blood and gore would be an improvement. I do "get into" cm battles deeply, ie when my tank peeks around the corner of a building, i "sweat" it out, hoping that it doesn't get shot. When my troops are hit, i get upset because I immerse myself and take it personally when they "die". Now, do I want to see every hit of a unit depicted with a huge spray of blood that covers the screen, no because it is not realistic (thats why i don't play fps, no hopping to avoid bullets for me).

can I live if bts doesn't include the OPTION for modding the dead unit symbol, yes, but if a nice mod came out that enhanced my view of the game, I would like to use it. So therefore, I would hope that bts would include the ability to mod, which was what the original request was, i think.

This whole argument in general reminds me of the swastika argument, some people wanted it, some people hated it, some people couldn't use it because it was illegal. BTS just set a generic mod and enabled others to modify it if they wished.

Same with the rebel flag on U.S. tanks.

To some up, cause i tend to ramble, I do find your point of view valid, but why limit everyone to what 1 group wants because of personal/moral/ethical beliefs?

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

[Spook]

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

Again, no one has read Germanboy or my comment, which makes it hard to answer them intellectually. The blood issue is a non issue. At CM scales, no one could see the blood spatters anyway. Plus, and this will be bolded, italliced, and quoted.

Casualty markers do not represent a pile of dead bodies. To repeat for the hard of reading, casualty figures do not represent a pile of dead bodies. They represent that last location that a squad was together in a cohesive team. They are totally different than destroyed tanks, buildings, and other units. They are just markers, and they almost did not make it into the game. Although originally I lobbied for them as a marker of where a squad ceased to be effective, I now admit that all this time later I was wrong, and people cannot handle these markers because they are genetically incapable of understanding there meaning to the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap, I know full well what the casualty marker means, which is why I myself don't feel any enthusiasm for BTS to spend time to "open up" the CM casualty marker through re-coding, just for others to apply some visual "gore." What I offered as a suggested method earlier ("mirrored" bitmaps) was only one possibility, but nary an advocation.

Now as to the bolded quote you provided (I dunno if is yours, Andreas's or someone else's), I have to state that I disagree fully with the concluding comments. Wouldn't the statement that "people cannot handle these markers because they are genetically incapable of understanding there meaning to the game" be extreme in its own way, if applied to CM gamers in an overall sense?

And I disagree that including casualty markers was a mistake. I don't need those markers to satiate some appeal for gore, rather I need them for GAMEPLAY, especially for the larger scenarios. Sometimes, in such battles, the casualty markers are a visual reference to me on the level of damage I have applied to larger enemy foot formations. (For friendly foot units, I just have to cycle the bases on & off thru Shift-B to know what's still "alive" of my original forces.) Without those body markers, I can lose track of just how much I've "killed" as I get deeper into the game.

Is it absolutely necessary for me to see enemy casualty markers for my gameplay? No. And some could argue on a FOW basis that I shouldn't even have this as measureable guidance. But again, it can help my own gameplay.

And if for no other reason, the foot unit casualty markers can be a reminder that CM is NOT a armor-biased game. When vehicles are KO'ed, they don't disappear. So why should vehicles be the only "representative" of relative carnage on the CM battlefield?

What BTS opted for, in the casualty marker, was a reasonable balance. Sure, some gamers can be bothered by their presence, while others can be bothered that they still don't represent enough "carnage." But how many such "outlier" gamers weigh in against those in the median zone that are satisified with the current representation?

[David Aitken]

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

I find your views on this game facinating to say the least and want a better understanding of where exactly you are coming from. Now I am not going to go back and forth and check exactly what you wrote, so if i misrepresent your pov, don't take it personally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest that exactly what I wrote is very important, because, as Jeff Heidman apparently fails to grasp, this is a complex issue of degrees, not a simple matter of black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. However, in this case I appreciate that your comments are not precisely dependent on what I have said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>your pov is:

1. cm is a game not about war

2. blook and guts are sick and promote a bad image and you wouldn't play if it had it because it would make the game a bad morale view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite; if you want to be this specific, I would amend your points to:

1. CM is a reality-based tactical combat simulator, as opposed to a war simulator, because "war" encompasses every facet of the business, including politics, and human suffering outwith actual combat.

2. I would not play CM if it were a 'war simulator', because to see a war accurately recreated on my computer screen would not be an enjoyable experience, and I play CM for enjoyment. This is why I regard the push for 'realism', when it enters the territory of human suffering, as ill-conceived.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. I am amatuer war historian. I read/learn everything I can about the history of warfare, whether that be wwii or the war of 1812. From social to political impact on the world to reasons behind it.

2. CM is a simulation of WWII combat. It is simulating a part of war. In combat people die and are injured and it isn't pretty. It is not chess (which could be argued is a type of combat).

3. When I play any game, I want as much realism as can possibly be brought out of a computer. So to me, blood and gore would be an improvement. I do "get into" cm battles deeply, ie when my tank peeks around the corner of a building, i "sweat" it out, hoping that it doesn't get shot. When my troops are hit, i get upset because I immerse myself and take it personally when they "die". Now, do I want to see every hit of a unit depicted with a huge spray of blood that covers the screen, no because it is not realistic (thats why i don't play fps, no hopping to avoid bullets for me).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would question your logic here. If CM were to become as true to real war as possible, it would cease to be an enjoyable game, and start to be a traumatic experience which most people would not desire to expose themselves to. As I have said, in my opinion, CM is only an enjoyable game as long as it features only the mechanical aspects of war, and divorces the political and human aspects. BTS have thus far chosen not to portray graphic violence in the game. As soon as they introduce this element, they start a motion which will never stop until CM portrays death and suffering in absolute realism. This is exactly what the pro-blood camp here appears to want. What I question is how they could enjoy a game which portrays war in all its horror.

Feeling anxiety as you risk your assets in an attempt to prevail over your opponent is one thing; facing the reality of killing people to achieve an arbitrary military objective is quite another. The former makes a good game; the latter is not what I would regard as entertainment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To some up, cause i tend to ramble, I do find your point of view valid, but why limit everyone to what 1 group wants because of personal/moral/ethical beliefs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have explained to Tiger, this debate has gone beyond the simple matter of whether or not BTS should make the provision for his 'blood' bitmaps. The topic is whether or not CM should portray graphic violence.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

Deanco is right, IMO the hamsters are the biggest disrespectfull thing ever made for CM. To me that mod is laughing in the face of WWII veterans. That mod is saying "you were all mindless animals". I found the hamster crap the most disturbing and people liking it was even more disturbing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BULL****. Kitty generated those mods to make light of the "hamster" spin generated by Pengsters in earlier days. If you're going to wag a figure in such a way, then why not wag it at the Peng denizens who tried, as a onetime fad, taunts like "my ferrets will quash your gerbils" or something similar. And they'll tell you the same thing. They were being light-hearted in their chatter with each other, and not meaning to label WWII vets as "mindless animals."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't care what happens, if BTS does allow for dead bodies to be moded or not, I don't give a crap. Basicly this comes down to being ablle to choose what you want. Don't like don't use. Simple as that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same with the hamsters. If you don't like it, then don't use it.

Geez, the views that are taken to extremes are still increasing in here. If it keeps doing so, then BTS, just lock the damn thread. :mad:

[NightGaunt]

ok, now that I understand your position, I realize that we are arguing two different topics. I was on the bitmap position and still am (although i strayed a bit). I also would not want bts to change the base product for the sake of violence just to include it. I just don't have a problem with them giving the ability of options, in this case access to a bitmap, to modify as they see fit, whether it be naked women, little dogs, or blood.

The rest of our mutual arguments are outside the scope of this thread, and to be honest, I wouldn't bother arguing them online with anyone as it would be a topic that could take pages and pages of posts.

thanks for the courteous reply btw, i haven't posted much here, although the bts community is better than most, I don't like wasting my time when threads degrade to flame wars.

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

[Panzer_Meyer]

IT'S A FVCKING GAME!

You poeple take it too seriously.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rommel22 wrote:

IT'S A FVCKING GAME!

You poeple take it too seriously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you fail to understand, is that this debate is all about taking the game seriously. You may as well walk into a beauty consultancy and announce that looks are only skin deep. True, but irrelevant in the context. You clearly have nothing of value to add to the debate, so kindly take your mindless profanities elsewhere.

[Panzer_Meyer]

No!

I look at it as a game nothing more. Some people here need to losen up a little. A simple thing like this is expanded and made to look like it's a big deal, which is not.

Relax!

[Mord]

How is it that everytime blood is mentioned in this game it becomes "GORE" and "FLYING BODY PARTS" and any other multitude of nasty buzz words that make it sound like the requesting party is some kinda blood thirsty lunatic?

I find that very funny.

I'd like to be able to moddify the casualty BMPs is this possible?

We don't need the GORE and INTESTINES hanging out of the soldiers. We don't want to see FLYING BODY PARTS AND PROJECTILE BLOOD VOMIT flying from our soldiers. Your evil and vile and need a psychiatrist you sick puppy. How dare you even suggest such a thing! The casaulty marker isn't even a visual representation of anything in the game. It has no baring on anything in the game. I for one am offened it is even in the game. It insults my fragile and very civilized sensiblities! Heathen!

Uh... I just wanted to be able to change the BMPs.

Well welcome back Tiger. I wouldn't blame you if you never came back to this board. I'm contemplating that myself. I'm tired of the arrogance.

Mord

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Mord ]

[David Aitken]

So what's the point in modifying the casualty bitmaps if there's not going to be a lot of blood? What would you have, a couple of nigh-invisible bullet-holes? A bandage?

The fact is, war is gory. A bullet hole is no more realistic than "projectile blood vomit" and flying limbs.

[Mord]

So what's the point in modifying the casualty bitmaps if there's not going to be a lot of blood?

Maybe Tiger wanted to make little crosses because he didn't like the bodies lying on the field.

Mord.

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Mord ]

[David Aitken]

That would involve the 3D models being re-coded. The only thing he could do is change the textures, so at best you would have a cross mapped onto a 3D 'dead body'.