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

[Slapdragon]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mord's definition of arrogance: Disagreeing with any subject that he feels strongly about.

Stay tuned on this bat channel for more amazing definitions.

Honestly, it is hilarious that someone posts a topic to this board, then screams like a stuck pig or a toothing child when someone has the temerity to (gasp!) offer an alternative view point.

Tiger posts for the 30th time he wants casualty markers modded. Some people agree, some disagree. But as soon as people begin the process of peer review out from the darkness and the primordial ooze comes all of the abused sisters who scream in terror as their ideas face heartless attacks and criticisms. When the argument is lost, then they cry about how unfair this board is ande how they are considering never coming back, as if that is the greatest tragedy that has ever occurred to the human race.

Notice no one bothered to refute or even recognize Germanboy, my own, and others arguments. That would be a discussion, and this topic was meant to be a circle jerk of self congratution loudly demanding BTS do somefink and ignoring discussion that have occurred over two years on the subject. Heck, in the beginning I was totally neutral on the subject, and I have been for casualty markers in the beginning. Now I have been totally argued out of that on a subject I should automatically agree upon.

[Panzer_Meyer]

Who the hell cares what you or Germanboy posted, stop being so....proud of your post. What is that your first or something. (I know it's not).

So WHO cares anymore.

[Slapdragon]

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

Who the hell cares what you or Germanboy posted, stop being so....proud of your post. What is that your first or something. (I know it's not).

So WHO cares anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about because people don't like to read other peoples posts, just whine that everyone is against them.

It is difficult when you post something, get ignored, and 22 pages later BTS comes by and says the same thing you posted way on back.

This thread ceased meaning enything when people quit reading and discussing, and decided to whine about how censored they were.

[Mord]

Mord's definition of arrogance: Disagreeing with any subject that he feels strongly about.

Perfect example.

How do you know How I feel about the subject. Did I state how I felt?

You always go around assuming what others think?

But as soon as people begin the process of peer review out from the darkness and the primordial ooze comes all of the abused sisters who scream in terror as their ideas face heartless attacks and criticisms. When the argument is lost, then they cry about how unfair this board is ande how they are considering never coming back

It's not that people disagree it's how it's done. And the argument isn't lost as far as I saw. You must have some really high opinions of your own ideas. And me leaving or staying has no baring on your existence what so ever. I never said it did. Some of us here just get tired of how guys like you hide your arrogant, jerk attitudes behind the guise of "Oh I'm just discussing things". What you self appointed keepers of the rules always tend to forget is how to talk to people half the time. Your so wrapped up in your arrogant attiudes about a GAME, you forget the respect factor. Oh, unless someone says something that isn't nice towards one of you. Than it's a gang bang. The bunghole brigade lines up and pats each other on the back after attacking in mass. Oh that was a good one! You really told him. I am such a master of CM. I am the end all beat all of computer gamers. Blah! Blah! Blah!

DO A SEARCH. And maybe you'll see what I mean.

Mord

[Slapdragon]

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

Mord's definition of arrogance: Disagreeing with any subject that he feels strongly about.

Perfect example.

How do you know How I feel about the subject. Did I state how I felt?

You always go around assuming what others think?

But as soon as people begin the process of peer review out from the darkness and the primordial ooze comes all of the abused sisters who scream in terror as their ideas face heartless attacks and criticisms. When the argument is lost, then they cry about how unfair this board is ande how they are considering never coming back

It's not that people disagree it's how it's done. And the argument isn't lost as far as I saw. You must have some really high opinions of your own ideas. And me leaving or staying has no baring on your existence what so ever. I never said it did. Some of us here just get tired of how guys like you hide your arrogant, jerk attitudes behind the guise of "Oh I'm just discussing things". What you self appointed keepers of the rules always tend to forget is how to talk to people half the time. Your so wrapped up in your arrogant attiudes about a GAME, you forget the respect factor. Oh, unless someone says something that isn't nice towards one of you. Than it's a gang bang. The bunghole brigade lines up and pats each other on the back after attacking in mass. Oh that was a good one! You really told him. I am such a master of CM. I am the end all beat all of computer gamers. Blah! Blah! Blah!

DO A SEARCH. And maybe you'll see what I mean.

Mord<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The argument was lost in that to get the game changed needs some steep and pretty intellectual discussion to occur before it filters into all those locked up betatesters and the employees of BTS. Lots of good points where made on both sides, but the mod people finally chose to not respond to the discussions offered by others, and then the children piled on with the whining and complaining about having to defend their own pet ideas.

If your idea is so bad it cannot be defended, and cannot be discussed in a public forum, it sucks. Like I said, I would have been for this idea except it was argued so poorly that I saw the light presented by Germanboy.

So, the subject is dead.

Now soon the whiner brigade will launch 38 new threads with slightly different titles where they can post without peer review, and it will still devolve, all because no one wanted to read anyone elses posts, and every took this silly, "well, I don't have toi listen to you because only my attitudes count" business.

It is dead, and only waiting to be buried for another age.

[BloodyBucket]

I remember this debate back in the 70's about the morality of board wargames. I know it must seem quaint now, but the idea of making the cardboard counters for SS units look different than the counters for other German units was somewhat controversial.

My MOVES magazine Nr. One, circa 1972, has a round robin debate on "The Rommel Syndrome", where players of board wargames really think that playing the games makes them real world military strategists. The cry of "It's just a game!" has been raised before.

Redmond Simondson, 30 years ago, said this:

"Mr. Patrick wants to take a large part of that fun away from people. He wants them to keep uppermost in their minds that what they're doing is a sham, an abstraction, an incomplete model of the real thing. What a boring, priggish idea."

Hobbies create passionate advocates, and that is part of the fun. Yes, it is just a game, but I enjoy the game very much. A little rational suspension of disbelief goes a long way toward making any entertainment more entertaining. I don't need bloody graphics, but I don't discount the value of what we boardgamers called "chrome" in the gaming experiance. I am satisfied with the current level of bloodiness in CM, but do not sneer at those who want more spice in their own stew. After all, I am one of those goofballs who enjoyed the medals awarded in Close Combat!

[LGMB]

Soldiers,

You know what? Screw it!

Rommel your sooooo right about this being a game. Thats what it is!

But thats not the point. Lets take this from a GAME perspective. Forget everything else. We have two topics. KIA infantry causulty bmps, and knocked out tank bmps. I heard someone talking about having crosses instead of bodies. THAT IS A REALLY BLOODY GOOD IDEA!!!!!!!!!

(Yikes sounding like the great bald one).

Crosses would be 100 times easier to see on the feild and would certainly, help one track the battle. Mabye as an option? Causalities or crosses?

Now for tanks: having 2 bmps for tanks. One for being knocked out, and one for being inservices. Thats a lot of bmps if you consider the number of tanks. Though i'm all for it, some people might find it to be a tad harsh on proseser speeds.

I think we can all agree though that we need to put this whole moral thing aside and constrate on THE GAME. Instead of arguning wether its right or wrong, lets just think about the game and how we can improve it.

To Conclude: I think that having a marker for the bodies instead of just using the infantry BMPs is a great idea.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord General MB:

Soldiers,

You know what? Screw it!

Rommel your sooooo right about this being a game. Thats what it is!

But thats not the point. Lets take this from a GAME perspective. Forget everything else. We have two topics. KIA infantry causulty bmps, and knocked out tank bmps. I heard someone talking about having crosses instead of bodies. THAT IS A REALLY BLOODY GOOD IDEA!!!!!!!!!

(Yikes sounding like the great bald one).

Crosses would be 100 times easier to see on the feild and would certainly, help one track the battle. Mabye as an option? Causalities or crosses?

Now for tanks: having 2 bmps for tanks. One for being knocked out, and one for being inservices. Thats a lot of bmps if you consider the number of tanks. Though i'm all for it, some people might find it to be a tad harsh on proseser speeds.

I think we can all agree though that we need to put this whole moral thing aside and constrate on THE GAME. Instead of arguning wether its right or wrong, lets just think about the game and how we can improve it.

To Conclude: I think that having a marker for the bodies instead of just using the infantry BMPs is a great idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that a little black "x" hard coded into the game in place of the prone figure would be better from a clutter stand point, and would be another step to photorealism since it would just be a gameplay marker.

[Franko]

Bloody messes would be bitchin'.

F.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I'm with ya Tiger. You stated you opinion, it was a good one. You don't need to say anything else. Let BTS respond or not. They can see this thread. The stock BMP can stay like it is now np. Just a few extra numbers in code.

[Slapdragon]

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

Rett, don't be an asshole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a great study in the decline of a discussion:

The first insult....goes to Tiger.

[imported_Wildman]

Well, several interesting views here. I will be taking the calm, middle of the road approach, started by others and ignored my most.

1. First lets have a clarification of terminology. "Combat" vs. "War". Here is the crux of the problem. For many CM is a combat simulation game, defined as "A computer program that allows me to approximate the Tactical situation faced by a typical unit/person in WWII's Western Front. If approached from that point of view, the addition of extra "gore" would not only be unnecessary but horrific. A modern example is SIMNET used by the Army to train its soldiers, the focus is the tactical situation and not the body condidtion that results from fight. To this point of view "war" is the situation that is above and beyond the "combat" game. "War" is the 1000yd stare, holding your buddies entrails in your hands; all things that they do not want in a computer game.

1a. The other side views "War" as a combat simulator. Battle or combat is a vital part of "War", but the results of that combat are also vital. To them combat and causality cannot be seperated. To them viewing "battle" without viewing "War" is trying to look at only one side of a coin.

2. These two points of view are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconsiled. Just accept that fact and move on.

3. The technical issues are many. You would have to have a seperate BMP for each infantry, Crew, and nationality. Add the that the next question is one that was pointed out earlier. In our search for more realism someone would want different BMPs for HE kills, flamethrower kills, etc. The work BTS needs to do grows exponentally. Not good from a job effeciency point of view.

4. My personal view: In the past I would have agreed with Tiger, but now I cannot. To me the determining factor are my two boys. Is this something that I want to see? To me more focus on the bloody results of combat is not where I want to take my kids, in fact until they were 16+ I probably wouldn't even let them play BTS. Can you believe that me a staunch gun-supporting Republican, I must be going soft. What I would require is them to watch Saving Private Ryan before. As an adult I can understand the difference between a game and reality, and do not glorify the game at the expence of reality. I know that occasionally as I play CM I have to sit back and thing about what just happened in a movie. I watch that squad of 12 men get mowed down in under 30 sec, and I have to remind myself of just how awful and horrible it would have been to really have been there. I don't need a bloody dead guys on the ground to remind me, and if this were available I would never download the mod.

4. Choice is great and BTS has choosen, and choosen a direction I appauld. I also respect and really think about the discussions I read here. I disagree with many of you, but you points of view are generally well represented and force me to validate my POV. Remember that when the flames start to get higher baby, getin' higher baby, ain't never commin' down.

(sorry just heard that song on the radio)

[Slapdragon]

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

Sigh.

Aitkin, you much respected lunatic, your arguments are always so reasonable. Where are the Heidmans of yesteryear?

We're going into this again, are we?

Let me begin by saying that Tiger is a well-liked and contributing member of this community, and then let me ask him this:

For what purpose, Tiger, do you wish to have the ability to Mod 'Unit Elmination' markers? What do you have in mind, lad, both in terms of visual representation, and the purpose for it? Until questions like this are answered, everyone's opinions are just another bargee over issues that should have been laid to rest long ago.

To make my question more pointed: you've raised a sensitive and argumentative topic. Did you do it for any reason other than to see the same goddamn arguments, concerns and anger thrown about, or was their a point to your post? If so, then state it.

I, personally, think the only point of 'Unit Elimination' markers is just that, and their ability to convey that knowledge is all I ask or want. I have chimed in before on the 'more graphic' arguments, involving the 'I want to see organs flying about', as well as the unbelievably specious and even stupid 'it makes people aware of the consequences and reality of war' arguments, and I'm now working from an approach of accountability.

TIGER: Why do you want the ability to Mod the 'Unit Elimination' markers, and what do you intend to do with that ability?

Don't shuffle and piss around, lad, why've you inflicted this old argument on the community again?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of people had lots of good points. Here is one.

[Slapdragon]

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

This board is full of a bunch of over educated, limp wristed pussys. Go field dress a deer this season and maybe a few red pixels in a bitmap wont make you so squeemish.

As for Germany not selling it, that sounds like a problem YOU the people of Germany should do something about. Your freedoms are obviously being trampled on over there. We dont tolerate that **** here in the States.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was a post that sent it to hell.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Then just keep your dead guy BMPs as stock, how they look now.

If your kids are old enough to download the mod, install it, and play with the new "Option", then they are probably old enough to use it right?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Then just keep your dead guy BMPs as stock, how they look now.

If your kids are old enough to download the mod, install it, and play with the new "Option", then they are probably old enough to use it right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that this is not a simple 12 lines of code. It is a major change to the engine that adds 3 or 4 new mods to each squad marker. You could not just generic them off of one image, you would have to have something in its place for each squad and crew type.

I am sure it could be done, just not with a weeks work and a few lines of code. Certainly it wont happen before the engine update.

[imported_Wildman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Then just keep your dead guy BMPs as stock, how they look now.

If your kids are old enough to download the mod, install it, and play with the new "Option", then they are probably old enough to use it right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I'll jump. So by that arguement, since an eight year old can figure out how to turn off the safety of a gun, load the clip, and pull the trigger he/she should be able to carry a gun? Since at 12 they can reach the gas petal and the steering wheel they should be able to drive, right?

That is an unsupportable arguement.

[Mord]

It is dead, and only waiting to be buried for another age.

Well I will agree on that.

Mord.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I smell blood...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You called it. On the first reply no less.

It's been a good show so far. The only downer being when I spilled some beverage on my scorecard sometime around page 3.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I agree that a little black "x" hard coded into the game in place of the prone figure would be better from a clutter stand point, and would be another step to photorealism since it would just be a gameplay marker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, Spanky, isn't that pretty much what I suggested?

Thanks for "analyzing" the thread, BTW. It was mighty nice of you to let everyone know how wrong they all were, and how clean and pristine your own (and your faithful compatriots) actions have (as usual) been.

Man, it must suck being on the side of all that is Good, Just and Pure. The constant need to bring the word down from the mountain to the peasants must get tiring for you and David. Do you ever get out of your Ivory Tower for a little R&R?

Jeff Heidman

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Gee, Spanky, isn't that pretty much what I suggested?

Thanks for "analyzing" the thread, BTW. It was mighty nice of you to let everyone know how wrong they all were, and how clean and pristine your own (and your faithful compatriots) actions have (as usual) been.

Man, it must suck being on the side of all that is Good, Just and Pure. The constant need to bring the word down from the mountain to the peasants must get tiring for you and David. Do you ever get out of your Ivory Tower for a little R&R?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come and watch Jeff Heidman, still not addressing the argument.

I think Tiger just wanted to have a bit of fun, by throwing the flame-bait out. That is of course as much fun for everybody else as someone yelling 'Fire!' in a crowd. Oh well.

What is amusing though is to see the world according to Jeff Heidman:

1. Argue against the way (insert anything) is done in CMBO.

This makes you an instant hero, and freedom fighter worthy of being in the Pantheon of Garibaldi, Che, the defenders of the Roman Republic, and the besieged at Lucknow. Your moral standing is impeccable, and the clarity of your thinking would be the envy of Aristotle, Einstein and Newton.

2. Argue that the way (insert anything) is done in the game is actually quite alright, and a nice compromise.

You are a member of a global conspiracy, out to get all falling under 1. You have also been brainwashed, and are little better than a Moonie. You are stupid, and unwashed, therefore you smell bad.

3. Dare to suggest that BTS has in fact a view on how (insert anything) is done in the game, and that it is at odds with what the people under 1. have suggested.

You are a brutal oppressor, on a par with Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Ghenghis Khan, capable of unspeakable horrors, and eat little children for lunch. You are also responsible for Area 51, the Kennedy murders, have the moral standing of the officers commanding Unit 731, and criss-cross the country in an unmarked helicopter wearing a black beret, looking for those mentioned under 1. to perform life vivisections on them.

Obviously, Jeff has watched one or two episodes too many of the X-Files. Someone should take the remote control from him. Walk into the light Jeff, walk into the light!!!

Now, the 'let's mod the casualty marker' lads have still failed to answer two questions:

1. Why is BTS statement that they will never have gore in the game (and to my understanding at least that implied moddable casualty markers) no longer relevant?

2. What is the point of having a modable casualty marker?

3. If the point is to show wounds etc. why is that not wrong in the light of the fact that the squad in question did not in fact die at the point where the marker stands but only finally lost cohesion?

4. What did Tiger aim to achieve by starting a discussion that was finished a long time ago.

Answers on a postcard please.

Oh, and before I forget, Hi Mom!

[massimorocca]

It's a pity that on this forum the debate ended more or less every time with a row of personal attacks.

I think that we are on tracks that are not linked beteween'em.

Dead bodies: there are two kinds of them. The single casualties where they fall(not in the game now), the whole incapacitated squad marker ( the actual).

I really don't see the need for a new marker. may be only to increase the variety of sights.

The only "deads" that can improve the game are those portrayed where they fall, as visual indication of the tide of an assault or the success of an ambush, exactly like are now the burning, knocked out, or abandoned vehicles, or the surrended guys. In this way the actual "dead" icon is good as any others to simulate the terrain littered of casualties. To go a step beyond we could have three icons one for the dead one for the injured and one for the generical incapacitated (exausted,shocked...)exactly like we have 3 kind of disabled tanks/vehicles. But that is possibile only if the game could know who is dead, who is wounded and who is only "out of order".

I would like absolutely this improvement but I know that programmers have no willing to do. And as "eyecandy" I'll see before a better building damage with something between the all ok with double * and the rubble levelled to the ground

Cheers

Massimo

[Subvet]

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

The point is that this is not a simple 12 lines of code. It is a major change to the engine that adds 3 or 4 new mods to each squad marker. You could not just generic them off of one image, you would have to have something in its place for each squad and crew type.

I am sure it could be done, just not with a weeks work and a few lines of code. Certainly it wont happen before the engine update.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know why it would take more than a week. All we're talking about here is having the game use bitmap xxxx instead of yyyy. And BTS would ship the game with xxxx as a copy of yyyy. This kind of change shouldn't take that long at all. I'm assuming you were talking about allowing mods to the current markers of course. Changing those markers into a completely different 3D image (tombstone, cross, big black x, etc.) would take longer I guess. I still can't imagine it would take THAT long though.

[Kurtz]

Remember, time used to implement this is time not used to implement more important features.

[Stacheldraht]

Just a couple observations:

We--well, most of us--know that the casualty markers in CM do not represent a stack of corpses, and that casualties aren't the same as dead soldiers. Nevertheless, the marker is currently represented as a dead guy sprawled on the ground. It's easy to see why someone might make questionable assumptions or draw questionable conclusions based on that. Also, the idea mentioned earlier of different types of visible damage to that marker isn't so far-fetched. It could represent the type of damage (i.e., indirectly point to a unit or type of unit that dealt it, for tactical information purposes) by illustrating either what caused the majority of casualties to the squad/team or what caused the final ones that made the squad lose cohesion and tactical relevance or efficacy.

***

For those who believe that an appeal to logic or reason somehow finalizes or "wins" an argument, please note that in many past and present discourse communities, appeals to logic can be viewed as misguided, improper, weak, deceptive, etc. More important for many groups in many circumstances are appeals to authority, empiricial evidence, emotion, intuition, popular opinion (or prejudice), tradition, (divine) inspiration, etc. Not that some of these necessarily apply well here Nevertheless, these sorts of appeals often carry far more weight than reason in a variety of circumstances.