Gremlin

I can Check out p. 217 of the (US version) CMBB manual for changes made to artillery use. CMBB features pre-planned strikes you can launch on turn 1, new rules about targeting out of LOS, and so forth. That said, I think most of the basic ideas will still apply.

Magnum MMG, Feel free to copy and paste them. Please leave the parenthetical intros and copyright notices intact (I'm a professional writer, so I like to protect my stuff--I've been plagiarized before ). The articles were written for CMBO, but I hope your friends might still find them useful for either CM game. I was hoping to help newbies into the CM fold with those articles. The more of us, the merrier! For the time being, I'll have to pass on the kind offer to post pics for the articles since I don't have the original screens anymore and would have to make new ones but don't have the time atm. Maybe some day, though. Thanks either way. [ January 05, 2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

Bumped for newbies. I hope you find it useful.

Bumped for newbies who haven't seen it and might find it interesting.

Since this forum seems to be getting more attention of late, I thought I'd bump this old article for new players who might benefit from it.

Bumped for newer players who might benefit from this old article.

From When Titans Clashed by Glantz and House: "Total Wehrmacht losses to 30 April 1945 amounted to 11,135,500, including 6,035,000 wounded. Of these, almost 9,000,000 fell in the East. German armed forces' losses to war's end numbered 13,488,000 men (75 percent of the mobilized forces and 46 percent of the 1939 male population of Germany.) Of these, 10,758,000 fell or were taken prisonere in the East." p. 284

Try the Internet Acronyms Dictionary.

Fwiw, if you ever want a highly detailed and richly illustrated reference on the beloved StuG check out Walter J. Spielberger's Sturmgeschütz & Its Variants (The Spielberger German Armor & Military Vehicles Series, Vol. II, Schiffer Publishing, 1993--also still available in the original German-language edition, iirc).

Here's the link: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000812 It's usually on the first page of this Tips and Tricks forum. When it's not, please bump it up

To quote what I wrote today in another thread: "....to my knowledge, as an industry veteran [i.e., professional gaming journalist], the major gaming sites and magazines all have editors and/or freelancers such as myself who are grogs, military buffs, wargamers and/or CM fans. (For example, I've written at least five professional articles about CMBO and CMBB, and more for fan sites like Manx's old Combat Missions.)" That is, all the big pro sites and magazines I know of, or have written for, have editors and use writers who specialize in a wide variety of genres across the different platforms. They sure as heck don't just have a couple guys sitting around playing Red Alert all day and nothing else If that were the case, they'd go out of business in a heartbeat because their gaming coverage would suck, no one would read them, and the advertisers (i.e., the main revenue source) would therefore take their money elsewhere. For that matter, I can't think of anyone who seriously thinks CS is the most realistic game ever (there's very little realistic about it, though it can be great fun) or who only plays RTS games

I can't speak for GameSpot since I don't work directly for them, nor can I speak for Tom Chick, but I can speak as a professional freelance gaming journalist who's written dozens and dozens of articles for GameSpot. What you say is totally, demonstrably innacurate. GameSpot consistently provides some of the most in-depth and unbiased gaming coverage out there. (I say that as someone who was a fan of the site before I ever even wrote for them.) They cover all game genres on all platforms, not just bloody PC action games built around the Q3 engine, though they of course do cover those, too I don't have the pleasure of knowing Tom, but I know he's a veteran gaming journalist and a damn good one at that. Not at all: to my knowledge, as an industry veteran, the major gaming sites and magazines all have editors and/or freelancers such as myself who are grogs, military buffs, wargamers and/or CM fans. (For example, I've written at least five professional articles about CMBO and CMBB, and more for fan sites like Manx's old Combat Missions.) Anyway, a great review from Tom Chick of a superb game [ October 30, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

The original post that inspired my link to that data was specifically discussing computer games. Here's a list of the top-selling PC games of 2001, according to NPD (I haven't checked their method of stat gathering): http://www.gamers.com/news/1083373 bottom of the page I can't comment on Harry Potter since I haven't played it, but you could make good arguments that there's depth in all the other PC games listed there--yes, even in Diablo II. It may not be the same type or level of depth you find in CM, but as another poster has pointed out in this thread, depth is created and enjoyed in multiple ways. Most of those games listed are thought-provoking and/or require you to make tactical/strategic decisions as you play. And as for the console games listed, GTA3, Madden, the Tony Hawk games, and certainly Gran Turismo 3 all have some depth to them. They're hardly just mindless button mashing. Fwiw, I saw someone playing one of those Pokemon GBC games, and while it looked pretty lame to me, it looked like there was actually some strategy and thinking involved.

It's funny that some people assume gamers generally only like one genre or level of depth in games. Lots of people, myself included, are as likely to play something like CM as something like Serious Sam or Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Most every gamer I know--and I know lots--enjoy all sorts of games, on multiple platforms. It's not an exclusive either/or proposition. I imagine there are some people who only listen to Schoenberg while superciliously deriding the rabble who like the Ramones, or who only drink a fine Darjeeling whilst reading Pope, but I think most people have somewhat broader tastes--I hope!

Unfortunately, that's been my repeated experience, too, over the couple years I've read and participated in these forums and the CM community. There are a couple bad apples in particular (obviously, I'm not going to name names--they're well enough known by forum regulars) who might seemingly be tainting the whole bunch by association. On the other hand, despite some patronizing, elitist, and irascible posters who love to knock others to boost their own ego, this forum has generally been one of the most mature and polite gaming forums I've encountered, all told. The atmosphere around here is vastly more tolerant and intelligent than most gaming forums I've seen, where the level of discourse rarely rises above the level of Beavis and Butthead (minus the vaguely hip irony). [ October 29, 2002, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

Here's an abbreviated answer to my own question. According to the IDSA, via NPD TechWorld tracking, the top-selling computer game genre of 2002 by a substantial margin was strategy games (25.4% of units sold, with the number-two genre being children's games, at 14.2%). Source: http://www.idsa.com/IDSABooklet.pdf (And of course not only strategy games offer depth. There are RPG's, shooter, racing games, sports games, and so forth that are quite deep by any reasonable, fair standard.)

Could you please back that with hard data? I.e., specific titles and sales data? Thanks.

I can see how you might take it that way, but the intent was to encourage people to openly reflect on the importance of graphics in the game to their experience of it. It was to raise the question: where do you draw the line between butt-ugly and practically unplayable, purely functional, and downright attractive. It becomes too easy for some to overreact and vilify graphics as some sop to the "twitch crowd," as if the evolution of the CM series hinged on a strict, exclusive decision between great graphics or great gameplay. I'm convinced that the 3D terrain and units are an integral, vital part of the CM gameplay system and that the better they look, the more enjoyable the game can be, both on an esthetic and emotional level and quite possibly in terms of gameplay mechanics (perhaps the lights from fires or muzzle flashes in conjunction with spotting at night, for example). [ October 28, 2002, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

Here's another thought--and it didn't even hurt! When you discuss the importance of graphics in CM, ask yourself if you'd honestly be as likely to play the game if it were in black & white, the tanks were untextured wireframes, and the troops were literally stick figures. Ask yourself if you'd be more likely to play the game if it had a cutting edge graphic engine that took full advantage of today's hardware. Which would catch and hold your attention more readily? Which would you be more willing to buy? Which would be more fun and why? Also, ask yourself if you've ever downloaded a graphics mod, and why. For that matter, ask yourself how much fun the game would be with old Atari bleeps and bloops instead of recorded voices and guns. As much as CM appeals because of the way it seemingly brings history to life--the game often seems as much like a joint historical research project as an entertainment--and the way it lets you test sophisticated tactics based on real-world combat, part of its appeal is simply getting to play army men as an adult, to watch your Panther crest a hill, to see the enemy troops flee in panic under an arty barrage, to laugh gleefully as your AT gun rips into a T-34. [ October 28, 2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

Curly: I'm trying to think--but nothing happens! Larry: It's simple! Moe: So are you.

Let's be honest. This sort of debate has been going on here since the beginning, and the real motivation behind it seems to be the clash of the broader-minded gamers with a group of elitists who want CM as their very own little domain. On the one hand, you have folks who play all sorts of games and appreciate CM from that wider persepctive. On the other hand, you have a generally elitist group of "grogs" or people who only play wargames that wants to keep CM for its very own, a group that falsely assumes shooters are only for knuckle-scraping apemen and that you can't like an RTS and also be fascinated by the intricacies of the development of the StuG. It's just like when diehard fans of some little indie rock band get all upset when "their" band breaks into the mainstream. They wanted to keep it all for themselves and are sure only they know how to properly appreciate the music. It couldn't possibly appeal to those ignorant, unwashed masses, they assume, and if it did, it would of course have to be horribly diluted. The fact is, there are those of us who are every bit as interested in tiny WWII minutiae as the next guy around here, but who also love great graphics in games and appreciate what they add to the gameplay experience. [ October 28, 2002, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

I don't think anyone favors a "mad" pursuit to entice every gamer into the CM camp. Nor does it seem anyone is seriously arguing that graphics should be the overriding priority of the developers. That would be foolhardy and unrealistic in the extreme. But there are those of us who would like to see more people introduced to CM because it's an innovative and entertaining game on a level few other games can match. There are those of us who think that better graphics could be a powerful weapon in CM's already extensive arsenal for doing just that, but more importantly a way to make the game even better without ever watering down gameplay depth and historical accuracy. One can easily imagine how enhanced graphics (imagine the potential effects of dynamic lighting on night fights, for example) could add to the depth of the combat simulation, not detract from it.

That's an oversimplification. Steve of BTS: From http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=004518;p=11 People who think CM is merely targeted at or ideally targeted at a small group of self-professed grogs just doesn't get it, imo. They're doing CM a huge disservice. Like DeanCo, I'm a CM evangelist or "Combat Missionary," and I'm convinced CM's appeal can be, and indeed is, broader than just some little niche group that only likes hardcore wargames and/or claims to not care about graphics (or places them below everything else in terms of importance). CM's WeGO system could radically transfigure strategy gaming as we know it, bridging the gap between turn-based and real-time gaming in exciting new ways. But people need to hear about and play CM first for anything like that to ever happen, and when the graphics look dated, the likelihood of that ever happening isn't as great as it rightfully should be. As for the importance of graphics to the game itself, they're absolutely vital to what CM is all about. One of the principal strengths of the game is that it removes the battle from some arbitrary 2D hexgrid and puts in a 3D simulation of realistic terrain, using 3D units. These aren't merely about eye candy--they have major effects on gameplay mechanics, like line of sight, to use an obvious example. In CM, you can make full use of every little dip in the terrain, every clump of trees, thanks to the 3D environment. Furthermore, 3D visuals (and their level of quality) can be vital to the enjoyment of any game, including CM. I'm not the first or last to note how every action phase plays out like a miniature war movie, and I've read countless posts here over the past couple years that discuss little exciting moments in the game in visual, cinematic terms. (And of course, humans tend to be primarily visually oriented creatures, too. The fact that so many gamers get excited about graphics isn't some accident or the result of marketer brainwashing.) The visuals help draw you into the action of CM, immersing you emotionally in the combat. That's vitally important, as much so as the historical details creating a reasonably accurate simulation of combat on the mathematical level. One of the chief strengths of CM, in fact, is the way it melds intellectual and emotional stimulation in equal measure. Try this: see if you can imagine CM without its 3D graphics. It wouldn't be CM, would it? It stands to reason that graphics are a vital part of the game, and improving them further can make the game even better. Now, how exactly one--or rather, how exactly BTS--prioritizes their improvement is a different matter. [ October 28, 2002, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

GameSpot posted a preview back in May on this WWII RTS. Just do a search on their site. [ October 27, 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

There are a few T-26 pics and line drawings in Tim Bean and Will Fowler's Russian Tanks of World War II: Stalin's Armored Might. Probably not the level of detail you need for your project, but it's an interesting book, all told.