Vanir Ausf B

That's a strange example to use, and it really illustrates how little you know about the game you're trying to criticize. First of all, there has never been a Duke Nukem game in 3D, unless you're refering to the eternal vaporware Duke Nukem Forever. Secondly, the move from sprites to 3D in FPS generally made possible much more detailed and realistic graphics, but the actual gameplay wasn't greatly affected. One of the chief complaints about Doom 3 is that once you look past the graphics it's still basically the same game as Doom 1. Ironically, CMx2 is introducing some new features such as dynamic light and an advance particle system that have the potential of having a fundamental effect on gameplay at least to the extent of the example you gave. But I suspect you didn't know about that...

"Doing better" than your opponent is the ultimate goal of the game. Which makes some sense given that the game simulates a type of contest (warfare). Some people think the fun in CM is in the strategizing and tactics. Some people consider the purchasing of units to be part of their strategy and therefore part of the fun. Everything about CM is artificial. There is no real battle being fought when you play. We do agree on something No one is complaining that rarity is "part of the problem" (part of what problem?), but rather that the current implementation could perhaps be improved upon. [ September 08, 2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I don't recall seeing anyone argue that they should be allowed to buy more rare units than what the game size would otherwise allow. That would be a very strange arguement to make, and it certainly has nothing to do with the system I was talking about. Speaking of which, The system I suggested would also be more REALISTIC. Yes, I'm playing the realism card KTs, for example, were indeed rare for the war in general. But if they were involved in a particular battle there would typically be at least a platoon present rather than one or two individual units. The CMx1 system encourages the use of rare units in onesies and twosies. So yes, most of the time rare units should not be available at all, but when they are there's no reason they should not be purchaseable in quantity to whatever extent the size of the QB allows (I guess I need to make that clear ) I don't think this is true at all for people who want a rarity system. The first part could be true of those who don't want to use rarity in the first place, but they don't have to so who cares? [ September 08, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I wouldn't make it strictly realistic either. The "ASL Method" mentioned above is more what I had in mind. Rank units 1-10 from most common to most rare, or even 1-5, or whatever works out best. If Jadgtigers are available in 1 of every 5 games they won't appear in 1 out of 5 games. People won't buy them every time they can. I played CMBO for 18 months without ever buying one. You'ld need some sanity check in the code to throw out the results and reroll if someone was very unlucky and ended up with no tanks or something really unfair, assuming you rolled seperately for each unit. If you use a single roll for the whole game the same roll could apply to both players.

The rarity system has always been overly complicated, marginally effective and generally a pain in the butt. I hope they give it a complete rethinking. The basic problem is that it uses a single numeric value to represent two entirely different and unrelated characteristics: rarity and battlefield utility. A much simpler and more effective system would make the unit either available for purchase or not available for purchase. The unit cost should not be affected by rarity at all.

w00t! LOL!

If CM is less crappy at being a company CO sim than at being a battalion CO sim that's fine. I don't see why it matters since it doesn't try to be either one, nor should it IMO. My point, which I can see may not have been clear, was more along the lines of what Kip said below, which I agree with completely:

But in the case of sharpshooters you are giving orders to individual men, so sometimes it is like that. As for OOBs, I don't see why the problem with having battalion HQs on the map should prevent the purchase of battalion formations. Just leave the HQ unit out of the formation. It's a small fudge we can live with.

Now there's an idea...

LOL! I agree he doesn't explicitly say either way. Maybe that hasn't been decided. It's still best to get your 2¢ in early.

Because Steve seems to have implied that on the bottom of page 1: "The first release will focus on sub-battalion engagements" Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning?

Well, I haven't "demanded" anything, just stated my opinion; one which I know a lot of CM players share (when I played on the old Rugged Defense ladder 1000 pts was the minimum size a game could be to count). IIRC, when the point limit was raised from 1000 in a patch for CMBO (I think it was actually raised several times) it was entirely due to popular demand, not because BFC thought it a great idea. So they've underestimated peoples' appetite for this before. Certainly CMx2 will be a whole new ball of wax, and it may well be that battalion+ size battles are unworkable, although that is not apparent from what we know so far. But I learned from CMBB that if you wait until the game is released before you comment on some feature it may be too late (I could give examples here but would rather not... )

I just don't see any good reasons to prohibit big games in CMx2 if that's what people want to play and they have the horsepower to do it. 1. "CM doesn't simulate battalion command well". I don't think it does any better at simulating command of a company. It isn't supposed to. It's not a command-level game, and according to BFC never will be (and thank God for that!). But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. It's a personal preference and therefore there is no right or wrong way of playing it. 2. "CMx2 is being written with the limitations of hardware in mind, but with future hardware capabilities (and settings) also in mind. The system is scalable." By all means limit the official scenarios to a size appropriate to the recommended system specs. But don't limit people who have high-end machines from making DYO scenarios or QBs for their own enjoyment. Many games today are released with graphical options that if set to their highest settings will bring all but the most powerful rigs to their knees. But these settings are optional and just because most can't use them when the game is released isn't a good reason not to include them at all. If CMBO is any indication, the first release of CMx2 will continue to be played for years after its release when many people who could not run bigger games initially will have bought new hardware. 3. 1. The C&C system is totally different. Keeping units organized is going to be a rather big part of battles. That means the freeflowing, helter skelter, BN battles people play now would not be possible. At least not without the frustrations of C&C real commanders would face. 2. Relative Spotting. This should prove to be a huge factor in the way games play out. All on its own it should people to have to think a lot more about what they do, when they do it, and how they do it. That means more thinking will go into doing things, which in turn means that you'll be equally challenged with fewer units. 3. Immersion. The 1:1 system will make you a lot more interested in what's going on down at the soldier level. And because of that, less attention available for handling massive numbers of units. These all seem to boil down to time requirements. In a nutshell, CMx2 will require a (much?) greater time investment on the part of the player for a given size battle than in CMx1. I understand that, but some people, such as myself, think nothing of spending a couple of hours on a single turn in CMx1 and wouldn't mind doing the same in CMx2. It's just an option. People don't have to play big games if they don't want to. But there are many people who do. The only good reasons I can think of not to even allow the option is if there is some technical reason it can't be done, or if it would be a very time consuming thing to put in. It doesn't appear the former will be true, and the latter does not appear to have been true for CMx1. Just a few thoughts...

If it were up to me, I'd have them visible only when the camera is at a high enough elevation that its looking straight down. That's where shockwaves are the most useful, and it would be more realistic.

Change: 1. Random terrain generator. I want the one from CMBO back. It generated natural-looking terrain with dominant features. In CMBB it was changed to make more "balanced" maps that were more generic, uniform and lacking personality. This wasn't as noticable on small maps but it sure was in big games. 2. Bring back the Ambush command. It's much better than covered arcs for some things... such as ambushes. 3. Change the rarity system so that units are either available or not available for purchase, rather than modifying the purchase price. 4. Bring back shockwaves. 5. "TacOps style" SOPs. Gotta have 'em. Don't Change: 1. Scalability. Don't take away our ability to play big battles with a couple of battalions per side on big maps. This flexability of scale was one of CM's best features. I don't like playing little games. [ August 26, 2005, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Wondering if it will be kosher for vegetarians to play?

Wondering if it will be kosher for vegetarians to play?

From what I've read, AMD simply doesn't have the extra manufacturing capacity available.

Reminds me of people who hate James Bond movies because "that's not the way real spys work". BTW, I can't wait for the Winter Assault expansion for Dawn of War.

Basically, yes. For me, picking my units is one of the most interesting parts of the game. I think I've played exactly one pre-made scenario. For people like me the QB generator is Combat Mission.

Are you ever happy about anything?

Yes. I also hope troops will be able to use vehicles as cover and concealment.

Graphics matter for any tactical wargame, whether it is first person or not. CM is a tactical wargame. Data for modern weapons is not hard to find, nor are people who have first-hand experience with them in many cases. And it is likely that any modern game would concentrate on a narrow timeframe, like 1980-82, rather than all of the last 60 years (that would be a massive undertaking). WW2 games sells well, but the downside is that there is a glut of WW2 games. Hell, even most of the first person shooters are WW2 anymore. WW2 is not the be-all end-all of strategy wargaming. I don't want to see BFC release the same games over and over with better graphics.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't either. Fact is modern-themed wargames can and do sell well. No reason a modern CM would be an exception.

What an odd thing to say. I believe Operation Flashpoint sold quite well; well enough to warrent a sequel at least. And I somehow doubt that Dice is counting on military contracts to pay their bills after they release Battlefield: Modern Combat next year.