Some comments about QB point changes

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Infantry AT isn't quite as effective here, as, they must be manuvered into position, usually within clear sight of their enemy. Defending Infantry AT is extremely powerful, as they are hidden from the beginning, and positioned by the defender in the best possible areas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may have put your finger on something important: it is indeed my experience that infantry AT, unless they are very numerous, have little chance of surviving in a QBME. It is a rare battle where my infantry AT units will kill more than one enemy unit.

I also agree that although BTS may be well-intentioned in trying to make QB's more historical in addition to balanced, but that may be impossible to achieve.

Still I believe that QB's are important because they are the most frequently played kind of game in TCPIP matches. Because players have limited time to play, they don't want to waste a lot of time negotiating the conditions of play.In TCPIP, I usually play 1000-pt QB's, whereas inpbem, I usually play scenarios.

Henri

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You solicited opinions, I gave mine. I have no chip on my shoulder...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then do you denny posting this to USENET?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if it wasn't CavScout's sigline, I was reading CSIPCGWH when you made this statement. I think it is pretty clear that you do have a chip on your shoulder. Not only that, but you posted to a forum you KNOW I do not respond to.

Besides this quite obvious example, everytime there is even the slightest discussion about German "über" stuff you are pretty much assured to come swooping in and declare "who are these people you speak of?!? They don't exist!" and then demand some sort of proof that there is a German bias in wargaming and wargame design. People, including myself, have clearly outlined this case and yet you pop up in another thread a week later saying the same thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...and it is grossly unfair to automatically dismiss my argument as unsupported and illogical. It was at least as supported as your own. I raised valid questions, and made supported arguments. I might not be correct, but I sure as hell am not unsupported or illogical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is your opinion. In my opinion you didn't do anything to establish that the Germans are now at a disadvantage with these changes. You very quickly dismissed our reasoning even without building such a case. You also apparently have never played a 1000 point QB as the Allies, or if you did you didn't mind having to purchase a ton of HTs and M8s instead of a more usefull tank/TD.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can as easily make these kind of sweeping generalizations about you, or anyone else, but for the most part I do not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the most part, perhaps. But your kind words about me on USENET not only were sweeping generalizations about me, in a place I wasn't likely to defend myself, but very directly describes, in your own words, the chip that I said is on your shoulder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can certainly disagree with it, and that is fine. But it is complete bull**** to make these kinds of claims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to differ. See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This kind of crap is exactly what gets these discussions turned into flame fests. I made a well thought out, concise, point by point response to what you stated. You can disagree with it, you can say it is complete bull****, you can say that I do not have a leg to stand on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did say that. I just didn't do it point for point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But don't f****** ask for people opinions and then turn around and insult them when they give them to you. Don't accuse me of having an agenda that does not exist, and don't make unwarranted personal attacks merely because I did not kiss your ass like 90% of the other people on this board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you are eating your words now, but somehow I doubt it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I posted that message thinking it would be the last word I had to say on the subject. I did not agree with you reasoning, but that is ok, I can respect your position without agreeing with it. You have your reasons, I have mine, no problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This much I can agree with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So much for any expectation of civility from Steve. I thought we were over that little pissing match, but apparently I was mistaken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought so too. Unfortunately, I read your post and saw it laced with sarcasim, disrespect, and the "chip on your shoulder". If you did not intend it to come off that way, I will say that I am sorry for bringing up the "chip" thing. But I was not wrong to say you have a "chip on your shoulder".

In fact, the blowout on this BBS that caused you to post such nice words about me on USENET was over the very same issue. And I didn't treat you with any disrespect in that thread, although you were saying some rather unflattering things about several people (me included). If anybody can remember that thread, feel free to post it. I don't care to look it up.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-22-2001).]

[WolfLord]

Well, well...the much awaited BTS "explaination". Been in the lab all day and am just now seeing this. First, let me say thanks to BTS for making the "statement". Next, let me say that it explains or clarifies nothing. Historical accuracy? Nah, I don't buy that being that I now have to overload on Pumas and assault HTs to combat allied superiority. As for the droning Slapdragon's requirement of proof, well, I don't have it, sir. What I am haveing though is LESS FUN. I bought this game to have FUN with and I did so in v. 1.05. Now however, I have noticed that the FUN FACTOR has decreased for ME. As stated before I like playing (as Germany) 1000pt QB CA MEs not armor battles. Armor and the other choices equate to LESS FUN for ME. As I stands now I am having to go to GREAT lengths and play different set-ups to have a fair game IMHO which leads to, you got it, LESS FUN.

Therefore, I have no choice but to give up multiplay and revert to ver. 1.05 which I will do tonight. At least then I will not have to put up with Super Allied Tungsten, unbalanced QBs, etc, etc. This will equate to MORE FUN. So, Mr. Slapdragon, the only proof I have to offer you, your honor, is that I am having LESS FUN WITH THE NEW VERSION. Tis a shame, as a game is made for FUN AND ENTERTAINMENT.

[CavScout]

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

Well, well...the much awaited BTS "explaination". Been in the lab all day and am just now seeing this. First, let me say thanks to BTS for making the "statement". Next, let me say that it explains or clarifies nothing. Historical accuracy? Nah, I don't buy that being that I now have to overload on Pumas and assault HTs to combat allied superiority. As for the droning Slapdragon's requirement of proof, well, I don't have it, sir. What I am haveing though is LESS FUN. I bought this game to have FUN with and I did so in v. 1.05. Now however, I have noticed that the FUN FACTOR has decreased for ME. As stated before I like playing (as Germany) 1000pt QB CA MEs not armor battles. Armor and the other choices equate to LESS FUN for ME. As I stands now I am having to go to GREAT lengths and play different set-ups to have a fair game IMHO which leads to, you got it, LESS FUN.

Therefore, I have no choice but to give up multiplay and revert to ver. 1.05 which I will do tonight. At least then I will not have to put up with Super Allied Tungsten, unbalanced QBs, etc, etc. This will equate to MORE FUN. So, Mr. Slapdragon, the only proof I have to offer you, your honor, is that I am having LESS FUN WITH THE NEW VERSION. Tis a shame, as a game is made for FUN AND ENTERTAINMENT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do know that even v1.05 doesn't have equal force pools in ME QB with CA forces, right?

[Guest Big Time Software]

WolfLord wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Historical accuracy? Nah, I don't buy that being that I now have to overload on Pumas and assault HTs to combat allied superiority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, that superiority doesn't exist. Second, you have no more points available to purchase Vehicles than you did before, so there can be no "loading up".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the droning Slapdragon's requirement of proof, well, I don't have it, sir.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then note that arguing that things are less balanced now is not a valid point of view unless it is backed up by evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I am haveing though is LESS FUN. I bought this game to have FUN with and I did so in v. 1.05.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat Mission is not about sacrificing reality so someone, who is in love with German vehicles, can have more "fun".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore, I have no choice but to give up multiplay and revert to ver. 1.05 which I will do tonight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is silly. Why not play larger battles or the "Armor" setting?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At least then I will not have to put up with Super Allied Tungsten, unbalanced QBs, etc, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you will not have to put up with us fixing historical reality problems so that the game can be more realistic.

Man... no personal attack here... but this takes the cake. If we make the game more realistic, but it happens to detract from the German über tank desires, then it is bad. If we fix it so the Jumbo's turret is weaker, Tungsten is FAR less effective, and the Tiger mantlet is thicker... this is all good. But don't ever make any realistic change that does not favor the Allies.

Jeff... you reading this? Perfect example for you to note.

Steve

[Major Tom]

Well, I don't want to jump in here, where we know that nobody is wanted , but, I feel that some points must be made. I am just a casual reader of these recent posts on the unfairness of the point system, one way or another. However, I am keenly aware of many people's personality when they defend/refute someone elses or their own points. I can probably name off half the bulliten board, many people here invariably DO have chips on their shoulders (so it was unfair to just label just Jeff).

The problem is, is that there are too many self proclaimed 'experts' who feel just because they either fought in a war, or read a few books they know exactly what they are talking about on just about every subject even if it is just remotely related to their experience. Everyone knows who these guys are, and you can be aware when one of them starts posting in a message area that universal logic IS just thrown out the window. They may have valid points, and can back their opinion up, but that doesn't totally mean that what they are posting should be implemented, or is even 100% accurate in the larger scale of reality. What usually happens is that it DOES get into a pissing match, and it no longer becomes 'your information is wrong' but 'you are wrong for actually believing that information'. One thing that I notice too, is that in these pissing matches, NEITHER side is correct, and debates only partial truths and subjective evidence.

Steve isn't 100% correct in his statement, yet he isn't 100% incorrect. Germanboy made an interesting prediction in the now locked "Freedom of Choice" thread which didn't fully materialize, but, I could see it happening if left open a little longer.

Everyone just has to get over how 'brilliant' they are, and just realize that sometimes they are wrong. Sure, I don't agree with 100% of what BTS does (notably Fourum etiquite and the inability to punish frequent abusers until after their 10th or so 2nd Break) but I do not believe that there is a conspiracy for skewing the game one way or the other.

Usually when these posts about 'problems with point value' occur, it is usually posted by some grognard, NOT an average player. They may point out that a Sherman is pitiful against a Tiger I and should have its point level lowered, but, when explained WHY these tanks have their points at where they are they usually accept that. There could very well be problems in the way that points are measured. But before we go jumping to conclusions right away sufficent support by the COMMUNITY, not just a few 'experts' should result in some sort of change occuring. If the general COMMUNITY sees a constant problem then maybe something has to be done. My impression is that the community was satisfied with the point values after the first patch that affected the Universal Carrier point scheme.

I don't see sufficent support from my own games, or mass cries from the community that either side is dentramentally inferior to the other.

The title "Grognard" has turned into a dirty word for me, symbolic of ingorance and intolerance of other peoples opinions and impressions. It used to stand for knowledge.

[WolfLord]

"You mean you will not have to put up with us fixing historical reality problems so that the game can be more realistic."

As you said...man, no personal attacks here...but the statement above is senseless. Fixing historical reality problems? I hate to keep pressing the matter but reaching historical accuracy in CM is an impossibility. Why not reach a happy medium and stop there, instead of making controversial point changes. Yes, I admit, I love German tanks. They possess an air of mystery and power. Now, the once mighty Panther or Tiger can be equated to a lowly, spiritless M4 Sherman. Steve, it just dosent feel right. I apologize if I sounded like an asshole, but I'm a little concerned about the game changes. I hold BTS in the utmost respect, so no hard feelings. Hell, I cant even begin to imagine the effort you have to expend in keeping sane through these posts.

[Guest Wildman]

I sit back and read this thread, and its like being in a time warp.

I shot back to the arrival of Falcon 4.0, in all its many versions, and the bickering that ensured afterwards. The basic premise is this. Everyone loves the game. Loves it so much they want it to be better, and in that passion do some pretty stupid things.

I really have no feelings one way or the other about this whole QB points thing. As far as I'm concerned, you'll have other opitions, the third-party setup that many use now, etc. While 1.1 might be different, I truly enjoy the game as a whole from the original 1.03 I got in the mail to the 1.1 I have now.

Unfortunately Jeff, I cannot agree with your actions, words, or intent. I choose you as you seem to be the most verbal against this BTS change, although you most definately are not the only voice rising in complaint. I ask you to really look at the results of your actions in the broader sense. BTS has openly answered everyones request for the reasoning behind their change. Which software company was the last one to do that. Answer: not many, especially in the realistic end of wargaming and simulation. If you did post BTS' answer ON THIS BOARD to USENET in some attempt to gain a non-existant and completely useless support for your position, then in my opinion, you are the poison that is slowly killing my opportunity to enjoy future games. BTS has developed a ground-breaking game...LET ME REPEAT...BTS has developed a great game that you and I enjoy, right Jeff? So what possible use is there for publicly bashing BTS? Oh, I see let me post in a public forum where future backers for CM2 do read, about how awful the developers are and how bad the game is.

Jeff and everyone else who seems to be very upset about this change, ask yourself this question. Do you love CM? Do you want to CM2? Is this change to QBs really "DESTROYING" the game for you? If you really just can't handle this 1.1 patch downgrade to 1.05, most people still have it. If this really is the last straw for you then stop playing! You are under no commitment to play the darn game, just don't buy the next one when it comes out.

Please, please, tone down the retoric. Bashing BTS does no one any good. You have your opinion and another BTS customer has the exact opposite. So BTS does what they want to do with THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

BTS, I salute your response to your customers. I know that you wish that you could satisfy everyone who purchased your game. I certainly hope that Jeff and the others can agree that they too, love CM and wouldn't want to hurt the chances for CM2.

Now everyone take a deep breath and calm down. I really don't want to see what I've seen in other genres and other developers. Should I start the liteny....

Panzer Elite....developer gone.

B17II....gutted multi early.

EECH...developer gone.

Longbow series...developer gone.

EAW...no sequel in sight, good thing people love the game

Falcon 4.0...never will be a sequal and Microprose is gone for good.

The list is long, and I hate seeing the same pattern starting here in the CM forum. So everyone, understand that your opinion is not the final one. BTS listened to everyone before the game came out, after the first release, and continues to listen. All they ask is that you run multipule, repeatable test on their game and prove your numbers.

Seems simple.

Wes Netcher

---

Figured I'd give my name to stop any of that, you won't give your name I'm going to disregard your post attitude.

[WolfLord]

As an added note, as of today, I'm standing down from all further discussion of this on my part. It doesn't really help and creates needless agitation. Thanks again, BTS for being so tolerant of my complaining. Can't wait for CM2!

[Slapdragon]

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

"You mean you will not have to put up with us fixing historical reality problems so that the game can be more realistic."

As you said...man, no personal attacks here...but the statement above is senseless. Fixing historical reality problems? I hate to keep pressing the matter but reaching historical accuracy in CM is an impossibility. Why not reach a happy medium and stop there, instead of making controversial point changes. Yes, I admit, I love German tanks. They possess an air of mystery and power. Now, the once mighty Panther or Tiger can be equated to a lowly, spiritless M4 Sherman. Steve, it just dosent feel right. I apologize if I sounded like an asshole, but I'm a little concerned about the game changes. I hold BTS in the utmost respect, so no hard feelings. Hell, I cant even begin to imagine the effort you have to expend in keeping sane through these posts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why draw the line artificially, lets just remove it all together. If the game is not to be as good as it can be sim wise, then so be it, but a few people would have more fun with no limits at all, and I think maybe making the Panther and Sherman an even match will reduce a lot of the stress, plus we can solve the tungsten problem just my making capable of being bought. Why just abandon one part of the historical construct the offends a few people, lets dump the whole thing (optionally of course) and remove any source of contention.

Further, the concept of "having fun" does not need to be proven, but you are taking a stange route. You can have the set up you want in 1.1 by choosing armour. Not choosing it means that you yourself are choosing not to have fun -- which is beyond BTS's control. If you refuse to use the systems provided in the game to get to the same place, why should BTS work overtime to make sure you are having fun?

[Guest Big Time Software]

WolfLord wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hate to keep pressing the matter but reaching historical accuracy in CM is an impossibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been, and always will be, something that we totally agree with. But there are degrees of realism. We certainly have not achieved the most possible degree of realism that we can achieve. So we actively seek out ways to push forward. In science it is called "progress". If other industries didn't attempt to do this with their producs, we would probably all still be using 78 RPM records instead of compact disks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why not reach a happy medium and stop there, instead of making controversial point changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As defined by who? People that love German tanks? Sorry, no can do. If someone points out something that we have wrong, and it is within our means to fix it, we will if it is possible to do so. As far as "controversial" stuff, there is more of that in CM than we can count.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, I admit, I love German tanks. They possess an air of mystery and power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. This is why I made about 2 dozen German AFV models and about 2 Allied ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, the once mighty Panther or Tiger can be equated to a lowly, spiritless M4 Sherman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... that is a bit of a stretch, but facts are facts. The German stuff was capable of being knocked out. Happened all the time. Should we toss aside facts and science so they can sit on top of a bare hill and kill anything that moves while not being knocked out? When you stop paying attention to reality, there is no reason to not do this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, it just dosent feel right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Feeling" is not something that we put much faith in. Some people "feel" that a Tiger should be able to kill anything it wants, first shot, at 3000m. The facts and science do not bear this out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I apologize if I sounded like an asshole...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, good to know

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...but I'm a little concerned about the game changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which ones? That we made Tungsten signficatly less powerfull than it has been for the previous 5 versions? Or that the Jumbo can no longer go head to head with a Tiger and hope to survive? Or are you only concerned about the changes that are not necessarily favorable to German equipment?

See... this is the problem. We fix what needs fixing, and we don't pay attention to which side it belongs to. That is the reason why CM is such a great game in our opinion and, I think, in the eyes of most.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hold BTS in the utmost respect, so no hard feelings. Hell, I cant even begin to imagine the effort you have to expend in keeping sane through these posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... don't even try to imagine

Really, if you want to have lots of big German tanks, simply play using different options. It really is that simple. However, I personally think the Germans are better off with the changes we made (especially in regards to Fortifications). I don't go for über tanks when I play as the Germans. I love my trusty StuGs and PzIVs as much as Panthers, so I have no problem using the less high profile stuff. And with the new point system I can get more infantry and support weapons. I think that is definitely something that keeps getting glossed over.

Steve

[Lacky]

The change is fine. Since I don't have a favorite side, I'm getting stuck playing the Germans by most of my opponents selecting Allied. Doesn't bother me at all, though. I'll play either side. Haven't lost a German-side 1k ME TCP/IP game yet! Feel the wrath of Veteran 37mm AA guns. Those things are so damn effective!! Course, they're pretty vulnerable.

Steve, I'm a little curious. Is BTS reducing the Jumob point value due to the reduction on Front turret armor effective thickness?

[Tanaka]

Andrew Hedges

Member posted 01-22-2001 03:41 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------Even with the force restrictions in place, it's easy enough to use QB's to experiment. For example, if you want to have an unlimited set-up 1000 point game, set up a 3000 point game but only buy 1000 points worth of equipment...

---------------------------------------------------------------Big Time Software

Moderator posted 01-22-2001 03:12 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------... 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

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

After these 2 posts I see that my time,for different reasons, on this topic is not needed any more... I'm out of this topic, but not before I say one more thing...

Mr. Clark,Jarmo and others:

BTS is not doing us (costumers) a favor... It's giving us a service, a support service, I my self, and who knows maybe others, gave 50$ for this game for more then one reason, being one of them the very good support given by BTS. There are a lot of eye catching badly supported games from big companies out there for those people that don't expect after sale support...

I think BTS people (Charles & Steve) chose to make a living by doing this very good product that we call CM. They give us this support because they want us to be happy customers, and that the product improve by itself (play test). As a customer I'm very happy to know, that some how, the game is made by gamers to gamers. In this way, I/we will be for sure the buyers of CM2 3 and on.

My intention in these lines is not to undermine the BTS service, it is only to clarify that they are not running a charity show and doing us poor b%&$&%s a favor

The time BTS spend in after sale support it only matters to BTS management, it's an investment, if some how is buried money/time, (I don't think so), then is not up to us players to decide if it is a well spent resource.

Thanks,

Tanaka

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

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Napoleon1944:

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

The side with the last tank standing is usually the winner in my experiences. In fact, players surrender now when they have lost their last tank, which usually turns out to be a German player.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

let's use *usually* more oftne in all these posts.

I am ending a PBEM game (last turn), I am using CM vs 1.1, I am the Axis player, I am facing the last tank/armor around, a JUMBO Sherman, since some 10 turns at least and I am winning 60% to 40%, possibly even more.

And no, my opponent is NOT a rookie. Surrender a PBEM game just because you are facing the last armor around is really considering CM a single factore WWII battle simulation, which is undeniably NOT so.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Unfortunately Jeff, I cannot agree with your actions, words, or intent. I choose you as you seem to be the most verbal against this BTS change, although you most definately are not the only voice rising in complaint. I ask you to really look at the results of your actions in the broader sense. BTS has openly answered everyones request for the reasoning behind their change. Which software company was the last one to do that. Answer: not many, especially in the realistic end of wargaming and simulation. If you did post BTS' answer ON THIS BOARD to USENET in some attempt to gain a non-existant and completely useless support for your position, then in my opinion, you are the poison that is slowly killing my opportunity to enjoy future games. BTS has developed a ground-breaking game...LET ME REPEAT...BTS has developed a great game that you and I enjoy, right Jeff? So what possible use is there for publicly bashing BTS? Oh, I see let me post in a public forum where future backers for CM2 do read, about how awful the developers are and how bad the game is.

Jeff and everyone else who seems to be very upset about this change, ask yourself this question. Do you love CM? Do you want to CM2? Is this change to QBs really "DESTROYING" the game for you? If you really just can't handle this 1.1 patch downgrade to 1.05, most people still have it. If this really is the last straw for you then stop playing! You are under no commitment to play the darn game, just don't buy the next one when it comes out.

Please, please, tone down the retoric. Bashing BTS does no one any good. You have your opinion and another BTS customer has the exact opposite. So BTS does what they want to do with THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not going to continue in this discussion, simply because Steve has made his position clear, and any further discussion cannot possibly be constructive.

However, I *will* clear up some mis-conceptions that you have.

First of all, I did not bash BTS, I bashed Steve for responding to a well-reasoned and perfectly calm post IN RESPONSE TO HIS REQUEST FOR OPINIONS with personal attacks and bull****. Why no chastisement of him?

The usenet post in question was in a thread about the fact that BTS (and Steve, CavScout, and SillySlap in particular) are generally intolerant of any honest debate. I did not start that thread, I merely posted my opinion. If anyone cares enough, they are welcome to go back and determine whether that opinion is valid.

If Steve elects not to post to usenet, that is his business. I am certainly under no obligation to kiss his ass in that forum anymore than I am here.

I actually considered that perhaps my words at the time were overly hasty. It is now clear that they were spot on.

So my post, while it certainly was about this forum and Steves and Co. rather appalling behavior, was not an attempt to solicit support or anything else. It was just my opinion on the topic at hand at the time. I was hardly the only person with that opinion, but I was the only one to get singled out by Steves bootlickers since I was the only one with the patience to continue contributing in this forum.

As far as the game itself, I think it is outstanding. It is far from perfect, and has some problems, but at that it is still the best tactical wargame to come down the line in a very long time. That does not mean that Steve has the right to step on those who disagree with him, nor does it mean that the game should not be critiqued. It is clear that critique is only welcome from a select few who already fulfill some basic, pre-defined criteria.

For the record, and this is probably the tenth time I have stated this, I play at least as many games as the allied as I do the Axis. I have no agenda. I have no chip on my shoulder, although Steve has shown that he certainly does.

Funny that when I defended the game Steve was so quick to praise me, but when I critique his rather weak argumetns, I have a chip on my shoulder and am a trouble maker. Apparently when you agree with Steve you are brilliant, and when you disagree with him you are just trying to cause trouble.

Of course, in no case has Steve ever once chastised anyone who has agreed with him for having a "chip on their shoulder".

Jeff Heidman

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lakey:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, I'm a little curious. Is BTS reducing the Jumob point value due to the reduction on Front turret armor effective thickness?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. We thought it was a single plate, but instead it was two seperate plates. This effectively reduces the overall defensive quality by 25%. Enough that several German guns that used to bounce rounds off of it now easily penetrate (depending on range of course). Before the change the Jumbo could shrug off practically any frontal hit. It is still a tough nut to crack, frontally, but it is now vulnerable.

Tanaka:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The time BTS spend in after sale support it only matters to BTS management, it's an investment, if some how is buried money/time, (I don't think so), then is not up to us players to decide if it is a well spent resource.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. But one should not lose sight of the fact that NO game company is a charity ward, but hardly any support their products after initial release. As far as listening to customers and acting on their suggestions in a timely and constructive matter, I for one know of no other company that matches our efforts.

While we DO think of this as time well spent (investment), we also think we are giving you guys way more for each buck you spent than any other game company out there. We don't need people to worship us for it, but we do expect that people understand that we are going far beyond the normal level of support and therefore some kindess and respect is in order If this wasn't the norm here I think you would find a drastic reduction in our enthusiasim for customer support

Steve

[Tanklover MD]

I think in most of these discussions there should be some sort of nettiquette going on to balance the heat and flames. Having read now 5 main topics, and a bunch more alluded to in the text of people's arguments, I can say that this whole issue really was blown up, and people who came to BTS defense were targeted for some pretty childish attacks. People seemed to take offense with Slapwagon because he wanted to deal with more concrete concepts, while BTS itself took a good amount of heat from people who were not willing themselve to come up with anything more powerful than a feeling they wont have fun. I started off not believing in a German constituency, now I am convinced.

Mr. Heidman, I think you need to calm down. I am playing CM, and reading this forum, and even doing some back reading. I can say that sometimes you sound ok, but then you start calling people liars, and I really start wondering what exactly you are thinking. Your usenet post, which I have now read, was childish and served no purpose. I think if you took a deep breath, reread the posts of the people you are debating, and really did try and develop your arguments you would be a great addition to any discussion. As it is, I think you are out of line.

I do have a suggestion for BTS -- they should post a more detailed net ettiquete FAQ. Things like how to argue a point, how to debate in a civilized manner, and the like. Believe it or not I think this issue would have been shown to be all blown out or proportion in one topic if it had not constantly devolved, and if people had made better cases instead of just attacked people who did not agree with them.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lakey:

I agree. But one should not lose sight of the fact that NO game company is a charity ward, but hardly any support their products after initial release. As far as listening to customers and acting on their suggestions in a timely and constructive matter, I for one know of no other company that matches our efforts.

While we DO think of this as time well spent (investment), we also think we are giving you guys way more for each buck you spent than any other game company out there. We don't need people to worship us for it, but we do expect that people understand that we are going far beyond the normal level of support and therefore some kindess and respect is in order If this wasn't the norm here I think you would find a drastic reduction in our enthusiasim for customer support

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is one of the best things about BTS.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanklover MD:

I think in most of these discussions there should be some sort of nettiquette going on to balance the heat and flames. Having read now 5 main topics, and a bunch more alluded to in the text of people's arguments, I can say that this whole issue really was blown up, and people who came to BTS defense were targeted for some pretty childish attacks. People seemed to take offense with Slapwagon because he wanted to deal with more concrete concepts, while BTS itself took a good amount of heat from people who were not willing themselve to come up with anything more powerful than a feeling they wont have fun. I started off not believing in a German constituency, now I am convinced.

Mr. Heidman, I think you need to calm down. I am playing CM, and reading this forum, and even doing some back reading. I can say that sometimes you sound ok, but then you start calling people liars, and I really start wondering what exactly you are thinking. Your usenet post, which I have now read, was childish and served no purpose. I think if you took a deep breath, reread the posts of the people you are debating, and really did try and develop your arguments you would be a great addition to any discussion. As it is, I think you are out of line.

I do have a suggestion for BTS -- they should post a more detailed net ettiquete FAQ. Things like how to argue a point, how to debate in a civilized manner, and the like. Believe it or not I think this issue would have been shown to be all blown out or proportion in one topic if it had not constantly devolved, and if people had made better cases instead of just attacked people who did not agree with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure a nettiquette FAQ will help any. If people do not know how to prove points and converse on a BBS, will they even read the FAQ and learn from it?

[Wisbech_lad]

BTS,

My UK infantry platoons are getting whacked by evil gerbiltroopers up close. (ranges of less than 100m)

Now it is an Well Known Fact that:

"JERRY DOESN'T LIKE COLD STEEL"

So why doesn't CM model that at close ranges Jerry will be reduced to a whimpering wreck, when he realises that he is facing bayonets with nothing more than a MP44/MP40?

And of course, that is nothing compared to the morale problem that Jerry should have facing the Highland Regiments.

Please code this.

I don't have problems with 1.1. I would support a "no limits buying" pool in CM2.

Actually, I would also support an even more random force purchaser for the AI - i.e. you give AI 1000 pts to spend, it randomly picks a formation (CA,AR, INF, MECH etc) and then buys equipment. This would further enhance FOW for me - if I set the AI to buy for me and opponent now (even if that opponent is the AI) with CA, I know I will be meeting some armour at some point. Having my troops probe into the unknown, not knowing WTF is there (yes, Div intel told me it was an infantry division, but there could be StuGs) would enhance the game for me.

Brgds

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff,

Well, obviously you rather not admitt that just about everything you said in your high moral positioned post (i.e. you are all sweet and innocent and never a bad boy) was a bunch of BS. That's OK, I never expected you to acknowledge that your Hollier Than Thou stance is a joke. In fact, I expected another one of your stinging personal attacks on me in spite of your claims that you don't stoop to such things.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That does not mean that Steve has the right to step on those who disagree with him, nor does it mean that the game should not be critiqued.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite true. But it works the same way. The sheer quantity of baseless complaining I have had to deal with for the last 2 days has set an all time record. People bitching about a rather minor change as if the game was transformed into a pile of steaming poo. And not one attempt to back up a claim with examples of how this was so. Even though I have listened, responded, listened, and responded time and time again, explaining our reasoning and asking for people to back up their claims... I am just a big bully. I can't stop you from creating your own reality, so I'll just go along with yours for now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is clear that critique is only welcome from a select few who already fulfill some basic, pre-defined criteria.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, this is really good. I listen and respond to you even when I don't agree with you, so are you part of the ass kissing group that follows me around? I somehow doubt it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For the record, and this is probably the tenth time I have stated this, I play at least as many games as the allied as I do the Axis. I have no agenda.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then WHY Jeff do you feel it is your Holy Mission to give anybody who points out that there is a pro-German bias a royal hard time? I see this from you time and time again, and no matter how detailed and respectfully people answer your allegations that this is just a myth you still jump down the next guy's throat just as hard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have no chip on my shoulder, although Steve has shown that he certainly does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have no chip on your shoulder, and I do? Oh... I am happy to let the record record stand on its own.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny that when I defended the game Steve was so quick to praise me, but when I critique his rather weak argumetns, I have a chip on my shoulder and am a trouble maker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. When you make rather weak and vague counter arguments, with a clear streak of disrespect, I don't feel the overwhelming urge to bend over backwards to kiss your ass. So I'll phrase your charge against me the other way. In your view, if I don't challenge you, I am OK. But if I do call you on something that I find wrong, I am some sort of Big Bully. BS. If I agree with someone I say so. If I don't, I say so. Why should I only agree with people? Politicians do this, and look at where that gets this country...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Apparently when you agree with Steve you are brilliant, and when you disagree with him you are just trying to cause trouble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a joke, right? People disagree with me all the time and only very rarely do things become heated. When someone presents a good case, enough to change my opinion, I willingly praise the person for winning me over. Do I need to post threads to back this up? Anybody recall the M3 HT debate? I clearly bowed my head to people arguing against me. Why? Because I was wrong. But I guess that makes no senese in your view of me, so why don't you just forget about stuff like that since it can only prove you have no case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, in no case has Steve ever once chastised anyone who has agreed with him for having a "chip on their shoulder".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... first of all, VERY few people here have chips on their shoulders. Thankfully! You are one of the few. Congrats. If there was someone here with a chip on their shoulder that was out of line, I would call them on it. The closest I see is Slapdragon, who has a thing about people making unsupported, asinine comments in otherwise rational and logical debates. Just to make you happy Jeff...

Slapdragon you have a chip on your shoulder. You should not be annoyed with people that offer nothing constructive to otherwise constructive debates. Don't try and point out the sheer weakness and inconsistancies that such people use to discredit rational and well researched points of view. People have the right to be abusive and utterly useless on this BBS, so just leave them alone so we can have a lower quality discussion here.

There Jeff, happy?

Steve

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Slapdragon you have a chip on your shoulder. You should not be annoyed with people that offer nothing constructive to otherwise constructive debates. Don't try and point out the sheer weakness and inconsistancies that such people use to discredit rational and well researched points of view. People have the right to be abusive and utterly useless on this BBS, so just leave them alone so we can have a lower quality discussion here.

...

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noted boss. I have a new deck of tarot cards coming anyway next week.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"JERRY DOESN'T LIKE COLD STEEL"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yea, dead right. Night fighting should be grenades and cold steel since the Jerries don't like any of those. But is that in CM, nah! I have raised this issue countless times (do a search!) and do BTS have anything to say, nah! They just arrogantly ignore what I have to say, poo pooing my opinions in the most heartless fashion. Don't they realise I'm right? If they just accepted that then everything would be OK. Bastards! Sheesh!

Steve stop picking on slappy what has he ever done to you, bully! Anyway I'm the only one allowed the beat up on him and his pseudoscientific posturing.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

[Slapdragon]

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

"JERRY DOESN'T LIKE COLD STEEL"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yea, dead right. Night fighting should be grenades and cold steel since the Jerries don't like any of those. But is that in CM, nah! I have raised this issue countless times (do a search!) and do BTS have anything to say, nah! They just arrogantly ignore what I have to say, poo pooing my opinions in the most heartless fashion. Don't they realise I'm right? If they just accepted that then everything would be OK. Bastards! Sheesh!

Steve stop picking on slappy what has he ever done to you, bully! Anyway I'm the only one allowed the beat up on him and his pseudoscientific posturing.

Ahh, Gods gift to the medical science community. Hey Simon, I have been keeping two depleted uranium shells I found in a NATO bomb site in my underwear for a couple of months, and now I am not feeling so well, think that's proof that they cause piles? Roll some dice and tell me what you find out.

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

[Simon Fox]

Oh yeah, and was that before or after your "Cultural Imperatives of Basket Weaving 101" lecture. I suggest finding a group of like minded individuals to test your hypothesis, 10 should be sufficient for a pilot study. However, you may have trouble finding a "normal" control group by the sound of it.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.