hm_stanley

Frankly, I never thought a game could rival close combat. That game was to me a true reflection of small unit tactics, with the exception of borg spotting, and indirect fire. I grew up with ASL, and i played those gamrs for weeks..literally. When CC came along, I stopped playing SL & ASL. Since that time, ive been looking, oh you never get rid of the SL itch..(I still have all my boxes, cross of iron, GI anvil..). But It was the 3d..too slow, and not what top town 2d provided in terms of player experience, drama, performance.. but BFC seems to have hit it on the head with cm:bn. Also, I related everything to 2d real time, and 3d real time takes getting used to...which, for some reason the wego system finally hit me the right way..not sure... I think its really the infantry implementation that is what is working for me, its really perfectly modeled.

Thanks. I think what u guys are saying content wise, bb has more. Functional and playability, I think you are all saying BN is 21st century, BB is 17th century.. I get that. I think the 3 person squad graphic was one of the main reasons i didnt buy the game in 2002... if i remember correctly.. I remember comparing the demo to close combat and I ended up punting... now, if this cm:bn only reflected simple tank damage decals or broken tracks, it would be perfect.. thats my only beef.

I've been following BFC since they started their website in the late 90's however, ive never purchased a combat mission game until now. Im finding it very fun. I think I didnt buy them at the time since I was a close combat junkie and could not get my head around 3d. Anyway, not important. I am tempted to buy cm:bb to understand thr origins of this game, but more importantly, it appears to me that cm:bb is stacked with features not in the current cm:bn. It seems much deeper even if the engine is different. I also think if I do this i might somehow spoil the experience I'm getting with cm:bn and totally confuse myself. Would it be fair to say that cm:bb is deeper than cm:bn both at a funtional level and content level? Or should I just get used to cm:bn and shutup.. I'm curious what others feel..

Man.. I look at TOW 2 in terms of it's graphics representation and those vectors with ammo type and decals representing hits/penetrations are awesome.. frankly it's the best part of the game. Otherwise the game is total fail.. with a one man sniper killing an entire company, how fun it is to crawl and kill.. and then chuck anti-tank RPG 43 grenades at T-34's and watch them explode.. I won a TOW 2 game with one guy once.. it was hilarious.. anyway.. i digress.. the impact graphics with side-skirts blowing off and the penetration decals are just the bomb diggity.. I would write the code myself for CM:BN if I could.. I can't imagine that it would be too challenging to have decals married to the ballistics engine to track hits on a vehicle (and stack them too, based on a preference setting). So you could see all the penetrations, all the collapsed shell hits, all the ricochets.. etc.. Also have some additional polygon graphics to show things broken, like tracks, side-skirts.. that would be enough for me.. or hits that didn't penetrate.. etc. Don't need too much, but enough that you get the sense that you took 10 hits from a Sherman in your Tiger and your laughing.. until he flanks you with a bazooka team and blows up your rear.. enhancement request summary: - damage graphics - tracks and skirts maybe stuff like the smoke dischargers broken, or radio antenna gone... (especially tracks) - small stuff. - colored ballistic vector line (line of impact) for ammo - ammo type/size msg above the line and it's result represented by color (red = penetrations, etc). - small black hole decals for all hits (the vector graphics would show what the shell did to you) - nothing big, just a black mark or big black mark for 14in shells Seems doable to me.. Steve.. Please do this.. I would be one area that I think would be somewhat straightforward to implement, would not affect game mechanics and be a great immersion addition.. There is my troll whine for the day.

This is a feature that should and MUST be in the game.. it would make it 100% better to see damage on the vehicles and as such add immense immersion.. I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't add it in.. I'm hoping this happens.. Was there damage decals or other indicators for the Original CM:BO or BB?

great game, from someone who loved Close Combat (CC III all the way!). Anyway, one of the things missing from that game and one I had hoped would be in this game is soldier entrenching or an entrenchment tool. I mean the two jobs most soldiers learn is shooting and digging.. so, I can't understand why this isn't part of tactical sim games such as these. these guys got it right tho.. I've been waiting for a good replacement for CC for almost 10 years now, and this is first one that actually comes as close to a good 3d representation of the top down tactical genius that was Close Combat. However, as with many of these games, once you figure out the scenario mechanics, it's easy to win, on any level. I played the first scenario and after reading a bunch on how to play the game (patience, more patience, and more more patience), I was doing quite well until the Il-2's came roaring out of the sky to hit my artillery company on top of the hill without cover. But, replayed from a saved game and won quite easily. Fun game.. being a programmer, I think I'm going to make myself a nice little Seelow Heights campaign - I think that would be loads of fun. I'm going to wait on Korea until they get it more stable.. but that looks good as well.