stikkypixie Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I saw my above post was a little late One thing I'll say - and if I get eaten for it alive - is that I'm a little disappointed in BFC these days. I can perfectly well understand the problems of 3d Terrain and trenches (thanks for trying to hack foxholes). Similar abstractions exists in CM:SF (like the inability for the Syrians to split off the RPG Guy or crawl out a window or to blow up/scale a wall without being noticed). What disappoints me is how quick Steve these days is to "explain away" these concerns by telling the players how the game should be played, and what we are to assume. In this case, we are to assume that the Germans were only cabable of creating monstrous wide badly camoflaged trenches that were uncovered before by aerial recce. In CM:SF we are to assume that no Syrian Commander ever would try to restrict his exposure by sending only the RPG-Guy on the roof. Steve, I understand the tech problems and reasons behind doing things the way they are, but can't you just stop telling us "it's not a problem" because in your version of the war, every German trench was known about anyway? That is not the version of the war I want to be playing, not the one from my history books either. You give us detailed 3d guys and detailed ammo for each and all these improvements, it's an enormous detailed tactical sandbox, and then you restrict our tactical creativity in unrealistic ways while claiming "this wasn't done anyway" or "it's more real that way". If it's a tech impossibility, then I can accept that, but the constant sugar coating and calling it "chicken little" is insulting. Same as in TOW people were told that maps the size of 2km x 2km square were large enough for tank battles because "they happened a lot closer as you think". This kind of arguments from BFC side have started back then with TOW, and continue today, and that is what I find disappointing. To be more constructive, and to get from a question of style to substance: Many people have asked about the Iron mode already, and I know the problems (for example to get around a corner if your man are bunched on the wall and you can't see the place you actually want your men to go). But obviously many people are willing to try an imperfect implementation of Iron Mode, so can't you just give us an "inofficial" (call it "beta") Ironman mode that basically restricts players to eyes on his unit, the first two zoom levels and the last two (to get an overhead view of the map and to give command that can not be given from 1st Person view). If you can then add some kind of overhead visual camo to trenches as a flavor object or whatever (so they stick not out in color against the surrounding terrain), this would make them pretty well invisible to the Ironman players. I'm really puzzled that you guys spent years designing the ultimate wargaming engine for past and future conflicts and didn't figure out a viable way of hiding fortifications yet. The whole "terrain has no FOW" design is terrible for tactical sneakieness. I hope you get it solved eventually. I guess it's all about compromise. Who knows how the game works internally. The way the terrain is set up might very well enable a whole host of things which we all agree is huge step forward. Sugarcoating might be offensive, but I guess it has to put next to the all the rants in the opposite direction where it seems the game is totally unplayable if not every single feature is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 just learn to take some of that stuff as a comical aspect. don't take it so seriously, as annoying as it can be. we all have our faults and you have to understand that the poor guy is acting as a sort of PR guy for a business. since when have those guys been known for solid objectivity? Steve at least listens and after he has been cornered good enough he will later do what needs to be done, if it can be done, even if he doesn't acknowledge it openly at the moment. or someone else gets it done, what do i know. it may take months or years but some of that stuff has been done and Steve admits it himself just a few posts ago. he may not GET IT immediately, and thus throw the rationalization tantrum, but later he just may get it. also remember that the game is his baby, so it's just natural that he may be a bit defensive. those poor BFC bastards have earned with CMx1 at least one or two more shots at making a decent game before we lynch them for good. what comes to "explaining things away", it's just his opinion anyway, what does it matter. you can always laugh and call his rationalizations ridiculous piece of **** if it really warrants it. no need to get all sad and bitter. it's most likely some technical limitation that is forcing some game functionality decision anyway. perhaps some game design calls have been bad from a wargaming perspective, but at least things are moving to the right direction. when you accept the nature of things and expect less, you will not get so disappointed. you will also in time get to like the guy a bit more, with human failings and all that. what's not to like in a stubborn bastard? every now and then he also makes a very good point. it's not like he is always wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 Yeah, what he said... I think they (BF.C) are constantly improving the system. As long as our feedback has a channel to the developers, we're in a better position than most game communities. It's obvious that Steve hears our concerns; they may mirror his. Regardless, I'm sure CM:N will be an improvement over CMSF. (CMSF, v1.11, is a MAJOR improvement over CMSF v1.01. So don't take that previous statement to mean I'm denigrating what CMSF represents. Of course, I'm still eager to see the improvements that v1.20 will bring!) Hidden defensive works, if possible, will be a huge leap forward. (Where's Mao when you need a good quote?) Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Steve at least listens and after he has been cornered good enough he will later do what needs to be done, if it can be done, even if he doesn't acknowledge it openly at the moment. or someone else gets it done, what do i know. Yeah but why the need to "corner him" first? I don't remember BFC being that way when CMBB or CMAK came out - that's all I was saying. If something can't be done technically, then that's okay and has to be accepted - no need to try and gloss it over as unnecessary and the people asking for it as "nitpickers" or "not getting the full picture". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Possible answers: (a) Steve actually believes what he is writing (i.e., he believes that having no terrain FOW is not a big deal), ( the rationalizations have to be seen in context with attacks that blow the importance of features out of proportion. Action, reaction. Best regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 yup. you have to remember they took quite a beating when Shock Force came out. stuff like that leaves marks. those bruises take a while to heal, on all sides. i think at least one part of all the frustration, on both sides, comes from the lack of documentation. is something a feature or a bug? how is something supposed to work? how do things work in general? what affects what? why is it important that feature X is done the way it is done? it's hard to understand the big picture or the technical ramifications when you are given hardly any info on the inner workings. it was, and still is, a hard fight to get that kind of info sucked from the Keepers of Mysteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 RSColonel_131st, One thing I'll say - and if I get eaten for it alive - is that I'm a little disappointed in BFC these days. Well, I'm pretty disappointed in some of our customers too, so I guess that makes us even The truth is that if you go back and look at my posts pre-CMBO launch all the way through today you'll see EXTREMELY CONSISTENT behavior from me. Don't believe me? Check out the archives and you'll quickly see that this is factually correct. The biggest single problem I have to deal with are the "tempest in the teapot" customer reactions. The number of "if the game doesn't have this it will be unplayable" posts I've seen over the years is huge. A fantastic example of this is trenches. People saying that without FoW trenches, or trenches with certain behaviors, CM: Normandy will be a "joke"; neither fun to play nor related to historical reality. Really? CMBO did not have trenches of any sort. So, what the heck am I supposed to do with a customer that claims that a game they have not played yet is unplayable based on a feature that was never present in a game that they love to death? You really don't think there's a problem with this sort of completely contradictory customer mindset? If you don't, then explain why. If you do, then perhaps you'll understand what almost all of my posts about this subject have been about... Trying to establish perspective. Have I denied that lack of FoW fortifications is sub-optimal? No. In fact, I have said it is sub-optimal all over the place. Have I said that it is realistic to have fortifications spotted 100% of the time with 100% accuracy? No. Look through my posts and I have said this is absolutely not historically accurate. What you have seen me write is a rebuffing of the completely radical notion that without x feature there can be no game worth shipping. Irrational arguments are very difficult to confront when someone holds them because, well, they are being irrational So all I can do is try to offer some perspective so that the irrational views don't spread and we (Battlefront and this wargaming community) wind up with nothing but an unreasonable, unthinking bunch of people determined to be unhappy. I offer perspective by explaining not only the challenges we have as a developer, but where the extreme view is flawed. Call it "spin" or "sugar coating"... I call it rational discourse in the face of emotionally charged irrational lines of complaint. It doesn't mean people have to like the outcome... it means they should at least understand the situation in a way that is fair to both sides of the issue. This is absolutely impossible for some people to do, so their heads explode with rage and then they storm out of here. Good riddance. My case for mitigation of the FoW issues is simple... it's not nearly as historically inaccurate as the extremists wish to make it seem, nor is it as much of a game killer as they paint it out to be. It doesn't undermine the very foundation of CM: Normandy any more than it did CMBO. Not only that, but since we recognize this as an issue of importance, we will continue to see what sorts of workarounds we can achieve. And that SHOULD be the end of the discussion. But some people don't want to let it go. I hope you get it solved eventually. There will never be a perfect wargame to satisfy all wargamers equally well all the time. It's impossible to make such a thing, especially since there is a tiny minority of wargamers who thrive on misery and therefore will make sure that they never are "satisfied" (even after playing the flawed wargame for 1000s of hours ). Can we get full FoW of defenses into CM: Normandy? I don't know, but what goes on behind the scenes and what goes on here in public are two different things sometimes. Just because I say today that it doesn't look like we'll have full FoW for defenses doesn't necessarily mean that's the way it will be. Just like the infamous PBEM issue that cropped up during CM:SF development, I am reminded that sometimes you guys have difficulty with honesty Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 ... that sometimes you guys have difficulty with honesty After some thinking I come to the conclusion that Steve means "... difficulty with me[steve] being honest". Could be mis-read. Best regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I'd be happy with any fortifications subject to absolute spotting if that makes things easier. The justification is: they're not going anywhere. So if foxholes, bunkers and trenches are subject to the borg it makes no difference to me. If that makes things easier. Yes, but I am not quite warm and fuzzy with the gun emplacements being subject to the same rule. That would mean that dug in guns are suddenly subject to Borg spotting again. That could, no will, lead to the situation that we now see in the famous Nashorn scenario in CMBB where an unrealistic amount of return fire comes back from vehicle columns instantly after an ambushing unit opens fire. It would be fine with me if you could pick when you set up your gun - either foxhole and the gun is subject to per-enemy spotting or gun emplacements with better cover but borg spotting. Of course I could misunderstand and gun emplacement being subject to Borg spotting means that the gun itself is not subject to Borg spotting. That way the TacAI won't go waste it instantly, it would require a god turnaround and area fire which is unavoidable anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No, I mean "honesty" as a concept and not tied to an individual (me or otherwise). I've seen people, regular customers even, savaged for having an opinion that runs contrary to what the detractors have. Those customers are called "fan bois" and worse for expressing their honest opinion. Testers come in for even more abuse because they often post with a more enlightened understanding of what's going on since they are able to see "inside" to a degree regular customers can not. But in the context of my statement above, I do mean they have a problem with me being honest. That's simply because I'm the one that happens to be the voice of Combat Mission. Which is good for you guys since you're not interfacing with some PR flak or a "customer representative" who can only answer questions which are in his script, and only then give the answers which are found there. As I said, some people can't handle honesty because, judging by their own behavior, they don't understand the concept itself. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Redwolf, Yes, but I am not quite warm and fuzzy with the gun emplacements being subject to the same rule. That would mean that dug in guns are suddenly subject to Borg spotting again. I agree. As far as I understand the compromise solution we're working on, this won't be a problem for heavy weapons at least. You see, the thing is they are units and not terrain, therefore they already are inherently a part of the Relative Spotting system. I don't know of any reason why they would have to be removed from that. What I was saying before is that I'm not sure if all the new stuff can be added to the Relative Spotting system for technical reasons. But even that is undetermined at this point, hence me saying that it's possible it might or might not happen. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Well it would be fine if the gun emplacement, as in the terrain stuff is subject to Borg spotting as long as the gun itself is not. The goal here is to not get that unrealistic instant return fire from everybody. Since the TacAI of individual units wouldn't fire on the terrain (even if spotted) it wouldn't do anything unless it has spotted the actual gun. So it's fine to have Borg spotted emplacement as long as the things that are selected as targets by the TacAI automatically are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 You forget the real time aspect. Upon spotting an ATG the player pauses the game, has everyone area target the ATG gun location until it is destroyed. In CMx1 most players would area target the foxhole where the ATG was to prevent the contact from disappearing when the ATG was suppressed and heads down. Same thing will apply here. Steve -- any idea if the foxholes in CMN will provide better protection than the current shell scrapes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Testers come in for even more abuse because they often post with a more enlightened understanding of what's going on since they are able to see "inside" to a degree regular customers can not. perhaps share some of the Secrets with the Unwashed? perhaps if we primitive natives knew more of the inner workings of the Holiness (also known as CMx2 engine) we could understand the design & implementation decisions of the CMx2 universe a bit better and as a consequence protest less when we misidentify an issue as an outrageous crime against all that is good and proper in the world we are trapped in. we insignificant natives do not hold secrets of fire & metal; we can't construct rocket spaceships to lauch us up to the infite worlds of gods above us. no Nazi saucers are beaming us to bases in Antarctica or Moon. we are trapped down here, praying for Reveleations on the Mysteries of this world. in misery we tread the path randomly, blind & deaf, and the path is full of traps and plague. flying serpents, famine, zombies and 80mm StuG fronts torment us day after day. oh reveal to us the secrets of fire so that we can fight the hordes of darkness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 URC, yup. you have to remember they took quite a beating when Shock Force came out. stuff like that leaves marks. those bruises take a while to heal, on all sides. Some are long since healed, some are more recently healed, and some will never heal. Some had rational grievances and were able to communicate them to us constructive, even if heated at times. If that is all we got hit with when CM:SF came out things would have been fine. I certainly hold no grudges about that and have considered that "healed" for more than a year now. Others have expressed, strongly and sometimes heatedly, their desire that we "re-introduce" various game elements of CMx1 that aren't found in CMx2 thus far. Many of these are also on our wish list, so they are going in as well. Others aren't necessarily, but they appear to be important enough to the base of customers that we will do our best to get them as soon as possible. We don't have a problem with any of this either, except when the expectations are unreasonable and/or the method of expressing them is unconstructive. Which brings me to... It's the jihad element, the ones that are actively trying to do us harm because we didn't give them the game they wanted, which we still have a problem with. It is not our life's ambition to attempt to suck up to people who are inherently unreasonable, unhappy, and often times abusive. Fortunately, they are extremely small in number so they're extremist views, and abusive personalities, can be confronted, refuted, and cast aside without harm to us or to Combat Mission. Which is what pisses them off so much... they know how absolutely irrelevant they have made themselves, by choice of their actions. The funny thing is their egos can't take it. "What do you mean you won't do what I say?!? I'm a self appointed God of wargaming, you MUST listen to me or I'll call you a scrotum until you do!!!". Yup, insulting me and discussing my genitalia... really mature and definitely the right way to have a positive impact on wargaming So we move on and leave some behind. That's what progress is all about. If the Steel Panthers extremists had it their way, CMBO would have looked like Steel Panthers. If the Close Combat extremists had it their way, CMBO would have looked like Close Combat. If the CMBO extremists had it their way, CMBB would have looked like CMBO. And of course, if the CMx1 extremists had it their way CMx2 would forever look like a game made in the 1990s. It's a simple pattern that I have been pointing out long before CM:SF shipped. Years in fact. Hardcore extremists are, if nothing else, predictable. And all of this over a f'n game! At least I get paid to care so much i think at least one part of all the frustration, on both sides, comes from the lack of documentation. is something a feature or a bug? how is something supposed to work? how do things work in general? what affects what? why is it important that feature X is done the way it is done? it's hard to understand the big picture or the technical ramifications when you are given hardly any info on the inner workings. it was, and still is, a hard fight to get that kind of info sucked from the Keepers of Mysteries. When you guys ask politely, and sometimes even when you don't, I provide answers to the extent I can. That's been the deal with you guys for more than 10 years now and it won't change. I wish we could anticipate all questions ahead of time and dedicate a contiguous amount of time to answer them before each release, but that's impractical. So we have to slipstream the deeper discussion of the game's details as we go along. Plus, I think a 200 page manual is already pretty hefty perhaps share some of the Secrets with the Unwashed? Uh... what do you think I'm doing here, swapping cookie recipes? I've posted plenty of stuff in this thread which not even the testers knew about because, frankly, they are busy testing stuff. So you might be unwashed (thankfully the Internet doesn't have smell so I don't know!), but you guys are the most informed gamers about a game's inner working that I know of. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I agree with URC to a point. Steve, the biggest problem I have with your way of presenting things (and I understand you are aiming at the "tempest crowd") is that you sometimes provide very little factual info, or only some info that conflicts with other stuff on this board. We clashed last rather brutal over the Syrian's lack of ability to use windows as entry/exit points, or to do some other "insurgent" things. I have a good number of infantry-trained relations who saw that as a valid tactic and judge CM:SF as lacking for it. Your whole argument against it basically sounded to me like "the US wouldn't do it, and therefore the Syrians won't do it either". If you could provide some background material for YOUR stance in these discussions (for example, some WW2 research that shows German trenches were regularly known about before battle) then it would make your design decisions much easier to understand and agree with. I was reminded in this foxhole discussion about the non-enterable buildings in TOW - a technical limitation of the game with very real implications for historical realism, but at that time in the TOW boards all we got was that historically, troops wouldn't have done this or that anyway so it didn't matter. This is what I call "sugar-coating", and if you would extend the effort to share some of your research, it would avoid that appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Lurker765, You forget the real time aspect. Upon spotting an ATG the player pauses the game, has everyone area target the ATG gun location until it is destroyed. In CMx1 most players would area target the foxhole where the ATG was to prevent the contact from disappearing when the ATG was suppressed and heads down. Same thing will apply here. Not really. With WeGo you can be almost assured of the God problem resulting in Area Fire on an ATG. With RealTime there is more variability. However, either way what Redwolf pointed out is correct. The primary issue is to continue having Relative Spotting for the heavy weapons so that the TacAI won't engage automatically as it would have back in CMx1. Fortunately, this Relative Spotting for the heavy weapons is not a problem so it's a theoretical concern only. Steve -- any idea if the foxholes in CMN will provide better protection than the current shell scrapes? As answered before, new weapons + new terrain = fresh look at things. If we find that things don't appear to be working as expected in real life, we can change that quite easily. But since we haven't got that far with CM: Normandy yet, I can't give you specifics about any individual component. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 i get a feeling there is slight trend of people returning to the forum to check out about how various things are going to be different with the Normandy game. perhaps someone could keep a FAQ of some kind, officially or unofficially, so as to keep noise ratio a bit lower. i myself feel stupid, useless and lazy for asking things which have just been answered a day or two ago. that feeling may be justified in general, but in this case it would have been convinient for my interests if there had been such a FAQ post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Re: the "God problem" -- in CMSF, more often than not, a Stryker/Bradley/Humvee/Abrams of mine gets hit or even knocked out by an RPG (to say nothing of ATGMs) which it does not spot, even after the hit. Re: gamers' complaining -- considering the consistent quality and (in my experience) the virtually limitless replay value of BFC's games, I'm quite confident I will immensely enjoy CM:Normandy. The only BFC game I have not been thoroughly satisfied (which is to say I enjoyed it, but not as much as the CM games) with was one which BFC had not as much do to with as the CM games. Just imagine: with the camera positioned over the shoulders (so to speak) of a 57mm ATG's crew, you see a Tiger come into view over a rise in the near distance; the ATG fires, the round bounces off the Tiger's glacis, and then you see the crew actually putting another shell in the breech and slightly adjusting the aim while the Tiger reverses into hull-down position.... (Overall, I figure CM:Normandy will be what ToW wants to be when it grows up. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 You forget the real time aspect. Upon spotting an ATG the player pauses the game, has everyone area target the ATG gun location until it is destroyed. In CMx1 most players would area target the foxhole where the ATG was to prevent the contact from disappearing when the ATG was suppressed and heads down. Same thing will apply here. There's nothing you can do against area fire from God mode and the fact that real-time makes it worse only reinforces me liking WEGO better. People will have to use a honor system to not use area fire to get around units not having spotted a certain enemy if you are that concerned about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How is there more variability with realtime? I notice an ATG fire and pause the game immediately. I then issue every unit to area fire the ATG location. Is this much different than in WEGO the ATG fires and I cannot do anything about it until the end of the WEGO turn. If the tacAI notices it then it fires at the ATG. At the end of the turn I then issue every unit to area fire the ATG location. It seems to me that the real time option makes this spotting even more of a problem over WEGO. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 There's nothing you can do against area fire from God mode and the fact that real-time makes it worse only reinforces me liking WEGO better. People will have to use a honor system to not use area fire to get around units not having spotted a certain enemy if you are that concerned about it. I'm not sure the honor system is a solution. Many times the ATG will break contact due to dust kicking up in front of the gun or the soldiers crouching down in their position. If you do not keep hammering that position they will just stick their heads up and shoot at you when the shelling stops and your vehicles look at a different target. It is "honorable" to use area fire and blast a position with HE until you are sure that no one there has any interest in sending a package your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 RSColonel_131st, Steve, the biggest problem I have with your way of presenting things (and I understand you are aiming at the "tempest crowd") is that you sometimes provide very little factual info, or only some info that conflicts with other stuff on this board. I can only do so much. I throw out things which should be so painfully obvious that they are factually correct that I shouldn't need to take a week off of making games to document something that probably will be dismissed as "spin" anyway. If that's not good enough for you, then you're putting me into an impossible position. We clashed last rather brutal over the Syrian's lack of ability to use windows as entry/exit points, or to do some other "insurgent" things. I have a good number of infantry-trained relations who saw that as a valid tactic and judge CM:SF as lacking for it. Your whole argument against it basically sounded to me like "the US wouldn't do it, and therefore the Syrians won't do it either". Well, this is my problem with having discussions like this with you. That is NOT what my argument was and the fact that you don't seem to remember the other points I made, it is clear to me that you really don't care about having a debate. As a quick reminder... Many windows in the Middle East, in fact most, are barred or otherwise have some sort of impediment to entry/exit. We actually had soldiers who have fought in such conditions confirm this and confirm how difficult it is, at least some of the times, to get around this problem. Sure, the absolute prevention of this in CM:SF is not 100% realistic, but we think overall it is MORE unrealistic to have windows exhibit little-to-no effective difference between them and doors. That puts us back to CMx1's completely unrealistic transparent walls and that certainly isn't a step in the right direction for realism. But of course this goes against what you want, therefore you conveniently forget about it so you can paint a false picture of my argumentation. You should reexamine your own motivations before you start to question mine. As it is, we could add the ability for Syrian troops (only) to exit through windows with a few lines of code. So not even once did I argue that there is some sort of technical at stake here. It's a fundamental disagreement between us as to what is the best overall representation of combat within the scope we have set. If you wish to disagree with the details of that, fine, but please kindly don't misrepresent what I've argued in order to give people the impression that we're being unreasonable. If you could provide some background material for YOUR stance in these discussions (for example, some WW2 research that shows German trenches were regularly known about before battle) then it would make your design decisions much easier to understand and agree with. I shouldn't have to because it is like you asking me to document the fact that tanks were troubling to soldiers who didn't have a means of destroying them. It's a waste of my time to try and "document" something which is so obviously true to the extent I argued it in the context of this discussion... Hardline premiss - CM: Normandy's lack of FoW trenches undermines the entire game and therefore it can't be taken seriously. My Response - not every single unit going into combat went forward blindly and without any recon. In fact, trenchlines were often attacked for days, or at least several times by a single unit in a single day. The information gleaned from earlier attacks and recon would be applied to later attacks. Why? Because they couldn't be moved once located. Since CM does not simulate only first encounters, therefore it is factually incorrect to state that trenches should ALWAYS, 100% of the time be discovered by stumbling into them as was the case in CMx1. No, please... tell me why I need to break open a dozen books and cite examples to prove a point which is so painfully correct to make? Note that I didn't try to argue an extreme position that it's ALWAYS accurate to know where they are all the time, I've simply said that the opposite viewpoint (which is the one being thrust upon me) is demonstrably false. I was reminded in this foxhole discussion about the non-enterable buildings in TOW - a technical limitation of the game with very real implications for historical realism, but at that time in the TOW boards all we got was that historically, troops wouldn't have done this or that anyway so it didn't matter. I don't care what other game designers argue about their games. This is what I call "sugar-coating", and if you would extend the effort to share some of your research, it would avoid that appearance. And this is what I call "prolonging a burnt out argument and distracting me from more important things" Seriously, here's the summary of our position... 1. The extreme view that CM: Normandy can't be a good game, or a historical simulation, without FoW trenches is proven false by the fact that CMBO had no trenches at all and is still considered a good game and something with historical relevance. 2. We understand that 100% accurate knowledge of all trenches before discovering them through direct contact is unrealistic. It is also unrealistic that one has to experience them 100% of the time by bumbling into them a was the case in CMBB/CMAK. So it can be said that neither the CMx1 nor the current form of CMx2 scores perfectly on this matter. One can debate which system was, on balance, more realistic than the other... however, the person making such an argument must keep in mind that neither one can claim the realism high ground since neither system can possibly hold it. 3. We are definitely interested in having a system which is better than both CMx1 and CMx2 (as it is now) regarding FoW of defenses. Technical limitations impose restrictions on our creative freedom, but that doesn't mean we won't try to work around them. Hopefully, in time at the very least, we'll come up with something that is better than both CMx1 and CMx2 in terms of gameplay and realism. We just don't want to make specific promises right now. So I ask again... why is this not good enough for you? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Many windows in the Middle East, in fact most, are barred or otherwise have some sort of impediment to entry/exit. We actually had soldiers who have fought in such conditions confirm this and confirm how difficult it is, at least some of the times, to get around this problem. Sure, the absolute prevention of this in CM:SF is not 100% realistic, but we think overall it is MORE unrealistic to have windows exhibit little-to-no effective difference between them and doors. That puts us back to CMx1's completely unrealistic transparent walls and that certainly isn't a step in the right direction for realism. Steve Since most windows in Normandy do NOT have bars does this mean that you will be looking at changing this behavior? Some houses/businesses in my neighborhood have bars on their windows. Every single one of them that does also has a security door for each doorway. The windows are far, far easier to remove than breaking in the security door. I have not tried breaking into houses in Iraq, but I would imagine that if you bar the windows there you also have a door that you can't just easily kick in (security doors cannot be kicked in since they are specifically designed to only be opened outwards) since the whole point of it is to make it difficult to break into the building. I actually think this argument sort of proves RSColonel's point, but then again I was on his side in this particular debate long ago so I am biased. Also, the argument about FOW trenches seems to prove his point as well IMHO. The scenario designer can always point out where trenches are located via the briefing or (in CMx1 at least) put labels over the spots. Thus, they can be shown to the attacker in this manner. On the other hand if you cannot hide them, then there is no way to overcome this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Lurker765, It seems to me that the real time option makes this spotting even more of a problem over WEGO. Am I missing something? Yeah... the fact that nobody is forcing you to use the PAUSE button I rarely use it, and usually when I do it is to straighten out some sort of plan, not to micromanage targets. Compare this to WeGo which gives you a pause every 60 seconds whether you want one or not. I'm not saying this makes RealTime superior to WeGo, just that one requires the player to break with reality and issue unrealistic Area Fires, the other system doesn't. As stated before, having Relative Spotting at least eliminates what we used to refer to the "Yelow Lines of Death" problem CMx1 had. In that game system the second one unit spotted an ATG, any and all units within LOS would also spot it. Instantly, without any variability or delay. Because ATGs are high up on the TacAI's list of priorities, pretty much everybody within LOS would abandon what they were doing and start to whack that ATG if they could physically do so. We did have some logic like "the target I have is more important to me" and "it isn't worth trying" and "enough people are hammering it so I don't need to", but that just downgraded the Yellow Line of Death problem (earlier Alphas and Betas proved we did in fact do that). So in that sense CMx2's Relative Spotting offers a HUGE improvement over CMx1's Absolute Spotting in real game terms. What CMx2 can't do is stop Humans from doing Area Fire in an unrealistic fashion. We've already had a long discussion about the recently and the conclusion is, as always, there is no way to mitigate this without causing even worse problems. The case is very much closed on that discussion, though I suspect it will never be for some people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts