See the map before you buy units

[Guest Big Time Software]

Annalist,

Now that you have come back and, basically, apologized... lets try to keep to constructive debate.

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.

That was your choice for directing the conversation, not mine. Therefore I responded to your request based on your reasoning, which was that it would enhance realism. Check out your initial post and the first three follow ups. Now tell me where you said anything about game play. All you talked about, using military acronyms no less, was how adding this would enhance the REALISM aspect. So that is what I challenged you on, and apparently you ignored. So I hope you see that this whole problem here was of your own making, not anybody else.

Now that the discussion was brought around to the feature being something "fun", instead of realistic, the discussion took a totally different turn. Now we are discussing it as being "fun" and judging it on that basis. Unfortunately, for reasons I have outlined it doesn't matter if it is "fun" because it would be far too much work to implement. And since it is not realistic (your initial reasoning) and is time consuming to put into the game, it is not going to happen. When push comes to shove, the carefully laid out production schedule always wins :-/

Steve

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Now that the discussion was brought around to the feature being something "fun", instead of realistic, the discussion took a totally different turn. Now we are discussing it as being "fun" and judging it on that basis. Unfortunately, for reasons I have outlined it doesn't matter if it is "fun" because it would be far too much work to implement. And since it is not realistic (your initial reasoning) and is time consuming to put into the game, it is not going to happen. When push comes to shove, the carefully laid out production schedule always wins :-/

Steve

Love - Game, Set, Match.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yes, and besides as I said earlier, I don't want it. Wah!

I never got involved in the "who's the big battlefield Kahunna for today" of the discussion, I just mildly stated that (a), the information that was being asked for, for the most part is completely available by talking with your opponent, and (, I personally don't want to see the map, high resolution, or low resolution, I prefer no resolution. To me, it's more fun that way. Which was ignored by everyone in the debate over what General Snort and Sergeant Sack might have done, would have done, or could have done if the sun rose where it normally don't shine.

So there, all of ya's go get yerselves a haircut!

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

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

[Annalist]

Steve, I said it would allow realistic PLANNING. I said nothing about it adding to the realism of the game play itself. Actually your earlier post about the technical difficulties of adding the feature settled the whole issue for me.

[Annalist]

Besides, isn't the point of the GAME for it to be fun to play, so that other people besides die-hard military buffs and historians get a kick out playing it?

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Yes, and besides as I said earlier, I don't want it. Wah!

I never got involved in the "who's the big battlefield Kahunna for today" of the discussion, I just mildly stated that (a), the information that was being asked for, for the most part is completely available by talking with your opponent, and (, I personally don't want to see the map, high resolution, or low resolution, I prefer no resolution. To me, it's more fun that way. Which was ignored by everyone in the debate over what General Snort and Sergeant Sack might have done, would have done, or could have done if the sun rose where it normally don't shine.

So there, all of ya's go get yerselves a haircut!

Bruno you incredible DOLT. Don't know know BTS listens to what you want and does the exact opposite! Now the Map will be seen not only by the players, but posted to the web for the whole world to see.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Annalist wrote:

Steve, I said it would allow realistic PLANNING. I said nothing about it adding to the realism of the game play itself.

What is the difference? As outlined in my response on Page 2, what you are asking for is not "realistic PLANNING", and therefore I very correctly challenged you on this. That is the whole point of what followed. What you asked for might be "realistic PLANNING in a perfect world far away from a WWII battlefield", but that still opens it up to debate on the basis of realism. Again, you did not even once mention that you wanted this feature for fun "GAME" reasons until your 5th or 6th post.

Besides, isn't the point of the GAME for it to be fun to play, so that other people besides die-hard military buffs and historians get a kick out playing it?

Define "fun". Bruno defines it as having to fly by the seat of his pants. So if the option you suggested were put in it would DETRACT from his level of fun. If it were an option that didn't come at the expense of other features, which are far more interesting and likely to be seen as FUN, then fine. But since it is neither realistic NOR doable, then it doesn't matter if it is FUN or not.

BTW, someone recently described "FUN" as, basically, not having his Panthers and Tigers shot up. Everybody defines FUN differently, but I suggest to you that the reason CM is seen as both FUN and REALISTIC is because we are very carefull about what gets put in and what doesn't. REALISM and FUN are not mutually exclusive.

Steve

[Annalist]

Okay this is a pointless discussion. I said realistic planning tools and somehow you interpret that to be realistic as it existed in combat during WWII, none of which I have mentioned. Just let it go at, since it may add playability enhancements for some of your customers and may add to the fun of the game for some of the customers, you will not consider it. Now, please just close this thread so I don't have to keep deleting the e-mail notifications of replies.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Besides, isn't the point of the GAME for it to be fun to play, so that other people besides die-hard military buffs and historians get a kick out playing it?

Perhaps, to a point. If BTS wanted a "fun" game they would have opted for the Panzer General method of war gamming. They didn't. What has been interesting is that the "hard core" game can actually be fun.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Okay this is a pointless discussion. I said realistic planning tools and somehow you interpret that to be realistic as it existed in combat during WWII, none of which I have mentioned. Just let it go at, since it may add playability enhancements for some of your customers and may add to the fun of the game for some of the customers, you will not consider it. Now, please just close this thread so I don't have to keep deleting the e-mail notifications of replies.

Perfect!

Annalist gets an e-amil notification EVERY time some one posts to this thread?

Gee..

I wonder how irritating that could get??

funny.... I don't hear the lock master any where near this thread....

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Perfect!

Annalist gets an e-amil notification EVERY time some one posts to this thread?

Gee..

I wonder how irritating that could get??

funny.... I don't hear the lock master any where near this thread....

-tom w

Now now Tom, lay off the poor guy. He said sorry for offending the veterans ( a quarter of the list at least) and he did provide us with lots of humor.

By the way, I need your e-mail again and Simon Fox's, can the two of you post it here for me?

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, I'll lock this one up. I still don't see the difference between "realistic tools" and "realism" (which can ONLY be judged by WWII standards, since this is a WWII game), but I also don't see the point in debating it any more either.

CavScout... you are oh so correct. As I said, realism and fun do not have to be mutually exclusive. It might just be that Combat Mission is the first to really get the right balance and stil be heavily in favor of the realism side.

Steve

[Gun Dog]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Besides, isn't the point of the GAME for it to be fun to play, so that other people besides die-hard military buffs and historians get a kick out playing it?

While I respect Annalist's opinion, unless I misread the posting, I can support 1/2 of his view.

First, I heartily agree with him that there IS room in a game of this type to deviate from the purely historical (i.e. whether the commanders did/did not have maps before the battle) just for the purpose of including elements that may be simply fun. (I orginially supported the option of seeing the map THEN buying your units, until I saw BTS posting why it would be too much of a hassle to implement)

After following the related posts, it seems that there is a camp of purists seem to feel that anything other than purely historical has little place here.

While I see their point, I suggest that there is room for some ahistorical 'fun' as long as the game system itself remains as accurate, realistic and as deep as it currently is. (I would like to be able to make a 1945/46 Russia vs. US scenario sometime. While it may never have happened, it could be an interesting 'what-if')

Where I somewhat disagree with Annalist is, I do not believe that the game should be designed to be more appealing to a wider, less-grog audience. Those games are already on the shelves (and I have wasted tons of money trying them only to find they were either grossly simplified, inaccurate, or designed for kids or the mass audience)

I believe CM has found it's niche, and I am it!

We hardcore WWII tactics buffs have gone far too long without a serious unit-level tactical combat game that addresses this genre.

Frankly, I have I have waited patiently for CM for 20 years (since my old SL/ASL days). I feel that CM is the closest (only) game that reaches the level of detail that I yearn for and while I do think there is room for 'fun' I do not think CM should ever become less 'hardcore' than it is because this is the level of detail many of us have been waiting for.