Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 5:24:46 PM   
genMaczek

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline 		Hi :)

I'm long time lurker and fan of old wargames: Steel Panthers, CMBO, CMBB.
I'm looking forward to new Panzer Command, hope its gonna be good and will replace my outdated Steel Panthers?

I like the fact that you resigned from having 1to1 representation in your game. Sometimes the less is more :D .


Meanwhile lets look at "amazing" soldiers AI in Combat Mission :Battlefront Normandy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUlEFUYz2TU#t=38m43s
German soldiers struggling with the monster obstacle: THE WOODEN FENCE. Reminds me GI Combat .
Post #: 1
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 5:31:15 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		Oh, the humanity! That wire fence is more effective than a minefield at channeling an enemy force.

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 2
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 5:59:06 PM   
genMaczek

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline 		But there is more:

Check out this Panzerschreck team:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRqTkKVSrSo#t=24m49s

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 3
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 6:17:43 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		The thing that I notice is that the 1:1 level where every shot by every man is represented is there is a lot of firing and not much hitting. It may be realistic but it seems chaotic. You can't tell where firing is effective and where its just burning ammo.

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 4
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 7:15:47 PM   
Enigma6584

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 9/23/2010
Status: offline 		I always get a kick out of first time posters who have to start out their life here with "negativity" towards a perceived competitor.  Doesn't say much about their character.  In fact, I would say it is proof of absolutely no character.

Oh...and I'm still waiting for videos of Panzer Command Ostfront.  We'll then get a better idea of how that game plays.  Until then, it's all just pretty pictures.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 5
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 7:16:52 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		That's realistic. Combat is chaotic. It's not like an organized sporting event.

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 6
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 7:26:47 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
I always get a kick out of first time posters who have to start out their life here with "negativity" towards a perceived competitor.  Doesn't say much about their character.  In fact, I would say it is proof of absolutely no character.
I don't have much experience judging others character. The videos do show that one should have a little experience and practice with the game before they produce a video of the way it plays.

(in reply to Enigma6584)
Post #: 7
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 8:10:31 PM   
genMaczek

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

That's realistic. Combat is chaotic. It's not like an organized sporting event.

Good Hunting.

MR



Sorry but I dont agree with you.

These(videos) are obvious AI and design limitations flaws. Ofcourse the battlefield can be very chatoic but in real life every soldier has his own intelligence and can communicate - share informations with others.

You can't make a good 1to1 right now because it would require to write a very advance and complex mirco AI, almost near to full artificial intelligence.

In real life soldiers look around the corners, they sprint really fast to good cover positions, they analize situation, share complex tasks(even inside a squad) and they can think abstractly.

Thats why I prefer not so detalied games, beacuse they generalize things and assume that my soldiers(squad size) behave in right way.



< Message edited by genMaczek -- 4/21/2011 8:12:52 PM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 8
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 8:24:54 PM   
genMaczek

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline 		LETS GO DEEPER.

The Panzerschreck situation/example:

1. In real life the other squad(the one who sees tanks) would tell or show the Panzerschreck team that tank is behind house.
2. Panzerschreck analyzes situation by looking around corner or communicating with other team.
3. Panzerschreck team thinks abstractly, assesses its chances and tries to shoot tank by beeing near the house or they refuse to obey the order if they think its too dangerous.


And thats just the simple 2 men vs tank situation.


And what about more complex like assaulting the house with full men team?


THE WOODEN FENCE situation is another, but more like a design flaw when you cannot give soldiers more complex orders.
In real life a Platoon commander would command few soldiers to crawl and make a holes in such fence first.
Or the soldiers would just try to jump over the fence and hide in fields.
But thats require an abstract thinking :)





< Message edited by genMaczek -- 4/21/2011 8:33:22 PM >

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 9
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 9:15:20 PM   
BlitzCanuck

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/8/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: genMaczek

LETS GO DEEPER.......

THE WOODEN FENCE situation is another, but more like a design flaw when you cannot give soldiers more complex orders.
In real life a Platoon commander would command few soldiers to crawl and make a holes in such fence first.
Or the soldiers would just try to jump over the fence and hide in fields.
But thats require an abstract thinking :)




CM has already received enough criticism for lacking player input. Some feel it is too much like watching a movie. Imagine if they took even more player control away. The player in the video obviously ordered the troops to advance across the field. It would really suck if the troops decided on their own that they should stop and dig a foxhole instead of trying to follow the players orders. The player could've chosen to advance his troops in a more 'realistic' manner but he admitted in that video that he was kinda new and not the best at the game.

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 10
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 9:29:43 PM   
BlitzCanuck

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/8/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: genMaczek
snip....
Meanwhile lets look at "amazing" soldiers AI in Combat Mission :Battlefront Normandy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUlEFUYz2TU#t=38m43s
German soldiers struggling with the monster obstacle: THE WOODEN FENCE. Reminds me GI Combat .



I don't think that video shows what you are claiming....i see no struggling with the fence.
Most of the troops are kneeling near the fence and firing. Some are running up to it. And then there are some that jump over it and keep running. The fence itself is not preventing any troops from advancing....incoming fire yes, but not the fence.

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 11
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 9:48:39 PM   
genMaczek

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline 		I clearly see struggling, Some of soldiers are even jumping back(sic!) like they cant decide which side of fence is better . Some of them are going in circles, back and forth.
I dont think pinned soldiers behave like that. This looks like GI Combat to me.

And most of them do push ups :) but thats more like an animation system glitch that cant decide what stance soldier should have.


EDIT:
Dont get me wrong I have nothing against Battlefront itself. I just dont like 1to1 in wargames because I know you cant make it right.

All those games: Close Combat, GI Combat, new Combat Mission have the same issues. Its like the same song but by different bands.

If Matrixgames will decide to make a 1to1 in future PC games you know what I will do :)

< Message edited by genMaczek -- 4/21/2011 10:18:35 PM >

(in reply to BlitzCanuck)
Post #: 12
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 10:28:26 PM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline 		Animation glitches are significant because hits are tracked by interceptions with polygons.  The video shows that the TacAI still struggles a lot.   Perhaps more than even in the CMx1 series.  I note Shermans turning and facing in odd directions, exposing their rear ends to the enemy front, or clustering into one another.

I really like CMSF and I own the Marines and Brit module.  Map detail is my favourite thing about the series.  TacAI and (especially) the way armor is handled are the biggest weaknesses -- everything is a huge obstacle, and facing is a constant problem with the AI.  Also it's been a good fun way to get familiar with modern stuff.

The game works best once you have experience with it, and can specifically avoid all the positions and situations where you know the game will have trouble.  (Particularly, on urban maps.)  I agree with most of the stuff Undead Reindeer Cavalry says on their forum.  He has noticed for example, that keyhole firing is very difficult to manage because of the tile system.  1:1 would be more functional I think if the player could have some say on how the arrangement of troops will work within the tile.  Too many times they don't go where you want, or they don't use cover. 

1:1 could be made to work better, I wouldn't give up on the concept based on one series.  That said, I'm definitely a convert to PzC.

Question -- can tanks run over light obstacles in PzC:O? Or are we going to be driving around wood fences and bushes still?

< Message edited by Pillar -- 4/21/2011 10:31:29 PM >

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 13
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 11:04:25 PM   
BlitzCanuck

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/8/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: genMaczek

I clearly see struggling, Some of soldiers are even jumping back(sic!) like they cant decide which side of fence is better . Some of them are going in circles, back and forth......snip



I think what you're seeing is due to the fact that the area to where the squads movement is plotted is very close to the fence and since the squad takes up a much larger 'space' than just one soldier, some of the individual soldiers within the squad seem to be acting a bit odd due to their space coinciding with the fence's space. Once they get to where they were ordered to go, there is a bit of jostling before they settle down. :)
I'm sure there is a better way to say what i'm trying to say but hopefully you get my point.
Remember too that what you're seeing is beta code.

And for the record, i'm not a shill for Battlefront and i realize that no game, including this one, is perfect. I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you on the 1v1 issue....i just don't think the fence in the video is causing the problems that you think it is.

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 14
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 11:21:15 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Every game design has its corner cases. Representing infantry at the 1:1 level has corner cases in CM and also had them in CC and EYSA. Similarly, SP and Panzer Commmand also have their corner cases. We do the best we can in design and development to minimize those, but at some point every game asks us to suspend our disbelief to some degree.

I own and have played every CM game. I think they're great, but it's true that they are going in a somewhat different direction than Panzer Command and I think for that reason there is room for both. Panzer Command: Ostfront should make you all happy and I'm sure CM will too - some players will prefer one approach over the other, others will like both just as much for different reasons. We may have different design philosophies, and obviously we feel that our game is the best, but there are many ways to build a great game.

We're focused right now on getting the demo and the full release out to you all. The demo should be much better than another movie at showing you how Panzer Command: Ostfront plays. Hopefully gamers who passed on Winterstorm and Kharkov will give Ostfront a look as I think it has come a very long way and addressed most if not all of the wish list items from the previous releases.

Panzer Command will also continue after Ostfront, with plans for future releases in the works and all gamers are welcome here. We hope you'll join us.

As a gentle reminder, constructive criticism of other games and developers is fine, though we prefer that you address it to them, but bashing (non-constructive criticism) is not. So far, this thread is constructive but I'd also encourage you to give your feedback directly to Battlefront.

Regards,

- Erik

< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 4/21/2011 11:46:42 PM >

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to BlitzCanuck)
Post #: 15
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/21/2011 11:38:18 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pillar
Question -- can tanks run over light obstacles in PzC:O? Or are we going to be driving around wood fences and bushes still?
Most light obstacles don't interfere with movement of vehicles and troops. Often a map is configured with movement delay terrain under a fence. This will slow movement of vehicles and troops.

At the end of development there was a new feature added to knock down fences and trees when a vehicle rolled over it but almost all maps were created before this feature. The feature also has the added un-FOW of showing something being knocked down when the vehicle was out of sight. I don't use it.

(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 16
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 12:01:26 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		I have played CMSF extensively, CM1 forever, and a lot of PC.  PC is closer to CM1 than CM2 will ever be.  To me it is much more the successor to CM1 than CM2 will ever be.  1:1 does one major thing wrong for CM.  It forces BFC to spend huge amounts of time and effort on animation.  Time better spent fixing the horrwndous QB system in CMSF.

Other than BFC not truly finishing CMSF, I do enjoy it as a tactical simulation of modern war.  For WW2, PC has a shot at it over CM2.

(in reply to BlitzCanuck)
Post #: 17
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 11:26:37 AM   
Thomm

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: genMaczek

But there is more:

Check out this Panzerschreck team:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRqTkKVSrSo#t=24m49s


It looks bad, but:

They never had a chance, because:

The tank turret already turned in their direction.
They should have been issued a Hunt order instead of a Quick one.

Once appropriate peeking around corner behavior will be implemented (and I bet it will), these situations will be handled just fine with one-on-one modeling.

Best regards,
Thomm

(in reply to genMaczek)
Post #: 18
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 11:56:45 AM   
Thomm

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

1:1 does one major thing wrong for CM.  It forces BFC to spend huge amounts of time and effort on animation.  Time better spent fixing the horrwndous QB system in CMSF.


But the guy doing the animations is certainly not the guy who is making the QB corrections, is he?

Do you mean TacAI for individual soldiers?!

Best regards,
Thomm

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 19
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 12:17:10 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, but I assume they both get paid.  The way businesses work is if someone is doing something you don't need. get rid of him and hire soemone to do something useful.  Steve stated several times the individual soldier animations were the biggest bottleneck next to programming and one guy had been doing that almost full time.  And the animations still aren't quite right.  Can that guy, abstract the squads, voila, hire another programmer to actually fix things.

(in reply to Thomm)
Post #: 20
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 12:25:48 PM   
Thomm

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Yeah, but I assume they both get paid.  The way businesses work is if someone is doing something you don't need. get rid of him and hire soemone to do something useful.  Steve stated several times the individual soldier animations were the biggest bottleneck next to programming and one guy had been doing that almost full time.  And the animations still aren't quite right.  Can that guy, abstract the squads, voila, hire another programmer to actually fix things.


Okay, thanks for the clarification!

Best regards,
Thomm

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 21
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 1:34:36 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		What if CMBN just had a switch where the game played the old way where you moved and sighted with squads instead of individuals? PCO took some wants of CM players into consideration and has a way to run under 60 second turns.

(in reply to Thomm)
Post #: 22
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 1:37:04 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		My own clarification...I rarely pay attention to the animations.  If you want cool animations of modern warfare, play ArmA 2.  It is awesome watching T72s rolling across a field firing away or a squad sprinting down a road engaging another squad.  But knowing that the tank's protection is based on hit points does kind of ruin it.

I like CMSF for what it is...a game of modern tactical combat.  I don't like some aspects of it, namely, it kind of stole the Combat Mission name without being CM.  It is similar to CM, but PC is closer.  It is also not finished and according to BFC, won't be.

(in reply to Thomm)
Post #: 23
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 2:43:02 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		There was a lot of discussion about what would happen to CMx1 when BFC decided to stop the series. There was discussion in all directions about open codes and buyers for the code.  While BFC doesn't have much good to say about the CMx1 series today it built them a customer base that almost solely bought into CMx2 on name recognition. Hence, the reason that the CMx1 series was kept, so they could use the name.

Which all makes sense. Just because the CMx2 series doesn't play like the CMx1 series is okay. If the game had been a smash hit few people would be upset. They really only got upset at the state of the release. I'm sure the state of the release was totally in BFC's control.

What is becoming more and more evident is that CMx2 and the PC series are radically different games.

For me personally, going to a 1:1 modeling means a lot of things. Personal things. Things the soldiers personally do. Each soldier. Just like 1:1 says. Each one. When you go down that path that's what I expect. I don't think you can do it realistically for more than a platoon. I also think that real time is the way that it needs to be done. I read about how a lot of aspects are abstracted for the model. That defeats the purpose for me.

But, there are lots of reasons to play games. The "realism" factor is only one of them. The "fun" factor is also a big draw.

When you consider all the work that went into the game with the low budget staff I'd say they've done amazing things. Is it there as a 1:1 representation, each of us has to decide that for themselves. I've not been associated with CMSF for a very long time. For me personally, it went in the wrong direction. It's beginning to come back to where I would have liked to see it, but it has a ways to go yet.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 24
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/22/2011 7:36:02 PM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline 		The more that CMx2 slips into real-time and 1:1 representation, the smaller the battles MUST be in order for the player to be able to control his units. I am not interested in a platoon-company based game as I am in a company-battalion size game. The thing about the old CMx1 is that you could find a level at which you liked to play and go at it, often with several others interested in playing at the same level as you liked. Yes, even CMx1 got worse for command and control as people pushed into the battalion-regimental ability of the game, this was due to the way the game managed Command & Control and the orders menus. But the thing is, you had the control to play where you liked to play. I think that CMx2 will force players into that company plus a platoon of tanks size. PC is not going that route, which is great for me. I again see a game that I get to choose the level at which I want to play. You want a platoon and a couple tanks per side, then go ahead, but with the 2kmx2km map size, you should be able to approach the 2+ battalions without it becoming a chore to control. Due to the amount of abstraction and the way that PC handles C&C, and the orders menus, I have never felt the burden of larger formations like I do when playing CMx1.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 25
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/23/2011 1:41:50 AM   
CheerfullyInsane

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 12/5/2010
From: Birkerod, Denmark
Status: offline 		Any game will have some level of abstraction built into it, no matter what the scale.
While it's true that soldiers in a squad would communicate, and change plans according to the situation as they saw it, so would squads in a platoon. And platoons in a company, etc.

The point is that if you can live with generalizations on a platoon-level, surely generalizations on a squad-level are no different.
CMx1 had 20m tiles IIRC, and everybody was okay with it meaning a squad was *somewhere* within that square.
Now they've moved to 1m tiles, which occasionally means you get soldiers milling about the odd obstacles, but in reality it's no different from the earlier system, they're simply showing you where the individual soldiers are instead of abstracting it.
So calling it a 1:1 system is a bit of a misnomer, since you're not moving soldiers but squads (or occasionally teams).

So why do it in the first place?
Well, to me at least, it looks way cool.
Granted, there's the odd hiccup every now and then, but the over-all graphics are much improved.
For those amongst you who play miniature wargames (gotta be more than me) it's the difference between Cold War Commander (using platoon-bases) and Ambush Alley (using ind. soldiers, but moving them as a team).
While the mechanics may be the same, and the results are compatible I much prefer one over the other.

Then there's the argument that the game comes before the graphics.
Which is true, to a point. But there are a few disclaimers.
First, I don't agree with the notion that having one guy working on animation means having one guy less to fix the AI. It assumes there's something for the guy to fix in the first place.
Second, while I agree that a game should *be* good first, and *look* good second, I also believe that given a choice between two equally good games, I'd take the good-looking one.
Given the chance to crush, kill and dismember my foe (AKA good times), I'd prefer to do it in HD with surround-sound.
Why should eye-candy be limited to FPS?
Even games such as the Silent Hunter series has improved the graphics exponentially and let's face it, when it comes to simulations, sub-sims are about as hard-core as they get.

_____________________________

"Something is always wrong, Baldrick. The fact that I'm not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle"
- Edmund Blackadder

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 26
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/23/2011 2:41:03 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		1 : 1 probably doesn’t work the way you think it would. Say you want relative spotting and not borg spotting. Every pair of eyeballs is spotting for the over-mind when a unit is not selected. This is similar to PCO non-selected spotting but less abstract. Instead of sighting with the combined effort of a squad every man even those on the periphery of a squad around a corner or spinning about can relay his view of the battlefield to the general. Any man that gets suppressed and ducks down will lose sight of anything he sights. Thus in combat enemy units are continuously blinking in and out of sight as different men of yours are suppressed and the sight from them is lost. Are the enemy dead, driven to ground, suppressed, hiding in the grass or did your man spotting them just lose sight for some reason?

Then there’s the firing. No longer are space/area targets like the center of a squad chosen. No, individual men now are the singular target of MG42s, rifle grenades or even tank cannons. You will see tanks aim and fire at individual men.


< Message edited by Mobius -- 4/23/2011 2:45:50 AM >

(in reply to CheerfullyInsane)
Post #: 27
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/23/2011 3:17:35 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		BFC has already stated they had to fudge the HE effect and dispersion of light arms to compensate for cramming too many men into too too small an area.  That is one of the biggest drawbacks in the 1:1 the way BFC does it.  The other is that because of the differences in LOS and LOF your sqaud sometimes can't fire on units that can fire on individual soldiers in your squad.  The are other issues glossed over in the 1:1 discussion.

Anyone who has been with CMSF from the start has seen them improve with various fudging of the 1:1, but they still exist.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 28
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/23/2011 6:55:04 AM   
jinchoung

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 5/15/2009
Status: offline 		note: real war is not fun.

i don't know about anyone else here but i want a FUN warGAME. authenticity and "realism" has its limits. at the point that "realistic" ballistic calculations, one-one scale and battlefield chaos makes the experience NOT FUN, is the point that i lose all interest. that is not something i am interested in.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 29
RE: Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. - 4/23/2011 2:31:44 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		J2D reminds us of the FUN warGAME truism all the time. He's the one that directs us to FUN and warGAME.

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to jinchoung)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea. Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.844