thats gamey!

[Louie the Toad]

I'VE GOT IT !

There are Iron Man Rules and there are

Super Man Rules.

Super Man Rules allow you to fly all over the battlefield, see things humans cannot see,

know things humans cannot know such as "Detailed Armor Hits" and all the while you are immune to enemy bullets.

Iron Man Rules don't let you do that.

I love CMBO, so many choices, so many options, whether you play Super Man or

Iron Man.

Appreciative Toad

[Priest]

Question still remains, how does being at levelone keep you from looking over the map? So what you are behind a hill, you can still zoom around the map at *super* speeds. The Ironman rules might be fun and they might be interesting to fool around with but in the end I must say that hindering yourself intentionally when you are already hindered sooo much when compared to a real WWII CO seems trivial. If the Ironman rules are to prevent you from "knowing the lay of the land" then they fail miserably because forcing the opponent to look at the land more closely does not seem to help.

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Louie the Toad]

Dear Priest,

I play trustworth opponents.

Trusting Toad

[Louie the Toad]

Let's try that again.

I play trustworthy opponents.

Toad

[Priest]

If you say so.

Of course whichever military your little guys fight in needs to get some intel, and some pre-battle planning (sometimes days worth) and training. Some pre battle photographs would be nice. How about scouting for possibly months if on defense? Morning Ariel recon photos just taken hours before the attack. Play a lot of MEs do we?

[David Aitken]

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

And the most gamey of all is : telling other people how to act on a free forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall telling anyone how to act. I do recall making a few commonsense points about how a discussion ought to be conducted. If you want a free-for-all, where no-one considers what has been said, and everyone just throws their ideas into the ring and walks away, that's up to you, but in that case there would be no point in the forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Louie the Toad wrote:

If there is a big hill in front of me I should not be able to see the terrain behind it unless I get one of my units in position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should not be able to see activity behind the hill, and this is how CM works. You would, however, have a good idea of the terrain behind the hill, through maps and pre-battle reconnaissance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Could it be that you are arguing from the perspective of a larger battle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying that "realistic" play only works with small forces, and not with bigger ones? My point exactly. It is inherently impractical.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You get your information about the battle and the battle field by observing from each unit's position, just as it should be, not from the god's eye position which I think gives you more information than you should have or especially by being able to fly like superman over to an enemy position and check it out from 10m away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have said, the information you get in CM by viewing the battlefield from your soldiers' perspective comes nowhere near approximating the understanding of the scenario you would have in reality. There are numerous ways to acquire information in reality, whereas in CM the information is provided visually, laid out on the battlefield itself. Therefore you are making things very difficult for yourself by following the "Ironman" rules, and not 'difficult' in a realistic way. The way you acquire information in CM may not be visually realistic, but it comes much closer to approximating the level of information you would have in reality, even if it looks unrealistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How much fog of war should there be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be the question to ask if CM portrayed the battlefield and the sources of information available to you as commander with 100% realism. That will never happen, so a more appropriate question is, what kind of information should CM provide, and how should it be portrayed? This is one of the main questions BTS would have to have contemplated when designing CM, and we can see what their conclusion was.

[Richard Morgan]

There are Iron man rules and there are Superman rules...

While accepting what Louie is saying, there is one piece of equipment that CMBO does not give the commander - something that approximates to an Ordnance Survey map of the ground being fought over - 1:2500, or if we are being sticklers for detail, one inch to the mile. From level 4 upwards, there is little or no indication with regard to the elevation changes which of course, an OS map would show clearly. We therefore have no alternative but to hop into our spotter planes at level 3 and see how the land lies. If the CMBO/CMBB designers address this problem and provide us with a virtual OS map I will probably never use level 3 again, but until they do, I don't think that we have any choice. This is being practical, not gamey

[Louie the Toad]

I agree, FTCR are more difficult. That's why I like them.

I use level 5 to negotiate terrain in buildings and by walls and woods because the interface has trouble moving in tight places.

But I dont scroll around to view other stuff.

If I think some of my units have a map (HQ and FO) I use 6, 7 or 8 depending upon the rank of the unit. But I dont click on enemy units from those views. Nor do I click on enemy units at all. I use the los and target tools to get information because that's what my units see. I don't use Detailed Armor Hits either (did I say that before?) because how would my forces know what happened inside an enemy tank at 800m.

[olandt]

One of the things scrolling around a battlefield does allow you is to maintain optimal positions for your troops. In the game, your forces do exactly what you tell them to do, unless moral or enemy actions get in the way (and tank drivers who are too curious for their own good). Which means, without zooming around the map, you can easilt misplace an infantry squad. 2 meters can have a disasterous effect if it effects LOS. Tops of hills and keyhole positions are 2 examples of the type of terrain which a few meters are crucial. Why should the player be able to look? Because when a real life squad where moving into position, the seargent would normally be able to tell where the best spot was rather quickly, and adjust the squads spot. That adjust ment would take a few seconds. In CM, that adjust could take a minute or more depending upon circumstance.

A game like CM will never be able to go past a certain amount of realism because the player is controlling too many units. People claim of borg spotting, but borg spotting will only be truly effective for 1 turn. After that, the player will move units around in such a way which would be completely unrealistic. Even though units would not be able to know about the AT gun on that hill, the players will move them with that gun in mine. Ironman only makes it more difficult for a player to keep perspective between units, nothing more really. The only way to escape the borg knowledge transfer would be to have the player command as the commanding officer, and the AI takes care of the rest. (or make a massive multiplayer)

[Letsbe Ave.]

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

You should not be able to see activity behind the hill, and this is how CM works. You would, however, have a good idea of the terrain behind the hill, through maps and pre-battle reconnaissance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, is this true for ME's, though?

If so, then wouldn't that support the view that one could consider positioning a gun in a hidden, favourable position simply an minor abstraction of the 'setup' phase (transport, unlimber, hide, have a cuppa, whatever)? What are we talking about here? 1% of a 2500 point GAME?

If not, then

SET HORSE/MODE=HIGH/POSITION=MOUNTED

1) How can you possibly even contemplate playing this GAME from anything but level 1, using the +/- keys only to move between units, and not using Line of Sight, etc. Oh, and turn on all trees, no bases, realistic size, etc. etc.

2) Where are the mods to turn everything black-and-white? Everyone knows that that is how the world was back then, and blah blah blah...

3) When playing the Germans, please only think in German, Polish - think Polish, British - don't even dare unless you can say 'air', 'hair' and 'lair', consecutively. In which case, you ARE capable of a UK greeting (try it - you'll like it). Irish would require 'Well', 'Oil', 'Beef' and 'Hooked', but I digress.

SET HORSE/DISMOUNT

Hangup and Drive.

Shutup and Play.

Edited because I can't type, and therefore can't play the GAME.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Letsbe Ave. ]

[Priest]

So you do use other levels Louie! While I am sure a lot of work has gone into the "ironman" rules, there is nothing ironman to it. First off you are cheating the game (not cheating in the game but cheating the game) and the work of it's designers by not using the interface as intended. I am sure Steve and Charles thought of something similiar and tried it, afterwards they rejected the idea and used what we have today. CMBO with it's full interface will never have an advantage over actually being there with trained soldiers. Maybe you do not get to move every unit but an intelligent trained officer does and much more often puts input in if needed. The "ironman" rules simply put a hinderance on the player that was not intended and adds nothing. Also I would beg to argue that it does not really take more skill but just more time (maybe ironman is appropriate) to play the game that way. I doubt any of my tactics would be hurt by doing this. As far as not scrolling around and not clicking on enemy troops, well why not. You are devoid of maps and a radio with officers telling you what is happening. BTW does the game actually get harder because the graphics tell me more than any info I get for clicking on a unit. I see an enemy and it looks like a TIGER then I treat it as such even though when I click on it I see "TIGER?". It may end up being a Panzer IV but when it does my graphic will change and then I will know, so what is the big deal? I know somebody that played a match against someone using the "ironman rules and while it appeared the opponent was using the "ironman" approach the circumstances did not call for my friend to do so. If I recall correctly the match ended in a cease fire but the difference was that my friend (with more units mind you) took 5-10 minutes to plot moves (Meeting engagement so both sides had to move) while his opponent took 40-50 minutes! Hmmmm seems to me BTS added the so-called "gamey" interface to ease the burden of the player, or in the above case his bored opponent.

[Nick Panzer]

This thread smells gamey.

[Louie the Toad]

Dear Priest

Priest

The reason I use other levels is because there is a connection to some reality. Level 2 is obvious. Level 5 is necessary because troops in a building should be able to move along the wall or into a corner. The interface at levels 1 or 2 don't really work in these circumstances. But I do not scroll all over the place in 5 looking at the enemy and such. Hard core FTCR fighters would say that a player should take a screen shot of the Set Up and use it as a map and never use

6, 7 or 8. I disagree since my HQ and runners and observers not modeled in the game would be giving info to update the map. So I let the AI do it.

As far as taking extra time to move, when I play the AI -- no problem. When I play my trustworthy pbem opponent we both decide on the rules ahead of time (I think that was the argument that started this thread by the way) so we both know turns will take longer. We don't care. We like the small unit feeling, the uncertainty, the surprises. Currently we are playing a small unit action. Each has approximately a platoon + some support. All infantry. Very similar to the ambiance of the board game Ambush!, have you ever played it? Or have you ever tried FTCR? See what you think in a 300 pt 20 turn game. Also don't let FTCR cause frustration. For example if the LoS tool shows you can see an enemy then move ahead from the position of your unit using the arrow keys, until you can actually see the enemy on your screen. No zooming in unless you have binoculars. This is not cheating. There is a glitch in the graphics that us Level 1 players have to put up with from certain positions.

Reasonable Toad.

[Priest]

And that is where the rub is you see. This is just a personal opinion so please refrain from attacking it as if it was a fact, but small scenarios (300pts) bore the hell out of me. I personally enjoy integrating multiple forces and types into a cohesive team and executing an operation. Now while this is possible on the 300pt level it is much more limited. Also I tried it out vs. the AI and found it not to be much of a challenge, not that the AI was not much of a challenge, but that playing that way did not hinder nor help my gameplay. All it did was slow me down. You see the game was made to support a wide variety of scenarios of many different sizes. The interface acts as a tool to be used to accomplish goals while trying to maintain a simulation experience. Your arguement is hinged on a more "realistic" experience but I must say that I doubt it is really so. On top of the many reasons already pointed out, you cannot simulate even typical armor support. In fact a great majority of actions were undertaken by company level formations supported with artillery and heavy weapons teams that are impossible to simulate with the "ironman" rules. Actually the "ironman" rules have more in common with that game "COMMANDOS" than CMBO. I can see the allure of such a set of rules but too much of the game is lost. Too many tactical options are not possible. In the end this system seems like it would handicap not promote better more realistic play. A new player needs to see the map and experiment while an advanced player will have little or no difficulty with the rules and see them as a nuisance (of course barring supporters of course). To each his own but I would be careful what claims you make!

[Priest]

Realism Rules V1.0

Disclaimer: These rules are considered to used in conjunction to the "Ironman" rules already discussed on this forum. I claim no creative influence on these rules and as such please contact the proper people for clarification of such rules.

Realism Rules

1.) Install blinders on the outer edges of you monitor so that only the middle 1/3 of the screen is visible. (you can buy pre-made blinders from PriestCo. for just $100 dollars each - Very expensive but hey realism is worth it!)

2.) Each turn you receive close your eyes and drag the mouse over the battlefield and then hit "TAB". Then hit the "1" key and open your eyes and you should right behind a unit. If you do this wrong and see portions of the map not in LOS then contact your opponent and surrender due to the fact that you just cheated!

3.) Using a dry erase marker and a protractor you can rotate the screen once locked onto a unit 45 degrees to the left or the right.

4.) When ambushing you must get under your desk and wait for your girlfriend/roommate/ wife/child/pet to come by and then jump and and yell bang before you can hit the GO! button. If you live alone then it will be a long wait indeed.

5.) If you do not have a two story house then you may not go into two story buildings because the "feel" is all wrong.

6.) You may not use the CMBO interface to interact and give orders to any unit except the CO that you represent. You can however try to contact the troops in the game with a radio and/or yelling at your screen.

7.) Instead of emailing the files to one another you must open the file with notepad and transcribe by hand onto paper each character and then find a courier service that still uses Jeeps/Kubelwagens (cheaters will try to use Volkswagen Bugs no doubt) and that can deliver the turn to your opponent who must buy a light pen to transcribe the file back onto notepad because using a keyboard to type is easily as gamey as using level 3 and 4 viewing!

8.) If your unit CO is near an explosion you must take your hands and violently clap them over your ears until they bleed.

9.) For every soldier that dies you must write a letter of condolence.

10.) Finally if your CO gets killed in the game you must shoot yourself and hope the endgame result is that you lived and were only wounded in battle.

Thank you for previewing Realism Rules V1.0

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Priest]

UPDATE!!!!!!

That is right folks already we have had an update of the Realism Rules V1.0 that is so ahead of it's time we are calling it....

ULTRA REALISM RULES V2.0!!!!

Disclaimer: All "Ironman" and "Realism Rules V1.0" are in effect.

First off you need to decide where you are going to battle (it must be a real place in Europe because hey this is ULTRA REALISTIC!!) and then use GPS technology to assess the "lay of the land". Then learn high level programming and develop a program that can take the GPS data and translate it into CMBO code (You will need Charles for this and thus delay CMBB but hey this is for "realism"). After the map is generated you and your opponent travel to the actual site. And while a laptop is gamey a tower and monitor is just downright stupid and even CMBO has limitations (feh! Computers on a WWII battlefield). Then using brightly colored chalk (red and green usually) use dash marks to layout your setup zones (They did that in WWII right?) After setting up you must run to each position and plot orders from there so you can really see what the troops in the game are seeing. Make sure to bring lots of red and black rope for CnC resolution not to mention hundreds of meters of gold, light red, blue, green, and red/black combo rope (varying ratios of red/black) so that you can determine various things from the game in real life. If any civilians are around you must ask them to leave and anything in the area placed or made since 1944-45 must be removed. Unless you own a Tiger or Sherman no tanks can be used and I am sure not many people have acess to artillery battaries. Make sure you have large cardboard discs with the countries flags on them to act as unit markers also (they always forget that!!!). Also make sure you buy a uniform a rifle and wear a 40 lbs pack to keep with the whole realism aspect. That should do it enjoy. Other than the fact you cannot use tanks, heavy weapons, artillery, and air support it sure is realistic. Oh yeah and it is ludicrous also!

[Priest]

JUST RELEASED!!!!!

That is right you realistic loving animals here is another variation on CMBO that we here at PriestCO. know you will all love.

Disclaimer: No previous rule sets are needed for this version of the rules. In fact CMBO is not needed.

SUPER ULTRA NO HOLDS BARRED REALISM RULES V3.0

Get some friends together and you opponent does the same. Meet somewhere in France, Belgium, or Germany and try to shoot each other. Enjoy!

[Priest]

THE FINAL REVISION!

Yes folks after long hard hours of thought we have come up with a way that allows CMBO to excel beyond what anybody thought possible.

We like to call it....

THE BEST WAY!!!!

Disclaimer: We are actually not responsible for this set of rules but we are now officially backing their validity.

THE BEST WAY V1.0

READ CMBO INSTRUCTION MANUEL

PLAY

ENJOY

[Priest]

Just trying to prove a point people. A WWII simulation on a computer in 2001 will never be a "realistic" WWII experience no matter how hard anyone tries. In fact uless you were there you cannot have a realistic experience. Steve and Charles (and many others) have done a wonderful job bridging the gap as much as possible. And while I am sure all of us have preferences, making the claim that one is more realistic or better than another is just plain dumb. It is an opinion , Louie you like playing the Ironman rules which is fine, but do not tell me it is more realistic because I can make a valid arguement that it is not. I personally like to trust that Steve and Charles knew what they were doing and I want to use their creation (CMBO) as it was intended in all of it's glory. Seems like a waste not to.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Mark IV]

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

Morning Ariel recon photos just taken hours before the attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think reconnaissance by angels, however effective, adds much to realism....

[Priest]

Photos taken by aircraft in WWII actually produced many high quality (for the time) information rich photographs. Also CMBO does not "simulate" the French resistance efforts to inform units of land characteristics. Although i believe the largest drawback to the Ironman rules is the limitation to unit choice (300pt games) and thus the tactical choices presented in such games.

[Mark IV]

Aerial = from an airplane.

Ariel = an angel's name, y'know, winged spirits, harps, etc., but no cameras, and no publicly-declared allegiance during WWII.

They're sort of the ultimate abstraction....

[Priest]

Actually talking to many Allied survivors of the war and how the outcome was very much different than what was thought possible even 3 years previous one might say that the "angels" did publicly announce their allegiance.

[Louie the Toad]

Priest

I suggest you check out the Thread in this Forum entitled CM:BB Changes in LoS Tool

Toad

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I wasn't talking about you, git... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect the smelly spawn of a convict in the worlds remotest city was referring to my good self.

In my defence:

* the gun had transport,

* I'm on defence,

* the setup zone specifically included the area the gun was set up in

* the scenario designer originally had the gun in a worse (ie, gamier if you will) position, and finally,

* its a pre-canned scenario (quite a good one too. Not sure who wrote it - Simon will be able to tell you. A big Thanks! to the author), not an ME.

One last point ... what's with all the "Hi Moms" and "pleez lok dis phread" comments half way through? No bad language, not overkill on the acrimony front, nothing off topic/political/racial, etc. Just because you've finished with a thread doesn't mean others have ...

Regards

JonS