Steve Clark

As I have begun my readings on WW2, a thought occured to me that relates to CM2 (and CM3, CM4). A lot of us here are interested in military history, specifically with the focus on 20th century warfare. However, even those of us that are very knowledgable about a particular war, we still tend to focus on (or are more interested) in PARTS of that war. For example, with the American Civil War, some are more interested in the Eastern Theatre than the Western one; or in my case, not all that interested in the naval battles. The same is true for WW2, but in a greater way because of the immense scope of the war. My point that relates to CM2 is that I suspect that there are those that are primarily interested in the battles of Western Europe as oppose to the Russian Front. There are those that are not interested in any of the CM games because they prefer the sea/land combats of the Pacific. Or some just like aerial combats and don't like tanks, thus will be interested in simming the Battle of Britain for example. Or some will wait until the desert tank battles and invasion battles of CM3 and skip over the slog-fest of CM2.

I only played two FPS in my 10+ years of continuous gaming: Wolf 3D and Outlaws. I detest games like Doom, Quake, etc. with their demons, monsters, robots and aliens sh*t. I loved Wolf 3D (will be interested in the new version) for its straight-forward, clean fun and I absolutely love Outlaws because unlike most FPS, you have to think and conserve ammo instead of going in with laser-guns blazing. I tried R6 but counter-terrorism doesn't do it for me (not historical enough). Just some quick opinions about FPS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: I think the console idea is brilliant. Wouldn't be that hard, interface wise, CM is already pretty straight forward. And there is a serious lack of decent thoughtfull games on consoles. BTS, thought about doing it?! Or hirring/licencing someon else to? Would be interesting! PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With all due respect, that is a very stupid idea. Unless you have a HDTV, with the poor resolution coming from console games (as opposed to a PC with a voodoo card or the like), you won't be able to see the difference between a foxhole and a dirt tile, let alone the differences between any vehicles at a distance. (I was going to say something to the effect of your a** and a hole in the ground, but that wouldn't work ). Come on, realize that consoles hooked to TVs are only good for fast graphics with poor resolutions and very litte AI. That seems to be the opposite of what CM is designed to be.

To counteract, I will bring a lawsuit to any gamer who forces the TCP/IP issue.

Oh boy, the classic TBS vs RTS debate. I like the analogies that The Commissar posted. I had been quite involved in the debate in the Civilization forums where some folks want to make Civ III a RTS game. I think most of the responses here are right-on in saying that there is a trade-off; either you have the breadth (large isometric map, large units of sprites, very little attributes) or depth (smaller 3D maps, fewer units of 3D, complex set of attributes). This was the essense of the Civ3 TBS/RTS debates. CM is a wargame, not a RTS or even a TBS game. Comparing CC to CM is like comparing Sid Meier's Gettysburg to Talonsoft's Battleground:Gettysburg. Apples and Oranges. Quang mentions actions in Real Time. I will adamantly say that such actions is no more realistic than turn-based. Let's use building a house as an example. With TBS, you can think and plan about what to build, where to build and how to build before actually doing it (like real life, eh?). But when you do commit the action, the house automatically appears. With RTS, you just click and watch it be built in seconds. Click again and watch another one be built in seconds. I don't buy the arguements that RTS is 'more realistic'. Both models are an abstraction where neither one is realistic.

Wow, real life tactics! As I was reading the above, I had two thoughts. First, anyone with Admin privileges on this UBB forum can easily check who is lurking. I'm wondering if this prick is still around? Second, you guys may know of other WW2-related forums and it would be cool to find Skorzeny in them and set up an infiltration to expose him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you are right, there are certainly a lot of issues that have not been discussed that are coming up now. And those are being discussed so that does not really pertain to this discussion, IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I even saw you say 'hadn't thought about that' in response to splitting squads to dig holes. BTW, whatever happened to our friend Skorzeny?

I am a regular in about 10 forums and this is always a topic that keeps popping up. I think all of the long-timers here should be encouraged by the volume in this forum and because of the alternative model that BTS is doing in marketing their game, this forum offers the best way to keep the products growing. As far as asking/answering questions, if you keep the questions polite and with a respectful tone (as Fionn stated awhile back), then good answers will come. You long-timers have to admit that the number of topics on this forum is overwhelming (more than any other forum I participate in). It is easier to ask a simple question and get a simple answer then to do a search where the question may have been asked differently. However if one wants to start a debate on a particular modeling feature, then it is probably best to search first. Let me add an ancedote. Many of you know how popular Civilization II is. Even though it has been out nearly five years now, in the Civ2-Strategy forum at Apolyton, we still get a number of newcomers asking about strategies and some have recently led to new techniques and strategies. I find it hard to believe that with the newness of CM, that every single strategy or technique has been talked about and written in stone. With the variations in the AI and as a larger number of gamers become experience with CM, 6 months from now I bet there will be some subtle revelations. Even with a FAQ, let's still not discourage people's interest in CM.

Basing the worst war movies of all time on using the wrong tanks or planes??? Come on, the worse movies must have bad script, bad acting, bad directing, etc. not just wrong technical props. My worse? Any of the Vietnam movies (A. Now, Platoon, Deer Hunter, etc.), except for Full Metal Jacket. [This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited 08-11-2000).]

Gettysburg

...from Harry Turtledove perhaps? Skorzeny was CIA, I believe.

Last year when someone emailed me the link to battlefront.com. I waited until the release before I got serious about it.

By its fundamental nature, a film footage (whether historical or re-creation) cannot be totally accurate. You are using only two of the five senses: sight and sound. And with the sight, you only can take in the view from the lens which is more limited in scope, clarity, color and depth of field than the human eye.

Arggggghhh...I hate plagarism. Since you (Skorz) have no respect for the intellectual properties of others (and for the disrespectful tone in your other thread), I am now your enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So maybe at 15000 units and they are making about 25 bucks a pop<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But that came after 2 years of work with no realized income except what they had from their previous endeavors.

I have done a fair share of programming (including game design and development) in the past 20 years. I can, from experience, say that adding two variables, whether it be int, short, long, etc. is not an easy thing since through the declaration, you are setting aside additional memory to handle them. Any changes to the existing code structures, whether it be a bug fix or an enhancement, will likely cause a cascading effect. Solving one problem or adding one function may spawn new problems which must be fixed, and so on. Displaying a typedef array which is made up of individual arrays (which a roster/oob list would be) and to make them referencable to active graphic elements, is a tricky (not to mention time/memory consuming) thing to do. Sure, it can be done but at what cost?

How about using the graphics engine for the battles of Hannibal? j/k

Thanks Fionn for taking the time, in this thread and the other one. I understand what you are saying about tactics and I used Hannibal as an extreme example. I'm a Civil War historian so WW2 shouldn't be too much of a stretch. I promise that I will put on my WW2 hat sometime and get into the game and ask questions in this forum. In the meantime, I'll keep reading this forum, as I have been doing everyday in the past 5 weeks. I know CM is a great quality game (that was why I bought it), I like reading about the different experiences (including your great AAR).

(Sorry Joe to hijack this thread) Fionn, let me use an analogy. Hypothetically, just assume you know very little about ancient warfare. If I were to give you a game about the battles of Hannibal, you would have a hard time picking it up and would become frustrated and quit. You would pick up the game mechanics (eg, putting the legions in different formations), but you would not have an idea of what effect they should have. Without the basic tactical understandings of troop movements, offensive/defensive weaponry, etc., a highly accurate simulated wargame (as oppose to an arcade-type game) would just be frustating to play. That's the way I feel about WW2, having not played a single WW2 game in my life (and having read little on its history). I am planning on using CM as a way of getting into this history, but I got to learn the fundamentals of WW2 tactics first (as well as the history of Overlord). If I use the game to do so, it would just render the experience as 'too gamey' for me. Just my reactions.

Fionn, that's what I mean. I have no idea what 'material stress' means or IS2 or PaK for that matter. Heck, I don't even know what a halftrack is. I just got to get the fundamentals down first (which all of you already had before playing CM).

Boy, in the 5 weeks I've had CM I have played 0 (zero) games. I'm just playing another game for a while and whenever I get around to learning about WW2 and understanding what the heck all of you guys are talking about, then maybe I'll play.

After reading that outstanding report, it goes to show that I have no idea about WW2 tactics. (here's hoping that BTS change their mind and make CM2 based on the ACW. just kidding.)

I find it hard to believe that anything would written in stone. As more people play (and replay) the scenarios, there could actually be new ways of looking at things or perhaps a new tactic or two. I can cite an example in the Civilization 2 forum where, even though the game has been played millions of times over the past 5 years, there are new strategies being discussed even now. I agree with the point that, in any intelligent game forums, newbies should come in being polite, respectful and get a feel for the nature of discussions before jumping in.

You mean my favorite movie of all time, Gettysburg, is not on DVD?!? I was planning on buying a DVD for Christmas just so I can watch Gettysburg. Guess it'll have to wait. And don't get me into a discussion about DVD. I don't watch movies very much and I just don't think the perceived differences in picture quality between VHS and DVD is worth the extra bucks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jadayne: P.S. look for Sid Meiers "GettysBurg" from Firaxis for a more entertaining look at how 18-19 century maneuvers work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely not! That title is no more of a wargame than chess. It is an abstracted strategy game not a wargame. To get a much better feel for troop maneuvers, gotta go with the ACW titles from Talonsoft. I know TS is much maligned here for the WW2 titles, but I think the ACW and Napolean titles from them are the best ever done for the PC.