M113 ?

[Lee]

BTS has hardly "sold out". Yeah, CM II looks way better than any previous CM wargame, but it's also way more detailed and realistic. It's the most realistic of tactical land combat computer wargames, by far. Where even small details of where your troops are located or what direction your tank is facing make a difference in how a battle might go.

As far as having moving suspensions and stuff like that, look, if you're designing a new graphics and physics engine from the ground up, then you might as well put those kind of details in while you're at it. This engine (with upgrades, of course) is going to be used for a *very* long time to make CM games, so why not make it look good? Personally (and I'm a wargamer that puts a high value on realistic combat calculations), I find that such realistic graphical touches really draw me into the action, they make the battle much more believable when I'm watching the fighting up close.

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by Lee:

BTS has hardly "sold out". Yeah, CM II looks way better than any previous CM wargame, but it's also way more detailed and realistic. It's the most realistic of tactical land combat computer wargames, by far. Where even small details of where your troops are located or what direction your tank is facing make a difference in how a battle might go.

As far as having moving suspensions and stuff like that, look, if you're designing a new graphics and physics engine from the ground up, then you might as well put those kind of details in while you're at it. This engine (with upgrades, of course) is going to be used for a *very* long time to make CM games, so why not make it look good? Personally (and I'm a wargamer that puts a high value on realistic combat calculations), I find that such realistic graphical touches really draw me into the action, they make the battle much more believable when I'm watching the fighting up close.

Actually, I find troop placement problemental and difficult at best. i know I cannot be the only user here who gets frustrated when casualtys result while trying to place a squad into an attacking position and casualtys result because members of the squad unrealistically place themselves in the enemys LOS.

[Pandur]

I find troop placement problemental and difficult at best. i know I cannot be the only user here who gets frustrated when casualtys result while trying to place a squad into an attacking position and casualtys result because members of the squad unrealistically place themselves in the enemys LOS.

you are not alone

i would give moving suspension, swaying trees, and more of thses secondary things for "controlable" infantry, and other primary features and functions.

after all it looks "good" when i see my man getting shot up in a beautifuly animated landscape, but thats a bout it.

and we all know what they say about games that look good but dont play good

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by Pandur:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I find troop placement problemental and difficult at best. i know I cannot be the only user here who gets frustrated when casualtys result while trying to place a squad into an attacking position and casualtys result because members of the squad unrealistically place themselves in the enemys LOS.

you are not alone

i would give moving suspension, swaying trees, and more of thses secondary things for "controlable" infantry, and other primary features and functions.

after all it looks "good" when i see my man getting shot up in a beautifuly animated landscape, but thats a bout it.

and we all know what they say about games that look good but dont play good </font>

[Pandur]

...the only thing you can do to try and prevent it is to split teams...

unfortunately the big part of infantry in the game isnt allowed to use the "anti leap" fix :mad:

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

I think the I already know the soon to arrive answer is going to be...

"Boo hoo you want this now or thirty years from now..."

No, I would just like more of the squad to survive and in a realistic manner.

Yep, because insulting them is the way to get your message across.

[Lethaface]

Hell, why keep asking for a m113 if there's also something like this:

http://www.qualzone.com/lego5/moc_apc/pics/large/apc4.jpg

And there is no discussion possible as how needed this is to have :mad:

[Lee]

Dragon67: I didn't say there aren't bugs in the game, I just said that combat was resolved with detailed calculations. Obviously there are still some adjustments that need to be made.

[Battlefront.com]

The Vulture,

Or to paraphrase into a way that is more intuitive to me, it is less important to have lot of different vehicles etc. in the simulation than it is to make sure that what is in is done to a very high standard. And as long as you have enough in the game to give enough variety for a rich experience.

Exactly. CMx1 had breadth at the expense of depth. We purposefully changed the equation around the other way this time to have depth as the primary emphasis. Breadth can come via Modules.

And contrary to people like URC, there is more simulation in CMx2 than CMx1. Even he admits that, right before forgetting it

URC,

it's understandable that you need to sell out with eye candy to stay in business and expand. it's just somewhat disappointing, and quite annoying when things aren't called with their real names. oh well, time to move on.

Well, like I said about you on the previous page... you're as irrational as you are unreasonable. If we were going to "sell out" we would have had hit points and ditched 2 years of other simulation elements. The fact that we don't want the game to look like crap is really unimportant.

BTW, the opposite of "selling out" is making a game that a couple hundred people would love but would tell us sucks So yup, if we have to err on one side or the other, it's going to be catering too much towards millions of gamers rather than a couple of dozen disgruntled ones. Call us crazy, but that's just the way we are.

Dragon67,

I think the I already know the soon to arrive answer is going to be...

Not true at all, but hey... if you want to be another voice of pointless and off-base negativity... have at it. Having faith in us isn't a requirement, but it will make you look less silly when we fix the things you're complaining about

Normal Dude,

Yep, because insulting them is the way to get your message across.

I really wonder where in the world schools teach kids that the way to get things in life is to insult the people that can make them happen. I mean, I doubt parents are out there actively saying "now Johnny, when Mommy says you can't have something or have it right now, just call me a bitch and I'll get it to you right away"

Having said that, it doesn't matter how nicely people ask for something that we either don't feel is right for the game, isn't right for us as a company, or is simply impossible... it still won't happen. Being negative CERTAINLY won't, though for some it makes for good theater or scratches some itch they have for attention or whatever. Anyway, the point is that we listen to customer feedback, but that isn't the same as letting the customers design the game. That would be a very bad idea.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Steve

it seems like you read this thread, so I need to ask you - will aircraft sounds be added to CMSF? Is that on the list? What about Arty Smoke?

[Battlefront.com]

Lee,

BTS has hardly "sold out". Yeah, CM II looks way better than any previous CM wargame, but it's also way more detailed and realistic. It's the most realistic of tactical land combat computer wargames, by far. Where even small details of where your troops are located or what direction your tank is facing make a difference in how a battle might go.

As far as having moving suspensions and stuff like that, look, if you're designing a new graphics and physics engine from the ground up, then you might as well put those kind of details in while you're at it. This engine (with upgrades, of course) is going to be used for a *very* long time to make CM games, so why not make it look good? Personally (and I'm a wargamer that puts a high value on realistic combat calculations), I find that such realistic graphical touches really draw me into the action, they make the battle much more believable when I'm watching the fighting up close.

Thanks for the plug Lee But really, URC isn't really being serious. He's just playing a roll and pandering to a particular disgruntled minority here for prestige points. An accusation of "sell out" is one of the key indications that someone's run out of intellectually relevant things to say Plus, if we don't sell games we go out of business. CMx1 was "visually challenged" and we barely got away with it. We knew we wouldn't get off so lightly a second time. Plus, I like being in an environment that looks cool. That was my position in 1998/1999/2000 when the Steel Panthers and ASL/SL crowd complained about us spending too much time on the visuals.

Everything is relative, except hardcore Grogs. They don't understand the concept

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

To add...

If CM:SF had near-perfect (nothing is ever perfect) pathfinding, TacAI, etc. but had ugly 2D billboarded trees, low poly vehicles with smeared textures, etc. I have no doubt that we'd have a constant reminder that the game stinks because it's unplayable due to the outdated, engaging game environment. So anybody who thinks we made a choice to favor one over the other, you're quite simply wrong. What we did was choose to keep a balance so CM:SF did not just appeal to a few hundred people nor appeal only to a couple million potential gamers. People that have no perspective should be thankful that we don't either. Otherwise it would be bump-mapping and hitpoints for all

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Everything is relative, except hardcore Grogs.

What about relatively hardcore grogs?

[Dogface]

Or hardcore relativity grogs?

[M1A1TC]

Or groggy hardcore relatives?

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragon67:

I think the I already know the soon to arrive answer is going to be...

"Boo hoo you want this now or thirty years from now..."

No, I would just like more of the squad to survive and in a realistic manner.

Yep, because insulting them is the way to get your message across. </font>

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

I admit I am 90% happy with this game which is way above 80% of what is out there. But for some reason even the slightest complaint about this games gets you categorized and belittled in this forum and also feeds real trolling.

Dragon generally I dont beleive this to be the case. If you look through the forum you will find many threads containing requests, complaints, problems, etc that are accepted and discussed, in fact there are several in the first few pages. The difference between those and the ones that go downhill is usually the tone of the poster, not the content of their post.

Dan

[ May 21, 2008, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[JasonC]

Lethaface - obviously that belongs in the Space Lobsters module. Ripley sold separately...

[Battlefront.com]

Dragon67,

I admit I am 90% happy with this game which is way above 80% of what is out there. But for some reason even the slightest complaint about this games gets you categorized and belittled in this forum and also feeds real trolling.

The tone of the original message is important. You've made a couple of comments here, which I think can be fairly categorized as snide. So why be surprised when it's tossed right back at you?

It's like a little kid that keeps pulling on the cat's tail, despite being told it's not the right way to treat the animal. And when the cat turns around and puts a big scratch on the kid, what does the kid do? Well, I know what the little kid did that kept pulling the tail of my cat Lucifer. Guess why we called him that, and then figure out how badly he scratched the kid Difference is that supposedly we're all adults here so nobody should have to be reminded that if you treat others as you expect to be treated, that's generally what will happen. Good or bad.

If you have legitimate complaints, then voice them constructively and see what happens. Do that and you get belittling, no smart-assed responses from anybody. It's an amazingly consistent thing found here year after year.

Steve

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

But you know what- for some reason it is considered insulting to parody the bad behavior others steer your way in this forum.

Agression and assertiveness are two different things.

Only if you can communicate the difference.

Besides, I'm not sure how reducing Steve's explanation to "Boo hoo" is anything but belittling.

Originally posted by Dragon67:

And I also find that a lot of people who post in here are willing to say some awfully foolish things that stretch the truth about the actual performance of this game to give brownie points to the developers- brownie points or skid marks whatever.

Evidence please? And if it is "a lot" of people, I'm assuming you can quote multiple examples.

Originally posted by Dragon67:

But for some reason even the slightest complaint about this games gets you categorized and belittled in this forum and also feeds real trolling.

As people have said, time and again, it isn't the complaints that bother anyone. You will find plenty of my own complaints voiced if you search for them. Notice that when I do it I don't resort to snarky comments directed at the people I am making requests of; it is called tact.

[Dragon67]

//Evidence please? And if it is "a lot" of people, I'm assuming you can quote multiple examples.//

I don't do cites by request especially for people who seem to have so much time on their hands they have nothing better to do then comment on other's posts by breaking it down line by line.

//It's the most realistic of tactical land combat computer wargames, by far. Where even small details of where your troops are located or what direction your tank is facing make a difference in how a battle might go.//

Buy this above quote is a good place to start. I would not call this game the most realistic by a stretch. It may have some edges... Also, back to JTF- the infantry teams you form you can select from different formations as well as lining teams against a wall and that game will show circle diagrams of where each team member will go when you set the weighpoint and a simple drag and click allows you to set facing- so obviously this game lacks in allowing the player intelligent choices in infantry tactics.

Basically, when you click to send a team behind a wall for cover in SF you are lucky if you set them far back enouph that they won't jump the wall or not so far back that they are exposed. And forget trying to get one to use cover. I don't understand why if in this game you can get them to line in a ditch and run the length of the ditch most of the time- but forget about the same performance along a wall.

Just saying.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And contrary to people like URC, there is more simulation in CMx2 than CMx1. Even he admits that, right before forgetting it

i totally admit that CMx2 has a better engine than CMx1. in CMx1 you can't even see the squads if terrain slope is too great, the artillery FO model is a bit lacking and so forth to eternity. it's obvious that CMx2 simulates things in far far greater detail and CMx2 has a good number of great game mechanic improvements.

BUT most of the added stuff is simply irrelevant (or doesn't even work) and much of the relevant stuff is not included. the amount of simulation being done is in no way related to the qualitative end result of company level combat simulation. most of the simulation being done is going for eye candy. they are mostly just "wow!" features that last for about 30 minutes. in actual game play where you are trying to command a company of infantry + a platoon or two of vehicles, it is in practice impossible to even observe the simulated visual candy. so they are not only irrelevant for the simulation of company level combat, they are also irrelevant for actual game play. their relevance is nice screenshots and "wow cool" feature lists to use in sales.

why is it "sell out"? because when you look at the decision path taken after CMx1, it is obvious that the first impression visual candy has importance over actual lasting game mechnics and game play features. instead of improving the actual game play and simulation of company level combat, we got pretty meaningless eye candy.

calling what it is is not an insult. taking this path is most likely the rational decision for BFC. it will also make more players happy in general, because there are far more eye-candy oriented RTS players. perhaps more serious wargames will benefit as well, in the long run, because BFC will stay in business and offer a bit more realistic RTS games than what is the norm.

Well, like I said about you on the previous page... you're as irrational as you are unreasonable. If we were going to "sell out" we would have had hit points and ditched 2 years of other simulation elements. The fact that we don't want the game to look like crap is really unimportant.

there are already dozens of RTS games with hit points out there. obviously you need to stand out from the crowd a bit and the best way to do it is by doing it in a way that you are good at -- by offering higher realism.

BTW, the opposite of "selling out" is making a game that a couple hundred people would love but would tell us sucks

CMx1 sold damn sure more than a couple hundred copies. i bet the figure is closer to couple hundred thousand.

So yup, if we have to err on one side or the other, it's going to be catering too much towards millions of gamers rather than a couple of dozen disgruntled ones. Call us crazy, but that's just the way we are.

like said, no evil in wanting 2 million buyers instead of 200 000.

well, i am trying to move on now

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

I don't do cites by request especially for people who seem to have so much time on their hands they have nothing better to do then comment on other's posts by breaking it down line by line.

So in other words you wish to be able to spout off whatever you wish without anyone questioning it, or having to back it up? :eek: By the way, don' give yourself too much credit; it took me about 30 seconds to read to and respond to your post. You aren't the first, by any means, to come in here saying the exact same line. In fact, that's been a standard line for at least a few years now.

Originally posted by Dragon67:

//It's the most realistic of tactical land combat computer wargames, by far. Where even small details of where your troops are located or what direction your tank is facing make a difference in how a battle might go.//

Buy this above quote is a good place to start. I would not call this game the most realistic by a stretch. It may have some edges... Also, back to JTF- the infantry teams you form you can select from different formations as well as lining teams against a wall and that game will show circle diagrams of where each team member will go when you set the weighpoint and a simple drag and click allows you to set facing- so obviously this game lacks in allowing the player intelligent choices in infantry tactics.

I thought you didn't do cites on request. So how is this for gaining "brownie points" again? Regardless of whether the unnamed person is right or wrong, it is their opinion and you are supplying a motive to it. I'll bet I could find a single feature in JTF that SF does better. Does that really mean anything?

Originally posted by Dragon67:

Basically, when you click to send a team behind a wall for cover in SF you are lucky if you set them far back enouph that they won't jump the wall or not so far back that they are exposed. And forget trying to get one to use cover. I don't understand why if in this game you can get them to line in a ditch and run the length of the ditch most of the time- but forget about the same performance along a wall.

Just saying.

Does the infantry wall behavior bug me? You betcha, in fact it really bugs me. On the other hand, I don't have the arrogance to assume that Battlefront is here to pander to my specific pet peeves and then get snide when it isn't delivered to me on a silver dish.

I rarely lose more than a minimal amount of infantry in combat. Until Battlefront perfects the AI, I will work around AI weaknesses by adjusting my game tactics to compensate for them. Just like you have to do in every game, including JTF.

[Combatintman]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KwazyDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Xactly.

Yup, which is why this debate shouldnt really be about adding an M113, becuase that alone will not suit your needs anyway. Instead it should be about whether there is enough demand out there for a type of '3rd World' module.

Dan </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dragon67,

Again, if you don't like how you are responded to, check how you phrased things before jumping to the conclusion that you're as innocent as a spring lamb. My experience on this Forum is usually the person complaining the loudest about mistreatment and "brown nosers" generally has no leg to stand on. I can point to a couple of your posts here if you aren't willing to do your own homework.

URC,

i totally admit that CMx2 has a better engine than CMx1. in CMx1 you can't even see the squads if terrain slope is too great, the artillery FO model is a bit lacking and so forth to eternity. it's obvious that CMx2 simulates things in far far greater detail and CMx2 has a good number of great game mechanic improvements.