Stacheldraht

In principle, I thoroughly agree with you, Jeff. I don't mind using supposed "übertanks," nor do I mind if my opponents employ them, assuming we're not using Fionn's rules I find, though, that a few less powerful tanks are more challenging and interesting (and often more potent) to use than one supposedly almighty one. (Of course, all vehicles in CM have their weaknesses to exploit.) I think the ST will actually count as one of the weaker obscurities when faced with a handful of Soviet tanks in the hands of a competent player. That should keep the Axis player on his or her toes. (And, fwiw, I'm really looking forward taking some of the earlier Panzers for a spin in CM2.) It's like they say: tactics is about making the best of what you've got.

Sounds like a question for Rexford

That's a good point. I often hear my troops shout "Da! Feindlicher Panzer!" before I see it. A long-standing mystery to me: what's the German troop saying (in German) in .wav 00002032?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With a quickbattle your goals are limited to "Kill the bad guys". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No argument there, but killing the bad guys entails so much that I don't find that to be much of a limitation in practice. I do hope that in CM2 we can use user-created maps in QB's, save QB maps for future use, and so forth. That way, players can get maximum use out of a map with really interesting terrain, whether randomly or hand created.

I believe Belton Y. Cooper mentions two Shermans getting taken out with one shot in Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II (Presidio Press, 1998). This is a very interesting memoir, btw, about the armor war in the West, from Normandy to the fall of Germany, written by a tank maintainance officer. He offers lots of interesting insights about AFV design, in/effectiveness of different tanks (he's no lover of the Sherman, to be sure), logistics, tactics, development of the hedge-chopper (or "Rhino") to plow through bocage, and so forth. [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but as far as Im concerned, a QB is totally inferior to a good scenario designed with mallice and forethought, and the ST seems like the perfect things to be the centerpiece of one... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've always felt that, at least against human opponents, QB's represent the game in its "purest" form. Just men, machines, and the minds controlling them, unconstrained by historical events (other the ones that gave rise to the unit specs) or a map designer's will. Tactics, pure and simple: here's random terrain and some (potentially random) units; now see what you can do with them. From that perspective, among others, the ST and other rarities are arguably more worthy of inclusion in the game than numerous slight variations of more common vehicles, precisely because of the more unusual or unique tactics that can evolve in using the unusual vehicles. I.e., a higher number of more diverse units can yield more tactical complexity. Of course, this view is predicated on the perspective that sees CM as a tactics game rooted in history, as opposed to a history game that's tactical.

The American M3 gun used on the earlier Sherman models was about 110 inches long with a muzzle velocity of 2300 fps (ammo type not listed--looks like AP). The 75mm KwK40 L/48 found on the Pz IV models in CM had a muzzle velocity of 790 m/s (Pzgr 39 AP round). CM's StuG's used the 75mm StuK40 L/48 gun (990 m/s with Pzgr 40 AP round.) Barrel length equals caliber (75mm) multiplied by calibers (in the European sense of the term, here being 48). Barrel length affects velocity of the rounds (increased pressure from expanding gases in the longer tube), not accuracy, afaik. [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Btw, the fact that so many different tactical issues about the Sturmtiger have been raised here argues well for that vehicle's inclusion in the game.

Jeff, I take your point. It's really just a matter of priorities among different CM players. As far as cool toys, I'd say CM has StarCraft beat because CM's weapons/units are much more subtle and sophisticated, plus their basis in historical reality adds depth by letting players compare the real things and their usage to their in-game counterparts. Anyway, there's no shame in enjoying the sheer "wow" factor, as unsophisticated as it might be, of big guns and tanks duking it out. Surely lots of CM players also like to visit military air shows or watch documentaries on modern weapon systems and so forth. The same principle comes into play there: a sort of boyish glee at big explosions, fast planes, etc. (That's certainly more respectable than enjoying these things for what they ultimately are: killing machines.) Either way, there's no chance of CM2 devolving into an arcade shoot 'em up, so I wouldn't worry too much about significant historical features being axed for the inclusion of certain vehicles.

From what I've read, the ST was designed for close-range assaults against fortified buildings. Why make it an off-map asset? That would make more sense for things like the Karl siege mortars (60 and 54cm mortars on tracked platforms) or railway guns. (I hope, btw, these latter weapons are included as off-map assets, as they played roles in some significant actions.)

Jeff, of course BTS has to make choices and establish priorities, but as they said in that interview, they're including some things "just for fun." Surely that's not an improper goal for a piece of entertainment software? Granted, people find different aspects of CM entertaining, but it seems pretty clear, unsurprisingly, that there's a real interest in military hardware among CM players. Many players seem to be interested in the weapon systems in their own right and don't always feel constrained to use them in strict accordance with history. (No point in the game then; we know who won.) Surely the inclusion of the ST and other rarities won't preclude common and historically significant vehicles and features.

Re: the Bofors, better to play as the Germans and use the Ostwind in that capacity. Mobile, armored, tons of ammo, high ROF. Chews through buildings in no time, suppresses infantry well, and penetrates light vehicles or the flanks/rear of heavier vehicles with ease.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And for those that think a fast rush at this beast while it's reloading will score a quick kill; consider the possibility that it may have an escort. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. When using a Königstiger or Jagdtiger, do you leave its flanks undefended?

There's a strong precedent for including relatively obscure vehicles in CM. Look at the Wirbelwind (86 produced), Ostwind (43), Puma (101), Lynx (104), etc. (Figures from Chamberlain and Doyle) No need to break a fine tradition that has provided great entertainment to many players.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I won't be too alarmed to meet them on the battlefield since they are never going to destroy more than one Russkie vehicle if they hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think anyone with at least a passing knowledge of WWII AFV's is under any delusion that the Sturmtiger was some kind of Panzerjäger. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the other hand I'm glad because then all the little wannabe stormtroopers are going to get a rude shock when they find out their dream uberpanzer is nothing more than a hopped-up garbage truck. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can want to experiment with different vehicles without erroneously believing them to be all-powerful. Not everyone interested in obscure AFV's is some deluded ignoramus.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can't think of any rare vehicle I would put the SturmTiger in front of as far as desireability. What a useless piece of scrap in a tactical game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who let Scrooge in? Sure, in hyper-realistic scenarios it wouldn't normally play a part, but why not experiment with it just for fun? Part of CM's appeal is the ability to play out hypothetical engagements and experiment with all the different units and learn how best to employ them, realism be damned (temporarily). Btw, why would the Sturmtiger be useless tactically? Obliterating buildings with a single shot could be quite useful in many circumstances.

Will we be able to * watch full movies of complete battles when they're done? * save QB maps for future use? * play QB's on handmade maps?

with glee

Regarding earlier discussion of the AI and planning, I'd just like to put my vote in for dramatically enhanced AI (if possible). It really doesn't seem that the AI ever has much of a plan (in QB's particularly), but rather mills around aimlessly. I've seen the AI do things with vehicles that no human player would ever do: lead an attack through dense terrain with them, leave them utterly exposed on all sides, leave them in the middle of a field for a few turns, etc. And of course, the AI leads with HQ and FO units, doesn't use smoke to screen its movements, doesn't effectively use support by fire elements, often opens fire with hidden AT guns too early (i.e., on infantry instead of vehicles), doesn't place defences logically, obsesses over attacking lowly flamethrower units (or was that corrected?), wastes all its artillery on single AT guns, etc. This isn't a complaint, but constructive criticism in hopes of improved AI.

It would be nice to have the AI use arty smoke screens. I don't recall it ever doing that except to temporarily silence tanks, as opposed to screening troop movements, where it's far more useful much of the time. The AI would be a much better attacker if it used smoke more like the way human players do.

One can hope. Just having the Sturmtiger will be a blast, pun intended

Check out shooters like Tribes 2 and Serious Sam for examples of FPS games that push huge numbers of polys in expansive outdoor areas. Look at the upcoming Unreal 2 engine, or Operation Flashpoint, etc., etc. Why all the digs at FPS games and players, btw? Isn't that the same sort of attitude that leads people to mock or condemn CM out of hand? FPS games like TFC, Rogue Spear, and Tribes 2 (in particular) are very sophisticated tactically. Why on earth do people think games like Q3 are representative of shooters in general? They most certainly aren't. In fact, Q3 arguably represents the least popular kind of FPS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I cant understand why people think the graphics in CM are so bad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just take a look at most games in most genres, and you'll see the difference immediately. The graphics in CM are great for a wargame, but not for a game in general. (Especially true if you have no mods installed.) Sadly, even with the improved graphics, the difference between CM2's visuals and other games released around the same time will probably be even greater than the difference between CM and today's games, leading to more snap judgements. CM has a weakness, big deal--it's still an amazing game

Bumped for those who may have missed it. Very interesting info.

Man, all I did with this thread was post a "public service announcement" and look what happened If the magazines are available where you live, just buy them. $7.00 or whatever won't hurt your wallet much. After you buy them, send a polite email to the editors saying you love their coverage of CM, bought an issue of the magazine just for that, and want to see more. Surely that would be good all around.