Troy Spiral

Hello, I've been playing CM on and off for a long time, and reading posts and reviews for it for most of that time. Generally, i seem to "identify" with people that love CM, as well as other military srategy games and what im puzzled about is: Right now i play on and off (and have done so for some time) basicly three military strat games. Namely Korsun Pocket (used to play the various Panzer Generals but KP is head and shoulders a better game),Close Combat IV and CM. It seems that almost universally these games are well-rated, but that CM is always (at least on some level) rated "more higly" than either of the above. Generally, i seem to favor Close Combat over CM becasue, frankly, all the LOS issues in CM bewilder me a bit in terms of stategy. Now i dont consider myself a wargaming novice, but it does seem to be very hard for me to use the "vertical" aspect of LOS in CM to full advantage. Im basicly scanning every single unit on the map, over and over again , trying to figure out who can see what, over and over every turn if i want to "do it right". To me while this is interesting it can get downright tedious. I was wondering what peoples thoughts are on this "LOS complexity". Am i losing touch with my grognard roots and just dont "apreciate" the realism that comes along with this?

Also it would be nice if the targeting lines actually -stayed ON- the only time you see them , even with "all paths & target lines turned on" is if you actually have the unit slected (durring playback) or when the play has stopped totally. Seems strange that they wouldnt let you see the lines all the time. Would save a lot of having to run the playback and staring at each platoon to figure out what they did that turn.

Having not played CM:BB or CM:BO for well over a year (and no longer have the demos on my computer) im not sure if im imagining things or not. Having recently played the demo of CMAK , it seems that i have to spend a lot more time replaying the senarios and clicking on my units to actually figure out whos shoot what. It seemed like the "shooting graphics" in the previous games were a bit more star-wars like, which helped you see what was going on. Is that the case or am i just having a case of selective memory? Also it seemed that you could very obviously hear a "CLAAAAANG!!" when a vehicle got knocked out, and now its very much toned down to the point were i often cannot audibly tell that a vehicle has been KOed. Selective memory on my part again?

The "total number of units" or "grid size" doesnt excuse the poor renders and texture quality. I totally expected the "no way your crazy" response to my comment though. I think that once people become a fan of a given game, they become blind to its flaws. Graphics are such a non-priority for grognard games, that the dev teams usually dont put much effort into making the graphics "look good" which is evidenced by how long this game has been out since its inital incarnation and the small advances in the graphical quality since then. The idea probably is "we have X days to get X Y and Z done... graphics come last..waaaaaay last." which is fine. I dont have a problem with that, i just think its silly too fool ourselves into thinking that CM's graphics are anything other than (at best) "mediocre" and at worst, "crumby".

Me being the worst CM player ever, i took the default setup, as allies. Then i only gave orders on -two- turns all the rest i just let the AI do its thing. I won by a landslide. No point in playing this one as allies unless you want to just see how badly you can whoop the AI over and over again or just "to do it". Havnt played as the Germans yet. [ December 17, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Troy Spiral ]

you must be joking or stuck in a early 90's time warp. The graphics are sad. A buddy of mine down the street makes "homeade games" with a friend of his, and the graphics are litterally 10 times better, and they are made on a storebought copy of 3D stuido max, by ONE guy, in his spare time. (they mostly make RTS historical wargames)

sweet , to bad you cant level up your men based on how skilled you are at "sucking it up" lol There should be an undo for just about every command IMHO. oh well *sucks it up some more*

the game has boats? neat. (have just played the demos so far)

Good god if there isnt there should be. For instance, you just get done slowly placing some insane number of units... then you select them all to chose say "hide" Then, forget you have them all selected, and try to move 1 unit.. then the whole damned army gets re-postioned all over the place. Is there a "undo last placement" or some such? Or do i get to put another check next to "suck it up troy, cant do that" lol

hunted around some more... still couldnt find anything. I there some way to click on a unit to see how "well" they are covered? If it just says "rough" that doesnt mean anything if i dont know what "rough" terrian does for a unit...

thanks radar , trying it now...

Card-Carrying Idiot newbie question... When i try to give mutlple orders... for instance: "Move to X point, then, Move to Contact to X point" I cant seem to get that to work. I can issue multiple, waypoited orders , if they are of the -same- order type... For instance: "Move to X point , then to Y, then to Z" But, if i try to mix and match order types (Move, then move to contact) They wont "stack". The "move to contact" will completly overwrite the inital "move" command. Im not sure if im just missing something, or if these type of orders are not allowed...

still looking....

In any armed engagement, we know, that casualties are a possiblity, and in many cases, very likely. But does anyone else feel sort of strange about placing say... a light machine gun group to "draw fire" , even though you know they are going to be cut to peices? Im playing the demo currently , (Citadel) and basicly these "Maxim" machine gun guys are fairly worthless. Often i use them, to get the enemy tanks to turn and fire on them, usually blasting them all to hell, but allowing for better shots from other troops on thoes same tanks. Im thinking in real life that this sort of tactic, while it surely was used, would be used far less than i seem to be doing. Im thinking maybe you should lose -major points- for getting guys killed, far more than the game models currently. Generally i feel like i should be able to come up with less costly ways to win, and have higher victory scores over using meat sheilds and cannon fodder type tactics. This is almost more of a "moral" argument than a actual tactical question. [ January 18, 2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Troy Spiral ]

Interesting Scholarly comentary goes *points elswhere* Awesomet thread idea. Hopefully it will not be hijacked to badly Some very good ideas in this thread. Im still somewhat of a newbie myself but my NO 1. Newbie Tip (applies to all areas of endevour) Develop a deep burning desire to become successful. That one will help you more than any other. Once you get the "hunger" the rest will come eventually.