I quit...CM too unrealistic

[Louie the Toad]

Nac4

I am looking forward to CM the Early Years '36 to 43' because I thoroughly enjoyed board games that came out using these units in tactical encounters. I disagree, because of my gaming experience, that only the scenery will change.

Would you mind describing your credentials with regard to wargaming, playing and design.

Curious Toad.

[aka_tom_w]

Healthy dissent can sometimes be a positive thing.

I'm not so sure this is a positive thing.

But as long as the dissent is constructive and not just a personal attack it should not be casually over looked or disregarded off hand.

-tom w

[Nac4]

Steve,

I may be wrong, but I believe of the games you mentioned, ASL was the most recently released in 1985. I validate the merits of a tactical level game, what I propose is that we not settle there. We have the means and power to produce tactical games in the scope of Operational games, even further, but like I told Karch, small steps. Why aren't we? Why stop there? Why not continue to release groudbreaking work?

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Nac4:

CM is a wonderful product, it is the best on the market for what it does. Though not entirely realistic or historical based on the absence of operational repercussions.

You said it exactly, "for what it does." What it does is simulate tactical level engagements. It does so realistically and historically. You admit CM is a tactical game and then you bitch about it because it isn't an operational one

The market for an operational level tie-in is much larger than BTS would have you believe.

Actually I think an operational level tie in is a very large desire of many CM players. Anyone who reads the forum on a regular basis can attest to this. BTS isn't pulling the wool over our eyes as you suggest-if they were they'd lock and delete every one of the countless threads on the subject and throw this one into the fire. This is the only the umpteenth rehash of the subject so your little conspiracy theory doesn't fly.

And the work would be less.

Well, as you say O Wise One, "You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know." Why don't you go ahead and include the code you've never seen in that statement, too.

CMBB is BTS's answer to captilize on a cornered market. The have redressed an essentially identical product, rather than gaining consumer confidence and creating something as unique as CMBO was.

Do you have any idea how many improvements were implemented in the engine & game for CMBB?

I never referred to BTS as morons. Though I discredit their genious. Many of you must have a certain vested and personal interest in their work to defend against criticism as you do. Has BTS gone public?

No vested interest, but the forum as a whole enjoys watching the guys like you who come around to mouth off and insult, tell the people who designed a game how easy it would be to do things they themselves have no first hand knowledge of, and run smack dab into their own hypocracy.

BTS has no authority to question my expertise on the subject on which I write. You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know.

Cram it with walnuts Mr. High & Mighty. You have no authority to come in here and question the experience of BTS on the game they've designed unless you just so happened to work on the damn thing

BTS has repeatedly detracted from criticm even as far as equating it with masterbation. This attests to their resistance to healthy dialogue and the amount of time the spend alone on the computer.

Most of the time they calmly explain to people why their wishes can't be implemented, and said people are satisfied, until the old hothead know it all or two come around. Maybe you'd like to start a thread asking if people think the dialogue on this forum is healthy. Then again, I bet you wouldn't like the results.

If you market a game as realistic or historical, it should be.

It is, and this issue has already been answered. If you've really read every thread on campaign or operational levels in CM you realize that BTS has said the same damn thing over and over: It would be too difficult and take much time to write in to the existing engine and would delay future products, like a new engine for one. We as gamers have already found a resourceful way around this with the creation of CMMC-like games which even incorporate a human element that no computer operational level could do.

[PiggDogg]

Nac4,

With full respect to your views, I really don't want to spend a lot of time commenting on your posts here.

However, relatively quickly done & not formulated in to an erudite essay:

(1) Critisizing CM for what it is not and for what it has never been claimed to be, is your right, and that is acceptable to me. However, such critisism is intellectually and logically inconsistent and unfair.

(2) I have studied WWII since being young, and it is such a pleasure to be able to actually see the inter-relationships between the various weapons and tactical organizations of that war.

(3) Certainly, CM is not perfect and not perfectly accurate. However, it is pretty darn accurate. Further, for me, CM is a lot of fun, and I enjoy matching my wits against other fellows from around the world.

(4) If you dislike CMBO or CMBB and the concepts behind them that much, vote with your pocketbook. Don't buy them and put BTS out of business. That is your right and that is OK.

(5) There are maybe 6 billion people in the world and maybe 20,000 have purchased CM. Of those, maybe 2,000 play consistently right now. Considering the diparity in numbers between 6 billion and 2,000 to 20,000, obviously CM is not for everyone. However, I look forward to CMBB.

Nac4, good luck to you. Possibly, somewhere out amonst the 6 billion, the game that you wish for exists. I hope that you find it. Also, let me know when you do find it. I'll buy it too.

Cheers, Richard

[dalem]

Originally posted by Nac4:

No, I'm not drunk. The "grand" nature of Eastern Front has no bearing on the CMBB player beyond aesthetic and a few engine refinements. The nature of the "grandest front" will have absolutely no effect on CMBB because there is no front present. Its a scenery change. Can't wait to see what sets they've built for ACT III. Come on, wake up. This is just like EASports releasing a new Fifa or Madden game every year for the lastest uniforms and rosters without largescale improvements. How do you argue against "wave-riding"

Nac4-

Can you not see that the above post is a little pushy? Maybe not rude, but implying that I need to "wake up" to something in that fashion doesn't sit well, nor does it lend you much of an air of credibility.

What do I need to "wake up" to? Has BTS implied that CM:BB will be a quantum leap forward from CM:BO? No. Do I anticipate mostly "more of the same, but better"? Yes. Two of the changes I've read about that alone sell the concept for me are MG behavior and vehicle platoon morale, for instance. I'd be lying if I said I had any real understanding of their details, but from what I know and my experience with the game, they will hugely affect my game play. That's more than just a uniform change.

I'm curious - do you have a point beyond "CM doesn't simulate operational levels of play"? Because if you don't, I think most of us know that already.

-dale

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Nac4:

Point well deseved and well taken. I trust my lack of paragraph breaks didn't happer your ability to understand my post.

Oh, I understood your point... up to the point i stopped reading. I found it basically unrealistic and irrelevent. Unrealistic from a design point of view for the reasons already pointed out.

Irrelevent as I do not play quick battles. Stick to scenarios (there are a few hundred available and you can always make your own), or if the operational level is that important to you, play the CMMC. Being a veteran of TACTICAL combat, I can say this is the closest any game has gotten to the real thing

[Battlefront.com]

nac4

CM is a wonderful product, it is the best on the market for what it does. Though not entirely realistic or historical based on the absence of operational repercussions.

I think you should reexamine how you position yourself. The "You make the best chocholate cake in the whole world. But it is covered in dog poo" is not exactly a way to compliment without at the same time being horribly insulting. You were, are, and probably will continue to be little more than insulting.

The market for an operational level tie-in is much larger than BTS would have you believe. And the work would be less.

Cite your experience and professional business reasons for stating this. Otherwise you will pardon me and everybody else for thinking you nothing more than a faceless know it all behind a monitor with the ability (when you concentrate) to use the keyboard.

CMBB is BTS's answer to captilize on a cornered market. The have redressed an essentially identical product, rather than gaining consumer confidence and creating something as unique as CMBO was.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the laugh! If it was an essentially identical product, why did it take 5 guys 2 years to make something that only 2 guys 3 years to make originally? Or do you mean that that we are always supposed to change scope with each game we make because we make each one 100% perfect?

I never referred to BTS as morons. Though I discredit their genious. Many of you must have a certain vested and personal interest in their work to defend against criticism as you do. Has BTS gone public?

No, they are just seeing you for what you are. You don't like that, obviously, but not my problem.

BTS has no authority to question my expertise on the subject on which I write. You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know.

Then tell us, what games have you designed and seen through to completion? Then I will know what "authority" I am questioning. Until that time, you have no "authority" to question us without serious doubts being raised about the validity of your commentary.

BTS has repeatedly detracted from criticm even as far as equating it with masterbation. This attests to their resistance to healthy dialogue and the amount of time the spend alone on the computer.

No, healthy dialog is good. That is how we arrived at putting in literally HUNDREDS of features, big and small. But we have never once put in anything just because someone whined, complained, insulted, and generally behaved like a 10 year old at x-mas that did not get the right colored choo-choo.

I don't think that asking for an operational level supplement is akin to asking that Panther's never get killed by Shermans.

No, but the logic that we should listen to every half assed, hair brained request as if it is a nuget of gold is absolutely akin to your position. In other words, we reject only that which is not good, possible, or in the best interest of the game. Hard coding Panthers to be immune to Shermans is about the same as telling us that without an Op layer CM is useless. And that is your point.

If you market a game as realistic or historical, it should be.

It is, within its context. Making an Op level game as you suggested would be inhernetly no more or less realistic unless it encompassed everything above and below it. Which is a concept you apparently fail to grasp.

If you open a dialogue with consumers you should be prepared to deal diplomatically and judiciously with your detractors, not like a 20 year old college student.

Well, we do. With the ones who do not come off like thee aforementioned 10 year olds. Why should we treat you with respect when you have none for us? At least we have produced something other than insults.

I don't post because nothing has mattered to me as much as this.

Then try and act like an adult and not a spoiled rotten child. We listen to adults, we berate and spoiled rotten children. It is either that or banning them. So I give you the options:

1. Show some respect or prove to us and the BBS why you speak with more authority than we do.

2. Continue to act like a child and thus be treated like one.

3. Go away.

I want to know if BTS is planning to do anything in the operational arena at any time.

No. So if you don't want to play CM any more, as the title of this thread you started suggests, then perhaps you should stop wasting your time here.

Steve

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by Nac4:

The market for an operational level tie-in is much larger than BTS would have you believe.

This appears to be the critical argument. If, indeed, the market for an operational level tie-in is much larger than BTS think, then Nac4 has a point (a point put in a remarkably obnoxious and stupid manner, but a point nonetheless). If such a market doesn't exist, then the rest falls apart.

Now, I would hazard a guess that BTS has had LOTS of customer feedback over the years, and thus has a pretty good idea of what its existing consumers want, and maybe of what possible future consumers want. If Nac4 has some superior source of information, I would suggest that it's time to put up or shut up.

Either show BTS your market research that shows they're wrong - at which point it's worth talking about everything else, although you'll probably have to start yet another anonymous account to do so, since I doubt they'll be listening to your "Nac4" persona anymore - or admit that we're just talking "what if" here, not "should be".

[Cos]

Originally posted by Nac4:

I never referred to BTS as morons. Though I discredit their genious.

BTS has no authority to question my expertise on the subject on which I write. You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know.

So you can discredit BTS genious (authority) and alienate/chastise them, but no one can discredit/chastise/alienate you?

You've been promoting the game for a year and you just registered on 03/28/02? Sorry what you've presented so far is a someone who bought the game and it didn't contain everything "you" thought it should/would and are now having a fit.

I can think of another game developer who pops up here time to time with considerable experience designing WWII games and he does a much better job then you on posting politly.

Once you have his level of proven experience behind you then maybe you can speak with authority about how easy it would be to program your requests.

[Battlefront.com]

Folks, to be clear...

My posts here are directed at the messanger and the composition of his message, not the purpose for which claims to speak on behalf of.

Having an Op layer, above the the included Operations, is not an inherently stupid idea. It is not even necessarily a bad idea in terms of what might possibly be done IN THEORY when interfaced with the tactical engine. But... reality doesn't give a flying fig about this.

Contrary to the learned words of Nac4 (learned from where, I don't know!), this is not an easy thing to do. Heck, even defining the nature and bounds of an Op layer has never been done. People say they want "it" as if "it" is already defined and just sitting out there for us to implement. But it isn't. I have read dozens of threads and hundreds of posts about Ops. I can assure you that there is no consensus on how one should be structured and interfaced with the tactical engine. So before we did anything else, we would have to start there. And if anybody is fool enough to think that this is easy and not time consuming to do... I gots this bridge up for sale, dirt cheap!

OK, so let us say we spend the 2-3 months desining a system that everybody would be happy with (hahaha). Then we have to code it, do artwork for it, come up with data (I spent almost 6 solid months on the tactical TO&E, so do NOT claim it is easy armchair game designers!), test, work out kinks, test, work out more kinks, test... you get the picture, and HOPE that we did not bite off more than we could chew. Not only from a development standpoint, but from a gameplay standpoint. Afterall, what is the point of having all this stuff if the very people it is catered to serve find it "daunting" or "not fun"?

All this work takes time. Easily 2 years. During which time nothing else would get done. No improvements to the tactical engine, no multi-multi player, no graphics engine redo, no higher resolution terrain, no Relative Spotting, no NOTHING.

Those who claim this is a "no brainer" or "a piece of cake" or "easy money" are NOT sitting looking at 3-4 years of very highly risky development effort. Be prepared to give me the mortgage to your home, your car loans, access to your personal finances, and (if you have it) your kid's college fund/s or your retirment fund/s if the game tanks or is never finished and we can start talking on an equal footing.

Now...

I asked before. Can ANYBODY name me a game which was equally superior to all others in both Tactical and Operational levels? I have asked this question dozens of times and there have been NO answers. Note that Nac4 dodged this question.

Now, how many games out there have tried to do this and have fallen to the critics and whim of gamers or were never released? I can think of several, one of which I already mentioned which never saw the light of day.

It is our position that a full fledged Tactical and Operational level game, with all the accuracy and quality you have come to expect from us, is too much for us. Let me say that again... we do not have confidence that we can make the game you have in your minds AND not lose ground in the process. Perhaps even losing it to the point of going out of business.

Does this make us cowards, lazy bastards, or above average designers/business guys who aren't afraid to risk more than the bulk of people out there BUT who know the difference between lofty idealism and cold hard reality?

If it were so bloody easy, it would be on the feature list. It isn't, so it isn't. No amount of respectful wishing, whining, or insulting can change that.

Sorry folks, I have burst this bubble so many times in the past I am running out of ways of doing it gently. There is only so much that can be asked of us, even if the intentions and manner of them is good.

We might some day make an Operational level game, but it will not include a Tactical layer. The logic expressed above works no matter which two levels are chosen.

Steve

[windstarz]

CM broke new ground and was an ambitious gamble that paid off. For all of it's so called faults it is still one hell of a game. CMMB will be an improvement over CM and then a new engine rewrite. Things if done right work in a progression.

This guy wishes the game was everything he wanted it to be if only someone would listen to him and make his wishes come true. But generally that isnt the way life works.

Enjoy what CM does right and wait for the next incarnation. Remember only a dozen or so people or groups in the world can make a great game. All the failed games that have come out and are still coming out attest to that fact.

[Battlefront.com]

Cos,

You've been promoting the game for a year and you just registered on 03/28/02?

Me thinks Nac4 has posted here before, but under a different Username. I am even pretty sure I know which one. An arrogant and insulting tone such as his has, thankfully, been seen on this BBS only very rarely. I have a mental list of those who fit the profile. Did a check on some Moderator stuff, and although not a perfect match there is a tidbit or two that supports my guess.

The previous member was not banned, but instead "went away" after getting into one too many threads just like this one. Which would explain the new Username and some other things I dug up.

Of course I could be totally wrong and instead have to add another name to the short list I mentioned

Steve

[Franko]

Well, as an active member of the CM community, I think I owe my two cents, but feel free to disregard it. I think I get what Nac4 means, but "boycotting" or "quitting" the game seems silly to me. But I respect his choice. Nevertheless, here are my thoughts on many of the topics raised:

"GAMINESS"

I think a lot of the criticism of CM, of which there is ample (although much of it unfair and misplaced), is that it allows "gaminess".

I don't think there's a way to avoid "gaminess". We all have an idea of what combat was like, and what tactics are like, and what tanks could do what to other tanks. I've a read a lot of oral history of World War Two, and many "real life" tactics, translated to a gaming environment, would seem "gamey" to us. I won't bore you with examples. There are many out there. So what is actually "gamey", in objective terms, will remain illusive.

Naturally, some "obviously" gamey tactics we can do without: i.e., the suicidal rush of the jeep driver to "scout out" enemy positions, hugging the "edge" of the map, loading yourselves down with Pumas (although there were only a few dozen on the entire Western Front), using "crews" to scout, etc. On the whole, I think that Battlefront (Steve, et. al.) are doing a fine job addressing man of these issues with "rarity" in CMBB (based on what I've seen so far). However, by and large, "realistic" tactics are usually rewarded with victories.

REALISM and OPERATIONS

As for "realism" (simply the corrollary of gaminess), I think the addition of an extreme fog of war provision will also go a long way to mollifying many critics. But I think that BTS is doing that, too.

As for Operations, CM responded wonderfully to a post I made about a year or so ago, lamenting some of the design limitations (or holes) in the Operations model. I agree that it can be developed better, but I think that BTS must inevitably maintain some reasonable level of abstraction -- it would simply be almost impossible to satisfy the cravings that Nac4 desires: his bar is simply too high. But overall, I think CM does a good job at "faking it": and I have no reason to suspect it won't get better. During the design process, Battlefront no doubt had to make a BUSINESS decision and FOCUS on what its goals were, and get them done. I respect that.

QUICK BATTLE

The quick battle serves a useful purpose and I have little critism of it: the map generator maybe creates some dumb-looking maps, but they're usually okay. Its fun for the one-off game. I don't see a problem with it.

REALISM IN GENERAL

I don't want to get in a lengthy discussion about the AI, but I think its initial setups (when you allow it to) leave a lot to be desired. But I think a clever designer can avoid it if possible. Personally, I think I would be a MUCH better scenario designer if I knew some of the AI assumptions and coding secrets: but I don't, so I have done a lot of trial and error and guesswork, relying mostly on anecdotal evidence. I think that scenarios, to be truly great, must have TRAINED scenario designers, who know the ins and outs of the coding.

Therein lies the rub. My only criticism of CM, per se, is that the SCENARIOS are usually not well designed (I'm thinking of noone in particular here, but I've designed a few losers myself). I suspect its because that so much effort went into the ENGINE, and apparently less into "executing the vision". I guess the metaphor would be that Battlefront have composed a wonderful musical score, but the composer is absent when the rest of us seek to interpret and play their music.

Or perhaps a better metaphor is that they designed the motor vehicle, tossed us the keys, and said "figure out if its a race car or a farm tractor." But to be fair to CM, how could they let us know the coding assumptions, without giving away to much? Simply put, I want to know more about how the AI behaves, so I can design around it and through it.

REALISM AGAIN

Some final thoughts on realism. I haven't fought any wars, I've just read about them. Generally, I think scenarios should be longer, and their should be more "waiting around" while artillery lands, men get organized, etc. Infantry sit around for hours waiting for something to happen. And then when it happens, they usually get obliterated in minutes. But my god, what a boring GAME that would be, and therein lies another rub: Battlefront also wants to entertain us, in an evening, over the internet, or whatever. They don't want to be TOO realistic: because real war is hours of boredom interrupted by sheer terror, as the saying goes. And who the hell would want to purchase THAT game?

The gang at BTS deserve respect because they are dedicated to the ETHIC of realistic wargaming. Plus, they are extremely dedicated to their product, so I have every reason to expect great things from them. Since they were the FIRST computer tactical wargame of its kind, and the finest wargame on the market, I will remain loyal. But maybe they could help us play their music better.

F

[ May 28, 2002, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Franko ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Steve, I look at Close Combat and their attempts at an operational layer - it didn't work. Some people loved it. I know you are right when you say "it" hasn't been done yet, and most people don't even know what "it" is - or conversely, there are 10,000 different concepts of what "it" is....still and all, perhaps our new friend can lay out exactly how "it" would work for us, and make us all "happy".

I don't know art, but I know "it" when I see it....same thing applies to operational or campaign layers, I reckon. The closest I saw was the original M-1 Tank Platoon - admittedly a rather ancient example, and not a perfect one by any means.

Others would post here that they hated Microprose's concept of "it"....

I guess we are all so amazed that BTS pulled such a magic rabbit out of the hat on a tactical level, we expect you to have all the answers for everything we have dreamed of during years of tactical wargaming.

So now we expect you to have all the answers to the rest of our dreams.

Serves you right, you magnificent bastards.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Of course I could be totally wrong and instead have to add another name to the short list I mentioned

Steve

Steve-

If you ended up being wrong on this one you'd have to chalk that one up as a major boo boo on your part.

-dale

[Louie the Toad]

Ok, so now we know. No Operational tie in with CM.

But here is something to think about.....

It just occured to me that part of the 'uncertainty' of Operations is that your objectives and the enemy's may not be directly opposed to each other. For example, maybe my objective and therefore my Victory, is to take the bridge. Maybe my opponent's objective and his Victory is to minimize his casualties. While I get points for taking the bridge, he gets points for conserving his force (in order to fight another day).

Victory Conditions could be used to simulate Operational Orders under which both players operate secretly from each other. Once again, maybe my orders -- Victory Conditions -- are to inflict as many casualties upon the enemy as possible, without regard to my own. Whereas my opponent is to hold onto the crossroads until the end of the game.

Yes, there would be some scenarios where the battle would be like ships passing in the night, but that would happen with an Operational Overlay too.

Using a list of say six to ten Operational Orders the AI could assign each commander an Order that the other commander would only be able to figure out by the actions of his opponent. So now a player would have to determine what the enemy was up to and try to prevent it, PLUS attain his own Victory Conditions. Victory Points for following the Order would be enough to determine the outcome of the game.

I don't know, but it seems to me that something like this is within the scope of CM: BO, BB, XX.

Modestly proposed by ...... Toad

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Of course I could be totally wrong and instead have to add another name to the short list I mentioned

Steve

Steve-

If you ended up being wrong on this one you'd have to chalk that one up as a major boo boo on your part.

-dale</font>

[THumpre]

While everyone is swinging away at the fences I would like to add my 2 pfennigs worth....

The lack of an Operational Layer and it's impact on the relative "realism" and "accuracy" of the game...

This is rubbish. At a tactical level the commander on the spot needs to get the job done, period. He doesn't give a crap whether he uses up all of the 30cal ammo in a sector so long as he is victorious. If you are defending and you know you will likely die if you lose forces considerations of material conservation out the window. Besides, if you lose all of that valuable equipment the score reflects this lack of "tactical" planning

Another consideration is that it is simple to add an Operational layer to even a QB. Here is what you do: Discuss the battle parameters with your opponent, pick what you both consider to be fair and realistic force mixes, and set extended victory conditions(such as protecting a percentage of your forces) to be factored in by you after the battle. As far as an more elaborate Operational level, I suggest you look to some of the multiplayer campaigns that are being run as we speak. Most of these have a very detailed Op Layer.

My last pfennig will likely fall on deaf ears, but I need to vent. You complain about a lack of features which are completely outside the scope of the game design, and claim that the lack of these features make the game unrealistic. What immense hubris. This is BTS's game, their forum, and their vision. If you don't like the game Nac4, don't play it.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Nac4:

BTS has no authority to question my expertise on the subject on which I write. You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know.

Why? you have no authority to question their expertise either, Ie, were you incolved in CMBO development, do you have some inside knowledge that gives your opinion more weight then Steve or Charles knowledge from codeing it?. Why should I accept your 'authority' or 'expertise' on this subject over the designers. IMHO the above is an arrogant statement. & you can take that from someone who has gone head to head with Steve on other issues & have come to respect Steve from those engagements.

My advice to you, is to sugest how all this could be modeled, in an consise fashion, & drop the tone. As to me your post came off like a wandering barrage; with no actual point of impact. I agree operations are not up to par in CMBO but so far in my years on this board I have seen 100 like complaints, & 0 solutions offered on how BTS could fix them.

BTS has repeatedly detracted from criticm even as far as equating it with masterbation. This attests to their resistance to healthy dialogue and the amount of time the spend alone on the computer.

BS, BTS has defended their position on their modeling, & when given evidence something was wrong Ie, the Tiger E mantlet they have admitted an error & fixed it, due to user input. I dont agree with useing mastrabation as an point but from the tone of your post I can see why Steve might be a lil upset.

I don't think that asking for an operational level supplement is akin to asking that Panther's never get killed by Shermans. Your "Fuzzy Logic" may work on your flamers but not here.

In the respect of your posts whine sound I see why Steve used it as an example, because your post also contained 'fuzzy logic' as its premise. As you offer no solutions to adress your complaints, only complaint upon complaint.

If you market a game as realistic or historical, it should be.

And can you point out where CMBB is not realistic in what it was designed to simulate Ie, an tactical wargame where the operational level day to day goings on arn't a factor unless the scenerio designer simulates them. Can you not make an historical Co OOB?. Is armor penetration not realistic, or Artillery effects within te scope of CMBO?. I'd also add that we all have difrent definitions of realistic as well Ie, what I consider 'realistic' you may not agree, we all have difrent POV, the trick is finding an common ground the majority will agree is 'realistic' in portrayal.

If you open a dialogue with consumers you should be prepared to deal diplomatically and judiciously with your detractors, not like a 20 year old college student.

Can BTS not expect the same courtesy in return from its consumers?. You can have all the valid points in the world, but the tone of how you write it can have adverse affects on how it is recieved. Thats the problem with text based conversations, as things can be infered from the percieved tone of the text that t4e writer may never have intended, which leads to misunderstanding etc.

I want to know if BTS is planning to do anything in the operational arena at any time.

Then why not just ask them?.

Regards, John Waters

[ May 28, 2002, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by THumpre:

This is rubbish. At a tactical level the commander on the spot needs to get the job done, period. He doesn't give a crap whether he uses up all of the 30cal ammo in a sector so long as he is victorious. If you are defending and you know you will likely die if you lose forces considerations of material conservation out the window. Besides, if you lose all of that valuable equipment the score reflects this lack of "tactical" planning.

Leaving aside the rest of the argument for the moment ... where did you come up with the above? In general, a commander should be thinking two levels up, so in a bn engagement you should be considering the bde picture, not the company one. Also, the ref doesn't walk onto the pitch after 30 or 45 minutes of fighting with a plate of oranges and tell everyone to take a break - combat goes on, and on, and on.

I respect BTSs decision, of course, but narrow interpretations of "what war is" like THumpres don't help discussion much.

Regards

JonS

[Viceroy]

Nac4,

if you've played the game as much as you claim you'd have realized casualties DO matter in the final score/victory levels.

One particular example I remember was in a PBEM game I played last year. On the final map my opponent held 3 out of the 4 flags and the 4th was undecided. I still won because I'd inflicted more casualties.

[NightGaunt]

my answer to all your posts about the need for realistic force usage, realistic commanders, force preservations, etc etc etc.

simple answer: PLAY PEOPLE THAT PLAY THAT WAY.

Personally, I play that way, I don't use gamey tactics, and I don't throw troops away. Maps don't have VPs, and most games I play don't go to the end, my opponent and I agree when the end should come dependant on the situation.

I have found PLENTY of opponents who play this way. There are no arguments about flamethrower walls. No rush of crews. No waste of trucks as scouts, etc etc etc.

My answer to you is, the problems you listed can only be fixed by YOU. Get some like minded players and setup a campaign yourself. Its not that hard, there are plenty of rules sets around that can be modded to your liking.

The game isn't going to be changed to fit your 1 view. WHY? well there are a whole lot of people who like playing it THEIR way, which is different. And battlefront last time I checked wants to make a successful game.

As far as your "battlefront doesn't listen", well, I'll just write that up to you being bitter, because if you have EVER tried to get feedback from pretty much ANY OTHER GAME, you would understand how responsive battlefront is.

[Gyrene]

I have nothing constructive to add to this thread, I'm just here to introduce Mr. Johnny Cash, after a long absence from the CM forum:

o/` "And I fell into a burning ring of fire" o/`

o/` "Down, down, down, with the flames getting higher" o/`

o/` "And it burns, that ring of fire, that ring of fire" o/`

Thank you Mr. Cash, we now return to our thread, already in progress.

Gyrene

[imported_Wildman]

As much as I yearn for the "what this battle means in the larger picture" theme, I honestly don't think very many people would like it if it was produced.

My example: Imagine CMMC as a one person vs AI game. Each map is 2km x 2km, sometimes with very few forces on it, sometimes its 3 - 1 and not in your advantage.

Now here the killer. The time involved to play the darn thing. Looking back on the average CMBO player, a male in their 30's, married with kids and a job. Where do you find the time to find upward of 6 30-40turn battles, all for the first couple hours of a army sized attack. How long have they been at CMMC, and their on what Day 3 or 4 (that's a guess, its been a while since I played) and thats over a year of actual time!!

I know I rarely finish a "campaign" when I play games. I haven't finished Falcon 4, and I've had that damn game since Dec 1998. Not Close Combat, Steal panthers, or a host of other games. I just didn't have the time and my interest waned after six months or so.

If you desire a game where the macro view is the most important you cannot use a micro view to solve all of its "war" variables.

A third person addon to read CM info would be nice, but really, who has the time, money, and desire to do it right for no pay? Now if someone wants to fund this little adventure, plan now and provide the required specs to BTS so that it is incorporated into CM2.