Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Sergei: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rollstoy: Again, you guy are obsessed with spitting your venom all over this thread!Once once one has been canonized as a Grog, he don't have to be nice to mortals any longer. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 CMx2 will be a remake of Black & White whereby god's eye view is the whole point. Space Lobsters are sneaky ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hound Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 It seems to me thought should be given as to what made CMx1 so popular. That being we were given the most ACCURATE simulation of company – battalion scale combat ever devised, while still being PLAYABLE. Please don’t let us get caught up in the minutia of the trivial. It is a matter of sublime inconsequence trying to model such things as individual rounds of rifle ammunition, whether squad member A is a slightly better marksman than member B, or a medic treating blistered feet on the field of battle. More is not always better. Not even a platoon commander can or should be bothered by some of proposals I’ve read and game scale of play goes up to regimental level. There has always been a tradeoff between detail, accuracy and playability, and to this point Battlefront has balanced this admirably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Hoolaman: While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation. Why? -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Halberdiers: I know dalem, it is a crazy idea maybe . But ...maybe , maybe... It's not a crazy idea - it's a bad idea. -dale </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hoolaman: While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation. Why? -dale </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 David - may I suggest Battle Chess? Then again, Battle Chess was fun, but once you had seen all the animations once or twice, it really wasn't that enthralling anymore. The entertainment value - The Hound states this well, I think - is in the gameplay, not what the soldiers are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: David - may I suggest Battle Chess? The entertainment value - The Hound states this well, I think - is in the gameplay, not what the soldiers are doing. The Hound forgets one very important thing - the 3d environment and visuals of little men running around. You can have gameplay on a 2d map. If that is all you are after, you and Hound find one of those games. I've seen screen shots from your games - I know visuals are not important to you. But even though I have seen the little sprite throw a grenade 1000 times - it is still fun to watch sometimes. It would be even better to have a "battle chess" visual where GI Joe hits some German with his helmet. btw, I agree with a lot of your complaints about people wanting too much control. But a visual script depicting close combat doesnt have anything to do with game play, and it doesnt have anything to do with 1:1 control. If you want to talk about view six, start a new thread. [ January 31, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Danger Will Robinson!! This Thread is OVER 300 posts and needs Moderator Attention soon or they tell us something bad will happen? I think thin is post 308 to this tread Perhaps we can all move on and start a clean Thread with REAL news and less "noise" about this whole 1:1 representation thing thanks -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by David Chapuis: But a visual script depicting close combat doesnt have anything to do with game play, Rather the point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by David Chapuis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hoolaman: While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation. Why? -dale </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: This Thread is OVER 300 posts Oh really, Tom, what exactly is your source for this? I'm getting fed up with your strawman arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hoolaman: While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation. Why? -dale </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis: But a visual script depicting close combat doesnt have anything to do with game play, Rather the point! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by David Chapuis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis: But a visual script depicting close combat doesnt have anything to do with game play, Rather the point! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Now this is a good point. Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: And of course there is the familiar Grog whine about - what exactly is "close combat" anyway? Point Blank Fire? Grenades? Rifle butts, bayonets, shovels and fists? All of the above? Should these all be "factored in" to a generic representation of close combat (as they are now). If so - what is the best way to portray it visually? If not - same question. IMO, I would think that keeping the generic represenation (like they do now) for actually calculating the fight outcome would be the way to go. Then have a more detail visual (or two or three that it chooses from randomly depending on how hard the visuals are to make) that replaces the 'sprite throwing the grenade'. I remember reading in one of the manuals that they actually have sounds for hits with a rifle butt in CMx1. I dont see the problem with adding some visuals to go with that. Is there an advantage in terms of effect to distinguishing between shovel combat and grenade combat? I would definitely vote no on distinguishing shovel combat from karate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You've been missing the point all along, haven't you. You started this thread by asking if we would have medical personnel treating the wounded. At least then, you had the good sense to concede the point (well, duck the conversation altogether, really).Part of the difference has been people - including myself- have been talking about two different things. I never had visioned an actual medic that a player controls - I was misunderstood on that point I believe. I was just talking about what different visuals one could see when you had a casualty. One option would be to see a medic 'appear' and bandage somebody. A lot of work for no added playability - yes. So I dropped it, even though all it ever was intended to be was eye-candy. I explained to you that medical personnel generally weren't up in the midst of a firefight and that wounded men were evacuated only as time permitted (generally not in the midst of a hot contact.)However I still think that if a squad is exchanging fire at a hundred yards and a soldier gets hit, at least one of his buddies in real life is going to shoulder a rifle and help the guy for a bit. A good thing to portray from a game-play point of view. And now that 1:1 is being represented, it makes sense, IMO, to show it. You continue to ask for things that have no bearing on the company or battalion battle without any understanding of why you're being told why your suggestions really aren't important at the scale CM is attempting to portray. This statement is wrong on so many points, I wont even begin to respond to it. [ January 31, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Ignore the Grog-troll, lads. (Groll?) So, who's going to fire up the next 300 post thread on this very same issue? Heh. Gpig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w: This Thread is OVER 300 posts Oh really, Tom, what exactly is your source for this? I'm getting fed up with your strawman arguments. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by David Chapuis: However I still think that if a squad is exchanging fire at a hundred yards and a soldier gets hit, at least one of his buddies in real life is going to shoulder a rifle and help the guy for a bit. Based on what? A good thing to portray from a game-play point of view. And now that 1:1 is being represented, it makes sense, IMO, to show it.A game-play point of view? How so? </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You continue to ask for things that have no bearing on the company or battalion battle without any understanding of why you're being told why your suggestions really aren't important at the scale CM is attempting to portray. This statement is wrong on so many points, I wont even begin to respond to it. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by David Chapuis: Part of the difference has been people - including myself- have been talking about two different things. I never had visioned an actual medic that a player controls - I was misunderstood on that point I believe. I was just talking about what different visuals one could see when you had a casualty. Begging your pardon but you were NOT misunderstood. That's me & Michael's point. The graphic representation you describe is unnecessary for game play and arguably historically incorrect. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Shovel combat would be cool. Troops run out of grenades but the shovels just keep on giving. Elite German troops with the original Spaten should be unstoppable in melee. Those with the Klappspaten should receive a penalty until they are able to deploy their Klappspaten to combat configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by RMC: Shovel combat would be cool. Troops run out of grenades but the shovels just keep on giving. Elite German troops with the original Spaten should be unstoppable in melee. Those with the Klappspaten should receive a penalty until they are able to deploy their Klappspaten to combat configuration. Now that warms my heart. We will need mods to account for early war brown leather spade carriers, and late war black Press-Stoff carriers, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Mods, schmods. What's the effect on combat? The player needs to know which squad to send into melee, not Prince Harry's costume party. We're talking the difference between Assault Terminators and regular Space Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Close that thread! Open up a new one! Are you mad to post more than 300 posts in a single thread? Can't you learn from the past! Gruß Joachim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts