See the map before you buy units

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Analist wrote:

Whew! Glad that's settled. For a minute there, I thought we were going to have to overhaul the game again.

If he were on the Peng thread, people would call him Anal-List. Reminds me of a scene from MASH.

Trapper: Look at it, she spilled all over.

Hawkeye: I don't think she is quite stable.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Annalist:

Gee, I'm realy sorry to have offended all you people who have it stuck in your mind that this is WWII and you're really there.

As others have noticed, you are missing the point. You are rude, insensitive, opinionated, and in fact wrong. It has nothing to do with people thinking they were there in WWII. You obviously weren't, so why do you get to call the shots any more than the rest of us?

I greatly appreciate all the time and effort BTS spent making the units and weapons behave as realistically as possible so that a Stuart can't kill a tiger.

Interestingly enough a Stuart CAN kill a King Tiger We not only spent the time to get this part right, but also to try and educate people like yourself that you don't know what you are talking about.

But, this is a GAME! I don't really care who had what units in the war or what battles were fought with or without armor. If I wanted to make each battle historically realistic, then I would only put two platoons in a company sector and not deploy their organic crew served weapons.

You are showing how little you understand how WWII battles were fought.

I just wanted to use real world tactical planning tools in this GAME.

This quote is at odds with the previous one of yours. Not only that, but you are wrong that it is realistic. Note that you have not challenged even ONE point of mine that demonstrates this. Why didn't you? Because you don't know what you are talking about, and therefore can't. But you still want to have things your way, don't you? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Thank God

Now I remember why I never posted anything for any game forum before and never will again.

If this is how you intended to continue posting, I think everybody owes you a debt of gratitude for going away now. Nobody is interested in someone who only wishes to "discuss" things on their terms, complete with insults and the highest degree of issue dodging seen on this BBS in a long time. If you grew up a bit, and dropped the attitude, people would welcome your contributions. Otherwise, you won't be missed.

Pak40 wrote:

My point is that the choice is left up the two people playing the game. What I'm suggesting is not uncommen in all of the top flight simulators. Flight sims give the choice to tone down the realism. After all, CM is a simulator of sorts, isn't it?

Correct. However, as we can see at the beginning of this discussion, some people were arguing for this feature BECAUSE it was realistic. So I had to challenge that bit first

Now that we are down to the "gee, it would be nice to have a choice" request we move into another problem, which I did not discuss much before. While we do have many options/features in CM to make CM more of a game than a sim, for those that want it that way, we do not have much time available to deviate from our main task of improving the game as a whole. This means more features that add to what we, BTS, feels the game should be. Obviously, realism is the top goal.

Although it might appear to be easy to let someone, optionally, peek at the map before placing units, I assure you it is anything but. First of all, a critical part of the PBEM, TCP/IP, and Hotseat code would have to be rewritten to do this. That alone is a huge undertaking. But worse, the code is not able to bounce back and forth between the 2D purchase screen and the 3D Map. It just isn't set up to do that. So a significant part of the core game engine would have to be rewritten.

Since this request does not add to the core strength of CM (realism), and could quite possibly make for rather bland "perfect" battles, this feature is not even on The List for future inclusion due to the large amount of work needed to implement it. I don't know... maybe for the rewrite of the CM engine in the future, but absolutely not for CM2. I think everybody can now understand why

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-24-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

As others have noticed, you are missing the point. You are rude, insensitive, opinionated, and in fact wrong. It has nothing to do with people thinking they were there in WWII. You obviously weren't, so why do you get to call the shots any more than the rest of us?

snip

quote from Annalist:

Now I remember why I never posted anything for any game forum before and never will again.

endquote

Steve Says:

If this is how you intended to continue posting, I think everybody owes you a debt of gratitude for going away now. Nobody is interested in someone who only wishes to "discuss" things on their terms, complete with insults and the highest degree of issue dodging seen on this BBS in a long time. If you grew up a bit, and dropped the attitude, people would welcome your contributions. Otherwise, you won't be missed.

snip

Steve

Great Post Steve!!

Thank you!

Who is is this guy anyway?

He he someone that was once banned posting under another name?

or is he just a brand new irritant?

just curious

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Pak40]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

You already get this information. In the map setup when you choose TOWN, LIGHT TREES, FLAT for the terrain you should know that you want to buy a good chunk of armored support.

True, but the person who did not setup the QB must rely on the truthfullness of the person who did setup the QB.

[Major Tom]

I think it really does come down to truthfullness, but, then you can just about immediately see that it isn't a valley with rolling hills in the summer during the night.

A topagraphic map will not give you much vital information that you don't already get through the description of the battlefield. Knowing that you are fighting in a village, with moderate hills and light tree cover at night will give you more information than a flat rendition. You won't say "since there is a house at position X I should exchange a weapon Y for a weapon Z to position in it...", or at least rarely and applies only to a small amount of your unit choices. You will not be able to see the actual lay of the land to correctly influence further purchases either. It all looks flat.

Specific terrain variations of one type will rarely affect your unit purchasing. Rolling hills are rolling hills, some vehicles/troops are good for them, some aren't. Even still, it is only a matter of debate over OPTIMUM purchasing. You can still by the totally 'wrong' stuff for a specific map and come out winning.

Knowing the makeup of your enemy force will be just about the only thing that will drastically affect your unit purchasing. And I don't think BTS is willing to work this one in

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom, I think it is safe to assume that he is indeed new here.

Pak40

True, but the person who did not setup the QB must rely on the truthfullness of the person who did setup the QB.

Which is exactly why we are planning on fixing this for CM2 We aren't exactly sure what form the fix will take, but it will be fixed so that Player 2 can't be duped by Player 1.

Steve

[Pak40]

But worse, the code is not able to bounce back and forth between the 2D purchase screen and the 3D Map. It just isn't set up to do that. So a significant part of the core game engine would have to be rewritten.

I'm glad you explained that. I was under the impression that it wouldn't be too hard to switch between the two.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Tom, I think it is safe to assume that he is indeed new here.

Pak40

Which is exactly why we are planning on fixing this for CM2 We aren't exactly sure what form the fix will take, but it will be fixed so that Player 2 can't be duped by Player 1.

Steve

The short term solution is obvious - don't play with someone who lies to you.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Pak40:

True, but the person who did not setup the QB must rely on the truthfullness of the person who did setup the QB.

I have the perfect solution to that problem. I can refer you to the dozen or so opponents that I play on a regular basis, everyone of them I will vouche for as being not only very trustworthy but also excellent opponents to boot.

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

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

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Annalist:

If you've been in the military and know how these things work, feel free to contribute. If not, shut the HELL up.

If a DD214 sizing contest is what you want, then fine but it has been my military experience that those running around waving big sounding acronyms generally did not spend much time in the field actually trying to use them. There is a huge differance between book learning and realistic application.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Gun Dog]

Many people have discussed whether it is 'real' or not to be able to buy your forces before or after you have seen the map.

From my understanding of WWII, the whole concept of 'buying' your forces is somewhat unreal and part of the game. In real life, you accept what the higher command (or fate/luck/availability/etc) sends your way.

So if the concept is already somewhat 'gamey' why not just recognise it as such and give us the option to look at the map first? For those who chose not to look at the map, that would be thier option.

IMO, I don't believe that allowing this would detract from the game, but would in fact ADD to the fun.

For an example, in my old Squad Leader(rest in peace), we used to design our own scenarios where players would study the map and the objectives first. Following that, both sides would secretly purchase whatever units we felt would be most suitable to accomplish the mission(with-in the point allowance) and once the game began we fought with what we bought. (Often times we found out too late, that we bought the wrong mix, but that added to the appeal)

I recognise this is 'gamey' but it is still a feature that was tremendously fun and would be great to have now that CM has multi-play capability.

[Guest Big Time Software]

CavScout... I think you are close to the mark. Annalist didn't even say he was ever in the military though, did he? From the sounds of it, I think this is an assumption that we shouldn't make.

Gun Dog, see previous three posts of mine, plus the rather long one on Page 2. This feature just isn't going to happen.

Steve

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

CavScout... I think you are close to the mark. Annalist didn't even say he was ever in the military though, did he? From the sounds of it, I think this is an assumption that we shouldn't make.

Steve

Actually, he listed his military experience in great detail in the recent thread on the same. Although he has been in the military, his resume is no more striking than the average vet on this forum, and his attitude is clearly that of many of the wannabe heroes that I have run across in my experience with the military (as aptly described by CavScout).

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Actually, he listed his military experience in great detail in the recent thread on the same. Although he has been in the military, his resume is no more striking than the average vet on this forum, and his attitude is clearly that of many of the wannabe heroes that I have run across in my experience with the military (as aptly described by CavScout).

Well the screen name "Annalist" screams REMF.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by CavScout:

If a DD214 sizing contest is what you want, then fine but it has been my military experience that those running around waving big sounding acronyms generally did not spend much time in the field actually trying to use them. There is a huge differance between book learning and realistic application.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-24-2001).]

Hey Cavscout, my DD214 is TWICE as big as your DD214. I whip it out at bars to get chicks, yeah babe! Of course I bought mine at DD214s-R-US second hand, but who cares!!!!

I was doing an oral history a while back. Guy did three terms of service in Vietnam with the 82nd Airborne and several times said how he hated people who were not in Vietnam talking about it (does that ring any bells to the history buffs on the list?). Turns out he was state side in a labor unit near Seattle in reality. Never went near Vietnam. He was a nice guy, friendly, upstanding, but this sort of measuring service records had led him to dress his up.

[Philistine]

As a feature that (IMHO) would be more useful than the ability to see the map before setup, but would give the ability to do so would be adding the ability to save a map for use in Quick Battles.

I know this has been discussed before, and my understanding was that it was on "the list" and still under consideration.

If this were available in CM2, it would allow those who cared the opportunity to review the map before choosing units, while also giving the (more useful) ability to use a pregenerated map in a QB.

Just a thought.

--Philistine

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Philistine:

As a feature that (IMHO) would be more useful than the ability to see the map before setup, but would give the ability to do so would be adding the ability to save a map for use in Quick Battles.

I know this has been discussed before, and my understanding was that it was on "the list" and still under consideration.

If this were available in CM2, it would allow those who cared the opportunity to review the map before choosing units, while also giving the (more useful) ability to use a pregenerated map in a QB.

Just a thought.

--Philistine

I love the idea of having a premade map usable for quick battle, but attached to another idea: tattle screens.

One of the minor problems with QBs that in terms of some of the settings, you need to trust the player until the game is either setup, or played through. Fionn had whats his name (now thankfully banned in all twelve of his incarnations and hoepfully on his way to jail for spamming) choose no fog of war on him. There are several snakey things you can do that might not be noticed by the other player. It would be nice to be presented with a tattle screen that said things like "custom map", "+20% axis advantage, etc. Also the ability to enter the name of the opponents and a number of the game to allow the application to name the QB files progressively.

The final part of the tattle screen would be an end of game file for use by administrators of QBs or Metacampaigns that listed and outcome and all of the normal tattle information.

By the way, when someone writes an entymology of CM terms, I was the one who made up both "fantasy football setting" and tattle screen, please give proper credit to me in your book .

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Manheim Tanker wrote:

Actually, he listed his military experience in great detail in the recent thread on the same.

Ah... OK. Add one point back to his score card. Still well into the negatives, in terms of productive member of discussion community, but now a little less so

Although he has been in the military, his resume is no more striking than the average vet on this forum, and his attitude is clearly that of many of the wannabe heroes that I have run across in my experience with the military (as aptly described by CavScout).

This is what I picked up on. Funny enough, often the people yelling the loudest like this never served at all. They are the wannabe wannabes heroes

Someone with a handle of "Annalist" should be aware of the benefits of hindsight information. Let's just call this HISTORY for short I bet you that I, and many others on this BBS, know more about WWII as a whole than the vets that servered there WHILE they were there. What I mean by this is, most vets were too busy trying to keep themselves alive. They weren't figuring out how many mm of armor was here or there, how much TNT was in a particular German round, production figures for such and such a vehicle, etc. And they most CERTAINLY did not conduct widespread interviews with soldiers, officers, and officials from all nations, including the enemy while sitting in a foxhole. Most likely they didn't even know what was going on in the next sector over from them, not to mention the war as a whole.

Now... I don't know squat about fear of being shot at, watching my buddies die, having to try to get a half hour nap in a water filled foxhole, etc. But this stuff is certainly not the exclusive experience of WWII vets. Any guy that has spent even a day in combat has a decent idea about this, and those that do not (like myself) can at least imagine how bad it is when researching the very same topics.

I might not have been there, but I have spent the last 17 years learning from those that were in one form or another. Contrary to Annalist's opinion, this is important to keep in mind. Otherwise, why bother studying history if you can never understand squat about what was really going on in a particular point in time? Please don't tell me I wasted 4 years of my life getting a History degree for nothing

So in the end... while I would NEVER suggest I am in any way shape or form "superior" to a vet who has "been there" (any war), I also can not overlook the fact that I know a Panther doesn't have an 88mm gun, not everything boxy was a Tiger, commandos weren't dropped to kill Ike, etc. Therefore, it is faulty logic to assume that "being there" is the only thing that counts.

And, of course, since Annalist wasn't there, he is no more qualified to define the parameters of this discussion than anybody else with half a brain. So he has defeated his own credibility with his own thinking. Good job

Steve

[Simon Fox]

Stop that sycophantic twaddle slappy, sheesh, bignoting yourself like that.

Anyway I'd like to see no map at all. Just blindly blundering around in the dark until you run up against the enemy. Or maybe a lying map with wrong bits. Or one with gateways which transport you to the victory location but only after you defuse the mines (oops wrong game).

Only girl guide veterans need reply to this post.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Hey Cavscout, my DD214 is TWICE as big as your DD214. I whip it out at bars to get chicks, yeah babe! Of course I bought mine at DD214s-R-US second hand, but who cares!!!!

Blah! Everyone knows it is not the size of the DD214 that matters but how you use it (read M.O.S.)!

[Chupacabra]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Please don't tell me I wasted 4 years of my life getting a History degree for nothing

Steve

What, you have a use for yours? Damned if I can figure out what good mine is

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

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

[Annalist]

Okay, here let me put all the bashing to rest.

Point 1. I did not intend for my postings to be seen as a demand that BTS do something or to be seen as knocking the game.

Point 2. I did not realize the extent to which you all want to make the unit compositions as close as possible to what actually happened. I thought that was what scenarios are for.

Point 3. I have trained, practiced and applied the planning techniques I've talked about in this thread.

Point 4. I personally don't care about whether the force composition on the map matches exactly what a specific unit or commander might have had in any given battle.

Point 5. I simply noticed some things from other games that I thought might improve upon this one. Don't get me wrong. This is a great game.

Point 6. I got angry and said what I did because very few of you posted on whether or not this would improve the play experience. Immediately you started in with the "well in the war, commander X didn't have maps at his battle on Y date. That was not what I was talking about.

Point 7. Steve, as to your posts, I stopped reading them after all you could comment on was the value added to improving the realism of the game. The value of the games realism, to me, lies in its accurate depiction of unit/vehicle capabilities and the terrain generation system. It has no, capabilities, other than building a scenario for planning. The only thing it offers is field deployment choices.

Point 7. Yes, light woods with a village in day and dry weather gives you some information to pick your forces. However, I would certainly pick different forces if I knew the light woods ended 600m short of the village, my objective, than I would if I could use covered and concealed routes to approach to withing close proximity.

Point 8. I apologive to those of you I've offended. Especially my fellow veterans.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Stop that sycophantic twaddle slappy, sheesh, bignoting yourself like that.

You are just jealous because all you get in the dictionary is origination of a name for a disease that causes the clap in wallabys. Not the sort of thing to tell the grand kids about.

[Annalist]

BTW Cavscout, my screen name refers to my favorite character from my favorite novel.

[Annalist]

Thanks Gun Dog for seeing the point of my post and offering your opinion on how it might enhance play value v. realism.