(Old Bone from) CMx2 Fog of War Options.. Steve said something like.... (??????)

[Wartgamer]

I will go out on a limb and say that 80-90% of people play CMx1 on Extreme FOW right now. I guess MOST game designers use this as a default setting for their creations.

While not a 'true' poll, it really is an indication that Realism, as a wargaming feature, is desirable if so many people are playing at one end of the spectrum.

Who is to say what the diminishing returns are when you haven't even pushed the envelope yet?

The real issue is that not everyone will like the proposals I am making. But they don't have to play that way. But they don't want to feel like less of a CM citizen by not having the amplifiers set to Eleven.

[ March 01, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

"The real issue is that not everyone will like the proposals I am making. But they don't have to play that way. But they don't want to feel like less of a CM citizen by not having the amplifiers set to Eleven."

OK, that, for the unintiated here, was a Spinal Tap quote

he he he

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Who is to say what the diminishing returns are when you haven't even pushed the envelope yet?

Simple... I do

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Wartgamer... I have zero doubts that you are either a previously banned poster or someone who has abandoned an account in order to take on a different persona. Both are against the Forum rules and are a bannable offense.

If I banned you now I don't think I'd be wrong to do so. Yet I'd like a little more hard evidence, and so until that time I'll let you stay and even engage you in conversations taht you most likely shouldn't be involved in.

Some think you are Lewis, but unless Lewis has had amazing success with therapy... I doubt it. Even more so for Maximus. But there are plenty of others that have come and gone over the years. The only question is who were you before you became "Wartgamer"?

Steve

You are, get ready, actually wrong. I remember having a name way back but I lost it in one of those meltdowns. I did not like the atmosphere and was particularly annoyed with someone who was not an employee of yours but some sort of advisor (Irish guy?). I never got another post meltdown name.

I kept up over the years and even once got a new name (lost in a computer hardrive crash) to express an idea that people liked but it was shot down. I then saw the CMBB/CMAK design level out and knew that no great changes were coming forth.

I actually do not recall the time period you complain about where 'everybody' resisted the 3D/WEGO revolution. I mostly recall the horror of the CMBO modeling. You were very defensive and resistant to most suggestions.

Since I have many interests and belong to many diverse boards and am not one of these CM-centric personalities that carrys on about how low his number is (I mean get a life), I find the atmosphere very stifling and uncreative.

It is funny, after all these years, you are very resistant to other peoples views and ideas unless they remind you of something you already thought up.

Good Day.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

c3k... not to worry... with all the "realism" features turned off you'll have your God/Borg game to play. A little bit more restricted than CMx1 in the sense that Relative Spotting can not be turned off, but by and large it will still feel like CMx1...........

Steve

Now that is VERY good news.

I'm for keeping the game --a game. There is a fine that I think you guys are getting too close to if you haven't already crossed it with this realism push.

My questions are : Will turning off these features on my end in a TCP/IP game affect only what appears on my screen? (Like how mods work in CMx1) --Or will we have to negotiate what features will be used before we play any game at all?

[ March 01, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer,

You are, get ready, actually wrong. I remember having a name way back but I lost it in one of those meltdowns. I did not like the atmosphere and was particularly annoyed with someone who was not an employee of yours but some sort of advisor (Irish guy?). I never got another post meltdown name.

I'll take you at your word, but it does prove my point that you aren't new to all this.

I kept up over the years and even once got a new name (lost in a computer hardrive crash) to express an idea that people liked but it was shot down.

Game design is not a democratic experience, so it doesn't matter if people like it or not. People liked ASL too you know... but they didn't get what they wanted in CMBO according to their original concepts.

I then saw the CMBB/CMAK design level out and knew that no great changes were coming forth.

Correct. The game code did not allow for major changes, hence CMx2.

I actually do not recall the time period you complain about where 'everybody' resisted the 3D/WEGO revolution.

It was very early on, some of which was done when we were still using a shareware BBS before Battlefront was "invented".

I mostly recall the horror of the CMBO modeling. You were very defensive and resistant to most suggestions.

Yet hundreds of user suggestions made it into the game. Hmmm... wonder why? Oh yes... because they were GOOD suggestions and WORKABLE suggestions. As for the "horror of the CMBO modeling"... what on Earth do you mean? The cutting edge designs that have made CM the most realistic and successful wargame ever? Or are you thinking of some other game?

Since I have many interests and belong to many diverse boards and am not one of these CM-centric personalities that carrys on about how low his number is (I mean get a life), I find the atmosphere very stifling and uncreative.

I don't. I think you simply find that other people disagree with your "brilliance" and yet you aren't in a position to do impose your will. I can understand how frustrating that can be for you.

It is funny, after all these years, you are very resistant to other peoples views and ideas unless they remind you of something you already thought up.

Not true at all. I am resistant to ideas that I would take the game in the wrong direction if implemented. You don't want to consider that your ideas could possibly fall into that category, so who is really the defensive one?

Look... it is obvious that you think you're ten times smarter than me and everybody else here. You have made it clear that you not only know more about game design but also game testing and marketing. Why don't you stop wasting your time here and start up your own game company? That's what we did and we were successful at it. So if you're better than us, you should be even MORE successful. The catch is you have to put your money and your time where your mouth is. If you're not willing to do that, then you probably don't have what it takes to succeed anyway.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

You are, get ready, actually wrong. I remember having a name way back but I lost it in one of those meltdowns. I did not like the atmosphere and was particularly annoyed with someone who was not an employee of yours but some sort of advisor (Irish guy?). I never got another post meltdown name.

Um that would be Fionn

that Irish guy?

I wasn't trying to be critical...

I was just trying to be help

Who could forget Fionn he got banned once

AND then later let back on

there was no anger or ill will in this post

sorry I forgot the smiley..

really

-tom w

[ March 01, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wartgamer]

Will you distribute the game?

And Tom, If I can't even remember my own name, think I care about someone I thought was so wrong and misinformed?

Tom do you have other interests? Do you belong to other boards and do stuff? I can't make CM a focus of my life. But I do want improvements to get into the game and things like Options to be available. Believe me, once the development climb starts, that is not the time that ideas are going to get into the game.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Will you distribute the game?

Maybe if you ask nicely they might cut you a deal?

When there is money to be made maybe EVERYBODY can be happy?

Now which time period and which theatre are we talking about here anyway ?

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Le Tondu,

Options were always planned. I've said this before, but I think it often gets lost in the discussion. The kinds of things we've been discussing here would have to be negotiated before the game starts. The rule of thumb is that the more one player's choice affects the way the game is played, the more likely it will be something that both people have to agree to before hand.

Tom, yeah... Fionn for sure. He hasn't been welcome here for... gosh, 4 years now?

Wartgamer, we always are open to publishing games made by other people, provided we think it is a good fit for us (i.e. a side scrolling shooter is not up our alley ). If you build something, and I mean nearly to the point of completion, drop me a line. But we don't fund other people's development.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Oh jeez.

I said it awhile ago, no matter how much of a gem CMx2 turns out to be, there are going to be people who will squeal like a stuck pig if it doesn't match their mental template of what the absolute ultimate CM game is "supposed" to look like.

You better take my advice and include working wristwatches on the troops or CMx2 will be considered to be an UTTER FAILURE!!!! :mad:

[kipanderson]

Steve,

Quick question.

I am correct in saying that in the Orders Phase you will only be able to see enemy units for one selected friendly unit as a time. i.e. no Force or HQ based spotting in the Orders Phase?

Would prefer HQ or force based spotting in the Orders Phase, as well as in Play Back, but can happily live without it in the Orders Phase if that is the way it must be. No problem.

Also… just because a player goes for the Force or HQ based Play Back option please do not dumb down the individual spotting for each friendly unit, if you follow me. i.e. for each friendly unit I would like their chances of spotting an enemy unit to be as realistic as possible. I am no fan of Borg Spotting… just unconcerned about the God or single controlling mind issue. If you follow me.

Greatly looking forward to the game.

Did anyone mention the Cold War no…. I have not lost all hope on the subject

All the best,

Kip.

[Wartgamer]

Not true at all. I am resistant to ideas that I would take the game in the wrong direction if implemented. You don't want to consider that your ideas could possibly fall into that category, so who is really the defensive one?

Luckily, I caveated my ideas as Options. I do not want to enforce my will on anyone, just have another level of play to experience.

One of the ramifications of having many levels of play is that the replay value of scenarios goes up. It can also force one side to handicap the other (given side settable levels of play) and perhaps even get the AI to throw on a good show.

One of the implications of all this relative spotting is hwo the AI is going to manage. Most chess games use brute force to go through all moves (they are insane!). What will the AI do? Can it hang in a relative world?

[Battlefront.com]

Mikey... yup! Some people think that they can be a game developer and have us take all the risks of the actual game develpment. Not gunna happen

Kip,

I am correct in saying that in the Orders Phase you will only be able to see enemy units for one selected friendly unit as a time. i.e. no Force or HQ based spotting in the Orders Phase?

This is one option, yes. We will likely have the same options for the Orders Phase as we have been discussing for the Resolution (Movie) Phase.

Also… just because a player goes for the Force or HQ based Play Back option please do not dumb down the individual spotting for each friendly unit, if you follow me. i.e. for each friendly unit I would like their chances of spotting an enemy unit to be as realistic as possible. I am no fan of Borg Spotting… just unconcerned about the God or single controlling mind issue. If you follow me.

This is what I mean about Relative Spotting not being optional. It does what it does all the time every time. The only optional stuff is seeing stuff in one way vs. another way, but the stuff itself is the same.

Did anyone mention the Cold War ? no…. I have not lost all hope on the subject ?

You're a an optimist if I ever saw one

Wartgamer,

Luckily, I caveated my ideas as Options. I do not want to enforce my will on anyone, just have another level of play to experience.

Yes, but in order to have an Option in the game (as opposed to posts on this Forum) we have to program, test, and refine the feature and live with whatever good or bad that comes from it. Ideas are a dime a dozen... development time is very restricted.

One of the implications of all this relative spotting is hwo the AI is going to manage. Most chess games use brute force to go through all moves (they are insane!). What will the AI do? Can it hang in a relative world?

The AI will benefit from Relative Spotting because the player will not have as much of an advantage as he does in CMx1. The hardest stuff to program the AI to do is God/Borg like thinking. So the more restrictive we are on the benefits of Borg/God features, the more it evens the playing field between Human and AI.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

I suppose testing will flesh out the value of many design changes in cmx2.

It may actually spark a rethink on what it is that is being modeled.

What is the big movie you see in the present system? Does it really represent anything? A Bn level map? A large display of microinformation? Yes? Well thats what is is.

And it is not a battlefield reality as much as a game aid.

In cmx2, what is a HQ based relative movie playback? Is it not the actual company commands experience of the immediate battle situation with abstractions? What would happen in real life? Surely the actual men in the HQ unit would have a actual view of the battlefield, so thats good they get to see what they see, but the relayed information is really just abstracted info that is passed on. Its a voice on a field phone, a squad NCO waving hand signals frantically while trying to stay low, etc. So while still a game aid, its an abstracted view of the battlefield from the most important command in the game. That is, the company commander's. Note that the commander's own HQ unit's own battlefield disposition (pinned, broken, etc) plays into how the HQBRMP actually plays out. Its gone from a heavily abstracted playing aid (what wwe have now) to an actual battlefield group perception.

The game does not model Fog of Command. That is my main issue with not having some decision based entirely on the post viewing of the HQ movie. The game MAY have some tricks up its sleeve since C&C improvements have mostly just been mentioned but not discussed.

I do not want cmx2 to be the same dog with different fleas.

[ March 01, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

The AI will benefit from Relative Spotting because the player will not have as much of an advantage as he does in CMx1. The hardest stuff to program the AI to do is God/Borg like thinking. So the more restrictive we are on the benefits of Borg/God features, the more it evens the playing field between Human and AI.

Steve

OK

Please do everything possible to even the playing field for the AI

I sense that you are not at all interested in discussing this BUT if the FOW options could be set differently for each player, maybe the AI could benefit from the least Realistic FOW setting and maybe provide more of a challenge for the player. I am not sure how and I guessing it might be difficult or even impossible to do, but it would be great to know the AI might somehow be a little more challenging or competent with the Relative Spotting and all the other new features combined in CMx2

(maybe? )

-tom w

[Halberdiers]

Developers or someone please (maybe I'm lost the post):

There will be in CMX2 an unknown information about the battlefield TERRAIN ,for example an unknown destroyed bridge or unknown steep slope?. Or in other words , the Terrain can change during the battle and these changes could affect the LOS?

possible?

[ March 01, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Lee]

"Tom, yeah... Fionn for sure. He hasn't been welcome here for... gosh, 4 years now?" -Steve

Steve: I specifically recall Fionn being un-banned by BTS a year or two ago, so how

can that statement be true?

[JonS]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Steve posted.

“So.... how about this?

1. Relative Playback (Unit Based)

2. Relative Playback (HQ Based)

3. Relative Playback (Force Based)”

[snip]

I'm largely in agreement with Kip. However, please consider the pros and cons of including spooks in each of the 3 options - there is some good in presenting confusing information.

Also, would it not be possible to use all three at the same time, with the option being spooks/no-spooks? So, depending on what you'd clicked on, you'd get that units playback (or view during the orders phase), that HQ and all sub-callsigns playback (or view during the orders phase), or if you'd clicked on nothing, the force playback (or view ...).

Jon

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Some think you are Lewis, but unless Lewis has had amazing success with therapy... I doubt it. Even more so for Maximus. But there are plenty of others that have come and gone over the years. The only question is who were you before you became "Wartgamer"?

Steve

Ahhhhhhh, I just remembered another candidate - fairly similar style:

Fred. #76. Can't remember if he was banned or not.

Anyway, this is all just specklation on my part and of no value to the discussion at hand.

Of more value would be the following:

Steve-

I am assuming that Area Fire is getting "conceptually rebuilt" from the ground up? i.e. we will be able to pull a box or an oval within which we want a unit to direct fire, with the larger the area the lesser the overall effect, or something like that? I hope?

-dale

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kipanderson:

Steve posted.

“So.... how about this?

1. Relative Playback (Unit Based)

2. Relative Playback (HQ Based)

3. Relative Playback (Force Based)”

[snip]

I'm largely in agreement with Kip. However, please consider the pros and cons of including spooks in each of the 3 options - there is some good in presenting confusing information.

Also, would it not be possible to use all three at the same time, with the option being spooks/no-spooks? So, depending on what you'd clicked on, you'd get that units playback (or view during the orders phase), that HQ and all sub-callsigns playback (or view during the orders phase), or if you'd clicked on nothing, the force playback (or view ...).

Jon </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Lee, you remember only 1/2 correct... he was allowed back on after an enormous amount of energy was spent (on our part) to make this possible. But he wound up degenerating into the "Old Fionn" and went out of his way to launch rather vitriolic personal attacks against me, amongst others. That was in March/April of 2003 as I was able to easily locate an email from him just after I banned him AGAIN. Some people just don't learn, even when they choose to learn the hard way. So I'll amend my comment... he hasn't been welcome here for nearly 4 years, except for an extraordinary second (rounding down) chance period which he blew. I know you used (are?) buds with him, but he the nuke he used to burn his bridges with everybody at BF.C did one heck of a job.

Dale,

Of more value would be the following:

Yes! Let's get down to it, shall we? I'll have a large pizza with fetta chesese, black olives, and onion. No rush on that order though

I am assuming that Area Fire is getting "conceptually rebuilt" from the ground up? i.e. we will be able to pull a box or an oval within which we want a unit to direct fire, with the larger the area the lesser the overall effect, or something like that? I hope?

There will be more options for Area Fire, yes.

Steve

[flammenwerfer]

Right, first you 'use the buds' and then you order the pizza. Sweet. :cool:

[Lee]

Steve: Yeah, I like Fionn. He was always interesting to have here on

the CM board as is one of the more knowledgeable fellows who posted here when

it came to WWII in general. I know he could really bristle at times if someone

was attacking him in a personal way or questioning his integrity, but generally

he would debate his points on WWII or other (such as the history of Berserkers )

warfare history in a rather polite way, even if the debates sometimes got rather heated.

It sounds very much out-of-character for him to go off on a tirade on the folks

at BTS. The arguments always seemed to rather be restricted to other members

of the board who ended up locking horns with him for some reason or the other.

Maybe you just caught him on a bad day? I wasn't aware of this incident, I just knew

he was back on the boards and everyone was joking with him at the time and

was generally glad to see him back.

Perhaps an NBC team will come over to help with the clean up.

Anyhow, the FOW and relative spotting aspects of CMII sound very interesting.

[Philippe]

Fionn was an asset to the community and will always be missed. Perhaps when cooler heads prevail someone will institute an annual Fionn's again awake event, in the hopes that he has learned to master his temper.