M113 ?

[Dragon67]

//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.//

Battlefront is a business- they will take it and like it.

The fact of the matter is that I have come to see that any questioning of this game regardless of how it is done is going down the same road. Basically you are going to be told what you are complaining about is realism and not a problem at all. Second, boo hoo you want it now or thirty years from now, third, belittling and chiding.

Crap- more than two hundred posts on a simple little thing like adding a vehicle ? People figured it out yet ?

Now you point out the problems of infantry AI in the game which is a really big problem, then what do you think is going to happen ?

[Battlefront.com]

Dragon67,

Battlefront is a business- they will take it and like it.

We are a business, but we do not have to put up with abusive customers. Check the Forum rules and then see what I've said to you directly about your behavior. You can be critical without being abusive. Critics remain here, abusive individuals risk being uninvited to post here.

The fact of the matter is that I have come to see that any questioning of this game regardless of how it is done is going down the same road. Basically you are going to be told what you are complaining about is realism and not a problem at all. Second, boo hoo you want it now or thirty years from now, third, belittling and chiding.

Sigh... you are like many grumblers we've seen here over the years. You want to come here and be disappointed, therefore you make sure of that.

Crap- more than two hundred posts on a simple little thing like adding a vehicle ? People figured it out yet ?

Well, you certainly haven't figured out much of anything,

Now you point out the problems of infantry AI in the game which is a really big problem, then what do you think is going to happen ?

I don't know, what should happen? Discuss it rationally? That sounds like a fine idea. That's why we're doing that in the other thread.

Dragon67, you have to understand that you're personality type comes here quite frequently. You're as boring as you are distracting. You CLAIM you want to discuss the game, figure out where we stand on things, and then... I don't know what. But your behavior is the opposite. You want to bitch and complain, in a rude and haughty manner, then bitch and complain when you're ill manners are objected to. And so we wind up discussing the fact that you are going out of your way to be counter productive instead of actually having a positive discussion. But that's what you want... to be the center of attention.

And in case you haven't noticed, adding a vehicle isn't "simple thing" if people can't accept a simple answer.

Steve

[Dragon67]

//Dragon67, you have to understand that you're personality type comes here quite frequently. You're as boring as you are distracting. You CLAIM you want to discuss the game, figure out where we stand on things, and then... I don't know what. But your behavior is the opposite. You want to bitch and complain, in a rude and haughty manner, then bitch and complain when you're ill manners are objected to. And so we wind up discussing the fact that you are going out of your way to be counter productive instead of actually having a positive discussion. But that's what you want... to be the center of attention.//

Kiss my ass, stevie...

you get your wish another poerson pointing out the defects of your game is outta here.

the real issue here is that you cannot stand for a moment anyone saying anything negative about your game.

I frankly don't give a crap about your livelyhood- that is not a valid answer to complaints about the ****ty things said about your game.

If I was a boring person I would not be complaing about the crappy infantry AI and limited content of your game.

If you want to complain or comment on someone's personality type- I suggest you start with your own boring self having to go line by line endlessly through posts to prove a point.

You need to understand- if people of my personality type come in here to complain quit frequently- that means your game sucks more than you care to admit.

[Battlefront.com]

Dragon67,

You're a real waste of space. You are rude, counter productive, and abusive. You do not want to have an honest discussion, you want to just hear yourself complain. I've responded to your points, including saying that many of your gripes have been already fixed, and you do not even acknowledge that. Instead you pretend I've done the opposite (i.e. denny the problem). You've got a BIG chip on your shoulder and that's not productive at all.

So there you go... you get out of life what you want. You obviously don't want to be anything but a troll. I can not control that any more than you can control me (and others) calling you on it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dragon67,

You need to understand- if people of my personality type come in here to complain quit frequently- that means your game sucks more than you care to admit.

No, it means that you've got some big problems that go well beyond this game. As for the problems with the game, I admit to them when they aren't imagined, overstated, or an opinion that I don't agree with. But that's your problem... you don't want to have a discussion, you just want your ego stroked. Hommie don't play that

Steve

[jtcm]

What a great way to piss off a loyal customer base. Can you say "jump the shark" ?

[Lee]

Somehow I get the impression that guys like Dragon67 don't necessarily qualify as the "loyal customer base".

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by jtcm:

What a great way to piss off a loyal customer base.

By not sitting back and copping rudeness with a smile? Try walking into your local store and abusing staff and see how you go, I suspect you will get the same result. The problem for us is that it is much more frequent on the net, as the net is much less personal.

Most game companies dont have official forums where they discuss their games with their customers, and this is why. We like to do things differently, and Steve spends many many hours here explaining game mechanics and listening to what players feel isnt working for them. The result of this is the huge list of updates we have made to the game over the last year, as happened for years over the life span of the CMx1 engine.

All we ask for return is a little politeness in the conversations, yet for some that appears to be too much to ask for.

Dan

[ May 22, 2008, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Mord]

Originally posted by jtcm:

What a great way to piss off a loyal customer base. Can you say "jump the shark" ?

LMAO. That is a joke right?

The guy is a jerk plain and simple.

Mord.

[Battlefront.com]

It's a standard formula. Someone comes in with a chip on their shoulder, yet I give him the benefit of the doubt and answer his questions directly and honestly. Then I'm accused of dodging, not listening, etc. It's pointed out by others that this isn't true and he's being rude, then he turns on them and calls them names like brown-nosers (which was Dragon67's chosen slur), it's pointed out (probably for the 19th time) that there's a difference between destructive and constructive criticism, he gets huffy and PO'd (more name calling follows), and and then someone comes to his defense.

It's sad that this has to happen, but some people do not want to be constructive. Since this forum is here to improve the game, such people are actually harmful to that cause. It's important to sort out such people and get them to either grow up and act like adults, or throw a tantrum and leave (one way or the other). Then we can move forward. Well, until the next one shows up.

Steve

[luderbamsen]

Hey, I bought CM for the eye candy, but stayed for the gameplay.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Right... and those are exactly the first things we would have NOT done if we were going to "sell out". I mean, do you think the average gamer cares about accurate artillery support parameters?

i believe it's above of what most of the "grogs" could have dreamed of as well. it almost reminds me of flight and tank simulators where every little knob and aspect is simulated.

the new support model is without doubt one of the very best improvements in CMSF, together with resupplying and such. they are meaningful additions to a company level simulation. and yes, they do make me silly happy

having realistic features does not outclude "selling out". being realistic is a common selling point that big mainstream houses use for their top selling FPS, RTS and simulator games.

for me the deciding factor in "selling out" is the move from gameplay and design that focuses on tactics and thinking (at least that's my subjective perception of CMx1, could be that the current path is what you intended all along but just couldn't accomplish until now) towards being more or less just another RTS game (tho with heavy emphasis on being realistic).

it's not necessarily a negative thing. it's just a negative thing FOR ME, as i would have preferred more tactics and depth over more eye candy and arcade action. in a way i think it's flattery towards BFC that someone thinks that you could be "selling out". if CMSF was total crap as a game, nobody would be suggesting such.

it is exceptional than a wargame company manages to break out of the tiny wargame segment to the larger markets. it is certainly a success story even if i personally would prefer a bit different direction for the games. i honestly do congratulate your team for the achievement.

Factually untrue. What you are saying is that if the game looks good then it can't possibly be taken seriously. That's a very silly argument, but I've seen it said about Steel Panthers, Close Combat, and of course CMBO. Each time a game looks better than what came before it, the hardcore guys come out of the woodwork and insist that too much effort was put into making the game look good and not enough into the game itself.

i am not saying that the game shouldn't look good.

it is just annoying to have missing and broken stuff what comes to essentials, and at the same time lots of visual candy that are for most parts relevant only for the intial impression of the first 30 minutes (which i fully admit sells most of casual games -- might be a bit different for wargames and simulators).

More irrational thinking. How can CMx2 have more simulation in it than CMx1 and at the same time have not been a major concern for us during development?

are you consciously "not getting" the difference between simulating relevant and irrelevant things?

you can simulate in detail how butterflies and bees fly around in the battlefield, but all that simulation will add zero or worse to the simulation of company level battle. it's just eye candy. you can call it immersion, but a player playing the game will hardly even notice these things. in many cases it is physically impossible to even be able to see that stuff when you are actually playing the game. at worst some such candylike detail will actually make the game play worse than it would be without it.

It's an insult only in the sense that you've dismissed about 2 years worth of extremely hard work because you don't care about being objective.

i do not dismiss your work on the game. the game is cool. i am just disappointed, personally, because i was hoping it would be moving to a different direction. it doesn't mean i hate you or your game

No wait... here's the real insult You're so blinded by the good graphics that you can't see all the advances in the simulation, yet you do acknowledge they exist. As I said before, you're as unreasonable as you are irrational. Usually people at least make sense when they bitch and complain, so I'll give you some points for creativity

well, obviously i acknowledge that advances in simulation exist. you just fail to admit that simulation of things x and y, as such, have nothing to do with simulating company level combat (the end product of the things you simulate). some of them do, like the support stuff and resupplying, but much of it doesn't.

thus the contradiction: i say that you simulate a lot of cool advanced stuff but that the game isn't necessarily a step forward in simulating company level combat.

If that were true, do you really think I'd be sitting here wasting my precious time on this Earth arguing with people like you? No, I'd have retired to a "private kingdom" in the woods, which would have no Internet connection.

top class indie strategy games that go retail sell around 30 000 units (and some naturally ten times that). it's hard for me to believe that CMx1 games wouldn't have sold at least 60 000 units together. most of course in retail, so what you get is far from $45 a piece. it won't make one rich beyond dreams, but it isn't exactly 200 copies either.

Plus, what sold CMx1 was the graphics of CMBO. If that was an ugly bastard 2D game, and everything was the same, we'd have packed up our tent sometime in 2001.

i agree that it was the 3D graphics, but not because they would have looked that good. tactical non-simulator wargame in 3D just was a quite an unconventional game style -- a great concept. so i argue it was the 3D game mechanics, not the actual 3D game graphics.

i bet many just really liked the idea of having a combination of Steel Panthers and Close Combat with graphics from M1 Tank Platoon II.

What I'm saying here is that the graphics sold CMBO, and it sold CM:SF. So if you find CM:SF flawed and empty because of this fact, then apparently we sold out before you even heard about us.

neither game looked so good when they came out that people would have bought them because of their graphics.

No, I said a couple HUNDRED. There are very, very few people like you and we've never, ever catered to you. If CMx1 appealed to you then it did so by accident, not because we tried hard with it and then didn't with CM:SF.

heh, that's what i have been wondering for the last six months; "perhaps CMx1 was good just by accident, by combining things from different games and just by random getting a good mix out of it, and now they want to try it on their own and are making silly errors like removing that handy command system they took from Close Combat. gee, perhaps CMx1 was good just because they were forced to make quick compromises back then and that just happened to make the game better than they planned.".

anyway CMSF is a cool game and hopefully Combat Mission will in future become the kind of game i was hoping it would become.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

How are you getting the idea that CMSF does not emphasize tactical solutions to problems?

I'd also be interested in hearing this BUT only in context with CMx1 or other wargames. The reason is that URC has made the charge that we've basically hobbled the game relevant simulation in order to "sell out" for the mass market. Or at least we've not done so any more than we did for CMx1 games. Which is relevant here because URC says we've done a worse job of walking that fine line than we did with CMx1, therefore a direct comparison is unavoidable since the argument itself is stating a qualitative difference between the two systems.

URC,

anyway CMSF is a cool game and hopefully Combat Mission will in future become the kind of game i was hoping it would become.

I don't challenge your dislike of the current game. I've never challenged people when they have expressed a personal opinion of dislike. What I do challenge is when someone tries to change a personal opinion into a statement of fact.

What you've done is made a qualitative comment that we've "sold out". Whether you admit it or not, this is a very charged and highly negative comment. It's akin to calling a girl a "whore" or someone "ugly" or a person that did well on a test a "cheater". It calls into question the integrity and even honesty of the person (or in our case company) in question.

"Selling out" in a wargame sense is a deliberate move to pander to the mass market and to abandon claims of realism or tactical relevancy. It is the most serious charge you can place at the feet of a wargame developer. You can dance around that as much as you like, but that's what you've accused us of. And yes, after all these years of work I do take offense to that. Especially when you can't back up your claims.

So far the best I've gotten out of you is that because the game looks good that it isn't good. It's a shallow argument, as I think I've already shown. CMx1 sold because, at the time, it looked really good to most wargamers, especially the casual ones. To many Steel Panthers and Close Combat gamers, however, it did not look good. More than a few condemned the game system based on screenshots and never actually played the game. Many others (more than bought the game, I am sure) rejected the graphics because they weren't good enough.

The above is about as close to a statement of fact as there can be. Check back in the CMBO archives for just a sampling of the discussions about graphics. If the game system were the main draw then in theory we could have sold just as many CMx1 games if it had been 2D with a simplistic look. I find this to be so out of touch with reality that I don't even know where to start! I'm just glad that you aren't in control of our development priorities or Battlefront would have been out of business for probably 9 out of the last 10 years.

Regardless, the major problem with your theory that the graphics aren't important is that without them we have no game to play. The 3D environment, which you acknowledge is a big step forward in wargaming, requires a major amount of work to get working and to have be believable. Otherwise it would be better to go with 2D because it's a ton easier to program and do artwork for. So yeah, a decent chunk of development time is required to make those graphics, pretty or not. It's unavoidable, period.

The question is where to draw the line. You obviously are on one extreme where in your personal opinion we should have spent no more time than was necessary to get a rudimentary system in place. Others argue that our graphics are still not good enough, even though we have put in a lot more effort than just the basic amount. You are in the minority, therefore your opinion must be seen in context.

The other problem with your "sell out" charge is that it implies that we did things one way and then did things a different way. This is not true. CMx1 was designed to be an attractive 3D environment that had atmosphere as a top priority. Part of that came through the realistic engine, much of it came from the graphics and sounds. This is the same exact philosophy we had throughout CMx2 development. You can argue all you want, but you have never been privy to even one internal discussion so you are not in any way, shape, or form qualified to make such an assertion. You can assert that we failed to strike the right balance, if you wish, but that's all.

As it is we feel we did just fine. The underlying simulation of tactical warfare in CMx2 is vastly superior to CMx1 in just about every way imaginable. The graphical elements are also way ahead of CMx1. In short, we managed to move both into new ground. But something had to be sacrificed for this to happen. The sacrifice was breadth. We explained that since we first announced CMx2 way back in 2004 or perhaps as late as 2005 (I really think it was 2004 though). Deeper simulation and graphical environment, less initial effort on quantity and variety of terrain, units, and extraneous features. You can be as disappointed with the lack of breadth all you want, but it doesn't mean that the simulation is inherently poorer for it. Your game enjoyment may be, but that's not the same thing.

In the end you are entitled to not like CM:SF as much as you like. So why spend energy trying to justify it with arguments that have holes so big that a King Tiger could drive through without difficulty?

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MarkEzra]

This is from an email I got from Rhur River as we fight out a Blue on Blue QB PBEM:

One of my tanks gets hit with a javelin, and survives/keeps moving but then gets nailed a moment later by something else.

When I looked carefully at the sequence, this is what I saw/figured out:

Javelin #1 heads for my poor tank:

But when I lined up Javelin #1 with its target, it looks like it's going to hit the lower frontal armor dead on:

And in fact, my tank barely pauses after the impact.

After re-running the scene a couple of times, I see what killed my tank: a second javelin:

But note where it's aimed and where it hits:

Ouch! Right between the turret and side/top armor. That took care of that." (end of email)

Give me more this from "Sell Outs" like BFC

[Lee]

MarkEzra: A good example of the kind of details you get in CM II. I wonder how many different hit locations there are on a typical tank, I bet it's a lot. Plus, the angle the hit takes place at makes a big difference. Your M1 got hit in one of the worst spots it could have from a frontal angle like that.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

in my honest opinion those screenshots are a great example of the "sell out". jesus, i am beginning to question my sanity. am i from a different planet or what is it?

so what's wrong with the screenshots? well, what an absolutely brilliant tactical use of M1s! that range is, what, 250 meters?

so how do you use M1s with realistic, tactically sound ranges in CMSF? you do not, it is impossible. the engine is incapable of such ranges. why? because of limitations set by eye candy.

how is CMx1 better? sure, the maps are limited to about the same size BUT the weapon systems it simulates have nowhere near the effective range M1 has. you actually are able to use sound realistic tactics. CMSF forces you to unrealistic ranges and thus stupid tactics.

sure, you get better graphics. wow omg the missile hits the weak spot and i can see it in my own eyes, how cool is that! the difference to getting a weak spot penetration in CMx1? in practise, for simulating company level combat? it's tiny. it's just visuals. it's just eye candy. and because of that eye candy you can not have sound tactics because the engine can not handle realistic ranges. the eye candy, the so called immersion, is not worth the damage it does to the simulation.

you can say that the developers just "got the balance slightly wrong" but it's just cognitive dissonance. the devs know what realistic combat ranges are. they just chose that visual eye candy is more important than realistic tactics. they thought the casual gamer doesn't understand realistic tactics anyway, and won't miss a thing -- instead he will drool because of the eye candy. and perhaps they are right about it. being right about it just doesn't change anything. it's still visual eye candy overruling simulation of company level tactics. it's making a game that is worse as a simulation but which sells more units to casual gamers.

that's why i call it a "sell out".

no doubt am i once again called "irrational" and what else. no doubt once again an obvious failure in the game is said to be just an isolate case and you can't have everything, just like when you point out all those other very similar eye-candy-over-tactics choises.

whatever, i am done with this subject. enjoy the game. it's not a bad game and can be good fun.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

that's why i call it a "sell out".

According to wikipedia:

"Selling out refers to the compromising of one's integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, 'success' or other personal gain. It is commonly associated with attempts to increase mass appeal or acceptability to mainstream society. A person who does this, as opposed to following the original path s/he laid (or claimed to lay) out for him/herself, is labeled a sellout and regarded with disgust and immediate loss of respect. Selling out is seen as gaining success at the cost of credibility."

Bolding mine.

Battlefront is only "selling out" if their stated goal was to make a game that is not what the current form of Shock Force is. Have you any evidence to support that? Did they ever explicitly promise to make the ultimate in realism that the hardware would support, to the cost of other aspects? They sure didn't do that with CMx1, so I can only assume you are projecting your own expectations onto them, and you are disappointed that those don't coincide.

[flamingknives]

How do you make use of Abrams at tactically realistic ranges?

Well, it depends on what your twisted concept of tactically realistic is. If you end up in complex terrain, historically accurate ranges involving modern MBTs certainly come down to 250m or less.

When CMBO came out, the computers of the time were not able to make large enough maps to cover the weaponry of that era in total. When I came to the game a year or more later, there were complaints resounding around the forum that map sizes were too small and unrealistic. It wasn't true then and isn't really true now.

Furthermore, if you want armoured vehicles handled in a manner that resembles real life usage, don't give them to wargamers. Give them to real life trained armour crews.

[Peach Operations]

Odd argument to make re: selling out.

In my book, you'd need a lot more eye candy to "sell out." I'm not saying CMSF is ugly or anything, but I can think of quite a few games that look more impressive graphics-wise. I can think of quite a few games that have a simpler learning curve, too. It's still a very detailed and complex simulation relative to what a real mass market title looks like.

There's some points about gameplay that can be made -- I don't think CMSF is perfect either -- but it's kind of hard for me to see this as the result of craven mass market appeal.

[Other Means]

The main reason massive maps can't be done is greater terrain fidelity. So it's either make a game that has the same terrain as CM1, and have it able to play 10*10km maps - which I personally would play roughly twice - or have one that can do very good terrain but not quite to that scale.

[MarkEzra]

Undead Raindeer: Unfortunately you've leaped to an erroneous conclusion. All the M1's in those screenshots and all of the troops belong to my PBEM opponent. I have reviewed the game replay and as best as I can tell the closet firing range is now 375 meters. The Javelins came from two different firing locations. They are about 500 meters...The rolling terrain accounts for the close proximity. (It's a meeting engagement so both sides are moving ever closer). The original start lines was 2000 meters...At that range I lost a number of M1 to flank shots plus a plt of Bradley's...A very skillful attack by RhurRiver as I raced forward (unskillfully) to a central objective. In a scen I recently posted "Open Season" the ranges are far more impressive. You might want to try it. But be advised: If your computer chugs along as poorly as your argument has it may well be an unpleasant experience.

[Paper Tiger]

quote - jesus, i am beginning to question my sanity.

After reading your last post, frankly, so am I.

quote - in my honest opinion those screenshots are a great example of the "sell out"... so what's wrong with the screenshots? well, what an absolutely brilliant tactical use of M1s! that range is, what, 250 meters?

No, they most certainly are not. How on earth can you claim they support your 'sell out' thesis? I just see two guys having a lot of fun playing the game in a manner you deem to be unrealistic. But just because you CAN play it this way doesn't mean that you have to.

quote -so how do you use M1s with realistic, tactically sound ranges in CMSF? you do not, it is impossible. the engine is incapable of such ranges. why? because of limitations set by eye candy.

Absolutely untrue. We can make maps up to 4km x 4km which is quite big enough thank you. Almost everybody who has played around with the scenario editor has probably made one flat desert map like this and matched up some M1s against some T-72 Turms. But it takes longer to load this baby up than it does to play it and it's not challenging.

Okay, how can we make it more challenging. I know, let's now add some undulations to give the Syrians a small chance to close the range and hurt those M1s. Oh, wait, should we really be doing that as we're then restricting the M1s from operating at tactically sound ranges? Flamingknives point about military operations in complex terrain is spot on. What is your problem?

Of course it CAN be done AND with no bells, no whistles, no eye candy. The only barrier to creating your dream mission is the amount of work that's required to create a tactically interesting map of these dimensions in the editor.

[ChrisND]

You're all sell outs to true wargaming, every single one of you!