Allies vs.Allies etc - Why not????

[CavScout]

It be a good feature for QB so those who want to do ladder games would have "balanced" sides. If two sides had the same points and the same equipment, the hackling over different army point spreds would go away.

[M. Bates]

Are you saying that it is acceptable then to enforce your defintion of good taste on others? Or what is "interesting"?

Don't be so petty. You have your opinion, I have mine. I have not accused you of forcing your opinion on anyone else, even thouigh it is your opinion which necessitates a change to the way that Combat Mission works!!

Even if that definition is largely in the minority among the target audience?

Mr Heidman, you can only speak for yourself! There is no group of Combat Mission players stood behind you while you type your argument in this thread, nodding sagely and murmuring, "Of course he is right, CM 2 will be improved by letting the French or Russians butcher the US."

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

Rugged Defense England Team Website:

http://combatmission.portland.co.uk

For all our AARs

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

"I drive over farmyard animals in my farmyard tractor, then I laugh afterwards."--CavScout [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

"I drive over farmyard animals in my farmyard tractor, then I laugh afterwards."--CavScout [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

WTF? LOL! *CRYS*

[M. Bates]

WTF? LOL! *CRYS*

MUHAHA!! It's a parody of your signature and hopefully is not true!

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

Rugged Defense England Team Website:

http://combatmission.portland.co.uk

For all our AARs

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

"I drive over farmyard animals in my farmyard tractor, then I laugh afterwards."--CavScout [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

MUHAHA!! It's a parody of your signature and hopefully is not true!

I laughed so damm hard.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

Mr Heidman, you can only speak for yourself! There is no group of Combat Mission players stood behind you while you type your argument in this thread, nodding sagely and murmuring, "Of course he is right, CM 2 will be improved by letting the French or Russians butcher the US."

Sorry if you thought I was being petty, that was not my intent.

My point was that you seem to be of the opinion that this feature should not be in CM because *you* find it offensive. Not having the ability means that everyone must then bow to what you perceive as "morality" or whatever.

Having the feature in however, would NOT force those who do not like it to play it, hence not force anyone to do anything they perceive as heinous and immoral.

As far as speaking for myself, I am merely going by what seems to be the majority opinion. There have been many wargames released that do not stipulate sides, and I have never, ever heard a single complaint about how immoral and "ghoulish" TOAW or Steel Panthers is because some scenario designer can, if they so desire, create a scenario pitting the Germans against the Italians.

If you object to scenarios where the sides are not historically accurate, you do ont have to play them. But why limit what other people enjoy if it has no effect upon you?

Jeff Heidman

[Guy w/gun]

Ghoulish? Butcher? It's a friggin game!!! Sure it's a game in which people are killed, but are you saying it's better for the US to murder Germans human beings that it is for them to murder French french human beings? All people are saying is that it would be interesting.

And as for being historical, in a QB situation, who cares? All I use the date for is to determine what units come into play.

Please, it's all HYPOTHETICAL.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

I can see this as being the mother of all coding challenges for Charles. Not that I doubt he could do it, I'm sure he can, It's just the fact that we are asking for the computer to accept two units as allies in one scenario, and with a few mouse clicks it's suppose to treat the same units as enemys in another. Consider...

I could be wrong on this, but I believe that CM recognizes sides but not nationalities. What I mean by that is a 12 man U.S. rifle squad functions the exact same way as a 12 man French rifle squad. A Firefly is a Firefly, whether it be British, Canadian or Polish. Sure, you get different voices, uniforms, etc...but strip all that away and you have the same unit.

Now we are asking for the ability to create a scenario with a few mouse clicks that has a Polish Firefly shooting at a Canadian 'fly (remember they are really just the same unit), now we exit that scenario, fire up another, this time we want that Polish 'fly to accept another 'fly as his friend. Imagine the bugs that pop up from all that.

Nevertheless, it has to be done. As Jeff pointed out, countries were switching sides throughout the war, and nowhere more so than the Eastern front, so it has to be modeled.

All I can say is Good luck Charles

Hmmm. I think it would be very easy. I seriously doubt that right now the CPU has any knowledge that Shermans are good guys and Panthers are bad guys. I imagine it just defines units as being friendly or enemy. I doubt the type of the unit enters into it, although I could be wrong. I just can't imagine why you would code it that way. But then, I didn't code it to begin with.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

nodding sagely and murmuring, "Of course he is right, CM 2 will be improved by letting the French or Russians butcher the US."

Your rather inflammatory language aside, the French *did* try to butcher the US. Ever hear of a little place called North Africa?

Jeff Heidman

[Kingfish]

I seriously doubt that right now the CPU has any knowledge that Shermans are good guys and Panthers are bad guys. I imagine it just defines units as being friendly or enemy

I agree, but those two units are hard coded as enemy, so every time they confront each other they automatically want to blow the other away.

The way I understand it (and I'm only guessing here as I have no knowledge in computer coding, much less the way CM is coded), when you select a Firefly the computer draws upon a "base" code of a Firefly and then adds all the additions that make it Canadian, Polish, etc...This base code tells it to treat all other 'flies as friendly and all Panthers as threats. With allied vs allied scenarios this code must now be changed, and litteraly changed on the fly, as we can now fire up a QB in seconds, and some of us want to play allied vs allied in one game and allied vs axis in another.

I'm guessing that for this to work Charles is going to have to include something in the code that distinguishes the different nationalities, therby allowing Poles vs Canadians, Germans vs Italians, etc...

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

"I do like to see the arms and legs fly"

[This message has been edited by Kingfish (edited 01-25-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

[Guest Space Thing]

The only pitting of sides against another side that would even begin to be historical (or make sense) is German Heer units vs. German SS units. Why isn't anyone else talking about that???? The rest is purely ludicrous.

Give me a break here people. US vs. UK? France vs. US? UK vs. Poland? That is all inane to the extreme. The suggestions outside of a Heer vs. SS battle are simply crazy, because CM is supposed to be more of a HISTORICAL simulation than it is supposed to be a game -according to BTS. To include a possibility of US vs. UK or some other historical IMPOSSIBILITY would vault CM right into the ranks of fantasy wargaming. BTS would be laughed at, IMO.

The words above in uppercase are only so, because I don't know how to make them appear in bold.

[Kingfish]

The only pitting of sides against another side that would even begin to be historical (or make sense) is German Heer units vs. German SS units. Why isn't anyone else talking about that???? The rest is purely ludicrous.

Space thing,

You need to bone up on your history, because WW2 is full of instances of allies fighting allies. The French opposed the Torch landings, the British fought the French on several occasions, The Italians switched sides midway thru and fought the Germans, as did the Romanians and Finns.

BTW, next time you post look to the left of the reply box. You will see a link that says 'UBB code is on'. Click on that, it will explain how to add bold text, quote, insert links, etc...

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

"I do like to see the arms and legs fly"

[This message has been edited by Kingfish (edited 01-25-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

I am totally not against a fantasy football setting, letting any unit be bought in any combination for a fantasy force, or even restricting to sides that historically did not fight (also a type of fantasy football). While I believe it hurts the historical nature of the game as Space Thing says, in no way do I have to play it.

Here is my one concern. How much extra development time are we / BTS willing to waid for this featyre. If it adds six months of a year onto development, or even three months, is it still remember. Remember, the CM engine has a set life whose clock started ticking the day the game was released. To be competitive, BTS has to make the most bucks wise off the work invested in this engine before it starts to look dated and needs a whole new engine (coinciding with Steve and Charles buying their new multiprocessing G5/30g Macs.) If we expect to see WW2 modules for the major fronts come out, how much can they delay CM2 without risking a new 3D game realizing that the market is here and all it needs is plucking.

I know from the much vaunted "fun" perspective this is a little grumpy, but BTS wants to release CM2 as fast as it can, and some things, if they cause a big delay, may not be such a good idea even if they hurt no one.

That said, if the option added a week to coding, then so be it.

[Goofy]

Somehow this post went from a discussion of game options to a discussion of history and morality. I went and read the other thread (US vs USSR) mentioned in an earlier post in this thread. As I read it I realized that there are people who view this GAME as something other than a GAME. It's up to each individual to decide if this applies to you or not, I'm NOT talking TO anyone, just speaking in general. What I didn't see in that post or this one was one from BTS saying YES or NO, only quotes from Steve about the subject strictly in GAME terms.

I understand there ARE people who do actually think if I play the German side in a scenario that this somehow makes me one of "them"! I had someone send me an e-mail on just exactly that idea, that if he didn't wipe me out I'd be burning his home and killing his mother and raping his sister. At first I thought it was a joke but I found that this guy was quite serious. I've never played another game with or sent mail to this person. I hope he isn't stalking me at this moment to "save his mom"! I believe there are people who see the line between a game and "historical simulation" a little bit more fuzzy than I do. I PLAY THIS AS A GAME! When I ask about another "toggle switch" for the options that's really all I'm asking for. I have no political or moral motives, my motive is to make a great game even more fun!

I am a gamer. I never thought I'd have to defend that position. I understand that this ISN'T reality. I get to play again even if I loose every game I play. I change sides according to how I feel that day. Sometimes I want a new challenge, that's my only motive here. Again, I'm only a gamer, I enjoy the game and don't think freeing Europe from the Nazi regime depends on whether or not I win a scenario. I've had my chill pill today. I don't need to be brow beaten by any moral philosophers out there. I believe they have a forum elsewhere. This one is to discuss a GAME! Says so in the Statement when I log into this forum. I'll try and keep it there.

[This message has been edited by Goofy (edited 01-25-2001).]

[dumbo2]

"Your rather inflammatory language aside, the French *did* try to butcher the US. Ever hear of a little place called North Africa?"

You mean the other way around surely? The French were defending from the US attack as I recall.....

However your point is well made but CM specifically deals with 1944 onwards during which as far as I am aware there were no allied vs allied engagements of note during this time period.

I think (just guessing) that BTS restricts this for the same reason they restrict mods to the game data. They want to try and keep the game as close to their vision of history as possible.

I happen to agree with them but i agree its a matter of taste.

_dumbo

[This message has been edited by dumbo2 (edited 01-25-2001).]

[dumbo2]

"who view this GAME as something other than a GAME"

I have heard this since I started wargaming. The fact of the matter is that historical wargaming deals with..well history

A part of history that a lot of people take seriously and so tempers run high over issues which would seem silly in a fictional wargame. I wouldnt get upset for example if you had Elves fighting their halfling allies in a fantasy game (actually that sounds kinda fun ).

But this isnt a fantasy game, it deals with a very turbulent part of history and like it or not there are many who regard historical wargaming as being in part a way to gain more insight into the period in question.

They maybe wrong and they may take thing too seriously in your view but surely you can understand the sentiment?

cheers

_dumbo

[This message has been edited by dumbo2 (edited 01-25-2001).]

[Sergei]

I would love to see Axis vs. Axis in CM2, because it would be historically correct in 1944-45. And the Tornio seaborne invasion in the Lapland war would make an excellent operation. Although I don't know how should the delay followed by Finnish seizure of German cognac stock be modelled, as because of this Germans got enough time to gather for counter-attack while Finnish soldiers were either drunk or crapulous...

[Chupacabra]

Originally posted by Space Thing:

Give me a break here people. US vs. UK? France vs. US? UK vs. Poland? That is all inane to the extreme.

Right, I've a nit to pick. As Jeff has pointed out (several times), France vs. US did happen.

I'm not entirely sure that fantasy force matchups should be considered, mostly because I'd rather see BTS making sure that the historical matchups are accurate than fiddling with Pershings vs. IS2s, but saying that French forces vs. American forces never happened is a poor example.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Right, I've a nit to pick. As Jeff has pointed out (several times), France vs. US did happen.

I have questions for Jeff, Chupacabra -HEY, put down that goat! , or anyone else for that matter):

Were the French troops that fought US troops the same ones that are depicted in CMBO?

Were they the same kind of US equipped French troops? Or were they different?

Did they ride around in Shermans and Hellcats like they can in CMBO?

IF they aren't the same, then it is still ludicrous to have them fight US troops in a CMBO QB, because they would be an army that is beyond the depicted scope of the game.

[Black Five]

I am glad to see this topic being debated.

Granted it would be extra work to recode CM in order to allow for “what if” type scenarios it would be worth the effort. Consider this: One of the all time best selling and most popular games ever, QUAKE, by Id Software, was extremely customizable. Yes, it’s a FPS and not a tactical game/simulator but as far as audience expansion and sales were concerned it’s customizability was critical to the games success and its establishment of a new standard in open code being released to the end user.

Although CM is an outstanding game as is, it could be better. Look at all of the people making countless patches for graphics, sounds, scenarios, etc. By allowing the end user to modify the game in as many ways as possible BTS would increase it’s audience and greatly expand the longevity of it’s games.

Being able to fight identical units against each other would be great. It’s just a simulator after all and if people get worked up about Shermans drilling Shermans they don’t have to play those types of scenarios. I don’t really care for ABBA so I don’t listen to stations that play it

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Space Thing:

The only pitting of sides against another side that would even begin to be historical (or make sense) is German Heer units vs. German SS units. Why isn't anyone else talking about that???? The rest is purely ludicrous.

Give me a break here people. US vs. UK? France vs. US? UK vs. Poland? That is all inane to the extreme. The suggestions outside of a Heer vs. SS battle are simply crazy, because CM is supposed to be more of a HISTORICAL simulation than it is supposed to be a game -according to BTS. To include a possibility of US vs. UK or some other historical IMPOSSIBILITY would vault CM right into the ranks of fantasy wargaming. BTS would be laughed at, IMO.

Do you feel the same way about the myriad of current scenarios that while they pit historical opponents against each other are completely hypothetical otherwise?

Do you get upset at the "ludicrous" scenarios that shipped with the game that were not historical in their background, like the Eagles Nest?

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Here is my one concern. How much extra development time are we / BTS willing to waid for this featyre. If it adds six months of a year onto development, or even three months, is it still remember. Remember, the CM engine has a set life whose clock started ticking the day the game was released. To be competitive, BTS has to make the most bucks wise off the work invested in this engine before it starts to look dated and needs a whole new engine (coinciding with Steve and Charles buying their new multiprocessing G5/30g Macs.) If we expect to see WW2 modules for the major fronts come out, how much can they delay CM2 without risking a new 3D game realizing that the market is here and all it needs is plucking.

I know from the much vaunted "fun" perspective this is a little grumpy, but BTS wants to release CM2 as fast as it can, and some things, if they cause a big delay, may not be such a good idea even if they hurt no one.

That said, if the option added a week to coding, then so be it.

I agree completely. It i something I would like to see, not so much because I care tha tmuch about hypothetical scenarios, but I would like to see the scenario designer in general opened up compltely, if no other reason than the fact that the "quirky" scenarios and victory conditions are often the most interesting. Anyone ever play the ASL scenario "The Ring"?

But if it is going to delay CM2 by a significant amount, it is not really a priority to me. But it may be the case that they need to redo the scenario editor anyway, so perhaps it would not be very much work.

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

Space Thing -

No, the US v. France scenario took place in North Africa where, I presume, the French soldiers were still equipped with French standard issue equipment and possibly some German equipment, although I'm really not sure.

However, I don't believe anyone is asking for an "Allies vs. Allies" scenario to be included in CM1, but rather in future games.

As I've stated, I don't necessarily think this is something I would be in favor of. However, my reasoning is less that such fights could never happen, (with a few exceptions) but rather that I would prefer to have a historically correct game sooner rather than a hypothetically correct game later.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Do you get upset at the "ludicrous" scenarios that shipped with the game that were not historical in their background, like the Eagles Nest?

Jeff Heidman

Whoa partner. Hold yer horses. I was NEVER upset at all. All of my posts regarding this topic favor hypothetical historical "what if" scenarios. That was what was behind wanting Heer vs. SS scenarios. All of the rest to me is totally improbable when you consider the armies and their historical situations depicted in this game.

Heer vs. SS scenarios are real easy to imagine. The rest isn't IMO. All that it would have taken to see it happen for real on a large scale was for that person whose name begins with "H" to die in that assination attempt at the Wolf's Lair. We're talking - a couple of feet closer to him and it would be a part of some COMBAT MISSION game. Hey, CM2 would then be CM1 and we would have CM3 to argue about.