RTS version of CM ever?

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Go away, go to your RTS game and be happy, but don't come here disturb our virtual reality... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't presume to speak for all of us.

I also have to agree with one of the above posts, or at least what it intimated: why is everyone so quick to speak for BTS or quote them as if their utterances were holy scripture? How embarrassing. They made a great game, but that doesn't make them infallible or geniuses. Heck, John Romero worked on a great game once. Say no more.

Whether or not there's any intention of making a fully real-time CM game or not doesn't invalidate this discussion. Speaking about hypothetical or tangential issues isn't undesirable or uncommon on this board, nor should it be. No one should have to toe some party line. CM wouldn't have been designed with that sort of attitude.

As for RTS games, it might help part of this discussion to differentiate between real-time gameplay in its own right and the typical features and conventions of many RTS games. These are two separate things.

***

I'd also like to see user-definable turn lengths for CM, insofar as that's feasible. The more options the end user has, the better.

***

Btw, the search feature always times out for me too

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Please don't presume to speak for all of us.

I also have to agree with one of the above posts, or at least what it intimated: why is everyone so quick to speak for BTS or quote them as if their utterances were holy scripture? How embarrassing. They made a great game, but that doesn't make them infallible or geniuses. Heck, John Romero worked on a great game once. Say no more.

Whether or not there's any intention of making a fully real-time CM game or not doesn't invalidate this discussion. Speaking about hypothetical or tangential issues isn't undesirable or uncommon on this board, nor should it be. No one should have to toe some party line. CM wouldn't have been designed with that sort of attitude.

As for RTS games, it might help part of this discussion to differentiate between real-time gameplay in its own right and the typical features and conventions of many RTS games. These are two separate things.

***

I'd also like to see user-definable turn lengths for CM, insofar as that's feasible. The more options the end user has, the better.

***

Btw, the search feature always times out for me too

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, lets see. If BTS tells everyone there will be no real time version of CM say, 400 times. So often that they quit coming onto these posts at all to explain their reasoning, then is it wrong to point this out and their previous reasoning? How is it that BTS utterances are not holy scripture in this area? Do you have some magical way of forcing them to make a real time shooter out of a game whose design principals make it highly unlikely it would would, and which major selling point is its wego system?

I think it is very presumptious of people to expect BTS to spend their limited time repeating the same sence over and over again. Every month we get national modifiers, which there will never be any. Every month we get this or that German tank needs to get beefed up because in real life they were never killed. Every month we get this RTS thread again.

All of these things have sound reasons behind them, namely that this game is an attempt at faithful simulation. Sure abstraction is involved, but in each one of the above cases people want to confuse the issue by saying, "the game is just an abstraction, so it does not matter if we change X". It does matter, since anything that takes the game away from what it is trying to simulate is against the purpose of the game.

So, people should be unsurprised that this issue and other often proposed never proposed well ideas gets shot down.

[Philistine]

Interesting debate. It appears to have now crystalized (at least so far) not as asking for a RTS system, but instead for a variable turn length system.

First, while such would require an engine rewrite, that what BTS is doing for CMII (not CM2:BB), so I don't see any big issue in putting out ideas for the rewrite.

With whether it is a good thing or not...who knows. I wouldn't necessarily mind a slight change to time (either 45 secs. or a 1:45 for instance) though my gut feeling is that a minute is pretty good.

Slapdragon's idea is actually not a bad one in order to get an approximation of how it would play, just plan out 2-3 turns in advance and don't change orders on intervening turns. It at least gives you an idea of whether the Tac AI is up to the task and whether it is still a way you would like to play the game.

Generally, I am all for options. Here, a concern might also be that because CM is such a multi-player intense game, there will be people willing to play only at one time-setting or another, thus "fragmenting" the available players.

Germanboy's issue as to the Tac AI's ability is well-taken, but really one only BTS can address. If it is deemed capable at higher time levels, then the question is: does the change add enough to the game to justify coding it into the new engine? Reasonable minds can differ on this, I'd say. While there is no "magic" to the current 1 min. time frame, it is a nice round number that seems to work pretty well with the game is set up now.

Just my $.02

--Philistins

[Stacheldraht]

Slapdragon, you miss my point, so let me clarify. Obviously BTS are the only ones who will decide what to do with their products; I'm not suggesting it should or could be any other way. Also, no one is expecting or asking BTS to waste time answering every thread with some sort of definitive statement.

These discussion boards (or those for most games) are hardly just about finding out definitive answers from the developer. Rather, they're about building a community around the game by discussing all sorts of things. What on earth do the Peng threads have to do with the details of CM's game design, or what we might expect in future CM games, or how to improve your tactics in CM? Nothing, but who cares?

What's the harm in having discussions amongst ourselves about these matters, even if some of the suggestions contradict or ignore statements by BTS? Who cares? As I mentioned, there's no harm in speaking in hypothetical terms; it can be quite rewarding, actually. If BTS had just sat around saying, "Oh, you know, all the other wargames do it this way, so why should we even think about something new?" then where would CM be? So, why shouldn't gamers talk about what they might like in a game, even if it breaks a particular mold or isn't particularly likely to be implemented by BTS or someone else?

Discussing something or asking for something are hardly the equivalent of demanding that BTS do something about it or issue a proclamation on it.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, you miss my point, so let me clarify. Obviously BTS are the only ones who will decide what to do with their products; I'm not suggesting it should or could be any other way. Also, no one is expecting or asking BTS to waste time answering every thread with some sort of definitive statement.

These discussion boards (or those for most games) are hardly just about finding out definitive answers from the developer. Rather, they're about building a community around the game by discussing all sorts of things. What on earth do the Peng threads have to do with the details of CM's game design, or what we might expect in future CM games, or how to improve your tactics in CM? Nothing, but who cares?

What's the harm in having discussions amongst ourselves about these matters, even if some of the suggestions contradict or ignore statements by BTS? Who cares? As I mentioned, there's no harm in speaking in hypothetical terms; it can be quite rewarding, actually. If BTS had just sat around saying, "Oh, you know, all the other wargames do it this way, so why should we even think about something new?" then where would CM be? So, why shouldn't gamers talk about what they might like in a game, even if it breaks a particular mold or isn't particularly likely to be implemented by BTS or someone else?

Discussing something or asking for something are hardly the equivalent of demanding that BTS do something about it or issue a proclamation on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that is just my point. Reread my earlier comments when I pointed out the problems with changing from a 1 minute time base, read Germanboy, and then read the response. In a nutshell it was "you guys have mo right to critique our idea, only BTS does."

That is why I said it should be submitted directly to BTS then. If no one has the right to point out glaring flaws for fear of disturbing the other poster (please reread Triumvir's comments) then the idea either has no merit, or should be brought up directly to BTS. Don't trot out an idea, then get made when people point you to previous answers on the subject, especially after you have said that you are not interested in discussion against your idea, only a comment from BTS.

The other problem I have with things like national modifiers and other areas known to be outside the parameters of the game is that they are very rarely brought out with any new thinking involved. If no new thinking is involved, it is easier to say, "been discussed -- here is what is said."

Notice that this was done here, and it ignited the, "you have no right to comment, only BTS can comment on my idea." In which case you forum for the discussion, support, and exchange of ideas is no longer a forum but a suggestion box. All well and good, but there is better ways to submit a suggestion.

[Thomm]

Upcoming squad level game "GI COMBAT" is supposed to be 3D and real-time. Maybe this is what you are looking for! It is produced(?) by Eric Young of Close Combat fame.

http://www.gicombat.com

Also consider Operation Flashpoint for real-time action and immersion.

Regards,

Thomm

[The_Capt]

Oh what the hell, let's stir up some sh@t!!

I find it very strange that for an enlightened, hardcore gaming community, the thought of "real time" should have everyone running for pitchforks and torches.

Got a newsflash for you guys, "real combat" is in "real time".

I think the problem here is that everyone doesn't want to see CM become another C&C clone and lose it's "je ne sais quoi" edge. And become a twitchfest, complete with rushing hordes, resource management and German Strumgruppe factories.

Well I think blind fear of change is counter-productive, kinda like the Republican Party (whoops who wrote that!?). I think a CM built on reality of combat would be a lot of fun. One could make a plan on a map or even in the game and then let it go. Your influence as a comander would be much less and you would lose a lot of control. Virtual sighting has been discussed which could be built upon here to include "out of touch" units acting on their own, without the commander even knowing where they are.

I think it would be very challenging to make a plan and then have very limited control. The only thing you would have direct control over is Arty and your Reserve. If I have one complaint about the game (well ok one of two) it is that CM is a little to controlled and more like chess than the real thing. Real combat is chaotic and confusing because FOW not only applies to the enemy but your own people too.

Now roll in multiplayer potential. You could command a platoon within a Bn. Be given orders and then go out and do your job. You may be out of contact with Bn HQ or even Coy at times and you would have no idea of what is happening on the other side of the battlefield. Except for gunfire and sounds of action. Now we are talking.

A truly enlightened designer would have both options available. And I might add that if BTS doesn't do it someone else eventually will. Computers may not be ready yet but in an industry which measures Eras in 5yrs or less, we can expect the hardware will be ready soon.

Now as to the "zealots" who are right now on their knees with CM manual in hand muttering " The way of CM is "we go"...we do not appeal to the twitch crowd..Our Charles who art in (where are these guys anyway?) bless thy fingers to encoding and keep corporate suits far from us". Just settle, it is a free board and we are allowed to speak our minds so long as it stays within the guidelines laid out by Admin. The day that BTS or anybody else stifles this board is the day the "ideas stop" and the countdown to someone else doing it better begins.

So let's dare to dream and put the pitchforks down.

[Stacheldraht]

Realism is a sticky issue with any game. Let's face it, the basic premise of CM, as enormously fun as it is, is inherently unrealistic or even silly: you're some eye-in-the-sky, nearly omniscient commander who can order all your units to move meter by meter, and you can even stop and rewind time

The whole game is filled with an enormous number of abstractions by necessity. It's really just a question of what types of abstractions you prefer or think create an entertaining experience.

[Slapdragon]

(This only applies to RTS game version of CM, since the multi minute was put away a while ago. It gets confusing when two groups push different agendas keyed off each others arguments when their agendas are quite different.)

----

Except, everytime the RTS debate comes about, and the limitations of RTS are pointed out, the argument devolves to: "this is a free board so you have no right to critique what I say."

I would say this sounds a bit like a democratic version of the first amendment but I also know some fellow Republicans who fall into that trap also. (It is also not true that this is a free forum. It is a controlled forum. Try starting up a discussion of salt water on this thread and watch how fast it gets shut down.)

RTS has been so debated to death that nothing new ever comes out. Your own argument that battle is real time has been present, but if you want that level of realism then take up paint ball. The problem with down in the ditches people shooting at you realism is that it is not fun, and you see very little of the battle. This is available as a game (minus the people really shooting at you, but maybe you can get someone to plink at you with an air rifle when you play) so no real need to wait for BTS to release it.

Now, although the opposition to RTS is no longer allowed to post opposition, I will violate this convenient rule and point out some simple facts:

1) Software is a business.

2) BTS is a small business dedicated to making money while providing quality software.

3) There is no proof that an RTS software title will make BTS any money. Generally, wargamers want detail and RTS wants glitz and speed. In marketing these would be distinct markets. A cardinal rule of marketing is that few products in the modern world are all things to all people.

4) Small companies must concentrate on their strengths. BTS is a small company. Its strength is historical gaming. It is very successful in its niche. With a limited number of programmers they can either go with a game that all indications will sell very well to an established fan base, or they can spend a long time creating a game that leaves their established fan base behind, and tries to get a new fan base with different thinking and priorities. Sounds like New Coke to me.

Now, it is all very well and good to yell loudly that you want the moon gift wrapped and handed to you, but the moon requires a bit of labor to deliver. Perhaps it is not worth the 8 dollars you would be willing to pay to deliver it.

The same is true for adding endless features. Is it worth the time to code those features compared to the success of the game and its modelling of historic reality? This question is clearly applicable to many new requested features. Limited spotting for example is clearly a good thing for the future. More detailed squad dynamics are also. But adding a feature that sends letters home, tracks bowel movements for the soldiers, and the like may not improve the game, and should be opposed by thinking people. At least, they should be opposed until someone can weigh in with some good evidence.

[Michael Dorosh]

I will say it here one more time - the reason that making CM "real time" will not add a single ounce of realism is because all the forces in CM are controlled by one person.

Capt. - you admit this is a weakness in your own post.

How on earth will making the player make decisions in "real time" add any realism? Making the CM player work in real time would in fact take away from the realism of the game.

Yes, Capt., commanding subunits would be a more realistic approach; I believe the Team Rumble has been mentioned in this thread once already.

There is nothing wrong with a real time game on the face of it; but if anyone thinks making CM one will "increase the realism", they have yet to explain why - and prove it.

It's one thing to discuss something intelligently - it's another to come squawking about something without explaining one's self and then complaining when they get called on it.

So how does real time make CM less real?

Because in real life, every platoon commander is aware of his own situation (to whatever degree anyone on a battlefield can be truly aware).

Since up to a battalion can be commanded in CM (or more, when played by certain sadists with really big processors), each time you stop and look at a platoon, you need to stop and think, and give detailed orders. YOU BECOME THAT PLATOON COMMANDER. And then you move to the next platoon.

When PBEM with Mister Fionn Kelly, and acknowledged leader among game players, he chided me for only taking 15 minutes for each turn. He took at least a half hour each time; In order to play CM properly (ie to maximize your troops' efficiency) you need

to take this kind of time.

Making you do this in real time would prevent you from doing that.

War, like baseball, is a game of inches - but the comparison to chess is also apt. If all you did was command a single platoon, then yes, the real time element would be realistic - but since you are really taking the role of 20 or 30 individuals every time you sit down to play CM, you must have the time to stop and assess the situation of every unit you order around.

This is incompatible with real time.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Spook]

Some good commentary there, Capt.

I regard myself firmly with a "WE-GO" preference, and in an either-or situation, advocate the preservation of CM's present we-go over a continuous-time clocking arrangement. If nothing else, at least PBEM is maintained as a multiplayer option through we-go.

But.....what if for the CM II engine of the future, Moylan & Co. would suddenly come out and say, "we can add in continuous-time as a player OPTION"? I wouldn't begrudge the option's availability if BTS decides to consider it. Then "RTS" fans can try out the CM system in that way and see if it is still to their liking.

Anyone here who thinks that he can "drag" BTS into coding in a continuous-time option, however, is wasting his time. Such a person can advocate for continuous-time as strong as he wants, and he should feel free to express his desires here. But BTS will only consider such an option if it passes a "sanity check" on projected return for the effort expended.

In the meantime, to do an "apples-to-apples" comparison of we-go vs. continuous time (with pauses allowed), I recommend for interested gamers to try playing both of these games back-to-back:

a) Battlefront's TacOps

Shrapnel's Brigade Combat Team

Both are simulations of modern-era, platoon-level tactical combat. TacOps is we-go, BCT is continuous time. Demos are available for both.

Then report back here, and describe which of these does a better job for the attempted premise.

[Priest]

The_Capt points out that "real combat" is in "real time". Hmm yes you are right of course. Then again in "real battle" you can get really killed. You are also really there. And as a BN CO (let's say) then you can really see what is going on and get a "feel" for the battle. Not to mention that you have been formally trained. Also in a "real battle" you are not responsible for the majority of everyone's actions. In CMBO as it stands now you issue orders that will be followed to the best of the ability of your men. You only have input in essence of once a minute (orders phase). How many commanders in "real life" can constantly interact whenver they want with their units on the field? How can these commanders talk to multiple units at the same time even from different organizations (ie. Infantry, armor, etc.) instantly as soon as a situation presents itself. In CMBO you issue your orders and then see them preformed before your eyes to the best of your troops' ability. You then have input once again. Situations develop without your input (ambushes, etc) just as in a real battle and you can do nothing about for an amount of time (until next orders phase). In a real time game this delay could only occur if you the player happened to not see it because you were busy having you supply depot drones collect more petrol crystals and you attention was diverted. The tactics and strategy needed to continue to make CMBO a great game cannot be done in a RTS setting period.

Also as far as variable length turns go it would cause far too many problems then it is worth. Players setting up a battle would have to decide on how long turns should be and then excuses would fly that "Hey I usually play 45 second games so you had an advantage" not to mention arguements over which was better. This is stupid since right now everything works great at one minute. Guess what this is not an issue so try discussing something that is! RTS and variable turns should (and I hope BTS) be so far down on the list of things to even ponder that they should never ever get any consideration. Many game makers make huge mistakes and ruin a game because they fool with it's inherent good qualities (X-COM series anyone). I hope BTS looks to the way that the designers of X-COM lost their way as they tried to "whore" the name of a great game away. The people on this board who speak out so vehemently against these suggestions are the same ones who have seen many a great game die due to a game company actually implementing such ridiculous things.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Some good commentary there, Capt.

In the meantime, to do an "apples-to-apples" comparison of we-go vs. continuous time (with pauses allowed), I recommend for interested gamers to try playing both of these games back-to-back:

a) Battlefront's TacOps

Shrapnel's Brigade Combat Team

Both are simulations of modern-era, platoon-level tactical combat. TacOps is we-go, BCT is continuous time. Demos are available for both.

Then report back here, and describe which of these does a better job for the attempted premise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice post; so what is your opinion on that, and why?

[Scooter]

RTS version of CM ever?

I know it's page 3, but here is my 2 cents...

....God, I hope not! Real Time Strategy is an oxymoron. In small RTS scenarios, the action is managable and the use of a pause button helps. In medium and on to large scenarios, RTS is no longer realistic. Here's why.

In a medium to large RTS scenario too much is happening all at once to be able to order your units so their 'experience' is realistic. All too often a unit will be left sitting someplace longer than it would normally sit and take unnecessary casualties because you are off at the other end of the battlefield trying to micromanage a tense situation. The result is non-historical and nothing that could be called a serious simulation of an historical event.

I made the mistake fairly recently of buying 'Waterloo:Napoleon's Last Battle' because I like Napoleonics. I'll never make that mistake again. The full battle scenario is unplayable for the reason listed above -even with a pause button. I won't buy a RTS game even if ALL games are RT.

Thank God for BTS and those like them. May their numbers continue to grow.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

No, but that does not make variable timed turns worth all the effort in the game, especially when he can play variable timed turns in increments of one minute right now, using the game engine as it stands.

This is not an issue like closer modelling of squads, which will add to the game, this is just a side issue thrown into a post that, if you will note the title, is about starting a real time shooter version of CM.

So my question, if his argument is so fragile that it cannot sustain debate on the forum, what good is it? And if he has a really great idea anyway that he does not want to debate, why not right it up like a publication submission and send it in?

I realize that having people poke at your ideas is difficult, but if they are that bad, do they really belong on the forum?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap thats fine thats your opinion. I think Trium is looking more for an response from BTS. As to submitting things directly to BTS, some ppl are under the aperently misguided impression that posting on this forum is letting BTS know what they think.

As to what BTS chooses to adress or answer even if its an repeatedly asked question thats up to BTS not us. Yes we can provide what Steve etc, has said in the past concerning an issue, but none of us here speak for BTS officialy, & some ppl prefer to have 'official' answers to their question's or proposals rather then the 'gospel' from the peanut gallery.

In fact their'd be alot less bandwith if ppl just gave a search result link to ppl who ask these questionsm or a direct cut & paste of quotes from Steve etc.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Stacheldraht]

As far as wishing for "realism" in CM or any wargame, be careful what you wish for. Any sort of realism in these games is highly selective. If you wanted more realism, then you'd arguably need a game to depict a man screaming in horror as his leg is blown off by a land mine or as he burns alive in a tank; Germans massacring children and POW's in Belgium or raping, mutilating, and murdering girls in Russia; 20,000 people dying of starvation in a single day in Leningrad; people being firebombed in their homes and watching their children die in front of them. That's part of the "realism" of war that gamers tend to conveniently forget sometimes in favor of neato tanks and tactics.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

You are also really there. And as a BN CO (let's say) then you can really see what is going on and get a "feel" for the battle. Not to mention that you have been formally trained. Also in a "real battle" you are not responsible for the majority of everyone's actions. In CMBO as it stands now you issue orders that will be followed to the best of the ability of your men. You only have input in essence of once a minute (orders phase). How many commanders in "real life" can constantly interact whenver they want with their units on the field? How can these commanders talk to multiple units at the same time even from different organizations (ie. Infantry, armor, etc.) instantly as soon as a situation presents itself. In CMBO you issue your orders and then see them preformed before your eyes to the best of your troops' ability. You then have input once again. Situations develop without your input (ambushes, etc) just as in a real battle and you can do nothing about for an amount of time (until next orders phase). In a real time game this delay could only occur if you the player happened to not see it because you were busy having you supply depot drones collect more petrol crystals and you attention was diverted. The tactics and strategy needed to continue to make CMBO a great game cannot be done in a RTS setting period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly what I am saying.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Slap thats fine thats your opinion. I think Trium is looking more for an response from BTS. As to submitting things directly to BTS, some ppl are under the aperently misguided impression that posting on this forum is letting BTS know what they think.

As to what BTS chooses to adress or answer even if its an repeatedly asked question thats up to BTS not us. Yes we can provide what Steve etc, has said in the past concerning an issue, but none of us here speak for BTS officialy, & some ppl prefer to have 'official' answers to their question's or proposals rather then the 'gospel' from the peanut gallery.

In fact their'd be alot less bandwith if ppl just gave a search result link to ppl who ask these questionsm or a direct cut & paste of quotes from Steve etc.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will restate it. If he wants it debated, post it here. It he does not, send it in privately. Don't try to censor people for pointing out previous commentary on an issue or relaying what BTS has already said on a subject.

There is no point in posting to a semi formal forum if you cannot stand the critique of public opinion, both informed and uninformed.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Very nice post; so what is your opinion on that, and why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's my eventual hope that those here with the most ardent positions on we-go & continuous-time would relate their experiences with playing both TacOps & BCT. Because the two noted games are "close enough" in scale & scope to help a player express WHY one game-clocking mechanism is better than the other.

I like both, for different reasons. But in terms to the "game-clocking" issue, I lean to TacOps' one-minute-per-turn we-go arrangement. The reason for this is that trying to control a battalion's worth of platoon-size combat units (especially the IFV units carrying dismounts) is beyond my abilities to keep up with. To say nothing of laying out artillery fire missions, including choices between smoke, HE, or ICM ammo. Both TacOps & BCT have "SOP" menus, but I can access those for TacOps easier, and like its SOP options provided (like having a unit that takes fire pop smoke and back up).

BCT has its strengths, too. Terrain is better modeled, "Field of Fire" and unit facing have more fidelity, and artillery is very detailed---BCT players can specify shell dispersion and alignment, useful when calling a fire mission with one of the ICM ammo types. (BCT's designer is a "redleg," so little surprise here. )

But when I plot fire missions in BCT, or try clicking on units to set SOP's, I gotta pause. Very repeatedly. If I had to play this as a training exercise with minimal pause allowance.....I'd have my ass handed to me.

For those interested in BCT, but want a smaller (squad & vehicle) scale, "Armored Task Force" is due from Shrapnel in the next month or two.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I will restate it. If he wants it debated, post it here. It he does not, send it in privately. Don't try to censor people for pointing out previous commentary on an issue or relaying what BTS has already said on a subject.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever slapp as I said your entitled to your opinion, as to censorship one could make a case repeatedly stateing the same thing over & over till a poster decides to just give up & stop posting or leave the forum, rather then keep argueing with ppl who they see as never getting the jist of what they were saying, is a form of censorship as well. BTW what exactly has BTS said concerning variable turn lengths?.

Also I'm not sure BTS actualy sponsors these boards so players can have a place to debate or so players can do their PR & customer supt for them. Maybe Steve can comment on this.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Priest]

Glad we agree Micheal!

Here is a question. Why would you change the turn length? Has anyone come up with a good reason? Personally if it is a "random" time assignment by BTS (which I doubt) it is a good one. It is a nice round number that everyone can cope with and seems to work well with the engine and the game. Even if some "reality" was forsaken for playability it was the right choice by BTS. Would anyone here really like to try to control their units every 30 seconds or not have any interaction whatsoever for 2 minutes? Guys even if we forsake completely any realistic basis the current system provides just enough time to enjoy the movies phase, think about the battle, see enough of it unfold to make decisions, and feel connected to the game. Can we discuss different times? Sure but at this point in time an argument for change is very very very very weak because of how well the game works presently.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Whatever slapp as I said your entitled to your opinion, as to censorship one could make a case repeatedly stateing the same thing over & over till a poster decides to just give up & stop posting or leave the forum, rather then keep argueing with ppl who they see as never getting the jist of what they were saying, is a form of censorship as well. BTW what exactly has BTS said concerning variable turn lengths?.

Also I'm not sure BTS actualy sponsors these boards so players can have a place to debate or so players can do their PR & customer supt for them. Maybe Steve can comment on this.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The BTS position on the turn length issue was mentioned (and ignored) 30 or 35 posts back by Germanboy. Once it was ignored, there was no point presenting more debate. In addition, suggestions by me and others to show how the game could be played at turn lengths longer than one minute were also ignored.

One could instead say that repeatedly ignoring posts like Germanboy's is not a good way to operate.

Also, if this board is so that players can help out with BTS customer support, then that is what everyone has done by pointing out previously published positions on subjects that repeatedly come up. If it is a forum for debate aimed at improving the game then this thread also works since someone has made a proposal for changing the game, and very naturally people what to kick the proposal's tires to see if it works. When they find the tires are Firestones on a Ford Explorer, they will naturally become a little heated when someone claims they are gold plated buggy wheels.

[xerxes]

umm, I thought my post was just a simple question, I wasn't intending to call down a 155 bombardment on this board.

To those that answered politely, thanks.

- xerxes

[Eric Young]

Two points I don't agree with:

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

<<1) Could not have the detailed ballistics and armor penetration algorithms going on in real-time. Would take a 2 GHz processor just to keep up.

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

//Yes, this can be done. And you only need a 400mHz machine to run it well. 3D graphics has more to do with the video card than the CPU.

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

<<2) Too many units over a large complex 3D map. The biggest complaint in the RTS genre is that when a RTS does go 3D, avid RTS fans have a very difficult time adjusting to a 3D map.

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

//These are UI problems. It does not mean that every 3D RTS will have them.

As far as AI goes, it is very hard to write any AI. Most RTS games don't have any AI at all. Some have very good AI. Kohan is a good example, that's why I got the guy who wrote it to do the AI I need. It is not 3D in every respect but it is the best RTS AI I have seen. 3D doesn't really have anything to do with AI as far as speed goes. Spending the time on good AI, like BTS did is all it takes to have a good AI. Most RTS games don't have a thinking AI because production is the heart of the game. Porduction AI is very easy and the computer can do it faster than you can. After that they don't need much AI.

I think CM works well as turn based. Variable time turn execution is a good request. I have learned that options are what people want in games. I'm not sure it is a good idea as far as development time vs. result however.

E

[David Aitken]

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

What on earth do the Peng threads have to do with the details of CM's game design, or what we might expect in future CM games, or how to improve your tactics in CM? Nothing, but who cares?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Peng Challenge Thread is a place for banter between people who are actually playing Combat Mission, enjoying it for the groundbreaking achievement that it is, and – heaven forbid – not agonising over every minute facet of both the game's design and its representation of reality.

Strangely enough, I love this game, and when I see something odd, I don't go "oh my god, this is an inexcusable coding oversight, I want a fix immediately!" – I just think, what the hell, it's a game – if it were fictional no-one would ever care, but because it's fact-based BTS lets themselves in for a world of crap about people's expectations of what it should be like.

Even more strangely, I am happy with BTS's design decisions. I think the 1-minute turn length works very well. I don't think the interface needs to be augmented in any major way. I enjoy working with the commands available to me – I don't expect BTS to program my troops to be able to skip gaily and every 20 yards do a triple-somersault whilst placing suppressive fire on suspected enemy positions. I think the icon-to-squad representation works well. The lack of photorealism doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game.

I am just amazed that, out of nothing, BTS have created an extremely slick, accurate and enjoyable reality-based wargame. I greatly appreciate how well it all comes together, and I understand why the decisions made about each facet have knock-on effects on other facets, and therefore why it is not necessarily possible to make changes without upsetting the balance of the game – the intuition which makes it work and makes it enjoyable.

The core concept matters. All the discussions on this board are about the external features – the command interface, the graphics, the 'wego' system, the spotting system, penetration algorithms, etcetera – but what matters is what the game is, and what it's trying to be. BTS are the keepers of the core concept. We are perfectly at liberty to make suggestions to them about what we would like to see in the game – although even this is a privilege. They have their work cut out just listening to us, let alone doing the work which earns them a living and provides us with games to bitch about – but they do listen, and they go out of their way to satisfy us – instead of just churning out moneyspinners which are nevertheless the best available, and refusing to hear our requests because they know that most of us will buy anyway.

However, we do not have the right to tell them how the game 'should' be, or what we 'deserve' for the cost of the game. This game is so good that it's the only one I still play, and I've played it more than any other game in my life, and I never get sick of it. If it were an arcade game, or if BTS were doing a Microsoft-in-5-years and charging subscription, they would be very rich and I would be very poor. CM version 1.0.0 was amongst the highest quality recreational software available, but yet BTS spent months after its release improving on it and – significantly – delivering on their promises (ie. TCP play), and delaying their assured moneyspinner CM2 in the process. I might add that in the few years prior to release, they had negligible income, so they have gone far beyond the call of duty, and possibly risked their continued existence and hence that of CM.

I am amazed with what BTS has produced, and I recognise their expertise, and am very happy to trust them to make CM 'the only game I want to play' ten times over. Their motivation is not just to make money, like sundry other software companies. They want the same thing that we do – to see CM become even more realistic, and accurate, and enjoyable. There are plenty of things that they simply didn't have time to incorporate into CM, and I'm sure that their to-do list for CM2 was full up even before we started nagging. At best all we have achieved is to readjust their priorities. Discussion is good, and suggestions are good, but vehement criticism and insistent demands are bad. BTS is breaking ranks with the industry in even listening to us – let's not make them regret it.