Public Perseptions of the GCM

[Jack ONeill]

...Just a quick answer to Major Byrd - yes, at those ranges accuracy is reduced. Casualties are relatively light for both the Infantry and the Gunners. I did not have to change anything in either .csv files. It was a lucky accident.

Jack B)

[Leffe7]

Just my 2cents.
I have deep respect for the hard work Garnier has put into GCM. I think modding and multiplayer gaming in SOW wouldn't be where it is today without GCM.

In many threads people have pointed out that both GCM and HITS are open to new players but there are some differences and players should decide themselves which style suits them better (or if they like both!). I can only repeat this statement. There are differences between GCM and HITS and for some players those differences are what makes the game historical or non-historical for them.

I have much the same opinion as Baldwin: I like to play a game where I have no aerial view, walkie-talkie chat with other generals on the other end of the map, objective markers flying in the sky (and popping up at random) or "gamey" tactics. Therefor I found out that HITS style suits better to my taste.

Another example for those difference. GCM battles seem to focus on the actual battle and battle tactics. I remember threads about epic bloody fights, where you had tens of thousands of dead. In contrast to this in HITS there are important additional aspects to the fighting: The chain of command, a commander-in-chief developing a strategy and giving orders to his subordinates. The restricted view from 1st person perspective, the need for couriers to deliver messages to distant generals and units. This gives me a real feel of immersion with the role of a brigade commander for example. I remember a HITS game vs. the AI where we struggled to find the enemy on the Fox gap map but couldn't find him in like 90 minutes but we all agreed it was still a great experience :laugh:

[MajorByrd]

...Just a quick answer to Major Byrd - yes, at those ranges accuracy is reduced. Casualties are relatively light for both the Infantry and the Gunners. I did not have to change anything in either .csv files. It was a lucky accident.

Jack B)

The more I think about it the more I like it.

P.S I hope there is a good reason for all those unneccessary hostilities. All that's needed would be understanding and tolerance for a different position than one's own and all would be good. I think we're all here to get away from the troubles and quarrels chasin' us in our private lives. I mean I see that where people are, quarrels are. It'll always be like that in every community, Internet or no. But being aware of the fact that this community is supposed to be a safe haven for troubled minds I think that this dispute, which seems to be going on for a much much longer time than I'm around, should be put aside in the interest of everybody. Nobody is being forced to play either way, neither HITS nor GCM is superior to the other in either way at all. I think both offer very different challenges without demeaning the challenge the other one offers. Personally I enjoy both and I like the people I've met so far on either side of the aisle. This multiplayer gaming is supposed to offer fun and a friendly community experience and not add to my everyday troubles Why don't y'all just settle your personal differences and start over fresh. Never to late for that.

I wish you all a nice day. I'll be back to gaming saturday night fellas =)

[NY Cavalry]

This thread was never meant to be nor is hostile. A couple players have personal disputes, but that is between them.

I play HITS and have played with the HITS group and there is no animosity. Many of the HITS guys are supportive of the GCM and likewise many of the GCM are supportive of the HITS group. If anything more is being read into this, that is unfortunate. The HITS guys have made it clear that any GCM player is welcome with them and vise versa with GCM.


HITS is not realistic, but they try to move it in that direction. GCM is not realistic, but they try to move it in that direction. The GCM will err on the side of playability because it is played by a larger group and therefore we need improvements or more open modding to do what we wish.

The rifle artillery discussion, in the past and in the future, has been a fervent discussion. That is the way the discussion is and because of these discussions the game is better.

Again I will say, this thread was never a challenge to the HITS guys or the way they play. I play that way to at times. I like how they play. We just have a few minor differences of opinion on a matter or two.

[Saddletank]

Digby cannot comment on how the game is played over there now as he no longer plays it he still talks about his experiences from 8 months ago and continues to belittle what we have and enjoy at every opportunity.

I don't belittle what you have now, I comment on my experiences from February which is when I last played. The GCM at that point was not producing a satisfactory gaming experience for me and so I moved on. I also know the GCM now is not offering a satisfactory gaming experience for me because you don't have your command distance set to 2m, you stack units thickly on top of each other in order to win, you have telepathic regiments who know what their general wants them to do the instant he thinks up something, every general has a cell phone, your musket range is unrealistically long vs canister range, the general content and process of the games is also not historial (random objectives) and your ranking board tends people towards over-competitiveness. The whole set up is not what I want from SoW MP play. Why on earth would I want to go and play a game I know does not interest me? End of discussion.

The OP of this thread asked for public perceptions of the GCM. I gave mine, so don't moan when you get what you ask for. I don't even understand why the HITS players got mentioned in this thread since that's entirely OT and irrelevant.

Soldier - I mention more than one person because more than one person was involved and there are still several gamey players in the group (I can tell by reading the forums - I don't need to play the games to see that) who clearly think mass charges are okay. That last battle I quit from and never went back it wasn't Seal who column-charged me. I have never said that anyone other than 1 person was insulting and rude.

And this is my final post in this self-destructive thread.

[exp101]

Two things impressed me from my earliest days playing SoW MP: 1) the membership is colorful and 2) enjoys self-inflicted pain. Why else would so much time be spent on a thread such as this? -- which predictably degenerated into senseless bickering.

Bottom-line (and the beauty of SoW) is that Norb's game supports a wide variety and style of play. Both HITS and GCM can, and do, co-exist. Players aren't forced to choose one over the other. And both have plusses and minuses. I play more GCM because I enjoy the competitive spirit, large numbers and grand scale of the big battles. What it lacks as a pure tactical simulation it makes up for by providing an interesting operational viewpoint through its sheer size. There is nothing quite like one of our grand battles with 16 players and 60,000 troops. HITS, however, comes closer to what I had in mind when I first bought the game i.e., to provide a hint of the challenges of command in a CW conflict. While the two approaches will probably never come together, I still hold out hope that someday we'll have what would be, to my mind, the ultimate SoW MP game: 20+ players using HITS-style PoV, command, and communications restrictions together with most of Garnier's GCM improvements and maps. This would not be a game for the faint of heart, or for those who crave order. But it would come closer to what Lee, Meade and their generals experienced in July 1863 than any game played to date.

WJPalmer

[Michael Slaunwhite]

I'm not all that clear on why people are having such a difficult time with GCM MP. I think what Garnier has done is simply brilliant, and catapults SOW into the upper atmosphere. Please folks, take GCM as it is mean't to be. It's to broaden your MP experience, not choke it. It's sad that people can't get along playing MP, unfortunately that is what happens when you get people competing, and which is one of the primary reasons why MP clans/groups have made many people stay away from MP all together.

Garnier your work is incredible, I enjoy the Single Player aspect of it, and I very much appreciate the hard work you have put into it. Please keep going with this because I see it as a plus for SOW, and NOT a minus.

A small example: I sometimes play Ace of Spades, and I happened to be better than most (not bragging believe me), and I played the game as I normally would, and suddenly I was be voted to be kicked out because some person started to accuse me of cheating. I simply told those who were voting against me to suck it up, and stop whining because they suck at playing this game. The vote was canceled but it shows you that people if they feel like the fighting isn't fair, and they can't kill their opponent as often as they think they should they cry about it, and blame others, not themselves for playing so crappy.

What does not occur to them is to change their tactics, find the weakness's of the enemy, and exploit them. The same goes for SOW...suck it up, and learn, change your tactics, know your enemy you are playing against, and use his weakness's against him.... That is war.

I knew what to expect if I played with other people that I would get complaints because people in general are pretty reasonable, but most are simply childlike in character, and have massive egos.


Again, Thank You Garnier.

[NY Cavalry]

-- which predictably degenerated into senseless bickering.

WJPalmer

It was never intended to stir up trouble. I felt a defense of the GCM was in order. Between the lines I think most people can figure out how things are. So, I think that the thread has gotten certain facts right.

GCM is not perfect and I would like to see a few things different. I do though think credit should be paid where credit is due. First, Norb is due credit for the great game we have and I feel he has been very proactive in dealing with MP issues. Second, Garnier and the GCM has helped MP community overall and has given us options that kept us going. Thirdly, I have to say that players like kg spoom and kg soldier have stuck with it from the beginning and deserve some credit for that.

GCM is not for the feint of heart and it will be competitive, but many of the players are good guys that will help new players out.

And Mikesla no one complains about your MP play. I have played with you and you are your biggest critic. You are welcome to play anytime.


Now that the thread will soon die, was it worth it?

[KG_Soldier]

That and the simple insolence and rudeness of certain GCM players is why I no longer go there. I am amazed certain people were not banned from that group long before I joined it and became the target of their insults.

All plural Digby, as in more than one. So. . . you have most certainly said there were more than one player who was insulting and being rude to you. The proof is right there.

I know full well it was Garnier who charged you with his whole division in column by divisions when you quit the game. If you had read my post you would have realized that.

[Michael Slaunwhite]

NY Cavalry Wrote:

And Mikesla no one complains about your MP play. I have played with you and you are your biggest critic.

You have that right. I'm so hard on myself it's insane. Believe me I notice everything that I mess up on, and I'm normally apologizing for it.

I have been thinking about joining in (The bickering, or ego poo doesn't bother me, I know what I am getting into when playing MP, and I am waiting to get a microphone so I can play proper). I know how to counter column charging, so Seal, Garnier you are open to try....