I quit...CM too unrealistic

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by 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

I love these kind of threads because they remind me of Scooby Doo episodes. We all catch wind that some mystery has arisen over at the local abandoned and eerily spooky mansion, or in this case a thread.

"Ruh roh Shaggy, rere's a ghost!"

"Woah man, like no way! Good job Scooby Doo!"

"That must be the one that's scaring away all the new customers. We'd better stop it."

"BaaaaaaAAAAAAAAaaaaaddddd, Commmmbaaatt Missionnnn isss baaaaAAAAAAAdddddd. Steeeeeve issssss a liiiiiiaaaarrrrr, BTS succckksssss, IIIII coould maaaaaAAAAAaaake aaa bbeettterrrrr gaaaaammmme"

"Like, get him Scooby"

"Roh kay!"

(Funny xylaphone effects play as the gang spin their legs before running off)

(Everyone chases after the ghost while arguing back and forth about CM's merits. Finally the ghost trips and falls flat on his face after shouting that CM is unrealistic in that it only realistically simulates tactical combat)

"Righ rot rhim Shaggy!"

"Good work Scooby, now let's take off his sheet and see who this ghost REALLY is!"

*GASP* "It's Nac4 from the gas station!"

"Wait a minute, he's got a mask on!"

*GASP* "It's not Nac4, it's crazy Mrs. Booboo from the flower shop!"

"No wait, that's a wig! *GASP* It's old man Username from the amusement park!"

And so, with the mystery of the ghost now solved, the gang piles back in their van and heads off. Who knows what adventures they'll uncover in the next week?

[Panzer_Meyer]

What I don't get is why these people keep comming back every so often. They voice their opionon once, BTS answers in a clear way. Yet a week later they post the same argument, yet more harsh. BTS, same answer.

Again, the person comes back, maybe a week or month later, now with rants, accusations and 4 letter words. BTS applies a ban. A few weeks go by and the person is back again, but with a different *username*, yet, with the same topic. Post in a way where one has to stare at the monitor for hours trying to disipher what the person has written. After one gifted person finnaly makes heads and tail of the topic posted, we come to find that it's a topic discussed a hundered times and all those hundred times we got the same answer from BTS.

Then someone figures out who that person is. Everyone knows that persons agenda, and everyone knows that person has been kicked/banned or worse. Yet that person keeps comming back, posting the same crap over and over.

I don't get it... Do these people just have nothing better to do? Did these people ever hear of masturbation, cause it's great when one is bored.

[Gyrene]

I don't get it... Do these people just have nothing better to do? Did these people ever hear of masturbation, cause it's great when one is bored.

Not right now. I'm saving myself for a wrestling match 2 months from now.

Wacky: "If it wasn't for these meddling CM'ers I'd have gotten away with it too!"

Gyrene

[Wolfpack]

I suppose I'm one of those that Nac4 would put in his "majority" of customers. I'd love to see CM taken up to the next level. Now, having said that, am I willing to wait on CMBB and the rewrite and (most importantly to me) the early war version? No. Like Steve said, if it was something that was easily done, it probably would get done.This is the best tactical combat sim on the market, bar none. And it looks like it's going to be the best for quite a while considering some of the competition I've seen. And they're coming out with one that promises to be even better. I may not be completely happy, but then, there's always something that I think could be improved in any game. War in Russia by Gary Grigsby is probably the best high level East front game ever. Does that mean it's perfect? Far from it, but I still have a great time playing it. And that's pretty much what it's all about when you're playing a game isn't it?

As for the customer service and responsiveness. Someone must have been under a rock for the past couple of years. BTS has never stopped checking the forums to see what we think, or if we've spotted something that might have slipped through. And when someone posts something that isn't possible, or would require too much work to be practible, they tell us.

The past couple of years has been a great time for small companies and individuals creating games. I already own 2 , and have at least 2 more games that I will buy, that were developed by either individuals or very small companies. One reason is that they are infinitely more responsive to the needs and desires of their consumers. When is the last time you've had a huge gaming company developer take the time to personally answer your questions or respond to a feature request? BTS is responsive, and they do care what we think...unless of course, you come across sounding like some 10 year old playing judge and jury on someone elses life work. So, from someone who is (I admit) disappointed that there won't be a higher level to CM, Thank you BTS for what you have given us, and what you will continue to give us. And thanks for your patience in putting up with the hordes of people asking for (insert feature here) without end. I'm sure you know that the great majority of us respect what you've been able to do with what you have, and will continue to support you for as long as you put the effort into the products that you do now.

[CMplayer]

Operational/campaign level games can be run perfectly well by a human referee, so I don't see what the fuss is about, actually.

With regards to that if the scenario editor were given a little bit more power it would be easier to act as a referee. This would be things like editing in casualties into squads (the same way you can edit ammo), or placing wrecks and shellholes onto the map.

[jrcar]

G'Day Steve,

actually I can think of one simulation that is trying to do what this poster has suggested..... its called WARSIM see Warsim Its currently cost about 1 Billion dollars US, several years late and employs hundreds of contractors... apart from that I can't think of anything else

Cheers

Rob

[Ozzy]

Nac4 has some serious and true issues here. I myself think similar in many aspects (e.g. artillery support, casualty rate, force abd supply preservation). This is the reason why I refuse to play quick battles, but play instead historical battles which are provided by many excellent sources. That helped me a bit. But not enough....

...until... I found Combat Mission Meta Campaign (CMMC), a massive RPG multiplayer campaign on Corps operational level. Here you can find ALL the aspects of military warfare from Company to Army level. And the battles are resolved via CM:BO, and that is why I love playing these - you know of your role, your orders, and the objectives. You note influences from sister units and unexpected enemy action, etc. etc.. :eek:

But in one important aspect Nac4 is plain wrong: CM:BO is NO crappy game.

If the battles are crappy, then it's because the players buy/setup/play crappy. With CMMC, the known tournaments, and rules (Fionn, etc.), you CAN create an almost realistic battle.

[Runyan99]

I did not bother to read Nac4's post, but I am VERY pleased to hear that the operations got a lot of attention for CMBB. Obviously, the operations in CMBO are slightly broken, but they are still my favorite way to play. I am really looking forward to seeing what improvements CMBB brings to the table.

For BTS - Please never abandon the operations. The extended nature of the fighting rewards players who can conserve their forces, and therefore minimizes "gamey" and "unrealistic" play. For these reasons, IMHO the operations are as true to life as CM can get.

[Tripps]

Remind me not to say anything other than praise on this forum, some of the replies were worse than the original comments...

[Prinz Eugen]

Nac4, go ahead. See if I care

[Kwazydog]

Tripp, I dont really think that comment is fair on the forum members here.

If you do some searching you will find plenty of polite posts questioning various aspects of CM and our forum members have gone to great length to explain and comment on these points. I have been very pleased with the amout of work some members have put in to explain certain points time after time without an ounce of frustration.

I think the difference here is that the above post was not a polite one, and thus in turn it recieved the response it did. Considering it is so easy to be polite when one wants too it certainally isnt suprising that some people take a dim view to such disrespect.

Dan

[ May 28, 2002, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[WineCape]

As posted by MD:

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.

Brilliantly put. THAT is my 2 South African cents input, which comes to 0.0020 US cents with today’s exchange rate. May I venture that this gentleman has drunk some bad, bad wine when he posted originally?

Charles, Steve, Martin, Matt, Dan, Deanco, you are all magnificent (to this customer) bastards (according to my wife).

Cheers!

Charl Theron

*Bolding mine.

Oh yes, this Chardonnay should be sent to the magnificent bastards for their work...

Er, that yellow spot on the label on the left of the hippo is not what you think Steve

Packed into this wine carry box...

-------------------History Note------------------

On 22 December 1944 General Heinrich von Lüttwitz, commander of the German XLVII Armoured Corps, sent a message to General McAuliffe, commander of 101st Airborne Division* demanding he surrender the surrounded town of Bastogne. McAuliffe’s reply, “NUTS!” is probably unequalled in the annals of military history, both for its brevity and the amount of confusion it caused in the German camp before it was deciphered.

*The 101st Airborne Division held out in Bastogne from 19-26 December 1944. The 4th American Armoured Division, under Patton’s Third Army, relieved the “Battered Bastards of Bastogne” during the German Ardennes offensive.

---------------------

Edited: ['Cause it was just plain sacrilege to leave out KwazyDog in the equation]

[ May 28, 2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Brian Rock]

I see these discussions on every board I visit. Well, since everybody but the Pope has chipped in I may as well add my squawkings.

I would also like to see an operational level to CM. Apart from the fact I prefer operational level combat, I believe the "thinking two levels up" aspects of command would add depth to CM. However I think it's worth asking a few questions:

1) Does it's omission mean the game is broken?

Nac4 thinks yes, because people can choose to play the game in ahistorical ways. I think no, because people can choose to play the game in historical ways.

The tactical mechanics leave it up to the player. User's choice. I choose to play historically. Unless I'm bored, then I set up a QB with zillions of Tigers vs a bunch of Stuarts.

2) What would it cost to put in an operational level?

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch; everything has an opportunity cost. There are only so many hours in a day, so what should be sacrificed? Research on OOBs, accuracy of gun and armor models, revisions to operations, improved graphics or what?

3) What right does any consumer have to impose their expectations?

This one is easy: none.

I might think the ideal Mercedes Benz should get 1,000 mpg and cost $200 - may as well make them fly while I'm at it - but flaming MB for not producing them won't get them built.

If BTS don't build in operational factors, that doesn't mean what they do produce is flawed. That would be like concluding a Mercedes 300 SE is flawed because it doesn't match the specs of my

4) Will this discussion make an operational game happen?

No.

Given that BTS have always said their focus in on making a tactical game it seems sensible for them to keep CMBB a tactical game.

If you like a product, buy it, if not, don't. Sellers and buyers are both allowed to make choices.

[End spiel]

[ May 28, 2002, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

[Andreas]

Just read through this - memories of running HMGs come back. Since I saw my grandparents on the weekend (they both do fine, thank you very much), I think it is about time to bring out my grandmother's take on this sort of discussion again:

'The way you call into the forest, it'll call back on you'.

Regarding the basic complaint - play scenarios. Scenario designers (well, the good ones anyway) take care to design in a lot of the operational complexity.

Regarding CMMC - interestingly, there is still a boundary issue upwards, i.e. to Army Command. This is simulated by a GM, but still it can be a problem.

Regarding CMBB being just CMBO with an added Balalaika. Obviously Nac4 knows something I don't. I am very interested to hear which CMBB he is playing, and where he got his knowledge from. Could he be a Beta tester, one wonders...

Well, not really.

[Titan]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

S.Sgt. Havilandt ,

Hard to imagine so many people being proved so wrong simply by someone who has figured out how to pack a couple hundred words into one paragraph.

Steve

Way to go Steve sock it to him .

There is always one out there that has the answer and we just found our's

[Mace]

Originally posted by Rommel22:

Did these people ever hear of masturbation, cause it's great when one is bored.

Certainly passes the time. (hey, why are you all staring at me for?)

Mace

[ May 28, 2002, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Mace ]

[Caesar]

It is disapointing that Nac4 chose to air some reasonably valid points within such an arrogant antagonistic diatribe. I agree that the limitations of CM result in excessively agressive commanders with little concern for casualties. I agree that force compositions can at times leave a lot to be desired from an accuracy point of view. I agree that some concern for logistics would add to the game. I agree that it would be great if BTS provided mechanisms for integrating with their product. The rest of his post is just a waste of keypresses.

I too would like to see a strategic layer to the game but I can fully understand BTS's decision not to attempt one. They have rather limited resources - just one developer. Successful companies maintain focus. The rather flippant way that Nac4 says that they should just work up to the strategic level naive to the point of stupidity. I want the strategic layer enough that I am in the middle of writing one that will work with CM. I have worked out a way to integrate with CM (with some limitations). I am making good progress and hopefully will get this finished at least to the point that it will serve my needs/wants. So far I have spent around 30 hours a week for the past two months. In spite of this, I exagerated when I said I am in the middle - I am nowhere near the middle yet and I am not trying to produce a commercially releasable product with all the required research, documentation etc. I am just trying to produce a fairly powerful tool that will manage and umpire campaigns and large operations for me, provide the logistics and battle variations etc that I want.

I am not sure there truly is a viable market for the strategic layer, at least not one where the battles are resolved via CM (games like AA are another story, but they do not provide the action that I like). Large scale operations/campaigns will take a lot of time and dedication on the part of the players and so the number of participants (and therefor customers) will be somewhat limited.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by jrcar:

G'Day Steve,

actually I can think of one simulation that is trying to do what this poster has suggested..... its called WARSIM see Warsim Its currently cost about 1 Billion dollars US, several years late and employs hundreds of contractors... apart from that I can't think of anything else

Cheers

Rob

Well, great, now we only need to make WARSIM playable solitaire on a PC and fling in the WW2 unit details and we've cracked it. I'd be preapred to bet that the AI would play worse than it does in CM:BO, though.

Personally, I feel no desire to command anything bigger than about a battalion; telling every corporal's guard where they should be every minute just gets to be too much effort after a while. I'd rather see CM add more detail at the section level, so I can order my blokes into arrowhead, file, single file or line.

It's true that commanders are trained to think two up and two down. It's also true that the humblest private soldier will, in a well-run army, have been given some idea as to the state of the national and international conflict. But as one moves further away from one's own level of concerns, the detail of one's perception becomes fuzzier. You would know the location of every section in your own company, perhaps, but only platoon locations for the rest of the battalion and battalion locations for the rest of the division. Likewise you would have greater vaguesness about their strength, activities, intentions, terrain and enemy.

Now, obviously, there is an easy answer to all this. What is needed is a method of portraying to the player the level of detail that is appropriate to his organisational (or in some cases physical) distance from the thing (and "thing" could mean place, friendly or enemy unit, or intention) being looked at. In the case of terrain, say, you can see the leaves in your immediate vicinity, the trees in the rest of the forest, and the forests that stand on distant hills. Notice that we've also got rid of the "edge-of-the-map" effect here -- one is in the centre of a notionally infinite terrain, which decreases in detail of representation in all directions. When more detail is needed, it can be generated and stored (an incremental-detail geotypical terrain generator is considered a fairly easy thing to produce compared to the rest of the problem).

Evidently, changes in the displayed state of distant undetailed things will need to be updated less frequently than those near at hand. For friendly and enemy units, where information is not available from the player's direct observation, the detail available should depend on what has so far been reported to the player. To prevent the player achieving god-like omniscience, but the decision speed of a snail travelling uphill with a lot of heavy luggage, the player will need to be able to "tune" the level of detail he wants on different aspects of the situation, so that they can be viewed at different magnifications (and of course we need to be sure that the underlying representation loses no detail when "magnification" changes).

So, under the Salt Universal Continuum of Knowledge Engineering & Representation System (SUCKERS), one or an arbitrarily large number of players can experience a synthetic environment at levels of detail and updatedness appropriate to their physical and organisational position in the overall scheme of things. "Near" things will appear at high resolution, "distant" things at low, and with time-lags appropriate to the time it would take the player's character to become aware of them.

Having once mentioned the idea, I shall wait for, ooh, six weeks before declaring that STRICOM, DSTL, DSTO and everyone else are unutterable poopy-heads for not yet having implemented a scheme like this, when 9 out of 10 of their customers would love to see it.

All the best,

John.

[REVS]

It's a game, it's a game, it's a game. I started out with plastic Civil War boys in 1980 on the timber living room floor running down roads of masking tape, with model-railway trees down the side. Then along came Squad Leader and I thought we were really sophisto. Bought all the Cross of Iron, ASL stuff too. Loads of fun. Great games. Then along came Combat Mission. The best game yet. But that's all they are. Games. How on earth could a rational human being with an understanding of military history imagine this stuff to be anything other than a wonderful, marvellous, really excellent game? It's a game. Always will be a game. It's so good it might aspire to be something more than a game. Go talk to a real soldier for half an hour and you're soon brought back to earth. Get real. We're playing a game. I can't get bothered about "gameyness" and other issues. It's a game. It's a game. It's a game.

[Slapdragon]

I think one of the problems BTS will always find is a desire to turn a game on small level into something else. For example:

Why can't every squad member be independent.

Add that and then the requirement would be:

Why can't every weapon carried by every squad member be modelled.

Add that and it would be

Why can't each round of ammo be modelled?

Add that and it would be:

Why can't the trajectory of each round fired by each soldier be modelled and the entire source code provided so I could predict the landing point of each pistol shot before I fired it (note, this is not impossible, and in a squad level game may even be desireable).

Then, one those demands were met in the year 2030, the requests for the campaign would come rolling in:

You simulate an hour, but everyone wants a whole day

then

Ok, now you have days, but I want a week

then

Ok, now I want the month.

then

on and on.

No one ever explains how this would be done. Ever. But the game they envision would take 780 CD-ROMS and 60gb of hard drive space because there is no limits to what the uninformed want.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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.

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.

Steve

Some might say Across the Rhine was close. Albeit the tactical game was crippled (for me anyway). If played as a RTS with an operational layer, then it worked for some folks.

Perhaps what people should be doing is offering suggestions on how to seamlesly and efficiently implement such an operational layer rather than criticise BTS.

There might be ideas out there that haven't been thought of or considered by BTS. Attacking BTS like USERNAME NAC4 did is not the way to go.

I'd like to see an operational layer built into the CM series, but not at the cost of other games in the series. Maybe at some point in the future, BTS can get together with their other development teams (MajorH, Panther Games, Hubert Cater, etc) and have one of them help in the creation of the operational layer for CM.

For instance, there are some of us who look at AA and see how it could work as the operational layer for CM if it allowed the manual input of battle results from CM battles.

CM is and will continue to be the premier WWII tactical wargame.

[aka_tom_w]

I was mistaken,

Nac4 is not Lewis aka Username

previous post edited

-tom w

[ May 28, 2002, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[The Pope]

Well, since everybody but the Pope has chipped in I may as well add my squawkings.

Sorry for the delay, I've been a little busy and a bit under the weather but I am here now.

I would like to say that I haven't a clue what any of you are talking about, and that you all don't speak enough Latin.

[Ozzy]

John, you chief of the S.U.C.K.E.R. universe

don't know if your posting (btw. many true words)was in answer to my latest posting.

Maybe I have missed to explain somewhat better what I meant.

While for those which want a complete military surrounding, tournaments or CMMC will be an almost perfect solution, I feel quick-battles to be not very satisfying in that question, even with rules (not to say they are not important!).

However, CM offers VARIOUS options for scenario battles, which unfortunately are not always exploited by some authors. Among these are:

1) Scenario Briefing. Ahh, what a powerful tool! Many times I read three pages of the historical background, but the battle briefing itself only consists of a force composition list and "take hill X", "defend town Y". In reality, the battle briefing would provide you with terrain reconnaissance, intelligence, maybe even tactical options, would remind you of your logistical limitations and emphasize force preservation.

2) Unit Editor. Options like reducing/increasing ammo amount (supply status!!) and composition (e.g. a StuG III G (late) in an infantry support role might have more HE, as AT weapon (Panzerjäger) more AP rounds), morale/suppression and fatigue are often too less exploited. CM:BB will obviously add even more parameters here.

3) Victory flags. Was the operational objective of the mission to TAKE or to CONTROL a town/hill/etc.? Maybe I can *operationally* control a town from a hill or control a hill by blocking the only road to it WITHOUT taking the specific terrain feature. Hence scenario authors can add the operational aspect of the objective by placing victory flags not or not only on the terrain feature, but on the key locations to control the area.

4) Support. Many of the support weapons of military units are organized on Divisional level. A good example is artillery. A prepared attack or defense will always include the recording of Artillery Targets and creation of artillery outposts. However, I often cannot find TRPs (and I mean realistic Divisional recorded target areas, which are easily 10 times larger than the area covered by CM standard TRPs) or artillery outposts (instead spotters edited as moving units attached to platoons)

As you can see (and Nac4 can learn), there are more than enough options, which only need to be exploited. Many of the excellent scenario editors around here do it, others not...

[Slapdragon]

One thing someone may really want to do is write their idea, have a trusty application programmer work on the game, THEN submit it to BTS. In my game The Magenta Onion, one of the players has been hard at work at an application which will control the GM side of a metacampaign. Perhaps this fine programmer will come up with something that shows promise. So maybe I will ask if he would not mind sharing it with BTS, first sending a letter to BTS asking if they have an interest in an unsolicited application. I will write this letter on paper.

Now, maybe BTS sees a market for our product. The market has to be big enough to justify time spent providing the hooks to the gentlemen with the programming knowledge. Of course, by this time I will be a third wheel and will have long since back off the project -- leaving the original programmer and BTS to work it all out. All I want is an appplication to do the heavy lifting of a GM.

I will bet dollars that BTS will be willing to listen to someone with some code in their hands.