Messages

1

Historical Reenactment / Re: Let's discuss: Farbism!

« on: September 17, 2014, 07:42:59 pm »

Whats wrong with this picture? Russians at Eylau 1807 in the 1994 film Le colonel Chabert.

Care to elaborate? 404.

2

Historical Reenactment / Re: Let's discuss: Farbism!

« on: August 22, 2014, 12:57:10 pm »

Flak vest?  Your bud reenact vietnam?

He has several impressions, including Vietnam, couple of (DDR) NVA and Soviet 1980s Afganistan. Next one he's planned is probably WW2 impression though he's still not sure of it.

You can be fat, but still have well trained muscles. It is not like that is not possible. But the thing is, that the rations etc. were so bad back then that there just was no way to get fat.

Indeed, but for practical purposes since people these day are much better fed than back in the day etc which also results people being taller and hitting puberty much earlier - which for the sake of period correctness one could consider important - leaves only very few candidates to be period correct if you look it with a magnifying glass even if you generally speaking (not to mention evolving language etc) look like one, I tend to slip that as long as they are sufficiently fit and so-called borderline cases. It's a good start and ideal is to get rid of the extra weight and all that over time.

3

Historical Reenactment / Re: Let's discuss: Farbism!

« on: August 22, 2014, 02:05:08 am »

I suppose this is one of those opinions you should keep to yourself but since it's on topic.

My biggest gripe is no mater how museum quality your uniform looks what makes your impression is if you look like a soldier of the period. Of coarse this is a pretty unrealistic and impossible for some to do but if your old or over weight no matter how much time you put into your uniform you simple do not look like somebody of the period which I think is more important than how you wear your gear or it's construction.

I am personally fairly lenient to age or body shape\type as long as they are fit enough to survive day of proper re-enacting, as ambiguous and bit rare such cases are. Case in point is friend of mine who looks like he got mild beer gut and flabby neck, but he can low crawl in full gear + flak jacket (real one with plates that is, not just some replica or watered-down display) just fine alongside running and other physical activities. He may not look like capable of re-enacting at first glance, but he sure can pull off the part just fine.

4

Historical Reenactment / Re: Reenactment Pictures.

« on: August 16, 2014, 04:45:31 pm »

First time i have ever heard of someone saying try goose stepping for excercise.  My trainer going to be confused as hell next week!   

I know that sounds ridiculous but try goosestepping in good rhythm and posture for say, ten minutes. It's pretty demanding on one's legs and can add passable variation alongside other physical training.

Needless to say it's best to avoid doing that anywhere in public unless you like some funny looks. 

5

Historical Reenactment / Re: Reenactment Pictures.

« on: August 16, 2014, 03:03:06 pm »

Tried the Normandy look today in preparation for next week. Everything is rigged to the equipment belt and held up with belt hooks. I actually like this look a lot more. It's super farb, though. Blurred a Edge zelt and M42 tunic in 1941? Nah... Farb. Man, I need to lose more weight and get rid of my tits and kidney tits.

Strictly speaking so called M42 tunic in 1941 is not exactly impossible, just extremely unlikely. So called M40 tunics started production around late 1937 to early 1938 and it's possible to find them in period photos at barracks or even at the front, such photos are just tricky to find and even sometimes to recognise the mere difference of collar. In same vein it is perfectly possible to find someone in early war gear by 1943 to 1944, but those guys probably had long garrison duties and barely got time to wreck their uniforms and all that.

Also while of course losing just slightly more weight around waist is not bad idea in general, it is possible to go for stout appearance meanwhile by adjusting posture. In all those pictures you posted you are not standing exactly straight but have noticeable hunch there. Of course, standing straight with good posture does slightly pronounce problem of chest and waist but at least it gives better impression that you have good idea what you are doing, and if you can still run fine for long periods of time I'd consider it good start. If you are bored and want to practice posture aside from standing still, try goosestepping in brief shorts while maintaining stable rhythm and good posture. It's good for balance too and pretty good leg exercise and change of pace over usual training methods.

Also I assume lack of collar tabs is work-in-progress too. 

6

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: August 01, 2014, 03:40:03 pm »

Of course, a  more ambitious project is more likely to have small errors/bugs/glitches than a smaler more focused game. That, I  believe, is partly why, for instance, Bohemia Interactive's ArmA III spent an entire year in Steam Early Access, despite BI having both the experience, and the funding, to support a "clean" release of the product. Why did it need so much time? Being an incredibly complex simulator, the team needed it to essentially be beta-tested by the game's huge audience, and thus this period was vital for the much needed optimisation for a great number of PC Hardware, and delicate balancing. The result: ArmA emerged a rather optimised, and graphically beautiful game (I personally find that photorealism, when used appropriately, can have a stunning impression on the player), and had a much more stable proper release in March 2013.

Though bit off topic, A3 still features certain legacy AI and technical issues issues (chopper pathfinding during landing and takeoffs, general sluggishness of such events especially on the move, AI vehicles struggling to drive straight on anything else that is not clearly defined and waypointed road , FPS dictating multiplayer server performance even on dedicated server and quite a lot actually) which have been in the game since 2001, or when OFP:CWC was originally released. One might expect those to be mostly eliminated by now after roughly 13 years, given they have been essentially recycling the engine more than CoDs ever have,and remaking essentially the same game with very minor improvements, but alas.

7

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: August 01, 2014, 01:30:25 pm »

As for the argument "Humans are imperfect", if you universally applied this logic to the games industry, then, in theory, the only game you would ever trust would be one designed, and coded, by yourself.

Why would I assume my own code is trustworthy and superior in that case?

Point really is, for all the examples where indie games or smaller studios made good products with limited resources pales somewhat in comparison since BCoF is very ambitious game, and even then we can easily find indie games which are quite frankly either shoddy, or buggier than bugs in a bughill until year or two passes for every more profilic indie game which is not troubled. Early access be damned when we have such interesting examples from the 1990s such as Battlecruiser 3000AD. Very ambitious game which was honestly and kindly put, rather broken at launch and accompanied with healthy dose of overhyped false advertising.

All I am simply assuming here is that something probably will be botched in some form by the time of release. New engine, quite ambitious design and reach, all features, technical stuff etc leaves plenty of room for small mistakes which can easily add up to bigger issues. No release is perfect, but it is no different from the mechanical principle machine with 500 moving parts is more likely to suffer pediatrics and more frequent post-pediatrics issues than one with 20 moving parts.

8

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: August 01, 2014, 01:20:34 am »

(I don't see how it turns "gamey" as you said, as these were real factors affecting the soldiers at the time.)

Only if the implementation fails. Humans are imperfect and even good games may have perfectly silly or botched features. That free-aim idea - hypothetical as it was - was simply meant as an example since if say, we assume they want to have that long range shooting (especially in period sense) is affected by also human error that eye and sights may not always be in perfect sync and lightning conditions etc easily results, that even couple of degrees off will mean major divergence from target from say, 150 yards. That itself would be neat feature, but if we play with the idea that the feature does not work as intended it can easily result into gamey exploits, or rather artificial constriction. I said “gamey” in quotation marks before because it really depends how one views the thing.

Mind you, I do not propose all-or-nothing approach but I still believe wind effects and plethora of others are pretty major suggestions for game that is not aiming to be a simulation. It is like modeling ~30% and perhaps even higher misfire rates in NW since while random, it is perfectly justified by any realism argument and from gameplay perspective it say, discourages pointblanking. Now let us also simulate that most were not trained to fire aimed shots (which players technically do in NW) and windage was foreign concept to even majority of skirmishers, and we have justification to have no crosshair unless you play as skirmisher\rifleman, and thus we could put higher emphasis on melee on paper. If we go down BCoF we can add some others too to the mix and note the old issues which are still present in modern day and age (aside from misfire rates and formation warfare is obviously obsolete), once again it soon blurs the line if the game is meant to be simulation or not, and for all the effort to keep different portions of the game in check it sounds quite hardcore investment given the target audience.

9

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: July 31, 2014, 11:09:31 pm »

and yes, as thankfully you understand, the casual crowd, as well as ppl from other communities, wil undoubtedly try to promote what they believe should be the focus. That doesn't necessarily make your opinion count for more than mine (if not even the opposite...)

Ultimately to reinforce the original point I indirectly made and you indeed challenged in earlier post, why should I bother suggesting something since even if I actually care about the game, I lack those 5000 hours and shiny regiment name to be even factored in, if I were to seriously suggest something?* Casual after all, is fairly relative term in its common ridicule. I do admit I found the M&M -> NW transition quite similar to discussions I have seen about Street Fighter 2 vs 3 or 3 vs 4 or even 2 vs 4 by humour value.

*(Which of course is as common phenomena as fornication is, and thus I do not imply it is somehow exclusive here.)

As for the stuff Ive said about the accuracy, I hoped that some of the suggestions could be taken into account by the devs. So we start with a very accurate musket, and we add some of the aforementioned REALISTIC factors which could be used both to balance the muskets/rifles (so we don't see snipeshotz from kilometres away, and could deepen the shooting system (Depth  = Good, right? We kinda need to learn the mechanics gradually to perfection over time, not in an afternoon like in CoD ) . The comparison with the pistols in NW is completely irrelevant, as that's a product of your own imagination, and nothing I said ever encouraged so inaccurate firearms. Exaggeration works well my friend, until the other party calls it out. We can continue this debate when the closed beta is ready.

Given most of the discussion is either referring to very generic NW-esque situation or even more broad idea conceptually, baseline such as like less accurate but more accurate if that accurate only to be that accurate leaves wild guesswork since there is no established baseline, outside perhaps very rough real life data which may or may not translate into other interpretation of things which in turn leaves us in mess like this. It is my fault for assuming that and going with the example, but it is more than likely unavoidable fact - IMHO - that if we enable even remotedly realistic rifled muskets or rifles, shooting mechanics that is not complete point and click and hope for RNG to do its dirty work will place greater technical emphasis on the shooting part, even if it is means to simply keep it in check with other parts. Wind effect is pretty hardcore - relatively speaking - for game that is not aiming to be really simulator in strict sense or proper disconnection between hand-eye-sighting coordination and setup. Doubly so if it actually works instead of just turning “gamey” thing into even more “gamey” and perhaps broken, assuming say free-aimed camera that is not directly in sync with aim ends up being botched by implementation.

Not to mention say, possible CPU and lag effects caused by wind effect. If it is fixed and abstract, it is very easy to just open the map data to see the values and start working on how to exploit it but if it is more dynamic how well that translates to 400+ players on the same time on a server given there's more stuff to compute? Alongside penetration data, destructive environments, wind effect on trailing smoke and obscuring vision etc. Unless it is completely random, which in turn could easily turn what little skill sharpshooting etc may require into mild extension to RNG syndrome. Hypothetically speaking that is.

10

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: July 31, 2014, 04:49:31 pm »

Even though we don't know the details (balancing, etc.), we can still discuss the game's PRINCIPLE and focus. And while you may not give a shit, being so casual and cool and  others have supported FSE and played NW (and MM before it), and so are more concerned about what will happen to this game. Claiming it is "their end product" (so yeah, who cares, it's their business, not ours, right?) shows how little you care about this game, and clearly displays how you stupidly forget that FSE only amounts to their dedicated community and fans (like most Indie companies who have only just started to capture the attention of the larger media outlets and the more... should we say "mainstream?.. gaming audience.) Therefore, even though I'm sure, towards the end of the dev cycle, that the developers will attract more attention, it is certainly reasonable that some, including myself, would like to support the company and make suggestions. And the great thing is that the devs can look at our ideas, and perhaps even implement them into their game! Incredible, right? If you don't like it, and you think that wind, humidity, gun sway, redduced pointblanks, reasonable reloading time, etc. will ruin the game (even though they could be delicately used for  balancing), then, as you said, we can perfectly well agree to disagree. BCoF is still in Alpha.

Only reason I do not give that much “shit” besides following what is going on with BCoF developement once in a while, is that I am outsider in this community, and therefore is what you said to be “the ArmA\Red Orchestra\casual\idiot\alien crowd” trying to influence the game even if we are speaking hypothetically, and I am treated with automatic hostility and really, I have no reason to even influence the game to begin with. Take the 1st vs 3rd person thing as an example. I know 3rd person will not go anywhere, but it'd be interesting topic to speak positive and negative effects of getting rid of 3rd person and how it influences gameplay. I still have the option to keep sucking in the game with my 1st person view in order to infuriate the grognards, at very least.

I think it is common sense to assume developers try to cater for certain group of people (regardless is it mainstream or something more focused) but since I am that certain influence, I hardly have reason to do anything else beyond lurking and even if I do have something to post, most of them have been said out loud. Parrot is parrot is parrot is parrot is parrot is parrot is extremely redundant. On the other hand what bugs me with some of the suggestions is quite simple, although I do not mind the principle that shooting takes bit more skill, is that if BCoF turns out to be NW2.0 where rifled muskets are less accurate than pistols for the sake of gameplay, what good would wind effects, adjustable sights and all neat features would do if shooting is heavily influenced by RNG? If I pre-sight my in-game rifle to standard 200-300 yard battle setup and barely can hit 50x50 target from 20 yards away reliably with 0yard settings, why have the feature altogether? Not unless FSE has some kind of feature in mind which only units that are called to assemble in line and formed up have fairly realistic accuracy, which in turn are better targets for artillery or skirmishers. Arguably that promotes teamwork as they noted, but perhaps it is that evil alien influence from my casual observation desk since it could also inhibit melee even more when people want to form lines and shooting takes over, therefore it's bad for the perceived balance and therefore I still question why have sights to begin with if we cannot use them for the purpose sights are meant to be used in firearms.

As for the "knee-jerk reaction", I personally think it should be justified, to cut off unreasonable (in my opinion) demands that have no place to be ever implemented in this game. You do not say "stfu" (which personally I never have used - stfu is not an argument) to someone who suggests bullet drop. But you do say stfu (albiet in a more polite manner, and yes that manner is for me spamming in huge red block letters - may be the only way to break your obstinacy) to someone who suggests that we should go 1st Person, even when the devs have clearly referred to the exact opposite (emphasis on 3rd person). I believe we can discuss more when the Closed Beta comes out.

I do understand passion for game and certain developers and concerns for sequels and potential lifecycle just fine, but I still do not believe it is reason to shoot down conversation like it's a witch hunt, and essentially boils down to STFU. Strictly speaking, I never suggested we should go for 1st person because I know that will not happen. I simply poked fun with the idea how much the gameplay would change if everyone had to play in 1st person, because ultimately it's a metagame changer and that seems to be plague to this community from my ignorant casual observation post which should not be here to begin with. In same vein, you poked fun that pointblanking is only for people who cannot into melee yet apparently that is perfectly acceptable because after all, I am that complete noob who cannot do 1on20 mad melee skill when storming the wall. Not without people who try to actually enter the breach alongside.

I do apologise for cooking off a bit and basically kneejerking myself though.

11

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: July 31, 2014, 02:01:00 pm »

As I said please read the posts. And as you seem to be the only one who has completely understood the sistuation in the forums, feel free to enlighten us all. After all, my  reading comp is shit. *shakes head* *facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk*

I have read that, but does that actually tell us about anything about the state of melee or functional gameplay between shooting, poking people in the eye, and teamwork and other gameplay? As they said, they don't go into detail and thus, the cynic in me right now says tv tv sports sports tv. If it is really that enlightening, why is your original post quite pleading in tone about keeping reasonable balance between the two ends? It's spelled out there after all.

Having said that, if either of us have nothing to contribute in this conversation in public without going into plain old flaming I suggest we continue using PMs and leave things quiet.

12

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: July 31, 2014, 01:32:24 pm »

1) Most of the community finds it impossible to play in first person, as the camera FOV is too narrow, and the animations and awkward, and it's (for some people) harder to see what attack/defense they are holding. Therefore, what you are proposing is entirely irrelevant to the vast majority of the game's community, who plays in 3rd person, and may only switch to first for some shooting. I'm actually kinda sick of people coming from other games, like Red Orchestra, or even ArmA , and telling us how "CoD" we all are, and how our game "lacks the historical formations" needed. In a charge, IN THE EARLY 1800s, PEOPLE DID CHARGE INTO A BREACH "LIKE RAMBOS", AS THEY HAD TO (MELEE) KILL THE OTHERS BEFORE THEY GOT SHOT DOWN BY THE DEFENDERS. Did you expect us to form a little line, even in Public Servers (worse inter-team comms), and RP a Line Battle every time we played? No. We have proper LBs for that.
Face it, and this is to all those <redacted> who want  to turn our game into a shooter.

Spoiler

FSE WILL NOT TURN BCOF INTO A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE ACW. NOR WILL IT DEGRADE THE MELEE INTO A "PRESS-X-TO-KILL" TYPE THING. READ THE DEV BLOGS.

[close]

2) Suppressing fire only works in NW if tens of people camp out a spot, shooting at anything that moves (but then the reload time ruins it). This deters str8 up charging for some, but seeing how inaccurate the musket is in NW, doesn't really scare Y0L0-ers, especially if the defenders providing suppressing fire aren't physically blocking the way to the flag.

Since apparently either it is just me or you seriously lack reading comphrension, I will say this as frankly and and perhaps, as tersely as possible:

1. We are all speculating since none of us has any actual knowledge how the game plays out, and most of this is about Battle Cry of Freedom. We know how NW plays out and thus there is no need to remind everyone how suppressive fire is not in NW. No fucking shit.  No fucking shit too that public gameplay is different from organised line battles - newsflash! Hot water burns too!.

2. We are speculating under certain assumptions or things we bring up, and since people are here more or less either going with the realism argument as flimsily as possible, like suggesting windage, adjustable sights etc while also presenting reasons why they are best left off to begin with because there is no point using in features which are artrifically arbitrated. BCoF could work just fine with them if they want to make game's rifled muskets less accurate than NW's pistols. It is ultimately FSE's decision what design choices they want to turn the game into regardless of focus. If it's alternate history Quake with nerfballs and 1on1 boxer matches in ACW skins, then it is. I can say few words about that then, but really, it is their end product.

3. People have brought up comparisons to other games in this thread before or possible realism argument contradicting the flimsy justification how it is used to justify X. Fine, go ahead, but that is not excuse to negate discussion why it is strictly speaking not accurate. Gameplay and realism\balance\etc are separate from eachother and once again, we have no goddamm idea how the game turns out so there is nothing else to do but to speculate. If it works in game X, it could work in BCoF. It also could be the opposite. Who the fuck knows.

4. Now, at this part I am speaking for myself, but I have no crusade to turn BCoF into pure shooter. I simply believe limited pointblanking does not necessarily interfere with rest of the gameplay, but you are free to disagree - and I think we can safely say we agree to disagree here. Same with the 1st person vs 3rd person - that is only my preference. If you wish to use 3rd person... then you do. End of story. I still think they are for certain people - similar as you believe pointblanking is for people who cannot into melee. Subjective views ahoy. Hey, perhaps we can consider it extension to what works in X could work in Y or perhaps just break it. It's all hypothetical, but since you seem to know better than I do please inform me how BCoF will play out then. Ideas or concepts are not fundamentally right or wrong either (yeah, deep 1st grade shit right here) but exceution is what matters the most. We are mostly dealing on that level due lack of further knowledge besides rough words. We can read the blogs and every post all we want, but in the end that still tells us nothing of current functional state of BCoF design.

And 5. Stop with the kneejerk reaction. I understand the concern of seeing beloved game turned into utter crap in sequels or over time - and I have seen that happen couple of times myself, but kneejerk reactions to stop discussion even on general scale is just truly stupid. I believe the consensus here is that realism will probably hurt the gameplay. That still does not make it "shut the fuck up" excuse that has been brought up several times here.

And really, I never said NW is CoDish or so compared to other games. I still think Quake beats the crap out of most modern games and it has less realism than half of the world's speculative fiction genre combined. Variety is good thing, but you are crusading with kneejerks.

13

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: July 31, 2014, 03:08:45 am »

6) Reducing pointblanking. Imho, pointblanking, in NW, is a risky strategy, employed only by useless fools who can't melee. Simple. However, should fighting ever develop into CQC (say in a building, for example, or a trench), then melee should be the emphasis, not a desperate attempt to shoot the enemy who is two inches away . Requiring some time to aim, and increasing the time needed to swap between shooting and melee mode on one's rifle, could discourage pointblanking.

But it works both ways. Pointblanking first defenders in the face before poking the rest in the eye when 20 defenders discharged shots against single musician dancing out in the open instead of using common sense just begs for trouble if it was not dictated by extreme video game logic as it is in typical NW public siege game. Why I would not employ something which offers better chances of success to storm a wall or a breach since it boils down to risk vs reward? It is not functionally too different from current situation where thanks to 3rd person, one can easily aim in advance and 360noscope the moment they step outside and pointblank reliably. If one gets rid of 3rd person* but in exchange allows pointblanking and more fluid general control over things to a point, there is suddenly a case for “suppressive fire” (as much as that can be achieved in shooters that is) which offers better shock value when a group of players actually close in for melee range while the others are more or less picking individual heads popping up, since instead of that quickshot kill up close you have no idea if someone is near by or not. Red Orchestra 1 - which is fairly realistic WW2 game where one shot kills and getting shot from places you couldn't even see properly was commonplace - did this pretty well since even one or two guys with bayonets managing to hit a blind spot and storm a room could end up with tons of bayonet kills, sometimes after they managed to shoot their to go for staby-staby time.

And in case if someone brings up likelihood of suppressive fire from modern perspective and how anachronistic it probably is to a point in historical context, it is no different from trying to simulate formation warfare when there is no formation warfare as far as generic gameplay goes. Events etc are complete different beasts from public gameplay, but even those events hardly bear any resemblence to formation warfare and their realities to begin with. Therefore I say that is bit silly argument.

*I am one of those who refuses to play M&B in third person because like banners, I believe it is for pussies. That is just me, but I wonder how many mad melee skillz or quickshots would turn sour if there was way to disable that.

14

Servers / Re: 33rd Public Siege Server [33rd_NW_Siege] - NA/Late timezone admins needed!

« on: June 08, 2014, 07:18:28 pm »

Ban request:

Name of the person causing trouble: Magnus_the_wanderer
Nature of their offense: Constantly opening gates on the defending side.
Time and date of their offense: ~7PM CET 8\6\2014
Any proof if you have it, For instance screenshots (use spoilers!):

Spoiler

[close]

15

General Discussion / Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

« on: June 05, 2014, 07:20:16 pm »

I'm going to take an easy guess and say that both of those figures are wildly exaggerated.
if it takes a million rounds to kill four insurgents, even the Americans would be out of ammunition.

Not as much an exaggeration but there is no further context or details or general conditions explained why something is influenced. In same vein diarrhea kills more people on Earth than HIV, SARS, and all the super media hyped diseases combined yet in most developed countries it sounds utterly ridiculous, yet when you account how many humans there are on Earth and how many places still have substandard hygiene standards (and some other contributing factors) go figure.

Aye, the game's going to have sharpshooters with actual rifles. Could you imagine how frustrating it'd be to put your crosshair right on a guy's head and then get gipped because the random number gods decided to get a sense of humor?

Which is not much different from the RNG shooting in NW to begin with. You can take all day long to aim and fire 50+ shots total against well-presented targets not behind cover and all that from distance which you could consistently score hits in real life with old matchlock musket to 50x50cm target. Or that rifles in NW are more inconsistent with landing shots past certain distance than muskets because RNG factor and that the engine cannot model certain accuracy things properly to begin with. I would gladly take over even mildly exaggerated misfire chance if it means the actual shooting process is not under RNG and vague justification "that's how muskets were" even when all it takes is to use one and it becomes obvious you can hit past 20 yards without missing ten times in a row with standard musket. Not unless you use substandard powder and grossly undersized bullets to begin with, or you have absolutely no concept of aiming to begin with.

Of course we could start arguing if NW is really that realistic to begin with, but I would say it leans more towards the realistic end all things considered, and going further with the aiming example since we know most people were not trained to fire aimed shots back in the day we could turn musketry much worse with clear justification, but in the end it is simply taking step further in the RNG lottery fest. Of course, that is ignoring troop cohesion and formation warfare's own realities in real life which either enforces or induces the issue to begin with but simply looking at firearm functionality itself and how it behaves in gameplay context.

Edit: I might as well clarify that what direction FSE wishes to take BCoF is entirely up to them whether it turns into Call of Blackpowder or even lightweight simulation or even Quake dressed in ACW skins (which would be kind of awesome in my humble and discarded opinion) and as much as I personally lean more towards simulation junkie as far as preferences go, I do not believe in the excuse that realism always hinders gameplay. Yes, that can happen, but even perfectly excellent gameplay with no hint of realism can be ruined by design decisions whether is it due poor balance or some other reasons. Good gameplay is a start, but good realistic gameplay is not some insurmountable fence to vault over either by any means.