CM:BB Any change in LOS tool?

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Why did BTS deem recce "beyond the scope of CM world" and then exclude any and all pre-game data realistically and viably derived from pre-battle battlefield tactical recce ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

At the beginning of the game, do you or do you not have a perfect picture of the terrain? Do you or do you not already know the general size of the opposing force? Do you or do you not already know the general area in which they are deployed?

Sounds like there has been quite a lot of information gathered.

Frankly, I think this idea of knowing the exact position of some of your opponents assets at the beginning of the game is a very bad one. It lessens the fog of war. That's the sort of thing the player should have to find out on his own.

Still has nothing to do with the LOS tool.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How could SACEUR and the different level commanders plan ahead if they did not receive (and perhaps more importantly distribute) recce data on the terrain features in the prospective areas of operations. As for tactical recce, I have always thought identifying terrain that permit or deny avenues of advance was of prime importance for both the defender and the attacker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Identifying terrain features would not have included "if you put a tank 20m inside those scattered trees it will still have LOS to the backside of that small rise, but if you put it 5m further back it will lose LOS."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about this for an idea (for all I know it might have been floated around before but I have not seen it before<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it has been floated before, and BTS liked the idea. Unfortunately for technical reasons it cannot be done with the current engine. It's a "maybe" for the next one.

[Priest]

Tero by no means is recon limited to finding only enemy strength and composition. Unluckily Vanir stole my thunder about information. As far as greying out the map is concerned yes I think that could be interesting if executed properly (as is with anything).

Personally I (as I have stated before) like the LOS tool as it is now. I would assume that BTS will make the decision for the CMII engine LOS tool by trying to find balance between what they deem as realistic and what is playable.

Finally I Tero I think your assesment of the "GAMEY TACTICS" having to do with inherent abilities of the units involved as somewhat suspect. We will use the Jeep as an example. A Jeep when on roads is one of the faster vehicles in CMBO as it was in WWII. No harm no foul. But the driver of the Jeep was a human being with free will and a sense of survival in real life, but in CMBO he is a pixelated entity that is not alive and thus no sense of survival. If i the player want a realistic experience then ordering men to suicide missions probably is not the best way to go. But if I am a gamey player and know that one of the comprimises made in the development of CMBO was a "borg" like intelligence with concerns to spotting and the Jeep being a "low-point" tool in which to use this to my advantage, then yes I am being gamey but the unit itself has many non-gamey functions that many players use and not abuse.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Yes, it has been floated before, and BTS liked the idea. Unfortunately for technical reasons it cannot be done with the current engine. It's a "maybe" for the next one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the beginning of the game, do you or do you not have a perfect picture of the terrain? Do you or do you not already know the general size of the opposing force? Do you or do you not already know the general area in which they are deployed?

Sounds like there has been quite a lot of information gathered.

Frankly, I think this idea of knowing the exact position of some of your opponents assets at the beginning of the game is a very bad one. It lessens the fog of war. That's the sort of thing the player should have to find out on his own.

Also it is possible DURING the game to hop about and squat down and stare about the countryside. You can see from the enemy point of view. You can see, basically, a thumbnail view of what an remote-LOS tool would achieve.

This is why I would want the Level 1 limited to use only on ones own troops. Using the Level 1 at remote locations is omni-info for gamey froggers.

But as an option. Repeat, to those that think they must decide for others what is good for everyone; An option. It is certainly within the present engines code capabilities to do this. And again, for those reactionary types, it is only during the ORDERS phase. Froggin down and eyeballin explosions is still possible during the movie phase.

I agree, that the present system, has way too much terrain omni-info. Anti-froggin measures would reduce the effect of that.

Lewis

[lcm1947]

I agree with Tripps 1000 percent! What's this forum for if not to discuss and enjoy good buddies and such talk as how to play the game, what happened to you in the game, how to improve the game, get info that you don't know about to improve your overall knowledge or learn something and to let BTS see what the people that buy the game are saying or asking or complaining about. Gee, live and let live. It should never get personal people are just communicating with each other and it should be a good experience and one shouldn;t have to worry about being personally attacked just because someone disagrees with you. Damn, people cool off and have some fun. After all - this is a game.

[Priest]

Oh yeah and one other thing that concerns me about changing the LOS tool (as I mentioned above) is that limiting Level 1 viewing is no real help if your aim is to stop people from leaping around like a toad and terrain scouting. Once again because I know it is hard for some people to read through the entire thread (maybe they just speed read through it) both grass mods and experience can allow a player to absorb just as much information as toading around would. The panning camera and multiple levels would have to be limited to achieve this which would create a clumsy and awkward interface. Also the mod community would have to be locked out from doing grass textures as contour can be easily defined by the graphics if the right mod is used.

And ICM I agree with you. The folks who attack a simple idea and then turn it personal and then back down and then try (emphasize try) to be coy and get some more stabs in really frustrate me. Here Tripps and a few others and I were having a nice discussion and then someone has to take some jabs while trying to mask his/her intent. I just wish that if you have an idea and flaws have been found that the person would be capable of dicussion instead of becoming outright defensive. Just my thoughts

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Username]

Shades of the Great Hull Down Debate here.

Back in the day, there was the same type of arguments by the 'Its OK the way it is now' mindset people. Specifically, they hated the idea of having any Hull Down Order or tool that was being proposed by forward looking gamers. The 'Change is bad' crowd stated that they could use the game the way it was, that their special skills gave them an advantage, etc. Forward looking people then pointed out that the game is based on units skills, etc. not the cludgey ability to get down to the level one and press your nose against the moniter. Lots of opinions, posts, heated arguments, ruffled feathers, ad nauseum. So whats this I hear? The game is going to have a Hull Down Order in the menu? Change is Good. I like it.

In fact, many people asked that it be OPTIONAL. I dont know if that is going to be the case. But I am very happy that this will be considered for CMBB. Again I ask that BTS consider gun depression to be abstracted into this feature.

I used to go to ASL type events. I was amazed that there was always a small contingent of people that were still playing the origional SL game. When I visited with them, it was soon very clear why they did.

Perhaps there will be a breakoff group of radicals that will rebel against CMBB. They will be purists that will refuse the new ways. Many threads and posts will be generated from this splinter group.

A dark and foreboding future awaits us...

Lewis

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Priest]

If hull down was hard to acheive then use a tool would be needed. And if they give us a tool then fine as long as it is executed properly. Lewis I was going to not mention you name again but seeing as you will not let this rest (yet you blamed me for the same thing) change is not always good. That does not mean that stagnation is always good either. Of course people who only tend to see the world in extremes might have a problem understanding that.

The thread is about suggestions for a new LOS tool (just restating because you might have sped read right past it) and my opinion is that the game does not need one. Now obviously your opinion differs, but how does that invalidate mine?

Any change to the game can be hurtful to the game if it is not executed properly. Also stagnation can hurt the game if things that need changing are not changed. Your opinion states that LOS needs to be changed while I believe it does not. Could there be a better way to do it? Possibly but the current system works so why chance it? Is that broken down enough for you? Do you get it now?

Lastly Combat Mission is so very much a game that tests the skills of the players. What an innane comment to make saying that unit skills are what the game is about. Really are you saying that the player's skill has no impact on the games outcome. Are you really making that statement? And for your information Lewis 99.9% of the time in CM, I am at level 3 while playing. In fact I cannot remember the last time I was at level 1 (level 2 being my next most frequented level) although i remeber going to level 7 the other day to look at a map I was designing.

Lewis within this thread your arguements in my opinion have been weak and ill thought out. You blame others within the thread (mainly me) for your arguements shortcomings. You once again brought about this discourse and you once again are trying to prove points that are easily refuted mainly because they are not presented well.

For every game that has been changed in the quest for a better experience and has worked I can show you three others that have failed. I trust BTS and if they say that something is going to work and enhance my experience then I will trust them.

Lewis this is the last time I try and be civil with you. Anyone who reads this thread (and many other you have posted in) will see that this is your standard way. You become defensive when someone challenges you, and if it continues you back away blaming others for it. Then you still comment and continue to do the same thing even though you stated you would not, and then again blame others when they respond. Quite sad

Also please send me a setup for a battle. Remember I am a "flamey Quaker" that needs to use "gamey" tatics like looking at level one and scouting terrain (funny since even in large battles my turns rarely take more then a couple of minutes to complete) while you are a great tactician and obviously through your unit's great skills and abilities can destroy any such player. Really I would love to see this. If you want to research before you buy I can give you a list of my normal opponents and they can give you a heads up. I doubt you will like what you hear though.

[Username]

So please undersand me. I don't want anything to do with you. If you can't concentrate on the subjects in the thread that have bearing on the game, then fine. Please dont fixate on me because its coming off a little strange.

[Priest]

You just do not get it do you?

I did stop you moron (I warned you I would be less civil!). But you obviously could not stand not to comment about my ideas so I (unlike you) have no problem responding. I have more than enough self esteem to allow someone to question my thoughts and opinions, it seems you do not. Lewis if you do not want me to respond then shutup after everytime I post. You truly are thick. When you respond to one of my posts then expect a response every single time. Sorry but that is the way it goes. If you do not want a reply then do not post on anything concerning my post. Example:

Priest: I like the way the LOS system is.

Lewis: NO NO CHANGE IS GOOD. PEOPLE WHO LIKE THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE ARE GOING TO LEAD US INTO THE DARK AGE. I AM NOT IMPRESSED BY THEM. (wah wah wah!)

Priest: Okay then but I do not believe change is always good.

Lewis: SEE I TOLD YOU THEY ARE GOING TO LEAD US INTO THE DARK AGES. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE A FLAMEY QUAKER.

Priest: Okay but what about all these other things that contribute to "terrain scouting" and such?

Lewis: UHM LISTEN QUAKER YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ! OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE GAMEY PLAYER!

Priest: Uhm okay!

Lewis: NO YOU STOP BOTHERING ME YOU ARE SICK AND IT IS SCARING ME. STOP IT.

Priest: Whatever!

Lewis: OH YEAH AND YOU ARE A FLAMEY QUAKER!

Priest: Lewis I explained before my opinions but here they are again....

Lewis: STOP TALKING TO ME I SAID (ugguhghh)

That about sum it up for you? Go on re-read the thread if you think I am kidding. You are ridiculous. And seeing as you obviously do not want to face me in CMBO (I doubt you would be a challenge at all at this point) seems to make your statements concerning my "Quaker" nature have less (as if they had any) validity.

Now does anyone want to have a real discussion on LOS?

[Username]

seems you dont need anyone to have yourself a discussion.

Good luck.

[Priest]

As I said before does anyone want to have a serious dicussion here please continue.

[Username]

Seems this thread is a little unraveled. I am starting a new one based on the whole seperate issue of toadiness, froggers, and optional rules.