whilst waiting for the patch....

[Phoenix100]

Well, I decided not to buy Flashpoint, because, ultimately (sad as this is, perhaps) I get really irritated by those maps that look like boardgames, with all the hexes (maybe the hexes are forgiveable, but why do the natural features have to have jagged edges??) I don't see why the maps can't be made to have a natural feel to them, and, indeed, be accurate. I even ran the google earth tour for Flashpoint that 'the plodder' so beautifully put together, and then I got irritated (sad, I know) by how far off the real world the maps were..... And I quit playing WitE because that didn't seem like a 'simulation' of anything to me, and was laborious. And I even get sick of GTOS because all those poorly done sprites and animations are not only silly to look at, ultimately, but really do reveal where the AI is letting you down. And I played Steam and Iron for quite a while, and it's good, but pretty simplistic - you don't, in the end, do much except change course, over and over again (I do really like it, but the nature of it is that it's less rich than land combat games, perhaps). CMANO has more detail to amuse, but I wish it were a WW2 game, as anything after leaves me cold....And all the time I'm trying all these other games, whilst waiting for this patch, I keep thinking how awful it is for the little time I put into amusing myself with computer games to be so dependent on....DAVE....that one guy stuck in his sweltering office in deepest, darkest Canberra, struggling single-handed to render the world of WW2 combat in a semblance of realistic code...I wish he was a vast company, with several hundred employees. And I wonder how it is that a game that seems to me to be far, far superior to anything else on the market (for those interested in war games) cannot be making more money. There's all the graphics obsession thing, of course - but don't the kids (I assume they're all younger than me) who all - in their millions - get their combat kick from playing those blockbuster titles like MOH and COD etc realise after a certain number of hours, that the graphics, even if they are stunning, are nothing like reality? Even Arma is nothing like reality if you were to compare a little more carefully. And don't they then get really sick of the fact that the AI in all those games is seriously scripted, rigid and stupid? I don't get it.

So, I go back, whilst waiting, to playing BFTB and run Skorzeny, and see that Miguel is right - this is a great scenario for beginners and anyone. And I feel really spoilt by all the great things about this game. There is, for me, really nothing like it out there. Cheers, Dave, and all at Panther. And the testers. It's a superb job you're all doing. No doubt about it.

[dazkaz15]

Well I have to agree mate.

I think the game is like red wine.
Not only do you need to be over a certain age to enjoy it, you need time to develop your taste buds to really appreciate it.

Unfortunately like all good things, you also get what you pay for, and the release price of this title would have put of a lot of people, just as a £85 bottle of red would for me, even though it might have been the best thing I ever tasted [:'(]

[navwarcol]

I do think that a lot of the "kids" would enjoy more if it was just 'out there' more. I introduced my 19 yr old nephew to it, and a 11 yr old niece... both think it is awesome, like chess (a no-graphic game) in making you think. So there is a market out there that may not even know, itself, that it is a market, until they play it.
Will every kid like it? hardly. I just wish there was a way to get more to see it, then the averages would catch up. I guess in the end, it is up to us to shine whatever light we can on it.

[Misty99]

While I´m getting older (mid 50´s), I lost interest playing games om my PC.
Exept this one.

[altipueri]

I wish more kids were introduced to wargames for fun history and geography. Pretty much anything Matrix and Paradox do is better than sitting in front of a telly watching celebrity shows. Anyway, almost 6pm so time for a glass of port.

[downtown]

I purchased this game when it first came out..and for the full price...based on what the guys here said about it. I have since played it on and off. I was never in the military, any knowledge I have comes from reading history. I have been fascinated by WWII (my uncles were in it, one in the 101st Airborne who, when I was a kid, showed me a helmet and Nazi flag he took home from Europe. He rarely talked about it but when he finally did, boy I was hooked.) and Vietnam the big war where all my friends went off to war and came home telling some tales (the ones that made it back). Anyway, I think it takes a certain mindset to play this game in that you need a good imagination, and patience. Most of today's war video games depend on hand-eye coordination and graphics, not too much thinking involved. Here, not only do you need to think, you need to understand the context of the game. How many kids today really care about the war? They relate to the fighting overseas now, not 70 years ago. I went to the facebook page for Panther games today and there was hardly any likes or comments! Too bad, as I think people are missing out on a GREAT product.

[Phoenix100]

You might have a point there, downtown, about kids today being interested in the current conflicts and not knowing FA about WW2. If they are interested at all. I suppose that might be one way to get more sales - do a modern add-on. And yep, hand-eye coordination and graphics are certainly the thing. I watch my eight year old son playing that kind of thing (on the Wii) and wonder how long it will be before he realises that there's nothing going on there. But that's being silly, I guess, since there is something going on there, for him. So maybe there's games for kids and games for adults, and BFTB is for adults, though most adults, without a doubt, want to play kids games. And read kids books for that matter. I know - I write crime/thrillers for a living - and I count every single one of them, and virtually everything written in that genre as kids books for adults. There's nothing wrong with that, perhaps. Perhaps.

[Remmes]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

You might have a point there, downtown, about kids today being interested in the current conflicts and not knowing FA about WW2. If they are interested at all. I suppose that might be one way to get more sales - do a modern add-on. And yep, hand-eye coordination and graphics are certainly the thing. I watch my eight year old son playing that kind of thing (on the Wii) and wonder how long it will be before he realises that there's nothing going on there. But that's being silly, I guess, since there is something going on there, for him. So maybe there's games for kids and games for adults, and BFTB is for adults, though most adults, without a doubt, want to play kids games. And read kids books for that matter. I know - I write crime/thrillers for a living - and I count every single one of them, and virtually everything written in that genre as kids books for adults. There's nothing wrong with that, perhaps. Perhaps.

There is nothing wrong with preserving your inner child; but many 'adults' appeal to still have the mental abilities of a child which is something very different. Although i enjoyed playing bowling the Wii with my kids, a win in this sort of game does not generate the same amount of satisfaction as say a good result in a Command Ops scenario, for me at least. To each his own I guess, but the general interest/intelligence level does worry me sometimes.

[decaro]

IGO-UGO titles only work on a small scale, otherwise they are very labor intensive for the player, as are large scale real time sims that become "click fests" with all the micromanagement required to compensate for the lack of a good AI.

Fortunately the AA engine avoids both of these extremes.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: phoenix
So, I go back, whilst waiting, to playing BFTB and run Skorzeny, and see that Miguel is right - this is a great scenario for beginners and anyone.

Thanks for that, Peter [:D] I kind of like the feel of that scenario... the first time I played it I completely overestimated the prowess of the German forces, and underestimated the ability of artillery effectively pin down and disorganize my forces. I recommend it because there you command a mostly mechanized German force in the attack, and kind of illustrates the reasons behind the failure of German arms in the Ardennes.

A bigger battle, which I do love, is HTTR's Chill's Breakout, especially as the Germans. Winning that scenario requires quite a bit of finesse handling that Panzer Brigade (and some decisiveness handling the German 85th Infantry Division). Things get really intense south of Eindhoven, there. It kind of gives you an idea of what will Command Ops feel like in the open expanses of the Eastern Front (Chris/Capt Hillrat is working a very interesting late 1941 scenario).

ORIGINAL: phoenix
And I even get sick of GTOS because all those poorly done sprites and animations are not only silly to look at, ultimately, but really do reveal where the AI is letting you down.

The setting, the terrain and the tank vs. tank, or tank vs. AT gun fighting is quite awesome but the infantry feels... just a bit wonky. I have never - in two years - been able to pull out a decent infantry attack. The AI just can't manage to develop good fire-and-maneuver tactics at the squad level. And it makes me cringe when I order a squad to take cover and I see two or three guys standing on the open looking away from the direction I had specified. Kind of looks like they're taking a p*ss or something.

Have you tried Battlefront's Combat Mission Normandy and Italy games? You can try out the demos (I'd recommend to try first the Italy game, though, as the bocage scenarios pose a very specific kind of challenge which you might or not find palatable).

[Phoenix100]

Kind of looks like they're taking a p*ss or something.

Lol. Exactly.

I have all the Combat Mission games, but won't buy another now, and don't play them anymore. There's a conceptual problem for me. You can play very small QB scenarios without hitting a C&C problem, but once you try the campaigns or anything bigger then you run into the almost complete lack of a sensible AI. The hat you have to wear - in order for the game to work at all, not just shine - is that you command not just every single platoon and section, but also split sections. In a decent battle commanding a Bn or so (or even a company, to be honest) I find this impossible because there is so much happening in different parts of the map that you inevitably cannot catch everything and have to concentrate on different forces. Even using pause, or the We-Go system this happens - things start happening to units that you aren't concentrating on. Now, for the time it takes for you to miss something they 'ought' to be able to take care of themselves. But they can't. In the we-go, for example, in that minute where you have no control, an entire squad can be mown down by an MG just because it doesn't hit the deck fast enough, because parts of it keep going etc. So to make the sprites react realistically to danger you have to really micromanage every second of their lives, but this is actually impossible, of course. So I find it not very realistic. They need to develop their AI, but they're not interested, I think. I think the devs have decided it's mainly an MP game and it sells well, and AI is, let's face it, hard to do. So that's that.

I've resigned myself to the idea that human behaviour can't be accurately modelled by AI (and sprites)and that the best you can do involves a level of abstraction. It's reassuring, really. It means there's something complex to be human, at least.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Kind of looks like they're taking a p*ss or something.

Lol. Exactly.

I have all the Combat Mission games, but won't buy another now, and don't play them anymore. There's a conceptual problem for me. You can play very small QB scenarios without hitting a C&C problem, but once you try the campaigns or anything bigger then you run into the almost complete lack of a sensible AI. The hat you have to wear - in order for the game to work at all, not just shine - is that you command not just every single platoon and section, but also split sections. In a decent battle commanding a Bn or so (or even a company, to be honest) I find this impossible because there is so much happening in different parts of the map that you inevitably cannot catch everything and have to concentrate on different forces. Even using pause, or the We-Go system this happens - things start happening to units that you aren't concentrating on. Now, for the time it takes for you to miss something they 'ought' to be able to take care of themselves. But they can't. In the we-go, for example, in that minute where you have no control, an entire squad can be mown down by an MG just because it doesn't hit the deck fast enough, because parts of it keep going etc. So to make the sprites react realistically to danger you have to really micromanage every second of their lives, but this is actually impossible, of course. So I find it not very realistic. They need to develop their AI, but they're not interested, I think. I think the devs have decided it's mainly an MP game and it sells well, and AI is, let's face it, hard to do. So that's that.

You're absolutely right. CM AI doesn't really have any kind of ability to plan ahead beyond what has been scripted, and programming it with the provided tools is quite painful. At least Graviteam tries to give it some initiative. From a purely reactive standpoint - taking cover, returning fire, etc. - it does better than GTOS, though.

But I DO enjoy the MP aspect.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
I've resigned myself to the idea that human behaviour can't be accurately modelled by AI (and sprites)and that the best you can do involves a level of abstraction. It's reassuring, really. It means there's something complex to be human, at least.

I agree with you, in what respects to war games. We could fool you over the telephone, and if you stayed "on topic" of course (I hold a PhD in Computer Science, my topic was in Artificial Intelligence about having a computer program recognize intentions of other entities on the basis of what you see them doing and a set of hypothesis on possible intentions, so I am kind of familiar with this particular topic, "fooling humans into believing that there's a little person inside the box").

[Phoenix100]

So you're that guy Deckard? No. That was the other way around - sussing when it was a box, not a human. Difficult when the box is Sean Young....

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

So you're that guy Deckard? No. That was the other way around - sussing when it was a box, not a human. Difficult when the box is Sean Young....

Hahaha. No I don't use oversized glasses, if that's your question.