For Me, If WEGO Goes, I Go

[thewood]

Michael,

That is the best summary of the balance between realism and playing I seen on these forums.

The one thing you left out is he would have some stupic colonel screaming at him by phone to get his ass moving.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

So, a turn-based game with micromanaged movement and other behaviors is inherently superior to one without turns? I used the term "straight-jacket" above to characterize my experience with turns as they were employed in the earlier Combat Mission titles. Well, there's another kind of limitation that appears to be in play here, and that's the dogma of so many of the older games' fans.

Seriously, a lot of folks treat their devotion to the strengths of the older games like a religion, of sorts, and never give an ounce of credence to their weaknesses. Zealotry among the like-minded is no doubt a great comfort within the confines of circle of believers, but it's a tomb for folks that are more open-minded, BF/S, I suspect, among them

I applaud Steve and everyone else at BF for their willingness to innovate and take us forward with a whole new engine, even if the act entails alienating a lot of old-time, Combat Mission faithful in the process.

PoE

[rlg85]

He is saying that if you don't agree with his definition of RTS, you are a non-gamer because its the consensus of gamers what an RTS is.

This despite, the BF2142, CivIV, BF2 , BF1942, Hearts of Iron, Eve Online, HL2, AOE III on my shelf. I am a non gamer.

Just when this thread was getting too friendly.. lol

[Becket]

Originally posted by -E:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[rlg85]

Then what are you saying? If RTS can only be C&C style games , and I disagree, then what am I?

Meh, as I said before, its all stupid semantics. Cue Michael Dorosh with something witty again..

[Becket]

Originally posted by rlg85:

He is saying that if you don't agree with his definition of RTS, you are a non-gamer because its the consensus of gamers what an RTS is.

This despite, the BF2142, CivIV, BF2 , BF1942, Hearts of Iron, Eve Online, HL2, AOE III on my shelf. I am a non gamer.

Just when this thread was getting too friendly.. lol

At least now I know your hot buttons. BTW, most of those games suck. But if you play DICE shooters rather than CliffyB's or Carmack's, maybe you really aren't a gamer.

Originally posted by rlg85:

Then what are you saying? If RTS can only be C&C style games , and I disagree, then what am I?

Dunno. Two choices I suppose. Someone who feels so offended that he can't see my point, or an ass who intentionally distorts it. Only you know.

[Thunderbird]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

So, a turn-based game with micromanaged movement and other behaviors is inherently superior to one without turns?

For many of us (old war gamers) the answer is "yes."

[rlg85]

The DICE shooters were just off the top of my head. Lately ive been mostly playing ArmA and Red Orchestra for shooters.

Oh I dont have an Xbox, so Gears of War is out of the question.. You got me on Carmack though.

I see your point.. That RTS is an established term and im using it as a generic. It was only the connection to all of a sudden being a non-gamer if you disagreed/were'nt aware of this distinction. As if gamers are only those who read gaming magazines or keep up on gaming as a whole.

It would seem odd to me, but I can see as perfectly possible someone who plays computer or console games and has never even heard of Command and Conquer, or AOE III. I just think you're too worried about the title of gamer.. Or maybe I am.. whatever

[ July 29, 2007, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: rlg85 ]

[Becket]

Originally posted by rlg85:

Oh I dont have an Xbox, so Gears of War is out of the question.. You got me on Carmack though.

CliffyB = Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Unreal engine.

[-E]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No one would play it.

You've just described my experience with SSG's Battlefront System in the 1980's. You're right as far as my money went, but someone was playing it enough they cranked them out for awhile.

[rlg85]

And Gears of War is based on unreal engine.. But no, I havent played Unreal itself, just RO.

Edit: Hey I liked the Battlefront system!.. lol

Used to play it on my C64.

[Becket]

Originally posted by rlg85:

The DICE shooters were just off the top of my head. Lately ive been mostly playing ArmA and Red Orchestra for shooters.

Oh I dont have an Xbox, so Gears of War is out of the question.. You got me on Carmack though.

I see your point.. That RTS is an established term and im using it as a generic. It was only the connection to all of a sudden being a non-gamer if you disagreed/were'nt aware of this distinction. As if gamers are only those who read gaming magazines or keep up on gaming as a whole.

It would seem odd to me, but I can see as perfectly possible someone who plays computer or console games and has never even heard of Command and Conquer, or AOE III. I just think you're too worried about the title of gamer.. Or maybe I am.. whatever

I think you're getting what I'm saying - I actually do have to run but go check my post to Michael on the other page. The "non-gamer" crack is intended to expose an ad-hominen common in the exclusive wargaming crowd. I loathe it, thus would rather see arguments that can stand on their own merit.

Originally posted by rlg85:

And Gears of War is based on unreal engine.. But no, I havent played Unreal itself, just RO.

You should get a 360. Gears is awesone. But it is coming to PC, so definitely catch it.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Oh, grog points for preferring those two over Dice games. not that I think they are totally bad. The user friendliness of the BF2 game is superior to the unwieldy ArmA. And they don't let the grass grow so so long that going prone is getting you killed cause you can't see anything. Pity the dice game form is less then ideal for serious gamers. And the typical user... *shudder*

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

So, a turn-based game with micromanaged movement and other behaviors is inherently superior to one without turns?

What I'm saying is in an RT game, the time that a company commander would have to issue orders to his platoon commanders is used to issue commands to everyone, down to lone sniper teams. I find that completely out of whack with my own experiences. I don't mean game experiences either. Command is punctuated with hectic moments similar to RT, but they are generally short, and the rest of the time is much more 'laid back'. I have no need for a constant adrenaline rush... had enough of that in the Marines.

Like I said before, to each their own. For me, RT has zero appeal

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Thunderbird:

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

So, a turn-based game with micromanaged movement and other behaviors is inherently superior to one without turns?

For many of us (old war gamers) the answer is "yes." </font>

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Chelco:

Ey Tinjaw!

You have been around wargaming for more than I can remember and I'm a bit surprised to read about your reservations with CMSF.

Do you mean this game CMSF has been toned down in realism to cater the RTS crowd? Or you miss some commands from the old CMx1 engine?

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I'm having a great time with real time and I'm just interested in your feedback. Regretably (understandably too), you are not willing to push forward in this thread. So PM or e-mail me if you feel like.

FWIW, the first pages of the manual have a section entitled "Unlearning Combat Mission".

Chelco, I would love to continue the conversation with you, or anybody for that matter, that doesn't resort to flames. My email address is the same as it has been since 1992 chaim@chaim.com.

I am working at the US Army Command and General Staff College as a Simulation Analyst these days. I am at OneSAF training this week so I am out of the office, so I may only get back to you in the evenings until next week.

And again, the offer to chat via email is open to anybody. I am sorry it can't continue in an open forum. Put CM:SF in the subject so it gets through my spam filters.

[To InvaderCanuck: That is not the behavior I am experiencing. I am uploading a screen capture movie to show you what I am seeing if you are interested. Email or PM me if you wish to have the URL.]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

So, a turn-based game with micromanaged movement and other behaviors is inherently superior to one without turns?

What I'm saying is in an RT game, the time that a company commander would have to issue orders to his platoon commanders is used to issue commands to everyone, down to lone sniper teams. I find that completely out of whack with my own experiences. I don't mean game experiences either. Command is punctuated with hectic moments similar to RT, but they are generally short, and the rest of the time is much more 'laid back'. I have no need for a constant adrenaline rush... had enough of that in the Marines.

Like I said before, to each their own. For me, RT has zero appeal </font>

[-E]

Originally posted by Becket:

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. The sad thing is that you even quoted me and you got it wrong.

I still don't understand your point of view ( specifically the connection between non-gamers & non-RTS definers). But it really doesn't matter... I've got far too many letters to write to the next of kin of my dead pixellated troops. You folks can handle the debate on what a gamer is and is not. *grin*

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Becket:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

E

You've just described my experience with SSG's Battlefront System in the 1980's. You're right as far as my money went, but someone was playing it enough they cranked them out for awhile.

You will, no doubt, find this a humorous tidbit. I too got this in the late 1980s and HATED IT. Then many years later, when the Computer Game Developer's Conference, was very young (attendence less than a couple hundred), I attended a session with the SSG guys (Ian Trout and Roger Keating). Keating was describing what a fiasco the Battlefront game system was because nobody wanted to play that sort of game. I spoke up and said "I know, I tried to return it but your American distributor wouldn't take it back". To which the whole room laughed and Roger put his head down on the desk! I meant it in good fun and, I think, he took it that way. They've put out some fantastic games over the years, but the restrictive play of the Battlefront series in the 1980s was not one of them (the technology wasn't there for it either).

Steve

[Cid250]

Originally posted by Tinjaw:

I don't know how else to say this, but I am seeing that the focus of CM:SF has been on the RT aspects. I liked CMx1 because of the WEGO. I don't like RT. I occasionally try the latest and greatest RTS games, and play for a while, but they don't have anything in them that makes the clickfest go away. So if Battlefront is looking to make the Combat Mission franchise into a RTS because there is more money there, then OK, and I won't be buying another CM game. If WEGO is staying, then bygolly fix it. Start by making CMx2 do what CMx1 did, then we can talk about changes. As it stands now, I can't see playing CMSF any further after the newness wears off and will most likely go back to CMx1.

And, since I am just throwing my opinions around, if CMx2 goes for the RTS crowd, IMNSHO it is going to die fast. As an realtime game, CMSF is just a kludge. Even though I dislike RTS games, I have played many, and Combat Mission Shock Force falls below well below the bar as a realtime game.

I'm not going to ask for a refund, but I will be waiting to see if BFC realizes their mistake and makes version 1.5 what it should have been, namely the next version of CMx1 and not a whole new game. As I see it, the "new and improved" graphics engine is not worth the loss of all the goodness that was the CMx1 WEGO game. You have forgotten your roots.

I've buyed CMSF, and i agree 100% with you...

There are hundred of thousands RTS games out there... that will appeal much more to any customer than CMSF.

I hope that they just drop RealTime in their next product, and concentrates in the WEGO. I will not buy anything with development focused in RealTime again... if i want a true RTS, there are much better options out there.

I want a WEGO wargame with much more details like it was done in CMAK and CMBB. The WEGO included in CMSF lacks the core functionalities of the earlier "wargaming" products.

The focus of the design, sadly goes to RealTime in CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

As for this discussion, it is an interesting read but nothing new. There are realism problems with both WeGo and RealTime. WeGo gives you too much unrealistic control, RealTime gives you too little realistic control. The irony is that the fewer units you have the more realistic BOTH get, because the absolute defining point of realism is to be a single Human with no direct control over anything but what you can hold in your own two virtual hands.

When CMBO was used for a Captain's training course at Ft. Benning there was a polling of the participants about various aspects of the game and their relevance to real command experiences. The two groups tracked were US Army Captains and a bunch of ROTC cadets (is that what you call them??). The question was posed about the degree of control of units under their command when hit with enemy fire. The ROTC guys complained that the units wouldn't obey orders and that was a flaw in the sim. The Captains, on the other hand, said that it ws pretty good, except they didn't disobey orders frequently enough

Steve

[Janster]

Damn, there is a lot of pissants here.

RTS can also stand for REAL TIME SIMULATION. The way you treated OP was really sucky, and several here should take the a word to the post.

This is an RTS game now, there is no avoiding that, saying its not , just make you look like an idiot.

With that , Battlefront has decided to test their mettle against a whole new slew of games.

Thats their choice, but what happened was abysmal at best.

PBEM is NOT an option for LAN, and moving files is a BIG step back, its like a tad too old school..

As for now, this game is a clickfest, with a clunky interface to boot.

Thank you

Janster

ps

to the poster above.

Interresting fact, but you must remember, your asking the player to be 100 + men on the field, and thats just not gonna be easy in a detailed sim.

The AI will NEVER replace real men, and it will NEVER do anything but a semi-ok job.

Good example is Compoany of Heroes.

It has a seriously superior AI, but leave your men to defend unsupervised...they are but that much dead meat.

Thus I have to be there micro'ing them every step of the way..and so will I have to do in this game too....

It's asking a lot of people who enjoy strategy and tactics.

[rlg85]

This thread is like something out of Monty Python, just when you think it's dead, Steve posts. Then another WEGO person posts, and here we go again.

But im done with it, I've said what I thought and now its up to BFC to do what they will with the comments.

Off to enjoy the game some (Please fix or do somefink with this shift thing though please!) lol

[AlmightyTH]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

True in its strictest form. However, I think that to add platoon commands would still be a more than welcome addition to the game, particularly for Real-Time play, taking we don't eliminate squad level commands. Also, don't forget that the IFV/AFVs would have to be counted as separate, but linked, units from the infantry platoons.

Gotta think that in 2009 when the CMx2:EF comes out, PCs will be powerfull enough to handle scenarios with reinforced battalion on each side. Try to handle that in RT...

So IMO, a platoon level command system would be useful and would not deter from the fun factor one bit. As would be an attach/detach function actually.