For Me, If WEGO Goes, I Go

[rlg85]

I reread it, you labeled Tinjaw, who thinks similarly to me (although maybe I might have worded some things differently)as a non-gamer.

So you label him as non gamer,

then you said this:

Broaden your horizons, wargamers, and maybe you won't make such mind-numbingly stupid statements.)

I take that to mean, that wargamers, such as Tinjaw, who you had previously labeled as a non-gamer, need to "broaden our horizons" which is code for needing to drop our attachment to turn based and join the "revolutionary" new system, as BFC likes to put it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rlg85:

I like the RT for being ... RT, but this game is not the same genre as CMx1.

FWIW, I don't get that at all. CMSF very definately is the same genre as CMx1. I'm playing CMSF pretty much the same way I always played CMx1, with the partial exception that I now sometimes play it RT as well.

Regards

Jon </font>

[Xipe66]

Originally posted by rlg85:

I reread it, you labeled Tinjaw, who thinks similarly to me (although maybe I might have worded some things differently)as a non-gamer.

...

I take that to mean, that wargamers, such as Tinjaw, who you had previously labeled as a non-gamer, need to "broaden our horizons" which is code for needing to drop our attachment to turn based and join the "revolutionary" new system, as BFC likes to put it.

Stop trolling eachother about who's semantically considered to be a gamer. Also, I liked your coining of "high brow RTS" (no irony or sarcasm ).

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rlg85:

I like the RT for being ... RT, but this game is not the same genre as CMx1.

FWIW, I don't get that at all. CMSF very definately is the same genre as CMx1. I'm playing CMSF pretty much the same way I always played CMx1, with the partial exception that I now sometimes play it RT as well.

Regards

Jon </font>

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Xipe66:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rlg85:

I reread it, you labeled Tinjaw, who thinks similarly to me (although maybe I might have worded some things differently)as a non-gamer.

...

I take that to mean, that wargamers, such as Tinjaw, who you had previously labeled as a non-gamer, need to "broaden our horizons" which is code for needing to drop our attachment to turn based and join the "revolutionary" new system, as BFC likes to put it.

Stop trolling eachother about who's semantically considered to be a gamer. Also, I liked your coining of "high brow RTS" (no irony or sarcasm ). </font>

[Becket]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Attacking each other over who is a gamer or what the definition of "S" is also seems a little beside the point.

Michael, unfortunately, that's not what is happening.

In the wargamer community, there is a meme that games like Starcraft, Warcraft, etc. are "lesser" games that "kids" play, while "real wargames" - things that HPS simulations would put out (sorry HPS! ) are not just games, but some sort of character building, intellect revealing occupation in which only the world's great thinkers partake.

Thus, RTS is used in wargame forums as an assault on the game - that it is childish, simple, not nearly so pure and high-brow as, say chess (a game with speed variety for god's sake!).

I reject this idea in its totality, as I think that RTS games require skill and talent, and are enjoyed by many bright, intelligent people.

Since CMSF is not an RTS at all, it is appropriate to eviscerate the suggestion by revealing the obvious: that the proponent is either ignorant of the genre of which they try to pigeon-hole the game, or is using the term as an ad hominem.

[ July 29, 2007, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Becket ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rlg85:

That ultimate vision sounds like it is shining directly from between your left cheek and your right cheek. If you're going throw out uninformed guesswork onto the forum, at least have the common sense to identify it as such. That way, when it comes back to bite you on the ass, you won't look half as foolish.

[JonS]

Originally posted by rlg85:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rlg85:

I like the RT for being ... RT, but this game is not the same genre as CMx1.

FWIW, I don't get that at all. CMSF very definately is the same genre as CMx1. I'm playing CMSF pretty much the same way I always played CMx1, with the partial exception that I now sometimes play it RT as well.

Regards

Jon </font>

[Becket]

Originally posted by rlg85:

I reread it, you labeled Tinjaw, who thinks similarly to me (although maybe I might have worded some things differently)as a non-gamer.

So you label him as non gamer,

then you said this:

Broaden your horizons, wargamers, and maybe you won't make such mind-numbingly stupid statements.)

I take that to mean, that wargamers, such as Tinjaw, who you had previously labeled as a non-gamer, need to "broaden our horizons" which is code for needing to drop our attachment to turn based and join the "revolutionary" new system, as BFC likes to put it.

The best I can say in response to this is to caution you to quote me rather than to quote your own gloss on my words, then.

For reference, here is the quote:

Sorry, it's just getting to be annoying listening to non-gamers suggest that CMSF is an RTS.

I stand by this. The defining RTS games are so prevalent and well understood that anyone who - honestly, instead of by way of attack - suggests that CMSF is an RTS simply cannot be a gamer as that term is understood. They must be people who pick up the game because it covers a topic they like but who do not otherwise play video and computer games.

Of course, as you should understand by now, I don't believe that anyone labels CMSF as an RTS in an "innocent" fashion. Read above to my reply to Michael as to why.

[ July 29, 2007, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Becket ]

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rlg85:

That ultimate vision sounds like it is shining directly from between your left cheek and your right cheek. If you're going throw out uninformed guesswork onto the forum, at least have the common sense to identify it as such. That way, when it comes back to bite you on the ass, you won't look half as foolish. </font>

Actually , it pretty much was uninformed guess work, I cant actually know what goes on in the minds of the devs, I can only read what he posts. (Speaking of Steve in particular, who seems to like the RT and has said several times about how it was designed for RT, I take that at face value)

And yes, theyve been saying it fovever, and no, I don't regret pre-ordering, I like the game. I just think it is missing a lot about what I enjoyed in CMx1, but.. we're moving forward.

[rlg85]

Originally posted by rlg85:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rlg85:

That ultimate vision sounds like it is shining directly from between your left cheek and your right cheek. If you're going throw out uninformed guesswork onto the forum, at least have the common sense to identify it as such. That way, when it comes back to bite you on the ass, you won't look half as foolish. </font>

Actually , it pretty much was uninformed guess work, I cant actually know what goes on in the minds of the devs, I can only read what he posts. (Speaking of Steve in particular, who seems to like the RT and has said several times about how it was designed for RT, I take that at face value)

And yes, theyve been saying it fovever, and no, I don't regret pre-ordering, I like the game. I just think it is missing a lot about what I enjoyed in CMx1, but.. we're moving forward. </font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

rgl85, I think you misinterpreted what Steve was saying. BFC wanted both modes of play. What Steve was explaining was that designing it in (not for) RT they could easily make it do TB. If they had been designing it with TB in mind, they would have a nightmare making it do RT.

If BFC thought RT was the way to go, it's a fair bet you wouldn't be having a TB option right now.

[rlg85]

You may be right, and so.. We will see.

I think we've reached the logical conclusion of this arguement, so as someone posted before, it's time to start arguing about how the camelback is modeled.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

rgl85,

I don't think anyone has an issue with how you behave, which is pretty fine. however when you said:

t it is pretty clear that the ultimate vision of this does not include WEGO.

you may find you'll catch less flak if you put an IMHO or similar in there. Making definite statements about something that is not in evidence gets challenged around here. A lot.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by rlg85:

it's time to start arguing about how the camelback is modeled.

Camelus Dromedarius or Camelus Bactrianus? One bump and two respectively, I think you'll find.

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

rgl85,

I don't think anyone has an issue with how you behave, which is pretty fine. however when you said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />t it is pretty clear that the ultimate vision of this does not include WEGO.

you may find you'll catch less flak if you put an IMHO or similar in there. Making definite statements about something that is not in evidence gets challenged around here. A lot. </font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Nah, you weren't doing too bad. Infact, you've risen in my estimation by continuing to post. (and saying I'm right goes a long way too ) I just thought you were wrong, I did not think you an asshat. With the forum gone wild I guess peoples blood is up more then usual.

So please, pull up a chair, grab a drink of your choice and make yourself at home. Once you get to know us we're an okay bunch*.

*Except Seanachai, stay away from him

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rlg85:

You may be right, and so.. We will see.

I think we've reached the logical conclusion of this arguement, so as someone posted before, it's time to start arguing about how the camelback is modeled.

There ya go. I'm just saying, don't jump to conclusions. There are now what - 10 or 12 pages of posts full of feedback for BF.C to look at? And mounting daily? It may be premature to write off WEGO based only on guesses; yours is as good as mine, but that means it is also as bad as mine.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

This game is brilliant. It's what I always wanted Combat Mission to be. The turns in the older games were a straight-jacket for me. I knew how phony pausing every sixty-seconds to plan a move really was, and I just felt like it was all a big joke.

I am having absolutely no trouble, at all, controlling my forces, limited in number as they might be. I find the interface, in particular the camera, to be infinitely superior to that of its predecessors. As is the case with so many contemporary games, the mouse wheel and buttons take care of just about everything.

I can understand why folks who hate not being in control of every event on the map might be disappointed by what they perceive to be a diminished ability to "manage" affairs the way that they did in the past. Let me point out, however, that tactical warfare evidences no such deliberative characteristic or quality, none, whatsoever.

Today, I was almost through playing a scenario when a thunderstorm arrived. The wind outside was howling and rain was coming down in sheets. Then, lightning struck nearby and the electricity failed. My UPS kicked in, and I should have begun shutting everything down, BUT NO! I was so excited that I played the last five minutes, or so, on battery. Great investment, huh, the game I mean?

PoE

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

This game is brilliant. It's what I always wanted Combat Mission to be. The turns in the older games were a straight-jacket for me. I knew how phony pausing every sixty-seconds to plan a move really was, and I just felt like it was all a big joke.

I am having absolutely no trouble, at all, controlling my forces, limited in number as they might be. I find the interface, in particular the camera, to be infinitely superior to that of its predecessors. As is the case with so many contemporary games, the mouse wheel and buttons take care of just about everything.

I can understand why folks who hate not being in control of every event on the map might be disappointed by what they perceive to be a diminished ability to "manage" affairs the way that they did in the past. Let me point out, however, that tactical warfare evidences no such deliberative characteristic or quality, none, whatsoever.

Today, I was almost through playing a scenario when a thunderstorm arrived. The wind outside was howling and rain was coming down in sheets. Then, lightning struck nearby and the electricity failed. My UPS kicked in, and I should have begun shutting everything down, BUT NO! I was so excited that I played the last five minutes, or so, on battery. Great investment, huh, the game I mean?

PoE

Yeah, I can see how you would feel constrained.

But having come from playing board games and other turn-based stuff, it feels better.(And no, im not old, just a wierd turn-based playing youngster (20s) ) That and I suck at controlling stuff in RT. So RT for me has always been something to mess around with in single player, where I usually cant keep up with the masters in RTS.

I just wish the camera was working as well for me as it seems to for others. That would probably increase my ability to control by quite a bit if I could actually use my shift and WASD keys. The mouse has been too jumpy at low levels. But hopefully that is something that will be fixed before too long as im not the only one with the problem.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

I knew how phony pausing every sixty-seconds to plan a move really was, and I just felt like it was all a big joke.

A big joke is what I feel about RT. Commanders have subordinates to filter down commands, they don't issue orders to every Tom, Dick and Harry in their command. To each their own

[Becket]

Originally posted by rlg85:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

This game is brilliant. It's what I always wanted Combat Mission to be. The turns in the older games were a straight-jacket for me. I knew how phony pausing every sixty-seconds to plan a move really was, and I just felt like it was all a big joke.

I am having absolutely no trouble, at all, controlling my forces, limited in number as they might be. I find the interface, in particular the camera, to be infinitely superior to that of its predecessors. As is the case with so many contemporary games, the mouse wheel and buttons take care of just about everything.

I can understand why folks who hate not being in control of every event on the map might be disappointed by what they perceive to be a diminished ability to "manage" affairs the way that they did in the past. Let me point out, however, that tactical warfare evidences no such deliberative characteristic or quality, none, whatsoever.

Today, I was almost through playing a scenario when a thunderstorm arrived. The wind outside was howling and rain was coming down in sheets. Then, lightning struck nearby and the electricity failed. My UPS kicked in, and I should have begun shutting everything down, BUT NO! I was so excited that I played the last five minutes, or so, on battery. Great investment, huh, the game I mean?

PoE

Yeah, I can see how you would feel constrained.

But having come from playing board games and other turn-based stuff, it feels better.(And no, im not old, just a wierd turn-based playing youngster (20s) ) That and I suck at controlling stuff in RT. So RT for me has always been something to mess around with in single player, where I usually cant keep up with the masters in RTS.

I just wish the camera was working as well for me as it seems to for others. That would probably increase my ability to control by quite a bit if I could actually use my shift and WASD keys. The mouse has been too jumpy at low levels. But hopefully that is something that will be fixed before too long as im not the only one with the problem. </font>

[rlg85]

What we need is a game where 1 person controls each individual soldier, and we all run around and act as if we are doing the real thing.. Oh..wait, that already exists.

I think people lose sight of the fact that this is a game, and beyond the way the units act on the battlefield, all this talk of which command style is more realistic makes no sense, because neither is.

For you younger guys like me out there, im sure your local recruiter would be happy to introduce you to what is realistic..

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rlg85:

What we need is a game where 1 person controls each individual soldier, and we all run around and act as if we are doing the real thing.. Oh..wait, that already exists.

I think people lose sight of the fact that this is a game, and beyond the way the units act on the battlefield, all this talk of which command style is more realistic makes no sense, because neither is.

We're talking about level of command. The game puts the player in the place of a company commander. You're right in that no company commander would ever tell a squad where to go and what to do. He would tell the platoon commander what to do, who would tell the squad leader what to do, and he would issue orders to the fireteams in his squad. The company commander would direct everything. But a realistic company commander game would be dull. He'd have three units (platoons) under his command, maybe a weapons detachment also, and he'd tell them what to do and they'd do it with no further personal direction from him.

No one would play it.

So any kind of "extreme realism" argument fails. Having said that, Berli is largely correct about subunits having orders filtered down. I think the time lag and the TacAI is what helps simulate the fact that different people were doing the orders in "real life". It makes the game possible, and more important, fun. And it is possible to assume the roles of the subordinate commanders without too much of a leap of logic; certainly the platoon commanders would have been briefed by the company commander and be reasonably expected to be on the "same page" tactically as their commanding officer. CM pretty much has a good balance as far as what orders it allows the player to issue and at what level.

[-E]

Originally posted by Becket:

For reference, here is the quote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Sorry, it's just getting to be annoying listening to non-gamers suggest that CMSF is an RTS.

I stand by this. The defining RTS games are so prevalent and well understood that anyone who - honestly, instead of by way of attack - suggests that CMSF is an RTS simply cannot be a gamer as that term is understood. They must be people who pick up the game because it covers a topic they like but who do not otherwise play video and computer games.</font>