elwood

I look at SP W@W as computer ASL. It brings SP one step closer that long sought translation of ASL to the computer. While some people look at that as the holy grail, I look at ASL as a good game that had to make compromises to be playable (although some people would argue "not many"). There the SP series has some inherent limitations. The SP series was a great transition and I think SP W@W will get a lot of play time from me. I look at CM as the next step and a system that really sheds the legacy from board games like ASL.

The only disappointment I have are the updated hardware requirements. I have a laptop that has a small video card embedded in it. This makes it run a little choppy. I also noticed that the head turning feature when units are at rest seems to really suck up a lot of CPU time. Is this feature really necessary? If it helps fps, I say remove it. Other than that, GREAT JOB!!!

Just a comment in defense of OSCAR. I too play the HPS tactical series and when CM started coming about I followed its development closely. While very excited about its release and impressed at the apparent level of detail, I realize that, other than the interface and hex-based view, the HPS games had almost everything else at a larger scale. The 3-D-based view is a great step forward, but I do not think HPS has been given much credit on this board for the level of detail and "realism" built into thier games. I do agree with FIONNE that hexes are a hold over from old designs and it is about time someone did something like CM. The HPS games only use hexes as a visual reference and a lot happens within the 100m hexes, although it is sometimes abstracted.

Don't spit on me for playing CC3, but what is said here actually happens in that game. If you don't monitor the MG42 closely, it will chew through the ammo in a couple of minutes. While CC3 isn't what I'd call a model for WW2 infantry tactics, it does get some things right.

I saw someone mention raising the hardware specifications to require 3-D acceleration. As a laptop user, I hope this doesn't happen. I am willing to give up some graphics for a better simulation. I can understand a flightsim needing high end graphics, but I am always disappointed when I see wargame developers dedicate so much time to grapics at the expense of solid simulation. (Can you spell Atomic). My favorite games are still HPS's, eventhough the interface and graphics are about 10 years old.

To be more "realsitic" as stated, the player would have to place a lot of trust in freindly AI. While the AI seems pretty good in this game, it is almost impossible to make it react as a the player would. It seems that the turn concept and command control are about the same as in HPS's recent WW2 games. I have always thought that the limits this places on your flexibility are pretty realistic, especially because it is adjusted for each nationality.