Hertston

Perhaps he should e-mail that "expert" opinion to the US Army, as they use it(as in actually use it) for training. SB is generally acknowledged among those who at least have a clue what they are talking about as the best PC tank sim ever written. Sums that rag up, really. Clueless. "Realism" in their book is based purely on eye candy - whether the simulated vehicle actually behaves like a tank and whether gunnery and ballistics are accurately re-created is an irrelevance. The graphics in SB are very dated (it is three years old now, this was a first and belated UK release). No weather effects, 640*480, no air support, blah, blah - all true, and that's what the score was based on. Who cares if the tanks actually behave like real tanks, and that the only way to win is to use real armour tactics ? It just infuriates me that people (who knows, maybe the Challenger 2 commanders of the future ?) will be put off buying it after reading that ignorant garbage. Maybe SB2 (incoming, albeit slowly) will have eye candy sufficient to please them. Either way, a PC Zone review is unlikely to affect my purchase decision. [ December 14, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

Perhaps he should e-mail that "expert" opinion to the US Army, as they use it(as in actually use it) for training. SB is generally acknowledged among those who at least have a clue what they are talking about as the best PC tank sim ever written. Sums that rag up, really. Clueless. "Realism" in their book is based purely on eye candy - whether the simulated vehicle actually behaves like a tank and whether gunnery and ballistics are accurately re-created is an irrelevance. The graphics in SB are very dated (it is three years old now, this was a first and belated UK release). No weather effects, 640*480, no air support, blah, blah - all true, and that's what the score was based on. Who cares if the tanks actually behave like real tanks, and that the only way to win is to use real armour tactics ? It just infuriates me that people (who knows, maybe the Challenger 2 commanders of the future ?) will be put off buying it after reading that ignorant garbage. Maybe SB2 (incoming, albeit slowly) will have eye candy sufficient to please them. Either way, a PC Zone review is unlikely to affect my purchase decision. [ December 14, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

I find it hard to take any magazine that scored Steel Beasts at 23% remotely seriously.. I doubt they have anyone on staff who has a clue about wargames, or indeed serious simulation software. It's a kiddie rag, with reviewers catering to a kiddie audience. Get PC Gamer instead. [ December 14, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

I find it hard to take any magazine that scored Steel Beasts at 23% remotely seriously.. I doubt they have anyone on staff who has a clue about wargames, or indeed serious simulation software. It's a kiddie rag, with reviewers catering to a kiddie audience. Get PC Gamer instead. [ December 14, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

Yeah, I saw that. They must have got them earlier as neither the Irish or British postal systems can manage that sort of efficiency ! Hopefully my copy will show up on Monday.

Cold war would be OK, Korea would be better. Depending on the engine (the current one wouldn't do it well) Vietnam would be good too. I certainly agree a move away from WW2 would be excellent, but BFC will always have to ask themselves what will sell best - which is usually WW2 (and why you never see Korea games )

Can't see it... for the scale of forces involved, the engine and associated map sizes is fine, and not just for street battles (which aren't it's best feature). Sure, you can't usually move your whole force in some grandiose encirclement, but at the scale of the game this would have been virtually impossible anyway. The maps are plenty big enough for realistic tactical manoeuvering by platoon sized forces. You can always come up with situations where you could do with more room I suppose, but you have to accept there will always be game limitations (the same ones are there in Steel Panthers, Squad Battles, Close Combat, whatever). Daft reason to miss out on buying it if you ask me. On street battles, and I may well get lynched for saying this, I don't think they are something CM does particularly well. I'll certainly try the Stalingrad pack when I have some time, but in general I find the limited capabilities of the CM engine to handle buildings very restrictive and frequently irritating. The "open field" stuff is much better IMHO - maybe a dedicated engine is necessary to create realistic urban fighting in this sort of game.

Yup, that works. What puzzles me is that XP anyway (can't remember if W98 did) has the option to enter specific websites where cookies are always allowed, but that doesn't seem to work. Ordered now, anyway. Glad to see with their distribution set up UK posrage is the same as US postage. Make you wonder why they bothered with cdv... (Herts shoves a sock in his mouth)

Yup... the two versions even install into different directories (US, "CMBB", cdv "Combat Mission 2"). Even the executables have different names.

Huh ? You mean didn't manage to in the Battlecom version ? So is the US version going to be replaced by a larger US version with the new textures ? Why put up and old version then - I'm sure folks would rather wait a couple of days than download twice ? Or will there be a seperate textures pack ?

New to this aren't you ? You post AFTER you've finished downloading BTW, US patch = 25 meg bloody cdv bloody Euro patch = 65 meg WHAT GIVES !!! Surely even cdv can't be that incompetent.

Seems a fair enough idea if people want to join (and looking at the site, enough do). Personally, I could never see any point for what is a 1v1 game.. the whole clan/squad thing only seemed to have a point for team games. Not to mention that all the pseudo-rank and medal stuff is likely to be a huge turn-off for your average CM player. Still not for me to judge, and if it gets people playing and talking about the game, a CM clan scene can only be a good thing.

As simple or as complicated as you want it to be, really. Brilliant game.

What a shame. The Proving Grounds looked very promising, not least because it seems to be the only mod site that gets regular updates. To be honest, I think that was the the cause of your troubles - nothing was happening at Tom's and (especially) combatmission.com (Combat Mission HQ). Many thanks for your efforts... hopefully someone will come along who already has the setup in place who could host it ? [ October 19, 2002, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

1. It is very historically accurate, especially with regard to technical stuff (realistic simulation of armour penetration, equipment capabilities, fatigue, etc), and even the more nebulous like command and control is simulated pretty well. Proviso - the cdv European version has been messed about with in the interests of political correctness with regards to SS units. 2. It's a very good computer game. The blend of turn based orders "phases" with subsequent real-time action is unique, and works superbly. 3. Good editing facilities - as a history buff you may well be attracted to doing your own stuff. 4. Excellent multiplay (people are always stronger opponents than the AI). You can play either networked (local or internet) or by e-mail, the system works well with either. 5. The fine, upstanding, intelligent and friendly community you can talk with here But why read this stuff - go download the demo and see if you like it.

Hehe... so you had a look then The copy protection I can live with (as my DVD drive can) as it doesn't slow loading times (much) - it's usually only a real pain when it needs to access during a game (Morrowind !!). Nobody was expecting a "cd crack", just a "WG crack". Thanks Schoerner.. much appreciated. Best way I've found to use it is play with the timer so the patcher does it's stuff just as the menu comes up after the titles (which I've replaced with some pictures and and a better soundtrack, so I'm happy to let them run). Don't even notice it happening then

Just forget it guys, the idiot is just reviewing for his audience. "Combat Mission II is a different take on the RTS genre" Of course it bloody isn't. His ignorance is shown here, together with the ramblings about "RTS" and "TBS" - he has never played (or maybe even heard of) "wargames".

So you have to do this every time you run the game ? [ October 17, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

It certainly doesn't put Close Combat (2,3 and 5 anyway) "to shame".. but then I'm a big CC fan. They just aren't "comparable" games in that sense, and have completely different styles and feel. Same will probably be true of GI Combat, we will know when that bloody demo finally gets released

Has this been uploaded anywhere yet ? Can't see it at Tom's, or indeed anywhere else.

You can't fix what isn't broken.. although there is always room for improvement. The AI is just fine, while I'd disagree with Foxbat that you cant find better, you can certainly find a lot worse. You need to remember that criticism often comes from those who do a lot of multiplay, and a competent human opponent will always be superior to the AI. Attacking certainly isn't the AI's strongpoint... but I can't think of a wargame in which it is. Attacking really needs "creative" - something AI just can't do.

Thanks Schoerner

Good combo.. I like the Soviet anthem a lot.. it's as a national anthem should be, simple and memorable, strong and inspiring. Probably just because I come from a country which has just about the worst national anthem in the world (should have been changed to "Land of Hope and Glory" years ago..)

Yup. EAX is great if the game supports it - but "off" is the only option if it doesn't.

Spleen has it spot on. The gaming world would be a very different place if the likes of Valve, Epic and iD had objected too strenously to people messing with the source code (it was never "public", mind). As to the WG point, the phrase "if you are in a hole, stop digging" rather springs to mind. Objections to that would (rightly) been seen as petty and pointless - at the end of the day all that's happening is that the code is being restored to what it was before cdv messed it up. Wise developers encourage modding - source code and all. Nothing sells more games than a good mod (as Spleen says look at Half-Life - how many more did they sell because people wanted to play Counter-strike ?) Mods won't effect subsequent game sales for BFC either. No Q2 mod hurt Q3 sales, and a little closer to home, no CC3 mod ever effected sales of CC4 and CC5. [ October 14, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Hertston ]