a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Slagging of Mr Dorosh seems to be the flavour of the day but no matter your opinion of him he knows more about ww2 western aspects than the majority here.

Agreed. However, when that knowledge is not properly channeled then it's practical value becomes somewhat reduced. Kinda like a biologist knowing more about a forest's ecology than anybody else in a room. And those in the room happen to be the owners of the land the forest sits on, the developers who wish to build on park on it, the people who wish to use the park, and the regulation authority that has say if it happens or not. If the biologist spends all his time lecturing the assembled people about the worries he has about some mold spore having a less than ideal breading ground for its colonies, instead of how to avoid soil erosion, disturbance of seasonal water ways, the importance of protecting vernal pools, etc. then what good is all that knowledge in a practical application?

This is the problem with grogs in general, Dorosh (which I call him because, honestly, it sounds cooler than Mike or Michael ) included, is that they lose sight of the big picture because they are too focused on things which are either less important or completely irrelevant. Bren Tripods being one of the classics of all times.

Steve

[flamingknives]

I used Herr Dorosh because I was writing in a deliberately inflated style.

Plus, If someone gives me the choice, I'll tend to use the more formal address. Unless I've met them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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

Player fatigue, or boredom, or whatever you want to call it, will be alleviated by one of a few conditions:

a) greater variety in units

greater variety in terrain

c) greater variety in types of scenarios

d) greater capabilities of the units

Counter argument:

Chess.

Fewer unit types than CMX2 (6 in all, and each side has exactly the same).

Less terrain - black and white tiles

Same scenario every single time

Unit capabilities very limited.

</font>

[76mm]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I was responding to Omneowl's request for Snow in Syria for one of the CMSF modules, not your request for Snow in Belgium 1944. Snow would obviously be an absolute necessity for any Bulge game.

Sorry, YD, missed Omenowl's request and besides am kinda cranky today.

[Omenowl]

I just like different pretty pictures and how it affects the game. I love Forests, snow, and mud (not so much sand, but that is ok I still love the game). Same reason I love football where they don't have domes. I believe a great team should be able to play under adverse varying conditions.

It changes playing style and expectations. I really want random weather and time periods. If it snows 8 inches in Damascus (which I believe it did this year) I would love to see if modelled.

[LongLeftFlank]

Count me as a Dorosh fanboy.

While he's surprisingly prone to get dragged into petty flame wars, I've learned a lot from him over the years reading this board. And, sorry Steve, even as a big BFC/CMSF fan, I believe his critiques of the game are mostly on point, even if he is demanding some "stretch goals" that can't economically be provided at present.

He's the closest thing this community has to a futurist (but look where that got Cassandra). Disagree with him if you will. Dismissing or belittling him though is unfair and unwise.

[Peter Cairns]

I think you need to stay close to the centre of the bell curve, if not you risk the game, as in ASL (and your shirt as a company).

There are lots of things that are possible but not all of them are probable. Throw two die and there are six ways to get seven but only one way to get two or twelve.

The more you try to put in "all the options", the more your risk distorting the game. Yes these things could happen, but how often would it happen in real life.

Do you spend a lot of time and effort putting in things that will only happen once in a dozen games? If they are in do you make them happen more than is realistic to show them off? Do you let players use them as options even though they undermine realism and make things more and more gamey?

It even applies to bugs.

If with pathfinding people do daft things that make no sense then it needs to be addressed but once you have it refined till it only acts oddly once in twenty times do you keep chasing it or do you say;

"Hell, if once in twenty the squad leader makes the wrong choice is that something that we can live with and which might not be that unrealistic".

You don't want unit or weapon behaviour to be erratic or unpredictable, but likewise you need a degree of uncertainty.

Every so often when every squad should go to ground and crawl for cover one will do something different and cross that gap under fire.

That might mean they get cut off and or cut up throwing your plans out but then that's (simulated) combat.

I think BF understands this, probably better than any other game company, so they simulate the main possibilities and get them right and they are willing to sacrifice the unlikely or rare both to cut down a lot of effort on things that don't merit it and to avoid information overload for the game engine and the players.

If you like it's "Want isn't need". There a limitless list of things that people want, but do they or the game actually need them.

I think that is a good starting point for any person wanting to make a user friendly product that isn't too complicated or covered in knobs that never get used.

I bought my wife an iPod touch because she can use it as an organisier and do Wifi e-mail and web which she uses at work.

I've got a clip on shuffle with no screen because I just listen to music when I am out walking, so it's all I need.

Both products do what people need them to do very well, and cut out anything else so that they are clean intuitive and reliable.

If you like remember the maxim "KiSS", Keep it Simple Stupid.

The current BF strategy of putting in what is needed and resisting lists of requests for more and more complexity and obscurity has to be the way to go for CM.

Peter.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I think you need to stay close to the centre of the bell curve, if not you risk the game, as in ASL (and your shirt as a company).

I'm not sure what this comparison is supposed to mean? Avalon Hill went under, but it wasn't because of ASL. ASL is still selling, in fact, Valor of the Guards just got released to much fanfare a week or so ago. For a list of all products, official and unofficial, released in the last couple of years, go here:

http://www.desperationmorale.com/worldofasl/worldrecent.html

More amazingly, out of print stuff is fetching obscene amounts of money. A Bridge Too Far is routinely selling for 400 dollars a copy, for example. Still extremely popular and probably still outselling newer tactical game systems like Panzer Grenadier. MMP, the official supplier of ASL stuff, just announced that not only will they be providing ASL content in their ASL Journal, but will be distributing it via Operations Magazine as well, which they had been loathe to do before. They have a substantial market.

The more you try to put in "all the options", the more your risk distorting the game. Yes these things could happen, but how often would it happen in real life.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think I've suggested too many things that are extremely rare, and I haven't been the only one to point out the conspicuous absence of prisoners, deliberate close assault of tanks, barbed wire, etc. Yes, you risk distorting "the game" but 76mm's point, which I'm replying to, is that "the game" is too sterile for his tastes. Flamingknives is at the opposite end of the spectrum, apparently, and wishes it was more like Chess. As I said, there is a wide variety of interest levels which I think everyone recognizes. Painting a scenic picture on a blank canvas is also 'distorting' it - in but one manner of speaking.

Do you spend a lot of time and effort putting in things that will only happen once in a dozen games? If they are in do you make them happen more than is realistic to show them off? Do you let players use them as options even though they undermine realism and make things more and more gamey?

For example? In CMX1 I could count on prisoners being taken every game. Just about any AAR I've ever read for my own Regiment in NW Europe listed enemy casualties in terms of killed, wounded and prisoners, so it didn't "undermine realism" in my eyes. The fact that friendly units had to be tasked to guard them was also realistic, though now with 1:1 I would expect something even more true to life, such as individuals splitting off (or disappearing from the screen), walking wounded being tasked as escorts (again, simply disappearing would simulate that), etc. - but a status screen of some kind stating that was what they were doing would be nice since there is a fairly large informational vacuum that the player is left in at present.

The current BF strategy of putting in what is needed and resisting lists of requests for more and more complexity and obscurity has to be the way to go for CM.

Peter. [/qb]

What is "needed" will always be a matter of individual opinion, and that's all we're discussing here. And it really does differ. 76mm's threshold of boredom is different than flamingknives', or yours, or mine. If you're going to attempt to argue that variety is somehow undesirable then you're simply not being intellectually honest. I understand the argument about development time and dragging the game down with pointless features (I've never played an ASL scenario in which anyone ended up swimming or climbing a cliff and don't lament the non-inclusion of rules for pipers, mine dogs or the Maus in CM). I don't necessarily agree that the "missing" features from CMX1 are pointless, however.

[ March 07, 2008, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

Count me as a Dorosh fanboy.

While he's surprisingly prone to get dragged into petty flame wars, I've learned a lot from him over the years reading this board. And, sorry Steve, even as a big BFC/CMSF fan, I believe his critiques of the game are mostly on point, even if he is demanding some "stretch goals" that can't economically be provided at present.

He's the closest thing this community has to a futurist (but look where that got Cassandra). Disagree with him if you will. Dismissing or belittling him though is unfair and unwise.

Thanks, LLL. I've learned a lot from everyone and I look forward to your posts as well as they're always articulate.

Not only did Cassandra receive the gift of prescience, but apparently in earlier life became entangled with "a man pretending to be a God." I've only ever known anyone from BF.C to claim to be a prophet, not the Messiah. The latter role was reserved for Lewis/Mr. Tittles/:Username:/Yoozername.

I hope people can see the difference between the kinds of things being suggested in this thread, and the proposal for Bulldozer Mission at any rate.

[Peter Cairns]

Michael Dorosh,

You can't really say a game is good on the basis that it is still selling or that people are collecting it.

Sure ASL is still going, but so is chess and I am pretty sure on a daily basis there are a lot more games of chess played.

As to a game selling for $400, sure there are a handful of people willing to pay that ( sad but true) but put it on the market at that price as a new game and you would be bust pretty soon.

I remember buying SPI's Cityfight when it came out because I really liked Firefight which was a really fast streamlined game.

Problem was Cityfight was all but un-playable in that although it was a good attempt it was just to cumbersome to be fun for all but the dedicated.

You could spend a night and get half way through a medium scenario. When playing Patrol or Sniper you could play a dozen games in an evening all of them more fun.

You want a game that flows, is quick to pick up and where you don't spend more time reading that playing or on a computer having to type like a devil just to make your units do simple tasks.

Chess is a good example of a game that is easy to learn and difficult to master.

That doesn't mean that CM needs to be simplified but what you do need is to be able to focus on the strategy and have your units realistically do what they would do, (with the minimum of actions on your part).

I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat.

Peter.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Michael Dorosh,

You can't really say a game is good on the basis that it is still selling or that people are collecting it.

We were discussing intellectual honesty. I guess I see how far yours goes. Did you even read the list I posted? I'm not talking about collectibles - there are dozens of Third Party Publishers putting out new content, and thousands of players still buying scenarios - and playing them. There are dozens of tournaments around the world every year - ASL Texas, Oktoberfest, Winter Offensive, etc. as further proof the game is popular, and has a very active community. Despite the complexity.

But you're right. They're all playing the game because it sucks.

I remember buying SPI's Cityfight when it came out because I really liked Firefight which was a really fast streamlined game.

Problem was Cityfight was all but un-playable in that although it was a good attempt it was just to cumbersome to be fun for all but the dedicated.

It's possible they weren't bright enough to understand the rules. My point is not to be insulting, but to point out once again, we are talking about individual thresholds. You are holding forth on matters of individual taste as if they are universal matters of fact. Anyway, Cityfight is on my shelf so I'll pull it down and take a look. I think the "problem" I spotted with it when I bought it last year was - from my perspective - the single map it came with and lack of flexibility. It came out a year before Squad Leader, so once SL hit the shelves, with its multiple scenario format, I don't think it was ever going to compete with that.

You could spend a night and get half way through a medium scenario.

Actually, you have no idea what I could get through in a night.

When playing Patrol or Sniper you could play a dozen games in an evening all of them more fun.

In your opinion. I was good for one session of Sniper in an afternoon. Actually, the maps were so BORING and there were only two - one urban, one rural - that was about all I could stand. Again, individual thresholds.

I did this VASSAL map for Sniper!

So it is not as if I am unfamiliar with the game. But there are only so many scenarios I would be willing to play on this bland little map. If you could play on it 12 times in an afternoon, that's great, others would differ in that opinion. The beauty of the random map generator in CMX1 was that there were always new tactical challenges. Another "missing" feature that is sorely missed.

I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat.

Again, you're stating your own desires. 76mm was pretty clear that a handful of AFV types doesn't cut it for him. So what would you like to say to him? A bit of a strawman in any event, as you're moving away from stuff you would expect to find in any tactical situation to truly arcane things. Intellectual honesty again.

How important would you say that factoring in the taking of prisoners would be in a Second World War title? Putting aside the question of how it is done. I think questions like that are far more important than whether or not we can expect to see arcane troop delivery systems. Because even in the modern era, they become important at the tactical level. Prisoners in Afghanistan are in the news all the time. In Gulf War I, prisoners were an enormous logistical burden, as they became in 1945 in western Europe, even at battalion level, or in 1941 on the Eastern Front. Surrendering can be infectious. A poorly-led Italian force would need to be modelled differently for that reason than a force of US Rangers in Normandy. Otherwise, you may as well just go play Chess - without differing morale models and tendencies to surrender, all you've got is pretty uniform mods on stock characters. If that's your idea of a "perfect" game - and it's fair to feel that way, I can see the appeal of a "clean" game system - then okay, but the developer loses any right to advertise it on the basis of realism or detail.

How important is it to be able to get ammunition for the Bazooka, without sending 6 (or 12) men running off the firing line back to an ammunition point or halftrack in order to fetch it? (That's how the Javelin/Stryker is currently modelled). Is that the kind of detail you would expect in a "clean" game system such as the one you're advocating?

[ March 07, 2008, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[flamingknives]

As it happens, this Colonel Blimp was not really a rulebook lawyer - He just liked knowing about rules that allowed him to win.

A rulebook lawyer, to me, is one who argues over an aspect or interpretation of the rules, taking the letter rather than the spirit.

I like all sorts in a game. A bit of variety and experiment and a bit of strategy. I don't think that a game is broken because it chooses variety over depth, or vice versa. It might have a balance different to what I like, but that's my issue, not necessarily a flaw with the game.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

As it happens, this Colonel Blimp was not really a rulebook lawyer - He just liked knowing about rules that allowed him to win.

In the ASL community, there is a large segment of the population that believe that knowing the rulebook is part of the game (and by extension, expecting your opponent to likewise know the rulebook and not to assist when he doesn't - your knowledge of a rule and his ignorance becomes a tool in the arsenal). I don't agree with that segment myself. It doesn't seem sporting or gentlemanly to me, but I see the logic behind it, as arguably the fellow who devotes more time to learning the rules and becoming adept at the nuances should be advantaged in the same way that the athlete who works out 7 times a week "deserves" to beat the athlete who doesn't, natural skill or luck notwithstanding. All of which is highly debatable and need not be argued here. More importantly, whether I agree with it or not, or whether you are aware of it or not, it is widely accepted, or put another way, it is a firm community standard in that group of people.

I'm afraid calling this fellow uncomplimentary names due to your own ignorance of this community standard simply marks you as a bigot. To me, it's not different than laughing at someone because they're wearing a turban and being unaware of the religious significance of the headcovering. And I'm not trying to be abusive; ignorance is ignorance - I don't think you're willfully ignorant or bigoted by nature, just unaware of this very tiny community's standards. There's no reason you would know that. But it makes sense when you look at the expense involved. Not just in money, but at the time invested in reading through that huge binder of rules which numbers several hundred pages; some fellows sit down annually and read it cover to cover. It starts to make sense when you realize the investment these guys make - hours and hours - to just learning how to play the silly thing. Knowing arcane rules becomes a point of pride, I suppose. It doesn't compare to playing Sniper! or Cityfight since back in the day, you picked that up for an hour's worth of wages, flipped through a dozen pages of basic rules, taught a buddy to play - if you could find one, odds were you played solo at least part of the time - and you both helped each other out with the rules. ASL is a world unto its self.

A rulebook lawyer, to me, is one who argues over an aspect or interpretation of the rules, taking the letter rather than the spirit.

Why just the letter? A rules lawyer can argue spirit just as heatedly as letter. I've seen it many times.

[ March 07, 2008, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[c3k]

Fires: This is in response to Steve's posting about no fires being set in MOST battles, WWII.

I agree that the average rifleman did not kindle a fire in an attempt to confligrate a wheat field, leading to a farmstead burning, which would prevent the enemy from gaining Victory Points. So, we are in agreement there.

However, I am reading "The Devil's Birthday", an account regarding "Market-Garden". In it the author, one of the company commanders in the battle, discusses at least 3 different cases of buildings purposely set alight. In each case it was done to illuminate the foreground of a defensive position, or to illuminate a river crossing point.

I mention this to refute the position that intentional fire starting was not done nor recorded in after action reports.

So, I would NOT like to have every unit equipped with a zippo icon (but if it were, I'd beg to have a tool tip explaining it). But, it would be useful to allow the designer, in the scenario editor, to set buildings on fire.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Ken

Edited to correct the name of the book.

[ March 07, 2008, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[flamingknives]

Why the letter? Because that's what I would describe a rules lawyer as and that's the sense in which I use it.

We called this chap Colonel Blimp because he was highly reactionary and deserving of the moniker, rather of any gaming style or preference.

If that's how people like to play, fine. To play that way with a neophyte seems unsporting and both sides are going to go away with a bad experience.

Personally I'd prefer that CM stayed clear of the kind of investment you describe. What really caught my attention with CMBO was how simple it was to play but how much depth there was such that I was still playing it when CM:BB came out.

[M1A1TC]

Didnt CMBO editor have a selection of buidlings, buildings on fire, and ruins?

[Mord]

Yeah, but I don't think the argument is whether things can burn...I think it's how they are set alight.

I look forward to fire being added back in the game, as it was in CMX1. Dry ground catches fire after a bombardment...building catches fire after being hit by flamethrower, ground catches fire from burning vehicle...that kind of thing. I thought it added to the atmosphere and chaos of battle quite a bit.

Mord.

[M1A1TC]

Have you seen videos for Far Cry 2? You can set fires, watch them spread with the blows of wind, burn grass and trees, etc. Seems like should be easy to implement in CMSF. We already have fire,directional wind. Why no burning grass?

[Mord]

I am hoping it's one of those time restraint things. I can live without it in CMSF but it sure would be missed in a WWII setting.

Mord.

P.S. I'll have to check out some vids. I am always up for a god shooter.

[flamingknives]

Seems like it should be easy?

Why?

[M1A1TC]

There is already fire graphics in-game. All you need it to code the spreading of fire from one spot (tile) of grass with direction of blowing wind. The grass tiles will be replaced with burned grass tiles, same as tree models replaced with burned tree model

How hard is that?

If they could code burning grass in CMBO 8 years ago, why not now?

[Mord]

I think a lot of it was time constraints...Stuff that hopefully will be added in as we go...just like the Kill List feature. Steve says they want to get that in. I am guessing it came down to we have such and such amount of time left, what are the most important things we need to get in first?

WEGO playback still isn't 100%. Craters still stay on the map when you rewind...in due time, hopefully all this will get in.

Mord.

[Childress]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

If they could code burning grass in CMBO 8 years ago, why not now? [/QB]

Maybe because, given the relative scarcity of grass in the theatre depicted, it's not worth devoting resources to the extra coding required?

[M1A1TC]

Have you been in theatre in RL? I have, believe me, it's not all sand dunes like in the movies. There is a lot of bushes in the desert

[Cpl Steiner]

Well there are plenty of buildings in CM:SF, and buildings definitely do burn given enough HE and incendiary stuff fired into them.

Along with better AI use of artillery I would put random fire starting and fire spreading pretty high on my list of things I most miss from CMx1.