Last Shout - Posted by: mididoctors - Tuesday, 07 March 2017 08:47
alright dalem, all the best< >
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 24, 2017, 05:17:30 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: HTTPS Secure access now enabled.  https://dosomefink.com

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97
1  Games / Games Corner / Re: Too much to play on: March 03, 2017, 07:36:25 PM
Maybe I'll post a picture...
2  Games / Games Corner / Re: Twilight Struggle on: April 22, 2016, 01:54:46 PM
Well, looked who dropped by.

Should be home first weekend in May.  You and the lads up for some gaming and bbq?

Yeah, it'd been a while so I peeked in, as I do occasionally.

I'm free that weekend - I'll see about Tater and the Bean.

-dale
3  Games / Games Corner / Re: Twilight Struggle on: April 22, 2016, 10:32:52 AM
Occasionally Lars does something right.  Or sober.  Introducing this game to us was one of those things.  It is awesome and everyone should play.

-dale
4  Games / Games Corner / Re: Do I put the lock to the "Do I put the lock to the "What Now For BFC?"" thread? on: August 07, 2011, 02:33:20 AM
Awww, you didn't really lock it.

-dale
5  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 08, 2009, 10:12:57 PM
Oh yeah. Nice work with the:

"Elvis, my love, our little slap fight can't possibly be of any interest to anyone else, so I'll make you a deal - you leave personal comments about me and my motivations out of your posts, and I'll do the same about you.  Fair?"

Did a real nice job of that for a couple of days. But I'm the incendiary one. No, I'm just the one that sometimes has a different opinion than you.


You're right, I should not have posted that.  I will endeavor to be better in that regard.

-dale
6  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 08, 2009, 12:39:02 PM
Look, you do it all the time and you know it, hence also your "wormtongue" monicker.     Don't get up on your high horse now boyo.   

I get it. You're doing one of your "assuming I am saying something when I'm not" like I have some sort of sinister ulterior motive or something instead of simply taking what I say at face value.

So you want us to believe that, after hundreds of pages of posts on this topic you still don't get the "watching guys do unrealistic things distracts me from the game" argument that's been one of the cores of the converstaion?

You want us to believe that you're that stupid?

Or do you want us to believe that you have an ulterior motive?

I'm okay with doing either one.  I'm fine with believing you're stupid, and I'm fine with believing you're a troll taking it upon himself to shut down any conversation that points out that CM:SF sucks and BFC's taken on more than they can chew.

7  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 08, 2009, 12:31:21 PM
I disagree that more detailed information about where men are in a squad somehow changes a game overall. It only provides more detail.

But for many of us, the detail changes everything when it's not correct. 

-dale
8  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 07, 2009, 07:54:09 PM
I don't remember him ever saying it was not 1:1 and even if he did who would believe anything that guy says anyway.

Friendly fire is modeled to a point. You don't want to get caught in friendly area fire or friendly arty fire. I have made the mistake more than once of laying area fire on a building and not canceling it before my infantry ran into it.

Of course he never came out and stated that but it's clear from his posts about Action Spots, terrain clipping, friendly fire, and how units are affected by HE fire that there's a heckuva lot more abstraction going on than true 1:1 would allow.

And by Friendly Fire I'm speaking specifically of the ability of units to shoot through other units within their own squads.

-dale
9  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 07, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
Despite what you may have heard the 1:1 is 1:1.


Not according to posts I've read by Steve.  And not according to simple things like friendly fire.

But again, if what it is works well enough for people, then great.  I still would have gone with my solution.

-dale
10  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 07, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Apologies, I've explained myself poorly.

If it were me, I would have kept the squad abstraction mechanics from CMx1 - a squad/team occupies a footprint and has individual weapons and "guys" in it, but exact positions are not known.

I would have kept the basic unit "icon" as 3 guys, as in there's always 3 guys constantly pictured in an uninjured squad.  But it would not necessarily be the same 3 guys.  And you could even "dial up" the amount of guys for a more "crowded" footprint.  When I say "ghost in and out" I simply mean that the individual figures would appear and disappear within the footprint, usually "tuned" to their actions.  Guys doing something special, like breaching, getting hit, firing a Javelin, or whatever, would appear as needed, perform their action animation, then disappear.  It doesn't really matter where they are in the footprint.

By "ease things" I am referring to the problems some of us have perceived with BFC's attempt at implementing 1:1.  If you do it "my way", you reinforce the idea that your unit, no matter how detailed it looks, is really still just an abstraction, so some of the jarring problems with placement, LOS/LOF, and the like, could be ameliorated from the get-go.

It's really just an attempt at keeping abstraction, which works just fine (as opposed to 1:1), but still meeting the needs of the customers who want to see more detailed units.

-dale

11  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 06, 2009, 07:15:42 PM
A game that's as accurate as possible is a simulator. A simulator that's easy to play is a game.

I disagree. I have come to believe that the line between game and simulator is a lot thicker than I previously thought.  Of course, it gets a bit slippery depending on what scale you're looking at when you're examining the offering, but I still think the two are separate.  That's why I see CM:SF as a light ballistics simulator that they hung a game onto.  The simulator works imperfectly and the game, as a game, has had huge problems and was a failure for a long time (it may be all fixed up now for all I know).[/quote]
 
Quote
CM1 was as much a simulation as could be made at the time. CM2 is too. To be perfect CM2 just needs the information contained in it to be accessed more easily.

Think of CM1. You had armour detail hits, you had instant status of all seen infantry, you had a detailed AAR. All those things were exposing the underlying detail of the game/sim (gameulation!). Steve has already stated in the road ahead thread that a lot of those things are on The List for CM2.

I just think this is a particularly intuitive way to get over a lot of information.

Anyway - just thought I'd share as you were coming at it from the other angle.

I really don't buy the "CM was a simulator too" line.  It had aspects of a simulator at times but most of it was good old design for effect, and a lot of porky-pies got told to us by the graphics to account for things going on "under the hood".

Which is fine, because CM is a game first and a simulator (if at all) a distant second.

Because what did CMx1 simulate?  Bullets?  Nope, we have firepower factors and ranges.  Shells?  Nope, time is not a variable in the "time of flight" calculations.  Company command?  Nope, we have to manage squads and teams, not just platoon leaders.  Etc.

But that's just my opinion.

-dale
12  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 06, 2009, 04:42:50 PM
Thanks. I think CM1 and CM2 are about tactics. We need to be able to see how our tactics are working out.

TBH all I really want is "Increase unit size" from CM1. If that was in you could follow how your plans are getting on and be able to plan at a higher level. More "where do I throw in the reserves" and less "WTF is going on."

Game vs. Sim again, I think.  

-dale

Not really. I want a sim - we all really want a sim. We just want a playable one. Which CMSF is, actually. This iconified units idea would just make it less work (as in energy expended).

We all want combat results to be as accurate as possible - which can only come from a simulator. We just want to be able to control and experience it properly.

I don't know if I agree with that.  I think I want a game that is as accurate as possible, because if you start with a game you can start with the Design for Effect concept.  If you start as a sim then you have to get the nuts and bolts right, not just to feel right.

I think.

-dale
13  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 06, 2009, 04:24:50 PM
I didn't read through your whole thing yet but the first picture you have is interesting and maybe not what Dale meant but makes me reconsider a "ghost" concept. I wonder how hard it would be to have the game show solid and transparent men depending on if an individual is in your units LOS/LOF. Might make the actual 1:1 easier to see.

My "ghost" idea is solely a sop to the folks who need/want to see that there really is a Private Parts manning the SAW, or taking fire, or tossing a grenade, or bandaging a buddy, or whatever.  The smallest unit itself is still a team/squad but the figure images "pop in" when they are doing something important.  Since they're not there all the time people would not expect them to always be interacting 100% perfectly with their environs and abstraction would help ease things.

Coming at it from left field, think about ASL when you'd make die rolls for a squad to have a panzerfaust or smoke grenade at the time they needed it. 

-dale
14  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 06, 2009, 04:18:48 PM
Thanks. I think CM1 and CM2 are about tactics. We need to be able to see how our tactics are working out.

TBH all I really want is "Increase unit size" from CM1. If that was in you could follow how your plans are getting on and be able to plan at a higher level. More "where do I throw in the reserves" and less "WTF is going on."

Game vs. Sim again, I think. 

-dale
15  Games / Games Corner / Re: CMSF Brit Module is here - state of the whole affair? on: January 06, 2009, 12:23:45 PM
I dunno, Dale. Maybe I'm not grasping what you're describing, but so far you aren't selling me on the idea. Sounds to me like a complicated cure for a problem that might not even exist.

Michael

Well, if you're me, you think a problem does exist: 1:1 can't be done at the company level.  But there's a part of your customer base who want to see it, so you meet them halfway.  Using the mechanic I described above is no more abstracted than BFC's current solution that requires friendlies to be immune to your fire, occasional odd behavior, etc., and still lets the people that think such things are cool see a guy working a charging handle on his rifle, another guy loading a grenade, etc.

That's way I would have gone anyway, and I bet it wouldn't have taken 18 months to fine tune to playability.

-dale
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
 


MKPortal M1.1.2b ©2003-2007 mkportal.it
Page generated in 0.00651 seconds with 13 queries