Steve Clark

Thank you.

Yes, I did. It seems that the AP may different in the regular game?

I am getting into SC2 with WaW and having read the manual, I am now starting the tutorial starting on page 86 or so. I run into problems, first with the fighter attack on Oslo (never does anything) and then in Benelux where the Panzer and Army units cannot attack Brussels in the initial turn. Same thing with some of the unit that can reach the Dutch Corps. And finally, it mentions a U-25 that is in position (it's not) and a U-50, which doesn't appear to exist. I don't know if this is because of the WaW expansion. Is there an updated step-by-step tutorial that could help me? Thanks.

It's been 8 years since I lasted visited this forum (really). I found this again after someone recommended Strategic Command 2 to me and I then realized that this was the CM place. I just spent a few hours going through the 2000 archives and saw that where I had left off was in the middle of debating how cool (or not) the next game after CM:BO was going to be. So...did this game meet your expectations? Did the hardcores find it "totally different" than the original CM? Did this game become more popular than the original? Hope all of the old-timers are doing well.

Thank you.

I used to be around quite a bit when CMBO first came out and enjoyed playing some of the scenarios. Then I drifted off, playing many other games and completely forgotten about the next CM game. I remembered the early days talking about this game but in trying to catch up, I still have some lingering questions. It is my understanding that CMBB still uses the CM1 engine, therefore, is it still a small scale tactical game? However, as advertised, you can fight from Barbarossa 1941 to Berline 1945...in 60 seconds increments???? Is the game still broken down into tactical fights (e.g., reach waypoint A before X does), or has the time scale changed at all? Do I assume that there would be more of a campaign feel, in other words, linking these small scale tactical battles into a chain? I guess what I am getting at is the same question I had two years ago, is there anything done in CMBB to introduce more of a strategic feel or is the user still focusing on small scale tactical battles that last from minutes to hours instead of days and weeks? ps. I am shocked to see the Peng threads still active. Is that the ultimate beaten horse that would never die?

...but consistent standards are much, much better.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Come on, don't tell me you never wanted to know how the war would go if something like this happened!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And how do you propose to do this in CM2? Even if they would put in hypothetical 'wars' into the scenarios, you still wouldn't know. Again, CM2 will still be the tactical-level combat engine that we all love, as oppose to strategic/political-level that determines outcomes of wars (for the most part). To illustrate, let's say you have an American/British contingent that can fight against Soviet units. How does this play out in the game? By taking a hill (or hills) or a bridge or a road network or a town or even a city; it still does not determine the outcome of the war. Unless BTS can increase the scale dramatically, tactical-level combat is not going to answer strategic/political-level scenarios. [This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited 12-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A Pentium III 600 is often considered an entry-level processor now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That certainly is true, but realize of the 1,000,000+ PC gamers, the average CPU is probably around 400-450MHz (from the last PC Data report I read). Remember in 1998-99, 70% of PCs sold were the sub-$1000 models, particularly the crappy Compaqs with 1-4mb video RAM. A voodoo3 card is perhaps the best card that can go into a majority of gaming PCs out there. I would even suspect that a good number of us playing CM do not have the latest and greatest. Up until recently, Gateway was putting in 32mb video cards on their high-end performance PCs. It may not be leading edge technology, but it is certainly a high-end requirement.

Wasting money? That's a stupid thing to say. I don't know the reason Mr. Clark bought his, but I bought my voodoo3 this summer for $79.95 to replace both my voodoo2 and a broken STB Nitro. And, it runs perfectly on a 233MMX PC. So what's your point, bub?

I think of all of the many great selling points of CM and the one that stands out in my mind is that such a high quality AI/graphics game that can run very well on a fairly low-end PC (like the 233MMX is got). I can't do HiRes Mods much but that's ok. Like others have mentioned, this is a small enough market as it is. Don't do anything that would limit that even further. Look at the requirements of a 32mb video card - at least a 400MHz CPU. When CM2 comes out, the average desktop will probably be about a 500MHz, thus able to do 32mb video, but certainly not 64mb.

To further add to Meeks' ACW numbers, the total white population breaks down as follows (in millions): Union: 18.8 Border: 2.5 Confederacy: 5.4 Total: 26.7 Thus 600,000 casualties represent 2.2% of the white population.

Thank you, Steve, I liked your last response alot better than the first one. I will pass the word along elsewhere about CM2. There will be some who have bought CM1 and will not buy CM2 (regardless of the enhancement - primarily, no Americans); but I believe more will buy CM2 that did not buy CM1. Keep up the quality work.

I know this Front was the real war with evolving technologies, strategies and tactics...but no one in 50+ posts have answered the questions: How are you going to a get a feel for the great Barbarossa campaigns and strategies (as everyone here articulated very well) when you fight for 20-75 minutes at 60 seconds at a time on a small battlefield? Are we going to have turns that last 5-20 minutes each and therefore can fight for days or weeks? Are we going to have 100+ square Km maps?

I understand where all of you are coming from and how far I need to go to reach that understanding. Bear with me please. I have read about long-range bombardments and would see that this would make your units more vulnerable at all times. However, since I have not seen or paid close enough attention to CM2 game designs, I am still wondering what the scale of CM2 will be? Here's why. Folks talk about 1500 tanks dueling each other (with many other types of support units of course). But how many tanks can you possibly put on a CM1 map? I don't know but I'm sure it's not more than a handful. I believe CM2 will require a much more hefty CPU and graphics card, but isn't it still going to be a short-/long-range tactical simulation between a relatively few number of units? You are still not going to sweep through the Neva River valley or do a grand flanking sweep around Kursk as you would in Talonsoft's Eastern Front. You are only going to fight through a ravine or a river crossing or a town/city building, right? Or unless the scale is changing in CM2. Also, I understand the accurate modeling of Soviet and German tanks (and other units) as mentioned above, and appreciate its importance in CM. However, some casual gamers that are playing CM really don't get to that level of detail, or care to. So much of the fine details mentioned above are lost on such gamers. But I think that is the genius of CM where a WW2 grognard and a casual wargamer can both equally play and enjoy the game. Given that perspective that tanks are tanks, MGs are MGs, etc., my questions still stand. Is the scale of CM2 going to encompass a much larger portion of the battlefield? Are the objectives going to be the same (capture or meet at this bridge/hill/crossroads/village/city building/etc.)? The reason I'm harping on this (despite BTS hyperbolism and non-answer) is that in many other forums that I participate in (most strategy games), I have recommended and gotten at least 10 folks to buy and play CM1. Some are beginning to ask if there will be a CM2 and what it will be like, from a non-wargamer perspective.