Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 I suppose even ATG crews may be micromodeled also. Realistic crew type weapons, like M1 carbines or SMG may be available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Remember, the Germans and Russians had tons and tons of variations of their squad types at any given point in time, not to mention over the course of the war, so this is not simply a nationality thing. Steve Good news that historical variations are in. Don't forget, however, that individual platoons and squads were often - in veteran units at any rate - at liberty to organize in a manner that suited them. Will the player have that flexibility? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 Thats sort of a minutia thing at this point. Its been established that individual weapons and ammo loads will be modeled. Weapons might be remanned also I suppose so LMG get manned, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I hope the question of the pace of combat gets revisited. I've always been under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that when a platoon comes under attack at moderate range from a less than overwhelming force that the platoon commander would essential have the a choice between deciding to slug it out or pull back. That decision doesn't really seem to be present in CM firefights, because the losses that will be suffered when you attempt to disengage will outweigh any of the benefits. I think in the long run there's more realism in getting the overall picture right and the group relationships right than in getting the exact caliber of the bullets, the number of buckles in the Sam Browne belt, or the penetration values of a Pershing relative to poorly rolled steel. You can often make things more realistic by intentionally skimping on the details and making things more abstract -- simply because that extra detail often creates the illusion of realism rather than a realistic model of interrelationships. So I would make the heretical comment that it might not be a bad idea to have 1:1 eye candy, but I wonder if true 1:1 modeling might cause you to run the risk of being so busy with the nits that you lose sight of what you're really trying to model. Ty Bomba at (the now defunct) Command Magazine understood that simpler is not always less realistic if you can consistantly get the right outcomes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 Pace of Combat? Cmon. Its a bit off topic in a thread that is focusing in on a major design change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Hey Wartgamer, ever hear of a guy named Lewis/Username? He had your exact same attitude about these kinds of discussions. He is not really missed. Funny thing, the internet, eh? -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 He stayed on topic? Focused? Is that an exacting attitude? Exact same? Same exact? What is the attitude you are describing by the way? Can you express yourself so I can understand your jibey posts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 You can focus on tools, or you can focus on result. Designing around tools doesn't guarantee that they will relate to each other correctly. I can't imagine anything more central to a discussion of design. So pace of combat is exactly on point, because recreating that is supposedly what all this design brouhaha is all about. Having said that, I thought I was posting in one of the more public threads, and wound up in here by mistake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 I think they are striving for realism through exacting methods. I understand what you are saying but they have dug in around the 1:1 so lets explore it? I think what you are saying deserves a thread also. [ February 19, 2005, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: He stayed on topic? Focused? Is that an exacting attitude? Exact same? Same exact? What is the attitude you are describing by the way? Can you express yourself so I can understand your jibey posts? Oh, you know, he liked to "take charge" of threads relating to CM game design issues about which he knew as little (or less) as the rest of us players, was generally abrasive toward anyone that disagreed with him, belittled the designers and their goals, the players and their desires, that kind of thing. If that's what you call "focused", then oh yeah, he was focused. He was frikkin' collimated. Anyway, I'm just sayin'. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Philippe: So I would make the heretical comment that it might not be a bad idea to have 1:1 eye candy, but I wonder if true 1:1 modeling might cause you to run the risk of being so busy with the nits that you lose sight of what you're really trying to model.I think you (and others) need to get rid of the idea that 1:1 is "eye-candy". It has very significant effects on the gameplay itself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: Thats sort of a minutia thing at this point. Its been established that individual weapons and ammo loads will be modeled. Weapons might be remanned also I suppose so LMG get manned, etc. Not at all what I was asking, now was it.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 I hate to say this but I am beginning to see what the designer is saying about frustration. Dorosh. I see you want to have the gnarley old sarge having a sten gun and maybe a few of his admirers. If that can be modeled for you, I would be personally delighted on a level I can not express. But the point is that we are trying to get to the system wide implications of this radical change. Sorry, it feels like minutia to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer: He stayed on topic? Focused? Is that an exacting attitude? Exact same? Same exact? What is the attitude you are describing by the way? Can you express yourself so I can understand your jibey posts? Oh, you know, he liked to "take charge" of threads relating to CM game design issues about which he knew as little (or less) as the rest of us players, was generally abrasive toward anyone that disagreed with him, belittled the designers and their goals, the players and their desires, that kind of thing. If that's what you call "focused", then oh yeah, he was focused. He was frikkin' collimated. Anyway, I'm just sayin'. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer: He stayed on topic? Focused? Is that an exacting attitude? Exact same? Same exact? What is the attitude you are describing by the way? Can you express yourself so I can understand your jibey posts? Oh, you know, he liked to "take charge" of threads relating to CM game design issues about which he knew as little (or less) as the rest of us players, was generally abrasive toward anyone that disagreed with him, belittled the designers and their goals, the players and their desires, that kind of thing. If that's what you call "focused", then oh yeah, he was focused. He was frikkin' collimated. Anyway, I'm just sayin'. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 I am just reading. But it would be nice to discuss the issues. Do you have any inclination to do that? And I am not just sayin'. Kind of requesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 This is nothing new and anyone that has been around any product development knows it. One develops a sense of humor about it if they are smart.I'd say that newbies on our Forum, which I have been moderating for about 7 years now, should realize that I am already smart. But for some reason I still don't like it when posters try rubbing my face in what they think they know, when in fact they don't know squat. I have a thick skin, but that doesn't mean I let things slide. I'm funny that way, I guess As for putting up with the backwards thinkers... no thank you. I've learned that ignoring them only makes them post more often. Challenging them, even if I have to get in their face, seems to be a more effective way of redirecting their postings to more productive discussions. Not always, as you keep reminding me , but generally. As for Wartgamer being our favorite bulldozer driver with a new identity... I'm leaning towards "no". Either that or the years have mellowed him some! Back to 1:1 modeling. EVERYTHING is modeled in 1:1. Doesn't matter if it is a squad, an enclosed tank, or an open TD. 1:1 means 1:1, no exceptions. CMx1 already has remanning of LMGs in an abstract sense. When a casualty is determined the system chooses who to "off", which in CMx1's case that means a weapon gets removed from the squad. If that weapon is the automatic weapon (Bren, MG42, DP, etc.) the system gives the squad another shot at keeping it. With CMx2's 1:1 modeling means we can simulate this in a more direct and less abstract way. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 Almost too wierd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Don't forget, however, that individual platoons and squads were often - in veteran units at any rate - at liberty to organize in a manner that suited them.Could you expand on that ? I'm curious to see how this flexibility applied on the battlefield. Somehow related to 1:1 control. Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: I hate to say this but I am beginning to see what the designer is saying about frustration. Dorosh. I see you want to have the gnarley old sarge having a sten gun and maybe a few of his admirers. If that can be modeled for you, I would be personally delighted on a level I can not express. But the point is that we are trying to get to the system wide implications of this radical change. Sorry, it feels like minutia to me. Sorry, you have no idea what I'm talking about. I am not suggesting changes to the armament, and am fact discussing organization of an infantry section. You do understand the difference between "organization" and "armament" yes? And incidentally, "Sarge" in the CW would not be in an infantry squad - there was one per platoon, and he was the second in command - and most likely Left Out of Battle (or alternately, leading the platoon - see Aubrey Cosens at the Goch-Kalkar Road for a nice example. ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 Somebody shoot me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Tarkus: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Don't forget, however, that individual platoons and squads were often - in veteran units at any rate - at liberty to organize in a manner that suited them.Could you expand on that ? I'm curious to see how this flexibility applied on the battlefield. Somehow related to 1:1 control. Cheers. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: I am just reading. But it would be nice to discuss the issues. Do you have any inclination to do that? And I am not just sayin'. Kind of requesting. Why golly gee sure I do bossman. I think I have a post or two on that in this very thread, may it live a thousand years. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: Somebody shoot me Must...not...respond... Fighting...urge...losing...battle... -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 Any awards given out at the end of the yeAR? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.