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

[Slapdragon]

<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>

Only long enough to host the Jeff Hiedman paranoid conspircacy club.

Actually Jeff, you were trying to be an ass when you made your suggestion, because it was followed by a suggestion to make tanks bog crosses. The usual "oh, I have nothing to contribute so I will just be Eric Cartman" (which is who you remind me of.

Try answering one of Andreas's questions for a change instead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Would David and Co. be opposed to allowing a mod of the unit markers for no reason other than changing it from the disturbingly gruesome and sickening dead guy to a simple and respectful cross or other non-morbid symbol of a digital result that has no connection to combat?

I find the overwhelming lack of taste in the current scheme of representing a combat-worthy challenged unit as a body rather distasteful myself.

That level of "eye-candy" is, IMO, totally unecessary. I am hoping to convince Tiger to change it to something like the afore-mentioned cross, or maybe just a simple text description that says "This is the last spot at which the virtually represented playing piece bearing only a coincidental resemblance to a unit once used in a wartime situation was last able to be interacted with by the game participant". Something like that.

And when are we going to get the mod to replace those destroyed tanks? Is it really necessary to show them sitting there with their turret all askew? A simple label should be more than sufficient. Anything more is blatant sensationalism.

Jeff Heidman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Slapdragon]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are seriously underestimating what it would take to change a hard coded element that effects every unit in the game, because you would need to develop a whole new set of graphics currently not shipped, even if it was only to repeat the same "dead guy" over and over.

I say this because BTS already commented that changing the shells from hard coded to bmped would require more than a week not to mention several weeks to tests and make sure the option would even work at all.

So, it will probably not make it into the next game either even if BTS wanted to do it.

Let me add to Andreas's unanswered questions:

6) If individual killed and wounded humans would not be noticeable sprawled on the ground at CM scales except at the most close up #1 setting (the game does not support that resolution in terrain even now) how could you realistically portray a casualty?

[imported_argie]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have tried to stay away from this thread so that I could enjoy the flames from a distance. I felt that there was nothing that I could add to Slapdragon's and Germanboy's evil, oppresing, and arrogant posts. But now when the main topic of the thread ought to be dead and beaten, I might as well jump in because you touch a subject where I do have something to say.

Not that I am a fan of the logical positivists (an analretentive bunch of lads), but I find your attitude towards the relevance of logic in discussions to be a bit puzzling. That some people think that appeal to logic and reason is misguided, improper,etc, is not surprising at all. People think a lot, to put it sarcastically. But the important question is: do they have good reasons to disqualify reason and logic from discussions? I am not picking a fight here, I am just a bit puzzled and interested in if you could elaborate a bit.

And the fact that in some discourse communities tradition, intuition, authority, etc, carries heavier wheight than logic and reason do.. does not say anything else than just that. The status of logic and reason is not directly dependent on that other people use different rules for argument. Just in the same way that the wetness of water is not dependent on that some people think that you do not get wet if you stand naked in the rain singing John Lennon songs.

Oh and to those who think that i degrade this post by taking upp non-topic stuff. This thread is so low and childish, that if I posted a picture of myself with a buttplug dressed up as Baby Spice, I would drasticly improve the quality of the discussion of the main topic.

Mattias

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>that if I posted a picture of myself with a buttplug dressed up as Baby Spice, I would drasticly improve the quality of the discussion of the main topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe we could use that as the casualty marker

I was just making an observation regarding preferred discourse methods in different communities. You can see on this board and in this thread how widely accepted "discourse rules" seem to be lacking; lots of people are (enjoyably, it seems) talking/shouting at cross purposes. It's hard to say one guy is right or wrong when they're both using different standards of evaluation.

To me, these sorts of arguments look more like meta-conversations that are really thinly disguised pissing matches/king-of-the-hill (male) dominance games. The real issue isn't gore or graphics but who's "right" and can "win" the debate, proving their supposed supremacy in the community. Cave men stuff, basically A lot of fun, though.

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mr. Johnson-- wrote:

Let BTS respond or not. They can see this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again. This is half of the reason these debates get out of hand. People don't care whether or not BTS has already stated their position on a given subject – they want to hear it again, and they'll keep nagging on about it until someone at BTS stops what they're doing and wades in to the message board to set the issue straight for the tenth time.

[Slapdragon]

The only difficulty in being a fan or not of various ways of knowing is that BTS chose to use logical positivism to base their game on. CM is a world built from research, best understanding, and is a simulation in that tradition.

People may not like logical positivism, but its the only way to get a change into the game. Not liking it is like standing by your diesal powered Volvo and deciding you would prefer your car ran on gravel and dirt from the ditch. It is all well and good, but it doesn't, so why not use diesel if that is the tool needed?

Twice a week for two years someone starts a post, "BTS, my Tiger was killed by a Sherman, do somefink" and backs it up with intuition and urban legend. That may work in some places of the world, but it cannot work for BTS. Then when they get their ideals discussed in a logical positivist manner, there are endless complaints that they are being oppressed, meaning that they are being asked to defend their idea. When they do not, or when the best they can do is attack the method and not the idea, the only thing that can be concluded by logical positivism is that the issue is a dead letter.

[Thomm]

I think that the casualty markers are very clever and cool in their present form, and when I feel like watching some gore I could still go to a certain website with a "rotten" in its url. But actually, visiting this page once was more than enough for me!

Regards, Thomm

[New Age Santa]

Actually I wouldn't mind seeing some blood and gore in CM

All facdes or morality and metaphysical arguemnets aside sometimes I just like seeing a bloody fight. Part of the human nature, a desire to kill. Of course within reason which is why so many people play video games. Not only ae they fun but they a fantasy in which to destroy other people and objects. Personally I think there should be a patch for CM which would allow such violence. That way the regular versions of CM can be freely distributed and anyone who feels like seeing such violence can download a patch for it. (Maybe BTS should ease up on the hard-coded markers and such and add a little more flexibility)

[David Aitken]

There are plenty of games available to satisfy bloodlust – CM is not one of them.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

There are plenty of games available to satisfy bloodlust – CM is not one of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Which is why we need to get rid of those morbid little dead guys that litter the battlefield after a fight.

Plus, like SpankingHisDragon said, they are totally unrealistic, as they are well out of scale. You could never see a little body, the way it is now. We really need a different marker.

Look everyone! David, Jeff, and Slappy agree on something! Of course, David and Slappy agree on EVERYTHING, but it is still almost unprecendented!

Jeff Heidman

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Heidman ]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

6) If individual killed and wounded humans would not be noticeable sprawled on the ground at CM scales except at the most close up #1 setting (the game does not support that resolution in terrain even now) how could you realistically portray a casualty?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again Slip is exactly correct. Which is why me and Slappy will be submitting a joint proposal to BTS to change the current BMP to something more realistic.

Jeff Heidman

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Let BTS respond or not. They can see this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS responded to this a LONG time ago.

Highlights:

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

Yes, gore is a part of REAL combat, as are limbs flying off, entrials falling out, blood spurting from severed arteries, ******* in pants, peeing in pants, vomiting in helmets, screaming for mother, etc. etc. To somehow thing that we MUST have all this stuff in CM is, well, repugnant to say the least.

Having comic book gore only cheapens the real thing, so it does not add to the realism nor to the horror of real war. Such stuff will make the Bevis and Butthead fanatics happy ("uhhuhh, dude, did you see that guy puke when his buddy's head flew off! Cooool"), but anybody else out there that actually cares about humanity would find it deeply offensive. We wouldn't be able to live with ourselves if we cheapened death in such a childish manner. No, better to have nothing than to have something that makes death look cool...

...The way we have it now is the best compromise between game functionality and game atmosphere. Realism was never part of the equation...

...This was one of our arguments against bodies way back when. A single marker for a 12 man squad does not necessarily represent, accurately, where the unit really got plastered. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have markers littered all over the place every time a casualty is taken. Clutter would be bad enough, but the hit on the CPU and video card would be excessive.

After having played with these markers for months now, and seen some pretty huge battles, I have to say that the bodies generally, but certainly not always, give a fair indidcation as to where the majority of the casualties were suffered...

...However, this was not the main reason to have a body graphic put in. This marker is designed to maintain a presence for a unit on the battlefield even after it is eliminated. At the end of the battle you can now take stock of the accomplishments of BOTH eliminated and surviving units...

...I think it is the Doom44 concern. It certainly was ours. This has been one of our strongest arguments against the "horror of war" line of thinking. Cartoon like, totally artificial and fake looking carnage will do NOTHING to bring home the horror of war. In fact, scientific studies and a quick look at the gaming offerings at your local software store, show that it is in fact the opposite. Death and dismemberment is "cool", in the finest Beavis and Butthead traditions. How we go from that to "horror of war" is a mystery to me.

And the argument of "honor our fighting men" is WAY out there. I think that if you asked a WWII vet which way they would have the game look, they would be in favor of not cheapening their sacrifices with comic book gore. So this line of argument holds as much water as a bucket shot up by an MG42...

...And I will say this quite strongly. If some hacker figures out a way to get blood and gore into CM (except for a Battle of the Living Dead ) we will actually spend the time figuring out a way to get it back out. This is our creation, and the purchase price of $45 does not give people a right to desecrate it. This is just our opinion, of course, but since we have been working on this for so long I think we have the right to express such an opinion. Oh, and being the ones with the source code doesn't hurt either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the interest of fairness, and to prove to some (Tris, mainly, for those of you who know him), that CM beta testers are not a bunch of sycophants, here is a dissenting opinion from a CMBO beta tester:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wild Bill Wilder:

My Gosh!

What is wrong with some of you guys? This is a wargame. Its about killing. Its about destroying the enemy. This is not Chess, or Risk.

It's a wargame. What do you think happens when a tank fires into a squad? Or a machine gun chatters on men caught in the open.

If you don't want death, why play a wargame?

What is the purpose. Go play Monopoly!

For the life of me, I can't understand this nit-picking afraid to see reality. You want real tanks, completely authentic. You want troops that fight like real troops. But no evidence of the fighting?

There are no guts, no body parts, just a marker where a unit ended its career!

And what do you think the smoking hulk of a tank represents? What do you think is inside of it? Because you can't see it, its not there?

You guys are far too dainty to be playing a wargame.

Men fought and died on the battlefield. That is what this game is about. Tactics and strategy are important, but there is an unavoidable element of violence, plain and simple.

Honestly, out of all the arguments I've seen on this forum, this one without a doubt is the most ridiculous to date.

And now I've jumped into it. Oh well, it had to be said. Now you can leave my body in a crumpled heap on this forum battlefield. You can be certainly be vicious enough here.

I don't mean to deride those who oppose this aspect of the game. I just don't see the logic of your arguments. I won't convince you, I am sure. And I KNOW you won't convince me, so we'll leave it at an impasse.

But I like the feature. I think it should be in the game. I vote for it.

(Breathing hard, he steps down from the podium)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly, I came across a thread where Steve said there would absolutely never be dead body markers in CMBO no matter what. BTS does change their minds on things now and then.

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Andreas]

Thanks for digging Vanir, much appreciated.

[Spook]

I think that enough people here are ignoring an earlier comment of mine, so I will repeat below:

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?

That last question needn't be rhetorical. Anyone here can try to provide an answer if so inclined.

BTW, re-editing now to also thank Vanir for what he dug up. I tried search routines earlier, but with no luck. Borrowing one of Steve G's quotes provided by Vanir:

...However, this was not the main reason to have a body graphic put in. This marker is designed to maintain a presence for a unit on the battlefield even after it is eliminated. At the end of the battle you can now take stock of the accomplishments of BOTH eliminated and surviving units...

Just like I said earlier; "visual reference" for gameplay's sake.

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I think that enough people here are ignoring an earlier comment of mine, so I will repeat below:

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?

That last question needn't be rhetorical. Anyone here can try to provide an answer if so inclined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, no fair being reasonable and stuff!

Actually, I would tend to agree with you. The vast majority of people are likely very happy with the way it is now, or at least are uncaring.

But, if some people would like more or less, and it is easy (this is certainly unknown) to give it to them, then it harms nobody to do so. If it is not easy, then BTS would certainly have to judge whether enough people would like it to make it worth their while, assuming it does not impact their vision, although apparently that vision is somewhat mutable.

The arguments got nasty when Slappy and David went on their normal crusade to "prove" that the current model is perfection incarnate, and anyone who desires anything different, even as simply a matter of preference, are somehow some kind of 14-year old pre-pubescent boys who couldn't care less about realism, and just want things to go BOOM! and SPLAT!

As far as they are concerned, and Slappy more than David, dissenting opinion must be crushed out wherever it is found. It is not acceptable for people to want CM to be anything other than what THEY define it as. And boy do they ever start frothing when you point out their inconsistent logic, as I did.

Fun for all!

Jeff Heidman

[Andreas]

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

I think that enough people here are ignoring an earlier comment of mine, so I will repeat below:

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?

That last question needn't be rhetorical. Anyone here can try to provide an answer if so inclined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will come as no surprise to you that I, like you, see the current marker as a 'happy' compromise aimed at enabling book-keeping and information flow in a decent way. I think it adds a lot to the game by enabling you to gauge enemy combat-effectiveness during a battle. I assume that is the intent of having them.

[Stacheldraht]

Out of curiosity, regarding the horrors of war in gaming issue:

One could argue that wargames (such as CM) are disrespectful to those who lived/died/fought through the events and/or are socially irresponsible not because of any gore that's included or excluded, but because these games reinforce the notion that some parts of war are valuable for entertainment or commercial purposes and/or that the machinery of war is somehow worthy of interest or veneration. A lot of guys around here seem to want to enjoy the tactical and technical aspects of warfare as entertainment, compartmentalizing them away from all the other inextricably linked elements of war, such as death, suffering, morality, etc. It makes you wonder if that's a healthy or morally beneficial attitude to adopt or encourage, either individually or socially.

Someone could unfortunately make arguments that when the visual representation of violence or the "human elements" are stripped away, all kinds of perverse and morbid subjects could potentially be just fine and dandy subjects for games. In fact, there have of course been plenty of games involving killing, theft, etc. I read a news story once of how some Neo-Nazis created a concentration camp management game. (Not sure about the veracity of that, though I wouldn't be surprised.)

In "real life" mass killing and destruction are generally frowned on by most people under most circumstances. I.e. war is "bad" and peace is "good." (Yes, I know there are many nuances and exceptions here.) How justifiable or laudable is it, then, to take part of that and make games (or movies or books) out of it?

Again, I'm genuinely curious what others think on the issue.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hey, no fair being reasonable and stuff!

Actually, I would tend to agree with you. The vast majority of people are likely very happy with the way it is now, or at least are uncaring.

But, if some people would like more or less, and it is easy (this is certainly unknown) to give it to them, then it harms nobody to do so. If it is not easy, then BTS would certainly have to judge whether enough people would like it to make it worth their while, assuming it does not impact their vision, although apparently that vision is somewhat mutable.

The arguments got nasty when Slappy and David went on their normal crusade to "prove" that the current model is perfection incarnate, and anyone who desires anything different, even as simply a matter of preference, are somehow some kind of 14-year old pre-pubescent boys who couldn't care less about realism, and just want things to go BOOM! and SPLAT!

As far as they are concerned, and Slappy more than David, dissenting opinion must be crushed out wherever it is found. It is not acceptable for people to want CM to be anything other than what THEY define it as. And boy do they ever start frothing when you point out their inconsistent logic, as I did.

Fun for all!

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy Jeff, you need to read something other than the Turner Diaries and Studpuppy magazine, its starting to rot those old synapsis.

No one here tried to stamp out dissenting opinion. In fact, the only frothing was by people who were incensed that someone would argue against having blood splatters on the battlefield -- which I was not really concerned with.

Luckily, an insult from you is better for my reputation than a compliment from anyone else, sort of like getting insulted by David Duke. Sure, its an insult, but look at the intellectual quality of the person making the insult. Hell, If I could convince you, Mord, and Lewis to start a flame Slapdragon thread I would almost be in line for a Nobel prize.

Opps, I know this will all get repeated on some Usenet chat group with vindictive fury -- your bravery is well known, but you know what -- even that helps me. The last time you went on a rant I got something like 30 e-mails of support.

[Andreas]

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

Again, I'm genuinely curious what others think on the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really have anything to add to what Steve said in the quote that Vanir dug up.

Having said that, I am personally perfectly aware of the horrors of war, and I don't need or want any reminding of it. I enjoy CMBO as reasonably 'clean' fun, in which I can try to master the tactical problems I read about. It is a brain challenge, much like other people do cross-words.

Schizophrenic? Maybe, but who cares. But that should explain why I am very happy with the way BTS has done this.

[New Age Santa]

I'd actually want the gore as an enhancer to the realism already present in Combat Mission.

[Panzer Leader]

You know, I can honestly say I don't mind one way or the other. The sick-minded side of me would like to see a trail of "markers" that shows a squads path to destruction, and to also see those end of battle pictures where the fields are thick with "markers". As it is, even with a one "marker"/squad ratio I have had some gory hill-tops.

On the other hand, though I am not Charles' personal assistant, I can think of a lot better things to spend his time on. Like destroyed tanks! And, furthermore, I would hate to see people turned off or offended by the carnage. The body "marker" works well for me: simple and informative.

To sum up, I don't care. I like gore as much as the next guy, but I like improvements to gameplay, better graphics, etc better!

[New Age Santa]

Then they should simply have a "Gore ON/OFF" switch. (granted they even decide to put it in)

That way both parties are happy

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Heidman wrote:

The arguments got nasty when Slappy and David went on their normal crusade to "prove" that the current model is perfection incarnate, and anyone who desires anything different, even as simply a matter of preference, are somehow some kind of 14-year old pre-pubescent boys who couldn't care less about realism, and just want things to go BOOM! and SPLAT!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it very interesting, although not at all surprising, that you should attempt to blame some of the less civilised facets of this thread on myself and Slapdragon. I went and looked over the whole thread, and concluded quite the opposite. On the whole, the discussion has been very reasonable throughout. The trouble started when some people, namely Fieldmarshall, Echo, deanco, Stacheldraht, Rommel22, Mord and yourself, became upset that anyone should present a counterargument to their desire for more explicit graphics, and started directing accusations at those responsible. Tiger deserves special mention because he is the only person to direct personal insults, and has been the most malevolent force in the thread. You, of course, would seek to brand the dissenting voices as the source of the trouble, rather than those who cannot cope with such dissent and resort to such methods as character assassination to further their argument.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Heidman wrote:

As far as they are concerned, and Slappy more than David, dissenting opinion must be crushed out wherever it is found. It is not acceptable for people to want CM to be anything other than what THEY define it as.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I am on a mission to crush those who would dare question the veracity of BTS's decisions? So where are my posts in all of the other threads on this forum which claim that various aspects of CM are innaccurate or illogical? And where do I actually try to stop these opinions being voiced? Where have I ever failed to present a reasoned argument, and simply attempted to silence the naysayers? I find it amusing that anyone you see arguing a viewpoint which also happens to be BTS's, immediately becomes an intolerant BTS sycophant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And boy do they ever start frothing when you point out their inconsistent logic, as I did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't been aware of you presenting any reasoned argument in this thread. I did notice some childish and irrational sarcasm, which appears to have made you feel very good about yourself. I am delighted for you, but let us know when you actually wish to enter the debate.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I haven't been aware of you presenting any reasoned argument in this thread. I did notice some childish and irrational sarcasm, which appears to have made you feel very good about yourself. I am delighted for you, but let us know when you actually wish to enter the debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, I guess my "sarcasm" was a little too sophisticated for you, so I will spell it out:

Every objection you made based on "realism" or gore can as easily be made against the current model. Every single one. The current "dead guy" model is just as much "eye-candy" as a dead guy model with a bullet hole in him. Your entire argument is predicated upon the idea that any graphical improvement that does not impart a greater level of information about the game itself is unnecessary. That arguemtn would apply as well (or rather, not as well) if the current standard was my perviously mentioned generic marker that was not a dead guy lying on the ground. In fact, I am absolutely CERTAIN that if the current standard was anything other than what it is, you and Slap would be vociferously defending THAT as the perfect balance.

Slaps main objection is the same. He claims that modding the marker should not be allwoed because any realistic mod would not be useful, and any unrealistic mod should not be desireable. Same thing. The current model is, by his very definition, unrealistic and hence undesireable. The little dead guy, excet at level 1, should be invisible.

And I have NEVER said that anyone who defends BTS is a sycophant, that would be inane since I have defended them time and again. Of course, you guys ignore that because it does not fit into your pat version of reality your selfless devotion of yourselves to facing off the hoards of ingnorant 14 year olds trying to turn CM into a cross between Army Men and Close Combat.

There have been some perfectly valid objections to Tigers proposal made. The objections are shot down were not valid, as shown. Even some of Slappys objections were valid. See, I have this odd ability to actually recognize other peoples point of view and not polarize myself based on my opposition.

Jeff Heidman