Freedom of choice

[Robert Olesen]

OK, I'm probably going to get slapped for this, but that can't be helped. It has to be said, even if it is a repeat.

I want freedom of choice when setting up a QB. Both regarding force setup and the ability to use an existing map.

I realise that BTS is putting a lot of effort into making the force setup in QB's as historically correct as possible. That's good. What I do not understand is why this precludes the choice of an unlimited force selection. I'm a grownup and complete able to make a conscious choice in this matter, as are most if not all ) others who play the game. Why am I not allowed to do that?

I like playing a "historical" QB, and I think the rarity option in CM2 is a good option. But I would also like to be able to experiment with other possibilities. The ability to have a free force selection would not detract from the "historical" QB in any way and I do not see why it should not be implemented as another option. It would not affect multiplayer games (if done correctly) unless both players agreed beforehand.

So, the argument that it is the way it is because it has to be historical does not hold IMO. We can have both, and I want to be able to choose between them.

The same goes for selecting an existing map in a QB. I really don't see why this option should not be in the game. It will only add to the game, not limit or detract from anything.

And finally, I know that the scenario editor allows me to make scenarios with any map and force selection, but that is not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for these features in quick battles, where there is a much greater element of FOW than in a scenario I made myself.

Now, where did I put that bulletproof west and helmet

[Tanaka]

I entirely agree with you, specially this part

"I'm a grownup and complete able to make a conscious choice in this matter... ...Why am I not allowed to do that?"

PS- I think you should had posted in this topic http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015334.html

[Slapdragon]

I agree that a fantasy football setting is needed. Playing the allies will be easier when tungsten can be purchased by the round (1 point a peice extra or something like that) because allied players will dump the regular AP, or just keep a few round of it, and stock up all on HVAP, with the balance HE. The relaxing of the restrictions of when a tank is available will put the Super Pershing into allies hands in June 1944, nicely balancing the Panthers and Tigers. Plus, the E8's availability, especially the heaviest E8 will help immensely. I am especially psyched that I will be able to buy 45 squads on 44, giving half squads a suitable firepower for independent operations.

What is the most exciting is removing the restrictions that you have to only pick from one side. Some combinations of German and Allied equipment (Hellcats and Tigers, OH YEAH!) sound great to me in a battle, fighting side by side.

Then, when I get tired of all that choice, I can go back to a nice historical battle with all the rules. I like the fantasy football setting a lot. Or did you mean that choice is good for adults, but not that much choice. Hmmmm, maybe you should define how much choice is good for adults and how much is bad, just so we can draw the line.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Much as it might pain you all to hear that, but is thread #357 to discuss this really necessary? There are possibilities to discuss this, not least in the thread started by BTS. This thread will degrade into bickering, namecalling and a personal vendetta between Jeff Heidmann and Slapdragon/CavScout sooner than you can fire up a QB. You read it here first. You know it, I know it, so why not confine to the places where these discussions already exist?

I.e. - what is the point of opening yet another thread on this issue? Answers on a postcard. And don't come to me with 1st Amendment rights.

Would it not be nice if people thought before posting?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Gremlin]

Perhaps I missed something, but I see no harm in BTS setting up such an option for those of us who are more interested in tactics than historical accuracy or rarity. Leave things in the players' hands. Players would still be able to set up QB's using the existing points allocations and/or agree to house rules. I also think it would be fun and educational to have both sides using Allied or German equipment, for instance.

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

When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans.

--Marcus Aurelius

[Slapdragon]

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

Perhaps I missed something, but I see no harm in BTS setting up such an option for those of us who are more interested in tactics than historical accuracy or rarity. Leave things in the players' hands. Players would still be able to set up QB's using the existing points allocations and/or agree to house rules. I also think it would be fun and educational to have both sides using Allied or German equipment, for instance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really, really don't think anything is wrong with an option. I think that a truly functional option, leaving all the historical availability out and allowing purchase of different ammunition is not a bad option. Fantasy football is not an insult -- it is just the result, and while I would rather play with historical limitations, I can see were having a Panther and a Sherman on the same team is a neat idea.

[Robert Olesen]

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

PS- I think you should had posted in this topic http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015334.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could have, but that thread is rapidly dissolving into an argument for or against King Tigers and I wanted to point clearly to a specific topic I think deserves attention: Freedom of choice.

CM is not just a simulation. It is also a game.

[Guest JAZZA]

Personally,I wouldn't like a "Fantasy Football" option along the lines of Slapdragon's above post.(I'm not sure if he was being sarcastic or serious?)But what wouldn't bother me was if BTS had a "no points allocation restriction option" ie: in 1000 point m/e you can spend the 1000 points on whatever was historically available at the date you chose.I don't think this qualifies as a "fantasy football" type setting does it?

[Robert Olesen]

No, that is not Fantasy Football. I think it would be a good place to draw the line.

I read SlapDragons post basically as a question of where to draw the line if not at the historical setting. There obviously is no "correct" answer to this. I think the option of removing the point restriction on the categories (Inf/Arm/Art/...) (or effectively setting it to the max number of points in each category) would be a good way to draw the line.

[Slapdragon]

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

Personally,I wouldn't like a "Fantasy Football" option along the lines of Slapdragon's above post.(I'm not sure if he was being sarcastic or serious?)But what wouldn't bother me was if BTS had a "no points allocation restriction option" ie: in 1000 point m/e you can spend the 1000 points on whatever was historically available at the date you chose.I don't think this qualifies as a "fantasy football" type setting does it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except, as an adult, if we are going to discard one historical restriction, lets get rid of them all. If we follow this path, then great, lets go to it, dump all the historical restrictions and be done with it. I just think cherry picking which historical options to dump and which to retain based on a feeling of game balance or fairness, or based on freedom of choice, entails dropping them all at the same time.

Can you imagine a more fair game with restrictions on what units you buy? Panthers and Tigers and Shermans all serving side by side with Gerbils and US engineers and 105mm VT, and the whole kit. QBs would of course cease being historical, but the poor picked upon German player no longer had to worry about not being able to aford a King Tiger. He can get one and a Pershing also if he desires, and tungsten if he can afford it, and German paratroopers and British Bren carriers. Our freedom of choice is preserved and made the most it can be (of course adults will naturally restrain themselves so no need to worry about gamey issues) and the game is not only fair (no difference between the forces you can choose) but more unpredictable.

It is very similar to getting pissed that their are speed limits, then getting pissed that the police wont ticket the guy who stole your parking space, why do you want to dump certain historical availability options and not others? The historical availability is a major thorn in the allied side, lets dump it, adults will still buy forces based on availability. Tungsten limitations getting you down, lets allow the allies to buy them. Adults would never do anything gamey like filling their racks with the stuff.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

No, that is not Fantasy Football. I think it would be a good place to draw the line.

I read SlapDragons post basically as a question of where to draw the line if not at the historical setting. There obviously is no "correct" answer to this. I think the option of removing the point restriction on the categories (Inf/Arm/Art/...) (or effectively setting it to the max number of points in each category) would be a good way to draw the line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for a rational response. I disagree of course. It is like wanting to be a little bit pregnant, there is no line. No game will ever completely simulate history and still be fair, fun, and playable. CM though was the haven of historical reality, making it the most historically accurate that is possible. Dumping historical limitations changes this basic philosophy and brings into question were the line is drawn. I say, if rather than draw the line for personal convenience of a few players, erase it and let the individual players decide what is right or wrong. Just because you can get 65 rounds of tungsten, a Sherman, and a Panther all on the same side does not mean you HAVE to do it.

Likewise, in historical limitations, no one has disabled the armour, infantry, and mechanized settings. Except for the most extreme cases, you can do the same thing you are advocating with these settings that actually and historically simulate different types of formations. Combined arms is not the end all. Neither is a 100 0point meeting engagement that is the only bone of contention, since you can buy a KIng Tiger at a 1500 point CE-ME.

[Herr Oberst]

The Real Freedom of Choice

Victim of collision on the open sea, nobody ever said that life was free. Sink, swim, go down with the ship. But use your freedom of choice.

I say it again, in the land of the free, use your freedom of choice, your freedom of choice.

In ancient rome there was a poem, about a dog who had two bones. He picked at one, he licked the other. He went in circles 'till he dropped dead.

Freedom of choice is what you got, freedom of choice is what you want.

If you got it you don't want it seems to be the rule of thumb. Don't be tricked by what you see, you got two ways to go.

I say it again, in the land of the free, use your freedom of choice, your freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice is what you got, freedom from choice is what you want.

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

To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee...

[bredberg]

A comment about the rarity option:

A agree that it is good to include this option. However if only playing with this it, would be impossible to re-create e.g. Kampfgruppe Peiper, or Wittman in Villers-Bocage.

Even though the German Panzerarm mainly involved Panthers and PzKfw IV, in certain area you could face a force composed of 100% Köningstiger. The rarity of the KT made this very uncommon, however it DID happen, and should do so in CM as well.

The whole idea of BUYING your own kampfgruppe is totally unrealistic, however fun.

In reality you had to fight with what ever was at hand. Stop complaining about the composition of QBs. War is never fair, why demand this of the QBs?.

Cost and allocation of QB is fair when you can win from both sides - and it is a matter of tactic who will become the winner.

Maybe one should always play a QB from both sides - and then sum up the battles.

Cheers Jonas

[Guest Space Thing]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

I want freedom of choice when setting up a QB. Both regarding force setup and the ability to use an existing map.

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a great idea. After some searching, I believe that I found that Steve said it would be put into the pile for consideration -at least. Keep yer fingers crossed!

[Philistine]

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

Except, as an adult, if we are going to discard one historical restriction, lets get rid of them all. If we follow this path, then great, lets go to it, dump all the historical restrictions and be done with it. I just think cherry picking which historical options to dump and which to retain based on a feeling of game balance or fairness, or based on freedom of choice, entails dropping them all at the same time.

{snip}

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. I don't believe that changing some historical options based on game balance mandates giving up all historical options.

Such a position is far more extreme than anyone has advocated, and if you actually subscribe to this position, what is your rationale for not applying it to BTS's "fudging" of certain histocial realities for game balance (e.g. QB points are even in meeting engagement, choosing units is based upon "points" rather than strictly a unit or rarity basis).

One "plus" side of unrestricted choice would be an increase in FOW, as you would not know what type of force you were up against.

The major "minus" would seem to be the ability to buy completely ahistoric and ridiculous units (e.g. all Pumas).

Personally, I don't think I'd use an unlimited choice option (I like the "historical sanity check" of differing types of force compositions), and I'm not sure I'd play someone who "abused" the unlimited option twice, but to the extent it isn't too large of an expenditure in coding time, I don't see a problem with it.

The line between historicality and playbalance is an arbitrary one. I just think its a bit more elastic than you are giving it credit for.

--Philistine

[Slapdragon]

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

I disagree. I don't believe that changing some historical options based on game balance mandates giving up all historical options.

Such a position is far more extreme than anyone has advocated, and if you actually subscribe to this position, what is your rationale for not applying it to BTS's "fudging" of certain histocial realities for game balance (e.g. QB points are even in meeting engagement, choosing units is based upon "points" rather than strictly a unit or rarity basis).

One "plus" side of unrestricted choice would be an increase in FOW, as you would not know what type of force you were up against.

The major "minus" would seem to be the ability to buy completely ahistoric and ridiculous units (e.g. all Pumas).

Personally, I don't think I'd use an unlimited choice option (I like the "historical sanity check" of differing types of force compositions), and I'm not sure I'd play someone who "abused" the unlimited option twice, but to the extent it isn't too large of an expenditure in coding time, I don't see a problem with it.

The line between historicality and playbalance is an arbitrary one. I just think its a bit more elastic than you are giving it credit for.

--Philistine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except Phil, I am not talking about play balance (although discarding everything does balance the game). I am talking about cherry picking which to discard. I played a guy named Combatboy once, who asked for a rule that we buy no tanks more expensive than 176 points to keep the heaviest of the heaviest out. Why 176? Well 176 was the point where he felt it excluded the German heavies that I could get, and where he could still get some of hist favorites. At 177 I had the some heavy, can't remember which.

I also would never play anyone who wanted to play open points. Its gamey and I am sure that the better ladders are filled with people who think that way. Like you I would never play the gamey people twice either. To many good players around to waste time playing munchkins. I don't want to limit anyone's choice however, and I know that BTS has a limited coding time, so instead of them always recoding to move the line back and forth as people want it changed, just give them ultimate choice and let them figure it out. That way BTS can concentrate on CM2 and CM3, and never has to worry again about the issue.

[Gremlin]

One of the basic issues here is whether you primarily view CM as a tactical combat simulator that happens to be built around WWII's Western Front during the final year of the war there, or whether you primarily view it as a late-WWII, Western Front simulator that focuses on tactical land combat.

I enjoy CM from both perspectives and find it just as fun to recreate the assault on Pegasus Bridge as I do to play hypothetical meeting engagement QB's with ahistorical force compositions.

For that matter, I would love to play games built around CM's basic design principles that deal with other wars, as well as fantasy or science fiction battles. By those principles, I refer to the hybrid turn system, movement/orders interface, 3D battlefield and units, and complexity of tactical options stemming from highly detailed units. These could all be applied, for instance, to some land-based combat game set on a distant planet centuries from now, as long as the units were very carefully detailed to allow the same kind of subtlety and nuance you find in CM. No small order, but still within the realm of possibility. If there's any justice in the gaming universe, game systems like CM will one day largely replace RTS gaming and traditional turn- and hex-based wargames alike.

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

When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans.

--Marcus Aurelius

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

I want freedom of choice when setting up a QB. Both regarding force setup and the ability to use an existing map.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do know there are choices other than combined arms?

[CavScout]

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

I entirely agree with you, specially this part

"I'm a grownup and complete able to make a conscious choice in this matter... ...Why am I not allowed to do that?"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One would think "grown-ups" would make use of features that give these choices.

[jshandorf]

Wow, Cav and Slap really take the cake. You two do nothing in the way of "adding" to a discussion. You only belittle, mock, and generally act like spoiled little brats. One would be hard pressed to recognize your ages above that of 12 at times.

Some people here want to talk about making the game more flexible and different and all you two can contribute is hair pulling and childish attitudes.

What Robert suggested is completely reasonable but you, Slap, take it to the extreme and then mock him. Why don't you grow up or better yet leave this BBS to the adults.

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.

[Jarmo]

I have moaned for this possibility of freedom so many times I've lost count.

But once more, yes! Please give us "unlimited" gamey, cherry picking option!

And no, I don't want to go to Slapper's "magic fairies" garden party of orc slaying.

I don't want dragons in my forces.

If one can't by now understand what is being requested, one is a retard.

Or just being an asshole on purpose.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff, knock it off. Slapdragon has not been anything but constructive in this thread. CavScout's second post was, however, unnecessary as is the whole notion that this has anything to do with being "grown up".

There are tons of very deliberate choice restrictions placed into CM. More so than in any other game that I know of. They were designed to make Combat Mission the kind of game WE wanted it to be. i.e. more of a sim than a pure game. There have been plenty of warGAMES but very few warSIMs. Without restrictions, you have warGAME more than warSIM. It is really that simple.

Having said all that, some choice is not all that bad. We are, for example, making the Rarity system totally optional even though it should be manditory in terms of making CM more realistic. We have also allowed players to purchase their own units, within certain parameters, instead of being forced to deal with whatever is handed to them (as it would be in real life). These choices are open ended enough that players can make completely unrealistic forces, and a Rarity system will not totally prevent this either. And obviously, in premade scenarios there are no restrictions in terms of what can or can not be purchased. Heck, you can even have Pershings in June 1944 if you want.

So in the end there are a lot of ways the player can opt to make the game more towards the way they want to play. That doesn't mean we don't want to offer more.

I think Slapdragon is completely correct. There is a line drawn between sim and game. It is obviously not a straight line, nor is it possible to enforce it all the time. But it is there. Robert and others are suggesting that the line should be erased because they are "adults" and can make their own decisions. I have no problem with this, in theory. Game balancing goes out the window, of course, but if two players consent to play that way... so be it.

The two problems I have are this:

1. Where to redraw the line. Robert suggests that we move it significantly, while Slapdragon thinks we should just remove it. So there is a difference of opinion as to how much of an "adult" one wishes to be

2. Time spent catering to these requests. This something we have no particular interest in spending a lot of time on. In fact, we don't want to spend any time on it. Not because it is a bad or unworthy request, but because it is not something we feel is more important that the hundreds of other things we want to put into the game.

In theory, I agree with Slapdragon. People want to have Freedom of Choice vs. our controlled environment? Fine. But they should be ready for the ramifications of such a request. Meaning... erase the line and not just move it to where one person thinks it should be redrawn. Otherwise if we move the line we will undoubtedly have another request to move it further. Much easier to just wipe it out and make everybody happy.

Slapdragon's example of the 176 point suggestion. Why 176? Why not 175? This is the kind of thing that is irrating to a game designer. Someone is always asking for a change. At some point we just have to say "enough! Use the 5000 options we already gave you and stop looking for the 5001st to bug us about"

The problem with removing all restrictions is that it will take development time for us to do so. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, this is not something we will do. However, I think it would be fairly easy (not sure how easy) to have a "no force pool limitation" option and to allow customized loadouts. This is on The List for consideration for CM2 from a while back, and still is. We'll just have to wait and see if we get the chance to put it in.

Steve

[Lordfluffers]

Agreed, I'd dont need to have M1 Abrams in 1944 but I would like to expreiment with what might happen should I decide to play a QB with loads of mines, barbed wire, etc and a handful of men instead of haveing to manually create my own scenarios. It would also be cool to create imbalanced forces and see what happens. whatever I would enjoy the flexibility, not when playing other people but so I can experiment with the computer.

Comments by Slapdragon and CavScout in particular are banal and pedantic. If you dont agree,say so and say why. There is no need for your exagerrations nor for twist things out of context. What is being asked for is an option with which you can spend your force points entirely how you wish. No-one is asking for the ability to assign each unit its ammo loadout etc. nor does anyone want to start having fantasy settings of having Pershings in June 1944 etc. Look back at the post, see what is being asked for and make constructive criticism, if you have any. Otherwise shut up.

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

Comments by Slapdragon and CavScout in particular are banal and pedantic. If you dont agree,say so and say why. There is no need for your exagerrations nor for twist things out of context. What is being asked for is an option with which you can spend your force points entirely how you wish. No-one is asking for the ability to assign each unit its ammo loadout etc. nor does anyone want to start having fantasy settings of having Pershings in June 1944 etc. Look back at the post, see what is being asked for and make constructive criticism, if you have any. Otherwise shut up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slapdragon's a big boy and can take care of himself, but he seems constitutionally incapable of explaining his own jokes. So, here I go:

What Slap is doing is called, amongst rhetoricians and logicians, reductio ad absurdum, taking a proposition to its logical conclusion to show that it produces an absurdity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From Robert Olesen:

I realise that BTS is putting a lot of effort into making the force setup in QB's as historically correct as possible. That's good. What I do not understand is why this precludes the choice of an unlimited force selection. I'm a grownup and complete able to make a conscious choice in this matter, as are most if not all ) others who play the game. Why am I not allowed to do that?

I like playing a "historical" QB, and I think the rarity option in CM2 is a good option. But I would also like to be able to experiment with other possibilities. The ability to have a free force selection would not detract from the "historical" QB in any way and I do not see why it should not be implemented as another option.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap simply takes exactly what Robert wants and hypothetically gives it to him. If Robert doesn't like where it leads, well, I'm reminded of an old proverb.

The people on the board who have already declared Blood Hamster™ on Slap refuse to see the joke, and impute to him all sorts of malice, even though he has said (and I think, oddly enough, sincerely) that he has nothing against Fantasy Football per se. He might even enjoy it. But he names it for what it is.

That's it. Back to the 'Pool for me.

Viva la HLF!

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

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[Guest Big Time Software]

I don't know why people are picking on Slapdragon. He is being serious. This is not the frist time a position like his has been presented. The "Fantasy Football" type environment is as legit as the one Robert is asking for, so why pick on him for it? Robert wants the line drawn in one place, Slapdragon in another. I have no problem with either request, nor should anybody else.

CM2 will almost certainly have a no force pool point restriction option. The rest of the suggestions, which remove even more restrictions, are probably not going to happen simply because we don't want to spend our time on them at the expense of other features.

Steve