a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, and horses and Bren Tripods too

Steve

[JasonC]

Can a space lobster be scared by a burning cow? How about a burning cow with frickin' laser beams?

[Meach]

So the horse will have a burning bren tripod taped to it's tail to scare the German SS Space Lobster division troops?

I think I ate too much candy.....

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Well I am one person who thinks that the philosophy you outline is spot on.

If I go back to the Firefight analogy I thought it was a far better game than Squad Leader at the time. It had far fewer units and they well "Blue and Red", and the map was really basic.

But the alternate fire/alternate move system that meant at any time the game was balanced was so much better than Squad Leader's where you really only got a feel for the where you were at the end of a full move.

Squad leader had loads of special features but they tended more and more to be add on's and special rules that slowed the game to a crawl in an ever growing badly written rules book.

Squad Leaders rules weren't difficult, they were just clumsy.

You could pick up Firefight and play it in half an hour and it was a good simulation of modern combat stripped to it's basics so that you spent more time playing and developing realistic tactics than doing LOS tests and checking the rules.

Of all the computer games I've played CMx1 & 2, are the closest to that I've ever seen.

I liked sniper and patrol for the same reasons, easy to understand and play with a clear game system. Dorosh, might think the map was simple and boring but It's what you do with it that matters.

A chess board is pretty basic but it's a game that once learned has huge depth. Probably the best example of simplicity in a game of depth is "Go" ; a simple grid with black or white pieces that once placed can't be moved, and yet the most advanced computer in the world isn't even a match for an average club player.

I think the ASL geeks tend to want the designer to do everything for them and provided the entertainment rather than doing it themselves.

Squad Leader was far more popular at my club that Firefight because it had all those units and rules, great counter and maps, but look beyond the packaging and it wasn't anywhere near as good a simulation of the period it covered.

Heck, the game boards in SL bore absolutely no relation to the game scale that was being played. If they had then a SL road would have been about 70ft wide.

As you quoted Charles as saying about ASL " Who'd want to play this let alone put it on a computer".

Peter.

[gibsonm]

“Firefight” or SPI’s “City Fight”?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I liked sniper and patrol for the same reasons, easy to understand and play with a clear game system. Dorosh, might think the map was simple and boring but It's what you do with it that matters.

I see flamingknives' inability to understand that games appeal to different people for different reasons has rubbed off on you. Stop posting as if your preferences are the only ones that matter. It doesn't reflect reality - take a look at the sum total of the posts in this thread for evidence of that. 76mm and others have posted a view quite opposite to yours. I'm not advocating it, just saying it exists.

I think the ASL geeks tend to want the designer to do everything for them and provided the entertainment rather than doing it themselves.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but it doesn't pass unnoticed that you've stooped to demonizing through language.

Squad Leader was far more popular at my club that Firefight because it had all those units and rules, great counter and maps, but look beyond the packaging and it wasn't anywhere near as good a simulation of the period it covered.

It never claimed to be. CM:SF is clearly a game rather than a simulation, and guess what - so is Advanced Squad Leader. For all the bells and whistles and detail, ASL has never, ever claimed to be a "sim". Read the current forums at gamesquad or consimworld. I really wish people who know nothing about ASL would stop talking as if they do.

Heck, the game boards in SL bore absolutely no relation to the game scale that was being played. If they had then a SL road would have been about 70ft wide.

This was a deliberate design decision, and is explained quite adequately even in the original rulebook circa 1977. "Design for Effect" is the hallmark of the ASL system. You'll find it is perpetuated in most tactical wargames - Combat Mission very much included as Steve has pointed out many times on these forums. If you need a definition of Design for Effect, I'm happy to provide one.

[Childress]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Seriously, what's the difference between "chrome" and "flavor"???? :confused:

I mean we obviously agree, it just seemed contradictory to dismiss chrome in one sentence and call for flavor in the next...

Well...Maybe I was being obscure, but I consider chrome=mere decor (on map choppers, e.g.) and flavor=personality, i.e. providing a reasonable simulacrum of human behaviour; troops acting in a convincing, varied and realistic manner. CM1 had a bit more personality than CMSF in its current state, IMO.

Dorosh, I'm on board with the essential of your point that the game leaves one with an impression of sterility and that the cause lies with the stripped down modelling of infantry. The eye-glazing detachment I sometimes feel after a short time investment is not going to be cured by the inclusion of T-90s and BMP-3s. But you're dreaming if you think we're going to get grappling hooks, window entry, prisoner interrogation, and swimming a la Squad Leader. And do we need more hot keys?

But at least we've progressed to debating 'sterility' and infantry functions. A few months ago, the hot topics on the forum dealt with CTDs, hardware incompatibilities and other dire issues. So we're moving forward.

[ March 09, 2008, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve,

You said setting fires would never be in the game but a lot of posters have said this isn't what they want anyway, they just want the possibility of fires breaking out due to hot tracer and the heat from explosions setting fire to building interiors and/or dry grass/foliage. You haven't addressed this. Will fires ever break out randomly in CM:SF?

You also said that prisoners, handled in a similar way to CMx1, would make it into the WWII CMx2 game. What about CM:SF? Surely prisoners are even more important in CM:SF because it simulates a highly mobile modern army (limited capacity for handling enemy prisoners) versus a third world army (high surrender rate). I would like to know if prisoners will ever make it into CM:SF?

[76mm]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

If I go back to the Firefight analogy I thought it was a far better game than Squad Leader at the time. It had far fewer units and they well "Blue and Red", and the map was really basic.

Yes, I played and enjoyed ASL back in the day, and never played Firefight. Why? Because it looked BORING...generic units and basic maps don't interest me.

But the alternate fire/alternate move system that meant at any time the game was balanced was so much better than Squad Leader's where you really only got a feel for the where you were at the end of a full move.

Don't understand what this is supposed to mean?

Squad leader had loads of special features but they tended more and more to be add on's and special rules that slowed the game to a crawl in an ever growing badly written rules book...Squad Leaders rules weren't difficult, they were just clumsy.

Actually agree with you here...it got kind of crazy after awhile.

You could pick up Firefight and play it in half an hour and it was a good simulation of modern combat stripped to it's basics so that you spent more time playing and developing realistic tactics than doing LOS tests and checking the rules.

I don't want "a simulation of modern combat stripped to it's basics." I want a realistic game which provides an immersive experience with as many of the chaotic elements of real warfare as possible. And I can suffer through LOS checks because to me interesting terrain is one of the key elements in making a tactical situation interesting. You can dispense with LOS checks altogether by playing a tactical game on a chessboard, but I beg to differ if you think this allows you to focus on "developing realistic tactics".

Dorosh, might think the map was simple and boring but It's what you do with it that matters.

I disagree. Actions playable on "simple and boring maps" represent a very tiny fraction of the types of tactical battles I'd like to play. In CMBB, I regularly play battles in forest, farmland, towns, villages, cities, steppe, hills, night, day, snow, rain, heat, etc. And that's how I like it. Don't tell me I should learn how to enjoy myself playing on the same generic map over and over and over again...

A chess board is pretty basic but it's a game that once learned has huge depth. Probably the best example of simplicity in a game of depth is "Go" ; a simple grid with black or white pieces that once placed can't be moved, and yet the most advanced computer in the world isn't even a match for an average club player.

If you like chess and go, I encourage you to play them. I find them quite boring, and we're talking about something completely different here.

I think the ASL geeks tend to want the designer to do everything for them and provided the entertainment rather than doing it themselves.

This is a very patronizing statement. In fact, ASL geeks like to take the tools that the designers give them and provide themselves with endless hours of entertainment, rather than playing the same scenarios over and over again, placing rifle squad A in location X instead of Y, etc.

Squad Leader was far more popular at my club that Firefight because it had all those units and rules, great counter and maps, but look beyond the packaging and it wasn't anywhere near as good a simulation of the period it covered.

Again, a very patronizing statement. ASL is not popular because of the "packaging". It is popular because it allows players to create a huge--practically infinite--variety of interesting, challenging, FUN, tactical situations.

[76mm]

Originally posted by Childress:

Well...Maybe I was being obscure, but I consider chrome=decor (on map choppers, e.g.) and flavor=personality, i.e. providing a reasonable simulacrum of human behaviour; troops acting in a convincing, varied and realistic manner. CM1 had a bit more personality than CMSF in its current state, IMO.

Heh, I understood the distinction you were making and agree, but the problem is inevitably that one man's chrome is another man's flavor.

[gibsonm]

Good to see an on topic thread that’s out stripping peng.

[Childress]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I would like to know if prisoners will ever make it into CM:SF? [/QB]

Yes, but only (apparently) as a seismic retrofit.

But it's not just surrendering. Squads sometimes seem oblivious to fire and don't rout in a satisfactory way- they probably should break up into teams. And I loved the way they buggered off the map in CM1.

[ March 09, 2008, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Childress:

But at least we've progressed to debating 'sterility' and infantry functions. A few months ago, the hot topics on the forum dealt with CTDs, hardware incompatibilities and other dire issues. So we're moving forward.

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Good to see an on topic thread that’s out stripping peng.

And that, my commissioned Australian friend, is why Steve doesn't ban me. Well. Yet.

Though the use of "stripping" and "Peng" in the same sentence is at the least a bootable offence if not a bannable one. But look at me stating matters of opinion as if they were matters of fact...

[Battlefront.com]

Chrome vs. Flavor from our perspective is rather simple...

Chrome is heavily weighted towards a visual and/or audio effect that is, from an actual gameplay standpoint, unnecessary. Flavor is something that is probably visual and/or audio, however it is more weighted towards something with a gameplay effect. There is an extremely blurry line between the two, such as a Human character blowing apart when hit with high explosives. One can argue that it is all Chrome since it has no actual game effect, but one can also argue that it is Flavor because it causes some sort of deeper reaction to the game itself (and perhaps not in a good way).

Another way to think about Chrome vs. Flavor is "glitz vs. substance" or "fantasy vs. reality". Parachuting infantry in a CM scale game is more Chrome than Flavor because it has very little tactical reason for being in the game. Infantry being able to breach a wall is definitely more towards Flavor, even though there is a "cool" aspect of it. Tank turrets blowing off is somewhere inbetween because it doesn't really matter from a game standpoint (a dead tank is a dead tank), but it does look really cool and is a realistic effect which, in a way, makes the game itself feel more realistic.

The problem is that Chrome usually takes a lot more programming, art, and design effort to make work right than Flavor. Therefore, we must be quite careful about Chrome stuff. We've got plenty of it in the game already, though the "glass half full" crowd only sees what isn't there instead of what is there. But that's par for the course for that group Same with Flavor.

There are more things that can be done and in more ways with infantry in CMx2 than in CMx1. They also look and act a thousand times more realistic than the CMx1 infantry did. None of what I just said is an opinion, it's a fact that can be easily proved. However, that is not to say that the entire subset of features from CMx1 is also in CMx2, because clearly that isn't true. And it can definitely be argued that some of the things in CMx1 that are not in CMx2 are disproportionally important to some vs. other features that are included. Therefore, to say CMx2 has quantitatively less Chrome and Flavor than CMx1 is demonstrably false. To say CMx2 has qualitatively less than CMx1 is an opinion that can be debated but, in the end, is up to the individual to decide for himself.

Again, I'll point back to what I said before about CMAK. A lot of CMers, in fact the majority of them, did not feel there was a compelling reason to purchase CMAK. From anecdotal evidence it would seem that the #1 reason was being tired of the game experience as a whole, but the #2 reason was not seeing the desert environment as interesting enough even for the discounted purchase price of the game. I think the only reason sales were as good as they were is because CMBO guys purchased it to get the updated game engine improvements for a mostly CMBO equivalent experience. Which is one reason that the call for King Tigers, Jagdtigers, and the like was as strong as it was. Those things were present in CMBO and CMBB, but not CMAK. Those wishing to play desert battles would never missed those vehicles, thus underscoring where the interest in CMAK really was (i.e. the Italian section, not the North African desert).

So if we did nothing more than swap out the arid setting of CM:SF I think people would find it a "richer" environment even without any other changes being made. Swapping out the arid setting and going back to WW2 would also likely give people a different feeling of the game without any real game changes being made. I for one liked the variety that CMAK and CM:SF offer in terms of tactical play and aesthetic setting, but it's a matter of opinion so I expect there to be disagreement.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

And that, my commissioned Australian friend, is why Steve doesn't ban me.

And you accuse me of taking credit for the deeds of others? Funny stuff This thread almost was locked down because of you, or at least continued on without your presence. So the credit for it going on like this is not really yours to take credit for.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Just thought I'd add Moon once said Up Front was his favorite "board" war game. For those who don't know, Up Front is a card version of Squad Leader (and yes both Moon and I know that makes it not really a "board" game then, but you know what he meant). Up Front too could become a labyrinth of rules as additional weapons and circumstances were added, but like Squad Leader I found you need not play with the kitchen sink every game. The advantage of a board game over a computer game in this day of Photoshop is that you can, and I have, added my own counters and rules to games to satisfy my own interests.

Computer programming takes more time and money and is more complex in that every addition has the potential of breaking something else, not just for you, but for every one else. I think we will see some of the additions people are asking for but I also think Battle Front has, so far, set its priorities right. What I think the advantage of a computer game is over a board game is fog of war, and the new spotting features make the most of that advantage in order to improve the game much more than some of the other features asked for would.

P.S. Not sure if Steve was joking. Will we really have a chance of seeing horses in a WWII game or will that have to wait for a pre-twentieth century game?

[LongLeftFlank]

Ooh ooh, and then I want -- nay, insist upon! -- "civilian" horses. And cows. And feral dogs. And multiple "skins" for each, because I don't want to see frickin Norman cattle in frickin Alsace.

[Battlefront.com]

Same reasons for not including horses in CMx1 games remains for CMx2 unless we tackle a game where horsed cavalry is a central part of the game. However, including Scuzzlebutt is definitely a possibility, though we're not sure how well we can simulate Patrick Dempsey. Lots of physics involved due to him being a leg

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Steve, I am outraged, outraged by your blatant exclusion of ManBearPig.

I will never play CMSF again, will shred my copy, eat the clippings and then burn my ****e. I'm serial!

[Battlefront.com]

Phew... I thought you were going to link to the Monkey with Three Asses. That's totally inappropriate for this Forum.

Steve

[Splinty]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

Steve, I am outraged, outraged by your blatant exclusion of ManBearPig.

I will never play CMSF again, will shred my copy, eat the clippings and then burn my ****e. I'm serial!

LLF, maybe Steve doesn't want AL Gore to show up....

[Kellysheroes]

Sorry, but I too am one of those once you give me a WHOLE SACK OF CANDY I'm gonna be pretty pissed when you only start giving me one piece of candy at a time.

I think this module system is going to get tired before it begins good. People are going to see it's just a donkey milking process of chopping CMBO/CMBB and CMAK into modules and just selling each for some near full retail price. A lil change in an engine and some more pretty pictures and doesn't even really feel like the old series at all and oh I'm betting $35 a pop for each module. I didn't buy into CM:SF and I'm not sure I will buy into the rest now after seeing all the issues and problems with CM:SF. It must be pretty bad you can get it for like $7.00 on Amazon.com now.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Kellysheroes]

Lol nope. I don't care for modern fantasy warfare games like CM:SF.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

I think this module system is going to get tired before it begins good. People are going to see it's just a donkey milking process of chopping CMBO/CMBB and CMAK into modules and just selling each for some near full retail price. A lil change in an engine and some more pretty pictures and doesn't even really feel like the old series at all and oh I'm betting $35 a pop for each module. I didn't buy into CM:SF and I'm not sure I will buy into the rest now after seeing all the issues and problems with CM:SF. It must be pretty bad you can get it for like $7.00 on Amazon.com now.

Congratulations, Kellysheroes! You made what appears to be an instant classic post! It is a work of art in it's own right!

I especially like the lil change in an engine bit!

Best regards,

Thomm