JunoReactor

A Stuka or two might have come in handy. Wonder why the ubiquitous Luftwaffe never made an appearance.

I am in total support of the idea. Even though the question has arisen intermittently over the years, so has the game kept evolving. I do not pretend to know the arguments arguing for the game's 'scope' but I can safely say this: I think any of the two installments in the CM series so far could have been, and further games will be, better games with the addition of a so-called campaign. The choice is ultimately the artist's. The moment it becomes the market's, CM will already have begun its decline. [ April 15, 2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: JunoReactor ]

I destroyed a CD drive in the same manner as well. In an intense FIFA match with a friend, all of a sudden a loud BANG and the game froze up. Little silvery bits and pieces could be seen floating in midair afterwards. Nasty.

It could be because the sound engine mixes only so many sources, and in the carnage you describe there seems a lot of them were used up for various guns.

I dont quite get this. What's gamey about it beyond the extent that CM is already a game? We are discussing about an interface, which already reduces CM to gamey bits, and those you have to learn, bit by bit, to get what you want during the next turn. If the question is as trivial as 'will I be able to see beyond the ridgeline if I move there' then there is nothing gamey about testing it out. Trouble is, CM is a game. There is no easy way to seperate what is gamey and what is not, and there are bigger problems still when one tries to pinpoint the source of 'gaminess' as to whether it lies in the interface, the data, limitations of the TacAI, or basic issues arising from the structure of the game. One could say that making the interface more powerful will make the game that much more exploitable, but it would then become clearer where the problem lies, and 'gamey' symptoms could be eliminated during testing of the upcoming game.

It has nothing to do with realism. Sure, real commanders dont get to 'test' out their orders, but then again, real tank crews are a bit smarter than the TacAI. The core simulation aspect of the game lies in the accuracy of its data and the complexity of the engine using that data, not in its interface. Furthermore, I see it would be useful precisely because there is a random element that goes in during the resolution phase. The player would know, if everything goes according to plan, where his units would end up and a 'likely' resolution to the upcoming engagements in the next 60 seconds, but thats it.

The "we-go" turn based system employed by Laser Squad Nemesis allows players to 'test' orders before sending the turn in. It's a nifty feature where a lot of the troubles associated with the relative ambiguity of the LOS system (especially when tank turrets and ridgelines are concerned) and movement orders such as shoot and scoot would be resolved in a CM context. What is does is that it 'acts out' player's orders while keeping the enemy completely static, allowing one to plot into the next turn with almost complete technical foresight.

Another way would be to get them browse this forum once in a while. Some of the discussions here reveal so much of the detail that is otherwise hidden in the game that it is hard not to get excited over the promise of experiencing the 'real thing'. Especially when the alternative is choosing the Romans and start in South America, and find out that there is no way to get historial start locations. Silliest design decision I've seen in decades, that one, especially when one considers it has been around in Civ 1.

WWII is a major historical real landscape everyone build their houses on. A close friend of mine once had an Italian-American landlord. He was still very attached to Italy, with Italian still spoken in the house. During my stay there, he came over and jokingly taunted a Turkish football team which had recently played against the Italian team he supported. My friend's counter-taunt, worthy of a place in any peng thread, sparked an extended discussion about the two countries, and eventually led to WWII, at which point the landlord declared that Turkey had fought and lost against Italians in the second world war, and became communist afterwards. I think his fantasy was a mixture of the fates of Poland and Greece, but his was nevertheless an historical 'consciousness' about a very significant event and its consequences. Your cottager neighbor is doing the same thing. For him, WWII is the war in which USA emerged the leader of the world, where she fought her greatest battle and won her greatest victory and not much else. It might be interesting to hear how he will react to the information presented. Keep us posted.

Valael, dont let him scare you. He's a bit wierd in the head, happens to everyone after they stay in the forum for a couple of years. Me? I'm a lurker - I keep at a distance, just enough to keep my sanity. The game can be as deep as you want it to be. There is a lot that happens under the hood, but you dont need to know what's boiling there to start playing the game and enjoying it. The game teases you. It allows to learn from your mistakes and steadily improve your tactics. And the forum always provides a fresh supply of material to be read, and each time you discover something new about the game here, you go back and try it and do not emerge for hours. Of course, there are wonders of nature like our esteemed Tom W. who grew up reading rulebooks and learning details like just what it is that seperates a StuG IIIg (early) from its (late) variant that frequent this forum, but treat them as part of the scenery, and you'll enjoy yourself. As already mentioned, the average scenario in the full game is far better than the one provided in the demo. You cant really lose. Unless you wander into the Peng Thread, that is. (edited just because) [ December 20, 2002, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: JunoReactor ]

At least he can tell "Erwin" from "Rommel".

Seanachai, Wow. Calm down, calm down. The peng thread doesn't have a monopoly on non-serious posting on this board. It is true that the number of less informed posts (and posters) have increased since the release of CMBB, but as I said before in another such thread, newcomers are either assimilated or expatriated - in this respect this forum has fewer democratic prejudices than other forums, and it generally serves to keep a high quality across the board. This is one of the reasons why I keep coming back to browse regularly, even if I generally keep quiet. (I learned my lesson on that long ago. I even posted in one of the peng threads.) But I think you should give newcomers a bit more time to adjust - otherwise potentially valuable contributors might be lost, and tensions may needlessly rise, as on this occasion. Please excuse the moralizing tone. I could have worded this a bit less dryly, but it's getting late and I am in a rush to get that paper I'm working on done, and in any case my argument would have been the same.

Yeah, one of the few games I've actually enjoyed this year.

That does sound like fun. Heck, did 1.02 manage all this difference, or do you think you're having a very exceptional game?

I. About the subject of the thread. I agree with the original poster here. CM series can benefit from having a superstructure which connects operations. Call it a "dynamic campaign system" if you will, but what I really wouldn't mind seeing is some role playing elements that would give me the impression of a war going on around me. The scale need not be huge - small operations can be represented this way. Attempt to relieve Stalingrad pocket, or a pincer of Citadel make good examples. The basic idea is to have a strategic map (representing say, 25x25 kms) with a campaign AI generating a string of QBs against itself on premade maps, and allowing the player to choose from a list of available missions as often as he chooses to participate. With historical TOEs and some AI scripting, this can be a quite exciting and historically plausible roleplaying experience. If kept simple, this would enchance rather than distract the "meat" of CM experience. Might be worthwhile to consider for CMII. II. About AI. One thing I really enjoy about CM's AI is that it is unpredictable as AIs go. Some of it is undoubtedly due to game's complexity (the poor thing has to go through lots of variables before it does anything, more the merrier) and some due to relative scarcity of information about what's going on in the game (FOW-induced) compared to most other games. Besides, I am an optimist. When I see enemy armor exposing its broadside to me when it is clearly suicidal for it to do so, I always think the AI does it for a good reason of its own. So I take my chance all the more eagerly.

Uh oh.

Ahh, fellow EU player..

Can walls be damaged?

I think the full weight of your question will get across much better if you expand on and clarify this statement.

Snipe, here is something to get you started. Good luck!

...and you're a student in UK???

Actually, I think they rather enjoy reading most of them. Used to, anyway. Things were pretty calm before the release of CMBB, and by the next patch comes out or so, I expect that the troublemakers be either assimilated or expatriated and things return once more to their former serene self. edit: err, silly grammar mistake... english as a second language, you see. [ December 08, 2002, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: JunoReactor ]

This topic doesnt have much life left anyway, so I'll just chip in my feelings about MW2 as well: Yes! My fellow comrades! MW2 was excellent. I still remember playing it after hooking up my new stereo to the PC and turning up the bass a little - each step would shake the room. You really cant get a more immersive experience than that. Someone mentioned graphics being non-textured: back in those days, even though texture mapping was in every "hot" game, there was something much more beautiful in the non-texture mapped, light shaded, smooth polygons that left a lot more to player's imagination than the "photo realistic" look of texture-mapped games. There is something off-putting about graphics that claim to be realistic, but carry constant reminders that what you're looking at is only a computer game.

I dont think it would happen. BTS have caught the attention of a market niche in games industry, and it seems they are happy with the sales figures - time and quality of work invensted in CMBB since CMBO argues for this case. Since they are happy with what they are recieving, and obviously enjoying what they are giving, there is no reason why good folks at BTS would bother with such a move, even if it promised more money. (Say an offer by Microsoft to incorporate BTS for five million dollars.)