Brian Rock

Yeah: You should be able to have dialogues with other pieces by clicking on them. ("Oh, you're the enemy queen, are you? I guess you're going to kill me now...") You should be given quests. ("Your pawn needs to go to e4 to get a package from the black bishop. If you return it to the king's knight he'll give you a flaming sword".) There should be power-ups on certain squares around the board (turn your might into a rook for three turns). It needs to have 80,000 polygons per piece with all kinds of cool visual effects turned on, and an original score. Units should be able to buy a BFG.

I thought it was a fair review. The final sentence, "This game will interest anyone who enjoys strategies and doesn’t require instant Great work from the guys at Fury Software" seems to sum it up rather well. Comments such as "complicated" are relative - to anyone who grew up on board games such as DNO it's positively trivial. To someone who's usual gaming tastes run to Unreal or Warcraft the learning curve might be pretty steep. Things old hand WWII players take for granted aren't obvious to people who haven't played lots of WWII games, read up on the war, or both. I absolutely agree about the replayability. The first game I played France was still in the war in November - not my best-ever bit of virtual generalship. I fiddled a bit in Africa before Yougoslavia declared war on me and so I had to go in and pacify that - by which time the game ended. Second game I knocked the French out in four weeks. I had massive air driving the Brits back, I took Yugoslavia out in a two weeks, sank the British Med fleet, and was ready to go in Russia when I quit - all went swimmingly, except I never could take Egypt! Now if I could start from '39 I figure I could do some really wild things. (Hmmm... didn't plan for this to turn into an impromptu AAR.) As for it being on the "boring side", if you're into eye candy and fast paced action it isn't exciting. Wargamers may not like it, but the TOAWs and SCs don't have the same visual coolness and energy of a Freedom Force or Morrowind. Nature of the beast(s) - but then they don't have the same kind of analytical challenges wargames provide. So - given the reviewer's background I thought it was a good write-up.

I'd downloaded the Strat Command demo a while ago, but hadn't even bothered installing it - I mean, it's hex based, WWII (yet again), looked like TOAW-lite, etc. Well last week I was unable to play CM, due to some driver problems after upgrading to Win XP. I figured I was in need of some mind candy, so I finally installed SC. I think I got to bed about 1am the first night. I was pleasantly surprised how addictive the game was. The combat routines are agreeably simple, yet capable of providing the "right" sorts of outcomes when more detailed complex approaches fail to do so. The amount of layering of various options and details - R&D, air power, naval, armored units, and so on - was pretty well optimal for my tastes. Enough to do to keep me exploring alternative strategies, and without turning into micromanagement hell. This has gone on my "must buy" list. Great stuff.

Thumbs up here too. Superior aesthetic implementation (ie looks really cool).

I've had limited success by micromanaging set-up areas. If there are five possible routes to advance down and two will get the attacker killed, set up the AI attacker so it won't take the non-lethal routes. Not always possible of course, but a useful principle to keep an eye out for. Also setting units up in an "assault formation" can help, putting contact elements well in front of the follow-on forces. In theory, that is - this one seems to break down once the AI hits wooded areas, or if there are tricky pathing problems.

I see these discussions on every board I visit. Well, since everybody but the Pope has chipped in I may as well add my squawkings. I would also like to see an operational level to CM. Apart from the fact I prefer operational level combat, I believe the "thinking two levels up" aspects of command would add depth to CM. However I think it's worth asking a few questions: 1) Does it's omission mean the game is broken? Nac4 thinks yes, because people can choose to play the game in ahistorical ways. I think no, because people can choose to play the game in historical ways. The tactical mechanics leave it up to the player. User's choice. I choose to play historically. Unless I'm bored, then I set up a QB with zillions of Tigers vs a bunch of Stuarts. 2) What would it cost to put in an operational level? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch; everything has an opportunity cost. There are only so many hours in a day, so what should be sacrificed? Research on OOBs, accuracy of gun and armor models, revisions to operations, improved graphics or what? 3) What right does any consumer have to impose their expectations? This one is easy: none. I might think the ideal Mercedes Benz should get 1,000 mpg and cost $200 - may as well make them fly while I'm at it - but flaming MB for not producing them won't get them built. If BTS don't build in operational factors, that doesn't mean what they do produce is flawed. That would be like concluding a Mercedes 300 SE is flawed because it doesn't match the specs of my 4) Will this discussion make an operational game happen? No. Given that BTS have always said their focus in on making a tactical game it seems sensible for them to keep CMBB a tactical game. If you like a product, buy it, if not, don't. Sellers and buyers are both allowed to make choices. [End spiel] [ May 28, 2002, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

Now that pic is cool. I don't think I realised how much a relatively subtle change like that would add to the visuals.

The wheat shot is fantastic. It was something I always wanted for CMBO, and didn't actually expect for CMBB. Wunnerful!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MajorH: There are currently 487 in TacOpsCav v4.<hr></blockquote> Any chance of hitting the 500 mark?

That's 290 units if anyone was wondering.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Hitman: one more asking : was it not silly to order COMBAT MISSION ? because BB will be soon out?, but i sa it to late <hr></blockquote> Radar is right. Not at all silly. CMBO is West Front only. CMBB East Front. The latter will be an improved product, but there will still be plenty of people who like playing in the fields of France hills of Germany and other funny little countries in the middle.

Adding my best wishes to the list.

I may as well be the one to give you the bad news... Development on CMBO has stopped as BTS are fully devoting their resources to getting CM2 out. Now for the good news: There are a wide range of adjustments being made to the engine for that, and I suspect you'll find many of these issues are addressed. Stay tuned to this board for more exciting updates on CM2! [ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]</p>

In Sydney - b_rock@dingoblue.net.au. Not a real Aussie, but I've been here 27 years this month, so close enough for all practical purposes.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Who said the moral is to the physical as three to one? <hr></blockquote> Napolean. But he was overmodeled too. For what it's worth, I think the effects are probably about right. I have a healthy fear of fire, and figure that someone popping up at 20 metres and spraying it in my general direction would be enough to put me in an "all things considered it might be time to make tracks in a retrograde fashion crowd" frame of mind.

It doesn't work very well in my microwave either. The graphics were pretty neat for a while, though.

I've never liked the CM system for PBEM. I was used to the TacOps system which allowed you a much faster pace: Player A Inputs orders and sends file Player B Inputs orders and runs turn one, Inputs orders for turn two, Sends both files (turns one and two) to player A Player A views turn one, Inputs orders for turn two and runs turn one, Inputs orders for turn three, Sends turns two and three to player B... It was open to cheating, but I'm very selective with how I play with, so it wasn't a problem for me. After doing two turns per email the CM three-email system was positively glacial in comparison and I never warmed to it. Now TCP rocks, but I keep weird hours and never find time for a game. Alas! Solitaire QBs are my lot in life. (swoon)

Sometimes. If I just want a quick fun game I won't, but when I'm looking for a full-on immersive game I do. The problem with trees is about the only thing I have an issue with. OTOH, it does cause you to get your troops to move to the treeline *very* carefully, which is more realistic than the current move-at-full-speed-then-stop-at-the optimal-point approach I usually use from higher camera angles.

LOL. Now bugger off.

Bugger. This isn't working...

Now I can't even get the #$%*$ URL text to post properly... Some geek I'm turning out to be... [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]</p>

Hmmm. can't get the piccie to show. Try looking at this: http://au.photos.yahoo.com/bc/xrayzed/vwp?.dir=/Combat+Mission&.src=ph&.dnm=Sherman+v+StuG.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//au.photos.yahoo.com/bc/xrayzed/lst%3f%26.dir=/Combat%2bMi ssion%26.src=ph%26.view=t

Good I hate trying to post pics... [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Sherman survival rate: 36% (including 10 immobilizations) StuG IIIG (late) survival rate: 33% (including 11 immobilizations) Mutual destruction: 31% <hr></blockquote> Estimated survival rates at the 95% confidence level: Sherman: 30.8% - 41.6% StuG IIIG: 27.9% - 38.5% Mutual: 26.0% - 36.5% So you're looking at roughly +/- 5% with 300 trials. I also graphed it, just because I can: Looks pretty good to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: I'm running the tests 150 times so that my results are as close as possible to the truth. There's a bigger margin of error than you may think, even with 150 runs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite so. For example the case above: Firefly survival rate: 37% (two immobilized) With a sample size of 150 and a sample percentage of 37% we can say the Firefly survival rate is between 28.9% and 45% at the 95% confidence level. In other words, if this is a representative series of tests, then real survival rate is somewhere between 28.9% and 45%. At least we're 95% sure it is. There is a 5% possibility that the real survival rate is actually less than 28.9% or greater than 45%. For the Hetzer a sample of 150 and percentage of 43% means the real survival rate is between 34.7% and 51% at the 95% confidence level. As you can see the difference between the Firefly on 38% and Hetzer on 43% tells us the Hetzer is probably better, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the positions could actually be the reverse. Incidentally this illustrates why I don't take too much notice of the "I was playing a game and saw an X kill my Y at Z yards" reports.