Hister
-
Posts
1,962 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Hister
-
-
-
4 hours ago, herr_oberst said:
Hmm... if Santa is nice and brings me a new MacBook Pro, I might migrate my Hackintosh to Win 7 (and get that out of it's current VM) to give it a go.
i7 3770k, 32GB RAM, 500GB SSD, nVidia GTX 660Ti - tech is a little old, but should have the horses to play -- I'll have to be selective about what games to buy... CMFI gets the most play time currently...
CM games do not work on Macs with emulated Windows. Just a reminder in case this is what you meant to do.
-
Avoid AMD CPU's! Especially the FX generation ones. I have it and it sucks big time.
Get yourself a higher frequency core i5, 7th (i5 7600K) or current 8th generation (i5 8600K->low availability at the moment) . I don't know about AMD Ryzen cpu's (seen no feedback from any players sporting them) but I know their 1 core tasks churn out less then intel cpus so it is reasonable to assume they would perform worse then intel ones. As for GPU's, since summer the price of GPU's was rising a lot due to mining activities (much bigger demand for middle GPU performers, GTX 1060, AMD 580 but also very noticable with 1070 series). Same story with RAM.Bottom line is I would wait until the prices drop for GPU's, RAM (crazy 40 to 50% overpaying for some models at the moment) and when the newest 8th generation i5's become more available. Their single core performance is awesome and they deliver a much smoother gaming experience as per (non CM) user reports. First signs of prices starting to fall are already here. I think the prime time to buy a new rig will be in February. I personally am awaiting until then to get me a new rig that will be used the following 5 to 6 years. If you can't wait and you find a good deal now then by all means go for it.
All that said since I don't personally sport Intel core i5 8600K I can't say for sure how the CM games will run on it. This CPU is the hottest new thing in their CPU line when it comes to money to performance ratio but only when you get it for up to 270 EUR, pay more and the deal is not so sweet - prices are rising for it due to biiig demand. I personally have it eyed myself.
Good luck with your purchase.
-
5 hours ago, Mord said:
Ok. I'll meet you half way. We'll call this one neutral.
We should also note that:
A.) We can get details on hits. But that can be turned off, so again, neutral.
B.) If a vehicle is knocked out you will never know what happened to it if the crew is all killed or they bail before you can pause to check. Or you forward the turn before pausing to check.
I agree. From my initial fails I would churn it up to 60-70% meets the point after your arguments. Good job.
5 hours ago, Mord said:I think CM's system for dealing with this is really good and in this case I think game play and enjoyment trumps realism. Though maybe waiting a turn before you know what was damaged wouldn't be a bad idea, I just don't know if it could be implemented or if it would have any real impact on game play. And in the case of part "B.)" you would never find out what happened.
Oh, I personally have no qualms with the way it is done in the game. I was just basing my observation according to what the Austrian pointed out were the main fails in war games and me merely observing what fails and what doesn't in CM according to how he set the "game rules" up. It would be ok if there wold be a plausible delay in conveying to the player what subsystems were damaged as soon as tank crew would understand what works and what doesn't but it is by no means necessary. OK at least on paper, actual gameplay experience could annoy many.
5 hours ago, Mord said:I'll remove him from the "I don't like him anymore" column to the glorious and magical "I like him" column when he apologizes for being mean to you!
Aaaaaawww, thank you Mord.
-
Ha, you are right Mord, mostly. I don't fully agree with you. When the vehicle is hit the systems damaged or destroyed are shown almost immidiately while the crew is still reeling from the impact and couldn't have possibly tested all the systems.
I would fix this point to "partially right" as per your argumentation. Do you agree?
I don't dislike him. I know how I am when I am overloaded with work - not very disposable. 😙😉
-
8 minutes ago, Josey Wales said:
You should definitely create a response video with this information. Good effort.
I have never created any youtube video myself. I give you the licence to kill..., erm to shoot the video containing this information Josey.
-
1 minute ago, IanL said:
Cool. Time to create a YouTube channel and post it over some game play footage
Then we can all link to your video in the comments on his channel. Wait would that be considered annoying him? Perhaps, but who cares
Ha ha, if he is stubborn and annoyed enough due to his lack of time then it could only make it worse and block him for ever wanting to have anything to do with CM games. According to his previous reaction that is a far more plausible result then him finally realizing what a schmuck he was avoiding the game under the pretense he has no time for all this time.
That said I will post my findings as a comment below the video in question, maybe a couple of people who previously were not aware of CM games would direct their radar towards them.
-
Ha, this is so cool.
-
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Not saying CM gets anything wrong. Not doubting artillery was the major killer. But I think comparing artillery kill rates over the entire war to small arms kill rates on any given day where a soldier goes into direct combat is making an apple to oranges comparison
That most certainly is, no qualms there.
-
Returning to the basic premise of what CM does right and what wrong in regard to historical plausibility here is what I came up with, point by point, as the Austrian laid it out:
1. All or nothing aspect
- CM portrays wounded and missing in action.
- Damaged vehicles (but not a total loss) are modeled.
- No soldier and vehicle "health bars".
- You don't have to always completely wipe out the enemy to win like in most other games (depends on the scenario of course) -> bloodiest historical battles where 40 to 50% casualty rates were logged can be replicated in the game easily, as well as simulating lower intensity encounters (but those are harder to come by). The caveat in CM is that losses are usually higher then what real life situations would be due to us players pushing our troops harder and being less careful with our pixeltroopen lives then what real commanders would do. Plus real soldiers would probably disobey suicide tasks that we easily execute with our pixeltroopen.
Notable exceptions are campaign missions which promote preserving your soldiers life (excellent CM George's Von Schroif campaign for example)2. Only warriors allowed aspect
- CM is guilty of this aspect. Non combat units are represented only minimalistically in the shape of supply units (am I forgetting any other unit?). In it's defense the scope of the game is focused mostly on tactical battles where non combat units weren't present in big numbers due to them being delegated to the rear of the front.
3. Total information aspect
- CM doesn't give you total information of your enemy and this is true for scenario briefings which wildly differ in how much info about the enemy you get and also in the actual tactical battles themselves where you can not even have the enemy number and composition estimates. Having a total information on your units is present though but I find it hard how the game of this scope could tick this particular point off the list without making the game too irritable to play.
-CM doesn't provide hit chances to the player.
- Moral value of units is available to the player but not in percentages or other numerical numbers so this is 50/50. I personally think the way game conveys this information is optimal in the given scope of it.
- Omnipresence, certainty and precision differ wildly from scenario to scenario in CM but in sum are not as in your face like in many other war games. CM is especially good when it comes to battles themselves where if played on Iron mode the game really shines with it's stellar C&C information modelling.
- Losing contact with your units is partially modeled in CM (units being more brittle, easier to scoop, lose morale, no enemy positions info being passed to them, etc.) but you can never lose the ability to command those units that are out of the C&C. You can for example order your mortar team that is out of contact of C&C network to strike a specific point that you as a player know sports a MG nest but your mortar team would not be able to themselves know about. House rules need to apply here in order to be able to really simulate this aspect of the real thing. That said CM to my knowledge is THE game that comes as close as possible to it while not inhibiting the player too much in gameplay itself.
- Vehicles in CM are portrayed right by them being more blind then their infantry counterpart (true for CM ww2 titles) and are more successful when supported by infantry.
- Vehicle damage indicator is fully known to the player and thus CM games are the same in this aspect as other games so CM "fails" in this regard.
- Vehicle repair on the active battlefield is not possible so that is a plus for CM.
- CM doesn't have production lines for vehicles, etc so knowing exactly when something will come off the assembly line does not apply to it.
4. Total control aspect
- Troops (foot grunts, vehicles) in CM do not always blindly follow your orders (example no control when the unit's is pinned, moral plummets, etc.) but you as a player are still able to send units in a certain death outcome situation with no soldiers complaining so this is not fully covered by CM but still comes quite close.
- There is no country production efficiency modeled so the point about players having unrealistically omnipotent ability to streamline the country they play as does not apply in CM games.
5. How enjoyable to play are realistic aspects of the game
- CM rocks especially because the realistic aspects discussed here in the tactical battles that you play are very enjoyable, enhance the overall gaming experience in the positive way, make the game stand out a lot from the WW2 crowd and don't hinder the gameplay in any way. Players need to learn about these plausible game mechanics and learning them is a lot of fun and mastery of different game aspects is especially rewarding. CM offers a lot of educational value without the political/religious involvement of what is portrayed and what isn't with a little caveat that atrocities like killing civilians as a punitive measure for the partisan activities and setting villages ablaze of course aren't modeled (CMRT where such historical actions were part of the retreating German army tactics).
ANALYSIS
OK, these are most if not all the points the channel creator points out as far as I was able to discern out of the video - there are 17 major points that he makes in total. Let's count point by point how many of these things CM games do right, partially right, how many fail to deliver and how many can't be applied to it due to the nature of the game in question:
- 3 of 17 points made are not applicable to CM games due to their nature/scope.
- 1 of 17 points fails entirely in CM (vehicle module damage information could be improved in the game - player should not be given immediate info on what parts of the ingame vehicle modules got damaged or destroyed, for the most part that is).
- 5 of 17 points are done partially "right" (gameplay limits apply here so not much that can be improved here on most accounts).
- 8 of 17 points are modeled exactly as pointed out they should be by the channel creator.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the nature/scope of CM games where only tactical level of battles are portrayed there are only 14 points that pertain to them. Of these here is what the results tell us in percentages:
57% of these CM games simulate to the letter.
36% of these CM simulates partially, on at least 50/50 level if not more in the given gameplay limits of course.
7% of these CM games fail to deliver.
This is why CM games are the king of those that do tactical battlefields. No other game comes as close to these numbers as CM games do to my knowledge. I'ts hard to bypass 93% done right or mostly right by other war game developers.Hope you guys enjoyed these number crounching as much as I did.
Cheers,
Hister
-
21 hours ago, DougPhresh said:
Speaking as an artilleryman, games overemphasize small arms. In the 20th century crew-served weapons accounted for 90% of casualties.
CM gets this right. Machine guns, mortars and artillery are the big killers.
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:Isn't this mostly because the artillery toll includes lots of shelling of rear areas, troops during road movement, etc?
Whereas CM only deals with the actual battles where soldiers get close enough to use their rifles.
Doug said CM gets thing right in this regard so it is not that he is saying CM is not getting things right - even on the start line casualty source are portrayed right in CM according to him.
-
1 hour ago, HerrTom said:
Hey! Well... Probably...
What I meant with that is he probably has his work preplanned a year in advance. They are some meticilous and methodical those pesky Austrians. Hard to adapt. 😉😆
-
Thank you very much MOS. Like given to you multiple times for this.
-
9 hours ago, IanL said:
He is still making content and does not want to try basically *the* war game that tries to portray a realistic combat situation?
I figured this guy was not writing any more or something.
He still is.That is why his answer surprised all so much.
9 hours ago, IanL said:How can you go on and on about wargames getting things wrong and not try ones you haven't tried yet?
He's Austrian...
-
1 minute ago, Mord said:
I don't like him any more...
Mord.
Me neither. I will now limit myself to only look every second of his awesome videos.
Being more serious though I do think that by now he should have picked the idea CM games would be a perfect tool for his video creation process. Seems like a very stubborn guy with a fixed idea he has no time to play it while it could enhance his video creation quality 5 fold (but I understand it is time consuming to get the grip of the game and making something useful out of it). He shouldn't have asked for game suggestions in the first place and now he is complaining about the game being suggested to him.Guess he stumbled upon too enthusiastic viewers.
-
It was the "annoying fly" scenario in the end unfortunately. Mission failed.
He followed with this after his thumb up:
"I don't have time, please stop bugging me about combat mission, as mentioned before, I get a mail/message about this game all the time, it is just annoying."
It's a loss for him and for his viewers I think but you can't push someone so if you are reading this do not send him any CM requests. The man has spoken. -
Ha ha, thanx. Do not hold your breath though, thumbs up might be just in order to get rid of the annoying fly - aka me... We'll see down the pipeline if this bears fruit. Again, thank you for the youtube suggestions. Josey Wales is now my favorite CM youtuber - didn't know about him for some reason beforehand.
Edit: Seeing how he asks for support while he makes his content do you think any CM guys here would be willing to gift him a CM title in order to cement the deal with him? -
I contacted him again explaining you guys suggested that I present him a couple of videos. Thanx to your suggestions I've sent him Josey's Bear Claws AAR, Road to Wiltz by Usually Happless and Armchair General videos.
He gave me the thumb up.
-
11 hours ago, Mord said:
Send him a link to a good play through. Trying the CMBO/BB/AK demo is quite a different experience than playing BN or FI. This guy MUST be MADE to UNDERSTAND!
Mord.
He he. 😁
CM video suggestions welcome. What would be the best way to captivate his mind in the first two minutes?
-
Quote
thx! Everyone recommends the game to me and I played the demo ages ago
He answered me to. This time it was more ambiguous. There's still hope.
-
1 hour ago, Badger73 said:
Military History Visualized responded to my message at his website. Here is the email I received today.
====================================================================================
Military History Visualized <militaryhistoryvisualized@gmail.com>
Reply | 18-Nov-2017 9:07 AM
Hi,
thank you for your kind words and suggestions. Sadly, I don't
really have time to play most games anymore, I played the demo
of the first combat mission game back in the early 2000s.
Cheers,
MHVOK then., bummer. His loss (and ours too). Thank you.
-
I don't play with shadows due to too low frame rate with them turned on but for me when I try it shadows don't fliker but dissapear from the ground and units when I get my camera close to them.
What flickers a lot are trees. Here and there a tree pops out on every map that flickers like crazy. Got used to it.
-
I wrote him a PM on his FB page. Will let you all know if he answers.
-
14 hours ago, rocketman said:
Not a tech wiz, but try to find an old driver at Nvidia's homepage and do a clean install (there are instructions how to do that). Tell me how it works.
Yeah, Nvidia has all their old drivers listed under the Old and beta drivers tab name just below the Nvidia driver downloads page
just to say: MERCI
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Yeah, being born in the places where battles took place and interested in these things..., the two together amplify each other. I was born in North-Western part of Slovenia where "Isonzo battelfield" took place in the first world war. We still have an unexploded Italian granade under our doorstep for example and the area is full of trenches and metal. I even found remains of a dead Austro-Hungarian soldier in the collapsed cavern high up in the Alps as a kid.
Happy for you that the game reignited your vanning passion.