Stacheldraht

Tiger, who has petulantly demanded anything here? No one, as far as I can tell. Most of us are expressing our "wish list," unrealistic as it may or may not be, and carrying on a discussion that's pretty important if you're interested in game design and/or game marketing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>wargame, a niche product, is an intellectual challenge, not a visceral thrill or pretty picture. So with that in mind, what do you think is more applicable? The metallurgical properties of a certain tank model's armour or your TC flashing his brilliant pearly whites after scoring a kill?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's an intentional misrepresentation of the sorts of changes a number of people have said they'd like to see in the graphics of the games. No need to inject mean-spirited hyperbole. One point to bear in mind, is that, yes, wargames have traditionally been a niche product, but CM has shown that that needn't entirely be the case. It's clear that its appeal is at least somewhat broader than that, and for good reason. It's more sophisticated and interesting, in terms of game design, than your average wargame. I seriously, doubt, too, that most wargamers and armchair historians find their primary or exclusive enjoyment about WWII or other military matters exclusively in the form of abstract intellectualism or mental challenges. There were other detailed wargames before. Why is CM popular? I doubt it's exclusively or even primarily just because of its historical accuracy or pure logical intellectual stimulation--certainly not for all players. [ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

See if you can scrounge back issues of Computer Games Magazine: there's been an ongoing developer diary feature for that game over the last year or so that makes a really interesting read.

See if you can scrounge back issues of Computer Games Magazine: there's been an ongoing developer diary feature for that game over the last year or so that makes a really interesting read.

DeanCo, very well said with the playing cards analogy. Tiger, I don't think people are demanding anything, but rather trying to make sure their input is heard and treated respectfully. Presumably most people here are paying customers of BTS, or soon will be, and as such, it's in BTS' and our best interest (i.e., in terms of what we see in future games) to let everyone voice their desires (not demands) for the CM games. I for one feel that improvements to a game shouldn't need to be made by the user. It's nice that you and others provide them, and we're of course thankful for all the great mods out there, but I'd rather have the best game possible directly from the publisher, when I install it, not months later, if I'm lucky.

Snake Eyes, thanks for the details.

I've read the Manifesto, though I for one don't treat it as the sacred writ some seem to. It's fine as mission statement, no doubt. Again, though, it would appear that many of us believe that gameplay and graphics aren't two separate issues and/or that graphics are an integral or at least very important part of CM. Certainly, all things being equal, improved graphics would improve the game. I of course realize that BTS is a tiny indie developer with very little manpower, and they need to set realistic priorities. Part of BTS's success, it would seem, stems from its willingness to listen to and serve its customer base. Well, part of that base is very much interested in graphics. The fact that thread after thread about the matter has arisen on this forum helps illustrate that. At the same time, I rather doubt anyone who plays CM is primarily or exclusively interested in the graphics of the game. Then again, if they are, that's their prerogrative, and there's no reason to dismiss their interests any more than dismissing the interests of someone arguing over the metallurgical properties a certain tank model's armor. And it's unfortunately clear that a vocal group, perhaps even a vocal minority, has often risen to stridently dismiss the interests of those seeking graphics improvements.

You won't be the only one asking that when IL-2 comes out

I don't believe anyone is arguing that people be excluded from enjoying CM, but rather more people should be included and catered to, insofar as it's reasonable and possible. That's why many people have mentioned scalable graphics. Most games come with options that allow you to alter the resolution, texture detail, etc. to suit your machine. That way, those with weaker machines can run the game, and those with more powerful machines can run it, too, while also getting more enjoyment from more vivid, detailed visuals.

Hi Martin, I checked three books, and all were inconclusive about the exact details of the loading procedure. Limited ammo was stowed on board, but one book said the crane was used (through the large open slot on the superstructure roof) to help maneuver the round into the breech.

You know, everybody needn't be so darned practical Why not have fun? A lot of players enjoy hypothetical battles and experimenting with the different vehicles. In some regards, it's almost like playing with toy soldiers and tanks when you were a kid. I for one derive a certain pleasure from just "driving" the tanks around and watching them fire. Before you label me a cretin, I fully appreciate the tactical subtlety of the game, and it's my main reason for playing Yes, realism and historical accuracy are a big part of CM's appeal, but not the only part. If it were, we may as well never play QB's

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Buy nice spanking new Geforce card. b. Install card. XI. Spend 5 hours trying to get Windoze to recognize said card<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, at least that's not indicative of every upgrade: For me it was 1) Buy nice spanking new GeForce2 card 2) Install card 3) Install drivers 4) Enjoy beautiful, fast graphics that improved my gaming experience immediately Upgrading is not inherently some arduous chore. I don't at all mean to be flippant about your experience, but am just making a general point. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>there. I don't have a problem with them being included, because as was said previously, they don't affect someone whose card doesn't support them, but they do add significantly to development time, and that in my opinion is not worth it for only a segment of the population.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How charitable I think of it this way, fwiw: CM is one of the best games ever made, and I can't wait for CM. Nonetheless, when you have a chance for greatness, why not take it? Rushing out a game just to have it done by autumn or to please one segment of CM players seems opposed to BTS's purported design/publishing philosophy. Why not make the best game possible, within reason (i.e., obviously no one wants to wait three years or whatever), which includes much improved graphics? Those would improve the game experience for anyone with a decent machine (CM's graphics were dated when it came out, so by now, most players should hopefully be able to support something more, which in fairness, BTS has said they'll do, though all the details aren't clear), and also help sell the game. I know many people who saw the CM home page after I mentioned CM to them, or even tried the demo, and thought the graphics were pathetic, frankly. Now, it's too bad they're going to judge a book by its cover, but visuals have nearly always been important in games. Gamers, game developers, the gaming press, game publishers, and hardware manufacturers wouldn't all be so interested in them if that weren't the case. Admittedly, part of that is just about marketing hype and selling new hardware, but a lot of it is because while good graphics don't make the game, they can dramatically improve it.

The confirmed kill sheet from one of my Panther VG late models in a recent armor ME QB--you have to love battles like this: 5 infantry casualties 1 mortar 1 unidentified vehicle 1 Cromwell IV 2 Sherman IIA's 1 Cromwell VIII 1 Sherman II 2 Daimler armored cars Anyone else have any ridiculous tallies to share?

Aw, come on, the Sturmtiger is a favorite of many AFV fans. Please include it, BTS. Thanks. Martin, I don't think, iirc (have to check my references), it was reloaded from the outside, rather the ammunition supply was, via crane.

Another vote for a reexamination of fortifications for CM2. I'd like to suggest the inclusion of as many vehicles and variants as possible. Armor is a big part of CM's appeal for a lot of us, and that will presumably be even more the case in the CM2 milieu.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the team delayed trying to add such features for a relatively small sector of the population.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ? Do you have figures for that assertion? What population? Current CM gamers, potential CM 2 purchasers? Judging by numerous threads on this forum, not to mention typical system recommendations on many other games, and all the "what system specs do you play on" threads in other gaming forums, I would dare say that many gamers have up-to-date, reasonably powerful systems and like to see them put through their paces. It would be incorrect for BTS to assume that nearly everyone who plays CM is trying to do it on an underpowered or outdated system. [ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've got a good computer (don't hit me with that laptop case) but I just fail to understand what rotating widgets adds to the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Compare CM to old-school 2D, top-down, hex and counter based wargames, and you'll see that graphics are vital to CM in terms of core gameplay mechanics. They're also very important for the emotional involvement they provide.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As upgrade cards go, that's right. But the ones coming with new non-high-end 'puters are still usually 8 megs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just glancing at a recent fold-out Dell ad in the back of a comp mag, nearly every single system has a 32MB vid card. Looking through Gateway's site, it looks like most of them come with 16MB or 32MB cards. Anyone who games a lot should get at least a 32MB card.

In Ian V. Hogg's The Guns 1939-45, he speaks of them as separate weapons (p.130).

32MB cards have been the standard (at least for PC's) for some time, and by this Fall 64MB cards will be even more common than they already are. Obviously, BTS will try to please the largest number of people in its potential audience, but many of us have mid-range or high-end systems and would love to see those taken advantage of by the CM series.

Anyone know how to save those videos to disk? "Save target as" in IE doesn't work. Windows Media Player 7 won't open them, and while I can open them in Real Player, it doesn't seem you can save them that way either (?). Thanks.

You can find short videos of Dora, Ziu, and Thor firing here, not to mention many German AFV's. Dora was Gustav's sister weapon. Ziu and Thor were two of the six 60 and 54cm tracked siege mortars the Germans built, know as the Karlgerät, or Gerät 40 and 41. They were used at Sevastopol and elsewhere on the Ostfront. [ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Someday, I'll read more carefully

Well, like or not, presenting a professional public face is important, particularly since the first thing gamers usually do is head for the appropriate website when they hear about something interesting. Just look at how dated the FAQ and its images are, for instance. No offense, but things like that should ideally be updated. This is all particularly true when you consider that BTS sells its games through their site exclusively. People usually feel more comfortable ordering things from very professional, "glossy" sites. It may not be logical, but when does logic enter into shopping?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another MLB Phan? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, baseball is the CM of sports, after all: subtle and refined. The impatient need not apply.

Nice! Here are couple other good WWII AFV links: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de/