Can't buy troops????

[thewood]

A game that does a good job of assymetrical warfare and has an excellent command and control system is POA2 from HPS. You can buy based upon strict TOE or individual picks. But the individual picks require some adjustmens be made to the Command structure.

btw, it is wego and has a good TacAI.

[Moon]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

I explained this elsewhere but with the current activity on the forum it's probably on page 20 by now... CMSF is using the concept of realistic unit formations (platoon, company, battalion) at the very core of the game. This is needed for the simulation of the entire Command&Control system, which is COMPLETELY different from CMx1. Read the C&C chapter of the manual... you'll see the game with different eyes.

That's the main reason why buying a unit here and a unit there is more or less ruled out at this point. Instead, by setting the various options, you get a realistic mix of units for that. We intend to change and tweak and polish with patches so who knows what things will change, but please understand that there is a VERY good reason for why things are the way they are.

Martin

Wow. I guess Dean Wormer has stamped his foot down and declared "No more fun of any kind!" then?

I hate to be this guy, Martin, but haven't you guys learned one of the biggest lessons from your CMx1 experiences? It's not enough to write the game YOU want - you have to put stuff in there that WE want too.

-dale </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I fully support the no buying of units.

I love it and I think this system is GREAT.

Oh, c'mon, tom - BFC could poop in a handkerchief and you'd hold it under your nose like an orange stuck with cloves.

I would like to suggest, one of the REAL issues, here is in fact the time it would take someone many many man hours of time to invent (from SCRATCH) a point/value/rating/cost system for every unit in the game.

Oh no! Designers and developers would have to actually spend cycles ... designing and developing things!

The Horror.

It would be an artificial construct at best.

As is ANY point or value system in such games, of course. But sometimes you want to see what a weird combo can do, and sometimes you need to tweak to get around things the developers forgot or left out.

I am personally VERY glad that NOT one minute of design and development time was waisted in this gamey and wanton pursuit.

So... in CMBO is it "gamey and wanton" to use my Purchase Power to give my armored infantry the extra bazookas the CM TO&E leaves out?

Of course this simply means my war game playing philosophy is completely diametrically opposed to everyone else's here that enjoys the fun of "shopping" for units and cherry picking the best units to "out shop" your opponent before you even get to the battlefield.

You are missing the point. Not all "shopping" is for being a d*ckweed - much of it is for fun, education, and simple tweaking. Ye Gods, as someone already pointed out, we're already talking about a fictional setting for the game, tom. Who's to say?

And different philosophies, sure, but in this case, there isn't even a choice anymore.

Somefolks here clearly consider that one of the most fun aspects of the game. OK that's great, but given the wildly assymetric nature of warfare this game simulates how you place values on availble weapons?? Seriouly. Lets start with the top of the line M1A1 Abrams Lets say its 1000 points as a baseline? What is a Javelin worth? What are two irregulars with an RPG worth? Both can knock the fictional 1000 point Abrams! So realistically HOW do you do it? How do you determine what is worth what on your fictional gamey shopping list?

NOT to mention the WHOLE new set of victory conditions that are available to the scenario designer. (if that matters).

So it's hard. Big deal. That's why we potentially send money for the product and not kisses. Bottom line is that a relative point or other value-based system could have been done and wasn't. That disappoints those of us who like that kind of thing.

Our disappointment isn't invalid.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:

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

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

I explained this elsewhere but with the current activity on the forum it's probably on page 20 by now... CMSF is using the concept of realistic unit formations (platoon, company, battalion) at the very core of the game. This is needed for the simulation of the entire Command&Control system, which is COMPLETELY different from CMx1. Read the C&C chapter of the manual... you'll see the game with different eyes.

That's the main reason why buying a unit here and a unit there is more or less ruled out at this point. Instead, by setting the various options, you get a realistic mix of units for that. We intend to change and tweak and polish with patches so who knows what things will change, but please understand that there is a VERY good reason for why things are the way they are.

Martin

Wow. I guess Dean Wormer has stamped his foot down and declared "No more fun of any kind!" then?

I hate to be this guy, Martin, but haven't you guys learned one of the biggest lessons from your CMx1 experiences? It's not enough to write the game YOU want - you have to put stuff in there that WE want too.

-dale </font>

[Childress]

Agree with Tom! As if real life commanders can cherry pick surgically appropriate OBs on the fly. Puhleeze. This is a tactical game,after all, reflecting rapidly changing conditions. Now that the purchase screen has been deep sixed players may consider learning to improvise and 'make do' like in RL.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Moon:

"[what] WE want too" means nothing else than that you want CM3+. But you're getting CM4.

Martin

I dont think that is what it means. It means that we really liked something about CMx1 and it is not in CMx2. Now if you guys had said "that is something we plan to do but just didnt have time for" then I dont think there would be this outcry. What I am hearing is pretty much summed up as, "this isnt important - have fun without it."

Now that isnt exactly how you said it, but that is more or less what it comes down to. Take for instance

1)not realistic. Well so what. neither is blue on blue. neither is US troops in yellow taxis. And if you were so worried about not being realistic would you not allow cherry picking in an editor

2)C&C is an issue. Ok, well that makes some sense, but - as somebody pointed out above - if you can pick a force in an editor and play with it, there should not be some fundamental reason you wouldnt be able to pick that force on a QB selection screen.

3)It takes time. Now this is understable - but IMO has not been your main reason.

4)This is Combat Mission not Walmart Mission. Well maybe Grog Dorosh and AKA47-Tom dont like Walmart Mission. But I really did, so please dont expect me not be disappointed.

Am I going to throw away the game because of this. No. I like this game. But please dont tell me it isnt important.

[Moon]

Actually what I "want" is the ability to purchase units in some fashion that is similar to CMx1 because that is one of the big reasons I enjoy playing it.

Exactly! You're asking for a feature from another game because you like to play that other game that way. CMSF plays differently. It has different strengths and weaknesses. It's in a different time period with a different background. It has different game mechanics, above and under the hood. There are more things different about CMSF when compared to the other CM games than similar. Think about it!

Just becuase CMSF does certain things differently than CMx1 doesn't mean that it's worse. Extend us the leap of faith that what you see in the game is the result of a long design process. Our goal, ultimately, is to make the best simulation for modern ground combat possible. Not to "improve CMBO".

If you liked a particular feature of the earlier CM games and it's not there anymore... of course the initial reaction is understandable. But to draw the conclusion from it that all fun is eliminated is premature. It's a bit like saying that CMSF doesn't have Panther tanks anymore!

Martin

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Moon:

Just becuase CMSF does certain things differently than CMx1 doesn't mean that it's worse. Extend us the leap of faith that what you see in the game is the result of a long design process. Our goal, ultimately, is to make the best simulation for modern ground combat possible. Not to "improve CMBO".

FYI - I read that as basically saying, "You dont need QB picks. Trust us. It is a better game without them." But I am saying, "No, it wont be for me. I really like QB picks."

If you liked a particular feature of the earlier CM games and it's not there anymore... of course the initial reaction is understandable. But to draw the conclusion from it that all fun is eliminated is premature. It's a bit like saying that CMSF doesn't have Panther tanks anymore!

Martin

I dont think people are saying that all fun is removed - I know I am not. I am saying I really enjoyed QB picks and would like them back. But you guys do seem to be saying, "QB picks arent important."

At least that is the way I am taking your position to be, and I think that is why people are making such a big deal about it.

[Moon]

David - please look up dalem's post on the previous page. That is what I was referring to.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. What I am saying is that I think that your opinion will change over time as you begin to understand better what CMSF is about. I am saying this as someone who has seen and played more CMSF that you have so far.

Martin

[Hev]

I dont see why you couldnt be given three or so choices of varied Order of Battles

[David Chapuis]

Not trying to seem like that is the only thing I care about, but I want to make one more point. When I first starting playing CMBO in 2003, I loved the game. Thought about buying CMBB, but decided CMBO was good enough for me. Then I read this post, and this was in large part why I ended up getting the game. I actually still remember reading the phrase "CMBB is a discount shoppers paradise." and then really wanting to get the game.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001536#000002

so my point is - I dont think it is a better game without the QB unit selection process. And it seems like I am not alone.

[thewood]

Take a look at some of the names in that thread. A lot of the great debaters were in it and are showing up here too.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Martin,

I like SF more than I thought it would, but, I think I fall in dalem's camp of making sure you don't deny the customer base things they want, within reason, for philosophical reasons.

For instance, I know there was a space on the CD issue with AK, but not having Cromwells and KT's because they weren't in that theater was disappointing to a ton of people. Imho, there was no reason to deny the many customers that wanted that.

Same with SF. I don't like a few minor things, such as the camera and UI, but I'll get used to them and they may well be tweaked after lots of thought and input, but don't deny people the ability to tailor unit purchases if they want to. I don't do a lot of it, but I certainly want to be able to when I have the desire. I understand there are C & C and point value issues that have to be dealt with. Let's deal with them. You have a dedicated and resourceful bunch of folks on these boards. We'll help with whatever we can.

Anyway, this could really get longwinded, but its just a plea to make absolutely certain that the reason(s) we shouldn't have something we want are sound and don't do anything to hurt BFC future sales. After all, one thing most of "we" want is for you guys to stay in business forever and keep on providing us with the only games I spend any of my free time on.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Moon:

You're asking for a feature from another game because you like to play that other game that way. CMSF plays differently. It has different strengths and weaknesses. It's in a different time period with a different background. It has different game mechanics, above and under the hood.

Understandable. But then doing something differently is not the same as not doing it at all. By taking out unit purchases you removed one major fun-factor of previous CM titles. You didn't change it, you just took it away. People miss that fun-factor, as they didn't see the need to have it removed.

I understand you wanting to do things differently. Different can be better. But please consider if there would be a way to make unit selection differently - fulfilling the needs of CMSF for realistic unit formations etc. - without leaving it completely to the computer (even if within the set parameters).

As was pointed out by someone else in some other thread, the game still has to select the units according to the given parameters (eg. Heavy BCT, Armor) somehow, it's not a single fixed organization it gives you every time with the same settings. So why not leave this selection up to the player? It would still prevent cherry-picking and unrealistic formations but it would bring back the fun-factor that is now sorely missed.

It doesn't have to be identical to bring the same fulfilment to the player - it can do it better by being different. But by not being there at all it will just leave a gap that is perceived as something less, instead of something different.

[ July 28, 2007, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[Moon]

David (and Hev), more options is always better. Player A wants X and player B wants Z. Well, make it an option! Whoohoo, everyone wins. What, player C wants something else? More options!

Make

more

options!

I hope you can see that I am just kidding

You are not alone (and this was clear to us before CMSF was out). But it doesn't make your viewpoint any more valid, because I and a few others are in the unique position of know things you don't know, simply because we have the game much longer (and, well, we designed it). Again, I am not disputing your right to your opinion and in fact even understand it well, but am saying that your opinion might change over time (sorry for repeating myself). Geez, I sound like my old man

And something else - please keep in mind that you do have a unit selection process when playing QBs! It's not as detailed as allowing you to pick individual units, but it allows you to define quite well what type of force you want to be playing. So let's keep things in perspective, ok? You (and many others) have 50% of the options from that other game as is and want the other 50% simply because it used to be fun. That's ok and if it remains that strong in a few weeks, let's talk about it again, shall we?

Martin

[Moon]

Exel - please understand that "the need for realistic formations" does not arise out of some grog-ism on our part. Formations play a very important role in the game because they define the C4 structure. EVERY unit in the game has to be part of that, or the entire relative spotting, comms and FOW concepts are out the window. Until you understand this you're arguing from an inferior point of view with us, that's what I'm trying to say.

As for how it's perceived - yup, we knew that. I could have bet on it. It might even cost us a sale here and there.

I will now pause for a minute to await your applause for the bold move to do something unpopular because we believe that in the grand scheme of things it is better that way...

Martin

[ July 28, 2007, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Moon ]

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Moon:

You (and many others) have 50% of the options from that other game as is and want the other 50% simply because it used to be fun. That's ok and if it remains that strong in a few weeks, let's talk about it again, shall we?

Martin

I will try to open my mind and imagine an orange stuck with cloves

[Exel]

Originally posted by Moon:

Exel - please understand that "the need for realistic formations" does not arise out of some grog-ism on our part. Formations play a very important role in the game because they define the C4 structure. EVERY unit in the game has to be part of that, or the entire relative spotting, comms and FOW concepts are out the window. Until you understand this you're arguing from an inferior point of view with us, that's what I'm trying to say.

No, I do understand that. What I'm asking for is to give the player the ability to choose the units within those limits. The game does it for you now (according to the parameters you set) but why not have that phase be player-controllable as well?

It's not just about cherry-picking or the joy of shopping around for exotic combinations of units, but about out-thinking your opponent already in the planning phase by thinking your strategy in advance and selecting the right tools for the job. If you leave that selection of tools to the computer, you essentially leave it to luck. Unless the player can always be sure of exactly what to expect with any given combination of presets - which would take out all unpredictability. Either way it's one tactical dimension of the game beyond the player's reach.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Childress:

Agree with Tom! As if real life commanders can cherry pick surgically appropriate OBs on the fly. Puhleeze.

As if real life commanders always have their paper TO&E to hand when given orders. Puhleeze.

-dale

[Sig]

I guess it's a sad day for min-maxers <shrugs> .

Since I'm not one of them, I'm happy with this design decision. I honestly thought the whines would come a bit later than 24 hours after release. To be fair, people should at least wait a bit and test the game some more. I don't know..perhaps a bit more than a couple of hours? Mh? But then, I guess it's so fun to make DEMANDS just as soon as the game comes out, and if possible with mucho drama.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually what I "want" is the ability to purchase units in some fashion that is similar to CMx1 because that is one of the big reasons I enjoy playing it.

Exactly! You're asking for a feature from another game because you like to play that other game that way. CMSF plays differently. It has different strengths and weaknesses. It's in a different time period with a different background. It has different game mechanics, above and under the hood. There are more things different about CMSF when compared to the other CM games than similar. Think about it!

Just becuase CMSF does certain things differently than CMx1 doesn't mean that it's worse. Extend us the leap of faith that what you see in the game is the result of a long design process. Our goal, ultimately, is to make the best simulation for modern ground combat possible. Not to "improve CMBO".

If you liked a particular feature of the earlier CM games and it's not there anymore... of course the initial reaction is understandable. But to draw the conclusion from it that all fun is eliminated is premature. It's a bit like saying that CMSF doesn't have Panther tanks anymore!

Martin </font>

[Panzer76]

Seems some people think that the ability to "cherry" pick was no more than seeing King Tigers in game after game.

As a player that played LOADS of TCP IP battles with CMBB and CMAK I can tell you that there is much more behind force purchase.

For instance, you had to take into account what terrain there was, heavy tree? Well, Stugs wont be nearly as useful, since it has no turret. Early 43? Well, as a Allied player, you should bring something that can tackle a Tiger tanks, which the opponent might buy. The real kicker is that you would "know" after some experience what certain types of players would buy, and you had to tailor your purchase after that.

So no, its not a mindless cherry picking. Ofcource some unit will be more powerful than their pts would indicate, but thats no problem, just to tweak the value. And if you dont want to play with it, well.. then just .. dont? Simple.

The only argument I can understand is that there is a core element in the game that restricts it (CC). If so, I accept the argument, but I would submit to you that it was a poor design descision.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:

I will now pause for a minute to await your applause for the bold move to do something unpopular because we believe that in the grand scheme of things it is better that way...

Martin

Martin-

Maybe I'm crazy, but isn't it your (i.e. BFC's) responsibility to make me want to buy your game? Or is "trust us" the marketing campaign you're going with for us dead-enders?

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sig:

I guess it's a sad day for min-maxers <shrugs> .

Or for simple experimenters.

-dale

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Childress:

Who have you been playing? Sure I have one or two groups I always like to buy . . . Tigers, Sherman 76's, Fallschirmjagers . . . but it is the random oddball unit that made games more fun and unique (like the time I spent several hundred points buying Wasps in hot, dry, windy weather - I'd never bought the things before or since).

Taking out the ability to purchase units is, in some ways, amazingly arrogant. It almost like they are saying "we know better than you what units you need to have fun."

Steve