M113 ?

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

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?

Well, you are from Finland However, most Finns I know aren't insane. I don't think you are either, but I think you're so completely offbase that you might as well be.

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

OK, so if I showed you a shot of CMBO with a Tiger and a Sherman at 250m range... that would be proof that CMBO was a sell out as well? This is my primary point with this discussion with you... you're not open to a rational point of view. You've decided that since CM:SF looks really good that the game underneath isn't. There appears to be absolutely no willingness on your part to reexamine your own position, therefore you are not interested in an anything other than your already formed opinion. That's not insane, but it is absolutely not very interesting.

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.

Factually false. As already noted, you can make 4x4km maps which, IIRC, are bigger than the original CMBO was capable of. So again, it looks like you're arguing that CMBO was a sell out as well.

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.

Support this with fact. We've had this debate many, many times before and it's an easy win for us. Even in contemporary warfare engagement ranges are not that longer than WW2. The difference is that the accuracy and deadliness has improved at the more extreme ranges.

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.

Wrong, as always. We had the same types of arguments when CMBO was released, BTW. People said that we should have maps that were 10x10k, and since we couldn't that the game was crap.

no doubt am i once again called "irrational" and what else.

Correct, because that's what you are. You've made a very bold statement which you CAN NOT BACK UP. At the very worst we made some minor sacrifices so we could have a game that would sell enough so that we don't go out of business. That's what we did for CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK as well. Which is why the core of your assertion is out of touch with reality.

To put it another way, when we sat down to make CMx2 we had many choices. We could have decided "to Hell with the years of detailed simulation elements, let's make a hitpoint based game that looks good and has no tactical relevance to the real world". We did not do that. If that WAS what we tried to do, we did a completely horrible job at it. I can guarantee you that if we had decided to "sell out" we would have done a much, much better job of it and NOBODY here would be disagreeing with you. Including us.

In actual fact what we decided to do was increase the level of sophistication of the underlying simulation. The primary elements needed to that were immediately apparent to us:

1. 1:1 simulation of Humans instead of abstracted "head of a pin" units.

2. Far more detailed 3D vehicle models so we could have far greater armor and damage modeled.

3. A much finer terrain mesh so we could get away from the massively abstracted and limited terrain of CMx1.

As it so happens all three of these elements greatly improved the visual characteristics of the game environment. On the one hand that was entirely coincidental. To get better simulation fidelity we have to increase the fidelity of the elements within it. That's a fact and it's rather silly to argue that it isn't.

The second goal was to make the game environment more engaging and atmospheric than CMx1 was capable of doing. The elements needed for that were easy to see as well:

1. 1:1 guys running around instead of Moe, Larry, and Curley Squads.

2. Much higher resolution polygons and textures for vehicles, since wargamers are obsessed with vehicles.

3. Far more realistic looking terrain so people feel like they're in a real world environment and not an abstracted grid system without much nuances.

Now here's the great part... compare the two lists and see the obvious... they are the same thing! Yup, in boiled down terms the way to a much richer simulation was the same as the way to a much better looking game. Obviously there are tons of details within these broad categories, however that's where the sacrifices came in.

To make 1:1 work realistically we had to invest a TON of programming time into the simulation of the individuals in terms of how they relate to the world around them. Whether someone sees the benefits of this or not is absolutely not of interest to me. They are there just like the benefits of moving to 3D in the first place are there (CC and SP people saw no reason to go to 3D, I will remind you). But it also required a lot of programming time to make it look as good as it does now. So in order to have a good balance between superior simulation and superior graphics (when compared to CMx1) we had to find something to cut because clearly both things are extremely time consuming. What we decided to cut was the breadth of the simulated environment for the initial game. That meant 50 or so vehicles instead of 200, the variety of defensive works, the ability to play TCP/IP WeGo, and other things like that. Something had to give and we carefully selected those things which we thought could be introduced at a later time instead of leaving out critical things within the core of the game itself.

The above is all fact and can not be disputed by uninformed speculation. Our goals were to have a more realistic simulation that looked better. We have done than and can win any rational debate that challenges this. Where the debate gets more back and forth is on subjective things like "fun". But that's not what URC is advancing here and that's why it's so easy to demonstrate how wrong his assertion is. The only person that appears to not understand that is himself. But that's his call... lots of people thought the world was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth long after it was proven to be incorrect. Sometimes people just don't want to have their own beliefs challenged.

Steve

[RuhrRiver]

Concerning the screenshots of Mark's game with me:

Something that may have thrown URC (not that it makes much difference to any arguments here) is that I almost always zoom in when doing screenshots--for esthetic reasons (I like how it looks) or to get more or less elements in the final shot. Just as in any zoom view (including photographs taken with a zoom lens), the elements of the picture are compressed and seem nearer to one another than they actually are.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the clarification of the zoom. I could tell you did that because the look of a zoomed screenshot is totally different than an unzoomed one. Mark's clarification of the distance was helpful, though I doubt it made an impact on URC's mindset. He's not interested in having his beliefs challenged by facts.

NormalDude's previous post is spot on:

"...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..."

Which is why URC's charge is so easily disproved. The game system is as we describe, it's as it was designed, and it is in fact a continuation of our philosophy since the very beginning. I can prove, in a quantifiable way, that CMx2 is a far more advanced simulation of tactical warfare than CMx1. Therefore, he's wrong no matter what. If CMx2 is what he says it is, then we actually sold out when we made CMBO and CMx2 is now an improvement in our path towards eye candy over substance. If CMBO wasn't a sell out, then CM:SF can't possibly be.

As I've said forever now, there is room for debate if CMx2 is a more fun game environment over CMx1. That's because it's based on opinion of what "fun" is. There is no reason to distort reality and ignore the facts to make a convincing argument because it is inherently opinion based.

One can try to argue that CMx2 is less of a relevant tactical simulation than CMx1, but that's a much harder argument to make because it is less based on personal opinion than it is tangible factual circumstances. Which is why URC has so far not been able to make any sensible argument in favor of his position. All he can do is use empty terms like "sell out" and "graphics over substance", because there is no substance to his argument.

I said it earlier... he's fallen into the age old hardcore grog mentality of "if it looks good then it must suck". We saw that line of reasoning with CMBO by the SP and Close Combat people, so it's no surprise to see it again. Fortunately, the number of people that are this reactionary and irrational are extremely small. It's a good thing too, otherwise we'd still be playing wargames in 2D with numbers like "2-3-5" on the cardboard looking pieces instead of a fully dynamic 3D environment.

I guess if URC defines a "sell out" as a wargame company that refuses to make their games look like shite in order to make sure nobody other than a hardcore curmudgeon wargamer liking it, then we are guilty as charged. But we were guilty of that in 1997, not 2007, when Charles and I first established the design goals for CMBO. We are, if nothing else, consistent

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

PaperTiger,

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.

WRONG! Everybody knows that in CMx1 you were forced into using "gamey Jeep Recon", map edge hugging, cherry picking King Tigers every battle, etc. Therefore, not only is CM:SF a complete "sell out" because people can play the game in an unrealistic way, CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK are also complete "sell outs". Let's get the facts straight, even if URC can't

Seriously though, your point is completely correct. Judging the realism of a game based on the ability to abuse reality is a valid consideration. However, taken out of context it isn't. There will always be ways to play a game that isn't tactically realistic. There's no way for us to prevent that and still have a game. We can't prevent people from having a knife fight with Abrams any more than we could with King Tigers. Unlike games like Close Combat, however, we offer the possibility to not have tanks start out only 500m away and only get closer together.

The funny thing is URC missed an opportunity for a legitimate criticism about us compromising realism in favor of something fun. The scenario pictured involves US troops fighting US troops, right? Wow... talk about unrealistic! The game mechanics could be perfectly realistic, but the game played would be inherently unrealistic because it would never happen. Now, if URC would like to rephrase his criticism of us and say that we "sold out" by providing some fun, and inherently unrealistic, optional ways to play the game... I'll concede his point and say "guilty as charged" , even though people aren't forced to play that way and development wise it cost us next-to-nothing to add it.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[cool breeze]

I think he put his tail between his legs and ran for the hills

[Battlefront.com]

There is a phenomenon of thought where one has a feeling and then, after that fact, seeks to find reasons for it.

Yes, that is what I see too. As I've said, there is a LONG history of hardcore wargamers rejecting wargames because of their looks instead of their merits. Chris Crawford's "East Front", Grigsby's "Kampfgruppe", Kroger's "Steel Panthers", Zabalaoui's "Close Combat", and of course our "Combat Mission" are all examples that come to mind. Each one of these experienced a significant amount of disbelief that today's wargame could look better AND play better than yesterday's. Therefore, if it looked better it must play worse than whatever came before it. Any argument that followed was designed to reinforce that view, not to take an honest look to see if it were true or not.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MarkEzra]

Looks like a hit...looks like a miss...looks like a hit....looks like a miss....looks like a hit...looks like a miss... looks like a hit... looks like a miss

Gotcha...! Get it?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MarkEzra]

My actual impression was:

1. If it hit (NOT known to me) it wouldn't kill should knock out something...like vision, smoke, comm

2. If its a miss: Angle of pic is clearly not angle of incoming round.

It would be both instructive and fun to know if there was damage and how closely modeled is the graphic display to the event. If you would care to send the file I'd be glad to review and put some pics up. Perhaps start a new thread so as not to hijack this very informative thread on the selling out of the M113...Known to all as the Gavin...by unscrupulous brigands, bent on ripping off honest wargamers!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[c3k]

Selling out: Gents, I'm quite interested in selling out, but I'm not sure what the current rates are or who to contact for the payout. Can anyone let me know?

Thanks,

Ken

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Adam1:

Mark Ezra (or anyone interested),

What would this hit at this angle do?

Is that part of the tank reinforced or not?

I don't think it would do anything other than decorate the crews trousers, as the explosively formed penetrator is parallel to the top armour.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

heh, i'm certainly not going to argue with all of you about this.

if you think that maximum map size of 4x4km is enough for company level simulation of modern armored tactics in Syria, then more power and tactically stimulating battles to you.

4x4km map size limitation is just one thing amongst others that i have brought up before.

the point is that tactics and gameplay are being sacrificed because of eye candy.

sure, perhaps BFC tried to do it with CMx1 games as well but just couldn't do it back then. i sure was fooled by the level of graphics

BTW what comes to East Front, Kampfgruppe and Steel Panthers - i still have them all installed this very day (tho, the first two run thru emulators). together with more modern games like ArmA. if someone judges games by their looks or basic gaming style it is not me.

[JasonC]

Shock, -1 crew possible, realistically loss of roof MG possible, loss of optics - might be enough to be considered "gun damage" (gun OK but aiming it screwed up royally).

[W1ll1am]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As I've said, there is a LONG history of hardcore wargamers rejecting wargames because of their looks instead of their merits. Chris Crawford's "East Front", Grigsby's "Kampfgruppe", Kroger's "Steel Panthers", Zabalaoui's "Close Combat", and of course our "Combat Mission" are all examples that come to mind.

Just curious (and off-topic): Which game by Norm Kroger did you intend to refer to? Steel Panthers is by Grigsby, as you're well aware.

[flamingknives]

Javelin uses a shaped charge jet rather than an EFP.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

sure, perhaps BFC tried to do it with CMx1 games as well but just couldn't do it back then. i sure was fooled by the level of graphics

Of course CMx1 traded eye candy for time spent on the simulation, just look at the visual changes from CMBO to CMAK. Terrain doodads, smoke, explosions, dust were all added along with many additions. On top of that it would have been much less time consuming for Charles if we just had one Pz-IV 3D model and one T-34 3D model instead of having each series represented correctly. So yes, tradeoffs were certainly made with CMx1, but I dont think that was a bad thing.

I’ve seen you mention the suspension a few times, but do you actually have any idea how little time that took to code compared to the time Charles has spent on the simulation aspects of the game? The time was inconsequential in the overall picture. Currently you seem to be mentioning map size, but has it occurred to you that this is actually a data issue, not a visual one? Maps of 4km x 4m aren’t a bad size at all for simulating modern combat, in fact I’ve played many excellent scenarios on far less, but to include larger maps would have likely killed the much requested PBEM option right there.

There will always be trade offs between visuals and mechanics for any games, but you concept of the time being spent on visual appears to be way out of whack with reality.

Dan

[ May 26, 2008, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Kwazydog]

Hi Adam

Originally posted by Adam1:

I thought the map size issue was being dictated by how efficiently the engine was using assets. In other words, when hardware gets better it will be easy to remove or increase the range caps.

Well adding dimension to a map is going to lead to exponential growth in the data required to represent that map. If we just add 1km extra to the dimensions of the map we have increased the overall size from 16km square to 25km square, which is 60% extra data the engine needs to work with. Adding 2km is well over double our current size, etc. Im not saying its impossible, Charles can probably work some magic which is why I said 'likely' above. Its certainly not *just* an 'eye candy' issue though as has been suggested though, in fact its far from it.

Dan

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

heh, i'm certainly not going to argue with all of you about this.

Which should tell you something, shouldn't it?

if you think that maximum map size of 4x4km is enough for company level simulation of modern armored tactics in Syria, then more power and tactically stimulating battles to you.

I've debated this point several times now already and I don't feel that I've "lost" the debate even once. Plus, as I said... check out CMBO's original map size.

4x4km map size limitation is just one thing amongst others that i have brought up before.

Right, just like some people were convinced that it should take 5 Shermans dead before one Panther got wiped out. Just because a point is made doesn't make it relevant.

the point is that tactics and gameplay are being sacrificed because of eye candy.

In your opinion, but in actual fact that isn't the case. You're in an extremely poor position to sit in judgement of this, and in no position at all to question how we went about designing the game. That's been your tact so far and you're factually incorrect.

sure, perhaps BFC tried to do it with CMx1 games as well but just couldn't do it back then. i sure was fooled by the level of graphics

No "perhaps" about it.

BTW what comes to East Front, Kampfgruppe and Steel Panthers - i still have them all installed this very day (tho, the first two run thru emulators). together with more modern games like ArmA. if someone judges games by their looks or basic gaming style it is not me.

Well, you've sure fooled everybody here, what with your illogical arguments and refusal to back up anything you've put forward. But then again, that's what happens when someone doesn't know what he's talking about, is shown that he doesn't, and yet refuses to admit it.

W1II1am,

Just curious (and off-topic): Which game by Norm Kroger did you intend to refer to? Steel Panthers is by Grigsby, as you're well aware.

DOH! Yeah, that was an edit mistake. I was going to put Age of Rifles in there, but after thinking about it that one didn't fit as well. I remember SSI and Kroger having a dispute about the graphics, but IMHO the graphics that came out from it did not run afoul of the hardcore wargamers. The game's sales were a disappointment to SSI if I remember it correctly.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Regarding map size...

Dan is correct. We also had the same problem with CMBO, proportional to the hardware of the day. One of the main problems of CM, in all its forms, is the amount of data that has to be tracked and processed. CM:SF, because it isn't an eyecandy game, has so much f'n game data in there that RAM is actually a problem even when someone has 500MB dedicated to the game. If the game were all fluff as URC thinks it is, we could easily save tons of CPU cycles and RAM enough to have much bigger maps with the same level of graphical detail. Why? Because things at a distance of over 2km or so really don't hit the video card all that hard. It's the data for all that terrain and stuff on it that chokes things up.

Map size will increase overtime just as it increased for CMx1. Until then, the map size is perfectly adequate just as it was for CMBO.

Steve

[Other Means]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Javelin uses a shaped charge jet rather than an EFP.

OK thanks.

[Sgt Joch]

The 4x4 km map size limit is a red herring.

Unless you are designing a totally flat desert map, you will never even need a map that big for a company size armor battle. Using gently rolling terrain, you can create wide open armor battles on 2x2 or even 1.5x1.5 km maps.

For example, just check GeorgeMc's' "Armour Attacks".