Opinions of 1.05?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Go on then m_b, explain how.

Design process is sort of a lengthy, involving affair usually done by a group of people - a single person saying "Do it this way" tends to fail fairly often, so I don't really have the answers for you. It's an ongoing testing process - try a single thing evaluate it, move on, etc.

I can take a few guesses, if that's interesting to the discussion.

First important thing in examining the SF test is to ask - what is a scenario? Well, most importantly it's a specific place and event in time that came as a result of specifc events, force positions, etc that came before it - even minutes prior to it.

So the question is - how can one effectively design a scenario eight days into the future, when the designer has no information on how the player is doing, how the syrians are doing, what plan changes have been made based on the successes, failures, or operational decision-making of either side. "No plan survives the first contact" (or somesuch) - therefore a set of linked scenarios can never be a realistic campaign.

So what would you need? For one, probably the same things that would make an effective QB system - dynamic sets of AI forces that are a result of the player's decisionmaking, forces that can navigate whatever map they would be on, not just one specific scenario.

Force planning and organization - taking a look at a map, deciding which route to take and what forces to take. I have a battallion in CMSF - if I have a company that has been rendered inoperable in a previous engagement, I would obviously make the decision to hold it back and use other forces. You will never have a balanced, interesting campaign if a scenario designer is making that decision for you - it is not an informed decision. Why take those interesting decisions away from the player? Even if you're forced to do linear scenarios, why can I not take a look at intel and decide on my own who's the first one in, who's in reserve, and who is resting in the rear?

Those are the two things, in my mind, that would be basically necessary - though additional things may come up, and in testing, even the above may not be the best choices. You would have to keep at it until it works.

[flamingknives]

I would say, given the level that CM:SF works at, that the 'railroad' campaign isn't that unrealistic.

"You will travel down this route." says the battalion commander, "along the way there are liable to be enemy forces. We will provide what additional support we can where we think you will run into heavy opposition, but don't count on it."

Company commanders don't get that much say at the strategic or even operational level, AFAICT. A battlion commander has more say, but I don't think that you are playing at that level.

[molotov_billy]

The problem with the linear approach is that you're designing for things that haven't happened yet - there's no flexibility depending on how well the player is doing. It is not dynamic. Nothing you do in scenario B will change what happens in scenario F.

Pretty sure the force pool in the campaign is a battallion, though my memory may be failing me. You tend to get about a company of men in a given scenario, but they are often different than the previous set you had - they're rotated through based on scenario designer decisions.

That design does not allow for any type of failure on the player's part, and hence, as others have said, scenario designers are often forced to make lopsided situations to ensure victory - yawn!

Furthermore, it doesn't make much sense. There's a story there, but it doesn't follow anything that the player actually does. Why am I advancing when I just got wiped out? etc. Call it a campaign if you want, but to me it's a series of scenarios you play in order, one not having anything to do with any other.

The only interesting feature to me is the persistent force structure - though the pool is so big, I never noticed losses from previous scenarios - it always seemed like I had a completely new, intact company everytime I played. Didn't feel connected in any way.

[ January 02, 2008, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Paper Tiger]

Molotov Billy

I am working on a campaign at the moment and it is quite possible for the results in one scenario to have an influence on what happens later. It is definitely possible to create a dynamic campaign, as well as linear if the designer wants to do that.

The campaign scripting allows branches which means that if your company takes 50% casualties in one scenario, easy enough to check with the variety of victory point options we have available, then it won't be available until scenario 6 or 7 or never. It's up to the campaign designer to do the work.

The designer has the options to give the core units full resupply, reinforcements, or any percentage so, in my campaign at least, if you lose a core unit, it's not coming back, ever. You'll get some more ammo but depending on how well you defend at the start, you may get a lot less in the later scenarios.

For me, the scenario editor is one of the very best things I've found in ANY game. It's an incredible piece of programming. And the campaign branching structure means that pretty much everything in your last post about it being linear is just plain wrong. Really, I'm not joking, picking a fight with you or trying to wind you up. Screw up in scenario 2 and you'll be defending in scenario 3, not attacking.

[Battlefront.com]

molotov_billy ,

It appears you don't understand that your tirades are OPINIONS, and therefore only as good as your arguments. In my mind, and in others', you're wrong. In your mind we're wrong. Taking on an air of infallibility isn't doing your point of view any favors.

Nonsense abound. The war had a series of significant turn arounds at every level of organization - entire fronts fluctuating across continents, operational back hands and back blows on the order of severeal thousand, turning the tide of indivual battles hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times. How many times did the tractor factory change hands, or any random hill at Kursk?

Right... and what does the tactical have to do with the operational or strategic? And how much time elapsed between each of those battles for the tractor factory or the random hill at Kursk? And why is it that you think these situations aren't possible in CM:SF?

How does one explain to me, then, that the only thing a commander has to do is to hold up three fingers, make a wish, and the battle is won. It's naive fantasy at best. Where did all of these stalemates and reversals come form? Did the typical German and Russian officer not know how to count to three?

You seem to be of an opinion that every battle fought was some titanic struggle of epic proportions, with each side evenly matched down to the last set of shoelaces. That's simply not true. The majority of tactical engagements were pushovers for one side or another, the rest were usually turned around because someone applied the right leverage at the right place at the right time even when the forces were suboptimal. You can do all of this in CM:SF, so I'm dumbfounded why you think it isn't possible.

Nope - lopsided scenarios were a decision, not a requisite of reality.

You still haven't proved your case at all. You've only complained a bunch. That's not the same thing at all. So...

I'm not interested in building a scenario for a flawed product

OK, so in words only, tell us how you would make "historically accurate" and "balanced" scenarios that fit your particular definition of each. Actually, please start with your definitions of each since it is probable you are defining each in a different way than I would.

give me a correct set of features, an interesting enviroment, the game mechanics to mirror reality (not just a one-sided yawn fest) without silly arbitrary scenario designer tricks, and I'm sure I could take a crack at making a campaign.

It's all there, but if you don't care to use it that's not our problem.

But wait - I'm the customer, and you're the guy getting paid, so maybe that isn't the way it's supposed to work, is it? I'm still waiting on a finished product that I paid $50 for.

I'm still waiting for perfect customers. I have a feeling we'll both be disappointed for a while to come, though at least we're working on improving our side of the equation

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Paper Tiger,

Thanks! Obviously we agree that the tools are there since we did put them in

What Molotov_billy doesn't seem to appreciate is that there is NO ONE RIGHT WAY to make a campaign or individual scenario. So instead of releasing a game with a bunch of canned things that can't be added to or altered we put significant time into making the system open to end users. That way if OUR vision of how campaigns and scenarios doesn't mesh with a particular player's he can do it his way instead. If he's too lazy or disinterested, that's fine because someone else will likely make something he'll be interested in playing.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Flamingknives,

would say, given the level that CM:SF works at, that the 'railroad' campaign isn't that unrealistic.

We certainly ascribe to this notion. We always have, actually. It isn't laziness as Molotov_billy insists, rather a fundamentally different take on how real combat unfolds.

As far as I can tell the sort of thing Molotov_billy is looking for is akin to CMx1's "Operations", but at a strategic level (see further down about Steel Panthers). CMx1 Operations simulated part of one day or two's worth of combat between two forces that wouldn't be radically altered. We agree that such things are realistic, but unfortunately pretty much none of the customers liked them. So we decided to abandon that philosophy of one continuous engagement and instead embrace longer term engagements with (generally) significant periods of elapsed time inbetween. This gives us the designer the ability to customize each battle so that it has "balance" (which, ironically, is exactly what Molotov_billy is asking for).

As Paper Tiger says, it is entirely possible to build a Campaign in CM:SF that simulates a continuous engagement within a small amount of time. It's just suboptimal because to do that you're pretty much hemmed in. Terrain, forces, etc. are all pretty much the same and if you lose significant forces you have to call it a day.

What I suspect Molotov_billy wants is something like Steel Panthers had. We view such systems as extremely unrealistic (aka "gamey"), which is why for 10 years we've kept saying we'll never go down that route. It's just ridiculous to think that a lowly tactical commander has control of even a small portion of the variables that Steel Panthers made available. Now, I've NEVER said that the Steel Panthers system wasn't fun (I found it boring, but I know many hold the opposite view), just not realistic. So in my view arguing for an unrealistic system for the stated purpose of realism is not a strong argument to make. It's certainly not impressed us in 10 years so it's not likely to impress us now.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Molotov Billy

I am working on a campaign at the moment and it is quite possible for the results in one scenario to have an influence on what happens later. It is definitely possible to create a dynamic campaign, as well as linear if the designer wants to do that.

The campaign scripting allows branches which means that if your company takes 50% casualties in one scenario, easy enough to check with the variety of victory point options we have available, then it won't be available until scenario 6 or 7 or never. It's up to the campaign designer to do the work.

The designer has the options to give the core units full resupply, reinforcements, or any percentage so, in my campaign at least, if you lose a core unit, it's not coming back, ever. You'll get some more ammo but depending on how well you defend at the start, you may get a lot less in the later scenarios.

For me, the scenario editor is one of the very best things I've found in ANY game. It's an incredible piece of programming. And the campaign branching structure means that pretty much everything in your last post about it being linear is just plain wrong. Really, I'm not joking, picking a fight with you or trying to wind you up. Screw up in scenario 2 and you'll be defending in scenario 3, not attacking.

Thanks for the info. I look forward to a campaign that takes advantage of those features.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It appears you don't understand that your tirades are OPINIONS, and therefore only as good as your arguments. In my mind, and in others', you're wrong. In your mind we're wrong. Taking on an air of infallibility isn't doing your point of view any favors.

I'm giving my opinion on a forum - you're welcome to leave me alone if it offends you as such. I'm having a conversation with a couple of people here who have used real information as a source of their opinions, not accusations or personal judgements. I'm happy to continue the conversation with them. It's okay to disagree.

Right... and what does the tactical have to do with the operational or strategic? And how much time elapsed between each of those battles for the tractor factory or the random hill at Kursk? And why is it that you think these situations aren't possible in CM:SF?

It's an answer to the notion that battles did not take place unless one side was assured of victory, assured of a 3:1 odds ratio. Here is your quote that, in part, I was addressing:

"For example, in WW2 days the attacking side was not supposed to attack unless it had 3:1 (or greater) force at its disposal. If it didn't have such a force, then in theory it wouldn't attack and therefore no battle would take place."

You're using the phrase "in theory" here, but at the same time, using the piece of information as an argument as to why a WW2 campaign should consist of lopsided engagements.

The information I'm providing to this is that the 3 to 1 notion is a rule of thumb, difficult to apply in situations of limited intelligence, different levels of training, different levels of equipment, different terrain advantages, etc (ie, most of the time.) Equal engagements can and do happen. In a game made for both realism and entertainment, they are optimal solutions.

You seem to be of an opinion that every battle fought was some titanic struggle of epic proportions, with each side evenly matched down to the last set of shoelaces. That's simply not true. The majority of tactical engagements were pushovers for one side or another, the rest were usually turned around because someone applied the right leverage at the right place at the right time even when the forces were suboptimal. You can do all of this in CM:SF, so I'm dumbfounded why you think it isn't possible.

Where did I say titanic, epic, anything of the sort? Balance is not attached to scale. The rest of it isn't addressing anything I've said. You're putting words into my mouth, or arguing with someone else in a reply to me, or merging everybody's opinion into one.

You still haven't proved your case at all. You've only complained a bunch. That's not the same thing at all. So...

You may have missed 5 or 6 posts, then. I've addressed all of this stuff several times over.

OK, so in words only, tell us how you would make "historically accurate" and "balanced" scenarios that fit your particular definition of each. Actually, please start with your definitions of each since it is probable you are defining each in a different way than I would.

A couple people have said, including yourself, that lopsided scenarios are optimal. Here are a couple of quotes:

""Historically accurate" battles in CMx1 were no more likely to be balanced than in CM:SF. In a real war neither side wants a balance. "

"And yes, the Campaign we shipped with the game is designed to have the Blue win most of the battles most of the time provided there is competent leadership (i.e. a good player)."

I've explained my side of that argument very thoroughly, and I do not wish to repeat myself.

It's all there, but if you don't care to use it that's not our problem.

My critique is of the stuff shipped with the product. Doesn't matter if it's existence is potential held within the editor - the end product is not there. There is a single campaign in existence for Combat Mission: Shock Force, so it's fairly easy to ascertain which one I'm talking about.

I am not a developer for BFC, and I have no wish to finish your game for you. Telling me that I can make my own product is not an answer to a critique of your product.

I'm still waiting for perfect customers. I have a feeling we'll both be disappointed for a while to come, though at least we're working on improving our side of the equation

I've held up my side of a deal between two parties - I did not pay half price, or promise to pay you in 6 months, I paid you upfront for a finished game, one that was advertised as such. The party that has not held up their end of the bargain is Battlefront.

A person is not inferior because they have a differeing opinion.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What Molotov_billy doesn't seem to appreciate is that there is NO ONE RIGHT WAY to make a campaign or individual scenario.

I appreciate fully that there are multitudes of ways to approach any problem. Because I was asked, I provided my opinion on what I think would be an effective approach to the problem. It's seems like there's as much or more intolerance to others' opinions in each of your own replies.

That way if OUR vision of how campaigns and scenarios doesn't mesh with a particular player's he can do it his way instead. If he's too lazy or disinterested, that's fine because someone else will likely make something he'll be interested in playing.

Laziness and disinterest have nothing to do with it. I am critiquing the product that I paid for, and offering possible solutions to the problems that I perceive.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We certainly ascribe to this notion. We always have, actually. It isn't laziness as Molotov_billy insists, rather a fundamentally different take on how real combat unfolds.

So I looked through my posts for the term "laziness" or anything remotely related to it. Didn't see it anywhere. Could you provide the quote where I "insisted" that it was laziness on anybody's part? You're probably incorrectly reading into something else I said - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just making stuff up. Then again, I may be honestly missing what it is you're referring to. I don't remember saying any such thing in this thread.

As far as I can tell the sort of thing Molotov_billy is looking for is akin to CMx1's "Operations", but at a strategic level (see further down about Steel Panthers).

No, what I'm asking for is a dynamic campaign that changes based on my successes or failures. Battallion-level descision-making would be a fantastic perk. I won't argue semantics with you over "strategic", but the decisions I had in mind and related in my posts were not at that level.

The campaigns in Steel panthers were not what I had in mind.

This gives us the designer the ability to customize each battle so that it has "balance" (which, ironically, is exactly what Molotov_billy is asking for).

Most of the scenarios in the shipped campaign were fairly lopsided affairs, engagements where I generally only took casualties due to the scenario tricks I mentioned earlier, the type of stuff that generally wouldn't happen in the real deal. The 2nd mission, the airport, was enjoyable and challenging.

Terrain, forces, etc. are all pretty much the same and if you lose significant forces you have to call it a day.

My arguments were based on a solution to this problem. The dynamic features I mentioned would allow a player to continue after such a loss so that the campaign would not arbitrarily end.

What I suspect Molotov_billy wants is something like Steel Panthers had. We view such systems as extremely unrealistic (aka "gamey"), which is why for 10 years we've kept saying we'll never go down that route. It's just ridiculous to think that a lowly tactical commander has control of even a small portion of the variables that Steel Panthers made available. Now, I've NEVER said that the Steel Panthers system wasn't fun (I found it boring, but I know many hold the opposite view), just not realistic. So in my view arguing for an unrealistic system for the stated purpose of realism is not a strong argument to make. It's certainly not impressed us in 10 years so it's not likely to impress us now.

I didn't ask for the Steel Panthers campaign. If you're suggesting that anything I've said is an unrealistic proposal to the problem of realism, then you haven't read everything I've written, or it wasn't even remotely clear to you. If that's my failing, that's fine, you weren't my intended audience and I have no illusions as to what your response would be if you had been so.

It doesn't seem like anybody else here had any troubles interpreting what I was saying. I'll be happy to continue the conversation with those people.

[ January 03, 2008, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Topo]

I finished yesterday the second mission (airport) and it's been very fun and challenge to me.

At the start of mission, i've noticed some units are weaked due to casualties from first mission; A campaign more dynamic certainly add fun, and immersion depth, but even so, in my opinion, this game is great although with a few bugs and some things to improve (coverage and protection, for example).

Excuse my english and

Saluti.

[Thomm]

All I am asking for in the campaign system is persistent map damage, persistent wrecks, and, perhaps, persistent setup zones. That is, if you fail to reach your objectives, you have to fight on the map again, or fend off a counter-attack, while the city around you falls into rubble. That would be most atmospheric, IMHO.

In CC4, a map fought over again and again looked like this:

Best regards,

Thomm

[flamingknives]

I loved the CMX1 operations. I would have perferred a better model for taking and holding ground and resupply, but they were immensely entertaining.

Nearly all the scenarios I made (usually for my own consumption) were operations.

The trouble is, they last ages and probably take a bunch of programming that doesn't seem to be cost-effective.

But I'd still love to see them come back.

[Battlefront.com]

Molotov_billy,

I appreciate fully that there are multitudes of ways to approach any problem. Because I was asked, I provided my opinion on what I think would be an effective approach to the problem. It's seems like there's as much or more intolerance to others' opinions in each of your own replies.

Right... then why do you say things like this?

I am not a developer for BFC, and I have no wish to finish your game for you. Telling me that I can make my own product is not an answer to a critique of your product.

You see, this is the problem with your rants here... they are rants. On the one hand you insist that you're just posting an opinion and that you understand, and respect, that there are other ways to make campaigns. Then you categorically state, in no uncertain terms, that the game is defective and unfinished because it isn't doing it YOUR way. When I point out that it can be done your way because the tools exist, you then say you have no interest in using them or waiting for someone else to make YOUR type of campaign.

Can you not see that you can't have your cake and eat it too? Either there are more ways to do it than your one way, and therefore CM:SF is fine but not to your tastes, or you have the expectation that the only way it can be done is your way and therefore CM:SF is defective because it isn't what you want.

Which is it?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Rollstoy,

All I am asking for in the campaign system is persistent map damage, persistent wrecks, and, perhaps, persistent setup zones. That is, if you fail to reach your objectives, you have to fight on the map again, or fend off a counter-attack, while the city around you falls into rubble. That would be most atmospheric, IMHO.

That is the way we went with CMx1's Operations. After years of discussions on this Forum, before and after CMBO came out, it became clear to Charles and I that the majority of our customers wanted a more structured campaign. Some because they felt it was an overall more enjoyable system, others because they disliked the many shortcomings of the way we implemented Operations.

Since the amount of coding required to "fix" operations was enormous, and it still wouldn't give the majority what they wanted, we felt it was a poor direction to follow for CMx2. So we ditched the Operations design and went with a more traditional Campaign design. CMx2's system is best described as a semi-dynamic linear campaign.

The current system does allow for fighting over the same terrain from battle to battle. However, there are two limitations to doing this:

1. There is no ability to have troop positions carried forward from one battle to the next.

2. There is no ability to carry battle damage, burnt out vehicles, and the like forward from one battle to the next.

#1 is the major reason we abandoned the Operations design, so we'll never engage in that sort of feature again. It's a programming nightmare. #2 is something that we would like to see in CMx2 at some point, but I'm sure it won't be for the initial WW2 game. Too many other priority features to add.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You see, this is the problem with your rants here... they are rants.

Probably tells us more about your sensitivity to the subject, considering that other people in the thread are perfectly capable of having a debate on the topic and do so without dismissing others' opinions as "rants."

On the one hand you insist that you're just posting an opinion and that you understand, and respect, that there are other ways to make campaigns. Then you categorically state, in no uncertain terms, that the game is defective and unfinished because it isn't doing it YOUR way. When I point out that it can be done your way because the tools exist, you then say you have no interest in using them or waiting for someone else to make YOUR type of campaign.

Show me how any of it isn't an opinion. My opinion is that the game is unfinished, in that the campaign provided doesn't take advantage of any of the interesting campaign features that people are talking about. Telling me to make that product on my own isn't an answer to any of it - it's an absolutely useless proposition - I am not a developer of this product, and do not wish to finish it.

Can you not see that you can't have your cake and eat it too? Either there are more ways to do it than your one way, and therefore CM:SF is fine but not to your tastes, or you have the expectation that the only way it can be done is your way and therefore CM:SF is defective because it isn't what you want.

To make it simple and straightforward:

(OPINION) CMSF is not fine.

(OPINION) I don't think the campaign is interesting in that it doesn't take advantage of any interesting features - it's a string of unrelated scenarios played in order.

(OPINION) CMSF is an unfinished product.

(OPINION) If the editor's campaign features are to be of any real value to a customer, BFC should create a campaign that takes advantage of those features and include said campaign into the game that people have purchased.

[Battlefront.com]

For the record,

In theory I don't have a problem with Campaigns that are truly dynamic, in that each battle fought is almost entirely based on the last one fought. My problems with such systems is that they are inherently unrealistic. Or at least they are so inherently complicated to create in a way that is realistic that it precludes their development.

I have yet to see a fully dynamic wargame campaign system that "got it right", either from a realism standpoint or from what I personally feel is something enjoyable. The two systems that come closest are found in Steel Panthers and Close Combat 2. Both of which are over 10 years old now. I haven't seen anything better than these since and I don't think either of them were all that good.

Steel Panthers was far too generic. I literally got bored with it and abandoned the campaign I was fighting since I was nearly unstoppable and the ensuing battles became rote exercises in taking my über force I had kept from previous battles and running over whatever enemy force was in front of me.

There were no higher level elements that robbed me of what I already had, for example losses from skirmishes inbetween major battles, destruction by enemy air forces while in the rear, mechanical breakdowns, removal by higher levels of command, etc. Nope, once I got my Tigers I had them until I lost them on the battlefield, usually in so few numbers that I could replace them by the next time I wanted to use them.

Besides inherent failings in the game system itself (which was the real reason I stopped playing the game), the campaign's lack of "outside factors" influencing my up and coming battles just made the whole experience boring. CMx2 gets around these problems by allowing the campaign designer to determine the course of events and what forces are, and are not, available in the next battle. That is inherently more realistic, though of course it is up to the designer to take these factors into account.

The other system was Close Combat 2, which then was significantly altered for CC3 and CC4. Many CC gamers feel that CC2 was the best of the series and that attempts to make the campaign system more interactive (dynamic) backfired. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that they let the genie out of the bottle and found that the amount of effort needed to control it was beyond what they could viably produce.

The problem with the CC2 system was that there were set maps and set battle parameters. You went to the next battle based on what happened in the previous battle, but there was not much logic to it. I got myself stuck in a loop, for example, that kept bouncing be between two maps. I kept smashing the enemy's forces down to the last man, and for whatever reason it kept having me come back to those same maps to finish up that portion of the campaign. In reality I wouldn't have had to refight on that terrain since I had it held at the end of the battle.

In other circumstances I was forced to fight battles that I had no chance of winning. Worse, sometimes I was on the offensive! In real life I would have withdrawn in either case. The game system did not allow me to do that, so I had to engage in senseless battles that whittled my already inadequate forces even more. And since I would lose the battle it only made the situation worse.

To fix these sorts of problems, an expanded "operational/strategic" layer was added. This may have fixed the initial problems, but it introduced a host of others. Now people demanded all sorts of new features and controls because the new system had its own share of reality and game problems. This causes what we call "mission creep", where a solution to one problem creates an equal or worse new problem to come about. From a development standpoint this is a very bad thing.

The lessons we've taken from other games, and our own experience, is to never, ever, in a million years blur the line between tactical battles and anything above that. Or if we were to do something like an operational game, don't mess with strategic or tactical. If we did strategic, don't mess with operational or tactical. In other words, stick to one level of command and do NOT dabble in the others.

CMx2 follows these guiding principles. Neither the player nor CM itself try to sculpt a "story". This means both the player and CM can focus on tactical engagements and not get sidetracked into bottomless pit features. Instead it relies on the campaign designer to come up with an interesting, challenging, and plausible story to use as an outline for the tactical battles within.

From a development standpoint its the only way to do it as far as we are concerned, though within this design there is a great deal of flexibility. It is also far easier to come up with consistent "realistic" campaign results compared to the vastly more complicated systems that rely on the game system to generate dynamic results. At least that's our opinion as professional game designers who have done nothing but design games for almost 15 years.

Steve

[flamingknives]

If I might make a suggestion, strong statements like "CMSF is not fine" come across badly even if you do preface them with "(OPINION)". While everyone is entitled to opinions, some of them are based on flawed logic or unwarranted conclusions.

The same list with items 1, 3 and the first sentence of 4 omitted would convey much the same information. Possibly swapping "BFC" to "somone" as well.

I don't recall that the scenarios included in CMX1 games ever really covered everything that you can do with the engine.

[Battlefront.com]

Molotov_billy,

Probably tells us more about your sensitivity to the subject, considering that other people in the thread are perfectly capable of having a debate on the topic and do so without dismissing others' opinions as "rants."

And others have had a similar feeling of frustrating "debating" you. I tried to debate you earlier in this thread and found you unwilling to engage. As I see it you have no interest in seeing things from any other point of view other than your own. That is my opinion of your behavior and I'm sure you beg to differ.

Show me how any of it isn't an opinion. My opinion is that the game is unfinished, in that the campaign provided doesn't take advantage of any of the interesting campaign features that people are talking about.

And I disagree. Since this is just your opinion, and not an established fact, then it is possible that the game is finished instead of unfinished. However, the finished product isn't to your liking.

Telling me to make that product on my own isn't an answer to any of it - it's an absolutely useless proposition - I am not a developer of this product, and do not wish to finish it.

It is finished... it's just not what you want it to be. There is a HUGE difference. That's the sort of arrogance I keep running into with you. You acknowledge that you are holding an opinion, yet you insist that there isn't any other way to look at the situation. In other words "I don't like it, therefore it is broken. Since it is broken it is up to Battlefront to fix it or they aren't doing their job". Where in this line of logic of yours is there room for the possibility that there isn't anything to fix?

To make it simple and straightforward:

(OPINION) CMSF is not fine.

(OPINION) I don't think the campaign is interesting in that it doesn't take advantage of any interesting features - it's a string of unrelated scenarios played in order.

(OPINION) CMSF is an unfinished product.

(OPINION) If the editor's campaign features are to be of any real value to a customer, BFC should create a campaign that takes advantage of those features and include said campaign into the game that people have purchased.

OK, it is my opinion that you're wrong on all counts. There isn't anything broken and therefore there isn't anything to fix. So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If I might make a suggestion, strong statements like "CMSF is not fine" come across badly even if you do preface them with "(OPINION)". While everyone is entitled to opinions, some of them are based on flawed logic or unwarranted conclusions.

"CMSF is not fine" isn't a terribly strong or offending statement. It is clear and to the point.

Please point out the flawed logic or unwarranted conclusions.

The same list with items 1, 3 and the first sentence of 4 omitted would convey much the same information. Possibly swapping "BFC" to "somone" as well.

I'm not interested in walking on eggshells. It's far more useful to make statements as clearly and succinctly as possible, so there's no confusion.

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

If I might make a suggestion, strong statements like "CMSF is not fine" come across badly even if you do preface them with "(OPINION)". While everyone is entitled to opinions, some of them are based on flawed logic or unwarranted conclusions.

You see it, I see it, but Molotov_billy sadly does not. His logic is akin to sitting in a new car, not finding a place for his coffee despite a half dozen cup holders, and then decrying the car isn't a finished product. It might be that the car maker didn't want to put in something to hold a 48oz monster coffee jug from Dunk'n Donuts. Nothing wrong with the car in my opinion because I don't drink coffee, nor would I ever want to have a 48oz monster drink of anything.

I don't recall that the scenarios included in CMX1 games ever really covered everything that you can do with the engine.

Correct. In fact, you reminded me of someone just like Molotov_billy arguing that CMBB was "incomplete" because it didn't have the sorts of engagements he was picturing in his head. I don't remember more of it than that, but I have a feeling the "discussion" went along similar lines as this one.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And others have had a similar feeling of frustrating "debating" you. I tried to debate you earlier in this thread and found you unwilling to engage. As I see it you have no interest in seeing things from any other point of view other than your own. That is my opinion of your behavior and I'm sure you beg to differ.

Not true. My interest here is in expressing my opinion and seeing what others have to say about it. On the other hand, you've explicitly dismissed people's opinions for one reason or another in nearly every one of your posts.

And I disagree. Since this is just your opinion, and not an established fact, then it is possible that the game is finished instead of unfinished. However, the finished product isn't to your liking.

I've repeated numerous times that these things are my opinions. Did you see me previous post at all? I put an (OPINION) tag in front of everything that I wrote. I'm not sure what else I could even possibly do.

It is finished... it's just not what you want it to be. Where in this line of logic of yours is there room for the possibility that there isn't anything to fix?

Strange statement, considering that your team has been working on a series of updates and patches for 6 months, and is even doing so as we speak.

Even considering that direct contradiction on your part, I will simply repeat again that it is my opinion that the product is unfinished.

OK, it is my opinion that you're wrong on all counts.

I've never seen anything different from you. You need not repeat yourself, because I haven't asked for it.

There isn't anything broken and therefore there isn't anything to fix. So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

It seems like the topic and content of nearly every other post on this forum would disagree with the sentiment that there isn't anything to fix. Your own actions contradict your opinion.

[ January 03, 2008, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Battlefront.com]

Molotov_billy,

I'm not interested in walking on eggshells. It's far more useful to make statements as clearly and succinctly as possible, so there's no confusion.

Right... we get it. The game doesn't do what you want it to do, therefore to you the game is defective. Since it is defective we need to fix it so that it plays like you want it to.

Or do I not get it? Assuming I do get your position you need to understand that it is just an opinion, and therefore it can be disagreed with. And therefore there isn't anything wrong with the game and that means there will be no fix for something that isn't broken.

It would be nice for you to acknowledge the validity of the opinions of others. I have done so with your opinions, though I do not agree with them.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You see it, I see it, but Molotov_billy sadly does not. His logic is akin to sitting in a new car, not finding a place for his coffee despite a half dozen cup holders, and then decrying the car isn't a finished product. It might be that the car maker didn't want to put in something to hold a 48oz monster coffee jug from Dunk'n Donuts. Nothing wrong with the car in my opinion because I don't drink coffee, nor would I ever want to have a 48oz monster drink of anything.

This type of stuff doesn't seem alltogether useful. I suppose that in this example, the cupholders would exist in the blueprints, but not in the final product - and most people like cupholders.