prime^

Stoffel, that is exactly my point though, depth is in the eye of the beholder, there are many people who would have found Duke Nukem 3d to be quite in depth (including me actually). People have different checklists for different types of games, for something like Duke Nukem it worked like this : It had a plot and a coherent storyline (although not amaxingly original one). It had lots of things you could do within the levels. It had humour. It had "lots" of weapons ( a feature in this type of game and remember the time period when it came out). Multiplayer coop and deathmatch modes meant it had longevity as a game. Laser-tripmines in LAN deathmatch are quite possibly the funniest thing ever. The graphics and gameplay "were" good. So one persons shallow game becomes anothers in depth game I imagine you looked at it and thought : No realism. Rediculously over the top. simple plot. Its not a "serious" game. Which is fair enough. To be honest ive lost track of how this relates to the main thread now - but its kinda interesting none the less

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The vast majority of top selling computer games have very little depth, so I'd hazard a guess that the average computer gamer isn't looking for depth in games. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A game without depth on the PC is nearly always doomed to fail, in fact even on consoles only the truely successful games are the ones that had a huge amount of depth. CM's depth lies in its attention to detail, but many would argue it lacks depth, because it has no plot, no campaign, ultimately its just a set of rules. Games I'm playing at the moment : (PC) Unreal Tournament 2003 Warcraft 3 Counterstrike CM:BB (XBOX) Halo Desert Storm (PS2) GTA3 Now everyone can argue depth and lack of depth in all those games (except maybe GTA3 and Halo, wich noone can argue lack of depth in). Now apart from CM:BB and Desert Storm, these are all top selling popular games. There is no reason CM cant go more commercial, without keeping the hardcore elements, flight sims do it all the time. I can never be bothered to play a flight sim with all teh realism functions turned on, for me it jsut isnt fun, but then I know people who hate them without the realism functions, but any reasonable flight sim that comes out now, has both options. Going more commercial would do CM absolutely no harm, provided the core elements are left intact (even if it requires going to the options menu to get them). In support of the topic starter, in my somewhat limited time on these forums, I have noticed a definite level of snobbery. Most times it is something very pathetic, like having a go at someone for mispelling or typing something (its an internet forum not an essay! ), but there can be some very patronising comments from "mature" posters, far too keen to win one over on someone that actually post something sensible.

I had 2 IL-2 in my last game, they did some reasonable damage to halftracks etc but coudlnt do jack against the heavier armour, 1 eventually got shot down. They are certainly not the be all and end all, especiall when i could have spent the points on a 300mm rocket barage - however 1 thing that planes do seem to be good for, is recon. Still havnt heard much about the odd thing i saw in my first game of cm:bb, where 1 bomb destroyed all but 2 units within LOS (about 5 vehicles and 4 tanks as well as numerous infantry squads) over a large distance (500-600 meters).

I find infantry are the best defensive units in the game. After my first QB, a 5000 pt game defending a large town, my tanks were either all dead or out of ammo, i had 3 SMG groups in the town, and a few more dotted around the map. The 3 at the front (corners and middle), held off a massed infantry and vehicle assault (AT rifles were doing some very heavy damage) for 15 turns (about 250 men, fending off an attack of at least 700 + vehicles). I couldnt believe the damage they took - being in a building obviosuly helped.. but I achived Total Victory - even though i had only 430 men left and 2 heavy tanks (1 had no ammo of any kind), yet the germans had over a 1000 troops and about 8 vehicles, 3 tanks. I think I tricked them in to a ceasefire.

Hmm, but it didnt kill everything, just "nearly" everything, i believe one infantry squad in the middle of all the dead ones had "broken" and 2 people left in it, and all of my units that were out of LOS from the bomb were un affacted (all 6 of em - needless to say i gave up on that mission straight away). [ October 13, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: prime^ ]

as an aside, is it possible to get crew that have abandoned a vehcile or a pillbox to get back in? In the game im playing one of my 76mm pillboxes crew took 1 casualty and they bailed out. The pillbox is still intact but they are just sitting behind it like lemons :/ This was an annoyance in CMBO as well, as when something like a wasp took a single crew casualty it became useless (well kinda, i used them to occupy 'safe' flag positions rather than ttying up useful troops), but at the end of the game I might have 3 wasp carriers with 2 crew each, why cant i split teh crew from 1 and make the other 2 useful again :/

Damn you Cameroon you got back on topic before my request to get backon topic :/ I cant remember, but being that this 1 bomb also wiped out every infantry unit in ... LOS pretty much, and that the bomb dropped and then everything 'instantly' changed to eliminated, if the crew abandoned it would say "bailing out" would it not?

Now about that aircraft....

I mean in CMBO the artillery units had a lot more ammo than in CMBB, thats all.

It was more the HUGE difference between CMBO artillery and CMBB artillery, the difference seems so huge that i cant believe CMBO got it so totally wrong? Purely from a gameplay point of view, it makes artillery so difficult to use, and so easy for them to be useless, combined with their relatviely high cost - it just dosnt seem worth taking them any more.. I can have 8 extra tanks! wooo

I was under the impression that artillery in ww2 was accurate? or at least as accurate as the spotters correcting the fire. realism aside, ther was nothing quite so satisfying in CMBO than a big MP game, where ive taken 6+ arty spotters and just raked the enemy side of the map with wide targeted (blind) fire early in the game > Anyway any thoughts about that plane? ;p [ October 13, 2002, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: prime^ ]

But you actually have to pay for TRPs, which makes any arty spotter 90(?) pts more expensive, combining the fact that the generally have less ammo as well its kind of removing the use of artillery from the game :/ What I also meant was that because the artillery is already aware of teh general bearings of the battle, the arty spotters are merely making adjustments, every grid reference would have been pre-sited in a prepared battle as a matter of course, and firing adjustments would therefore have been much more accurate. I havny played with TRPs yet, but it also seems that these can only be useful at the beginning of a round, so not much use if I want to break an emerging strong point or ruin an attack against a faltering defensive position :/ [ October 13, 2002, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: prime^ ]

I never understood why games companies put unit restrictions in "for performance reasons". Why not just set the recommended limit, and then allow people to go above it, and when they do display a warning that explains that the company will not guarentee any performance or compatability with games of this size. (although its obviously possible for the game to handle it as the attacking army in a 5000 pt battle has 7500 to spend?) [ October 13, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: prime^ ]

I didnt see your last post, that actually makes more sense, but surely for the purposes of a specifc engagement, most of the area would have been presited anyway, allowing for a much faster adjustment of location? (and im not talking about a round 1 presight either)

Pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes on a forum is incredibly pedantic and pretty pathetic to be honest, its the internet, we are not writing formal letters to people, it does not matter if "you" is spelt as "u" or that "the" as "teh" etc, its a simple type-o and you still understand what is being said. In some cases (as FireFox has previosuly indicated to be true in his case) there is a specific reason for the type-o's in his posts. In short : get over it, it REALLY dosnt matter. Secondly I am not plain wrong, what is the POINT in having an artillery spotter, if what he does is EXACTLY the same as an officer in the field requesting a "fire mission" . Artillery spotters were there for a reason and by world war 2 artillery was sophisticated and accurate enough, combine with radio technology to provide a reasonable turnaround on artillery requests. 15-25 minutes does not seem to, in anyway accurately reflect the 'average' response time for a request for artillery. By actually "buying" a specific spotter, what you are actually buying is the "specific" attention of an artillery battery, not the ability to make requests, but the ability to ORDER an artillery battery to fire on a location of your choosing, at short notice. When you embark on a 30 turn game and include spotters in your army, the relative orders that will have been given to the off field artillery would be akin to : "between the time xx:xx and xx:xx you will be receiving your targeting information from spotter x". Is artilery priority being given to spotters really that hard to understand? If a strike called in by my battalion HQ was going to take 15-25 minutes I could beleive and accept that, in fact i would even beleive it being rejected flat, but as i have "booked" the artillery for this specific engagement (IE the battery has provided me with a spotter to direct the fire they have PROMISED me)it does not seem realistic that it can take so long.