Kommissar

My Lord. People need to stop resurecting this post. Also, people need to stop asking the same goddamn question every post.

Unless you're sure it's the game of your dreams, never buy before you read the reviews, or at least play the demo. So many people are getting mad at battlefront for TOW because it's a new style of game for the company. But if you were dumb enough to preorder that's your problem. TOW is a game some people will like and it's a game others won't. I don't have any problems with the game, but after playing the demo, I said this isn't for me. It's not a bad game, it's just not for everyone. Blame yourselves not Battlefront for preordering.

"I think people that rely on looks(graphics) for enjoyment are both vain and shallow. It's no different than wanting some 19 or 20 year old when you have a 40 or 50 year old spouse. Shame on those with that type of mentality." If you have the same kind of relationship with video games that you do with your spouse, then your statement both true and very disturbing. It's a bloody game! Do you bitch at people who want to buy a new car that looks better than the one they have? Are they cheating on their old car? I get your point, and I agree that graphics aren't everything, but products and games are not analagous to people that you care about.

I think there's misconception that US forces are vastly superior to other countries'. In terms of logistics and air power, they are - but not in ground forces. Let's not forget that in Iraq, fighting poorly equiped combatants, they've take over 10,000 casualties. A US soldier, or even a vehicle, is far from invincible. While they may have somewhat better equipment, a gunfight is still lethal to both sides.

If that's the case, then you'd better be setting a date for a Maury appearance.

lol, I picked that up to. Lots of bugs though, needs a patch big time. That's the good thing about BF games, v1.0 often works just fine.

Hmm. I wonder if BF has gone out of business or something. Has there been any activity in any of the other forums? They haven't updated the website for almost a month. I wonder.

Tommy, I couldn't agree with you more.

Bruceov, you're not the first one with that suspicion. Although as to your point about a lack of CMBB players, I think a lot of players will re-discover CMBB if CMC comes out.

So early next year seems to be the consensus. I agree - it seems like it's basically then or never.

Alright folks. Everyone is speculating like crazy on CMC's release date, with some even suggesting that there won't be one I thought I'd give everyone the opportunity to voice their final prediction about the game's release date. Whoever's guess is closest gets a big high five. My prediction is May 15, 2007.

Mr. Dorosh, I'll give you a little journalistic tip. When you interview people, try quoting them. Let them speak for themselves. It was an interesting story nonetheless.

lol

It's true, the battlefront staff seem to be fond of saying "when it's ready." It's odd that they don't give release dates. For most other games, you know the exact day it's coming out at least six months before it does. I guess the one benefit to not releasing it on a schedule though, is that if it isn't in fact ready, they aren't shipping a crappy product. Oh well, I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. The longer we don't hear anything, the more likely a post from Hunter saying "due to unresolvable problems with game mechanics..." I like that they keep announcing new games, but it would be nice if they got around to finishing some of the ones they announced a long time ago.

Jason - lets assume you're correct in saying that the larger battles will be unplayable. Well then isn't the solution within the grasp of the player? Split up your forces. I'm pretty sure the game would allow you to turn your battalion into three companies, so why not try that? I see where my argument is leading though. You'll say that you'd be mad to split up your forces because then your opponent would simply crush your companies with his battalions (or divisions or whatever) one by one. It turns into sort of a prisoners dilemma. No matter what your opponent does, your best bet is to keep your units at the largest allowable strength whenever possible. This of course means that the battles are unplayable. Which brings us back to whether it is in fact unplayable or not. Rather than go there, which I think we've done enough, I'll just say that I agree that they should make some changes (even if it means the game is further delayed - argh). They might consider making unit size caps controllable by the designer or give the option to have maps tailored to the size of the forces involved. That would probably make everyone happy but, according to Hunter, they're probably not. I'd say that you have a pretty legitimate concern but it's probably wise to wait until it comes out to render a final verdict.

Do you guys remember that CMBB operation entitled "To the Volga"? It was massive (18000 points for the axis I believe), and the units were ridiculously crammed together on one very small map. The funny thing is, as the scenario designer points out, that in reality there were nearly three times the number of units all fighting in an area as small as the size of the map. Makes you question the claim that clashes involving large concentration of forces are unrealistic. Stalingrad wasn't decided by company level action. Realism aside, on the issue of playability, even the very large battles should be no problem for modern PCs. The game just turned 5 years old and it certainly wasn't pushing the envelope in terms of graphics when it came out. It may certainly take time to issue orders for such a large number of troops and tanks, but if you think about it, you'll end up having to deploy those units elsewhere so why not commit to a large but decisive battle?

I'm hoping Hunter will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say that it's probably going to be a pretty standard setup zone. The defender will obviously have a larger zone, and in the case of a ME, it will probably be much like a quick battle in CMBB.

Jason, you raise a good point. Especially in terms of keeping the game moving, it would be nice to have tiny engagements fought on a smaller battlefield. However, I think it may add a degree of realism to the game with the bigger map sizes to not always know exactly where your opponent is. Hunter's right in saying that during the war there were no magical map edges that secured your flank, and I think that may add an interesting dynamic to the game. As for the opposite problem of too many units crammed into a relatively small area, well again I think realism is on the designers' side. Battles of that size will probably quickly degrade into a giant meat-grinder, but then again that's a pretty fair assesment of what the war was like.

A quick question about fuel usage during battles. Does the game track how much fuel was used by each tank (or the unit) during a particular battle, or does it simply dock a set fuel amount for each battle, regardless of how far the tank actually drove in the course of the battle?

I find that in Rome TW, using auto-resolve can actually help you take fewer casualties in siege maps. I think the auto-resolve overlooks the advantage the defender has with walls. Otherwise I agree, the AI in TW is crap.

Buddy, you really need to understand that as Lt. Smash pointed out, the mission is next to impossible to win. I've played tons and tons of CMBB and I still find myself losing the early war axis attacks (even to the AI). A lot of the scenarios just don't give you the firepower to dislodge the Russians nor the infantry to overrun them. Try playing some meeting engagements and don't despair if you don't enjoy immideate success. That Russian squad taking out your tank with a molotov is just an example of bad luck. In CM it happens. You might flank a t-34 with a panther, miss twice and watch as the t-34's conscript crew turns the tank around and takes you out in one hit. There's a good saying, "nothing corresponds less to expectations than in war." Good hunting.