I quit...CM too unrealistic

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Steve, I look at Close Combat and their attempts at an operational layer - it didn't work.

I think that the mechanism of cutting off individual units and the associated effect on the supply level works pretty well.

Furthermore, the fact that the initial setup on maps depends on the strategic movements adds a lot of variance on the map level (Attack, defend, meeting engagements from different directions) and, thereby, replayability.

One major difference between CC and CM is that in CC you can finish battles in 15 minutes and a day of fighting in about 3 to 4 hours. This makes an strategical layer feasible.

I am just playing a Campaign in CC4 and seen from a healthy distance of a few years it is a fun little game!

Regards,

Thomm

[Farslayer]

Don't want gamey play or gamey unit selection?

Choose your opponents better.

Tired of ME quick battles?

There are a very large number of scenarios out there, a few dogs, but also some excellent ones as well.

If you are as concerned with "reality" and "operational effects" as you tout, you should know enough to play without points in mind, and be able to determine the "victor" by what the battle cost you.

IIRC, BTS did not set out to create an operational level game. They are privately held, so don't get upset that they didn't build what you want. Charles and Steve built what they wanted, and found out that alot of other people wanted that also.

As soon as you are the primary investor, maybe then you can make some of the decisions. Until then, I'm just damn happy that the Magnificent Bastards are doing what they are doing, because no-one else has done it.

[Henri]

Having been away from this forum for many months, I come here to see if there is any info on the upcoming new CM, and the first thing I see is a thread that painfully reminds me of why I voluntarily and bitterly left this forum last year.(And no, I never came here under a different name).

Yes, the original poster attacked BTS, but the vicious ad hominem attacks in response by BTS and their unconditional supporters are unjustified and unfortunately too typical of this forum. Hey, the poster is FRUSTRATED and is venting, but his "attack" against BTS deserve to be shrugged off, and the valid points of his message addressed.

Having said this, Steve is probably right in saying that what is asked for may be impossible, and would certainly require more resources than BTS have. And I completely agree that it is for game producers to decide what their game should be 9and for buyers to decide if that is worth buying).But gamers STILL have the right to criticize and question.

Now for the controversial part: as someone pointed out, other games HAVE been extended with campaigns, and SPWaW has been vastly improved and the Megacampaigns with linked battles are a great success, and I am having a great time playing one.i am tempted to say that at this point, SPWaW is a better game (or at least moe fun) than CM!but that is another story...

Steve has pointed out that doing this with CM from the proposals that have been put forward would require too much recoding and I have no reason to doubt him. I wish that he could have pointed this out politely and left the predictable flaming to his faithful acolytes (OK, that is not in his nature...).

Finally here is a question: why is it that the SPWaW forum and other matrix forums are free of the flame wars that sporadically appear here? My view is that the reason resides in the intolerance here to those who do not line up with a certain orthodoxy.

I participate in many wargame forums every day and have no problem getting in an occasional hot debate (the usenet forums can be pretty wild sometimes). But this forum is just too much for me.

henri

[Commissar]

It's ridiculous to judge something by a standard it never claimed to meet. At no time did BTS ever say CM will model the operational level. Since I came to this board, which was several months before CM was even released, BTS strenously stated it was TACTICAL. To complain about the lack of operational factors is like complaining about how a horse has no AC or automatic transmission. If you want those things, you ride a car. If you want an operational level game, I suggest you go find it. You can argue that operational factors would affect the tactical but the line had to be drawn somewhere. If you have any experience as a programmer, you know what the dangers of scope creep are. A gross majority of progarmming projects fail simply because people keep wanting to add more stuff which pushes back release time again, and again, and again. Where I work, we get that all the time. Most of the time the people doing the requesting really don't have a clue what they want or need but they have no problems demanding this or that.

I've been playing wargames for like 15 years. I can tell you now there is no such thing as a perfect anything much less a perfect wargame. It would be great if such a game existed but you're never going to find it. Don't like "gamey" tactics? Then don't play online. No matter what you play online there will always be cheaters and other lamers out there. If the tactics are gamey then just deal with that. Everything has a counter so you are just going to have to be flexible in dealing with these situations like any realistic commander would do. At worst, just choose opponents that will agree to not to use such tactics. Don't blame BTS for what some other lamers might do.

[Ozzy]

I don't WANT a perfect game.

"I wish all your dreams come true - except one. So you have always something that is worth to strive for."

[KNac]

Well, I will give you, my friend (Nac4) some points, and the give you a RL example. First of all I would like to say, that you seem to live in a "perfect and nice world" but not, the world is not perfect and nic, why I say this? Easy:

1.-If you want a perfect simulation, play reallife. Never, I say NEVER, will be a perfect simulation of RL. If you want a perfect simulation of how a war runs, go army

I don't know why some grogs and sim types always make me point this, it seems so easy to understand to me.

2.-Well, people have to live, did you know? and they need money for that. If you want a team of 3 guys to make the perfect game you want (ey! I would like it too, too bad it cannot happen) you must give theya lot of money, so they can develop a game in 20 years without earning a single euro for those 20 years, because I suppose they must eat and those things. The bad thing, is that when they finish that game 20 years later, it will be out-dated

Now the example: www.wwiionline.com what a bunch of cool people making that game, all them very nice, very bad that when they released their game after 2 or more years of developement it was uncompleted, lacking 10/11 of it´s promessed features. Oh, I didn´t remember, the team was something like 20-30 guys (lol, BTS team it´s only 5) That game was (is) trying to go farther than you said, it is trying to go to the individual rifle men.

But my friend, after 3 years of developement, they had a uncomplete game and very unrealistic game (those guys made Warbirds, so they were looking for a realistic as they could game, until it loose fun, and that's an other topic, make a too much realistic game and no one will buy it, because it will not be fun). They are now in red numbers, I hope they will improve their situations, but after spending some million $ I don´t know. I wouldn´t like to be in their skin.

Now, ís you who should wake up, my friend and return to the real-life.

cya

[Tarquelne]

Hey, the poster is FRUSTRATED and is venting, but his "attack" against BTS deserve to be shrugged off, and the valid points of his message addressed.

Ah, "venting." There should be a special forum for that. One that people can post to, but no one can read.

"Deserve"? Why not turn it around, and shrug off the hostility of some of the responses and address only their valid points?

Finally here is a question: why is it that the SPWaW forum and other matrix forums are free of the flame wars that sporadically appear here? My view is that the reason resides in the intolerance here to those who do not line up with a certain orthodoxy.

Several years ago I remember "chatting" in a few USENET messages with a regular of the Combat Mission board (Fionn?). We agreed that web-forums tended to be nastier than USENET... So, anyway, I'm interested in the question.

This forum seems to have about 40% more participants. (Total registered members.) Comparing some other numbers, this forum (Battlefront vrs. Matrix) has about 100% more posts. (Though Matrix may have taken pre-200 offline.) The CM general forum (not Tips and Tricks, etc.) has about 300% more active topics over the last 5 days.

I think that goes a long way toward explaining a higher incidence of "nastiness." As the community gets larger the number of conflicts increases at a rate faster than the actual increase in memembers too, I believe.

Finally, as realistic as SP is, it isn't as much the grognards game as CM. And we all know what "grognard" means.

("As much" is a key phrase in the statement above, btw. That conclusion isn't based on any number crunching, but I've played both games, and read both forums.)

As for BTS's "viciousness". Steve is definetly showing signs of "I've already had this conversation!" burnout, and, to a lesser extent, so are a number of the long time posters. I don't think I need to get into why this is the case. It'd be _nice_ if Steve and everyone else could approach each "suggestion" with a fresh, cheerfull attitude. But I'd rather have an honest response than the usual PR whitewash.

[flamingknives]

And we all know what "grognard" means.

Errr, I don't. Would someone see fit to enlighten me? I know the type of person who gets labled a grog, but why? Why not fiddlespooner?

If you want to simulate force conservation, make an Operation of about company size, set the number of battles to 10 or more, with 30min battles.

If you can't be bothered with that, email me and I'll send you one of mine

[SturmSebber]

Obviously Nac4 has bought the wrong game (for him).

I'll admit that (at least in europe) reviews were not very common and i still have to see the first pc/games magazine with a demo of cmbo here in Belgium.

Yet i find it bizarre that someone can attack a game so visciously about features wich it nevere boasted to have, you are complaining about options wich are just not there (yet?).

Sure, i could agree to some of your points, but post them as a CONSTRUCTIVE hint to the makers of the game, not as a reason why the game is total crap.If NASA lands on Mars, will you call them names for not landing on Uranus?

In the way you post your "suggestions" one can clearly see that you do not truely wish to post something that will broaden the game-experience in the long run.... You are just looking for a fight(and thus obviously for a life as you do not seem to have one right now). You have the diplomacy and insight of an elephant and deserve everything that is heading in your way because of this.

Work out your frustrations somewhere else and not on forae where i like to spend my evening relaxing.

Sturmy

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And we all know what "grognard" means.

Errr, I don't. Would someone see fit to enlighten me? I know the type of person who gets labled a grog, but why? Why not fiddlespooner?

</font>

[Nac4]

I'd like to say some more...

First, Steve you are wrong, add me to your small list. I have only posted under nac4 and have correctly been a member only since 3/28.

Second, I would again like to reiterate that CMBO is a superior product. Though again I feel that without an Operational overlay it is incomplete and thus faulted.

Third, As I stated in my well articulated but poorly written original, for those of you who did not actually read it, I AM a fan of BTS.

As to answer Steve's request for games that accomplish operational and tactical combat, some members have mentioned games I am aware of, namely: the CC series and SPWaW. The arguement that this proposal has never been done well only supports the need for such a product. BTS noticed 5 or so years ago that their was no viable product that accurately modelled tactical combat. So they created one. I trust no other company more than BTS to create this newest product and fill this void.

I officially apologize to the forum for the tone of my original post. As stated by others, I was venting. However dark the tone, I don't feel that at any point I used slander or insult to support my points. In addition I don't feel that the tone of the original post negated or invalidate my points.

That being said, I realize this issue has come up before, and I understand the frustration of answer multiple requests for the same thing. However that is no excuse to use derrogatory or explicit remarks in the replies to this thread.

As for my authority on the subject, having more or less authority in programming and design should not lessen the validity of my arguement. And as I stated earlier, game coding is not my field, though I am FULLY aware of the pitfalls and miss-ques it entails.

Finally, I have seen many posts reguarding ways to utilize the current capabilities of CM to model Ops. One of my favorite is the CM*10 posts recently. Perhaps I should have taken a few breaths prior to writing and posed a question rather than a statement. Admittedly that would have been more productive.

[karch]

Henri,

Sorry to hear you think that way. I hope you don't use double standards in every aspect of your life.

If you have spent any time at all on this forum, you would know very well that you can disagree with the game mechanics or scope all day long and have great intellectual discussions about those differences.

****BUT****

Coming online to post like a spoiled child because the game doesn't work the way you want it to will get you nothing but a hornets nest. No one is attacking him because of what he is interested in, or because he disagrees with with BTS, but because of the way he flew off the handle and was rude. As well as making many statements that are either lies or based on things he knows nothing about but acts as if he does.

People like this don't deserve any special treatment, come in swinging and someone will invariably swing back. If you can't see that the people who are attacked are usually attacked for their attitude instead of their content, well, your loss, not ours. It's been gone over hundreds of times and if you can't understand that, then maybe you should just refrain from posting.

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Nac4:

As for my authority on the subject, having more or less authority in programming and design should not lessen the validity of my arguement. And as I stated earlier, game coding is not my field, though I am FULLY aware of the pitfalls and miss-ques it entails.

Having less authority does make a difference when you tell the programmers of the game that "It can be done much easier than they would have you believe." or words to that effect. Unless programming is your area of expertise, then you have no right to make a statement like that. I can sympathize with the idea you have, it would be wonderful, but I wouldn't condone coming in here and telling the programmers their business. If there's a market, and it's possible, it will be made whether by BTS or someone else. You'll just have to be patient.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Nac4:

...Perhaps I should have taken a few breaths prior to writing and posed a question rather than a statement. Admittedly that would have been more productive...

Exactly.

Since I first had a look at this BBS over two years ago I was always astonished about BTS' willingness to discuss certain aspects of CM, listen to others and explain their point of view.

When certain questions were asked for the threehundredst time, I was often surprised how calmly they reacted...

Your post came along very rude, since in effect you told BTS that they didn't care for their customers wishes.

No wonder that their answer came a little harsh, too...

Originally posted by Nac4:

...Though again I feel that without an Operational overlay it is incomplete and thus faulted...

Well, that's your opinion. I have absolutely no problem with this and enjoy CM every day.

Would I like to see some 'campaign style' gameplay in CM? Sure, why not.

But then, I'd like to see an end to absolute spotting, better arty modelling, horses, motorcycles, tanks exploding and turrets getting knocked off...

And since BTS' repeatedly said that an operational layer for CM would be very hard to implement I'd rather see some other features.

[Battlefront.com]

Henri,

Having been away from this forum for many months, I come here to see if there is any info on the upcoming new CM, and the first thing I see is a thread that painfully reminds me of why I voluntarily and bitterly left this forum last year.(And no, I never came here under a different name).

I remember VERY well why you left. And I have a very different point of view on that than you do, obviously. I also think you are not a very good judge about what the average post has been like in the past year since you haven't been here. I think there has been maybe one or two of these a month, with thousands of others inbetween. Not a bad record considering the USENET groups are the exact opposite.

Yes, the original poster attacked BTS, but the vicious ad hominem attacks in response by BTS and their unconditional supporters are unjustified and unfortunately too typical of this forum. Hey, the poster is FRUSTRATED and is venting, but his "attack" against BTS deserve to be shrugged off, and the valid points of his message addressed.

You read this thread, correct? The points were quite calmly addressed, but we were still left with reading his attitude. And that was responded to differntly, as it should be. People that step WAY out of line, showing blatant disrespect and an out of control ego, deserve to be put back in their place. Or banned, but we don't like to do that. So there is the choice, single out the odd arrogant insulter and give him a good going over, or ban him. There is no acceptable third option here, or in society at large. Treating guys like Nac4 with kid gloves only invites more of it.

Plus, I am more sure than ever I know who this guy really is, and therefore think he got off lightly. He was never banned (no major boo boo on my part , but he left us alone for a bit and assumed a new identity after getting a similar dose of rightous indignation from the forum regarding his posting "style". And we were all happier for his departure.

Having said this, Steve is probably right in saying that what is asked for may be impossible, and would certainly require more resources than BTS have. And I completely agree that it is for game producers to decide what their game should be 9and for buyers to decide if that is worth buying).But gamers STILL have the right to criticize and question.

Sure. Find me any quote on this 400,000+ BBS that shows that we do not agree that gamers have a right to criticize and question. Just one will do to prove what you insinuate. I know you won't fid it. You will, however, find lots of evidence to support the notion that this is OUR house and if someone comes in and craps on our carpet, they will be either dressed down and/or shown the door. This is a good thing, as it prevents this forum from going the way of USELESSNET.

Now for the controversial part: as someone pointed out, other games HAVE been extended with campaigns, and SPWaW has been vastly improved and the Megacampaigns with linked battles are a great success, and I am having a great time playing one.i am tempted to say that at this point, SPWaW is a better game (or at least moe fun) than CM!but that is another story...

Each to his own. I stopped playing SP many years ago because I found it frustratingly inaccurate. I couldn't have fun when my Panther's bounced rounds off the backs of T-34s at 2 hexes away and the like. I know SP is fun to a lot of people, some even swear up and down that it is an accurate simulation, but I have the right to be critical of that just like people have the right to be critical of CM. Each to his own.

Steve has pointed out that doing this with CM from the proposals that have been put forward would require too much recoding and I have no reason to doubt him. I wish that he could have pointed this out politely and left the predictable flaming to his faithful acolytes (OK, that is not in his nature...).

Check out the dozens of other threads on this topic. If the questions are posed by rational, respectful people you won't find me being insulting or the "faithful" heaping it on too. Do not confuse the treatment of the messanger with the treatment of the message. I certainly don't.

Finally here is a question: why is it that the SPWaW forum and other matrix forums are free of the flame wars that sporadically appear here? My view is that the reason resides in the intolerance here to those who do not line up with a certain orthodoxy.

I would like to think that the occasional dissent is because of two reasons (besides Human nature):

1. There are more people posting here with a wider range of backgrounds and reasons for being here. This means more chance of friction.

2. People are FAR more critical of CM than SP because SP is, and always will be, an approximation of warfare and not a simulation of it. Matrix has made improvements, but the game system itself does not lend itself to simulation to the degree that CM does (3D environment, simultaneous play, physics to the nth degree, etc).

And it is, of course, a matter of your word that there are no flame fests over at Matrix. I am sure that is not true.

Ask yourself Henri... if Nac4 had posted a neutral or respectful post and follow ups, would this thread have had any nastiness to it? I know it wouldn't. So lay the blame where it bleongs, frimly on the shoulders of Tr.. er... Nac4.

And you are helping the tone of this forum with your post, how? The Gamey Recon thread is still one of the most favorite threads to recount, BTW. It obtained Classic Status

I participate in many wargame forums every day and have no problem getting in an occasional hot debate (the usenet forums can be pretty wild sometimes). But this forum is just too much for me.

Yup. That much is obvious from the past and from the tone of your current post. But a sour attitude like yours certainly doesn't help fix the problems you appear to find around here, does it now?

Steve

[Directive#21]

I'd like to make 2 points: 1)Nac4's post may seem semi-inflammatory but I believe it was calculated. This subject of campaign play appears so often on this board that even I sometimes ignore them. (No one desires campaign play more than me!!!) Look, practically everyone from BTS responded in the first hour of the post! Now, it is 5 pages long. So yes, it was effective.

2) CMBO is as close as this genre has ever been to the perfect game. However, the lack of campaign game play has reduced CM replay value significantly for a large majority of BTS's customers.(If you disagree with this statement search the topic and see how many of the 9000 members of this forum really favor campaigns). In economics, the term is "diminishing marginal utility"! The fact that a game can come so close and never seem to take the next step is very frustrating (as is evident in Nac4's post). If Nac4 didn't appreciate BTS and CM he wouldn't have wasted his time writing on this topic!

Directive#21

[Flipper]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Cos,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Nac4,

I'd like to say some more...

First, Steve you are wrong, add me to your small list. I have only posted under nac4 and have correctly been a member only since 3/28.

I'll take you at your word, so unfortunately another mental entry made.

Second, I would again like to reiterate that CMBO is a superior product. Though again I feel that without an Operational overlay it is incomplete and thus faulted.

You have the right to think this, of course, but your logic is horribly flawed. I have addressed this in many other posts. You can not section off any one or two levels of combat and call it "perfect". Impossible. So your concept is no less flawed than ours. However, your expectations of what can and should be done are.

Third, As I stated in my well articulated but poorly written original, for those of you who did not actually read it, I AM a fan of BTS.

Then why all the BS? I know I don't go around insulting and pissing on people I have respect for, either personally or through their work, so why do you? It hints at something deeper in your personality that is not all that positive.

As to answer Steve's request for games that accomplish operational and tactical combat, some members have mentioned games I am aware of, namely: the CC series and SPWaW.

I asked for games that did this without a serious group of detractors having at it for faults. Both of these, especially the CC series (#4 in particular) have many detractors. I am one of them. So once again, my challenge has gone unmet.

The arguement that this proposal has never been done well only supports the need for such a product.

Nobody has made Cold Fusion practical either, even though in theory it is wonderful and there is a big need for it. The reason why it doesn't exist has more to do with simple wants or needs. Same for what you are looking for.

BTS noticed 5 or so years ago that their was no viable product that accurately modelled tactical combat. So they created one. I trust no other company more than BTS to create this newest product and fill this void.

I thank you for the voice of support, but we do not think we can pull it off, so why should you?

I officially apologize to the forum for the tone of my original post. As stated by others, I was venting. However dark the tone, I don't feel that at any point I used slander or insult to support my points. In addition I don't feel that the tone of the original post negated or invalidate my points.

Thank you for the apology. However, note that your points were not negated by your attitude. Respect for you was perhaps negated, but your points were addressed for what they were.

Everybody deserves a second change though. You came off one way, in several posts, but you can repair the damage by learning from your mistakes. And they were, without question, mistakes.

That being said, I realize this issue has come up before, and I understand the frustration of answer multiple requests for the same thing. However that is no excuse to use derrogatory or explicit remarks in the replies to this thread.

They were in response to your attitude, and I think totally understandable. From a society standpoint, I even think necessary. Perhaps even positive. People do not change behavior when they are pandered to. They tend to keep on going or get worse. Think of what you read as healthy for your character, should you choose to understand the underlying reasoning.

As for my authority on the subject, having more or less authority in programming and design should not lessen the validity of my arguement. And as I stated earlier, game coding is not my field, though I am FULLY aware of the pitfalls and miss-ques it entails.

Sorry, if someone goes to 8 years of school to get a Masters in structural engineering (or something like that), the person who drives over bridges and has NO formal experience *IS* not even in the same ballpark of "authority". You claimed yours trumped ours, which was even worse.

Or put another way... if you have a lump somewhere on your body, do you ask someone who has watched ER and daytime soaps for a diagnosis or a doctor? If you ask both, which one would you think had more "authority"? The profession of creating computer games, specifically wargames, is no different than any other profession. So when an outsider claims to have equal or greater authority than the insider, expect to be scoffed at.

Finally, I have seen many posts reguarding ways to utilize the current capabilities of CM to model Ops. One of my favorite is the CM*10 posts recently. Perhaps I should have taken a few breaths prior to writing and posed a question rather than a statement. Admittedly that would have been more productive.

Breaths are good, take as many as you need

Steve

[Nac4]

I felt like my last post would return the thread to neutrality. Based on their response, BTS has no desire for this.

I never claimed my occupation and knowlege of programming "trumped" yours. One flaw remains, I KNOW what you do for a living. I know game coding though I no longer make an income doing so. You have no idea what I do. If you want to argue occupational complexity you're opening an entirely relative and subject box. I'm confident in my abilities and "authority" I needn't pursue that. My arguement is NOT that recoding to allow for a 3rd party or sole proprioter Ops programs would be simple. My argument is that it would have its merits and rewards. Rewards I believe greater than CMBB.

I believe Directive21 has accurately targeted the issue I raise. The market exists, if you're anxious about a return, charge $70 for the product. Games such as these devolops loyalists, you know that.

I'd spend $100 on a BTS game that fuses OPs with their Tactical engine.

[Henri]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Henri,

Fortunately there is an objective verification of this: just go to the Uncommon Valor forum on matrixgames and look at a new thread with the words "fed up" in the title, very similar in tone to the one opening this thread here, that severely criticizes UV for not being like pacific War, the wrong scale, etc.

Not a SINGLE reply among the dozens of replies to the original message flames, insults, or puts down the poster of the message. But he is put in his place politely as is normal.

You are wrong in thinking that this forum will become another Usenet forum if you don't put dissenters or those who do not use the correct tone "in their place".

A tolerant attitude is not a fault.

Having said this, I will buy your new Combat Mission as soon as it comes out. But I will probably discuss it on the Usenet forum instead of here.

henri

[dalem]

Originally posted by Nac4:

I believe Directive21 has accurately targeted the issue I raise. The market exists, if you're anxious about a return, charge $70 for the product. Games such as these devolops loyalists, you know that.

I'd spend $100 on a BTS game that fuses OPs with their Tactical engine.

Nac4-

I would like you to reroof my garage. I will pay you. It needs a new roof. I'm not concerned that you never expressed interest. Do it now.

-dale

[Priest]

I am in the process of reading all of the posts but let me just say one thing that I have noticed so far.

If you want operational level games, or at least CMBO games that take that into account then join CMMC or any other operational game currently going. And before you say "but I do not have time for that" or "I want to control everything" realize how unrealistic that is!

A.) If you cannot make time for it, then you really do not want it that bad!

b.) IIRC more than one guy actually makes decisions in an army!

BTS has not given out it's source code (rightfully so I might add!). They have stated time and again that CMBO is a TACTICAL GAME! And finally many inspired fans have put together some very fun and very very realistic operational games together!

If that is not enough, then too bad! This is the really real world and you do not always get what you want, especially if it is not realistic (please refer to the really real world comment above!).

CMBO is an excellent game, CMBB will most likely aslo be an excellent game, if you do not like excellent games then you have a plethora of horrible games to choose from.

Finally remember that most of the gamey tactics, and "unrealistic" blah blahs are caused by the player (let me say it slowly P-L-A-Y-E-R) and not inherently by the game engine. I have played since the demo and never seen a single jeep rush, over use of FLAK guns or truck, nor anything else that is written here. Mainly because I play with a great group of guys (and gals) or I play within the constraint of an Operational game. Again if you cannot take responsibilty for this yourself and do either, well welcome to "Its Your Own Fault Land!".

I will finishing reading the posts and give my full impression afterwards. So far the original arguement is lacking.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Henri:

Fortunately there is an objective verification of this: just go to the Uncommon Valor forum on matrixgames and look at a new thread with the words "fed up" in the title, very similar in tone to the one opening this thread here, that severely criticizes UV for not being like pacific War, the wrong scale, etc.

Not a SINGLE reply among the dozens of replies to the original message flames, insults, or puts down the poster of the message. But he is put in his place politely as is normal.

If a forum is about something that masses of people are inrested in, this politeness thingy doesn't lead anywhere once things heat up. I have seen a lot of forums (mainly mailing lists) going downhill because people continued to try to be polite until the average tone from the growing unwashed masses drove *them* away.

You underestimate how popular CMBO is, and popular outside the civilized wargamer circles.

[ May 28, 2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Cull]

I was definitely staying out of this one, but now I feel like I may be the only one that hasn't posted, and I don't want to be different...

1) Nac4's jackassian approach pretty much got what it deserved, at least from the forum dwellers

2) I would absolutely poop a giant cinder block with glee if BTS could come up with what he proposes

3) I will continue pooping cinder blocks with glee if BTS continues doing things exactly the way they are now

4) I absolutely understand BTS Steve's point on why it isn't possible currently, i.e., beyond the scope, risk/reward for BTS, etcetera

5) I agree that the BTS attitude is occasionally (see this thread) obnoxious. Yes, I said it. Responding to a customer with masturbation references and sarcasm just isn't appropriate, regardless of how turd-headed they are.

I have, however, kind of grown to like BTS' "screw you if you don't like it" attitude; it makes the whole thing a bit more "homey" doesn't it? Much more familial. The guys, to our benefit, generally, are definitely not typical business men. And if they are willing to lose a few customers in order to maintain their dignity and integrity (and maintain order in this forum), hey, I can respect that. The truth is, the customer is not always right, and I don't mind BTS telling them that. In fact, it makes me giggle. It's unusual business, but BTS is an unusual company!

6) I do wonder where BTS/CM is going, in terms of "growing" this thing. As ground-breaking as CM has been, it won't stay that way, as we all know. My impression is that CM will remain CM indefinitely, with engine improvements as the series progresses.

That is fine and dandy for me. My worry is that, a year from now, somebody else comes up with the kind of game we're pontificating upon here. That would fall into the "bad" category, because I for one (assuming that game were equal to CM as it stands currently, and that's a big assumption for sure) would run like the wind to play it, and probably not look back. That makes me sad. I want BTS to rule the wargaming world!!

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud on that last one, and I'm sure BTS has done plenty of thinking on the subject.

Ok, I've done my duty.

[lassner.1]

Is it really necessary to continue this "debate"? I, for one, would just like to get my dirty hands on CM:BB.