RE: Another PREVIEW

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Another PREVIEW

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Another PREVIEW

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Another PREVIEW - 8/16/2007 2:06:11 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

thanks MB....

(in reply to Terl)

Post #: 211

RE: Another PREVIEW - 8/16/2007 4:15:52 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42

posted

document.write(timestamp(new Date(2007,7,14,19,40,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0));

August 14, 2007 10:40 PM

Bug
Bug
Bug

Steve

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 212

RE: Another PREVIEW - 8/16/2007 5:03:22 AM

Plodder

Posts: 1001
Joined: 7/28/2003
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

So what? The post you refer to was answering questions about LOF/LOS issues. New engine, new bugs, big deal.

_____________________________

Gen. Montgomery: "Your men don't salute much."
Gen. Freyberg: "Well, if you wave at them they'll usually wave back."

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 213

RE: Another PREVIEW - 8/16/2007 6:24:57 AM

Mobius

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

Maybe its not too late to rename it. CM:GP

CM:Grand Panjandrum

(in reply to Plodder)

Post #: 214

RE: Another PREVIEW - 8/16/2007 8:20:19 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

Yes. Its a big deal. Because when is it ready? When its done. When is it done? When all the bugs are found. When are the bugs found? After its ready. So its done, its 1:1, its loads of fun, and its ready. Its ready for some patches.

But its more than just bugs. Its flawed. And that will come out after all the mis-design is identified.

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 215

RE: Another PREVIEW - 8/16/2007 8:30:33 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

That's a pretty good analysis of the majority of released games nowaday Yoozername. Sad that it's true. But, it's the consumers that allow this to continue. If they would just stop buying new releases and wait till they are bargain bin maybe the industry standards would change. But, as Barnum and Bailey said "A Fool and his Money are soon Parted". But, I am happy to see more and more people posting not only here, but, elsewhere they are getting tired of the crap as well. They are beginning to see that they might just as well wait for patch 13 as to pay to be a beta tester. They'll get a finished game and cheaper too.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 8/16/2007 8:31:13 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 216

RE: Another PREVIEW - 8/16/2007 8:46:02 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

The demo should have been released 2 months ago. This would have gone a long way towards good will for the product.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 217

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 2:35:12 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Ok. I'm officially retired in this thread because your arrogance is just getting my back up.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 218

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 4:23:39 PM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

I think the 1:1 game credo has stumbled upon an 'uncertainty principle'. Similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

By pushing precision onto the granularity of the infantry (1:1 modeling), they have to expand the location of the infantry into an area. I believe they said something like 25x25 feet. So each 'guy' is tracked but his location is abstracted over an area.

Since most squads certainly operate over areas larger than this, LOS and LOF gets abstracted. It also introduces seemingly unrealistic events.

I suppose they could un-kludge this by reducing the largest unit size to a section. But even a section of troops (4-6) may also operate in multi-squares considering SOP.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 219

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 4:37:08 PM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Ok. I'm officially retired in this thread because your arrogance is just getting my back up.

Now do you see why I did the same thing 3 pages ago? This one thread has more personal attacks than any other thread I have seen in years.

Im disappointed that the mods are letting it stay open.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 220

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 5:26:11 PM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

I suspect that after they un-kludge CM2, they will perhaps get some military market for the product. But many 'civvie' customers may then feel they were used as paying-playtesters of sorts. Time will tell.

I would like to say that there are certain aspects to the demo that are fun. I enjoyed just micro-managing one single M1 Abrams against all comers. I left the rest of my troops out of the way. I think the tactics I used were unrealistic (shooting T72 at 50 meters) but it seemed plausible.

But controlling multiple units real time gets to be a pain. I would prefer that when I select a unit two menus open up. On one side of the unit is a menu list of movement type commands. The other side of the unit has firing type commands. Select unit, issue order. Done.

But it seemed to me to be a shoot em up and not much of a wargame. At the end of the day, it is missing essential elements of the wargaming experience.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 221

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 6:19:46 PM

Mobius

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I think the 1:1 game credo has stumbled upon an 'uncertainty principle'.� Similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.�

By pushing precision onto the granularity of the infantry (1:1 modeling), they have to expand the location of the infantry into an area.� I believe they said something like 25x25 feet.� So each 'guy' is tracked but his location is abstracted over an area.

You actually make sense when you aren't attacking people.
As I read the BF CMSF forum they only measure LOS to the nearest 8mx8m cell. Thus their 4kmx4km playing area is really only 500mx500mm real space. A game like Panzer Command is accurate to 1mx1m in a 1000mx1000m playing space. If you similarly abstracted the scale of that game it would be an area 8km x 8km.

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 222

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 7:09:19 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Ok. I'm officially retired in this thread because your arrogance is just getting my back up.

Now do you see why I did the same thing 3 pages ago? This one thread has more personal attacks than any other thread I have seen in years.

Im disappointed that the mods are letting it stay open.

A cursory glance at Battlefront has multiple threads with savage personal attacks on. Do you not post there?

Aside from a couple of people bringing what appears to be a spill-over from that forum here, I'm not seeing what you are.

Are you mistaking criticism (some harsh, insulting and uncalled for) of Battlefront and CM for a personal attack?

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 223

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 8:52:41 PM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Ok. I'm officially retired in this thread because your arrogance is just getting my back up.

Now do you see why I did the same thing 3 pages ago? This one thread has more personal attacks than any other thread I have seen in years.

Im disappointed that the mods are letting it stay open.

A cursory glance at Battlefront has multiple threads with savage personal attacks on. Do you not post there?

Aside from a couple of people bringing what appears to be a spill-over from that forum here, I'm not seeing what you are.

Are you mistaking criticism (some harsh, insulting and uncalled for) of Battlefront and CM for a personal attack?

Every forum has its share of personal attacks, Matrix and BFC included. Its quite obvious that Ravinhood and Yoozername has a personal grudge against CM:SF/BFC and thats fine, they are entitled to their opinion. So a lot of the useless garbage being posted in this thread is along those lines.

However, for personal attacks read the past couple of pages in this thread, especially Ravinhood's comments about Michael.

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 224

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 8:54:54 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

forget it

< Message edited by JudgeDredd -- 8/16/2007 8:55:51 PM >

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 225

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 9:05:56 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Ok. I'm officially retired in this thread because your arrogance is just getting my back up.

Now do you see why I did the same thing 3 pages ago? This one thread has more personal attacks than any other thread I have seen in years.

Im disappointed that the mods are letting it stay open.

A cursory glance at Battlefront has multiple threads with savage personal attacks on. Do you not post there?

Aside from a couple of people bringing what appears to be a spill-over from that forum here, I'm not seeing what you are.

Are you mistaking criticism (some harsh, insulting and uncalled for) of Battlefront and CM for a personal attack?

Ok....I had wrote a nice big response and it got lost...

Dinsdale

I didn't know if your post was in response to mine, Chads or both.

For my part, it was in response to rh's comments about puny forces and states and how the US could walk all over them. Whilst that may well be the case, I think it's arrogant, thoughtless and downright rude to post such it.

He's edited his post by the way, as he regularly does when he realises he's been caught with his pants down...again.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 226

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 10:30:43 PM

madorosh

Posts: 390
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

As I read the BF CMSF forum they only measure LOS to the nearest 8mx8m cell. Thus their 4kmx4km playing area is really only 500mx500mm real space. A game like Panzer Command is accurate to 1mx1m in a 1000mx1000m playing space. If you similarly abstracted the scale of that game it would be an area 8km x 8km.

You're reading it incorrectly (and changing metres to millimetres in the process!) The ranges in the game don't change just because LOS snaps to an 8 metre grid. It simply means the game engine defines game mechanics based on this 8 metre mesh; it doesn't bring anything closer to anything else. A 2km x 2km map is still 4 square kilometres. I'm not sure what it is you think you read that would suggest otherwise? Unless my own reading is incorrect. The devs refer to "Action Spots" from which sighting, etc., are drawn but that doesn't make the map smaller, just defines the point from which things happen.

< Message edited by Michael Dorosh -- 8/16/2007 10:32:02 PM >

_____________________________

The Tactical Wargamer

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 227

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/16/2007 10:41:31 PM

themattcurtis

Posts: 287
Joined: 2/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
He's edited his post by the way, as he regularly does when he realises he's been caught with his pants down...again.

clickfest lol hehe lol clickfest bargain bin clickfest......OH S--T......backspacebackspacebackspacebackspace

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 228

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 1:36:27 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

If you have ever followed the BF forum, you might be surprised at some of the old timers responses. peng has gone on record as saying he isn't buying. Dalem, who usually borders on a grammontophile with his signature "I am so in your head Steve" , has take to basically poking jabs at the game's design. So yes, for all that has been lost; Can we get a tally on what has been gained?

I banned myself from that forum. Thereby, allowing myself to transmogrify at will to anything needed and re-join that forum as game developments dictated. Just so everyone knows.

As my good frind, Mr. Lee told me; make sure you find a dummy to play email with, allow the game to get very exciting, then quit before it is over! Words to live by. Not really applicable to anything here, but fun stuff believe me. Anyone recall Mr. Lee?

I am also privvy to some juicy inside info about the playtesting but I don't want to compromise that person's status. But from what I hear, someone here is lying.

(in reply to themattcurtis)

Post #: 229

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 2:07:55 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

There is talk about using 'dots' so that game players can see where the game is 'looking'

Something like SL?

or maybe even a bigger throwback.....?

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 8/17/2007 2:09:59 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 230

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 3:28:16 AM

Mobius

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
The ranges in the game don't change just because LOS snaps to an 8 metre grid. It simply means the game engine defines game mechanics based on this 8 metre mesh; it doesn't bring anything closer to anything else. A 2km x 2km map is still 4 square kilometres. I'm not sure what it is you think you read that would suggest otherwise? Unless my own reading is incorrect. The devs refer to "Action Spots" from which sighting, etc., are drawn but that doesn't make the map smaller, just defines the point from which things happen.

It snaps to the cell centre. You can say each cell represents units of whatever you want, cubits, furlongs, yards or 8 meters but there appears to be only 250 of them per side in a so called 2km x 2km map.

(in reply to madorosh)

Post #: 231

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 3:49:27 AM

madorosh

Posts: 390
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
The ranges in the game don't change just because LOS snaps to an 8 metre grid. It simply means the game engine defines game mechanics based on this 8 metre mesh; it doesn't bring anything closer to anything else. A 2km x 2km map is still 4 square kilometres. I'm not sure what it is you think you read that would suggest otherwise? Unless my own reading is incorrect. The devs refer to "Action Spots" from which sighting, etc., are drawn but that doesn't make the map smaller, just defines the point from which things happen.

It snaps to the cell centre. You can say each cell represents units of whatever you want, cubits, furlongs, yards or 8 meters but there appears to be only 250 of them per side in a so called 2km x 2km map.

And so what does that have to do with the range? Instead of counting in units of 1s, if we are talking about the same things, the game then counts in units of 8s. It doesn't invalidate the game data or reduce engagement ranges.

_____________________________

The Tactical Wargamer

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 232

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 4:22:36 AM

Mobius

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
The ranges in the game don't change just because LOS snaps to an 8 metre grid. It simply means the game engine defines game mechanics based on this 8 metre mesh; it doesn't bring anything closer to anything else. A 2km x 2km map is still 4 square kilometres. I'm not sure what it is you think you read that would suggest otherwise? Unless my own reading is incorrect. The devs refer to "Action Spots" from which sighting, etc., are drawn but that doesn't make the map smaller, just defines the point from which things happen.

It snaps to the cell centre. You can say each cell represents units of whatever you want, cubits, furlongs, yards or 8 meters but there appears to be only 250 of them per side in a so called 2km x 2km map.

And so what does that have to do with the range? Instead of counting in units of 1s, if we are talking about the same things, the game then counts in units of 8s. It doesn't invalidate the game data or reduce engagement ranges.

No it doesn't. And I don't know the density of troops. Can you get more than a squad or more than one vehicle in a 8m x 8m area?

(in reply to madorosh)

Post #: 233

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 4:26:56 AM

madorosh

Posts: 390
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

And so what does that have to do with the range? Instead of counting in units of 1s, if we are talking about the same things, the game then counts in units of 8s. It doesn't invalidate the game data or reduce engagement ranges.

No it doesn't. And I don't know the density of troops. Can you get more than a squad or more than one vehicle in a 8m x 8m area?

Perhaps I've misread your comments, but it seemed like you were saying that it did? I'm not sure I understand why you're asking the last questions then - is it related to the first concern? Have I cleared anything up?

_____________________________

The Tactical Wargamer

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 234

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 4:30:25 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I am also privvy to some juicy inside info about the playtesting but I don't want to compromise that person's status.� But from what I hear, someone here is lying.

Oh that's a good one - make unspecified allegations from an unknown source and then jsut sit back and tap the side of your nose in a knowing fashion....

I say put up or shut up

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 235

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 4:57:50 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

Battlefront.com encourages you to review the product Demo before making a purchase because
ALL SALES ARE FINAL!
If you have any questions about our Shipping or Payment policies please review our

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 236

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 5:13:38 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
I didn't know if your post was in response to mine, Chads or both.

It was to Chad's point. It was really the hyperbole of his post as though his eyes hadn't encountered anything so vulgar since perusing alt.comp.wargame.maniacs or other similar usenet slums from years past :)

quote:

For my part...

No no sorry, I was referring to the two posters who appeared to have some grudge at Battlefront and come here. You (and often me :) ) arguing with Ravinhood is par for the course here. Didn't mean to imply anything about you.

--------------------

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
However, for personal attacks read the past couple of pages in this thread, especially Ravinhood's comments about Michael.

I've read the thread Chad, compared with pre-moderated stuff at Battlefront a week or two ago, it's tame, and appears to be a two way exchange of insults.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 237

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 5:30:12 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
And so what does that have to do with the range? Instead of counting in units of 1s, if we are talking about the same things, the game then counts in units of 8s. It doesn't invalidate the game data or reduce engagement ranges.

Without wishing to put words in Mobius's mouth, to me it reads as though he's commenting on the granularity of the playing area. To make a boardgame analagy, if I double the map dimensions, but then double the hex size, I may have increased the scale, but in practical terms it's the same number of map locations.

I'm actually having a hard time understanding how the action area meshes with 1-1 representation, as the two concepts appear contradictory unless the area size is small enough to represent the location of an individual.

However, as there's a demo out, and almost every release the last 5 years in this genre has been bug ridden at version 1.0, I don't quite understand why there's so much hostility or why bugs are a surprise.

(in reply to madorosh)

Post #: 238

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 5:39:50 AM

madorosh

Posts: 390
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
And so what does that have to do with the range? Instead of counting in units of 1s, if we are talking about the same things, the game then counts in units of 8s. It doesn't invalidate the game data or reduce engagement ranges.

Without wishing to put words in Mobius's mouth, to me it reads as though he's commenting on the granularity of the playing area. To make a boardgame analagy, if I double the map dimensions, but then double the hex size, I may have increased the scale, but in practical terms it's the same number of map locations.

I'm actually having a hard time understanding how the action area meshes with 1-1 representation, as the two concepts appear contradictory unless the area size is small enough to represent the location of an individual.

However, as there's a demo out, and almost every release the last 5 years in this genre has been bug ridden at version 1.0, I don't quite understand why there's so much hostility or why bugs are a surprise.

Thanks for the clarification - I hope that's what he meant, anyway. I don't see that the logic is any better in that case. If you have 5 hexes each of 100 metres (to follow your boardgame analogy), or 50 hexes each of 10 metres, you can still simulate weapons effects at 100 metres, 200 metres, 300 metres, 400 metres and 500 metres. In the latter case, you have more flexibility to do so, if you wanted to have drop off of, say, weapons effects at the 250, 350 etc. metre mark.

Is this perhaps the type of thing he's getting at? I believe that is what you mean by granularity, anyway?

8m seems like a pretty good "grain" for this scale of combat, then. The old system was a 20 metre terrain grid; I think some game functions were on a 2 metre sub-grid, at least unit placement was.

These are pretty deep details that most gamers don't get into; I must confess an interest in them myself, so the conversation is interesting to me.

So what is it we are saying about the strengths/weaknesses of the 8m grid? Aside from the obvious point that it is an abstraction, which any game is going to have, I guess I still don't understand the point about engagement ranges. I know Muzzle Velocity - a very early true 3D tactical game/FPS hybrid - was criticized because while it had King Tigers and Panthers and Sherman Fireflys in it, the typical armour engagement was only 300 metres or so. The terrain did get telescoped down IIRC. I'm not aware of that ever being a valid criticism of any of the CM games though?

_____________________________

The Tactical Wargamer

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 239

RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? - 8/17/2007 7:03:45 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I think the 1:1 game credo has stumbled upon an 'uncertainty principle'.� Similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.�

By pushing precision onto the granularity of the infantry (1:1 modeling), they have to expand the location of the infantry into an area.� I believe they said something like 25x25 feet.� So each 'guy' is tracked but his location is abstracted over an area.

You actually make sense when you aren't attacking people.
As I read the BF CMSF forum they only measure LOS to the nearest 8mx8m cell. Thus their 4kmx4km playing area is really only 500mx500mm real space. A game like Panzer Command is accurate to 1mx1m in a 1000mx1000m playing space. If you similarly abstracted the scale of that game it would be an area 8km x 8km.

I believe you mean to say that there are 250,000 'action-spots' 8x8m^2 in a 4000x4000m^2 area?

So if I follow your math, you also mean to say that there are 1 million 'squares' (1 by 1 meter) in PC. Therefore your point is that there are 4 times as many as CMSF. And you would be right about the 8k by 8k since it is also 4 times as much, etc.

But its about 'grain-size'. Technically called resolution by us technical types. And what is the resolution of the things that go in the 'boxes'?

Again, maybe the infantry UNITS should be limited to smaller grains. True 1:1 is too much because computers can not track soldiers as units when simulating actions with this many vehcles, troops, etc. I really feel that infantry sections (or fire teams, whatever they are called) of no more than 4-5 men is the way to go.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 8/17/2007 7:08:20 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 240