Hertston
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hertston
-
-
I've no intention of getting into a pissing contest, as it's pretty much an apples and oranges scenario.Originally posted by Bloodstar44:Hertson, Close Combat is maybe realistic but is also in many ways unrealistic
For instance in Close Combat 3 I had my Tiger refusing to shoot at SU-122 at 800 metres (!!!!!!!)
saying "Das panzer is too stark". What too stark you monkey gunner, you have Zeiss optic there and 800 metres is good enough to turn that SU-122 into a can full of holes but nothing.
So Hertson you call that REALISTIC???
I don't recall saying CC was perfect, or even perfectly realistic. Even its die-hard fanboys (of which I am not one) will happily admit that armour is not exactly its strongest point. I would argue it is more realistic game than ToW, particularly in the use of authentic infantry tactics, including the use of infantry to support armour. In doing so I would point out that ToW never intended, as far as I can see, to be a 'realism' game in the same way that CC, or CM come to that, were. It is not a pre-requisite for an entertaining, exciting game, which I actually rather like.
If you believe that ToW offers the more authentic WW2 experience then go to it. The question I asked the other poster was why he believed Tow to be a deeper game than CC. Do you? If so, why?
-
I'm curious to see reports on the multiplay. I quite like the demo, but I'm playing it with frequent use of the pause feature to give orders and it's that that gives the game a tactical feel above the usual RTS clickfest. As that option, presumably, isn't there in MP I have doubts if MP will offer anything like the same gameplay?Multiplayer lobby required, that is were the real fun can be had!Anybody tried MP yet?
-
'Deeper' than CC in what way? OK, I'm only judging from the demo so far, but as a combat simulation (tactics, morale effects, etc) I'd put ToW well behind CC. It's a fun WW2 RTS that's a little more 'realistic' than 'RTS' usually suggests, but no more than that. That's not a criticism; ToW was clearly never intended to be the new CC any more than it was the new CM.Originally posted by Lord_Simmox:certainly more like CC but deeper
-
It is not 'true', it is complete nonsense. Only an opinion, of course, but at least one from someone who has actually played HttR and CotA.Originally posted by JasonC:PFMM - if Highway were the way forward, grogs would be beating down the door to play it and others just like it. They aren't, it is a flop as a game, in terms of traction, fanbase, etc. The reason is simple - it is a gimick that adds practically nothing to strategy interest. You do not have to like this for it to be true.
Both of those games are a mix of 'wargame' in the traditional sense and simulation of war from the perspective of the commander. They do that in a way that the games you obviously prefer are incapable of ever doing except in the most abstract sense. They do it in a fashion that some people prefer both for pure entertainment purposes and because of the degree of simulation of war produced. If 'grogs' wish to remain rooted in the turn based paper/counter past that's their choice and their loss. I can only urge them to try one of the games (the newer, CotA, is the more refined of the two), play it long enough to understand what it is trying to do and make their own minds up. And also remind them that once upon a time it took a leap of faith for them to try Combat Mission as well.
Nope, not below a certain scale. I'll get back to that. Possession of the initiative is indeed a military reality, but one that is reflected in CotA just as much as in any turn based system. Real life has no turns even at the operational scale, and in that sense command continuous/real-time (NOT "real time strategy" in the sense that term is generally understood) is superior. It is "one player moving at a time, turn based" that is the abstraction. A necessary one of course, in some cases, but it is a necessarily flawed and restricted model of the real-thing, not a simulation of it.But at the operational scale, possession of initiative is a military reality, and not an abstraction imposed by a game system.So you should have one player moving at a time, turn based.
A vital proviso here is one of scale. One of the reasons that HttR and CotA 'work' is that the scenarios within them are barely 'operational' in scale. They are far closer to the 'tactical' borderline than the 'strategic' one, and that is necessary for the system to work. It would not work to use the same system at much larger scale hence HttR, for example, provides the gamer with Market Garden scenarios, not the whole campaign as the TOAW, HPS or Matrix's 'Battlefront' operational level games do. The engine is not suited for that and has no pretentions otherwise
Your whole criticism, based presumably on your experiential ignorance of the games concerned, is a strawman. Nobody has even attempted to do what you describe as "pointless", perhaps because above a certain scale that is precisely what it would be. But the games you criticize on the basis of zero experience are not above that scale. Like Pat Proctor's games at a more tactical scale they work, and work well, for anyone open minded enough to try them.
[ March 18, 2007, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Hertston ]
-
God, I hope not. BF can't be that clueless as to their core market, surely?Originally posted by Peter Cairns:Given that a CM:SciFi is a possibility, what setting do people have in mind or would prefer.
However, should the dreaded day come I might be tempted by something that falls in your "near" range. Without licensing particular books or films, something with elements of Haldeman's 'The Forever War' and Starship Troopers (the book, not the travesty that was the movie) would be OK. Both manage to get across the message that war is still tough, dirty and dangerous, even if the latter does set that in a pretty dubious moral context.
For those who havn't read Starship Troopers the most significant difference from the movie that would be relevant to a game is hardware. Rather than the laughable assault rifle armed grunts in the film, in the book the MI was issued with powered armor (anybody ever play Heavy Gear 2?). Each infantryman was essentially a tank (with limited flight capability) with an assortment of weaponry up to (and including) nukes. You will see that with that concept the idea of sending a platoon sized forced to 'pacify' a city of alien nasties made rather more sense!.. but that would need to be cut back a little in a game, of course.
-
"Liberation" from what? Other than a hardline Islamist government chucking nukes left, right, and centre, its hardly likely to be worse than the Syrians already have. And such people would be in no place to conduct a 'coup', only a revolution which would require at least an element of public support. I hadn't read that before, but its difficult to do so and still regard any of the possible alternatives, such as N. Korea or Taiwan as improbable!Originally posted by Dillweed:"The setting for CM:SF is 2007 Syria after a coup removes the current Assad government. I do not wish to go into the specifics of the backstory at this time, but the premise is that UN is called upon to remove the illegitimate regime. Support comes from all major nations and nearly all within the Middle East region. Leading this liberation is a coalition of mostly NATO states, with a strong contingent of Arab/Muslim states involved directly in the immediate and long term rebuilding of the nation. The player is in command of one of the more interesting missions - to slice through the center of the country and join up with other coalition forces around Damascus."
That scenario is ludicrous on several accounts
That the UN would even consider such action ?
That the US/NATO and all the rest would be busting a gut to restore the 'legitimate' deposed Baathist regime of Assad?
That any Arab/muslim states would co-operate militarily with the US/NATO in any capacity at all?
As others have said, this is just one to play the game and forget about the background, I think.
-
"Liberation" from what? Other than a hardline Islamist government chucking nukes left, right, and centre, its hardly likely to be worse than the Syrians already have. And such people would be in no place to conduct a 'coup', only a revolution which would require at least an element of public support. I hadn't read that before, but its difficult to do so and still regard any of the possible alternatives, such as N. Korea or Taiwan as improbable!Originally posted by Dillweed:"The setting for CM:SF is 2007 Syria after a coup removes the current Assad government. I do not wish to go into the specifics of the backstory at this time, but the premise is that UN is called upon to remove the illegitimate regime. Support comes from all major nations and nearly all within the Middle East region. Leading this liberation is a coalition of mostly NATO states, with a strong contingent of Arab/Muslim states involved directly in the immediate and long term rebuilding of the nation. The player is in command of one of the more interesting missions - to slice through the center of the country and join up with other coalition forces around Damascus."
That scenario is ludicrous on several accounts
That the UN would even consider such action ?
That the US/NATO and all the rest would be busting a gut to restore the 'legitimate' deposed Baathist regime of Assad?
That any Arab/muslim states would co-operate militarily with the US/NATO in any capacity at all?
As others have said, this is just one to play the game and forget about the background, I think.
-
"Liberation" from what? Other than a hardline Islamist government chucking nukes left, right, and centre, its hardly likely to be worse than the Syrians already have. And such people would be in no place to conduct a 'coup', only a revolution which would require at least an element of public support. I hadn't read that before, but its difficult to do so and still regard any of the possible alternatives, such as N. Korea or Taiwan as improbable!Originally posted by Dillweed:"The setting for CM:SF is 2007 Syria after a coup removes the current Assad government. I do not wish to go into the specifics of the backstory at this time, but the premise is that UN is called upon to remove the illegitimate regime. Support comes from all major nations and nearly all within the Middle East region. Leading this liberation is a coalition of mostly NATO states, with a strong contingent of Arab/Muslim states involved directly in the immediate and long term rebuilding of the nation. The player is in command of one of the more interesting missions - to slice through the center of the country and join up with other coalition forces around Damascus."
That scenario is ludicrous on several accounts
That the UN would even consider such action ?
That the US/NATO and all the rest would be busting a gut to restore the 'legitimate' deposed Baathist regime of Assad?
That any Arab/muslim states would co-operate militarily with the US/NATO in any capacity at all?
As others have said, this is just one to play the game and forget about the background, I think.
-
I doubt buyers of the Strategy First published game will be so lucky!Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:BATTLEFRONT THEMSELF have released Dangerous Waters without the requirement for a CD Check.
I agree with your comments, though. Despite the usual holier-than-thou response you were not asking for "support" for the crack, just suggesting that they remove the need for one in a game that is hardly likely to break into the top 100 Torrent downloads this month. A perfectly reasonable request IMHO.
As to using cracks in the first place, 99% of people here would agree there is no problem with it as long, of course, as you have purchased the game. There is an associated risk which has far more to do with the possibility of viruses and trojans than 'criminal prosecution'!
-
Agreed... certainly if justice is done to the subject matter.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:I suspect it might have to be a NEW title
Hoping that 'The Star and the Crescent' (which has just started shipping, finally) will fill that niche for a while, but a CM game is one I would like to see after a couple of WW2 releases, as I would a Cold War Europe game.
I don't see any reason to restrict it to '73. As part of the point of CMSF seems to be as a testbed for stuff needed for all periods, why shouldn't it include everything (or at least the potential to design scenarios for everything) from 1948 to the present? At the very least, 1967 should be included, too.
-
How about CM: "The Road to Damascus" ?Originally posted by Sergei:Or maybe: CM: The Mission From God
-
I assume as an atheist, you would extend that to Christianity too.. most Christian ritual is ultimately of 'pagan' origin, also. Not to mention Christmas, of course.Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:I don't know who or what it was that the Meccans were praying to or making obligatory religious observances in their pagan activities, but I'm just a suspicious little atheist and these beginnings just slightly reek to me! :eek:
That's just the way it works, you may be worshipping a different God or gods, or following a different Prophet or prophets but the religious practices of your culture generally remain the same (within reason), or at least slowly evolve over time.
-
A censored German version seems a reasonable idea PROVIDED nobody else has it forced on them as well. Fortunately, I think we saw the last of that with CM2/CMBB.
I would feel rather sorry for those in Germany who value historical accuracy above political correctness, though. It wasn't so much the absence of swastikas that bothered me in CM2 as the inclusion of the 'wafflegrenadiers'. Denying that the Waffen SS existed goes beyond 'political correctness' into the realm of 'absurd re-writing of history', and is totally inappropriate to a game centred around realism and historical accuracy.
-
Just as long as nobody in Syria recognises them :eek:Originally posted by Hans:I also know the Syrian Ambassador to the UAE and have a source to find as many voices as you might like - particularly if you want to vary the regional dialects - Syrians women and children's voices would also be available
I somehow doubt this puppy will be on Bashar al-Asad's birthday present list...
-
I'd just like to point out that not all of us who are a tad disappointed have any objection to 'modern' - although it depends how you define 'modern' to some extent. I'd certainly no particular desire to see a WW2 game ahead of, say, a Vietnam game, Cold War game, US v. China or Russia game. It's just the particular scenario (US v Arab) that doesn't appeal, not least because across all genres (and including wargames) its now as "old" as WW2 and rather less interesting.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:So, while I do understand that those of you who aren't interested in Modern at all, no matter how we do it, would have rather known about this 2 years ago... we're sorry you had to wait this long to find out. Sorry you also didn't pick up on the heavy vibes that I've put out over the last 8 months that at least clearly cast doubt on WWII being a sure thing for the first release. Under the circumstances, we did the best we could to tip you off without getting ourselves into a pickle.
-
Hoorah !! That's made my day (sad individual as I am). Now where do I pre-order?Yup, you get a whole new CMBB.exe with CMC that overwrites the old one. It's not bolt-on, and therefore the symbiosis works without problems.
-
I'm guessing - but I suspect CMBB actually sold more copies than either of the others, if only as the Eastern Front is the more 'popular' theatre.
Improvements in CMAK or not, as CMC is really designed to play in tandem with a tactical game, it seems smart to pick the tactical game the most people already have and so maximise your potential customer base?
-
Likewise. Although there are plenty of alternative post-WW2 options that would have had me jumping up and down with excitement.Originally posted by Micheal Wittman:I'm a big fan of all 3 "CM" titles, but i won't
be buying "Shock Force", just no interest for me. I'll just wait until they make the next ww2 arena. I still have "CMBB" and "CMAK" to keep me
company.But I wish all the best for "CMSS" !
Its only fair to assume that BF will address what seem very definite play balance issues (hopefully without too much unrealistic distortion), and if reports are good I might just be tempted. All in all though, another game of whatever genre with the US beating up on assorted Arabs just doesn't appeal much.
-
Makes sense... how many Iraqi tanks were killed without Allied loss again? That said, I can't see the game as announced being much different in that regard. I'm hoping that the emphasis on urban combat improvements will make the new scenario interesting to play.Originally posted by Dillweed:Would gulf war 1 tank battles really be fun? Certainly not for the Iraqui side.
I'm still thinking not doing a 'Fulda `85' or similar is a huge missed opportunity, though... man, would that have been fun. Ah well.. roll on Stalingrad
-
Sorry to open old wounds, but before I get too excited about this puppy can anyone confirm it will be compatible with the cdv version?
I'm assuming some sort of patch to CM2 will be included to allow transfer of the appropriate data, will that be for both versions.
And, dare I ask, is there any chance that those of us lumbered with the cdv effort will finally have total US version compatibility?
Thank you for your time.
-
Many thanks for that. It's that attitude (I still remember you guys sending out a FREE revised copy of the CMBB manual to those of us who paid extra for it) that keeps me as a customer - pre-ordered from yourselves a while ago.Originally posted by Moon:But, as we have found out with CMBB, people have been really upset about us for the exclusivity we had given to CDV. So we had decided to force CDV into a non-exclusive deal and offer CMAK directly. It might sound cheesy when I say that we valued our fan base more than cash in hand that CDV was offering for an exclusive deal, but that's precisely what happened.
Martin
As to "BFC or cdv", I dunno about a few days, personally I'd wait until the other side of Christmas to get the "proper" game rather than put more money cdv's way.
-
We can order direct this time ?! Sanity at last..
-
Hehe... my thoughts exactly, except both "order" and book got popped through my letter box this morning (UK). I was mildly surprised, to say the least. That's what comes of not checking the boards often enough !Originally posted by beyerun:Well I am impressed. Hadn't checked the boards here for forever. Got an order shipment notice and thought I was losing my mind. Then I saw that's its for free.
Very impressed. That's why your company is the best in the business.
Marvellous job, Battlefront !!
-
Lou... I'm curious, why the Battle Hymn of the Republic (in English, whatever) as an intro for CMBB ?
My personal choice for CCMB is the Red Army Chorus singing the Soviet National anthem, but I wouldn't use that for intro music to "Gettysburg" !!
Or am I missing something ?
Comparison to Close Combat
in Theatre of War
Posted