Have at it ...
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/16/norman-wisdom-a-combat-mission-qa/#more-51163
Best regards,
Thomm
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/16/norman-wisdom-a-combat-mission-qa/#more-51163
Best regards,
Thomm
Interview with Steve on RockPaperShotgun
- Thread starter Thomm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cm preview
dalem
Member
I made it through most of it. Pretty whiney, attitude-wise, and I don't believe anything Steve says about CM anyway, so I'll leave the rest for you guys. 
-dale
-dale
Caractacus
Member
On the very first question Steve abuses his customers (wargamers) and 'manages expectations'.
Phil sounds a bit more upbeat though.
Phil sounds a bit more upbeat though.
Palantir
Member #86
Not a bad read even with a few backhanded shots at “dissenters” by Steve.
Mad Russian
Senior Member
The interviewer's third comment got me.
RPS – Exposure to numerous WW2 shooters has taught me that the primary form of infantry cover in Normandy was the Dead Cow. What will grunts be hiding behind in CMBN that they weren’t hiding behind in CMSF?
This boy needs to stop being exposed to WW2 shooters. The primary form of infantry is a dead cow? Let's not mention the bocage okay. Maybe it was because he couldn't spell bocage.
These interviews are all scripted anyway and that comment shows just how much. Nobody is that stupid in real life.
No STOP! He can spell bocage!
RPS – The Quick Battle revisions sound excellent. If you had 2000 points to spend contesting a small bocage-heavy map with a historically plausible US force, what would you buy?
Now who slipped that in there on him? Whose running this interview anyway?
And then I find out that Steve was right. I was an idiot for buying CMx1. I got robbed!!!
RPS – Part of the magic of CM has always been watching the accidents and flukes – the lethal ricochets, the AP rounds that puncture multiple vehicles, the arty-triggered brush fires… What’s the most unexpected thing you’ve seen during beta testing?
AP rounds puncturing multiple vehicles? I never got that with my version!
I think we are talking about a new game here! And you guys have been bashing BFC for the small gamette format. Look here; another new game for Normandy already being made ready.
RPS – Is there a slight danger with attempting to simulate everything from the ground up, that technological factors, because they can be more easily quantified, end up more significant in-game than soft, hard-to-measure psychological factors?
Simulate EVERYTHING FROM THE GROUND UP? They have taken as small a bite as possible. Nothing went into simulating everything that I can see at this point. When BFC wrote this script they should have at least added a little bit of reality to it.
Good Hunting.
MR
RPS – Exposure to numerous WW2 shooters has taught me that the primary form of infantry cover in Normandy was the Dead Cow. What will grunts be hiding behind in CMBN that they weren’t hiding behind in CMSF?
This boy needs to stop being exposed to WW2 shooters. The primary form of infantry is a dead cow? Let's not mention the bocage okay. Maybe it was because he couldn't spell bocage.
These interviews are all scripted anyway and that comment shows just how much. Nobody is that stupid in real life.
No STOP! He can spell bocage!
RPS – The Quick Battle revisions sound excellent. If you had 2000 points to spend contesting a small bocage-heavy map with a historically plausible US force, what would you buy?
Now who slipped that in there on him? Whose running this interview anyway?
And then I find out that Steve was right. I was an idiot for buying CMx1. I got robbed!!!
RPS – Part of the magic of CM has always been watching the accidents and flukes – the lethal ricochets, the AP rounds that puncture multiple vehicles, the arty-triggered brush fires… What’s the most unexpected thing you’ve seen during beta testing?
AP rounds puncturing multiple vehicles? I never got that with my version!
I think we are talking about a new game here! And you guys have been bashing BFC for the small gamette format. Look here; another new game for Normandy already being made ready.
RPS – Is there a slight danger with attempting to simulate everything from the ground up, that technological factors, because they can be more easily quantified, end up more significant in-game than soft, hard-to-measure psychological factors?
Simulate EVERYTHING FROM THE GROUND UP? They have taken as small a bite as possible. Nothing went into simulating everything that I can see at this point. When BFC wrote this script they should have at least added a little bit of reality to it.
Good Hunting.
MR
Last edited:
Caractacus
Member
S – I lost a lot of good men in Syria – a few in slightly frustrating circumstances. Will infantry last longer and look after themselves a little better in Normandy?
The questioner 'S' alludes to, and also links to, an example of the poor infantry AI in CMSF:Brits. This is acknowledged and addressed reasonably by Phil.
Achtung! Get with the program new boy! Here's what you should say:
Steve – All things being equal, yes. WW2 lethality is far less than Modern, Normandy has more cover than Syria, and player expectations about what WW2 troops can do vs. modern armor clad soldiers should mean they get put into less dire circumstances to begin with. But just like a good CM:SF player could win a battle with just a casualty or two, I’m sure there are plenty of CM:BN players that will wind up with massive casualties. Quality of command isn’t something we control!
Translation from the Steveasurus:
'There was never anything wrong with our infantry AI - anyone who thought otherwise was an incompetant fool who knew nothing about modern warfare. I've no idea if infantry will be more survivable in CMBN, but if you back me into a corner then I'll say 'maybe'. After all, even if the infantry AI is still rubbish, then at least they might find they way into cover more often - because there is more of it around! Don't forget, if you do take massive casualties because your infantry decides to mill around in the open - then it's clear proof that you are terminally stupid, not us!'
Pure Steve :laugh:
The questioner 'S' alludes to, and also links to, an example of the poor infantry AI in CMSF:Brits. This is acknowledged and addressed reasonably by Phil.
Achtung! Get with the program new boy! Here's what you should say:
Steve – All things being equal, yes. WW2 lethality is far less than Modern, Normandy has more cover than Syria, and player expectations about what WW2 troops can do vs. modern armor clad soldiers should mean they get put into less dire circumstances to begin with. But just like a good CM:SF player could win a battle with just a casualty or two, I’m sure there are plenty of CM:BN players that will wind up with massive casualties. Quality of command isn’t something we control!
Translation from the Steveasurus:
'There was never anything wrong with our infantry AI - anyone who thought otherwise was an incompetant fool who knew nothing about modern warfare. I've no idea if infantry will be more survivable in CMBN, but if you back me into a corner then I'll say 'maybe'. After all, even if the infantry AI is still rubbish, then at least they might find they way into cover more often - because there is more of it around! Don't forget, if you do take massive casualties because your infantry decides to mill around in the open - then it's clear proof that you are terminally stupid, not us!'
Pure Steve :laugh:
Last edited:
Mad Russian
Senior Member
RPS – Are you surprised that more of your wargame-creating peers haven’t followed you into the wonderful world of 3D?
Steve – A little. It’s an obvious path to go, but it’s a very difficult one from a technical standpoint. Even for us, with more than 14 years of development experience in this area, it’s tough to do. Still, it’s rather amazing to us that 11 years after CMBO’s release there aren’t any games that have equalled CM, not to mention moved beyond. That’s not just our assessment, but rather what our customers have been telling us over and over again. It seems the only ones out there capable of besting CMBO is us. It’s a strange experience to have to set your own bar even after so many years of opportunities for others to set the bar for us.
Ah Laddie, you just hang in there and watch the horizon! Me thinks there could be a boat about to move onto your horizon with a game or 2 that may rival CMx1!
Equaled or not. The interesting thing to me is that CMx2 isn't a contender to knock out CMBO. Different gaming systems altogether. No question they are related but the end result is two different categories. I don't know of anybody that wants to rival CMx2. It's too close to a FPS and yet not all the way there. A very niche field. I hope that field works out for them. As it appears it will since, as they say, they are the only ones sitting in the field.
Good Hunting.
MR
Steve – A little. It’s an obvious path to go, but it’s a very difficult one from a technical standpoint. Even for us, with more than 14 years of development experience in this area, it’s tough to do. Still, it’s rather amazing to us that 11 years after CMBO’s release there aren’t any games that have equalled CM, not to mention moved beyond. That’s not just our assessment, but rather what our customers have been telling us over and over again. It seems the only ones out there capable of besting CMBO is us. It’s a strange experience to have to set your own bar even after so many years of opportunities for others to set the bar for us.
Ah Laddie, you just hang in there and watch the horizon! Me thinks there could be a boat about to move onto your horizon with a game or 2 that may rival CMx1!
Equaled or not. The interesting thing to me is that CMx2 isn't a contender to knock out CMBO. Different gaming systems altogether. No question they are related but the end result is two different categories. I don't know of anybody that wants to rival CMx2. It's too close to a FPS and yet not all the way there. A very niche field. I hope that field works out for them. As it appears it will since, as they say, they are the only ones sitting in the field.
Good Hunting.
MR
British Tommy
Member
Thanks for the link Thomm. When I clicked on the link and it opened up, I burst out laughing at the headline: Norman Wisdom: A Combat Mission Q&A. Norman Wisdom is a British comedian ............... is this Steve's real name? :laugh:
Anyway, I will now go back to reading the article
Anyway, I will now go back to reading the article
Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
-
I'm pretty sure he's joking, or at the least, acknowledging that FPS are not the last word on the subject of Normandy.
He asks some good questions. Like this:
RPS – Battlefront’s approach to creating wargames is pretty unusual. Why the hostility towards ‘design for effect’?
Nothing that we haven't asked here a million times.
Last edited:
Mad Russian
Senior Member
It was a scripted question that BFC gave them to ask so they could answer it. It was still stupid.
Good Hunting.
MR
Good Hunting.
MR
I cannot believe he thought that the fortifications in CMSF were more realistic for a simulation than the Ad hoc system for CMBN that those whiners (customers) have asked for. So is this guy more interested in aesthetics now is that why all the German uniforms look so spiffing. Dead cows are in Panzer Command as flavour objects. Dude, where is my dead cow?
[hirr]Leto
Varmint Croonie
Unless you know the turbulent love hate relationship that BFC has with their customer segments, most people reading that interview would not glean the hidden malice and contempt that oozes between the lines from Steve's words... my god man, he needs a PR person to sit him down for a day and just drill him: It's not about you, its about the game, do not get emotionally involved in public discourse, its not about you, its about the game, do not get emotionally involved in public discourse... STOP FAWNING OVER YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR MAN!!! its about the game, not about you, do not get emotionally involved in public discourse...
I feel for the guy, yet he obviously does himself no favours... he has a chip on his shoulder and he's gonna wear it like a second head.
I would have just let Phil do the interview... I think Phil rocked!
PS: I am actually looking forward to the game as the content and design looks strong! Notwithstanding the shift to 1:1.
Cheers!
Leto
I feel for the guy, yet he obviously does himself no favours... he has a chip on his shoulder and he's gonna wear it like a second head.
I would have just let Phil do the interview... I think Phil rocked!
PS: I am actually looking forward to the game as the content and design looks strong! Notwithstanding the shift to 1:1.
Cheers!
Leto
Last edited:
dalem
Member
Is it silly of me to find it interesting that there was no Charles presence in that interview?
-dale
-dale
Palantir
Member #86
That's because he's too dang busy coding in all the dead cows and pigs...
Patrocles
Member
nice interview.
Is there more than one person running RPS? iirc the RPS reviewer gave high praise to CMSF and he later mentioned on the wargamer that he worked on the game (I think it was some battle or operations). I need to look that up!
If this is the same guy who did work for CMSF then he should have disclosed this information. imho, ymmv
huh...maybe I misspoke about this Mr. Tim Stone owe him an apology. I searched RPS using terms CMSF, combat mission, and Combat Mission Shock Force and get not hits on a review of the original release.
second edit! It was this reviewer who gave CMSF an 8/8. Later at Wargamer site he said he worked on the scenario designs for battles and/or ops on CMSF.
http://www.outofeight.info/2007/05/combat-mission-shock-force-preview.html
Is there more than one person running RPS? iirc the RPS reviewer gave high praise to CMSF and he later mentioned on the wargamer that he worked on the game (I think it was some battle or operations). I need to look that up!
If this is the same guy who did work for CMSF then he should have disclosed this information. imho, ymmv
huh...maybe I misspoke about this Mr. Tim Stone owe him an apology. I searched RPS using terms CMSF, combat mission, and Combat Mission Shock Force and get not hits on a review of the original release.
second edit! It was this reviewer who gave CMSF an 8/8. Later at Wargamer site he said he worked on the scenario designs for battles and/or ops on CMSF.
http://www.outofeight.info/2007/05/combat-mission-shock-force-preview.html
Last edited:
Caractacus
Member
Yes there are multiple reviewers on RPS. It's the only games news/reviews site that I visit, and I can't remember anyone on there working on CMSF.
I can remember the RPS CMSF:Brits AAR on that is mentioned in the article available here. I particularly enjoyed Josh Mesmo's robust and funny defence of his postion, and always wondered who he was - maybe another BFC oldie?
Most of the games journos on RPS are Brits, which explains the dry sense of humour (yes, the cow/FPS thing was a joke).
I also thought that it was weird that Charles didn't get a look-in. I know he doesn't do forums n'stuff, but no comment by him, and not a single mention of him in an article of that length is bizarre.
I wonder what form the questioning took? I assume (because Steve kept using ridiculous smilies to show he's a jolly carefree fellow) that it was pre-submitted questions to BFC, to be answered in due course. If so, it would be even stranger that Charles is completely absent throughout.
Leto - the venom, bile, and chips on both shoulders that those 'in the know' can discern in that article are what keep me entertained. Long may they continue!
I can remember the RPS CMSF:Brits AAR on that is mentioned in the article available here. I particularly enjoyed Josh Mesmo's robust and funny defence of his postion, and always wondered who he was - maybe another BFC oldie?
Most of the games journos on RPS are Brits, which explains the dry sense of humour (yes, the cow/FPS thing was a joke).
I also thought that it was weird that Charles didn't get a look-in. I know he doesn't do forums n'stuff, but no comment by him, and not a single mention of him in an article of that length is bizarre.
I wonder what form the questioning took? I assume (because Steve kept using ridiculous smilies to show he's a jolly carefree fellow) that it was pre-submitted questions to BFC, to be answered in due course. If so, it would be even stranger that Charles is completely absent throughout.
Leto - the venom, bile, and chips on both shoulders that those 'in the know' can discern in that article are what keep me entertained. Long may they continue!
[hirr]Leto
Varmint Croonie
LOL!
One can't read anything about CM these days without the need for the proverbial bag of popcorn... that is for certain!
; )
Cheers!
Leto
Caractacus
Member
Out of interest, RPS featured CMBO today in 'The Very Important List Of PC Games, Part 6/5'. Tim Stone, the dude who posited the questions to Steve and Phil, has added a few sims and wargames to RPS' ongoing round-up of PC gaming greatness.
Available here.
Available here.