Thewood1

You could say the same thing about Norm Kroger and Jim Rose. They made some great games for their rimes. But after Distant Guns and Jutland, no one will touch them. And just like them, Scott will be remembered for POA2. btw, The Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the Shadows engine has as much to do with POA2 as CM1 did with CM2. It was completely rebuilt and only some of the most basic concepts carried over.

Yeah, it probably should be in the General Discussion forum. But let's face it, it is probably a good advertisement for them. The only games getting significant mention are: A game that has been rehashed and relaunched a dozen time (Close Combat) A game that, at its heart is a military tank procedural trainer (Steel Beasts) A game that ended up being a rip off after 16 years of development (POA2) A game built by a Ukrainian team that could have the potential if they put their mind to it, but most likely won't. (Graviteam) and a few odds and ends. And none of them really compare directly, feature for feature.

Not while HPS somehow convinces these white knights to find new boards to bring the message to the masses. To defend HPS in any way leads me to believe you are on something stronger. How'd the call go with Scott? Is that still the only way he communicates? Or has he moved on to email finally? Maybe typing in bold or different colors will help get the point across better.

/Rant mode on I will support any company that produces good games, communicates to its customers, and is honest. HPS, for POA2, is none of those. I have managed multiple large and small programming projects in the industrial space. If HPS was treating a business customer like they have treated their POA2 customers, they would have been sued out of existence. I suspect you didn't even look at those links did you? Take a look. In development since 2003. Then take a look at 2018 posts on dogsofwar. Their new white knight is complaining about the same stuff from 2005. Tell me what us customers should do? Should we just let someone like you come in and start this all over again? Won't happen. I can't believe you of all people, who nitpicks BFC to death, would give HPS a pass on this. Lets look at what BFC has accomplished since 2003 with CM. Released CMAK, all CMBN modules, CMFI, CMSF (twice), CMBS, CMRT, and all the numerous upgrades and feature adds. HPS released dozens of beta updates and it still doesn't work right. So, I am going over to the HPS forums and see if you are over there nitpicking. Oh wait...they don't have forums because they don't communicate with customers. So why don't you stick around here, nitpick BFC some more and try to convince everyone here to buy a 16-year old broken game with no future. /Rant mode off One thing I will do from now on is every time you have a complaint about a CM game, I'll ask how it works in POA2. I'll ask what kind of response you got from the devs. /Rant mode really off

In case anyone wants clarification on POA2 and Tigers Unleashed, here are three of the white knight cycles I am talking about. In each, there are one or two people who keep pushing that they are in touch with the devs and everything will be sorted soon. Its amazing seeing pattern repeat. http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/topic,2907.msg30136.html#msg30136 http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?forums/point-of-attack-2.52/ http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17642.msg508963#msg508963 I know there are a couple that go back further than 2015 on wargamer.com and a magazine site, but I can't be arsed to bother with that.

One small point...CM's VCR-like function is one of the main things that draws me back almost every time. SB has the AAR function, which is their equivalent. The good is that it jumps right to an event and shows incredible detail in reports on penetration, casualties, damage, HE effects, APS, etc. Its also a replay of the entire session, not just a turn. The bad is that it only replays in 4 second increments and potentially skips over things like shots that miss if the timing is wrong. Some of us have been trying to convince esims to get it down to 1 second, but they claim the file gets too large to transfer for their military customers. A fair point on their side and an example of the military side of the business effecting the game side.

My point is I am hoping we aren't starting a new cycle of a white knight riding in claiming HPS/Scott only needs more time to fix it. Please don't be that person. Do I have to go around the web and string together all the links of the supposed white knights and their journey? Its starting to sound like Indiana Jones and the Wargame's Holy Grail. I mean seriously. I don't want anyone to run out and buy POA2 or TU because someone is inadvertently promoting it. Also, not sure why you are posting in odd colors. Makes a little harder to read on some devices.

All I can think of is Lee looking for Stuart at Gettysburg. There is a point when a game becomes more like work than fun. Friendly FOW to the extreme that the entire playing experience is about getting info from your peer and subordinate units starts to feel like work.

And as I mentioned, non-borg spotting can be taken to the next level in SB. You can have real friendly FOW. That includes AI running cover on your flanks with no input from you, or even visibility. To the point that you might have to send a unit over to see what the heck is going on. You can have a whole army's worth of friendly units with no control from the player's perspective, or even a true FOW around their progress. There is no cheat like clicking on an empty part of the map or waiting for the orders phase to see where all of the friendly units are and what they are doing. It depends on the skill and goals of the scenario designer and some of your own choices. Or if you want to play it like a traditional wargame, get rid of FOW completely. btw, heavy FOW was the one thing that POA2 did attempt to do well. And it kind of worked. adding: I like 90% of Armored Brigade. But its a little rough around the edges. Its just a little too set piece for me. No flexibility in setting up the battles. Very little real planning.

Six or seven years ago, I would have put PCO up against CM. But it hasn't aged well. If development had kept up, it could be a very good CM competitor. But a game with zero development future focused on on front and time period doesn't float my boat. Especially when CM looks so much better and does a all the same stuff+.

I had the sane issue on a 3000 x 2000 display. Had to drop it down a couple notches to get the blurriness to go away.

The development of the games is a disaster. HPS has stiffed a number of people in taking $90 for a game (POA2) that really never worked. Its been under development for at least 12 years and still only releases beta updates that break more than fix. My comment has nothing to do with comparing it to CM. It has everything to do with a white knight showing up every 3-4 years to try and lure the masses into buying into POA2 again. I have seen several prominent wargamers, including a a couple former frequent posters to these boards, step and talk about how they had a personal conversation with the Scott Hamilton and got his personal commitment to finally fix the game(s). And there is activity for a couple months and then the white knight gets frustrated and starts berating HPS and it cycles all over again. And its always a different forum that the cycle plays out on...wargamer, gamesquad, dogsofwar, etc. No one ever goes back and looks at the history of broken promises. For some reason, each of those white knights thinks HPS should get a fresh start.

I think that is a fair assessment of both non-CM games. I play CM a lot less these days than I used to, mainly because of SB and Graviteam. But I still come back to CM for WW2, especially on the western front. I still like WEGO and I think CM2's simulation of small infantry unit combat is very good. If I want a WW2 sandbox for tactical combat, there isn't much out there, other than CM. But as soon as I get an itch for anything cold war or modern, its SB. And SB just got a complete retooling of its terrain engine. It's very cool. And if you want to see detailed effects of HE and fragmentation, its SB. The next major phase for development is the UI and there is a push to add more wargame-like functions. Because of WW2, I'll continue coming back and continue buying everything CM. But I go weeks without playing CM now. But play SB weekly in single player on community scenarios and ones I built myself. I'll also point out that just because SB was designed as an AFV trainer, doesn't mean its not a wargame on par with CM. The disadvantage is the devs prioritize the training and simulation of individual AFVs and systems. But the advantage is the devs recognize that putting in some wargamer-like features helps with the wargaming crowd. There are a bunch of us that play SB as a wargame. The advantage is the combat simulation is based on an incredibly realistic underlayment. That underlayment really shines in scenario development and AI capabilities.

You have to be joking. I might have missed the sarcasm.

I disagree with that. Over the last five years, a number of features have been added to make it more wargame-like. I play SB weekly multiple times and haven't jumped in the turret or vehicle once. I do all my orders at the unit level and from the menu. SB's strength is coordinating all three arms and planning. When you are given a scenario, you have to spend a lot of time planning for your subordinates. That includes assigning multiple possible paths depending on enemy contact, fire support, reserves, recon, etc. CM's ability to do that is completely glossed over. Fire support is simplistic (although gotten better) and unit control is almost unit by unit. In SB, you can lay out a plan and watch it unfold completely, lay it out and only intervene in broad strokes, or manage individual units. And if you like, you can sit in a turret and watch happen. The best part is I can tell an AFV to go to that position and hold. When it holds, it will adjust its position if I have told it to interdict a certain section. Or I can tell it to only observe and report back. I can set up perfect non-borg spotting, or a fully integrated battle network. In CM, that is going to be complete micromanagement at the AFV/squad level. Anyone who thinks it doesn't rival CM modern has not been keeping up in the last four years. Is it a full on wargame like traditional wargamers want? Probably not. You can easily lose control of the battle from nnot paying attention to detail and rage quit. But if your not just wanting to play miniatures in digital form, and experience chaos and frustration of managing a modern battle, I would choose SB over CM any day. It still has weaknesses around infantry and foxholes, but CM has its own issues that can be pointed out.

Again, its done with Steel Beasts every day. On all counts.

Well realistic command and control was not one of your criteria for not selecting something. That is actually where Graviteam shines. CM has great morale and experience capabilities, but compared to Steel Beasts and Graviteam, it is somewhat simplistic in C&C. Graviteam and SB might not be as fun as giving every single unit almost instantaneous orders, but they can be played with a C&C capability that starts to show how difficult it is to manage a unit in combat. So as I list potential competitors, is this going to be a thread where you shoot down every potential competitor until you come to the point where you feel validation for buying CM. So lets right to it... CM - Differentiators are map-making, morale and experience factors, large number of games, infantry model, very historical OOBs, WEGO, PBEM, diverse time periods Graviteam - Differentiators are ops level and tactical level, realtime, historically accurate units and OOBs, accurate and detailed maps, realistic (for a game) command & control, infantry model Steel Beasts - Differentiators are that it can be played tactically or first person, military background of the game as a simulator, very diverse units, armor models, scripting system for planning, very powerful map maker, active multiplayer community for real-time matches, very good coop play

I would say from a scale standpoint, the Graviteam games. They are different approach to the exact same tactical problems. Steel Beasts come close, especially recently. The biggest differences is that Garviteam's tactical battle are real-time, as well as Steel Beasts being built as a combined arms simulator and modern time frame only. But if you only look at WEGO, there isn't much out there. Edit: The reason I pick those two is the commitment to simulation-level realism. With lot of work and configuring, you could throw ARAM 2 or 3 in here. But to get it to work, you have to really know it well. Other games like Men of War and Company of Heroes are fun to play, but have some significant realism issues.

I'm not sure that is what the OP is talking about.

I am assuming you saw I bought them on Gog. They are fully patched. Why not just go there and take a look? I am not sure your point.

I guess my question is this... If this bug from the bug thread is not confirmed, will people stop playing the game. I don't see it as a big deal in the scheme of things. But if, when you report the bug, give a save, and don't get a response you lie, what do you do? That says a lot about clarifying what I am talking about. I remember in the Command forums, a player stated that the game was broken because one aspect of A2A combat was not detailed out. So he is going to throw away a game that models air and naval warfare from 1948 to 2030, with every countries detailed OOB, a global map, etc. Because they wanted to see this one detail called out. I have already seen a couple people use the words "broken" and "unplayable". And frankly, those people and their histrionics do no good service to legit critical bugs. And its threads like that patch thread that numb any dev to customer complaints. So my question comes back to how much of yours and the dev's time you are going to expend on convincing them this bug exists and is important enough to drop everything they are doing? Is the game unplayable. I have to assume by the number of posts of a few players on this issue that it must be a game breaker. Otherwise, I would imagine most people would drop it and assume the devs are aware and will eventually fix it.

I would like to point out that while there is no direct threat to any game from bug reporting, there are people who spend more time looking for and reporting bugs than playing the game. Those people tend to suck resources away from proper development by having devs and support chasing things around. While I think it helps to report stuff that is obvious and impacts game play, there are people that go way too far and people that think their bug is the most important bug in the world and if its not fixed they will continue hounding on the forums. This is true for a number of games, not just CM. There are just people that can't play a game the normal way if they decide there is a bug. Read some of Elvis's posts responses in the patch thread about obsessing over stuff that isn't repeatable except in very specific combination of events. Do you really want Charles to have to set aside the work he is doing to try and fix something that is reproducible in only 1-2 scenarios at very specific times? As annoying as the beta brigade can be at times, they serve a purpose of filtering out what the talent at BFC has to focus on.

That is a scenario design issue. Nothing stops you, or anyone else, from building a highly motivated, fit, and high morale red army that can kick blue ass. And CM2's scoring flexibility is one of best around in wargames. If you can't take advantage of that, you're doing something wrong. The main issue is that people are stuck in the story line in Iraq and Syria (in the game) where most scenarios are blue-based shoot em ups. If you want a challenge, jump in and adjust the score, unit motivation, experience, and morale. You're blue soldiers will regret it. As stated above, why do you need them included? You can build them yourself.

Its board game geek. They aren't a virus.

New laptop arrives tomorrow and hoping it works.