Volstag

I've stopped using S&S entirely. It never really seems to work. 50% of the time, my tank will move forward and then immediately reverse w/o even taking a shot -- even if it's a "perfect" flank/rear shot. The other 50% of the time, they move forward, shoot, and then casually wait for return fire. Needless to say, I've been using Hunt + Reverse a lot more these days. Out, Volstag

To his credit, he did have "spoiler" in the subject line. Out, Volstag

Some people have had luck using epsom salt, but I've never tried it myself. I usually find that a BB gun at 1 - 5 pumps will usually do the trick. A couple MG42's w/ interlocking fields of fire couldn't hurt either. Out, Volstag

I tend to agree with Generale_Pasquini. The reviewer isn't a wargamer and it shows in his review. No harm done, IMO. It would be no different if one of us were to review "Mario Brothers: Sunshine Island". Granted, they probably should have had a bonified wargamer review a wargame -- but there's nothing we can do to change that now. As for driving away potential customers.... well, I suppose that's possible. It's my contention, however, that those who are meant to play CM will eventually be drawn to it -- like a moth to flame Out, Volstag

I think I'm beginning to understand what Peng is and what the Peng thread is about. I could be mistaken, but I think this is the "genesis" that Seanachai was talking about. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=002571 Out, Volstag

I rest my case. Out, Volstag

I couldn't agree more. I wish GIC the best of luck, but they have a long hard road of them. Out, Volstag

Ginzo, If it makes you feel any better, I've been following this board sporadically for about 1.5 years and I still don't know what the hell "Peng" means. I have seen other people ask the question and they're always met with responses/answers that are highly ambiguous at best. Out, Volstag [ October 19, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Volstag ]

I'm not really adding anything new to this thread, but I felt compelled to add my $0.02 Occasionally the computer AI can be classified as "above good" and, sometimes, you could even call it "poor" (a lot depends upon the parameters of the battle itself). In the vast majority of cases I would rate it a solid "respectable" or "good". The AI will rarely surprise you with it's tactical brilliance, but it can (and will) beat you if you play poorly. Out, Volstag [ October 18, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Volstag ]

I've wondered that myself. To be honest, that was one of the few reviews that I've even seen. Most of the major strategy/wargaming sites don't even mention it. Out, Volstag

Slightly OT: GI Combat is an odd game. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a FPS or an RTS or a tactical wargame. I feel like there is some promise/potential within the product, but it's buried beneath their dreadful interface. I spent more time trying to get around the map and order units than I did fighting my enemy. CMBO/CMBB are vastly superior when it comes to WWII tactical combat. GIC might be able to find some FPS/RTS/tactical hybrid niche in there somewhere though. Out, Volstag [ October 18, 2002, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Volstag ]

That's a great idea. I'm gonna see if I can get something like this going with my buddies. You know, I can't help but think how great something like this would be if it was "officially" implemented within CMBO or CMBB. Out, Volstag

It is, quite simply, the finest tactical level WWII game ever created for any format. Historical accuracy abounds. If you're a true wargamer, you owe it to yourself to get CMBO and/or CMBB as soon as possible. Out, Volstag

Amen. It seems like a good portion of the scenarios I've played recently (for BO and BB) are of the "puzzle" type variety. While they can be fun/challenging, they almost seem at odds with what both games are trying to model. Then again, maybe I just suck. Out, Volstag [ October 18, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Volstag ]

That's the beauty of opinions. Out, Volstag

When I was active on these boards about a year and a half ago, I remember that their plan (at the time) was similar to the following: CMBO CMBB CM (Africa / Italy) CM (??? - not sure about this one) After that, IIRC, they were going to redo the engine and begin releasing them down the line again: CM II:BO CM II:BB CM II: (Africa / Italy) CM II: (???) Personally, I don't care which direction they go, or what they do, provided it stays with WWII. Not a big fan of other engagements (especially those that are post WWII). They do have a good engine/concept and they could easily branch into other areas of military history (American Civil War or WWI would be my candidates). Modelling the "whole enchilada" would be another awesome addition. I would like to see the current engine become more robust... better graphics, more units, etc. The more "realistic" it becomes, the better. I would LOVE to see the ability to support large multiplayer games (i.e. 6 vs 6), some sort of campaign mode (there are ways to do it w/o being cheesy/gamey IMO). My ultimate dream, of course, would be the ability to play the entire war from beginning to end from whatever command level you wanted. Dictate the course of the war from the strategic level, and then have the ability to jump into any fights along the way. This would require reams of work/research (having historically accurate maps of all of Europe would be a tremendous chore). I would also like the gloves to come off the QB generator. I would like the ability to jump into wildly unrealistic battles... i.e. late war Germans vs. early war Russians in a meeting engagement. Russians get 3000 pts to spend, germans get 1500 (or something like that). My dubious $0.02 Out, Volstag

I must admit it really bums me out that they took the shockwaves out of the game. That is one of the coolest features of BO. Hopefully someone will come up with a decent explosion mod. Out, Volstag

Great work SurlyBen!! Out, Volstag

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: That's not what it is. The reason, as expressed by BTS and many (but not the majority) of gamers here is that it is unrealistic to expect a single small unit (like CM represents) to fight in a great number of battles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand the reasoning for not making a campaign center around a specific company / captain -- and from a realism standpoint it makes perfect sense. But who says it has to be the same company (batallion, etc) every engagement? You simply jump into the shoes of whoever happens to be engaged during each particular fight. First of all, my knowledge of WWII, while adequate, is not enough to compete with some of you folks on here... so if I say anything that sounds ignorant/foolish it's because, well, it is Anyway, I envision another "layer" being built on top of the current engine. Say at the brigade level (higher? lower?). During the "campaign", this force (whatever it happens to be) would be tasked with a mission appropriate to its size. Now perhaps you, as the player, get a list of various companies / battalions (I suppose it should be at a set level of organization.. i.e. only battalions or only companies, etc) and their tasks for a given period of time. The player then could select which companies/battalions he wishes to take through their missions... be it all of them, or a handful of them... while the AI would play the other missions/units. The various missions could vary in size from a simple 20 turn QB, to a multi-day operation. I realize that there was plenty of downtime between actual fights... and creating a historically accurate "campaign" might be a chore, but again, I can't help but think how fun it would be. In the back of my mind, I'm always wishing there was some level of "campaign" support in this game (despite all the messy details). Maybe it doesn't make much sense... but I still would love to see Quick Operations (edit: and it seems like it would be fairly easy to implement). Out, Volstag [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: Volstag ] [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: Volstag ]

Greetings, Would anyone else like to see an option for the computer to generate random operations (similiar to QB's)? I suppose "quick" is somewhat of an oxymoron when used with regards to operations. Also, I'm aware of the many reasons why a "campaign" feature wasn't offered in CM -- and I agree with them. Unfortunately, I just can't help but think how fun/cool it would be if you were able to participate in QB's (and QO's??) that were "pieces" of a much larger engagement. And lastly, I'm sure this info has been covered and discussed many, many times in the past. It's for that reason I took the liberty of writing a flame to myself -- and passing the savings onto you Thoughts? Out, Volstag [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: Volstag ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greenman: Anyway my question is this. How would ya'll rate the AI? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The AI is good. It's not "masterful" by any stretch though. The major problem with the AI is its single minded pursuit of the victory locations -- and the fact that it will rarely, if ever, withdraw and/or perform tactical retreats from an area. If you can setup a decent "kill zone" in/around a VL, you'll wax the AI. It's for this reason, the AI seems (at least against me) to perform better during an "attack" mission (w/ me as the defender) -- then again, that could simply be a product of it having access to more units. Even though I can crush the computer in Meeting Engagements 99% of the time, it's still really enjoyable to play against -- and every game, it usually does something to surprise/worry me -- and sometimes I learn tricks/strategies by watching it perform. I would love, however, to see the AI improved in CM2. Out, Volstag

Stormhouse, Don't give up man. This game is, by far, the best wargame I've ever played, and it's currently one of my favorite computer games as well. IMO, canned scenarios just aren't as fun (for me) as the random Quick Battles (QB's) -- no offense to scenario makers!! Again, this is just my opinion, but scenarios, for me, have more of a "puzzle" feeling to them -- especially if you play the same one multiple times. Even though there is a factor o' randomness on the part of the AI, you can learn to expect certain things based upon your previous experience w/ the scenario. When you first get the game, fire up some small QB's (around 500 pts). You might (hopefully) find it a much more enjoyable experience. Out, Volstag

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kekk1: Bump.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Double bump... I'd like to know myself. The "golden" sky is what made me download it in the first place Later, Volstag

I've had very similiar things happen to me as well. I can't explain it. Great LOS, unbuttoned, target lines present, flank shot, etc, etc -- crew simply doesn't fire. It's a rare occurance, but it drives me mad every time it happens. I wish there was some way of knowing why/why-not your units behave the way the do (like a ASCII dump of the TacAI during a game). "FIRE!!! FIRE DAMMIT FIRE!!!!" Later, Volstag

I've had very similiar things happen to me as well. I can't explain it. Great LOS, unbuttoned, target lines present, flank shot, etc, etc -- crew simply doesn't fire. It's a rare occurance, but it drives me mad every time it happens. I wish there was some way of knowing why/why-not your units behave the way the do (like a ASCII dump of the TacAI during a game). "FIRE!!! FIRE DAMMIT FIRE!!!!" Later, Volstag