SteveP Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 There really isn't all that much logical distinction between area firing an unseen ATG and stopping a tank in response to that ATG. Yes there is: in the one case, a commander (you) can message the tank to stop without being required to also send information on exactly the gun is located. In the other case, you have to send info on exactly where the gun is located. Using indirect fire, this takes time. In gamey area fire orders, you are able to do this instantly. If you can send area fire orders instantly, there why not argue for instant indirect fire? Why wait thru spotting rounds (since you can give pinpoint accurate directions instantly)? If the tank has a contact in that location, you can reasonably tell it to area fire on that spot, because that also is a simple, one sentence order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 But you don't just tell him to stop. You send him to a specific location based on your higher knowledge of where the enemy is located. It's the whole point of the game. Edit: Besides, you shouldn't be able to tell him anything if he's out of communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMiller Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 No, it's not a different beast, that's my point. Logically there's no difference between moving using knowledge you don't have and targeting using knowledge you don't have. In fact, you're probably moving him so he can target something he doesn't know about yet. I just mean it's a different beast in terms of player-based fidelity to realistic gameplay, that's all. Nothing to do with logic, mechanics, UI, or anything else. Remember the scene in Band of Brothers in Carentan where the American paratrooper sees the Tiger in ambush position, then sees the British column of tanks beginning to move up the road? The trooper informs the lead tank commander of the location of the camouflaged Tiger, but is stunned to hear the reply "Well, I can't shoot him if I bloody well can't see him, can I?" He then proceeds to drive up the road, directly into the waiting ambush...watched in close order by the men of Easy Company. Try to recreate that kind of reality in your next mission...all the tools are there...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Steve, your purposeful perseverence prevailing on this point is principled and praiseworthy, but particular posters' paucity of perspecacity pre-ordains polarization. Perhaps punting is propitious? Constant cerebrally constricted communication calls for comic relief. Great stuff mjkerner! M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Yes there is: in the one case, a commander (you) can message the tank to stop without being required to also send information on exactly the gun is located. In the other case, you have to send info on exactly where the gun is located. Using indirect fire, this takes time. In gamey area fire orders, you are able to do this instantly. In the other case, you have to send info on exactly where the gun is located. Using indirect fire, this takes time. In gamey area fire orders, you are able to do this instantly Okay. Now we are arguing properly, instead of reading what is not written or taking fancily worded cheapshots. Instead of ordering a tank to stop, I order my tank to go around the field and take out the unseen ATG from behind. Gamey? I assume so, because now we are talking detailed instructions to cope with the unknowable again. If you can send area fire orders instantly, there why not argue for instant indirect fire? Why wait thru spotting rounds (since you can give pinpoint accurate directions instantly)? Because the one is a needed fudge allowing gamey to also allow realism, while the implementation of instamt artillery is 100% gamey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Springelkamp Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 In a principal discussion about realism of Combat Mission, one loses right at the start, because CM doesn't have a consistent perspective for the player. The player is a lot of different roles at the same time. So we have to live with the logical inconsistencies this produces, but we all seem to be able to do so and enjoy the game. Albeit for very different reasons. Some players play to win at all cost, playing it like a sport. Some players play it as a simulation, curious to see what happens in different situations. Both perspectives ask for different optimisations, but CM is some sort of middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Instead of ordering a tank to stop, I order my tank to go around the field and take out the unseen ATG from behind. Gamey? Absolutely. The game is designed so that you play two roles: overall commander of a force, and commander of each unit. Without that, the game mechanics could not work. You have to be able to give orders to units that may be isolated or whatever. However, when you are in the role of commanding a unit, the game does not make it easy for you to act on information you have only in your role as overall commander of the force. If people can keep in mind that these are separate roles -- not the same person in two different locations on the map -- the question of what is gamey and what is not starts to get a little clearer, I think. If you can rationalize a way for you as overall commander to communicate something to you as commander of a given unit, go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMiller Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Instead of ordering a tank to stop, I order my tank to go around the field and take out the unseen ATG from behind. (sigh...)Aren't we talking about enemy units that are not visible to your own unit, and are also not known by that unit to exist?? That's what I thought we were talking about. If the tank doesn't know the ATG is there, and doesn't have communication with other friendly units to tell it that the ATG is there, why would it sneak around the field to take it out from behind?? What am I missing??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 sburke, you forgot one: 15.) Oh well, another sale lost. Yeah if there was only some way to actually document that impact on sales. As the only people with access to any figures seem to be perfectly fine with the direction they are taking and considering they are the ONLY people with anything financially at stake if it fails would appear to be quite content with their solvency I am gonna have to leave that one off the list. As the saying goes, that dog don't hunt. However I think I will have to include number 14. I think you need a #14.) When BFC fails to act on my idea or disagrees with me in any way, I stamp my feet and scream "bad customer service". Run off to other forums and bad mouth BFC to any and all that will listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Constant cerebrally constricted communication calls for comic relief. Great stuff mjkerner! M Lost on the masses, I guess, eh Mattias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMiller Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Absolutely. The game is designed so that you play two roles: overall commander of a force, and commander of each unit. Without that, the game mechanics could not work. You have to be able to give orders to units that may be isolated or whatever. However, when you are in the role of commanding a unit, the game does not make it easy for you to act on information you have only in your role as overall commander of the force. If people can keep in mind that these are separate roles -- not the same person in two different locations on the map -- the question of what is gamey and what is not starts to get a little clearer, I think. If you can rationalize a way for you as overall commander to communicate something to you as commander of a given unit, go for it. Well said. It all depends on how devoted to realism you want to be. Y'all should now begin to see where each of us would fall on that continuum. I for one am finding the C2 and Relative Spotting system wonderfully challenging and exciting, so I at least try to play with a close attention to realism...for better or worse. To each his own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Lost on the masses, I guess, eh Mattias? I thought it was a suggestion to go over to the copping a feel thread. :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (sigh...)Aren't we talking about enemy units that are not visible to your own unit, and are also not known by that unit to exist?? That's what I thought we were talking about. If the tank doesn't know the ATG is there, and doesn't have communication with other friendly units to tell it that the ATG is there, why would it sneak around the field to take it out from behind?? What am I missing??? Very little, except that there are a subset of players who object to area fire on an unknown threat, but think nothing of tip-toe-ing around said unknown threat. I am not objecting to either of those in game behaviours, whatever floats your boat. I am objecting to one response (area fire) getting the Grognard Stamp of Disapproval, yet much the same thing is apparently fine and dandy tactics according those same people. Just pointing out that logically they have very little ground to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I say again, we do not spend our development time purposefully making it easier for the player to do things which are unrealistic. That's been our primary design goal since the very beginning. If there are two choices open to us, we'll go with the one that favors realism. We can't get too worked up over individual perception of "annoyance" of such decisions. Otherwise we would have health bars, power ups, and god only knows what else as viable design decisions to work around such "annoying" things as losing a tank to a freak flank shot or the much dreaded "bogging shouldn't ever bog anything I care about" arguments. Sure, we can agree to have different opinions on where to draw the line. But we have to make sure we're on the same page about the fundamental issues underneath. I think it took a while to get to that point, but I do think it's pretty clear now. Looking at the feedback in this thread I'm more convinced than before it started we have the right features in place. This issue hasn't come up in 3+ years of CM:SF/CM:A sales, so that tells us something right there. The issue, now raised, has about 2.5 people in favor of it, maybe 3 if we round up. There's far more than that actively arguing against it or at least not saying "yeah man, it should be changed!". I'm content with that. I'm also content because the game has a way around this right now. I've mentioned it several times now and for some reason it hasn't ended the conversation. Which I think is telling What is that suggestion again? The one I mentioned before? More than once? IF YOU DON'T LIKE RELATIVE SPOTTING, PLAY BASIC TRAINING Why are we still arguing about something which already has a solution in the game that can be used right now, today? If you have a problem with the title of that Mode, just don't tell anybody you're using it Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I am objecting to one response (area fire) getting the Grognard Stamp of Disapproval, yet much the same thing is apparently fine and dandy tactics according those same people. Just pointing out that logically they have very little ground to stand on. Which is why I've made sure that you guys know, at least from the game designer's standpoint, that we also don't think they have much ground to stand on. That doesn't change the fact that it's "gamey" just like going 56 mph in a 55 mph speed zone is "speeding" Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I thought it was a suggestion to go over to the copping a feel thread. :-P I really enjoy it when a thread gets two or more side conversations going. It no longer a thread but a tapestry at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Correct, which is why I not only don't see a reason to change anything, but instead see strong reasons to not change anything. It's clear and simple with the way it works now. If you select a unit you see what it sees. If you can't see something then you aren't supposed to be shooting at it. People do anyway, using Area Fire (heck, I "cheat" like this too ), but there's absolutely no reason for us to make it easier. Steve I like it the way it is now, too. But whether area-firing a mortar onto a location to try and kill a contact it can't see (but which can be seen by a different unit) is "cheating" or too gamey is a grey area... Example: An infantry team loses a man to a sniper. A mortar team in the vicinity doesn't see the sniper, but would see the sniper victim go down and know that some enemy fire had just come from that area. So, with LOS to that area, the mortar could legitimately put some direct area-fire on it for suppression purposes, and that would be entirely realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Why are we still arguing about something which already has a solution in the game that can be used right now, today? Because you seemed to be arguing something different from what WoD and I were pointing out. I, and I reckon WoD, have no problems with how it currently is. We don't require area fire made easier or have problems with relative spotting. Not advocating for any change in how it works, I am absolutely fine with how the whole thing works. I was merely pointing out that us area firing SOBs aren't any more gamey then those guys that do not. Or at least that we are more consistent in where we draw the gamey line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm also content because the game has a way around this right now. I've mentioned it several times now and for some reason it hasn't ended the conversation. Which I think is telling What is that suggestion again? The one I mentioned before? More than once? IF YOU DON'T LIKE RELATIVE SPOTTING, PLAY BASIC TRAINING Why are we still arguing about something which already has a solution in the game that can be used right now, today? If you have a problem with the title of that Mode, just don't tell anybody you're using it Steve But the issue is not relative spotting itself. It's fine as a game mechanic, it's bad when used to break the UI. I wouldn't have a problem with not being able to area fire in certain situations, but if it can't be implemented as a game mechanic, it shouldn't be in the UI either. Because it just doesn't make sense. I have to restrain myself from area firing on something the mortar can see, but I'm expected to move an HQ to see that target so he can then call in indirect fire from that same mortar? Or else how am I supposed to deal with that gun? Just send tanks suicidally at it until I lose them all or knock out the gun? It's the logical inconsistency and the user unfriendliness of this feature that's galling, not the underlying game mechanic or the attempt at greater realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 know that some enemy fire had just come from that area. Yes, IMHO, if the mortar crew gets a contact icon in that area, it is not gamey to order area fire there. That would be legitimate in either role you are playing, since as overall commander you could easily and quickly authorize a mission on a location already known to the firing unit. Otherwise, no contact icon, no area fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Lost on the masses, I guess, eh Mattias? No, I just thought it was a stylish yet unhelpful and insulting comment the responding to which would not improve the thread much. Besides, any response quoting you would rob you of a chance to undo the two spelling errors you made in your attempt at high-minded wit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 No, I just thought it was a stylish yet unhelpful and insulting comment the responding to which would not improve the thread much. Besides, any response quoting you would rob you of a chance to undo the two spelling errors you made in your attempt at high-minded wit. OOOOoooo...burn!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 No, I just thought it was a stylish yet unhelpful and insulting comment the responding to which would not improve the thread much. Besides, any response quoting you would rob you of a chance to undo the two spelling errors you made in your attempt at high-minded wit. Ouch!! This is good enough to be over in the peng thread. Not that I am suggesting you go there, place is full of loons...and I don't mean the avian variety. Besides i think they locked the door from the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Ouch!! This is good enough to be over in the peng thread. Not that I am suggesting you go there, place is full of loons...and I don't mean the avian variety. Besides i think they locked the door from the inside. Those dried out old fossils haven't noticed the door has been nailed from the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The door to the Peng thread is not locked. The instruction booklet thrown inside that explains how to open the door does contain long words though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts