Grog vs. Gamer

[Jarmo]

I'm trying to place myself in one of the 3 categories.

At first I thought I'm obviously "2. Realism Grog."

I care a lot about the accurate representation of units.

I'm enjoying each issue of the Rexford files and other similar threads.

I don't get nauseated when see a Puma.

But on the other hand. I do like the playback more than issuing orders.

If I'd have to choose whether I want to get by without fiery explosions

or with only one Stug model, I'd sacrifice the Stug. An easy choice.

(Then I'd bug BTS to also include the other Stugs. )

Yeah, I want it all! I'm not ready to sacrifice anything!

I wan't it all and I want it now! Where's my bloody CM2!?!?

And make sure to include every single SMG type this time...

(Edited to remove the dog droppings)

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 01-30-2001).]

[Gremlin]

A good thread to illustrate the true diversity of CM's audience. Personally, I fall primarily in categories 2 and 3, but to an extent in number one. My main interest in the game is the subtlety of the tactical interactions, based on both the unit detail and the game system. (That's in part why I feel there could reasonably be a CM-style game set in the future or a fantasy setting, not to mention other historical conflicts, assuming the units were detailed and diverse enough to create the complex interactions you see in CM.)

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Well I'm not sure where I fit in here,

I enjoy the realism of the game yet don't feel it necesary to go to the extreme of researching every detailed account of armor penetration ever written just so so I can challenge BTS and try and get things done "my way" . I also dont think playing every match as it "would've" been represented then is really a protrayal of accuracy because it is the past, and history has a tendency to become obscured with time. Therefore we can only gain a certain extent of realism before things become subjective, it seems that some do forget this is a game and not a total recreation of history which is impossible.

I do enjoy a well written researched battle now and then so don't get me wrong, and I do apprecitate the time spent by those that have done so. Yet my first love is competition on an even scale, so I don't enjoy a realistic style OOB as it is definitley unbalanced as most battles were. Yet the time and effort it took BTS to research the performance of the equipment is very important to me and my style of play. I personally hope that the focus is now shifting to CM2 as the customer support and additions provided by BTS has been excellent. I dont really think they should worry to much about anything but support issues or the next in the series

JMO

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

1. Historically Accurate Grog

This player wants battles as they occurred in WWII (Or wherever the conflict being simulated occurred) and desires results that match up with those conflicts' historical results. These are the players that despise all the Jumbo v. KT games that go on in CM.

2. Realism Grog

This player wants the objects in CM to be modelled as accurately as possible. They vary from the Historically Accurate Grog in that they would like to see perfectly modelled weapon systems and units that were never or rarely used in historic situations, ie the Sturmtiger, snipers, IR Panther, et cetera. Many of these grogs want to engage in what-if scenarios, pondering the effect of a platoon of Maus tanks in 1944 Europe or an integrated sniper element in every company.

3. Gamer

This is the player that wants to see explosive combat and as realistic a representation of war as possible. By this I don't mean accurately modelled TO&E or proper penetration for the long 88, I mean turrets flying off tanks or men reduced to bloody pulps or aircraft crashing onto the battlefield.

I contend that you have left off a fourth category, and that in fact it is more deserving of the label "Gamer" than your #3 above:

3 (revised). Graphics Hound

This is the player that wants flashy pictures and "realistic" representations.

4. Gamer

This is the player that is interested in gameplay. By this I do not mean graphical effects; although some graphics hounds coopt the term gameplay because graphics are what's important to them, I am referring to a broader spectrum of characteristics. "Gameplay" is, roughly speaking, the synthesis of user interface, immersion in the process of playing the game, and decision-making depth in the context of the game environment.

I contend that (some) people that are not particularly interested in WWII would still find CM compelling because it has good gameplay. There is a lot of variety, the user interface is generally easy to use, and the game presents a lot of depth. There's no simple strategy to follow to ensure success, but the building blocks that the player has to master to be competent at the game mechanics are simple. Feedback is good, tension is high, and planning is important. To me, these are marks of good gameplay. [Good gameplay is, to some degree, subjective; some people won't like the gameplay of CM, and that's fine. But my point is, it will appeal to some folks regardless of any of the other issues you mention (historical accuracy, realism, or graphical detail).]

FWIW, I fall (to varying degrees) into all 4 categories.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[dalem]

I'm probably more of a #1 (Historical Accuracy Grog) but I havea healthy dash of #2 and some #3 too.

Bottom line is that I trust BTS to simply "do it again" and hit the mark pretty well. These guys understand games. I had a post in a thread about graphics awhile back that illustrates my personal opinion pretty cleearly, I think. If I were a real man I'd probably dig up the link.

-dale

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

I also want to address a second issue, and that's the case many HA Grogs make for the exclusion of rare and expirimental vehicles. I think more of these should be included because guys like me want to see how they would have handled combat. Otherwise, I feel the mix more resembles 15-10-5, which neglects groups 2 and 3.

I think it depends on the resources. If it does not overly impact the schedule and other things, then there is no problem with including some of the one-off weapons that did not really reach production, *provided there is a facility to indicate the rarity of these vehicles*!!

AS it is, I get annoyed playing the Allies when my opponent shows up with a company of SturmTroopers and 10 Puppchens in support, with a couple of Pumas and Whirblewinds backing up their platoon of King Tigers and JagdTigers.

However, I do consider these issues to be pretty secondary, and do not think CM loses anything by not including the Maus or other "goofy" units. They are nice to have, but would be pretty quick to get bumped off my priority list when resources become constrained.

Jeff Heidman

[Hiram Sedai]

I am a computer gamer. Before playing CM, I didn't have a clue what any of these units were or did. Because of my curiousity about the units, places, and battles, I've done much reading about WWII. I'm still not a grog as I think "grog" really means.

I do beleive that the graphics of the game is as important to playing as the realism and historical accuracy. I think that the point is subjective and dependent upon our personal viewpoints. It was the graphics that hooked me and still impresses me. The realism still suprises me because of my memories in the Army.

I acknowledge that no software company can please all the people all the time. But, I do think that they have done a wonderful job merging the realism we respect with the graphics we crave. I like the big explosions. Its the adolescent mindset I keep with me.

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[Gremlin]

To expand on a point I made above:

CM's signifcance doesn't really lie in its depiction of WWII tactical combat with historical detail and accuracy. There have been other games that have done that, and other designers with the will could find the way easily enough.

CM's significance does stem from its novel overall design (WEGO, interface, tactical depth coupled with a 3D environment and units, etc.). The fact that it deals with WWII is just a pleasant bonus for those of us who happen to like WWII. It's true WWII tactical combat is particularly well suited to the game system and vice versa, but the CM system could readily be adapted to other combat games.

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[Papa Khann]

<hr>

Originally posted by Papa Khann:

<hr>

While I value #3 because it makes the game more enjoyable and I do want BTS to put some effort there, I don't agree that it measures up to the importance of items #1 and #2.

Just my two cents.

Papa

<hr>

This is my point. You are not BTS's only customer...

<hr>

I'm not!?!

<hr>

...Neither is David Aitken or Elijah Meeks or any other loudmouth. CM is successful because of a proper mix of all these elements, not in spite of it.

For the sake of simplicity, we will say that BTS has 30 time units to spend on CM2 (Or II or whatever). All that I'm saying is, they should spend it evenly, 10-10-10, not 14-15-1 or whatever other lopsided view has been proposed so far.

<hr>

As far as proposing lopsided views go, you should read Steve's replies to the concerns of users over graphics issues in the other recent posts. No one (including me, btw) is proposing "14-15-1". But it ain't going to be (nor should it be) 10-10-10 either.

Just another loudmouth, I guess.

Papa

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

1. There is no mention of what BTS' drive was behind developing the game. I seriously doubt that they just sat down one day and said 'Uh, let's serve these three audiences with ANYGAME.' That is venture capitalist thinking. I believe it was exactly to get away from that sort of thinking that they set off on their own.

2. Graphics are not as important as realism. They are there to enhance realism. So they are not an end in themselves, but only a means for a realistic resolution of combat in the CMBO world. This makes them subordinate. Yes they are nice, and I like eye-candy, but to claim that they are a means is missing the point. Steve said as much in the GB thread.

3. Rare vehicles. The problem with these is that it is next to impossible to know how they realistically behaved on the battlefield. Yes you may want to thunder across a battlefield with a Maus. Question for you then - how do you know it would have been possible to get to any battlefield? Even the rumours of them seeing combat say that it was on the testing grounds. In many cases, combat reports are an absolute necessity to understand about the abilities and deficiencies of AFVs. Case in point is the Panther shot-trap. If the Panther had never seen combat, you would not know it existed. It did, and there are numerous reports of them being knocked out that way. Ergo you know you have to put them in. If your idea of research for putting vehicles into the game is based on their paper specs, then let me be the first to tell you that that is not sufficient.

As to your points:

1. Why would there need to be mention of BTS's drive? I wasn't writing an autobiography, Andreas, merely analyzing one aspect of the CM franchise. I characterize BTS's business options and decisions with business terminology, I think it is the most clear and efficient way to do so.

2. No, Steve did not say as much in the GB thread. Steve berated an annoying child and then went on to say that graphics will not be ignored in CM2 and will be further updated in CMII (Right order? Need a little help here, people). The reason I never posted to that thread is because you have the straw man of GunnyBunny, who nobody likes, representing that side of the argument. I have posted trying to put a more rational argument forward and would be remiss if I didn't point out that your response was pushy and arrogant. No one here is arguing for graphics to get more than their fair share or to be updated at the cost of realism or historical accuracy.

3. If you feel that CM's rendition of rare or exotic vehicles, infantry and armor is a poor one, prove them wrong. That's what we do with common vehicles, infantry and armor.

Andreas, if you think that the mere existence of exotics bothers you, make sure to turn that option off. If you think that BTS spent more time on graphics than you wanted, tone them down. But don't act like your viewpoint is the end-all, be-all. No one is suggesting that we enhance any of these things at the cost of realism, far from it, all that's said is to treat each equally.

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

Car Wars sucked hard. In fact all Steve Jackson games sucked hard. What the hell was wrong with you, back then? Didn't you ever hear about the d20?!?!

No d20 back then fool. Cars Wars was only 4 dollars, what do you expect?

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 01-30-2001).]

[Juardis]

Like some, I consider myself a gamer with a huge interest in war and strategy. Most of the games I've bought in the past 10 years had one or both in common. However, I appreciate the realism and historical accuracy and, as has already been stated, CM is as good as it is today because it has all 3.

I want more eye candy in the most realistic, historically accurate game I can find. But if BTS did not care one whit about graphics, then they would have sold a lot fewer CDs and we possibly would not have CM2 coming. Graphics is what propelled this game from a good seller in a niche market to a great seller that transcends the niche. If any of you noticed, following each positive review or ranking in the national gaming magazines, we got a slew of new people posting here. These new people read gaming magazines and hence can be defined as gamers with an interest in war (like me).

Having said all that (if you're still with me that is), BTS should concentrate on the coding aspects and let the modders worry more about the graphics. As long as BTS puts in the skeleton for burned out buildings, large factories, 3d trees, lighting effects, etc, the modders can improve on the graphics much like they are doing now.

And finally, CM1 was delayed 4 months or so to redo the artwork (IIRC). That alone should tell you what BTS thinks of graphics.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

As to your points:

1. Why would there need to be mention of BTS's drive? I wasn't writing an autobiography, Andreas, merely analyzing one aspect of the CM franchise. I characterize BTS's business options and decisions with business terminology, I think it is the most clear and efficient way to do so.

Yes, but you may make a huge mistake because you assume that is the way BTS does think about CM. It may be clear and efficient, but that does not mean it can not be totally wrong and meaningless. Their drive is what effects the outcomes here, not some strange analysis of target groups.

2. No, Steve did not say as much in the GB thread. Steve berated an annoying child and then went on to say that graphics will not be ignored in CM2 and will be further updated in CMII (Right order? Need a little help here, people). The reason I never posted to that thread is because you have the straw man of GunnyBunny, who nobody likes, representing that side of the argument. I have posted trying to put a more rational argument forward and would be remiss if I didn't point out that your response was pushy and arrogant. No one here is arguing for graphics to get more than their fair share or to be updated at the cost of realism or historical accuracy.

Pushy and arrogant? Excuse me while I chuckle. The only thing you are remiss in is when you try to portray your original post as rational and thereby somehow superior. It is your opinion, I don't agree with it. Here's why: You establish that graphics 'fair share' is 50%. Well I happen to disagree. I believe that if you make graphics an end of CM, you end up with a lesser game. You are welcome to disagree or not. That is my opinion, and it is not more pushy or arrogant than your stereotyping in the first post. Your point about Gunnybunny as a strawman is totally off the mark. There is now in effect a decent discussion going on in the thread about resource implications of all these graphical requests, thanks to deanco and Rollstoy. I don't need Gunnybunny as a strawman for this argument, so we can well leave him out here.

3. If you feel that CM's rendition of rare or exotic vehicles, infantry and armor is a poor one, prove them wrong. That's what we do with common vehicles, infantry and armor.

Tosh - there is nothing either of us can proof either way. It is impossible to depict these vehicles realistically if they never saw service. End of story.

Andreas, if you think that the mere existence of exotics bothers you, make sure to turn that option off. If you think that BTS spent more time on graphics than you wanted, tone them down.

Tosh again - I can not turn on or turn off Charles' coding time. A week spent on an optional feature is a week lost on something that could benefit all.

For the benefit of those who think that BTS plugs resources out of thin air, originally from the GunnyBunny thread, posted by me:

What many people who argue for optionality seem to forget is that somebody still has to code the stuff, even if only 10% (or whatever) of the customers use it. This does not matter if you are Microsoft, because you just employ another bunch of summer students on next to no salary, but in BTS's case it matters a lot. I believe they will be hard-pressed with CM2, even without coding in tons of optional stuff that some customers want. Every optional feature (note: these features being optional means by definiton that they are not crucial) coded in means more time until the release of CM2, more time until BTS generates a new revenue stream, well you get the point I am sure.

What is the proposal you (aka_tom_w), or Elijah who called for optionality earlier have to get around this problem?

But don't act like your viewpoint is the end-all, be-all. No one is suggesting that we enhance any of these things at the cost of realism, far from it, all that's said is to treat each equally.

Well I don't agree that graphics deserve to be treated equally. So there - deal with it. I also don't think that my opinion is the end-all, neither is yours, if I may point that out to you. Your initial post is full of arrogant, blazing statements that I simply happen to disagree with. I did not call you names, I simply disagreed with the content. I find it interesting that someone who believes in the absolute freedom of speech like you do has so much trouble with that concept.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-30-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

I would also recommend heading over here and reading just the first post by Steve:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015600-6.html

Edit - actually, read his next post too once you are at it. Wakey wakey to the harsh realities of life in a software company.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-30-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

1. Historically Accurate Grog

2. Realism Grog

3. Gamer

Ummm, number 3 should be:

Gamer Grog. Gamer's are grognards too. Please, let's be PC here, and stop the alienation. "Can't we all just get along?"

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Gremlin]

Really. I know FPS gamers whose enthusiasm and knowledge of genre minutiae would put many a grog to shame

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

I would also recommend heading over here and reading just the first post by Steve:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015600-6.html

Edit - actually, read his next post too once you are at it. Wakey wakey to the harsh realities of life in a software company.

First of all, Andreas, I've run a software company, so stuff it. Secondly, he does an excellent job of shooting down T&L, which is fine, as I never supported it. Third, your previous post said I thought graphics were half the game, this is either a baldfaced lie, poor debate or merely proof that you don't read my posts. Either way, there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

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

Car Wars sucked hard. In fact all Steve Jackson games sucked hard. What the hell was wrong with you, back then? Didn't you ever hear about the d20?!?!

No d20 back then fool. Cars Wars was only 4 dollars, what do you expect?

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Of course I want more vehicles, more realistic armor penetration and more realistic equipment but we can't forget that

"Graphics Fluff", as some people so snidely dismiss it, is an integral aspect of CM and needs to be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy and realism.

Well, that to me is 50%. Maybe you want to restate that to clear the misunderstanding up. I know that you have run a software company - what has that got to do with it?

Elijah - having some trouble with people disagreeing with you? In which case, you are right, there is no point continuing the debate.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Well, that to me is 50%. Maybe you want to restate that to clear the misunderstanding up. I know that you have run a software company - what has that got to do with it?

Elijah - having some trouble with people disagreeing with you? In which case, you are right, there is no point continuing the debate.

Uhh if he said:

****************************************

Graphics Fluff", as some people so snidely dismiss it, is an integral aspect of CM and needs to be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy and realism.

****************************************

Lets see. He states that it is "integral". That means that it is a necessary component. It could be 1% or 95%. No way to conclude a relative seriousness from the term integral.

He then states that it should be "treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy and realism".

I think that means that he feels that

Graphics = historical accuracy = realism.

That being the case, the importance cannot be greater than 33%, by definition. It could be considerably less, or even zero. It could not be 50% and still be equal to two other things.

Fun with numbers.

Jeff Heidman

[Fred]

"...While other publishers go chasing the Twitch crowd, we here at Battlefront.com only wish to make great wargames for people who like engaging their brains instead of just physical reflexes. ..."

Thats what BTS says about it: from wargamers for wargamers.

And, btw, I think the graphics in this game are not only average but are great! And with all the mods of those skilled people around it even gets better.

BTS will, as someone said it before, do it "right" again with CM2. They always did (and I own all games ever created by BTS; their flight wargames are even today the best ones around).

Fred

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Uhh if he said:

He then states that it should be "treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy and realism".

That being the case, the importance cannot be greater than 33%, by definition. It could be considerably less, or even zero. It could not be 50% and still be equal to two other things.

Fun with numbers.

Jeff Heidman

Well, that's not necessarily true, because the statement is ambiguous. He could also have meant that graphics should be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy and realism put together .

That is, graphics = (h.a. + realism). So graphics = 50%.

Now, given that the statement is ambiguous, he could also have meant graphics =h.a.= realism. Although the better way of expressing *that* would have been: "Graphics should be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy or realism. The use of the disjunctive shows that graphics is the equivalent of either h.a. or realism -- but not of both.

Syntax grog

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

That is, graphics = (h.a. + realism). So graphics = 50%.

Now, given that the statement is ambiguous, he could also have meant graphics =h.a.= realism. Although the better way of expressing *that* would have been: "Graphics should be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy or realism. The use of the disjunctive shows that graphics is the equivalent of either h.a. or realism -- but not of both.

Syntax grog

Yes, that's true, I should have used an 'or'. However, I think that, considering I spent the time to split these into three distinct groups as well as my post on future division of labor (10-10-10), my original meaning was not lost on most, if not all, readers.

To clarify, I think that Graphics = Historical Accuracy = Realism. And if I had standard time units to assign, I would assign them 10 - 10 - 10.

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

Car Wars sucked hard. In fact all Steve Jackson games sucked hard. What the hell was wrong with you, back then? Didn't you ever hear about the d20?!?!

No d20 back then fool. Cars Wars was only 4 dollars, what do you expect?

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Well, that's not necessarily true, because the statement is ambiguous. He could also have meant that graphics should be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy and realism put together .

That is, graphics = (h.a. + realism). So graphics = 50%.

Now, given that the statement is ambiguous, he could also have meant graphics =h.a.= realism. Although the better way of expressing *that* would have been: "Graphics should be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy or realism. The use of the disjunctive shows that graphics is the equivalent of either h.a. or realism -- but not of both.

Syntax grog

However, your example does not actually work either. Lets call graphics G, historical accuracy H, and realism R, just for syntactic ease. And we will assume the seriousness portion is implicit.

If he said

G should be taken as seriously as H or R, that could be taken to mean that it should be taken as seriously as H, as seriously as R, or as seriously as both. This would mean neither of the posited positions.

Options:

1. G = H OR R

2. G = H AND R

3. G = H XOR R

4. G = SUM (H,R)

It seems clear he did not mean #1 since he would have said or if he meant that, same with #3.

I concede that there could be ambiguity between his statement and 2 & 4. However, he if he really meant #4, that would be an extremely poor way of saying so. I have to assume he meant 2 simply because it requires the least amount of mangling of the language. I think he would have added "put together" on the end if he meant what German boy wants him to mean.

Then when you combine it with what Elijah said previously:

For the sake of simplicity, we will say that BTS has 30 time units to spend on CM2 (Or II or whatever). All that I'm saying is, they should spend it evenly, 10-10-10, not 14-15-1 or whatever other lopsided view has been proposed so far.

It becomes pretty obvious what he meant, unless you were trying pretty hard to misinterpret him.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

[Spook]

I think a couple of important "grog" categories have not been mentioned yet (though possibly inferred to) in this topic.

Go to the following link to seek out the "consistency" and "enlightened" grogs (per discussion between Steve G & myself).

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004817.html

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

It becomes pretty obvious what he meant, unless you were trying pretty hard to misinterpret him.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

I did not actually intend to do that, I simply took the meaning that graphics=realism. Point conceded, so it is 33% what he meant.

I don't agree with the basic premise that graphics are equal. They are a means to an end, while realism (as far as that can be achieved in a game) is the end. Whether Elijah's assumption means that it is 33%, 50% or 66% is irrelevant to me, it is the basic contention of graphics as an end that counts. That does not mean that I did not cock up on my interpretation of his statement regarding numbers.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

It will come as no surprise that I have some issues with the original post.

1. There is no mention of what BTS' drive was behind developing the game. I seriously doubt that they just sat down one day and said 'Uh, let's serve these three audiences with ANYGAME.' That is venture capitalist thinking. I believe it was exactly to get away from that sort of thinking that they set off on their own.

2. Graphics are not as important as realism. They are there to enhance realism. So they are not an end in themselves, but only a means for a realistic resolution of combat in the CMBO world. This makes them subordinate. Yes they are nice, and I like eye-candy, but to claim that they are a means is missing the point. Steve said as much in the GB thread.

3. Rare vehicles. The problem with these is that it is next to impossible to know how they realistically behaved on the battlefield. Yes you may want to thunder across a battlefield with a Maus. Question for you then - how do you know it would have been possible to get to any battlefield? Even the rumours of them seeing combat say that it was on the testing grounds. In many cases, combat reports are an absolute necessity to understand about the abilities and deficiencies of AFVs. Case in point is the Panther shot-trap. If the Panther had never seen combat, you would not know it existed. It did, and there are numerous reports of them being knocked out that way. Ergo you know you have to put them in. If your idea of research for putting vehicles into the game is based on their paper specs, then let me be the first to tell you that that is not sufficient.

But if BTS models tank shell ballistics accurately and realistically, then if you put a Panther A that you modeled from the paper specs into the game wouldn't this flaw appear by itself?

I always thought that this was the role of a computer simulator? Now I understand BTS hasn't enabled us to figure out the aerodynamics or the over and under stearing of a Panther but they have created a simulator that pretty much simulates, and realisticaly I might add, tank combat. So if you modeled something from paper stats isn't it the game's inherient design to demonstrate it's combat ability?

Granted I understand that live action reports help you to detect flaws, such as rexfords armor layering problem, but beyond that I don't think it is beyond the games scope to do what they have asked.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 01-30-2001).]