Samhain

Try using the Taoist approach to scouting: don't a) worry that they'll get wasted (can't win if you're afraid to lose) or rush to reinforce defeat once they're spotted if you like to keep them close to your main force(s) and have that option. Instead, once the scouts run into resistance, flow where the enemy isn't. Of course with the fog of war, it can be hard to say whether your scouts have run head on into a world of hurt, or just a split-squad scout from the other side. Some relevant thoughts from Sun Tzu: When you are going to attack nearby, make it look as if you are going to go a long way; when you are going to attack far away, make it look as if you are just going a short distance. Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion. When they are fulfilled, be prepared against them; when they are strong avoid them. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-01-2000).]

Definitely. I always leave my light armor in hiding/behind good cover until the heavy armor and big guns of the enemy are out of commission, if possible. After that it's a matter of watching out for zook fire and point-blank infantry hits, but I always support my armor with troops and vice versa when possible, so that's not a problem usually. Combined arms win the day. One thing that helps preserve light AFV's is thinking of them a bit like fast, motorized HMG or mortar squads (with obvious differences such as transport capacity, of course). HT's, armored cars, etc. are as good as tin cans under a lot of situations and are as good as cardboard against tanks, TD's, AG's, AT guns, etc. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-01-2000).]

Hi all, I'd like to contribute to the CM community. If you have a quality CM site that could use some professional writing/editing, I'd be happy to volunteer. I can also read German fairly well, which could be useful. Just email me at samhainamerika@yahoo.com with your URL so we can talk. Btw, speaking of the CM community, I was just installing more mods and wanted to thank all you modders for the outstanding work. Thanks, Fernando Buil for the awesome new Panthers. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

Manta Ray, I played the demo of the original SWAT3, and I'd have to agree with its excellence based on that, at least. In fact, I think it surpasses the Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear series in many ways. One of the most interesting things about the game is that it encourages real law enforcement doctrine: the object is not to rush in with guns blazing to kill everyone in sight. A nice change from less realistic FPS's. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

In a QB yesterday, I took out an American armored car and HT with a Wirbelwind (forget which ones specifically), so it will handle light armor threats too. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

M Hofbauer wrote: sorry but if these people are intellectually challenged to a degree where they rate software merely on the eyecandy criteria they don't deserve CM and should stick to their flashandbang / FPS crap IMHO. I don't think he said that they rated it solely on eye candy, but rather that they were turned off by the graphics. Two different things. I know I find the stock graphics mediocre, but I still respect and enjoy the game for its superior design elements and intellectual challenge. Also, as I noted before, graphics enhance, sometimes enormously, a great many gaming experiences. There's a very good reason gamers are interested in them, not to mention that people seem to inherently like visually arresting scenes or objects, in life or on the computer monitor. FPS's aren't inherently "crap" any more than any other genre. To play them well can require skills, albeit different ones, on par with those needed to succeed in a wargame. A good one also requires a tremendous amount of labor to make and very thoughtful design to rise above its peers. The designers of HL, for instance, used some really clever design tactics to create a very powerful gaming experience that not coincidentally has attracted countless gamers. Terence wrote: No one who has seen Unreal would consider the graphics high end, but a more serious gamer wonders about the AI and the realism, along with issues such as what real world conditions are modeled in the game. Despite the core Unreal engine's age, its visuals are still considered to be quite good among most gamers and critics I know or have read. Serious gamers wonder about many issues, including graphics, sound, story, characters, voiceovers, music, AI, etc. And if the issue is primarily one of modeling real world conditions, then it's safe to say that CM could use a lot of work in that department, since it's extremely far from creating the visual and aural impressions of actually being on a battlefield (which is probably a good thing--what gamer once post-traumatic stress disorder?). Much of our experience centers on sensory impressions and emotions at least as much as "pure" intellection, if such a thing exists. Why should a game depicting historical combat shy away from the graphics needed to help recreate that? I'm not implying that's what you were implying but it seems worth asking. Since CM uses a 3D environment where soldiers and vehicles are depicted in a way to mirror reality, the game is in part a sim, not just an abstract strategy game. Almost any sim benefits from exceptional graphics for the reasons above and in a previous post of mine. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-31-2000).]

Interestingly, most of the big OEM's like Gateway and Dell are now selling entry systems with PIII 800's or so, it looks like. Actually, from the mod I'm working on (for another game), I got a good idea of what serious gamers' systems are like from all the hundreds of beta testing apps I sifted through. Many people have some really dated systems, and I'm sure the publishers are well aware of that. As for the V3, it's certainly a fast card for the price, and it's gride for Glide-optimized games like Tribes or those using the Unreal engine (UT, Deus Ex, Rune, etc.). But, it's left in the dust by the recent generation of cards and lacks 32-bit rendering capability, unlike, say, the TNT2 Ultra, which is probably a better choice in that price range, afaik. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

This is probably old news, but just in case: I've found that in town/village defenses, the German Wirbelwind is stunningly effective. It's quite a bargain, given its rof, ammo count, blast rating, armor, and speed. Assuming you've taken care of the enemy's heavy armor and at guns, just maneuver the Wirbelwind around to hot spots in your defensive line, keeping it between buildings to avoid flanking shots and far enough back to avoid zook/piat fire if possible. It does an absolutely awesome job at stopping massed infantry advances dead in their tracks. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

np. Here's what the readme for the 1.05 patch says: * Buildings and bridges are labeled with "damage" or "heavy damage" when they've taken over 50% damage and the "Warning Labels" option is on. Additionally, they're listed with a '*' attached, like "light building*", or a '**' for heavy damage. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

I certainly doubt that those wanting depth and realism are the minority around here Remember that graphics can add to the gameplay, depth, and realism. Ideally, they're not simply an afterthought or sop to the marketing department. Look at a flight or racing sim: more realistic graphics very much enhance the sensation of actually soaring through the clouds or rocketing down the track. The more realistic a FPS or adventure game looks, the more you really feel like you're "in" the world being portrayed, increasing your emotional involvement. A combat simulation--and CM is arguably as much a sim as a strategy game--can surely benefit from cutting edge graphics. Clearly graphics alone don't consitute or improve gameplay or make a richer gaming experience, but they can be a vital component in gameplay's betterment. CM could certainly be improved visually in many ways--although with the many great mods it looks quite nice--making it an even better game than it is. The issue doesn't need to be dichotomized into graphics vs. gameplay or realism, as they're both intertwined and not mutually exclusive. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

But then again, the point is to win, regardless of the type of battle Do what works, regardless of what the scenario/QB type is. I don't at all mean to sound flippant; I think it's a valid point. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

The amount of damage the building has sustained. I think it's in the patch readme. Two asterisks mean the building is about to collapse/explode. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

The funny thing is, Steel Beasts only runs in 640 x 480 software mode, but the graphics effects are much better than that statement would lead you to believe. They really made the most out of it. The absolutely superb sound really adds a lot to immersion, helping compensate for good, but far from exceptional graphics. *** I've had the same problem showing CM to other (hardcore) gamers. They get to the site and see that first little pic and immediately find it a bit hard to take the game seriously. Too bad for them, but let's face it, graphics are used not just to make a game better (ideally), but also to help sell it. And in this industry/hobby, graphics always have been a major criterion for judging games--even back in the early 80's my friends and I would get enthused about the "awesome" graphics on the Colecovision compared to the Atari 2600 Electronic games are largely a visual medium, after all. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

I follow the hardware (esp. vid card) market fairly closely and have a very good idea what today's games' average specs are, so I have to agree with Jeff Heidman: a 32MB card is rather old news and hardly cutting edge. A Pentium III 600 is often considered an entry-level processor now. The sad and also exciting fact is that computer hardware is always progressing at a staggering rate. Games both take advantage of this and help drive it, as Slapdragon mentioned. Like it or not, if you really like computer games in general, regular system upgrades are necessary to fully enjoy what they have to offer. It's simply a very expensive hobby. (Any surprise that so many people buy $150 Dreamcasts that can be up and running in two minutes and require no tweaking or upgrading, yet have graphics as good as many comps? Rather different games of course, but that's another issue.) As I pointed out earlier, most games have scalable graphics settings. There's no reason CM 2 can't employ the same options. Now whether or not BTS has the time or money to create stellar graphics, I don't know. If they do, I hope they take advantage of what today's machines are capable of. I think it's safe to assume that if they did, they wouldn't do it in a way to shut out gamers with low-end rigs or harm the historical accuracy and depth of play. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-31-2000).]

That would be the same sort of sad snobbism (how's that for gratuitous alliteration? )you see in other genres, or among diehard computers gamers vs. diehard console gamers. It would also, in this case, probably be a brand of snobbism that could hurt the CM series in the long run. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

Someone may have said the graphics in CM "suck" but it sure wasn't me. They're pretty good, imo, but they could certainly be improved in a number of ways. And if the game crawls, that could have as much to do with optimization as it does poly counts As for the poly counts, see my earlier posts in this thread. I don't think CM's graphics need only be compared to those of other wargames. After all, CM isn't just any wargame; rather, it's something quite different and special in many ways. It's set a staggeringly high new standard for strategy games, and it can surely bear being held to a very high standard. Why ghetto-ize it? ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

DeanCo, perhaps the question should be, do you want to cater to them or pander to them? Acknowledging that many non-wargamers (whatever that means ) have bought and are enthused about CM is only wise, given the slim chances of a computerized wargame succeeding commercially in the first place. Why not pay attention to their desires? That certainly doesn't inherently mean BTS would have to sacrifice quality. It's not, I'd hope, a simple dichotomy of nice graphics and intuitive interface vs. careful historical research. As you say, these elements have come together synergistically to create an instant classic. For me, a major criterion of any game's success is its ability to immerse me in its world, and the more the CM series can do that through spectactular sound and graphics, while remaining a rich intellectual challenge, the better. Regarding that earlier quote about the hovertanks crowd, I'd say that a) there are games in other genres that are just as good as CM is in its genre (i.e., at the pinnacle) gamers with an interest in other genres can be just as fanatical and dedicated about their games and deserve more respect, and c) gameplay and graphics can't generally be so easily separated. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

I think the point is that the V3 is now quite dated technology, though of course it might fit someone's needs quite well. (I used to have one myself, btw--a nice card.) If you have a powerful processor and play graphics-intensive games (i.e., the great majority of titles), it may be wiser to invest in a GeForce2, V5, or ATI Radeon. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

Deanco wrote: "Question 2 I guess would be if BTS is interested in selling to this expanded "gamey" market. Maybe they're not, in which case there is no real reason to improve the graphics, since there are those who would buy it if it was hexes and counters." It wouldn't still be CM if it were hex based or used a 2D overhead view with counter-like units. Also, if CM had a 3D environment that replaced the current buildings with wireframes and the soldiers with literal stick figures, I know I would get much less enjoyment out of the game. I'm sure many others here would agree. The game, after all, is as much about recreating a bit of WWII's feel as it is about the mathematical interactions of numbers derived from historical research. There may be those here who would buy the game if it were totally devoid of decent visuals, but many serious gamers, like myself, find that visuals enhance the gaming experience, regardless of genre (though they do it in different ways). Just to restate and expound on my position clearly: I don't in any way propose that BTS replace detail, subtlety, and complexity with pointless eye candy. What I'd like are the former supplemented by beautiful, cutting-edge graphics that enhance the immersion in the experience. (Minus the bloody gore of real war, thanks!) ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

Different tank, but you may find this interesting: the Tiger had an automatic fire-supression system in the engine compartment, with capacity for five seven-second supression cycles. It was triggered by thermostats near the carburetor and fuel pumps. Source: Ford, Roger. The Tiger Tank. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks Intl., 1998. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

The last point is true of gamers in general and is an inherent and nasty part of computer gaming (i.e., the dreaded upgrade cycle). But also, CM clearly appeals to many who wouldn't normally classify themselves as wargamers, myself included (though I think CM is one of the very best electronic games of the hundreds I've played over the last couple decades). BTS's audience is clearly wider than just hardcore grogs, though I don't think any of us expect the company to sacrifice its vision for mass appeal If mass appeal arises, it will be because of the vision, if there's any justice in this world. Anyway, most games are scalable (resolution, texture depth, detail settings, lighting, etc.). The same could be implemented for CM2. That would let people with high-end systems benefit while not shutting out those with low-end rigs. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

I would very much like to see grahics improvements across the board, so that CM2 will be visually competitive with other 3D titles and take full advantage of the latest graphics cards. The 3D graphics of CM are a major part of the appeal--although hardly the only one of course--and they can't be separated from the gameplay and entire CM experience. Clearly most gamers find graphics important (it's been hard to "sell" CM to my many gaming friends who are used to more cutting edge graphics--their loss!), and many CM players enjoy adding hi-res replacement mods, which says something. Chupacabra, I think the point was that CM simply doesn't look as "advanced" as other 3D games, regardless of poly counts. Given its lighting, textures, etc., it's hard to argue otherwise in comparison to games like UT, Q3, SBK 2001, Ground Control, and many, many others. I don't mean to slight BTS in any way, as I deeply respect CM, but the graphics could certainly be improved for CM2. As for poly counts, with scaling level of detail there are techniques to render numerous units on the screen at once: poly counts are reduced as units move away in the distance and/or as more units are present on screen. You can designate a target frame rate and let the engine dynamically scale polys based on that variable. Anyway, I'd like to see dynamic lighting from tracer and heavy gun fire, deformable terrain, much higher poly counts on the soldiers, higher resolution 32-bit textures, bump mapping, you name it. I love CM for its wonderful depth, replayability, the hybrid turn system, etc., but the graphics are certainly part of the appeal. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

I saw the GameSpot review, actually, but thanks for the warning. I'll check some others. I was looking forward to the game, given the interesting changes they made to the already excellent UT engine, not to mention the Viking subject matter. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

SWAT 3: Elite Edition No One Lives Forever Tribes 2 Combat Flight Simulator 2 Baldur's Gate 2 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (for DC) Shenmue (for DC) maybe Rune too many to remember Btw, Steel Beasts really is good, but be warned that it's a very realistic (and therefore pretty difficult) hardcore sim. Superbike 2001 is one of the very best racing games out atm. Highly recommended. Jochen, Grüße aus Amerika! ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones

Check out the tactics page at Games of War. There's an excellent primer on infantry movement, formations, cover, defense etc. ------------------ I rode a tank, held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank. --Rolling Stones