BloodyBucket
-
Posts
986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BloodyBucket
-
-
Ah, as I guessed.
Looking forward to the inevitable movie sampling sound mods, "dirtied up" uniform mods and innumerable vehicle paint schemes that are sure to be just around the corner. Half the fun of CMBO was picking from all the excellent mods.
Of course with the new level of detail modders (alas, I have no skill in that area) will be dealing with a lot of new stuff...What flower mix in the fields was historically accurate? Should those Garands have lock bars on the year sights? What about historical water availability and the state of beard growth on your average GI?
Should be interesting.
-
Well, with a cane, that makes me a tripod.
-
I'm behind the learning curve on the CM developments that I don't have a clear idea of what's going to be moddable in CMBN.
Sound? Unit graphics? Interface graphics? Terrain graphics?
I'm guessing the data is fixed in place.
-
It may look ready, but it doesn't sound ready.
The video AARs are a mix of great sound effects and "hey, not that old .WAV?".
It'll be interesting to see what gets released!
-
Bipod doesn't set me off like it used to.
I'm so much closer to needing a cane than I was when CM launched, that I now have empathy for anything that provides extra steadiness and support.
-
It is true that maps weren't good or intel incomplete. But don't forget that the player is NOT playing as the CO HQ or something higher up, but dozens of roles at the same time. The decision making ability of any person is much more advanced than that of the CM AI game, so the advantage of knowing the terrain in detail is usually negated by AI limitations.
Are you saying the AI opponent knowing the terrain is negated because it's not as "smart" as a human? Or that the player is handicapped by his AI underlings?
Both are points worth considering, as well as the flip side of the coin. I think any WWII commander would be sorely tempted to choose a group of underlings as dumb as the AI, provided they were as predictable.
The list of things that CM doesn't simulate or abstracts is astounding. What's more astounding to me, at least in the older games, is how simulative and evocative it is given the limitations it has to labor under as a simulation, all while being addictive and fun. I'm sure things will only improve in CMBN.
I think of a game as a painting. Pigments on canvas aren't really what they portray, but they can capture the essence pretty damn well, I'm sure creating both is more art than science, and you're not going to make everybody happy with a single style of painting or approach to a war game.
-
Let me start out by saying I'm unconvinced that a "realistic" representation of WWII tactical C3 and forcing the player to rely on the chain of command would result in an enjoyable game or eliminate gamey tactics at all.
I'm going to defend the OP against some of the modern military types who are suggesting that an almost complete lack of terrain knowledge and intel on enemy forces was unlikely in WWII. We live in a world of instant communication, where GPS and satellite imagery are taken for granted, and most developed countries would view the casualties from a battle like Tarawa as a national catastrophe.
WWII was fought on a titanic scale where a lot of the leadership were "90 day wonders", radios were lacking or dodgy and the idea using lives to lubricate the gears of the big machine wasn't as repulsive as it is now.
As was posted earlier...
"So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:
- doesn't have a map;
- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;
- hasn't spoken to any of the locals;
- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and
- hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself."
I'd say that a lot of the time most of the above was true for a company commander. His map probably lacked details, he rarely if ever saw any aerial recon photos, the locals were either not forthcoming, untrusted, absent, limited by language problems or could give information that was of questionable value anyway.
The info he got from patrols was limited to what the patrols could see and hear, and was subject to human error and basic fear, and personal recon even with binoculars gives only so much information depending on the terrain and the presence of the enemy.
My father, a WWII infantry vet, told me that they got a Division intel officer to come check out reports that were being made of German activity in his sector. The guy showed up clean and shined with a tie. When he said doubtfully that he heard and saw nothing at the Company HQ, he was told that patrols were making these observations, and he should accompany one.
This involved a night time river crossing in a small boat, since daylight crossings were too dangerous. When they got to the opposite shore and went a few yards into the woods he told the patrol he'd seen enough, and didn't listen when the men of the patrol (he outranked them all) insisted that the German positions were still some ways off. When he got back to Division he reported that the men in that sector were jumpy and probably overestimating German activity. This was the 28th Division in the Ardennes in early December of 1944.
I don't think every staff officer was incompetent or more concerned about his own skin than acquiring information, but I do think this sort of stuff was fairly common. The vast draftee armies of the time were quickly raised and trained, and would probably seem somewhat strange to the highly trained, high tech volunteer soldiers of today.
-
I think saying the Sherman wasn't feared by German troops is perplexing. It's relatively easy to proclaim them laughable compared to the Panther or what have you from the safe distance of more than half a century and the comfort of your home, but I'm sure the troops who were on the receiving end of the things were plenty scared.
The GIs complained about the "unstoppable" German tanks, and I'm sure the Germans were equally bitter about the endless supply of Shermans they had to contend with.
-
Let's not have this thread devolve into a ping challenge.
-
One more decade than you then Mr Bucket. ;-)
It's not the years, it's the mile...oh Hell, it's the years.
-
...
A mere one little thing that bothered me, game-wise (you know I can't help it): the fire mission audio. I'm assuming it's straight from CMSF?
No worries, I'm sure there will be a mod pretty immediately. (actually, can the audio be modded by the community, as it was in earlier games?)...
Actually, what's moddable? Sound? Unit graphics? Terrain graphics?
-
Here here....I can see it being a possible problem and many topics from CMSF being rehashed...
If it's new to a new group of players, why not rehash it? It's a different game and hopefully will attract new blood, as well as re-attract some who've been away from the series.
Fetchez la Vache, you're only a couple decades away from being an actual old fart. It's a sound idea to practice.
-
Much more "on the ground" detail and infantry action. Excellent!
-
looks like tyrspawn got annoyed with the negative waves and has decided not to post any more vids :-(
The new one is up now.
-
....
Amazed that so many are still playing CM1. I loved that series, but I hit the wall in 2004. CMSF was very good, but just didn't hit the same gut resonance somehow.
I know what you mean. I started fooling around with CMBO for the first time in quite awhile when I heard CMBN was in the offing.
As dated as it obviously is at this point, I'm reminded of just how stunning it was to see a game that took the best elements of tactical board war games, threw in a dash of plastic army guys, and mixed it with a healthy dose gear-head geeky goodness.
It was like some guy reached in my brain and pulled out the computer game that I'd always wished for. It's always going to be hard to top that initial wow factor.
The modern themed stuff just doesn't float my boat the same way.
-
That's more than good enough for me.
I've also read there's no hand to hand combat modeled. Once again, pretty rare, but that's the way my usual opponent got even with me for using flamethrowers on him.
I'm sure that there will be more than enough stuff to focus on once the game is in hand, but lacking that, my frame of reference is naturally based on CMBO....a different beast entirely, I'm sure.
That's one of the problem with making the game more detailed, I suppose. Stuff that could slide by in CMBO would stick out in CMBN, if you get my meaning.
-
I was just responding to a post above...
But as to my view on sub forums, I'm all for it. Makes things easier to find, and less chaotic.
-
Yeah, I know they were pretty rarely used in the time and area covered by this game, but perhaps as the game expands they'll make an appearance.
I freely admit I'm interested more in the gratification of using them on my usual opponent rather than because they appeared often in historical T/Es. ;-)
-
Is asking about features and weapons that were in CMBO but not in CMBN considered trolling?
-
I'll miss the flamethrowers that were a feature of CMBO. I'm assuming that more vehicles and nationalities will be added in the expansions. Any chance that the flamethrowers will return?
My usual opponent really dislikes them, so I'd love to see them make an appearance.
-
There was a video of how American smallarms performed, posted here a few weeks ago. It was propaganda, but no one claimed the terminal effects were faked. Garand ammo was apparently entirely capable of going right through a brick wall, and with "armour piercing" ammunition (though how common that actually was, on issue to line troops, I couldn't even begin to comment) seemed to be able to chew holes in concrete.
It was pretty common. My father told me they'd load up on AP for the Garands and BARs because of the ability it had to change cover to concealment. He was an infantryman with the 28th from shortly after D-Day till he became a guest of the German army outside of Wiltz.
-
What's most gratifying to me is seeing the scenarios play out like little stories. That's what made CMBO such an addicting game.
I think the nit-picking about grenades and bailed crews, besides being what gamers do by nature, is result of the great storytelling ability of the game. The downside to the huge leaps the graphics have made since CMBO may be a foray into the "uncanny valley". CMBO was kind of a cartoon of those tactical board games I loved come to life. Little things could be fudged and it wasn't so jarring.
This looks to be so close to an actual film that any little deviations from what each gamer perceives as realistic is going to be pounced on, because when things get that close to looking real that's what the mind does.
What a great time to be a gamer!
-
For me, it's mostly about the setting. The WWII Western front setting is the base motivator, it was my father's war. I own CMBB and CMAK, but barely played them.
As to the modern stuff, no thanks. I don't know if it's lack of interest or if it's just too close to home, but there's just no appeal there. I'm glad the modern themed games kept the ball going forward, but that's about where my interest ends.
I don't know about any old timers vs. newbs vs. deserters stuff. I'd hope that BF slaps us all with the label of "customers" and treats us accordingly.
-
Yeah, and if somebody told me to go take out a tank with a frag grenade, I'd be looking to get out of there, too!
I agree that a WWII tank with no infantry support would be a big fat target for enterprising infantrymen, although a dangerous one. I'd also think that given the typical inventory of weapons available, a tossed fragmentation grenade would have been pretty low on the list of things to use. I remember my father talking about "pole charges", basically a bundle of explosives on a big long stick, the idea being that the business end could be thrust on or under a tank. The also made Molatov cocktails and made what we'd call IEDs out of other munitions. While I don't expect giant exploding spears and flaming wine bottles to be modeled in the game, I'm good with having such things abstracted as a short range infantry AT attack.
Easter Egg Request
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Maggots? I'll stick to peepshows.
Release date whining is like the rustling of the wind. It's just there.