Stacheldraht

This one isn't exactly a tank in the traditional sense, and I certainly wouldn't call it the best in CM, but it's extremely useful: the Ostwind. Mediocre armor and speed plus an open top don't say much in its favor. But, its 37mm gun can not only take on fighter-bombers, but more importantly it can easily waste any light armor or vehicles and can get side or rear penetrations (no jokes, please) against many medium or even heavy tanks. The high rate of fire can at least give you immobilizations or gun hits. That ROF plus an absolutely huge ammo store means you can easily take on lots of infantry and suppress them well, raze buildings in one or two turns, not to mention sustain constant firing for twenty turns or so. Very versatile and fun

There was a thread on CM merchandising a few months ago. Game geek that I am, I'd buy and wear the stuff. Seriously

I have to agree on the utility of the Hetzer. The relatively low ammo count (both for the main gun and remote flexible MG) and slow ROF are more than offset by the highly sloped front armor, tiny sillhouette (6' 10.7" high), and low, low price As with any turretless AFV's, protect their flanks (weak side armor and slow to rotate) and use them in groups. A few Hetzers working in concert can ruin an Allied player's day. [ 04-23-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

I've seen both Tigers and Pershings get knocked out at around 200m on (rare) occassion by zooks and schrecks. Don't understimate portable AT weapons. The scale and terrain of most maps in CM means that an all-tank force would rarely be very effective. Tanks are generally most effective at distances far beyond those at which they typically engage the enemy in CM. And as someone said, tanks can't really take and hold VL's--imagine trying to occupy a town with them--bye bye armor [ 04-22-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Good ideas. Another thing that may help is to avoid confrontations between vehicles on both sides. That's obviously one of the most fun parts of the game, but let's face it, the AI, especially in QB's often handles vehicles incompetently. To avoid easily KO'ing all the AI's AFV's, set it up as an infantry-only battle, or just give the AI the combined arms force with vehicles. Actually, I just tried the latter in a defense QB, and I smoked all eight or nine AI vehicles (tanks and HT's) just using a Bofors, a 57 AT gun, and a 105 howitzer and Of course, using your suggestion, you could give the AI all übertanks to help with the problem. Part of the problem with purchasing for the computer, though, is that, even though you don't know what your forces will be, you know precisely what you'll be facing, which is vital info.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The AI is quite good defending, but not so good attacking really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I used to believe the first part of that statement, but over time I've come to think the AI isn't really that skilled at defense, either, at least in QB's. Fortifications, particularly roadblocks, end up in some weird, useless places. Vehicle usage often borders on gross incompetence: i.e., milling them around aimlessly. I don't recall seeing the AI launch a coordinated counter-attack, preferring to sit there and take what's dished out at it. It rarely uses arty in a pre-emptive fashion, trying to hit or disrupt attacking units on the way in, and when it does use arty, it's usually too late to do much good. Units will sometimes be placed out in the middle of the open (in foxholes, by default, but still.) That said, AT gun placement is often handled well, and the AI usually has the patience to wait for good shots, and it also waits until the last minute to reveal most troops. Its main advantages seem to stem from the inherent advantages anyone would get from defending: concealment and cover coupled with surprise. I don't mean to complain, considering how good the AI is overall for a game of this complexity. But over time I've come to notice many holes in the AI and hope they'll be addressed for CM2. It really is quite easy to beat once you've played for some time, though good scenarios help, as does giving the AI experience bonuses. [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i can hear the sound of "Stalin's Organ" playing in the background. It'll all be over soon...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does he take requests?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.S.: All those individual soldiers can really be confusing sometimes! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but what bugs me is how realistic the eye movement and blinking is. I always get the creepy feeling they're watching me when I'm plotting a human wave attack for the Russians.

Mattias, good points. I certainly don't think we have anything to fear from BTS along the lines of watering down the historical accuracy or complexity of future CM games, since those facets of the game are clearly and rightly near and dear to them--and to us, the players and customers. For the very reasons you and others have mentioned or alluded to, I don't think anyone needs to fear a dramatic decline in the quality of BTS' games precisely because they are a little indie developer that only sells games online through Battlefront.com. I don't see MS, Sierra, Eidos, or Infogrames or whoever rushing to buy them out and then try to popularize a hardcore wargame. Any decision to focus on graphical (or any other) improvements to the series would be based on BTS' decisions alone, hopefully considering fan input, since we pay their bills. Realistically, of course, since BTS is a tiny operation, there's only so much time and energy they can put into their games, and again, for the reasons you state (and what BTS has said on this board), graphical improvements will take a back seat to merely trying to get all the new units, terrain, and rules in place to simulate Ostfront combat in an enjoyable and realistic way.

I still can't believe how cool the real-time dynamic lighting looks during night battles. Based on what Steve has said here, I never thought they'd bother with deformable terrain either. Try area fire with the Karl and see how big a hole you can make--lots of fun!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We don't want CM:2,3,4 turned into mindless crap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who on earth does?

Tiger, I believe it was me who mentioned B&W in the context of graphics, specifically meaning the high poly counts viewable from nearly any angle or distance. (I agree with the less enthusiastic reviews of B&W myself, btw, and find it a bore, but the graphics are certainly impressive and create a visually immersive world.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes I wrote this and gave an example of the tracks in the snow. If a high-end user gets graphical advantages over a low-end user then the game design itself has become unbalanced and you'll get two factions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not necessarily. More detailed/higher poly models won't give anyone an advantage or unbalance the game, just make it look better, and therefore make it more enjoyable. The example with tracks is a different matter, for the reasons you state. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>moaning and bitching <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who's moaning and bitching? It looks like most people here (at least in this thread) interested in CM's graphics and possible or desirable improvements to them in CM2 (and beyond) are making serious, polite suggestions, not whining or complaining. There's a substantial difference. It's no more moaning and bitching than asking or suggesting that the Sturmtiger be in CM (ah, the old days), or that MG squads can run, or that Allied tanks get a different proportion of tungsten rounds, and so forth.

Mattias, understood Re: the AI, that's something I'd like to put in another vote for. Yes, CM's AI is suprisingly good in many ways, but for experienced players, it often provides little challenge, unless you give the computer overwhelming force strength and experience bonuses, or play very well designed scenarios. I mean, I played a QB ME (QB may be the problem) the other day where the enemy had 150 casualties and surrendered, and I had only 15 casualties. That's become pretty common, as I've been playing for some time now. (I know about PBEM'ing and TCP/IP games, of course, but those aren't always feasible.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think one reason that you hear from users with high end machines here is simple. If I got a great new system, I would post and tell everyone about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, that's one issue and maybe true for some people, but hoping for improvements in the CM series that take full advantage of those systems is another issue. When you play lots of games in many genres and see just what can be done with graphics, it's natural to want to see similarly incredible graphics in CM--obviously not at the expense of historical accuracy or depth, but as someone said, those are already in place.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Boring and one sided debate really. The ones in favour of in graphics before anything else label themselves as forerunners of the technical revolution while those focusing on game engine improvements are called reactionary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not by any means my words. Just to set the record straight, should that be the implication. Also a straw man argument, since I don't recall seeing anyone asking for graphics improvements over all else in CM. That would be an odd argument to hear from a gamer in any context, actually. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Be that as it may, however, I am completely convinced that CM would not have achieved it's current level of success had the ratio between quality engine design and graphics been reversed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. Again, though, both gameplay and graphics work hand in hand in CM's game design, and it's not a simple binaristic issue. Historical accuracy just requires careful research--you can find that in other wargames. It's CM's interface, camera system, 3D battlefield and units, and WEGO system that set it apart and contribute strongly to its excellence. It's unreasonable to treat the graphical element of CM as some kind of afterthought or separate issue with no strong bearing on gameplay. It's vital to gameplay and helps define the game's unique character. Btw, regarding the idea that it's difficult to render lots of units on screen at once in 3D, and that comparing CM to an FPS like Operation Flashpoint is unfair: fly a chopper in one of the hacked missions, and also look at games with lots of units and that let you position the camera with substantial freedom (including along the Z axis) like Ground Control, Homeworld, Sacrifice, Total Annihilation, Earth 2150, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Instead CM shows the whole of the map and all available units. The result is the poly count is already very high and so are the number of textures used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One word, or rather, acronymn: LOD. When you're in view levels 4 and up, how big do all the units look? Not very. As such, you don't need to render them all in full detail: polys and textures are added/subtracted depending on how close you are to a 3D object. Different dynamic level of detail techniques are more and more commonly used now, it seems. Look at the engine in Sacrifice, or check out B&W, among others. [ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS shouldn't have to cater to high-end users at the expense of low-end users. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And vice versa. Why (speaking theoretically since we obviously haven't seen CM2 to judge it) should all of us with powerful systems be left out? Why shouldn't the game take full advantage of what our rigs can do, as almost all games do? I think it's a misconception that a) the majority of people who play CM or wargames have antiquated systems and that CM's (potential) audience is composed solely of a group of hardcore grogs who only play wargames (and only on dated systems). AFAIK, the interest in the game is happily and deservedly wider than that. It would seem to me that with proper marketing, the game could be pitched to anyone interested in WWII, wargames, RTS games, or strategy games. There's a big crossover.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you accepted CM:BO as fulfilling your need for city fighting you might just as well go on accepting CM2 with no special improvements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that not many of us were ever truly happy with how city fighting is handled in CM. Frankly, it's one of the weak points of the game, imo. *** And to the person calling others whiners because they'd like new features in CM2 and not just new units and terrain types or what have you: many of us ask for (or "wish for out loud but don't really expect, alas") graphics improvements and so forth precisely because we love CM so much--it's a game we really care about, and we want to see the series constantly improve. It's not peevish greed or ingratitude, rather a wish for continued excellence on all fronts (pun intended )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then again, grognard acceptance of poor graphics is born purely out of necessity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As BTS has proven so well, that needn't at all be the case. No need to settle for 2D and hexes now, thankfully.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great expectations in the graphics department is hardly a trademark of wargames, if you have been around to see what came before CM that is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite right, and quite unfortunate: few things are as visually dramatic and emotionally riveting as war (see Saving Pvt. Ryan for an obvious example).

Well, when you're spoiled by the best (aka CM), you can't help but want more

In a sense, graphics are always a visual representation of the underlying math and code in a game. [ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>those RTS are non-stop click-fest don't you know<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If that wasn't tongue-in-cheek, someone needs more time playing games in that genre Many are rather sophisticated, in their way, and many allow you to issue orders while the game is paused, creating an effect similar to CM's turn system. Obviously, some do require more clicking than thinking, sadly, but hardly all. *** Operation Flashpoint for those unfamiliar with it. Looks incredible, based on the demo--a whole lot of promise in this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My opinion has been posted previously and lifted verbatim by Stacheldraht: "evolutionary not revolutionary"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I didn't get it from you, as I never read your opinion on the issue It's a common phrase in criticism that I've read many times.

I read lots of reviews, and it seems to me that most reviewers note the graphics but certainly not at the expense of gameplay--lots of them seem a bit jaded like the rest of us about graphics alone. I don't recall reading any critic who said a game was worth getting because the graphics were great but the gameplay stunk. As for "only eye candy," (emphasis added) there's no such thing in a game that tries to represent reality in 3D. That's like saying CM would be just as good with stick figures. The visuals are an inherent part of the game system and gameplay in this case, too: it's largely the 3D units and battlefield that set CM apart from other wargames. It's also tied into the turn system. Would anyone care about the WEGO system if you just watched little 2D counters move around hexes from a top-down view? Also, the graphics immerse you in the whole combat experience, which shouldn't be underestimated. And if graphics weren't that important, why are so many players avid mod makers and collectors? Here's a quote from an article on GameSpy: "Anyone willing to plunk down the money for a high-end computer in order to pursue their hobby is obviously going to demand the best from a game's designer -- stunning graphics, engaging sounds, and tight and compelling gameplay" This brings up another issue: many of us who play CM are gamers, not just wargamers, and to enjoy hardcore games you need a powerful system, for hardcore flight sims for instance, or for many other genres. Sure, many CM players have older, weaker systems, but for the many of us who have powerful systems, we'd like to see the CM games take full advantage of them--that's what scalability is for. Graphics are a part of and enhance gameplay. It's not an either/or issue.

You can find the Handbook on German Forces in .pdf format here, along with many other primary docs. Another vote for Ian Hogg's books here.