Close Combat
Richard Shuster
There is a preview of Close Combat in the new (and improved?) edition of
Computer Games Strategy Plus. It looks like something I have been waiting
for (at least since Steel Panthers)- tactical level WWII combat. With
individual chatacteristics for each soldier, it certainly is adding a new
dimension to war gaming. Of course, I will need a whole new system if I
intend to play it (a 486 33 doesn't seem to cut it anymore).
Does anyone know if therelease date is still summer '96?
Rich
Scott
I have it from a "short and pointed" source that the demo is due out
soon.
Scott
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4lqson$i...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, rshu...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
(Richard Shuster) wrote:
>There is a preview of Close Combat in the new (and improved?) edition of
>Computer Games Strategy Plus. It looks like something I have been waiting
>for (at least since Steel Panthers)- tactical level WWII combat. With
>individual chatacteristics for each soldier, it certainly is adding a new
>dimension to war gaming. Of course, I will need a whole new system if I
>intend to play it (a 486 33 doesn't seem to cut it anymore).
> Does anyone know if therelease date is still summer '96?
>
>Rich
Rich,
The game will be available starting in July. And you're right; it
only runs on Pentiums and PowerMacs.
Keith
_ Keith Zabalaoui ____________ Atomic Games ______ http://www.atomic.com _
.__;""";, \__/ \__/ \_
\ ""--_:., "I don't know the secret of success, but the \__/ \__/
:: __;:""~ secret of failure is trying to please everyone" \__/ \_
."._:"" : \__/
_"' `---' --------- V for Victory € World at War € Close Combat ----------
Peter D. Pawelek
kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) wrote:
>In article <4lqson$i...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, rshu...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>(Richard Shuster) wrote:
>>There is a preview of Close Combat in the new (and improved?) edition of
>>Computer Games Strategy Plus. It looks like something I have been waiting
>>for (at least since Steel Panthers)- tactical level WWII combat. With
>>individual chatacteristics for each soldier, it certainly is adding a new
>>dimension to war gaming. Of course, I will need a whole new system if I
>>intend to play it (a 486 33 doesn't seem to cut it anymore).
>> Does anyone know if therelease date is still summer '96?
>>
>>Rich
>Rich,
> The game will be available starting in July. And you're right; it
>only runs on Pentiums and PowerMacs.
>Keith
Geez, when you guys started this project as 'Beyond Squad Leader', the
system requirements were a 486 with 8MB of RAM. Now it's a Pentium?
This is getting ridiculous!
Unless a computer wargame is suffering from severe software bloat
(well, after all, you are working under Microsoft now, aren't you?),
and is padded with dozens of MB of useless full motion video clips and
other multimedia trappings, is there _really_ a need to program it for
a Pentium?
And please, don't give me any flimsy arguments about needing all that
horsepower for it's incredibly advanced AI. The guys at SSG have been
putting out games with incredibly good AI that run on 386's or better
for years.
Perhaps you should take a cue from Major Holridge, and program your
games for last year's model instead of next year's.
Fortunately, since Advanced Civilization and the 3rd Reich demo run
incredibly well on my 486, I eagerly anticipate Avalon Hill's port of
ASL to the PC. As for Close Combat, with it's Pentium requirement, it
may end up becoming the Pacific Strike of WWII tactical wargames (or
did I mean Across the Rhine? Either or, I suppose...). Either way, I
won't shed any tears about it never seeing my hard drive.
Peter Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
Alan V Dunkin
Peter D. Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca) wrote:
> Geez, when you guys started this project as 'Beyond Squad Leader', the
> system requirements were a 486 with 8MB of RAM. Now it's a Pentium?
> This is getting ridiculous!
Probably partially because of the Win95 overhead and the extensive
modeling of each soldier can take up a lot of processing power.
> And please, don't give me any flimsy arguments about needing all that
> horsepower for it's incredibly advanced AI. The guys at SSG have been
> putting out games with incredibly good AI that run on 386's or better
> for years.
Well, The Last Blitzkrieg from SSG will probably require a mid-range 486
at the very least.
> Perhaps you should take a cue from Major Holridge, and program your
> games for last year's model instead of next year's.
Perhaps you missed it. It's called the World at War and the V for Victory
series of games. Now Atomic is going to try something new.
Not that I don't feel good about it, I feel horrible, but game designers are
looking at Pentiums as the mainstream PC system six months down the road.
Maybe it'll hurt Close Combat's chances since it's release is set for around
July, but I can tell you right now Keith Z. isn't going to lose sleep over
it :)
--
Alan Dunkin (dunk...@utdallas.edu) Warbirds (Black Sheep squadron): alan
News Editor, Online Game Review (http://ogr.nrgroup.com)
StrategyNet, strategy and wargames (http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~dunk1888)
Peter D. Pawelek
Yeah, you're right. I guess the frustration of soon missing out on _all_
new software releases led to me venting my spleen against Atomic. Sorry
Atomic. :)
Oh well, I guess I'm just going to have to resign myself to the fact
that I'm going to be more of a computer wargame historian soon, rather
than a consumer of the new stuff. One good thing is that older releases
that I missed first time around are now being re-released on CDROM.
Anyway, that flame was fuelled by early morning coffee and sour grapes.
Felt good to get it off my chest, though. :)
Peter Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
Dearmad
Peter D. Pawelek wrote:
>
> kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) wrote:
>
> >In article <4lqson$i...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, rshu...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
> >(Richard Shuster) wrote:
>
> >>There is a preview of Close Combat in the new (and improved?) edition of
> >>Computer Games Strategy Plus. It looks like something I have been waiting
> >>for (at least since Steel Panthers)- tactical level WWII combat. With
> >>individual chatacteristics for each soldier, it certainly is adding a new
> >>dimension to war gaming. Of course, I will need a whole new system if I
> >>intend to play it (a 486 33 doesn't seem to cut it anymore).
> >> Does anyone know if therelease date is still summer '96?
> >>
> >>Rich
>
> >Rich,
> > The game will be available starting in July. And you're right; it
> >only runs on Pentiums and PowerMacs.
>
> >Keith
>
> system requirements were a 486 with 8MB of RAM. Now it's a Pentium?
> This is getting ridiculous!
>
> (well, after all, you are working under Microsoft now, aren't you?),
> and is padded with dozens of MB of useless full motion video clips and
> other multimedia trappings, is there _really_ a need to program it for
> a Pentium?
>
> horsepower for it's incredibly advanced AI. The guys at SSG have been
> putting out games with incredibly good AI that run on 386's or better
> for years.
>
> games for last year's model instead of next year's.
>
> incredibly well on my 486, I eagerly anticipate Avalon Hill's port of
> ASL to the PC. As for Close Combat, with it's Pentium requirement, it
> may end up becoming the Pacific Strike of WWII tactical wargames (or
> did I mean Across the Rhine? Either or, I suppose...). Either way, I
> won't shed any tears about it never seeing my hard drive.
>
> Peter Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
If ASL refers to "Advanced Squad Leader," then sorry, Pete, but Close
Combat IS ASL as Microsoft picked up the latest software development of
that when the ball was dropped by the former developers.
Looks like if you intend to play the computer game not known as ASL but
certainly as close to it as aything out there, Microsoft's Close Combat
and a Pentium upgrade are your current only hopes.
Sorry.
Carl D. Fago
In article <318AE5...@earthlink.net>,
Dearmad <dea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Peter D. Pawelek wrote:
>> Fortunately, since Advanced Civilization and the 3rd Reich demo run
>> incredibly well on my 486, I eagerly anticipate Avalon Hill's port of
>> ASL to the PC.
I doubt it will happen. As far as the 3R demo...well, without PBEM, 3R-PC
ain't getting my money when it finally does see the light of day. PBEM is
what's kept me playing Stalingrad from the W@W series.
>If ASL refers to "Advanced Squad Leader," then sorry, Pete, but Close
>Combat IS ASL as Microsoft picked up the latest software development of
>that when the ball was dropped by the former developers.
Close Combat IS NOT ASL!!! It is NO WHERE close to ASL. Close Combat has to
stand on its own merits since it is not a port of any other game.
>Looks like if you intend to play the computer game not known as ASL but
>certainly as close to it as aything out there, Microsoft's Close Combat
>and a Pentium upgrade are your current only hopes.
Steel Panthers is much closer to ASL than Close Combat will ever be or was
ever intended to be.
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| *-=Carl=-* cd...@psu.edu | "If I can't picture it, I |
| GEnie - C.FAGO1 | can't understand it." |
| Carl Fago State College, PA | - Einstein |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
russ
Anybody know if there is any info available on this game anywhere? Looks pretty
good from the article in PC Gamer, but I don't really trust Bill Trotter too much.
I was wondering if you can also play this from the German side. Anybody know
anything?
Thanks
Russ
mike_t.
Details about Close Combat do appear sketchy. Even my friends at Microsoft who will be publishing it don't seem to know much. It is unclear from what I've read if this is going to be a squad level game or individual level. If I here anything, I let you know.
Scott D. Orr
Try the Atomic Games website at http://www.atomic.com -- there's plenty
of info there, I think (it's a company/battalion-level simulation with
players able to give orders to fire teams, but individual soldier are
modeled, including psychologically; under no circumstances, however,
will I buy it, since it runs only in Win95 or on a Mac -- sorry but the
game isn't worth the $250 or so it would cost me).
Scott Orr
jrp15
I kind of like Trotter. He's had good articles on TacOps and Road From
Sumter, two games I am currently enjoying.
Keith Zabalaoui
Peter D. Pawelek wrote:
>
<snip>
> >Rich,
> > The game will be available starting in July. And you're right; it
> >only runs on Pentiums and PowerMacs.
>
> >Keith
>
> Geez, when you guys started this project as 'Beyond Squad Leader', the
> system requirements were a 486 with 8MB of RAM. Now it's a Pentium?
> This is getting ridiculous!
>
> Unless a computer wargame is suffering from severe software bloat
> (well, after all, you are working under Microsoft now, aren't you?),
> and is padded with dozens of MB of useless full motion video clips and
> other multimedia trappings, is there _really_ a need to program it for
> a Pentium?
>
> And please, don't give me any flimsy arguments about needing all that
> horsepower for it's incredibly advanced AI. The guys at SSG have been
> putting out games with incredibly good AI that run on 386's or better
> for years.
>
> Perhaps you should take a cue from Major Holridge, and program your
> games for last year's model instead of next year's.
>
> incredibly well on my 486, I eagerly anticipate Avalon Hill's port of
> may end up becoming the Pacific Strike of WWII tactical wargames (or
> did I mean Across the Rhine? Either or, I suppose...). Either way, I
> won't shed any tears about it never seeing my hard drive.
>
> Peter Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
Peter,
What can I say? Atomic was the first to release an SVGA-only game and
people decried that decision, too. Believe me, we would love to run on
all machines, but its not practical and I'm sorry that your equipment
isn't up to the task. It really has nothing to do with "bloat" but to try
to explain it to you would be futile. Designing games for last year's
models is stupid. In fact, we have to design them for machines that
aren't even out yet. Otherwise, the games have precious little shelf
life. If you enjoy TacOps and the other games you mentioned, then by all
means, play them. If you get modern equipment, we'll be here waiting for
you. Its not a contest.
old-...@li.net
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) had this to say about Re: Close
Combat:
=>Try the Atomic Games website at http://www.atomic.com -- there's plenty
=>of info there, I think (it's a company/battalion-level simulation with
=>players able to give orders to fire teams, but individual soldier are
=>modeled, including psychologically; under no circumstances, however,
=>will I buy it, since it runs only in Win95 or on a Mac -- sorry but the
=>game isn't worth the $250 or so it would cost me).
On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
games.
___________________________________________________________________
Notice. Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct
others to make they're life fulfilled.
But even if I am unskilled in speech,I am not in knowledge 2 Co 11:6
I rather be right, then Politically Correct Old-...@li.net
____________________________________________________________________
Keith Zabalaoui
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) had this to say about Re: Close
>Combat:
>
>=>Try the Atomic Games website at http://www.atomic.com -- there's plenty
>=>of info there, I think (it's a company/battalion-level simulation with
>=>players able to give orders to fire teams, but individual soldier are
>=>modeled, including psychologically; under no circumstances, however,
>=>will I buy it, since it runs only in Win95 or on a Mac -- sorry but the
>=>game isn't worth the $250 or so it would cost me).
>
> On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
>shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
>mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
>I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
>games.
>
What? SLICED bread?! Thanks but no thanks! I like my bread hard and in
one big hunk! Nothing new for me, thanks! No sir, haven't seen it,
haven't tried it, but by golly, I hate it!
Old-Salt, how can you or anyone else be SO adamant about a game you have
never even seen, let alone played? Your attitude is not unique, but I
don't understand it. If you had tried a demo or been a tester and THEN
declared that it wasn't your cup of tea, I could respect that. But to
dismiss it out of hand is something I can't understand.
BMERRICK
On Sat, 11 May 1996 old-...@li.net wrote:
>
> On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
> shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
> mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
> I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
> games.
>
Nothing like thinking on the fly huh? Course, having to react to an
opponent that thinks or reacts quicker than you in "real time" can be
embarassing and I can see why you wouldnt want to try it-esp. if that
opponent has a good grasp of "the Situation", hehe-no thanks-
Come on Keith! There is NO PLACE (or market) for REAL TIME WARGAMES! <g>
Bob
Alan V Dunkin
BMERRICK (Na...@cris.com) wrote:
> Nothing like thinking on the fly huh? Course, having to react to an
> opponent that thinks or reacts quicker than you in "real time" can be
> embarassing and I can see why you wouldnt want to try it-esp. if that
> opponent has a good grasp of "the Situation", hehe-no thanks-
Thinking on the fly? Heheh, that's a good one, I'll have to remember it :)
Robear
In article <3194a4ce...@newshost.li.net>, <old-...@li.net> wrote:
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) had this to say about Re: Close
>Combat:
>
>=>Try the Atomic Games website at http://www.atomic.com -- there's plenty
>=>of info there, I think (it's a company/battalion-level simulation with
>=>players able to give orders to fire teams, but individual soldier are
>=>modeled, including psychologically; under no circumstances, however,
>=>will I buy it, since it runs only in Win95 or on a Mac -- sorry but the
>=>game isn't worth the $250 or so it would cost me).
>
>shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
>mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
>I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
>games.
>
Well, I can see your point, but I think there is room for a game that
forces you to think like a small-unit leader, making decisions under
stress and with only certain information, not full knowledge. If done
well, it will open up an entire genre.
Real time does not have to mean action game, just because that is waht
we currently have on the market.
David Pipes
Peter D. Pawelek
>Peter,
> What can I say? Atomic was the first to release an SVGA-only game and
>people decried that decision, too. Believe me, we would love to run on
>all machines, but its not practical and I'm sorry that your equipment
>isn't up to the task. It really has nothing to do with "bloat" but to try
>to explain it to you would be futile. Designing games for last year's
>models is stupid. In fact, we have to design them for machines that
>aren't even out yet. Otherwise, the games have precious little shelf
>life. If you enjoy TacOps and the other games you mentioned, then by all
>means, play them. If you get modern equipment, we'll be here waiting for
>you. Its not a contest.
>Keith
Keith,
This reply will definitely have a more restrained and reasonable tone
as my last post on this subject, since I'm not feeling quite as cranky
today :) and I think flame wars a fatiguing and futile, but I'm
sticking to my guns on this one.
Put simply: a great computer wargame does not require excessive
computational power to run. And quite frankly, for most end-users, a
Pentium is excessive computational power.
Case in point: I recently bought SSI's Twenty Great Wargame CD
collection, and it contains the Battlefront series games by SSG. These
games were originally programmed for 8-bit computers like the Apple II
and had been revamped for the PC. However, they still utlize EGA
graphics and have minimal sound effects. But, my friend and I played
the Syria scenario in the Rommel module and were very impressed with
the enemy AI. The Run5 system uses a unique command/control structure
in which the player does not have complete control over individual
units. Hence, the player has to contend with both an enemy AI and a
friendly (ie. staff officer) AI as well. We were pleasantly surprised
at the effectiveness of both levels of AI. As we played through the
Syria scenario, we realized that we were enjoying a solid and though
provoking wargaming experience....with a chunk of code that is
probably the size of that for Close Combat's splash screen.
I've already mentioned TacOps. The game's popularity is evident from
the incredible amount of traffic that it has generated on
c.s.i.p.g.-strategic. If Holridge had designed his game for Pentiums
only, do you seriously think it would have generated so much interest?
Doubt it.
Then, of course, there are the HPS games written almost
single-handedly by Scott Hamilton. Many serious wargamers (including
me) consider Panthers in the Shadows to be _the_ best computer wargame
on the market. Not for its chrome or eye-candy, but because it's a
solid system that comes well supported with an in-depth manual. I
would argue that it provides the best wargaming experience, with its
unparalleled handling of fog of war and command/control than any other
wargame out there: of either the board wargame or computer wargame
variety.
There are many, many other examples out there such as SSG's Carriers
at War series, and Grigsby's wacky strategic systems such as Pacific
War and War in Russia. All provide stimulating and rewarding gaming
experiences.
And all will run easily on a 386 with 4 megs of RAM.
Now, I don't want to sound like a cranky luddite who will never entire
the Pentium age, but why should I? What, Keith, does your Close Combat
system offer me that would make me go out and upgrade my computer?
Please try to explain it to me. This probably won't be as futile as
you think since I do some programming myself, as well as tinker with
game design, and have been wargaming for the past 15 years.
It's quite possible that Close Combat will advance computer wargaming
somewhat, but it seems that the historical track record for releasing
games designed for next year's model has been the opposite. Origin has
been notorious in this regard, and Pacific Strike was a flight sim
waiting for a Pentium two years before Pentiums were even affordable.
Now, when Pentiums _are_ the minimal system available, you can find
Pacific Strike for ten bucks in any bargain bin.
The aforementioned games that will run on a 386 have all been
programmed almost exclusively by one or two people. This allows for a
lot of diversity and fresh ideas in the computer wargaming market. To
program something like Close Combat, I imagine you'd need a small
army of programmers. Why? To make it more pleasing to the eye? To
provide prettier explosions in full stereo sound? No thanks, I think
I'll keep my 486 and explore those great older games...not very many
pretty explosions, but since they are well designed and thought
provoking, these games, to me, are more rewarding in the long run.
And to the Scott Hamiltons and Major Holridges out there...keep up the
good work! I'd rather give them my hard-earned dollars and get
something out of my somewhat less than 'modern equipment', than to buy
a Pentium so that I can play glorified arcade games.
The point that you're missing, Keith, is that for computer wargaming
the advances that we (the serious wargamers out there) really want is
in efficient game design, not in system requirements!
Peter Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
hElIcAl gEaRs
>Come on Keith! There is NO PLACE (or market) for REAL TIME WARGAMES! <g>
I'm sceptical, but I'll keep an open mind. My biggest concern is
PBEM, is it possible with a real time game? The primary reason I
buy computer wargames over the table top versions is PBEM.
Kieth, any chance there could be two modes of play? A real time
version and a turn based one.
hElIcAl gEaRs
>Well, I can see your point, but I think there is room for a game that
>forces you to think like a small-unit leader, making decisions under
>stress and with only certain information, not full knowledge.
Well, I hope your right, but the first thing you have to address is that
a squad/company leader doesn't look down at a map and have exact positions of
his men. Check out the Terra Nova demo; I think this is the new genre of
tactical combat simulations. There is still a huge hole in the market that a
Squad Leader type game could fill, and IMHO Steel Panthers isn't nearly as
good as what Close Combat could have been if it were turn based (asuming they
get other things right as well).
>Real time does not have to mean action game, just because that is waht
>we currently have on the market.
I'm just not looking forward to having to rush to input orders. IF (and its a
big if) they get the freindly soldier AI right, it might work. But just
imagine if the freindly AI is a little screwy and your men do things in an
unrealistic way in the heat of battle. I can just hear the atomic
programmers now - 'your men don't do everything you order them to do in real
life, either'. While this is true, it is too often an excuse used to cover up
poor AI programming.
Scott K. Stafford
In article <keithz-1105...@starbug.atomic.com>, kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) wrote:
-> What can I say? Atomic was the first to release an SVGA-only game and
->people decried that decision, too. Believe me, we would love to run on
->all machines, but its not practical and I'm sorry that your equipment
->isn't up to the task. It really has nothing to do with "bloat" but to try
->to explain it to you would be futile. Designing games for last year's
->models is stupid. In fact, we have to design them for machines that
->aren't even out yet. Otherwise, the games have precious little shelf
->life. If you enjoy TacOps and the other games you mentioned, then by all
->means, play them. If you get modern equipment, we'll be here waiting for
->you. Its not a contest.
Why not just a frank admission of a basic rule of programming; it's a hell
of a lot easier to let the hardware carry the ball than it is to optimize
code, go back to the drawing board, or (god forbid!) code the hot spots on
the bare metal.
Actually, I like this approach better. It ensures that when productivity
applications require that I upgrade to the next order of hardware
magnitude, I can find crap like CC on the $7.99 rack @ Babbages. I despise
the buggers who code for today's machines, since they end up getting $49.95
of my hard-earned dough.
**********************************************
"Never ascribe malice to that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity."
**********************************************
SKS
sco...@together.net
**********************************************
Scott D. Orr
Old-Salt wrote:
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) had this to say about Re: Close
>Combat:
>
>>Try the Atomic Games website at http://www.atomic.com -- there's
>>plenty of info there, I think (it's a company/battalion-level
>>simulation with players able to give orders to fire teams, but
>>individual soldier are modeled, including psychologically; under no
>>circumstances, however, will I buy it, since it runs only in Win95 or
>>on a Mac -- sorry but the game isn't worth the $250 or so it would
>>cost me).
>
> On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
>shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
>mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
>I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
>games.
Of course, thinking and acting in real-time are not in any way, shape
or form mutually exclusive. Indeed, real commanders work under time
constraints, and the ability to think on your feet is vital. In a
large-scale game, there's no need to simulate this, because (with the
scale) turns don't take as long as the real time being simulated. But
in a tactical simulation -- Squad Leader or a submarine attack -- this
_does_ become a problem, because turns may take far longer than the
time being simulated. In this case, real time can improve the
simulation, IF (and only if) the computer can be used to reduce the
player's workload such that his command burden is no greater than that
of his real-world counterpart.
Having to read the manual is, I think, a spurious concern -- a real
commander would already know everything in there, but the player can
simulate that knowledge by pausing the game whenever he needs to look
something up. (And I've never seen a real-time game without a pause
button.)
Using the mouse like a weapon, again, is NOT a necessary feature of
real-time games. For example, I know of no submarine simulation where
the player has to aim his weapons: all such games require _only_
thought -- quick thought, yes, but thought nonetheless. Although I
will _not_ buy Close Combat (because of the system requirements), I am
sure it will be an excellent game, and I am positive that the player
won't be required to "aim" weapons.
I realize, of course, that some of these concerns were raised by MS's
own ad copy of the game, but, as I'm sure everyone here is aware, there
is a best a vague correspondence between ad copy and and actual games;
and since "video-gamers" make up the bulk of the market, it makes sense
to try to attract some of them to make the thing profitable. But the
people at Atomic are hard-core gamers, and, again, I think we can be
sure that hand-eye coordination will play no role in Close Combat.
Scott Orr
me...@cris.com
On Sun, 12 May 1996 18:25:23 GMT, ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca (Peter D.
Pawelek) said something kinda like:
<great stuff snipped>
>The point that you're missing, Keith, is that for computer wargaming
>the advances that we (the serious wargamers out there) really want is
>in efficient game design, not in system requirements!
>
>Peter Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
>
>
>
Peter makes an excellent point that is apparently falling on deaf ears
in many software houses: it's the game that counts. This is a HUGE
problem in the flight sim world, where gameplay (good AI, campaigns,
briefings, realistic world to fight in, etc.) is being completely
dumped in favor of great graphics. I see this trend in every genre of
comp gaming. The real classics, such as Falcon 3, Civ, etc, achieved
classic status due to great gameplay, not bells and whistles.
Unfortunately, publishers know that bells and whistles sell games
these days, so that's what we get. Can't judge Close Combat until it
comes out, but my personal opinion is that designing a game that will
run optimally on the average machine of a year from release is taking
a big gamble. It better run well on today's machines, because a year
from now people will have moved on to other games and aren't likely to
go back and buy a year old game just because their machine can run it
now (Pacific Strike is a great example). I have a fully decked out
p5-133, so I'm not making these comments as sour grapes because my
386-16 won't run software; I just rue the fact that bells and whistles
are apparently winning out over form for so many games today.
And if Close Combat is solid, wonderful! If it is not, I know from
email with a couple or so top programmers, known for good solid games,
that they will be happy to produce a great tactical, squad level game
if CC only whets people's attitudes.
merc
Robear
In article <4n4ook$f...@perry.zippo.com>,
hElIcAl gEaRs <dsc...@luminet.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, I can see your point, but I think there is room for a game that
>>forces you to think like a small-unit leader, making decisions under
>>stress and with only certain information, not full knowledge.
>
>Well, I hope your right, but the first thing you have to address is that
>a squad/company leader doesn't look down at a map and have exact positions of
>his men. Check out the Terra Nova demo; I think this is the new genre of
>tactical combat simulations. There is still a huge hole in the market that a
>Squad Leader type game could fill, and IMHO Steel Panthers isn't nearly as
>good as what Close Combat could have been if it were turn based (asuming they
>get other things right as well).
I would guess that a squad leader who doesn't know where his men are is
screwed, while a company commander who doesn't has either lost communications
or walked away from his staff. I'm not sure why the role the player takes
(the appropriate command staff, not just one person) should not have that
info, but I'm open to suggestions...
>>Real time does not have to mean action game, just because that is waht
>>we currently have on the market.
>
>I'm just not looking forward to having to rush to input orders. IF (and its a
>big if) they get the freindly soldier AI right, it might work. But just
>imagine if the freindly AI is a little screwy and your men do things in an
>unrealistic way in the heat of battle. I can just hear the atomic
>programmers now - 'your men don't do everything you order them to do in real
>life, either'. While this is true, it is too often an excuse used to cover up
>poor AI programming.
If you've read their description of the AI, it's pretty plausible. At least
to me.
Neither of these points addresses anything specific to a real-time game. The
worry about rushing to input orders does, but then it reflects real life.
I think people are just reflexively dismissing this game because it is
real time.
David Pipes
Alan V Dunkin
hElIcAl gEaRs (dsc...@luminet.net) wrote:
> I'm just not looking forward to having to rush to input orders. IF (and its a
> big if) they get the freindly soldier AI right, it might work. But just
> imagine if the freindly AI is a little screwy and your men do things in an
> unrealistic way in the heat of battle. I can just hear the atomic
> programmers now - 'your men don't do everything you order them to do in real
> life, either'. While this is true, it is too often an excuse used to cover up
> poor AI programming.
From what I understand, the game-time/real-time ratio can be adjusted. Also,
you really wouldn't have to "rush" to input, the time scale would not be along
the lines of C&C or WC2 where it's critical. I think one of CC's mottos is
"take your time".
Alan V Dunkin
me...@cris.com wrote:
> And if Close Combat is solid, wonderful! If it is not, I know from
> email with a couple or so top programmers, known for good solid games,
> that they will be happy to produce a great tactical, squad level game
> if CC only whets people's attitudes.
If they were top programmers then they should already be producing these
"great tactical, squad level games" instead of waiting to see if Close
Combat flops or not.
me...@cris.com
On 13 May 1996 00:00:55 GMT, dunk...@utdallas.edu (Alan V Dunkin)
said something kinda like:
You know their names. They either have just finished or are finishing
games right now. Close Combat has an obvious head start, and they
both expressed concern about the problems of marketing when 2 or 3
games of the same type hit the market close to each other, they often
hurt each other. One also expressed concern because he is not a
"glitter" game producer, and is concerned about the public going for
the flash of CC as well as the clout of having MS behind it.
I suppose what they "should" do is up to their discretion as to where
they can make a living. My point was not to name drop (which is why I
didn't use their names; I received their comments when I sent them
email imploring them to think about producing good, "hard-core"
man-to-man level games, which is a great desire of mine) but an
optimism that if Close Combat is not all we hope, all may not be lost.
FWIW
jeff
Los
In article <4n5kho$m...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, sd...@ix.netcom.co says...
All this talk about realtime wargames makes me want to see an "Infantry Platoon
leader simulator" It would have a map based system where you would work out
your oporders and movements, then you would switch to a doom type mode where
it's first person and you have to try and influence your platoon "on the
ground". Of course you could refer back to maps and stuff. Sort of an M1 Tank
platoon redux/advanced for us grunts.
Los
old-...@li.net
kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) had this to say about Re: Close
Combat:
=>In article <3194a4ce...@newshost.li.net>, old-...@li.net wrote:
=>> On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
=>>shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
=>>mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
=>>I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
=>>games.
=>>
=>
=>What? SLICED bread?! Thanks but no thanks! I like my bread hard and in
=>one big hunk! Nothing new for me, thanks! No sir, haven't seen it,
=>haven't tried it, but by golly, I hate it!
=>
=>Old-Salt, how can you or anyone else be SO adamant about a game you have
=>never even seen, let alone played? Your attitude is not unique, but I
=>don't understand it. If you had tried a demo or been a tester and THEN
=>declared that it wasn't your cup of tea, I could respect that. But to
=>dismiss it out of hand is something I can't understand.
Now true, I have not played it or even seen it. BUT, the PR is
pushing the fact that it is not only just a real time game, but such a
fast "real time game" that "You work your mouse like a weapon". I am
not saying others will not like it. Just that I will not like it. Due
to the fact on how the game plays. Going by the companies own PR for
the game.
Just as if a movie passed it self off in there PR as "the best
Gay love story of all time" I could easily say "this is a movie that
I have no use for and would never spend my money on" Now true I would
be saying this due to fact I have no use for "Gay love stories" just
as I have no use to play a game where I got to click and move my mouse
as a weapon.
Would you say I should see this movie first before saying I
would not like it also?
___________________________________________________________________
Notice. Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct
others to make they're life fulfilled.
But even if I am unskilled in speech,I am not in knowledge 2 Co 11:6
I rather be right, then Politically Correct Old-...@li.net
____________________________________________________________________
old-...@li.net
BMERRICK <Na...@cris.com> had this to say about Re: Close Combat:
=>
=>
=>On Sat, 11 May 1996 old-...@li.net wrote:
=>
=>>
=>> On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
=>> shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
=>> mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
=>> I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
=>> games.
=>>
=>Nothing like thinking on the fly huh? Course, having to react to an
=>opponent that thinks or reacts quicker than you in "real time" can be
=>embarassing and I can see why you wouldnt want to try it-esp.
Thinking on the fly? What is it a wargame or the shoot out at
the OK Corral?
=> if that
=>opponent has a good grasp of "the Situation", hehe-no thanks-
Basally I don't care for real time games. But if you think
your so hot I will be more then happy to play you Modem Wars if you
are ever in NY.
But I have seen so call real time games become more of click
and move of the mouse that has nothing to do with wargames. First off
only a man with a rifle or squard leader really thinks on his feet. In
the scent that these game portray. Every one else came into this with
a plan that took days or longer to figure out. Depending on the scale
of the operation.
Now I do know that this game looks like it is small scale
tactical level. But even so, are you going to be telling all 10 or 20
men who to shoot at.
Bob, shoot at the Jap with glasses, Bill shoot at the one with
the grande in his hand, Tom shoot at... Opps Tom is dead, so is
everyone else since the 586 running this can think faster and give
orders faster then you.
But hang in there in time I bet you will be grease lighting
with that mouse.
=>
=>Come on Keith! There is NO PLACE (or market) for REAL TIME WARGAMES! <g>
Never said that, just that this game is not for me. If you
like this type of game. Then run out and get it. I will not think less
of you for doing it. Since it is something you like.
But don't get on my case just due to the fact I say that this
type of game is not for me.
James Dusek
old-...@li.net wrote:
: On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
: shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
: mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
: I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
: games.
As an avid player of Warhamer:SOTHR, I like real-time games. It
means you have to think in real time. How much time did squad leaders have
in WW2 to think about their actions? You have to think in real-time games,
but in these, you have to think fast. You cannot spend 10 minutes mulling
over where to send your tank in real life, why have this time in a game?
Close Combat, like Warhammer, is striving for real-like TACTICAL
combat where realism means real-time. I for one, will have a copy of
Close combat, and I am going to enjoy it, and suggest it to people.
James Dusek
old-...@li.net
rob...@access5.digex.net (Robear) had this to say about Re: Close
Combat:
=>In article <3194a4ce...@newshost.li.net>, <old-...@li.net> wrote:
=>>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) had this to say about Re: Close
=>>Combat:
=>> On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
=>>shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
=>>mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
=>>I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
=>>games.
=>
=>Well, I can see your point, but I think there is room for a game that
=>forces you to think like a small-unit leader, making decisions under
=>stress and with only certain information, not full knowledge. If done
=>well, it will open up an entire genre.
This I can agree with 100%. I was basally giving a kneejerk
reaction to the PR that company put out.
=>
=>Real time does not have to mean action game, just because that is waht
=>we currently have on the market.
I have since talked with Keith, and learn a few things about
this game that the PR did NOT bring out. Now I am more willing to
check out the demo when it comes out.
But I still have no use for real time war or non-war games
when they are done poorly such as Iron Cross, but love them when they
are done well such as Modem Wars or C&C, and yes both of them are not
wargames, but are real time games that I have enjoyed tremendously.
Joel Wawrzon
In article <keithz-1105...@starbug.atomic.com>,
Keith Zabalaoui <kei...@atomic.com> wrote:
[snippo]
>Peter,
> What can I say? Atomic was the first to release an SVGA-only game and
>people decried that decision, too. Believe me, we would love to run on
>all machines, but its not practical and I'm sorry that your equipment
>isn't up to the task. It really has nothing to do with "bloat" but to try
>to explain it to you would be futile. Designing games for last year's
>models is stupid. In fact, we have to design them for machines that
>aren't even out yet. Otherwise, the games have precious little shelf
>life. If you enjoy TacOps and the other games you mentioned, then by all
>means, play them. If you get modern equipment, we'll be here waiting for
>you. Its not a contest.
>
>Keith
(When are you guys going to get around to updating your webpage?
How about some info on the game or some pics. Any amount of hype
would be nice. The masses may be skeptical, but I think they're
clamoring for more all the same.)
I agree with Keith's statement. Computer gaming is an expensive hobby.
People have to keep up with the technology or find another hobby. If
there is a market for games that will play on yesterday's computer,
I'm sure someone will fill it. CC is a game for people who want more.
We're still just scratching the surface of what can be done with computer
games. I say go with the technology. If that wasn't the case in the
past, we would all be playing checkers instead of ASL or A3R. It's
progress. Sure PacMan was clever and a good game, but give the people
who wrote it 100 times the horsepower and they would probably have
produced 100 times the game. Good game programmers make better games
when they have more resources to deal with (it's a dream come true).
Ask any of the people who had to painfully squeeze their creations into
64K of memory in the olden days.
Higher machine requirements do not simply imply that more graphics have
been added, but is also indicative of other factors (particularly AI,
which I imagine takes a lot of machine resources in CC).
Anyways, please update the page, Keith. Details, pictures, anything.
Joel
-------------------------------------------
Joel Wawrzon
Univ. of Wisc. Dept. of Computer Sciences
waw...@cs.wisc.edu
-------------------------------------------
old....@worldnet.att.net
dusek@psun (James Dusek) had this to say about Re: Close Combat:
=>old-...@li.net wrote:
=>: On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
=>: shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
=>: mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
=>: I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
=>: games.
=>
=> As an avid player of Warhamer:SOTHR, I like real-time games. It
=>means you have to think in real time. How much time did squad leaders have
=>in WW2 to think about their actions?
But real squad leaders don't have to tell each man who to
shoot at, and the enemy they are facings don't think as fast as a 586.
The PR that the company put out gave this impression. I have
nothing against real time games. I play C&C and love it. I do have
things against poorly made real time games such as Iron Cross.
I was just reacting to the PR that the company put out. I
have since talked to Keith and learn more of this game am looking
forward to the demo when it comes out.
=> You have to think in real-time games,
=>but in these, you have to think fast. You cannot spend 10 minutes mulling
=>over where to send your tank in real life, why have this time in a game?
I see you never were in the service.
Well in real life a squad leader never tells a tank where to
go. He may ask for a tank to help out if he runs into a pill box or
machine gun nest. If one is avable. But most tank commanders know
where they are going to send there tanks, after days or at least hours
of being informed on how HQ planes to advance into the enemy lines.
=>
=> Close Combat, like Warhammer, is striving for real-like TACTICAL
=>combat where realism means real-time. I for one, will have a copy of
=>Close combat, and I am going to enjoy it, and suggest it to people.
Good, I hope you enjoy the game. But just due to the fact a
game is real time, doesn't make it realistic.
___________________________________________________________________
Notice. Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct
others to make they're life fulfilled.
But even if I am unskilled in speech,I am not in knowledge 2 Co 11:6
I rather be right, then Politically Correct-...@worldnet.att.net
____________________________________________________________________
old....@worldnet.att.net
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) had this to say about Re: Close
Combat:
=>Old-Salt wrote:
=>> On top of that, it is real time. As this quote from the PR
=>>shows "So there's no time to thumb through the manual. You work your
=>>mouse like a weapon. Point and click and boom." Thanks but no thanks,
=>>I like wargames so I can think. If I don't want to think I play arcade
=>>games.
<good points snip>
=>I realize, of course, that some of these concerns were raised by MS's
=>own ad copy of the game,
All of them (at least my post) was raised by the PR.
=> but, as I'm sure everyone here is aware, there
=>is a best a vague correspondence between ad copy and and actual games;
True, but I expect PR to say good things about the game they
are trying to sell me. Not "this game sucks, buy it" which to me was
just the same as the part of the PR I quoted.
=>and since "video-gamers" make up the bulk of the market, it makes sense
=>to try to attract some of them to make the thing profitable. But the
=>people at Atomic are hard-core gamers, and, again, I think we can be
=>sure that hand-eye coordination will play no role in Close Combat.
Yes, I have since found out that the game will be (at least it
sounds like it will) more to my liking then the PR release. I am now
looking forward to the release of the demo to see for myself.
Raymond Ovanessian
If the ad is any indication ,which it often isn't, this game might
be worth a close look.
Atomic came up with a solid coherent design for a complex wargame in
V4V, though IMO, it fell far short with it's oblivious AI.
What's the association with M$, $$$ ? And if it's going to be used
for online or h2h play, does this then assure us of yet another abysmal
AI implemmentation, where the game becomes boring as soon as one learns
all the rules ?
RayO
Alan V Dunkin
old-...@li.net wrote:
> Now true, I have not played it or even seen it. BUT, the PR is
> pushing the fact that it is not only just a real time game, but such a
> fast "real time game" that "You work your mouse like a weapon". I am
> not saying others will not like it. Just that I will not like it. Due
> to the fact on how the game plays. Going by the companies own PR for
> the game.
I've NEVER seen this PR--I've always seen exactly the opposite. You can
go fast, but the emphasis is slow and careful preparedness.
Bruce Rennie
I feel this chase for realism that has made real-time in vogue currently
is misguided. Real-time advocates will say: "You have to think fast in
real life, why not in a game ?". Sure, it sounds good, but it doesn't
match up with reality.
A company commander gives orders to his platoons before action:
"Ok, we're going to take that group of buildings. 1st platoon will advance
and occupy that large building on the right. 2nd platoon will advance and
occupy those smaller buildings on the left. 3rd platoon and the weapons
platoon will provide covering fire."
Then the platoon leaders, platoon seargents and squad leaders issue orders
to the men under their command.
You don't need real-time to simulate this.
The problem is that once combat is underway, the impact of the company
commander on the company actions is limited. He can direct fire support,
send in reinforcements, order a retreat, etc, but the outcome of the
action is in the hands of the men.
Let me illustrate this. For example, take an ambush. Any small infantry
unit obeys some standard doctrine laid out by their army on how to react
to an ambush (for example, turn into the ambush and advance). The small
unit is drilled and trained on how to deal with an ambush until it is
second nature. This is done because if the unit waits until the company
commander (or even platoon commander), who may be incapacitated, issues
orders, well, their *ss is grass.
So, if I'm acting as the company commander in a real-time wargame at the
level of CC, my men should react without my input. So, for some significant
part of the the time, I am essentially a spectator.
This is a good thing ?
So, I'm faced with the prospect of either sitting back and watching my
units automatically deal with the ambush (which is realistic, but fatally
boring) or I must resign myself to issuing orders to 30+ platoon members.
In real time. Right.
The basic conflict that real-time advocates overlook is that real life
command is about delegation. To a wargamer, delegation can mean boring.
I love Command and Conquer, but C&C is not real life. I don't have to
worry about command and control, maintaining unit integrity, etc.
Real-time games in a more serious setting seem to me to be a much more
difficult target to hit.
/bruce
--
*******************************************************************************
* Bruce Rennie Q: Are We Not Men ? *
* bre...@interlog.com, bru...@numetrix.com *
* *
*******************************************************************************
Ken Fishkin
jrp15 wrote:
>
> I kind of like Trotter. He's had good articles on TacOps and Road From
> Sumter, two games I am currently enjoying.
>
On the other hand, he drooled all over the godawful "Ascendancy".
I think he also gave "Fantasy General" thumbs-down.
--
Ken Fishkin fis...@acm.org
http://www.parc.xerox.com/fishkin
Timothy Burke
In article <3198A4...@parc.xerox.com>, Ken Fishkin
<fis...@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
> jrp15 wrote:
> >
> > I kind of like Trotter. He's had good articles on TacOps and Road From
> > Sumter, two games I am currently enjoying.
> >
>
> On the other hand, he drooled all over the godawful "Ascendancy".
> I think he also gave "Fantasy General" thumbs-down.
Yes, and his review of "Ascendancy" is exactly what drove me away from PC
Games. If it had just been an incorrect review (egregiously, in this
case), that would be one thing. But the fact that Trotter also wrote the
strategy guide puts the whole thing in another perspective: it's a case of
payola, more or less. And no critic can survive with any credibility
intact when they directly benefit financially from a transparently slanted
review.
Timothy Burke
old....@worldnet.att.net
dunk...@utdallas.edu (Alan V Dunkin) had this to say about Re: Close
Combat:
=>old-...@li.net wrote:
=>> Now true, I have not played it or even seen it. BUT, the PR is
=>> pushing the fact that it is not only just a real time game, but such a
=>> fast "real time game" that "You work your mouse like a weapon". I am
=>> not saying others will not like it. Just that I will not like it. Due
=>> to the fact on how the game plays. Going by the companies own PR for
=>> the game.
=>
=>I've NEVER seen this PR--I've always seen exactly the opposite. You can
=>go fast, but the emphasis is slow and careful preparedness.
You will find it in CGW, June issue, second page of a two page
ad, on page number 11.
James Dusek
old-...@li.net wrote:
: Thinking on the fly? What is it a wargame or the shoot out at
: the OK Corral?
Wargame, a realstic simulation of tactical combat during the
days after the Normanday landings.
: Basally I don't care for real time games. But if you think
Why? Realtime games gives your problems to solve in real time
like your historical counter parts did.
: and move of the mouse that has nothing to do with wargames. First off
: only a man with a rifle or squard leader really thinks on his feet. In
Guess what role you play in close combat!
: the scent that these game portray. Every one else came into this with
: a plan that took days or longer to figure out. Depending on the scale
: of the operation.
Which falls apart minutes after contact with the enemy.
: Now I do know that this game looks like it is small scale
: tactical level. But even so, are you going to be telling all 10 or 20
: men who to shoot at.
No, you issue orders to the squads, who carry them out.
: But don't get on my case just due to the fact I say that this
: type of game is not for me.
Well, you not only saying "this game is not for me" your also
condemming it like you've played it and disliked it. Without even seeing
the product yor telling people about excessive mouse movements, ect.
The marketing people create slogans, what they meant by using your mouse
as a weapon most likely means something differant than what you think
that phrase means.
James Dusek
old....@worldnet.att.net
dusek@psun (James Dusek) had this to say about Re: Close Combat:
=>old-...@li.net wrote:
=>: Basally I don't care for real time games. But if you think
=>
=> Why? Realtime games gives your problems to solve in real time
=>like your historical counter parts did.
No, most do not. The commanders of such games that have been
done "Iron Cross" to name one. Does not control the men under him in
real time as a game persents. He sits, and gets dispatches from his
subordinates, and then figures if to send in reinforcements or air
support, etc. He is not telling him men who to fire on.
=>
=>: and move of the mouse that has nothing to do with wargames. First off
=>: only a man with a rifle or squard leader really thinks on his feet. In
=>
=> Guess what role you play in close combat!
Well it can't be a squad leader since below your
telling me I issue orders to squads. So I must be a partoon leader or
higher.
=>
=>
=>: Now I do know that this game looks like it is small scale
=>: tactical level. But even so, are you going to be telling all 10 or 20
=>: men who to shoot at.
=>
=> No, you issue orders to the squads, who carry them out.
=>
=>: But don't get on my case just due to the fact I say that this
=>: type of game is not for me.
=>
=> Well, you not only saying "this game is not for me" your also
=>condemming it like you've played it and disliked it. Without even seeing
=>the product yor telling people about excessive mouse movements, ect.
Hay, don't blame me for the PR the company puts out on the
game! I only read it and posted what I read here. I was only going
by what the company's OWN PR was saying!
I will say that I have talked to Keith and now know more about
the game. I will also say the PR that was put out by the company does
a disservice to the game.
=>The marketing people create slogans, what they meant by using your mouse
=>as a weapon most likely means something differant than what you think
=>that phrase means.
If you read all of my post and all of my quote you will see
they were PUSHING speed, and that you have NO TIME but to react. So
the statement "using your mouse as a weapon" was slanted to mean what
I took it to mean!
Robert Ruth
James Dusek (dusek@psun) wrote:
: old-...@li.net wrote:
: : Now I do know that this game looks like it is small scale
: : tactical level. But even so, are you going to be telling all 10 or 20
: : men who to shoot at.
: No, you issue orders to the squads, who carry them out.
This is the point IMHO that such real time games come apart.
The problem is the poor AI which one must depend on to take your orders
and react to them in real time. To date I have seen only two types of
real time (you against the universe solo) or Micromanager (how fast can
you move that mouse to keep everyone in line). May this game prove to
be the one that brings this type above the known standard.
Syndicate, Dune II, C&C all were fun but such games are more like
Armed Lemmings 8-) than intelligent units. The closests thing I
have played to this type of game was Fields of Glory which was
quasi real time Napolean, It was intresting but the AI on both
sides was pretty bad.
I side with Old Salt in that as long as we do not see intelligent AI
for real time, I would rather have phases and give my troops
or troopers individual commands. To date the best compromise IMHO
has been the X-Com series which is midway between the two of board
and realtime. Since it is a game, let me die because I did something
stupid, not because the AI on my side did something stupid.
Bob Ruth
Keith Zabalaoui
<snip>
>The point that you're missing, Keith, is that for computer wargaming
>the advances that we (the serious wargamers out there) really want is
>in efficient game design, not in system requirements!
>
>Peter Pawelek (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
Peter,
Its the eternal tradeoff. I submit that Close Combat is doing far
more than the fine games you mentioned. We do things like track every
single bullet that is fired and calculate the actually volume of lead over
a given area. This way we get a real percentage chance of a soldier being
wounded. This is a higher fidelity model than those games use (I believe)
and is certainly higher than our previous games used. The cost is in
system reqs. And to be coldly pragmatic, we know that you WILL be buying
a faster machine SOMEDAY. When you do, this game will still run on it.
Keith
_ Keith Zabalaoui ____________ Atomic Games ______ http://www.atomic.com _
.__;""";, \__/ \__/ \_
\ ""--_:., "I don't know the secret of success, but the \__/ \__/
:: __;:""~ secret of failure is trying to please everyone" \__/ \_
."._:"" : \__/
_"' `---' --------- V for Victory € World at War € Close Combat ----------
Keith Zabalaoui
<snip>
>Using the mouse like a weapon, again, is NOT a necessary feature of
>real-time games. For example, I know of no submarine simulation where
>the player has to aim his weapons: all such games require _only_
>thought -- quick thought, yes, but thought nonetheless. Although I
>will _not_ buy Close Combat (because of the system requirements), I am
>sure it will be an excellent game, and I am positive that the player
>won't be required to "aim" weapons.
>Scott Orr
Scott, you are correct. "Use your mouse like a weapon" turns out to be a
really bad choice of words. This is not a joystick shoot 'em up by any
stretch of the imagination.
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4n4nuv$f...@perry.zippo.com>, dsc...@luminet.net (hElIcAl
gEaRs) wrote:
>>Come on Keith! There is NO PLACE (or market) for REAL TIME WARGAMES! <g>
>
>
>I'm sceptical, but I'll keep an open mind. My biggest concern is
>PBEM, is it possible with a real time game? The primary reason I
>buy computer wargames over the table top versions is PBEM.
>
>Kieth, any chance there could be two modes of play? A real time
>version and a turn based one.
No chance whatsoever. I *BELIEVE* that once you play head to head, you
will have no desire to play by email - except if you have an Internet
provider that charges by the hour. If THAT'S the case, I suggest you get
a new provider.
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4n4ook$f...@perry.zippo.com>, dsc...@luminet.net (hElIcAl
gEaRs) wrote:
>>Well, I can see your point, but I think there is room for a game that
>>forces you to think like a small-unit leader, making decisions under
>>stress and with only certain information, not full knowledge.
>
>Well, I hope your right, but the first thing you have to address is that
>a squad/company leader doesn't look down at a map and have exact positions of
>his men. Check out the Terra Nova demo; I think this is the new genre of
>tactical combat simulations. There is still a huge hole in the market that a
>Squad Leader type game could fill, and IMHO Steel Panthers isn't nearly as
>good as what Close Combat could have been if it were turn based (asuming they
>get other things right as well).
>
>>Real time does not have to mean action game, just because that is waht
>>we currently have on the market.
>
>I'm just not looking forward to having to rush to input orders. IF (and its a
>big if) they get the freindly soldier AI right, it might work. But just
>imagine if the freindly AI is a little screwy and your men do things in an
>unrealistic way in the heat of battle. I can just hear the atomic
>programmers now - 'your men don't do everything you order them to do in real
>life, either'. While this is true, it is too often an excuse used to cover up
>poor AI programming.
Briefly, we have been working on the AIs (we have 2 of them that function
independently of one another) since the beginning of the project. They
are integral to its design.
But from your letter and from several great letters from Old Salt, its
clear that the ads are misleading. Old Salt mentioned that the phrase
"use your mouse like a weapon" made him think of twitch games. Simply,
this is not the case. We actually have speed controls in the game that
allow the player to play the game at full speed, at near realtime, at
about 2*realtime, or at 4*realtime. The game does rely on your reactions,
but not your reflexes.
Keith Zabalaoui
<snip>
>Anyways, please update the page, Keith. Details, pictures, anything.
>
>Joel
Yeah, our page has been stagnant. Sorry, guys. Check out the latest
issue of Strategy Plus for more info and screen shots and an interview
with *me*. They may even have something on the web at their site.
Richard Cave
Keith Zabalaoui (kei...@atomic.com) wrote:
: Peter D. Pawelek wrote:
: >
: <snip>
..........text deleted...........
: Peter,
: What can I say? Atomic was the first to release an SVGA-only game and
: people decried that decision, too. Believe me, we would love to run on
: all machines, but its not practical and I'm sorry that your equipment
: isn't up to the task. It really has nothing to do with "bloat" but to try
: to explain it to you would be futile. Designing games for last year's
: models is stupid. In fact, we have to design them for machines that
: aren't even out yet. Otherwise, the games have precious little shelf
: life. If you enjoy TacOps and the other games you mentioned, then by all
: means, play them. If you get modern equipment, we'll be here waiting for
: you. Its not a contest.
: Keith
Well, with this kind of attitude toward customers, I know whose games I
WON'T be buying (even though my system does meet the minimum reqs).
Richard
Dearmad
Keith Zabalaoui wrote:
> Scott, you are correct. "Use your mouse like a weapon" turns out to be a
> really bad choice of words. This is not a joystick shoot 'em up by any
> stretch of the imagination.
>
> Keith
>
> _ Keith Zabalaoui ____________ Atomic Games ______ http://www.atomic.com _
Are we to assume that some PR heads are rolling? Or was that
Microsoft's department, and the phrase popped out of Mr. Bill's mouth
itself and we're stuck with them... aw well, Trotter went through the
game and talked about it well. Enough so that I am interested... :)
Dearmad
Ken Fishkin wrote:
>
> jrp15 wrote:
> >
> > I kind of like Trotter. He's had good articles on TacOps and Road From
> > Sumter, two games I am currently enjoying.
> >
>
> On the other hand, he drooled all over the godawful "Ascendancy".
> I think he also gave "Fantasy General" thumbs-down.
>
I dunno... I returned Fantasy General myself... boring, same old, been
there done that. However, ascendency appeared to be drooled over more
for it's possibilities offered rather than its actual gameplay... But
reviews not from actual players like us in nthis newsgroup are
worthless... I just look at the few facts offered, and pictures... I
read this group for the REAL story!
James Dusek
old....@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: dusek@psun (James Dusek) had this to say about Re: Close Combat:
: => You have to think in real-time games,
: =>but in these, you have to think fast. You cannot spend 10 minutes mulling
: =>over where to send your tank in real life, why have this time in a game?
: go. He may ask for a tank to help out if he runs into a pill box or
: machine gun nest. If one is avable. But most tank commanders know
: where they are going to send there tanks, after days or at least hours
: of being informed on how HQ planes to advance into the enemy lines.
Give me a break.
So your saying that after DAYS or HOURS of planning, attacks are
executed to the T, reguardless of enemy action, ect. Your kidding, right.
The know where they are going to send the tanks, and will have some
idea of what kind of forces they are facing, and what objectives they are
going to capture. Then, when the attack starts the enemy has their own
idea's as to what going to happen. Any commander is not going to have 10
minutes in the field to ponder movements once the shooting starts, f
he wants to keep his command.
The tactical battle are going to be very fluid, and preset plans are
going to fall apart. So the tank commander has orders to dive up and blast
a machine gun nest, and recived these orders after several hours of planning.
Now, he's in the field, driving up to the area, and a Gemran tank appears.
Now what?
A. The commander calls time out, and plans for the next 10 minutes
on these new changes.
( i.e. turn based games.)
B. Scrambles to handle the new threat.
( i.e. real time games.)
Planning is nice, but cannot always happen.
James Dusek
James Dusek
Bruce Rennie (bre...@gold.interlog.com) wrote:
: A company commander gives orders to his platoons before action:
: "Ok, we're going to take that group of buildings. 1st platoon will advance
: and occupy that large building on the right. 2nd platoon will advance and
: occupy those smaller buildings on the left. 3rd platoon and the weapons
: platoon will provide covering fire."
This certaintaly can all be done in a game, but would you buy it?
Would you buy a game where you issued 4 pregame orders, than just
sat back and watched it go on? I wouldn't, I have a T.V. to watch.
Even so, the Commander will give orders during the battle to his
platoons, change the target for indirect fire, order a squad to move to
a differant locatin, ect. ect.
: The basic conflict that real-time advocates overlook is that real life
: command is about delegation. To a wargamer, delegation can mean boring.
Have you ever played a real-time wargame? I think not. In Warhammer,
you gave you orders to your units, not to each man. Eventhough it was in
real-time, I never felt bored, as things were always happening. At times,
it was a spectator sport, as you waited for your orders to be carried out,
but that comes with the territory.
James Dusek
Hoang Pham
>I feel this chase for realism that has made real-time in vogue currently
>is misguided. Real-time advocates will say: "You have to think fast in
>real life, why not in a game ?". Sure, it sounds good, but it doesn't
>match up with reality.
>The basic conflict that real-time advocates overlook is that real life
>command is about delegation. To a wargamer, delegation can mean boring.
>
>worry about command and control, maintaining unit integrity, etc.
>Real-time games in a more serious setting seem to me to be a much more
>difficult target to hit.
Your argument is well-received. I think it is incomplete, as you are only
detailing part of the overall picture of what is "real". Allow me to
supplement:
In most conflict simulations, you have a definite number of aspects to
consider and taken into account in your decision-making. Terrain is one,
unit characteristic and disposition is another, weapon range is yet
another, and so forth.
Time is simply one more aspect of a conflict simulation. It may not
render the sim more or less "real", but it definitely adds pressure--
hence, challenge--to the decision-making process. For a sim, such added
challenge usually translates to greater appeal.
When talking about "real", it also depends on what aspect of the sim you
are comparing to real-life. You said that real-time micromanagement in
sims is not the same as real-life, which is very true. But is it more or
less "real" than turn-based micromanagement? This, given the fact that
the present AI technology is inadequate and micromanagement, to some
degree, is inevitable. So when we are talking about "real", we are
talking about the degree of reality portrayed, rather than a yes or no
answer. Thus, I don't agree with your black-or-white evaluation of
"real". Depending on the nature and scope of the simulation, real-time
may be more appropriate than turn- or phase- based schemes (most likely,
small-scale sims with a limited number of units such as CC).
Perhaps the best compromise, already used by some sims, is to have a
planning phase where both sides plot their commands, and then an execution
phase when those commands are carried out, with the commanders having only
limited interaction. While good in theory, in practice this scheme would
do poorly for "continuous action" games such as C&C and WC2. This
segmentation disrupts the flow of the game, and diminishes the excitement
level when one is in the thick of combat. As such, it may be best suited
for more "cerebral" games than for the "beer & pretzels" games like C&C.
Yet another point to be made is that the trend of online gaming is very
large. The vast majority of upcoming games will have some type of
connectivity for human-human play. In this context, real-time games have
the highest degree of interactivity, as both sides are involved in the
game at the same time, with no interruptions. Turn-based games, and games
with PBEM would not fare as well. I'm not talking just about playability,
but also in appeal & popularity. This last is what game companies are
most interested in, since we are talking about games marketed for the
mass, after all, and not for the military branches.
Raymond Ovanessian
In <4ndhjj$r...@hpuerci.atl.hp.com> r...@hpuerci.atl.hp.com (Richard
Cave) writes:
>
>
>Well, with this kind of attitude toward customers, I know whose games
>I WON'T be buying (even though my system does meet the minimum reqs).
I don't see why you are peeved? I'm still on a 486 and I
cetainly don't mind if he wants to develop for the high end;
AS LONG AS he makes that very clear in the requirements.
This is a truth in labeling issue, with game companies (besides
others) blatantly lying about the REAL requirements to capture
(ie deceive) more customers.
RayO
Peter D. Pawelek
ray...@ix.netcom.com(Raymond Ovanessian ) wrote:
> I don't see why you are peeved? I'm still on a 486 and I
>cetainly don't mind if he wants to develop for the high end;
>AS LONG AS he makes that very clear in the requirements.
>This is a truth in labeling issue, with game companies (besides
>others) blatantly lying about the REAL requirements to capture
>(ie deceive) more customers.
> RayO
Being a fellow 486 user, I can sympathise. However, the flip side is
true too. A lot of companies now consider a 486dx2-66 to be the
minimal system out there, so they will list that as the minimal system
req. However, I've found that some games that are rated for a 66 will
run well on my 33, such as 'Heroes of Might and Magic' for Windows 95.
I think this applies more for turn based strategy games (and I have
heard that Command and Conquer will run well on a 486dx33 as
well...can anyone confirm this?). For instance, wouldn't buy _any_
flight sim rated for a 66 since I know that the frame rate would blow
on my machine.
Peter (ppa...@po-box.mcgill.ca)
old....@worldnet.att.net
dusek@psun (James Dusek) had this to say about Re: Close Combat:
=>old....@worldnet.att.net wrote:
=>: Well in real life a squad leader never tells a tank where to
=>: go. He may ask for a tank to help out if he runs into a pill box or
=>: machine gun nest. If one is avable. But most tank commanders know
=>: where they are going to send there tanks, after days or at least hours
=>: of being informed on how HQ planes to advance into the enemy lines.
=>
=> Give me a break.
=>
=> So your saying that after DAYS or HOURS of planning, attacks are
=>executed to the T, reguardless of enemy action, ect. Your kidding, right.
I did not say that, what I said they know where they are
going. Besides it is not up to a squad leader to tell tanks where to
go. The tank commander (each tank has one) will tell his driver of any
changes he wants to make. But yes they do follow the plan that was
laid out by there commanding officer. BTW, these plans are not "tank
number 1 go 50 yards turn right 30 deg at the oak tree, then go 149
yards and turn left 45 deg" It is more like "A group move along road
34 to this point. Then wait 5 mins for B group to get in to perstion
here at point November. Then all forces move to hill 327"
They are give routes to take but each tank gets there the best
he can.
=>
=> The know where they are going to send the tanks, and will have some
=>idea of what kind of forces they are facing, and what objectives they are
=>going to capture. Then, when the attack starts the enemy has their own
=>idea's as to what going to happen. Any commander is not going to have 10
=>minutes in the field to ponder movements once the shooting starts, f
=>he wants to keep his command.
And any command is not going to be telling each tank where to
go. He will issue general orders like pull back, push on, hold your
perstion.
=>
=> The tactical battle are going to be very fluid, and preset plans are
=>going to fall apart. So the tank commander has orders to dive up and blast
=>a machine gun nest, and recived these orders after several hours of planning.
=>Now, he's in the field, driving up to the area, and a Gemran tank appears.
=>Now what?
=>
=> A. The commander calls time out, and plans for the next 10 minutes
=>on these new changes.
=>
=> ( i.e. turn based games.)
=>
=> B. Scrambles to handle the new threat.
=>
=> ( i.e. real time games.)
Wrong. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz Times up.
C. issues no orders for the first U.S. tank to see the German
tank shoots it. Then all the others join in with out an order from the
tank commander of that unit. Since men in the field can think for
themselves. Unlike games that we play, were we must thing for them
all.
Talk to some real people who know what combat is like before
compairing things in games to real life. No I was Navy not Army so my
knowledge of tank warfare is from reading and talking to a few friends
who were in the Army. Not WW-II but Nam.
=>
=> Planning is nice, but cannot always happen.
True, but the men can think for them selfs under such
conditions. They don't wait for the commander to give orders when
comes to shooting or getting out of harms way.
russ
Gentlemen. Remember Empire's The Civil War? Trotter gave that a good review, even
thought that the AI was good. No flame intended, but we ALL know that that was
totally untrue. That is why I do not trust or believe him. Fact.
Russ
Mark Wilkins
kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) wrote:
>Briefly, we have been working on the AIs (we have 2 of them that function
>independently of one another) since the beginning of the project. They
>are integral to its design.
>But from your letter and from several great letters from Old Salt, its
>clear that the ads are misleading. Old Salt mentioned that the phrase
>"use your mouse like a weapon" made him think of twitch games. Simply,
>this is not the case. We actually have speed controls in the game that
>allow the player to play the game at full speed, at near realtime, at
>about 2*realtime, or at 4*realtime. The game does rely on your reactions,
>but not your reflexes.
I'm one of what appears to be a large number of people eagerly
awaiting the release of 'Close Combat.' I've read the reviews,
including the one in Strategy Plus, and it certainly sounds like the
type of game I'll enjoy. However, I'm concerned about the "realtime"
aspects you've discussed. I play C&C and Warcraft (I & II) but I
think they're action games, not wargames or strategy games. I may be
in the minority here, but I think the realtime games make you more
interested in reaction than in strategy.
What was the thinking behind making Close Combat realtime? How
exactly will it work?
Scott K. Stafford
In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>, kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) wrote:
-> Its the eternal tradeoff. I submit that Close Combat is doing far
->more than the fine games you mentioned. We do things like track every
->single bullet that is fired and calculate the actually volume of lead over
->a given area. This way we get a real percentage chance of a soldier being
->wounded. This is a higher fidelity model than those games use (I believe)
->and is certainly higher than our previous games used. The cost is in
->system reqs.
Oh, I see. A 486 could do the graphics--it's the *math* that needs a
Pentium...
Yeah. Sure. Right.
Why not just admit that you tried to shove in too much eye-candy and the
compiler whelped a monster? It's happened to everybody...
**********************************************
"Never ascribe malice to that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity."
**********************************************
SKS
sco...@together.net
**********************************************
Richard Cave
Raymond Ovanessian (ray...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4ndhjj$r...@hpuerci.atl.hp.com> r...@hpuerci.atl.hp.com (Richard
: Cave) writes:
: >
: >
: >Well, with this kind of attitude toward customers, I know whose games
: >I WON'T be buying (even though my system does meet the minimum reqs).
: I don't see why you are peeved? I'm still on a 486 and I
: cetainly don't mind if he wants to develop for the high end;
: AS LONG AS he makes that very clear in the requirements.
: This is a truth in labeling issue, with game companies (besides
: others) blatantly lying about the REAL requirements to capture
: (ie deceive) more customers.
: RayO
The fact that Atomic is developing a game that requires a Pentium does not
bother me. What bothers me is there response to customers who have raised
some legitimate concerns. As I stated before, I don't need to give my money
to a company that doesn't appreciate its customers.
Richard
sc...@tcville.es.hac.com
In article p...@bristlecone.together.net, sco...@together.net (Scott K. Stafford) writes:
>In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>, kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) wrote:
>
>-> Its the eternal tradeoff. I submit that Close Combat is doing far
>->more than the fine games you mentioned. We do things like track every
>->single bullet that is fired and calculate the actually volume of lead over
>Oh, I see. A 486 could do the graphics--it's the *math* that needs a
>Pentium...
>Yeah. Sure. Right.
>Why not just admit that you tried to shove in too much eye-candy and the
>compiler whelped a monster? It's happened to everybody...
Egad ! I suppose this passes for civility nowadays but... I sure wish
folks wouldn't be so "in your face" on the net.
I would agree that the graphics involved are probably a big percentage of the
CPU cycles but we've got simulations here which take *weeks* of UltraSparc
number crunching and don't handle many more independent agents than
this game does. Of course the game can be far more liberal with its
assumptions but, still, the "math" can easily become a major bottleneck
in a combat/system simulation.
Anyway, looking forward to this summer's crop of PC games
(and fairly decent movies as well too !!!),
Scott
---
Hughes Aircraft Co. voice: (310) 616-1059
Image and Signal Processing Lab addr: sc...@tcville.es.hac.com
PO Box 902, EO/E01/A172, El Segundo, Ca. 90245
Rhett M. Stroh
In utter confusion, Richard Cave (r...@hpuerci.atl.hp.com) spewed forth:
: Keith Zabalaoui (kei...@atomic.com) wrote:
: : Peter D. Pawelek wrote:
: : >
: : <snip>
: ..........text deleted...........
: : Peter,
: : What can I say? Atomic was the first to release an SVGA-only game and
: : people decried that decision, too. Believe me, we would love to run on
: : all machines, but its not practical and I'm sorry that your equipment
: : isn't up to the task. It really has nothing to do with "bloat" but to try
: : to explain it to you would be futile. Designing games for last year's
: : models is stupid. In fact, we have to design them for machines that
: : aren't even out yet. Otherwise, the games have precious little shelf
: : life. If you enjoy TacOps and the other games you mentioned, then by all
: : means, play them. If you get modern equipment, we'll be here waiting for
: : you. Its not a contest.
: : Keith
: Well, with this kind of attitude toward customers, I know whose games I
: WON'T be buying (even though my system does meet the minimum reqs).
: Richard
Keith, you did it now. Don't be telling rabid gamers the truth about
business decisions. You'll just piss 'em off and draw a lot of flak here.
Richard probably spends a lot of time cursing the new flight sims and
driving sims. Me, I just don't buy 'em yet because my 486/66 is waiting
for the p-166 prices to drop. But i will.... ;)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rhett Stroh "The Eunuch Of Unix" |
| rms...@gdesystems.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Macdonald
In article <4ndhjj$r...@hpuerci.atl.hp.com> Vaden) writes:
>Keith Zabalaoui (kei...@atomic.com) wrote:
>: Peter D. Pawelek wrote:
>: >
>: <snip>
>
>: Peter,
>: What can I say? Atomic was the first to release an SVGA-only game and
>: people decried that decision, too. Believe me, we would love to run on
>: all machines, but its not practical and I'm sorry that your equipment
>: isn't up to the task. It really has nothing to do with "bloat" but to try
>: to explain it to you would be futile. Designing games for last year's
>: models is stupid. In fact, we have to design them for machines that
>: aren't even out yet. Otherwise, the games have precious little shelf
>: life. If you enjoy TacOps and the other games you mentioned, then by all
>: means, play them. If you get modern equipment, we'll be here waiting for
>: you. Its not a contest.
>
>: Keith
>
>Well, with this kind of attitude toward customers, I know whose games I
>WON'T be buying (even though my system does meet the minimum reqs).
>
>Richard
What attitude? Keith is saying that different people like different
kinds of games and you can't please all of the people all of the time.
It appears to me that they are making a game that they would like to
play and they think that many other people would like to play. But
if it doesn't appeal to you, he's not going to cram it down your
throat.
I find his attitude quite refreshing and honest. Much better than some
suck-up that says that his game is the greatest thing since penicillin
and that everyone, regardless of likes and dislikes, will desire it and
buy it and play it for the rest of their life!
Why make a choice between great AI and chrome when they have the
capability to give you both!
Hope I didn't put any words in you mouth, Keith.
Haggis
"Age does not bring wisdom,
...but it does give perspective."
--Robert Heinlein
James Dusek
old....@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: changes he wants to make. But yes they do follow the plan that was
: laid out by there commanding officer. BTW, these plans are not "tank
Up until the point, they do have to deviate from the plan. And
who is the best person to decide this, the computer or the game?
Do you want a game where you tell it to take this hill, than
everything start going, and you sit and watch it for 20 minutes,
or oone where you can actually give orders during the course as the
situation changes?
: Wrong. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz Times up.
Aw, gee I was right.
: C. issues no orders for the first U.S. tank to see the German
: tank shoots it. Then all the others join in with out an order from the
wrongo, somebody issues that order, might as well be the player.
Got any problems with the player wearing multiple hats?
: tank commander of that unit. Since men in the field can think for
: themselves. Unlike games that we play, were we must thing for them
: all.
In all real time games I play, units react to enemy appearance
on thier own without orders until you issue orders. So, without any
orders at all, the tank in a real-time game will react to the new
threat, without any input from the player.
: True, but the men can think for them selfs under such
: conditions. They don't wait for the commander to give orders when
: comes to shooting or getting out of harms way.
What made you think in real-time wargames, units stand around waiting
to be shot until told to do otherwise? This has never been the case in all
previous real-time games, and I don't expect it to change.
James Dusek
Old Salt
dusek@psun (James Dusek) had this to say about Re: Close Combat:
=>old....@worldnet.att.net wrote:
=>: changes he wants to make. But yes they do follow the plan that was
=>: laid out by there commanding officer. BTW, these plans are not "tank
=>
=> Up until the point, they do have to deviate from the plan. And
=>who is the best person to decide this, the computer or the game?
Sorry I don't see what your saying here.
=>
=> Do you want a game where you tell it to take this hill, than
=>everything start going, and you sit and watch it for 20 minutes,
=>or oone where you can actually give orders during the course as the
=>situation changes?
Even turn base games let you give orders as things change. But
what are you doing a real time game. Giving orders to each unit as it
happens in real time. This is not what is going on real life!
=>
=>
=>: Wrong. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz Times up.
=>
=> Aw, gee I was right.
=>
=>: C. issues no orders for the first U.S. tank to see the German
=>: tank shoots it. Then all the others join in with out an order from the
=>
=> wrongo, somebody issues that order, might as well be the player.
=>Got any problems with the player wearing multiple hats?
In a real time game YES! The person who issued that order was
Tank Officer in side of the first tank to see it. He told his gunner
or maybe the gunner saw it or the driver, but someone in the first
tank saw the German tank and let the gunner know and they fired on it.
Do I want to do this in a real time game NO, why it is not
realistic. You can not be everybody in a real time game. Well you
can but then it is not a war game. Your playing C&C, which is a fun
game but not a wargame.
=>
=>: tank commander of that unit. Since men in the field can think for
=>: themselves. Unlike games that we play, were we must thing for them
=>: all.
=>
=> In all real time games I play, units react to enemy appearance
=>on thier own without orders until you issue orders. So, without any
=>orders at all, the tank in a real-time game will react to the new
=>threat, without any input from the player.
Tell me the names of the WARGAMES that are real time that does
this.
=>
=>: True, but the men can think for them selfs under such
=>: conditions. They don't wait for the commander to give orders when
=>: comes to shooting or getting out of harms way.
=>
=> What made you think in real-time wargames, units stand around waiting
=>to be shot until told to do otherwise? This has never been the case in all
=>previous real-time games, and I don't expect it to change.
Again tell me the names of these WARGAMES. Please.
___ ___
______ ______ | | | | ______
=====[______] =====[______] | | | | [______]======
****************old-...@worldnet.att.net**************************
*"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" Sung by *
* But even if I am unskilled in speech, J. Joplin *
* I am not in knowledge....... 2 Co 11:6 *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
><Canter & Siegel the Bottom feeders of "Green Card" spammers>
Scott K. Stafford
In article <4nghjq$a...@hacgate2.hac.com>, sc...@tcville.es.hac.com wrote:
->>Why not just admit that you tried to shove in too much eye-candy and the
->>compiler whelped a monster? It's happened to everybody...
->I would agree that the graphics involved are probably a big percentage of the
->CPU cycles but we've got simulations here which take *weeks* of UltraSparc
->number crunching and don't handle many more independent agents than
->this game does. Of course the game can be far more liberal with its
->assumptions but, still, the "math" can easily become a major bottleneck
->in a combat/system simulation.
The designer of "Squad Leader," John Hill, put it best when he noted that
fire on any target will cause one of three conditions: the target will be
eliminated, the target will be discomfited, or there will be no effect.
With this wisdom in mind, it's hard to imagine how tracking the flight of
individual bullets or bits of shrapnel could add substantially to gameplay
or realism. What, is the game engine going to display the fascinating
message that Corporal Jones was killed by the 14th bullet fired from the
magazine of Gefreiter Hassel's MP40, which struck a rock and generated a
bit of granite that penetrated Jones' left eye? Ooooo, that's realism.
The original "Squad Leader" did a fantastic job of simulating (accurately
enough) WWII combat with two dice and a table look-up. They needed to
orphan whole generations of hardware to better this? C'mon.
No wonder AH pulled out.
Robear
In article <4nke2p$f...@bristlecone.together.net>,
Scott K. Stafford <sco...@together.net> wrote:
>In article <4nghjq$a...@hacgate2.hac.com>, sc...@tcville.es.hac.com wrote:
>
>->>Why not just admit that you tried to shove in too much eye-candy and the
>->>compiler whelped a monster? It's happened to everybody...
>
>->I would agree that the graphics involved are probably a big percentage of the
>->CPU cycles but we've got simulations here which take *weeks* of UltraSparc
>->number crunching and don't handle many more independent agents than
>->this game does. Of course the game can be far more liberal with its
>->assumptions but, still, the "math" can easily become a major bottleneck
>->in a combat/system simulation.
>
>The designer of "Squad Leader," John Hill, put it best when he noted that
>fire on any target will cause one of three conditions: the target will be
>eliminated, the target will be discomfited, or there will be no effect.
>With this wisdom in mind, it's hard to imagine how tracking the flight of
>individual bullets or bits of shrapnel could add substantially to gameplay
>or realism. What, is the game engine going to display the fascinating
>message that Corporal Jones was killed by the 14th bullet fired from the
>magazine of Gefreiter Hassel's MP40, which struck a rock and generated a
>bit of granite that penetrated Jones' left eye? Ooooo, that's realism.
The focus of boardgame designs is simplicity. Computer games no longer
need to adhere to that.
Atomic has described modeling the "amount of lead in the air", which I take
to mean that they have figures for average rounds per turn from a weapon.
Total those over the target hex, throw in random effects and terrain/cover,
and you get a hit probability that is more accurate than the original
ASL, which after all was limited to a fixed number of densities (columns),
each with a maximum of 36 possibilities. It ain't rocket science, but it
does eat cycles.
They've never presented the ridiculous scenario you cite.
>The original "Squad Leader" did a fantastic job of simulating (accurately
>enough) WWII combat with two dice and a table look-up. They needed to
>orphan whole generations of hardware to better this? C'mon.
Your "accurately enough" is different from just about anyone who has looked
at ASL from an accuracy viewpoint. Explain, for example, the accuracy of
it's command and control, or the lack of fog of war without moderation, or
the implementation of tank command, just to pick a few. ASL is a great game;
it falls way short as a simulation. (I still love it).
>No wonder AH pulled out.
You really don't know what happened, do you?
>"Never ascribe malice to that which
>can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Absolutely.
>SKS
>sco...@together.net
David Pipes
Andrew Shore
On Sun, 12 May 1996, Peter D. Pawelek wrote:
> Then, of course, there are the HPS games written almost single-handedly
> by Scott Hamilton. Many serious wargamers (including me) consider Panthers
> in the Shadows to be _the_ best computer wargame on the market.
Actually, the best computer wargame is coming out in a week or so: the
Eastern Front version of PitS, Tigers on the Prowl 2.
--
AS
"Come, I'll show you where the Iron Crosses grow."
James Coburn, _Cross of Iron_
Allen Hubenak
In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>,
Keith Zabalaoui <kei...@atomic.com> wrote:
><snip>
>And to be coldly pragmatic, we know that you WILL be buying
>a faster machine SOMEDAY. When you do, this game will still run on it.
>
>Keith
Hey Keith Z.,
I've been wondering... Is Microsoft going to make you support your
products with timely patches, or are you going to go 6 months to never
when it comes to fixing the big bugs??!?
The way I look at it, I can take a few years to upgrade my computer,
and even then I still won't wanna play Close Combat because of all the
bugs that still won't be fixed. I'm basing these comments solely on the
lack of support that Atomic/Avalon has shown to the W@W series. We're
still waiting for the official Stalingrad 2.0 patch to come out, and its
been over a year.
In the mean time I would encourage everybody to not buy Close Combat for
at least 2 years, if at all. When Atomic starts supporting their products
with timely patches the way other game companies do then -MAYBE- I'll buy
another Atomic product again.
Allen Hubenak
JD
bre...@gold.interlog.com (Bruce Rennie) writes...>
currently
> is misguided. Real-time advocates will say: "You have to think
fast in
> real life, why not in a game ?". Sure, it sounds good, but it
doesn't
> match up with reality.
You make good points and hit on all of the things that are wrong
with true real time systems. But what is your perfect
alternative? I find at least as long a list of things wrong with
turn based Igo/Ugo systems.
That's why I plug the modified real time system every chance I
get. SSG's Run5 system is the closest thing to optimal for
wargames that I've come across. It allows for simultaneous
resolution of combat, and continuous action or "carry forward" of
orders issued which span more than one pulse. And while doing all
this, it allows for player interruption at any point for any
reason <or automatically for predetermined reasons> such as
giving orders or just scoping out the general situation.
The real beauty of the system <not necessarily SSG's version, but
modified real time in general...> is that the pulse length can be
set at whatever best suits the type or scale of action
portrayed, and it can be accelerated to cover slack periods. 1
second per pulse might work fine for a game such as Close Combat,
so long as you could stop it at any point and give orders, etc..
This is what I mean by "modified real time". For a game at a
larger scale... something on the order of War in Russia say... a
1 day pulse might be appropriate <a week is just too long for a
game like that>.
I think the reason we don't see many implementations of a system
like this <outside of SSG products, that is> is because many of
the current computer wargame designers are stuck in the rut of
their board gaming heritage. I believe that this is also the
reason why we still have to suffer with the limitations of hexes.
I can think of nothing positive that the hex based movement and
control system adds to computer wargaming, from the player's
perspective.
Regards, JD
Jason Irby
Howdy JD,
JD wrote:
> That's why I plug the modified real time system every chance I
> get. SSG's Run5 system is the closest thing to optimal for
> wargames that I've come across.
Has this been implemented in a computer game? Sounds interesting.
> I think the reason we don't see many implementations of a system
> like this <outside of SSG products, that is> is because many of
> the current computer wargame designers are stuck in the rut of
> their board gaming heritage. I believe that this is also the
> reason why we still have to suffer with the limitations of hexes.
> I can think of nothing positive that the hex based movement and
> control system adds to computer wargaming, from the player's
> perspective.
Well, JD if you remember from our discussion of this in Cust 24 I had
previously agreed with your position completely. Since, however, I've
given the matter considerable thought, and have discussed the matter
with several vertern wargamers. To some extent they have caused me to
refine my view abit.
I feel it is really dependant on the level of simulation that you are
rendering. For instance, at the level of say "War in Russia" it is
reasonable to abstract the terrain into larger logical chunks than it
would be for "Steel Panthers". In WIR it just would make sense to
micromanage terrain when you are moving around division sized units.
As the granularity of you representation decreases to say the battalion
level the argument for a more realistic digitized terrain model begin to
carry more weight. And certainly by the level of "Steel Panthers",
where we are rendering individual vehicles, we should have moved away
from the hexed based system.
So I still agree with you in certain circumstances. However, at
higher levels of abstaction, I feel it is reasonable to aggregate
terrain into hexes so as not to lose the essence of the simulation in
the forest of unnecesary details. This is all ofcourse only my humble
opinion, even though I KNOW I'm right. ;>
Adios,
<Desperado>
Don C. Aldrich
JD <j...@nai.net> wrote:
[Lotsa intelligent stuff snipped]
>I think the reason we don't see many implementations of a system
>like this <outside of SSG products, that is> is because many of
>the current computer wargame designers are stuck in the rut of
>their board gaming heritage. I believe that this is also the
>reason why we still have to suffer with the limitations of hexes.
>I can think of nothing positive that the hex based movement and
>control system adds to computer wargaming, from the player's
>perspective.
I think both of you are making extraordinarily well thought out
points. The only thing I would contribute is in response to the above
comment concerning hex based movement.
Realizing that we are suffering from constraints that real commanders
are not, the one thing Hexes do is permit you to determine with
absolute certainty the maximum movement possible for both your and
opponents' forces.
One can argue whether this is real or desirable, but it is a feature
that must be recognized to be dealt with.
==Dondo
> Regards, JD
Old Salt
JD <j...@nai.net> had this to say about Re: Close Combat:
=>That's why I plug the modified real time system every chance I
=>get. SSG's Run5 system is the closest thing to optimal for
=>wargames that I've come across. It allows for simultaneous
=>resolution of combat, and continuous action or "carry forward" of
=>orders issued which span more than one pulse. And while doing all
=>this, it allows for player interruption at any point for any
=>reason <or automatically for predetermined reasons> such as
=>giving orders or just scoping out the general situation.
=>
=>The real beauty of the system <not necessarily SSG's version, but
=>modified real time in general...> is that the pulse length can be
=>set at whatever best suits the type or scale of action
=>portrayed, and it can be accelerated to cover slack periods. 1
=>second per pulse might work fine for a game such as Close Combat,
=>so long as you could stop it at any point and give orders, etc..
=>This is what I mean by "modified real time". For a game at a
=>larger scale... something on the order of War in Russia say... a
=>1 day pulse might be appropriate <a week is just too long for a
=>game like that>.
Now something like this I can back 100%. If you add the time
delay of how long it would take your orders to filter down the chain
of command. I would love to play any scale wargame like this. Stop the
game, let me look at what's going on and give orders and then start it
again. The orders would not take effect right away, but work down the
chain of command.
So for some one who does not see the big picture right away
and sees it when it is too late, his orders will be useless. But for
someone who can pick up on whats going on and out guess his opponent
(AI or human) he can push on toward victory and his enemy's plan falls
by the way side.
Yes, CAW used this system and it works very well.
Alan V Dunkin
I spent about forty-five minutes at E3 playing Close Combat, so here are
some outside impressions...
The Microsoft two-page ad about "point and shoot" is not necessarily misleading.
You do have a fire command and you do point out where to shoot, but it's more
along the lines of a specific area rather than a specific target.
I never did find out what kind of machines they were running CC on, but even
if they were high-speed Pentiums it was slow going. I'm not sure if it was
just game speed or scroll speed, but it there was a small but noticeable
delay when scrolling around, plus the fact that I encountered a problem in
moving a tank where I'd click to move to a spot then move the cursor to
another spot, the mouse click would register the new spot rather than the
old. The action wasn't choppy though.
Speaking of action, there is a lot going on; in some of the big scenarios,
almost information overload. Lots of squads and vehicles to keep track
of. I was at a point in St. Lo where I wanted to have two squads assault
these Germans in a rubble pile in the same building. Unfortunately, I
couldn't get my squad to go through open areas between rooms, they just
refused to move. Morale looked okay.. I should have tried going outside
and back inside again but didn't have time.
Like I said, a lot going on. Lines of fire criss-cross the screen, color
and line dependent on the opposing side and types of fire. You can hear
each of the individual shells, smoke clouds, engine smoke, men dying,
rifle fire...
Potentially I think Close Combat has the chance to be a real winner. I don't
think I've encountered a computer game quite like it, and it's a load of fun
to boot.
Now for that Pentium...
--
Alan Dunkin (dunk...@utdallas.edu) Warbirds (Black Sheep squadron): alan
News Editor, Online Game Review (http://ogr.nrgroup.com)
StrategyNet, strategy and wargames (http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~dunk1888)
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4nke2p$f...@bristlecone.together.net>, sco...@together.net
(Scott K. Stafford) wrote:
>In article <4nghjq$a...@hacgate2.hac.com>, sc...@tcville.es.hac.com wrote:
>
>->>Why not just admit that you tried to shove in too much eye-candy and the
>->>compiler whelped a monster? It's happened to everybody...
>
>->I would agree that the graphics involved are probably a big percentage of the
>->CPU cycles but we've got simulations here which take *weeks* of UltraSparc
>->number crunching and don't handle many more independent agents than
>->this game does. Of course the game can be far more liberal with its
>->assumptions but, still, the "math" can easily become a major bottleneck
>->in a combat/system simulation.
>
>The designer of "Squad Leader," John Hill, put it best when he noted that
>fire on any target will cause one of three conditions: the target will be
>eliminated, the target will be discomfited, or there will be no effect.
>With this wisdom in mind, it's hard to imagine how tracking the flight of
>individual bullets or bits of shrapnel could add substantially to gameplay
>or realism. What, is the game engine going to display the fascinating
>message that Corporal Jones was killed by the 14th bullet fired from the
>magazine of Gefreiter Hassel's MP40, which struck a rock and generated a
>bit of granite that penetrated Jones' left eye? Ooooo, that's realism.
>
>The original "Squad Leader" did a fantastic job of simulating (accurately
>enough) WWII combat with two dice and a table look-up. They needed to
>orphan whole generations of hardware to better this? C'mon.
>
>No wonder AH pulled out.
>
>
>
>**********************************************
>"Never ascribe malice to that which
>can be adequately explained by stupidity."
>**********************************************
>SKS
>sco...@together.net
>**********************************************
Scott,
Are you TRYING to provoke me? I don't mind discussing theory with
you, but you are pretty sarcastic. AH did not pull out. Atomic left for
reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this game. As for John
Hill and SL, I have met John and have great respect for him and what he
accomplished. I never plaed SL, but I have played a great deal of ASL,
Sniper, Ambush!, and similar games. As for your fallacious reasoning that
if its good enough for board games, then its good enough for computer
games, I'll ask you to look at some computer games that are direct
translations of board games. They don't work. The game buying public
today wants more. Just as I might enjoy watching a Charlie Chaplin movie
today, I certainly wouldn't pay to go see it. Few people today would.
All in all, its sounds like you're bitter because tech marches on and you
can't/don't want to keep you. That, my non-friend, is your cross to
bear. I've said before that I would dearly love to support all machines,
but I can't.
Keith
_ Keith Zabalaoui ____________ Atomic Games ______ http://www.atomic.com _
.__;""";, \__/ \__/ \_
\ ""--_:., "I don't know the secret of success, but the \__/ \__/
:: __;:""~ secret of failure is trying to please everyone" \__/ \_
."._:"" : \__/
_"' `---' --------- V for Victory € World at War € Close Combat ----------
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4ng7eo$p...@bristlecone.together.net>, sco...@together.net
(Scott K. Stafford) wrote:
>In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>,
kei...@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) wrote:
>
>-> Its the eternal tradeoff. I submit that Close Combat is doing far
>->more than the fine games you mentioned. We do things like track every
>->single bullet that is fired and calculate the actually volume of lead over
>->a given area. This way we get a real percentage chance of a soldier being
>->wounded. This is a higher fidelity model than those games use (I believe)
>->and is certainly higher than our previous games used. The cost is in
>->system reqs.
>
>Oh, I see. A 486 could do the graphics--it's the *math* that needs a
>Pentium...
>
>Yeah. Sure. Right.
>
>Why not just admit that you tried to shove in too much eye-candy and the
>compiler whelped a monster? It's happened to everybody...
>
>**********************************************
>"Never ascribe malice to that which
>can be adequately explained by stupidity."
>**********************************************
>SKS
>sco...@together.net
>**********************************************
Scott,
How bitter you are. I almost called you malicious, but then I read
your sig. The game certainly does have eye-candy, but the CPU-gobblers
are the 2 AIs, with the graphics coming in a distant third. The single
most CPU-intensive routine we have is the line of sight checker. What I
WILL admit, though, is that the game does run on 486s and 68040's, and we
COULD have labeled the boxes accordingly, but we all, Atomic and
Microsoft, felt that we'd rather put the "recommended" requirements versus
the "minimum" requirements on the box. Once we made that decision, we
stopped supporting the lower-end machines.
Keith Zabalaoui
>What attitude? Keith is saying that different people like different
>kinds of games and you can't please all of the people all of the time.
>It appears to me that they are making a game that they would like to
>play and they think that many other people would like to play. But
>if it doesn't appeal to you, he's not going to cram it down your
>throat.
>
>I find his attitude quite refreshing and honest. Much better than some
>suck-up that says that his game is the greatest thing since penicillin
>and that everyone, regardless of likes and dislikes, will desire it and
>buy it and play it for the rest of their life!
>
>Why make a choice between great AI and chrome when they have the
>capability to give you both!
>
>Hope I didn't put any words in you mouth, Keith.
>
> Haggis
Not at all. Thanks. I'll tell you that we just got back from E3 in Los
Angeles. Close Combat was shown at the Microsoft ZONE (it was far more
than a booth <g>) and in the Apple Suite. It was received extremely
well. No joke, we had people that kept coming back to play and several
that we couldn't get to leave! I personally didn't hear any negative
comments but I was told one person thought Steel Panthers was better and
one person thought it was too cluttered. Beyond that, we even had SSI
folks salivating over it. We were extremely encouraged by the reception
it received.
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4no45l$i...@news.utdallas.edu>, dunk...@utdallas.edu (Alan V
Dunkin) wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for your feedback. I don't know what speed those machines were
either. But people did keep adjusting the speed of the game and the force
mixes for each side, so there's no telling what your settings were.
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4nliqg$n...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, all...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(Allen Hubenak) wrote:
>In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>,
Allen,
One more time. Publishers are responsible for testing and reporting
bugs to the developer. Developers fix those bugs. Publishers are
responsible for supporting what they publish. If there are problems that
arise after the game goes out, the publisher should work with the
developer to rectify those problems.
The Stalingrad patch you refer to was, in fact, given by Atomic to AH
last September. You ask them why you haven't seen it yet.
My final word on this is that Microsoft is not Avalon Hill.
Alan V Dunkin
Keith Zabalaoui (kei...@atomic.com) wrote:
> Not at all. Thanks. I'll tell you that we just got back from E3 in Los
> Angeles. Close Combat was shown at the Microsoft ZONE (it was far more
> than a booth <g>) and in the Apple Suite. It was received extremely
> well. No joke, we had people that kept coming back to play and several
> that we couldn't get to leave! I personally didn't hear any negative
I think I was one :)
Kaj Laursen
>>>>> "James" == James Dusek <dusek@psun> writes:
James> Do you want a game where you tell it to take this
James> hill, than everything start going, and you sit and watch it
James> for 20 minutes, or oone where you can actually give orders
James> during the course as the situation changes?
If you are a company commander you call in artillery/airstrikes and
give orders to your _platoons_ during the 20 minutes.
James> wrongo, somebody issues that order, might as well be
James> the player. Got any problems with the player wearing
James> multiple hats?
Yes, i have a problem with the player wearing multiple hats _if the
player have to do 5 mens jobs real time_. This is the problem i see
with real time games. If you have to do too many peoples jobs (as you
usally end up doing because of bad AI of the subordinate units) you
get too much time pressure.
James> In all real time games I play, units react to enemy
James> appearance on thier own without orders until you issue
James> orders. So, without any orders at all, the tank in a
James> real-time game will react to the new threat, without any
James> input from the player.
I think the problem (as have been stated by other people) boils down
to how good the AI is. If the units react semi-intelligent it's
ok. And semi-intelligent includes that the single troops should work
together.
Kaj
Scott D. Orr
In <keithz-1905...@starbug.atomic.com> kei...@atomic.com
(Keith Zabalaoui) writes:
>
>All in all, its sounds like you're bitter because tech marches on and
>you can't/don't want to keep you. That, my non-friend, is your cross
>to bear. I've said before that I would dearly love to support all
>machines, but I can't.
Keith, while I certainly sympathize with your desire to make the best
game possible by utilizing the cutting edge of technology, I've always
found it ironic given your constant complaints about how small the
wargame market is.
As an aside, making fun of the equipment belonging to potential
customers (many of whom would probably love cutting-eduge hardware but
can't afford to replace it every year), will neither endear you to the
public nor increase your market share.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
all...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>(Allen Hubenak) wrote:
>
>>In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>,
>>
>>products with timely patches, or are you going to go 6 months to
>>never when it comes to fixing the big bugs??!?
>>
>>The way I look at it, I can take a few years to upgrade my computer,
>>and even then I still won't wanna play Close Combat because of all
>>the bugs that still won't be fixed. I'm basing these comments solely
>>on the lack of support that Atomic/Avalon has shown to the W@W
>>series. We're still waiting for the official Stalingrad 2.0 patch to
>>come out, and its been over a year.
>>
>>In the mean time I would encourage everybody to not buy Close Combat
>>for at least 2 years, if at all. When Atomic starts supporting their
>>products with timely patches the way other game companies do then
>>-MAYBE- I'll buy another Atomic product again.
>>
> One more time. Publishers are responsible for testing and
>reporting bugs to the developer. Developers fix those bugs.
>Publishers are responsible for supporting what they publish. If there
>are problems that arise after the game goes out, the publisher should
>work with the developer to rectify those problems.
> The Stalingrad patch you refer to was, in fact, given by Atomic to
>AH last September. You ask them why you haven't seen it yet.
That certainly appears to be the case for the Stalingrad patch (since
neither company has bothered to explain exactly what's going on, it's
hard to assess blame, but AH seems to be the party at fault).
However, despite reports to both AH and Atomic, you've never bothered
to fix the PBEM bug (which causes a near-100% unrecoverable failure
rate in long PBEM games for a sizable proportion of players) in
Operation Crusader, and you've never, to my knowledge, responded to
questions about whether this bug was/would be fixed by the Stalingrad
2.0 patch. Indeed, as I recall, your last word on the OC PBEM bug (the
last time I complained about it) was that it was MY fault, because I'd
been a beta-tester for the game.
So no, despite your many merits as a company with a decent presence on
the net, you do not havea spotless record of game support -- and, given
that you've switched publishers twice in recent years (however
legitimate your reasons for doing so), leaving a few bugs in games on
each occasion, the assertion that fixing bugs is the responsibility of
the publisher is not terribly comforting.
Scott Orr
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <4nqr1g$j...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>In <keithz-1905...@starbug.atomic.com> kei...@atomic.com
>(Keith Zabalaoui) writes:
>>
>>All in all, its sounds like you're bitter because tech marches on and
>>you can't/don't want to keep you. That, my non-friend, is your cross
>>to bear. I've said before that I would dearly love to support all
>>machines, but I can't.
>
>Keith, while I certainly sympathize with your desire to make the best
>game possible by utilizing the cutting edge of technology, I've always
>found it ironic given your constant complaints about how small the
>wargame market is.
>
>As an aside, making fun of the equipment belonging to potential
>customers (many of whom would probably love cutting-eduge hardware but
>can't afford to replace it every year), will neither endear you to the
>public nor increase your market share.
>
>Scott Orr
Scott,
We've known each other for a long time. I think (hope) you don't see
me as a vindictive person. I am not trying to make fun of anyone. Some
people in this thread have been not-happy that we have chosen to support
what I called "modern" equipment. I didn't mean that as a slam, but I'm
guessing that's what you were referring to. Apologies all around.
On the other hand, some people have been downright provocative on this
thread. That's normal. That's UseNet. But people should remember that
there is a PERSON on the other side of this note. Its hard for me to be
sympathetic to people who are slamming me and telling me I don't know what
I'm doing. I do not buy the "customer is always right" line. I do buy
the "I don't like what you're selling" line, though, and that's fine. But
I will not pull a punch if I think one is deserved. And if I'm wrong, I
am not above recanting.
As for the section of my previous post that you have quoted above, I
think its quite civil, especially consider the note I was responding to.
Keith Zabalaoui
Scott,
This is the kind of conversation that leads nowhere except off topic.
My only recommendation to you is to wait until you hear back from others
who have played the game.
Allen Hubenak
In article <keithz-1905...@starbug.atomic.com>,
Keith Zabalaoui <kei...@atomic.com> wrote:
>In article <4nliqg$n...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, all...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>(Allen Hubenak) wrote:
>
>>In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>,
>>><snip>
>>>And to be coldly pragmatic, we know that you WILL be buying
>>>a faster machine SOMEDAY. When you do, this game will still run on it.
>>>
>>>Keith
>>
>>Hey Keith Z.,
>>
>>products with timely patches, or are you going to go 6 months to never
>>when it comes to fixing the big bugs??!?
>>
>>The way I look at it, I can take a few years to upgrade my computer,
>>and even then I still won't wanna play Close Combat because of all the
>>bugs that still won't be fixed. I'm basing these comments solely on the
>>lack of support that Atomic/Avalon has shown to the W@W series. We're
>>still waiting for the official Stalingrad 2.0 patch to come out, and its
>>been over a year.
>>
>>In the mean time I would encourage everybody to not buy Close Combat for
>>at least 2 years, if at all. When Atomic starts supporting their products
>>with timely patches the way other game companies do then -MAYBE- I'll buy
>>another Atomic product again.
>>
>
>Allen,
> One more time. Publishers are responsible for testing and reporting
>bugs to the developer. Developers fix those bugs. Publishers are
>responsible for supporting what they publish. If there are problems that
>arise after the game goes out, the publisher should work with the
>developer to rectify those problems.
> The Stalingrad patch you refer to was, in fact, given by Atomic to AH
>last September. You ask them why you haven't seen it yet.
>
>
>Keith
Keith,
Gee... I'm so sorry I accused Atomic of having shitty customer support.
I had no idea that the problems us gamers are experiencing with the W@W
products were ALL 100% Avalon Hill's fault! I'm also sorry to hear that
you guys at Atomic did EVERYTHING possible to see that your end users
were satisfied, but that Avalon Hill interfered with this goal. I'm sure
you tried and tried to see that the Operation Crusader and Stalingrad bugs
were fixed in a timely manner... It must have been awful having Avalon
Hill as a publisher, with them purposely trying to sabotage your sincere
efforts to see that your final end users were satisfied. It must also be
frustrating knowing that it's ALL Avalon Hill's fault that the W@W products
are still buggy, and that Atomic's reputation has suffered as a result.
How unfair! But I guess there was NOTHING more that Atomic could have
done to see that people thought highly of their products.
Oh, and I'm also sorry that us users have been bringing our complaints
directly to Atomic. How rude of us - we should have known it was all
Avalon Hill's fault that our needs weren't being met. I don't blame
ya'll a bit for not fixing the bugs that were reported to you directly
instead of through Avalon Hill. We have no right to complain, ya know...
Well, now that you've gotten rid of that lousy Avalon Hill as a
publisher, I'm sure that Close Combat will receive great customer support
and timely patches through Microsoft.
Yeah, right.... Go ahead, keep making excuses...
Allen Hubenak
Keith Zabalaoui
<g> Finally! You understand. Atomic has NO customer support. At the
time of W@W, we had 3 fulltime employees. When a developer signs with a
publisher, and gives the publisher from 75% - 90% of the income from the
product, its in return for services such as customer support, testing,
marketing, advertising, etc. So despite your sarcasm, you are mostly
correct. But there IS a difference between an excuse and a reason. NO
ONE wants to make buggy programs. And Atomic HAS provided patches to
everything we've ever done. On Atomic.com, I still have 21 patches for
V4V that take you all the way from Utah Beach, Black and White, no FPU,
all the way to GJS, Color, with FPU. People are going to think what
they're going to think about our products. If you don't want to buy them,
please don't. I'll say one more time that Microsoft is not Avalon Hill.
Keith
_ Keith Zabalaoui ____________ Atomic Games ______ http://www.atomic.com _
Jason Irby
Keith,
Hi Kieth. I have enjoyed you W@W series bugs and all. I was wondering if you company had any plans for the
production of more of the battallion level type game. Also, Did your design team ever consider allowing the
player to deploy their own units at the beggining of the scenario with in a certain intitial deployement area?
That would really be nice. BTW, is you company still based in Houston? My home town. ;>
Adios,
<Desperado>
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <31A13C...@concentric.net>, Jason Irby
<Ji...@concentric.net> wrote:
Thanks, Jason. We are still in Houston, but we have archived the V4V/W@W
code forever. We've just finished over 3 years of development on Close
Combat and plan to work from that code base for a while. But we did learn
lessons from those games that we applied to Close Combat - one of which is
free deployment of your units.
Old Salt
all...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Allen Hubenak) had this to say about Re:
Close Combat:
=>In article <keithz-1905...@starbug.atomic.com>,
=>Keith Zabalaoui <kei...@atomic.com> wrote:
=>>In article <4nliqg$n...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, all...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
=>>(Allen Hubenak) wrote:
=>>
=>>>In article <keithz-1505...@starbug.atomic.com>,
=>>>Keith Zabalaoui <kei...@atomic.com> wrote:
=>>>><snip>
=>>>>And to be coldly pragmatic, we know that you WILL be buying
=>>>>a faster machine SOMEDAY. When you do, this game will still run on it.
=>>>>
=>>>>Keith
=>>>
=>>>Hey Keith Z.,
=>>>
=>>>I've been wondering... Is Microsoft going to make you support your
=>>>products with timely patches, or are you going to go 6 months to never
=>>>when it comes to fixing the big bugs??!?
=>>>
=>>>The way I look at it, I can take a few years to upgrade my computer,
=>>>and even then I still won't wanna play Close Combat because of all the
=>>>bugs that still won't be fixed. I'm basing these comments solely on the
=>>>lack of support that Atomic/Avalon has shown to the W@W series. We're
=>>>still waiting for the official Stalingrad 2.0 patch to come out, and its
=>>>been over a year.
=>>>
=>>>In the mean time I would encourage everybody to not buy Close Combat for
=>>>at least 2 years, if at all. When Atomic starts supporting their products
=>>>with timely patches the way other game companies do then -MAYBE- I'll buy
=>>>another Atomic product again.
=>>>
=>>>Allen Hubenak
=>>
=>>Allen,
=>> One more time. Publishers are responsible for testing and reporting
=>>bugs to the developer. Developers fix those bugs. Publishers are
=>>responsible for supporting what they publish. If there are problems that
=>>arise after the game goes out, the publisher should work with the
=>>developer to rectify those problems.
=>> The Stalingrad patch you refer to was, in fact, given by Atomic to AH
=>>last September. You ask them why you haven't seen it yet.
=>>
=>> My final word on this is that Microsoft is not Avalon Hill.
=>>
=>>Keith
=>
=>Keith,
=>
=>Gee... I'm so sorry I accused Atomic of having shitty customer support.
=>I had no idea that the problems us gamers are experiencing with the W@W
=>products were ALL 100% Avalon Hill's fault! I'm also sorry to hear that
=>you guys at Atomic did EVERYTHING possible to see that your end users
=>were satisfied, but that Avalon Hill interfered with this goal. I'm sure
=>you tried and tried to see that the Operation Crusader and Stalingrad bugs
=>were fixed in a timely manner... It must have been awful having Avalon
=>Hill as a publisher, with them purposely trying to sabotage your sincere
=>efforts to see that your final end users were satisfied. It must also be
=>frustrating knowing that it's ALL Avalon Hill's fault that the W@W products
=>are still buggy, and that Atomic's reputation has suffered as a result.
=>How unfair! But I guess there was NOTHING more that Atomic could have
=>done to see that people thought highly of their products.
=>
=>Oh, and I'm also sorry that us users have been bringing our complaints
=>directly to Atomic. How rude of us - we should have known it was all
=>Avalon Hill's fault that our needs weren't being met. I don't blame
=>ya'll a bit for not fixing the bugs that were reported to you directly
=>instead of through Avalon Hill. We have no right to complain, ya know...
=>
=>Well, now that you've gotten rid of that lousy Avalon Hill as a
=>publisher, I'm sure that Close Combat will receive great customer support
=>and timely patches through Microsoft.
=>
=>Yeah, right.... Go ahead, keep making excuses...
=>
=>Allen Hubenak
WEll, I can not sit back any longer. Allen, what Keith is
saying is 100% true! As an out of house beta test for 6 different
companies (so far) I have beta tested for both the publisher of games
as well as developer of games and scenarios. I have seen games that
should have not gone out the door but did any way. Due to a conflict
between Publisher and developer. I have seen games that just got
better over the beta test period due to the close working of Publisher
and developer. I have seen suits at a Publisher push a game out the
door before it was ready do to time restrains and seen suits at a
Publisher take some damn good stuff out of a game since they think it
would not sell a many copies.
So, when Keith says " Publishers are responsible for testing
and reporting bugs to the developer. Developers fix those bugs.
Publishers are responsible for supporting what they publish. If there
are problems that arise after the game goes out, the publisher should
work with the developer to rectify those problems." well thats how the
business works. If you want to believe or not is up to you, just as
you can believe the earth is flat.
B. Keith Barbour
Keith,
What do you mean when you say "modern equipment"? Being that
it is a strategy/war game, I am very interested in it. Will it play
acceptably on a Pentium 90 with 16 megs of ram and a really good video
card? BTW, I like what I've seen in the ads.
Keith Barbour
b...@ns.gamewood.net
Skip Thompson
An interesting thread. I have formed a couple opinions as a result.
1) Lack of communication causes lack of understanding (duh).
I didn't realize the complex nature of the game publishing business. On the other hand I
can see how the end customer should not be expected to be an expert on the subject to
expect his needs be met.
2) It would seem, in light of the problems illustrated in this thread, that the ideal
situation would be where the publisher is also the developer. (Not practical now that
games are 'big business' I guess).
3) One must always always be on guard against allowing the impersonal nature of the
medium lure us into voicing our opinions in an unfriendly manner (whenever possible). I
am as vunerable to this as the next guy, but am trying to "watch it". :)
4) I know, I know. I need to go to writing school.
Skip
Kent Wa.
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <31A146...@ns.gamewood.net>, "B. Keith Barbour"
<b...@ns.gamewood.net> wrote:
>Keith,
> What do you mean when you say "modern equipment"? Being that
>it is a strategy/war game, I am very interested in it. Will it play
>acceptably on a Pentium 90 with 16 megs of ram and a really good video
>card? BTW, I like what I've seen in the ads.
>
>Keith Barbour
>b...@ns.gamewood.net
Keith,
The machine you described will be fine. Thanks.
Scott K. Stafford
->In article <4no45l$i...@news.utdallas.edu>, dunk...@utdallas.edu (Alan V
->Dunkin) wrote:
->
->>I spent about forty-five minutes at E3 playing Close Combat, so here are
->>some outside impressions...
->>I never did find out what kind of machines they were running CC on, but even
->>if they were high-speed Pentiums it was slow going. I'm not sure if it was
->>just game speed or scroll speed, but it there was a small but noticeable
->>delay when scrolling around
Must be all the complicated math necessary to scroll the screen--we already
know that it *can't* be all that eye-candy.
JD
> So, when Keith says " Publishers are responsible for testing
> and reporting bugs to the developer. Developers fix those
bugs.
> Publishers are responsible for supporting what they publish.
If there
> are problems that arise after the game goes out, the publisher
should
> work with the developer to rectify those problems." well thats
how the
> business works. If you want to believe or not is up to you,
just as
> you can believe the earth is flat.
Well, I'm not a big Grigsby fan these days, and Kroger's stuff
has never really turned me on either... but these guys are both
developers for a company that couldn't give a shit less about
customer support. Yet they take enough pride in their work to put
out a constant stream of patches and updates ON THEIR OWN.
Yes! This may be a foreign concept to some developers of a recent
wargame series <or two>, which still have a few serious
unresolved bugs... but customer support actually does extend
beyond the initial "game plus two fixes" contracts they may have
signed with a publisher <or two>. Passing off the blame like
that, especially when there is no doubt that they know about the
problems, is really indicative of where their heads are at
vis-a-vis customer satisfaction.
But they pay for it in the end. It's been said before that
wargaming is a small niche market... and the niches have long
memories!
Regards, JD