CC6 to be 3d ?!?

[Deron]

I have to say that I really loved CC2. I played that grand Campaign through three times, over about 60 hours each. I couldn't wait for CC3 and was extremely disappointed. CC4 was more of the same, and worse.

What I liked about the CC series was that it was real-time, but the battle developed slowly enough, and I had a small enough number of troops to command, that I never felt it was a click-fest. The infantry seemed capable of taking care of itself -- where I had to babysit was with the semi-braindead armor. I think with their growing emphasis on armor the weaknesses in their code began to really show. As a primarily infantry game, it was great. I had some of the most memorable moments in my (long) gaming career in Market Garden: a wounded sergeant single-handedly bayonet-charging and defeating a surprised German Scout unit in the woods just in view of Nijmagen, anabling me to barely capture the bridge before the sun went down; a cowering PIAT assistant hunkering down in a building with his leader dead and a Panther several meters away, finally getting up and taking his last shot, destroying the tank and stopping what had been turning into a major punch through to Arnhem; the lone .50 cal team in the farmhouse fending off swarms of German infantry, corpses littering the ground just meters from the window.

I lament the decline of the CC series precisely because I loved it so much (despite its flaws) and saw the potential it had to become something even better. Unfortunately, it seems that the Atomic team have no interest in taking the series in that direction. I am really glad for CM, and I know I will love it to death, but I just can't bring myself to bash one of the very few RTS games that really hooked me and made me believe the genre had something valuable to offer.

Having said that, I still think that if the data could be made more accurate, the lethality of weapons fire could be toned down to a more realistic (if less gee-whiz) level, and the tactical AI for the armor could be improved to the point that tank commanders could take reasonable care of themselves, it could be an amazingly fun game to play. I just don't see that happening.

[Kraut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deron:

Having said that, I still think that if the data could be made more accurate, the lethality of weapons fire could be toned down to a more realistic (if less gee-whiz) level, and the tactical AI for the armor could be improved to the point that tank commanders could take reasonable care of themselves, it could be an amazingly fun game to play. I just don't see that happening.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did see the new screenshots from CC5:Utah leach? More blood, more guts, more dead infantry laying around.

What i don't understand is why people can't see that by just taking out the tanks in the game you don't make it an "infantry game". I've said so many times that it's the friggin lethality of weapons that sucks. Tanks just happen to have lots of those weapons on them ... *sigh* ... anyways, CC5 is gonna suck just like CC3/4.

Uhhh ... but it's gonna have new maps! ... rofl

MK

[Pak40]

"IMO the biggest flaw of real-time clickfests like CC is the excessive span of control they foist on the player."

Why on earth do you guys think that Close Combat is a click fest??? You only have 15 units to command and the maps are relatively small - Do you mean to tell me that you can't control a lousy 15 units in real time?

hmm, Age of empires (100+ units) or Close Combat (15 units max.): there's no comparison between the two.

Plus the fact that you can slow the action down to a snails pace if needed. I refuse to believe that any of us have lost a Close Combat game due to a "click fest" - that's just obsurd. It's more likely that your attacker just launch a well coordinated quick assault that caught you off gaurd.

[iggi]

Kraut, those "click happy dip****s" are war gamers too. Maybe not to your standards but if we attack everyone that likes other games than CM, we'll be left with choices like deer hunter. If CC gets them into gaming, the better for it.

[killmore]

I don't think that CC is a click fest.

I don't know why but I really like CC3 in multiplayer. (We are still plaing it now)

[Kraut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi:

Kraut, those "click happy dip****s" are war gamers too. Maybe not to your standards but if we attack everyone that likes other games than CM, we'll be left with choices like deer hunter. If CC gets them into gaming, the better for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant click-happy dip**** more as the impulse buyer who has no clue about the history or the game. He just sees "real-time" on the package and sees the flashbang on the package and he's sold ...

Those are the peopel atomic is aiming for IMO.

Noone has to be a "wargamer". For me, the CC series has completely lost it's wargaming appeal. Everything is just blood, guts and explosions. This recipe is perfect for the click-happy dip****.

MK

[aka_tom_w]

I really like games like Myth II (RTS) and Age of Empires (RTS) and Warcraft (RTS) I'm sorry I have no experience with any of the CC series. I should look into them because I REALLY enjoy the rush of the real time action, and yes it has been pointed out (correctly) the AoE can have up to 100 units (I think) that can keep you VERY busy in a real time sense of taking care of your entire army and production effort all at the same time.

I Love CM, I really do but I also really enjoy the thrill of the click fest and would humbly agree with Pak40 when he says...

"hmm, Age of empires (100+ units) or Close Combat (15 units max.): there's no comparison between the two.

Plus the fact that you can slow the action down to a snails pace if needed. I refuse to believe that any of us have lost a Close Combat game due to a "click fest" - that's just obsurd. It's more likely that your attacker just launch a well coordinated quick assault that caught you off gaurd."

I guess I'm a click happy dip**** then because I really enjoy the rush of the real time action and I hope to simulate that with CM when we get TCP/IP with the timer that we can set to something SHORT like 1-2 minutes to watch the movie and 3-4 minutes to plot the turn! (or something like 5-7 minutes for both the plot phase and the 'watch the movie' phase)

That is MY idea of FUN!

Quick and Dirty!

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kraut:

Everything is just blood, guts and explosions. This recipe is perfect for the click-happy dip****.

MK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

There are some good things about Close Combat. I was late on the scene with the CC series, but as I started up my first game, and the bullets started flying real-time, I was thinking "MAN, this is fun!!" Its just a different type of game...thats all.

Click-fest is inaccurate. Most of the battle, your units are positioned, and you can pay limited attention to them. My opinion is that on crucial turns you "lose" certain units, because there is something pressing going on on the other side of the map. So as your are carefully guiding a few tanks and squads through town on the left, the units you told to move on the right get spotted on their advnce in the open, and while your attention is elsewhere, they flounder like morons in the street.

If only your attention had not been elsewhere, you could have "thought" for these guys, who sat helplessly in a kill zone.

This is a hypothetical, but displays why I like the turn-based play-style. At a company vs company size CM battle, there can be abuses, by player over-analysis, but at Battallion level, come on....there's a lot to see out there....

[Kraut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I guess I'm a click happy dip**** then because I really enjoy the rush of the real time action and I hope to simulate that with CM when we get TCP/IP with the timer that we can set to something SHORT like 1-2 minutes to watch the movie and 3-4 minutes to plot the turn! (or something like 5-7 minutes for both the plot phase and the 'watch the movie' phase)

That is MY idea of FUN!

Quick and Dirty!

-tom w

Originally posted by Kraut:

Everything is just blood, guts and explosions. This recipe is perfect for the click-happy dip****.

MK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He he ... well, don't mean to offend anyone with my remark, but that's just how i feel.

The CC series has lost all its appeal for me. It's nothing more than a standard RTS game set in ww2. And i've come to hate mindless RTS games ... yes, they can be fun, and since i got a free copy of AoK i played it several times and i enjoyed it somewhat. I used to play a lot of RA and other RTS games some time ago. But all these games are the same stupid thing over and over again and i guess i'm completely burnt out on them. To see a series that started off more a wargame than clickfest game turn into the same BS really pisses me off. The CC series could have been so much more and still appeal to a larger audience.

So basically i guess i'm somewhat of a clickhappy dip**** too.

MK

[Guest Scott Clinton]

'Real time' will never be "real" if one person is asked to control more than half dozen units.

No fancy interface, no game mechanic that slows down time will correct this and no AI (today) can substitute (least of all the AI in any of the Close Combat games!)

Thats my take on 'Real time' and why you will always see me put that term in quotes...unless I forget that is.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[RMC]

It is unfortunate that CC has evolved the way it has, but those are the breaks in the computer game industry right now.

They spent 3 years developing Close Combat. If it had sold like Warcraft II then they'd had time to develop CC2 in similarly long time frame. It didn't so we've been stuck with relatively small improvements and then had the marketing influences that had irritated so many. But the need to increase sales is there because of the lower revenue per copy in the industry where publisher and retailer are always jockeying for advantage. CM is unique for many reasons and perhaps the biggest reason is that it has been developd free from usability labs and marketing weasel influence. If anybody thinks CM would be the way it is if BTS had a publisher like Sierra, MS or SSI they're sadly mistaken.

[Pak40]

>'Real time' will never be "real" if one >person is asked to control more than half >dozen units.

you've got to be kidding me! Are you telling me that 7+ units is too many to control??? Christ man, you've got to get off those valium and get up to the normal speed of life.

look, I'm not saying that Close Combat was the best game ever because of its real time aspect, but it had the perfect scale (15 units) for the size of maps that you played on. If you can't control 15 units at that scale then you've got some serious mental or physical disabilities.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

CC# ?

I think I played the demo of version 4. After a little while I deleted from my HD: waste of space. And it almost made me do a terrible mistake: I though CM Gold demo was one upgrade of CC and I said to myself: Who cares?

Then I realized the screenshots looked different. Tried it: OH MY!!!!!!!!

Thanks Steve and Charles: it will be worthing every dollar of its price!

[T-34\85]

Ahhhhh the inevitable my game is better than your game pissing contest ... I have CC3 and CC4 and they kick ass for multiplayer (and single-player, although the armor WAS braindead) ... there's a certain satisfaction in organizing some incredibly half-assed defense against an armored thrust and winning thanks to Private Steiner and his Panzerfaust.

CM rocks too but CC is so much more personal ... it just seems more real to me, I don't know why, maybe its because you can see all the individual soldiers and they all have names. Not to mention the weapons scavenging. Nothing like defending the Reichstag against Soviet Guards VDV with German militia, running out of ammo, then running out to pick up some weapons and running back in!

[iggi]

Well, all this talk about CC got me downloading the demo for the bridge too far again. Uninstalled it again! Cool game for its time. I'm just too used to working with the 3D battlefield now. I'm hearing of flamethrowers in Shermans. While it will be cool, they won't help a bit if that sherman has no LOS. Point is, CM is making me into a little grass in the snake. Once you thrive in the 3D cat and mouse game, you don't want to give it up. I just didn't feel I could slither as well in CC as I can in CM. Not putting it down though

[Guest Rollstoy]

I have CC IV and pre-ordered Combat Mission.

I have no problem playing those two, even in succession.

If you do not want to do this, simply do not.

But, please, stop pissing on CC IV, or show me something comparable or "better" (CM excluded).

Have fun,

Thomm.

P.S.:

Yesterday I played one game of CC: 45'

Afterwards I played one game of CM: 3 hours.

It is so simple: At 11 p.m., and nothing on TV, I will not fire up CM and play until the next morning, but a CC game fits in nicely. What a nice synergy.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Pak40 you are missing the point.

What is "real" about A SINGLE person (literally) controlling the second to second movement, firing, coordination and orders for 180 men (or more) in a 'real time' game?

Well, the answer is: Nothing.

Nothing, because it never happened in real life for the simple reason it is not possible. In order to make it possible in a game, subtleties in the ability to TRUELY control the units the player is responsible for must be left out of the game. These are subtleties that a real battlefield commander/squad leader would have. If these details are not left out the game turns into a frantic clickfest where larger tactical issues can not receive the focus they require.

IMO, the entire CC series is a trade off trying to reach a middle ground between losing the detailed control of individual squads while trying not to overload the player that is maintaining second to second control of squads. They have actually done a fair job in balancing these issue IMO, but that does not make the systme any more "real", does it?

You, as most 'real time' fans automatically assume that I am too slow or just can't handle the pressure (more aptly called 'time pressure' because you can only give order to one unit at a time another VERY unrealistic thing about 'real time' games btw). But fact is you have entirely missed the point.

No SINGLE person in real life would ever be expected to do 1/10th what is called on them to do in most 'real-time' games, because it is not possible to do it AND do it right to the level of detail required for accurate play. PLEASE note the last part of this last sentence because it is the key IMO.

If you can't see this, then you need to ask yourself why there are so many NCOs in a Company. If 'real time' were even marginally real then it would only take a single officer to control an entire company.

And for the record I am not deriding CC...just giving my personal opinion on why 'real time' is anything but real when the unit count goes up.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-02-2000).]

[Miles Teg]

No, Scott, the new marketing buzz-word is frenentic: "...frenetically-paced RTS played out in stunning 3D world." Ground Control.

**Warning pissing on chokefull of maps with "tactical nuance".**

No, I retract the warning; I'll express my opinion, however, the hell, I please.

What a joke, it looks like the VP of Marketing and Sales (SPR forecasts) of Mattel/SSI chose a great setting for the latest battle.

The new maps look full of "tactical nuance".

Charge your men across the beach. Watch them get slaughtered. It should surely test the extent of once presumed infinite 'battle groups'.

But wait a minute, I thought the invasion occurred at low tide. Those new maps don't appear with 800m of open beach, and mines?

It must be optimized with tactical nuance.

I can read the spew now: an ultra-frenetically 'real time' strategorical battle featuring new enhanced maps, chokefull of tactical nuance.

[YT]

Firstly, I think we're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not really talking about gaming genres but their design process. I like to refer to games like CC (3,4 and prob 5&6) as 'boardroom' games. You can imagine it- guys in suits sitting around a table discussing demographics, sales, advertising and the ubiquitous 'marketing strategy' on a whiteboard. CM on the other hand is so intrinsically tied to the community that there is little need for business decisions. Instead you get a game that we are all obsessing about and find it really difficult to be negative about. Thus, not only are we comparing genres but we're comparing design philosophies. There is no doubt that CM is more realistic and accurate than CC but remember that we are so personally tied to the CM community (and greater wargaming community) and as a result will 'connect' more with CM- a game made for 'us' by 'us'.

I have enjoyed CC but like some of you, have lost faith in the series- CC2 being the pinnacle IMO. CM however is worthy of a 'sim' classification which cannot be applied to CC. CC and CM are just... different.

And as for CC 3D- I'm interested in what the suits will do

------------------

When in doubt, refrain from putting that small rodent in there...

[Pak40]

Scott,

No, I think you've missed my point.

First off, let me clear a misconception you have about me. I don't play real time strategy games(at least not since Warcraft II). I play wargames and simulations and a few odds and ends like Civilization. So please don't lump me in with 'real time' players.

"What is "real" about A SINGLE person (literally) controlling the second to second movement, firing, coordination and orders for 180 men (or more) in a 'real time' game? "

This statement proves that you're missing the point youself. Turn based games such Steel Panthers allow second to second movement, firing, coordination and orders for HUNDREDS of men. A Steel Panthers player can move a tank hex by hex and give precise firing orders. This actually makes turn based games LESS realistic because they let you have this kind of contol over ALL your units. What Captain or Major is going to have the time to babysit all his tanks and infantry that much? NONE

If you were to give this much attention to a unit in Close Combat, you will pay for it with neglection of your other unis. This is a very realisic battlefield condition.

"No SINGLE person in real life would ever be expected to do 1/10th what is called on them to do in most 'real-time' games"

Uh.. no single person in real life would ever be expected to do 1/20th what is called on them to do in most turn based games.

Example: it takes me exactly 1 minute of 'real time' and a few mouse clicks to play 1 minute of Close Combat time. BUT, it takes me anywhere from 10-20 minutes of 'real time' to give and execute orders for 1 minute of a Steel Panthers turn.(yes I know the scale is larger, but you understand my point)

Turn based games such as Steel Panthers have managed to give a battalion commander 10-20 more minutes to command his troops. This is fine for unrealistic games such as chess but for battlefield simulation, this pretty much ruins quick tactical decision making.

You seem to be making the mistake that so many others are making: you're putting Close Combat in the same class of games as Command and Conquer, Age of Empires, etc. They're not anywhere close.

But now we don't need to worry about these classes because we have a far superior class with Combat Mission: the real time/turn based hybrid - this allows advantages of both real time and turn based play.

"If 'real time' were even marginally real then it would only take a single officer to control an entire company."

uhh... real time is real, that's why its called real time.

"(more aptly called 'time pressure' because you can only give order to one unit at a time another VERY unrealistic thing about 'real time' games btw)"

you're kidding right? CC1 and CC2 didn't have multiple unit orders but every other game that's been done in real time does. Maybe you just need to actually play a real time game before you start bashing them.

[RMC]

I think that most "real time" games should be referred to as continuous time instead. Most of the time the time scale does not match and some computers run the games faster than others. Continuous time aptly denotes the fact that the time flow in never interrupted for any reason.

SC,

Much of your point about being asked to do too much seems to be equally applicable to CM. Any game of this type is going to require the player to do both more and less than a real commander would do. More micromanagement of individual units, less staff planning and formal battle tracking.

I think CC's self-imposed limitation of 15 units works out about right. CC1 was a little frantic, especially for the americans and because you couldn't issue order before the start of the battle.

I like the time pessure that CC provides and the psychological model that it has. I realize that in getting these, I am losing out on things like the CM armor and ballistics model.

I disagree about being able to give mutliple units orders simultaneously as realistic. A commander can either order units individually or he can prepare an Operations order that contains the orders for the various units he commands. This OPORD can be issued to multiple units simultaneously but it takes time to prepare and in effect the time it would take to tell each unit what to do individually is used in its preparation.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

<FONT SIZE=2>

Pak40:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

<DIR>

<DIR>

"What is "real" about A SINGLE person (literally) controlling the second to second movement, firing, coordination and orders for 180 men (or more) in a 'real time' game? "</P></DIR>

</DIR>

This statement proves that you're missing the point youself. Turn based games such Steel Panthers allow second to second movement, firing, coordination and orders for HUNDREDS of men. A Steel Panthers player can move a tank hex by hex and give precise firing orders. This actually makes turn based games LESS realistic because they let you have this kind of contol over ALL your units. What Captain or Major is going to have the time to babysit all his tanks and infantry that much? NONE</P></DIR>

</DIR>

This is getting to be comedy. No, this last paragraph by you shows you still don't understand what I am saying. I will try to re-phrase myself somewhat.</P>

You said: "What Captain or Major is going to have the time to babysit all his tanks and infantry..."</P>

Who said anything about a player being a Captain or a Major??? HOW can anyone say that the player in a game like CC or even CM could even possibly be ONE SINGLE PERSON? Not me that is for sure. NONE of these games have the player in a neat, clean single role. If you want that, then play 1st person shooters or sims, it is not that simple in any wargame I have seen....and THAT is my point.</P>

In these games, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the player is fulfilling the roles of MANY, MANY individual people. Everyone from the lowly PFC that is the last man in his squad, to the NCOs, to the 1st Lts and all the way up to the Captain or Major that is in command of the entire formation...as well as the commanding officers of all supporting units (artillery, air support, etc.) How in the world could anyone convince themselves that when you play these games you are playing the role of ONLY one person is beyond me.</P>

So...if you have to fulfill the roles of all of these different people AND do it in 'real time'...it can not be realistic. As a matter of fact a case could be made that for each additional person that the player is representing the 'real time' of the game would have to be slowed down by an order of magnitude for it to be truly realistic (thus giving the player the same amount of time as the real person had to react, plan and issue orders).</P><DIR>

<DIR>

</FONT>

If you were to give this much attention to a unit in Close Combat, you will pay for it with neglection of your other unis. This is a very realisic battlefield condition.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

<FONT SIZE=2>

This is the point I made...I am glad we agree on this at least. And again, re-read what I said about the balance that was struck in the CC games. Overall it was balanced well in this regard IMO.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

Uh.. no single person in real life would ever be expected to do 1/20th what is called on them to do in most turn based games.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

'Apples and oranges' In a turn based game a single player can take as much time as needed in order to complete the multiple tasks that several people would normally do in reality...in a 'real time' game this is not possible...can't you see the difference? </P><DIR>

<DIR>

Example: it takes me exactly 1 minute of 'real time' and a few mouse clicks to play 1 minute of Close Combat time. BUT, it takes me anywhere from 10-20 minutes of 'real time' to give and execute orders for 1 minute of a Steel Panthers turn.(yes I know the scale is larger, but you understand my point) Turn based games such as Steel Panthers have managed to give a battalion commander10-20 more minutes to command his troops. This is fine for unrealistic games such as chess but for battlefield simulation, this pretty much ruins quick tactical decision making.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Yep, you missed the point. In "Steel Panthers" the player IS NOT JUST a battalion commander. Did a battalion commander EVER issue "Fire!" orders to a tank gunner? Would a battalion commander ever decide whether to move the tank at 15mph or 18mph? NO, these were all decisions made by INDIVIDUAL UNIT commanders and grunts. These are the same people whose role the game player is asked to fill, ALL OF THEM. And this can be done easily in a turn-based game where time is not an issue. But in real time you can not be everywhere at the same time. NONE of these games are called "Battalion Commander Sim", and there is a reason why (other than the title sucks ).</P><DIR>

<DIR>

</FONT>

You seem to be making the mistake that so many others are making: you're putting Close Combat in the same class of games as Command and Conquer...</P></DIR>

</DIR>

<FONT SIZE=2>

No, never said or implied such a thing. You are being overly defensive. You do know I was on the Realred team right? I own and still play CC2 and CC3...and last I played there were no resources to gather in either game </P><DIR>

<DIR>

uhh... real time is real, that's why its called real time. </P></DIR>

</DIR>

LOL! So you admit to buying into the marketing hype then? It can only be real when you are asked to do no more than a single person has to do in real life, with at least as much information as the real person would have and with at least the same 'natural' interface. This will never happen until we get 'halodecks' as in Star Trek.</P>

</FONT>

</P><DIR>

<DIR>

<DIR>

<DIR>

"(more aptly called 'time pressure' because you can only give order to one unit at a time another VERY unrealistic thing about 'real time' games btw)"</P></DIR>

</DIR>

<FONT SIZE=1>

you're kidding right? CC1 and CC2 didn't have multiple unit orders but every other game that's been done in real time does. Maybe you just need to actually play a real time game before you start bashing them.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

</FONT><FONT SIZE=2>

YOU must be kidding. How can it NOT be time pressure when ONE person is asked to fulfill the roles of that MANY people would fill in real life. Perhaps you should read and understand my posts better before you get so defensive?</P>

Pak40 you seem WAY too defensive to me, lighten up. </P>

And if you STILL don't see how the player is more than just a single person in all of the wargames you listed then frankly, I am not sure what to say.</P></FONT></BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-02-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

<FONT SIZE=2>

RMC:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

Much of your point about being asked to do too much seems to be equally applicable to CM.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

No, because there are no time constraints in a turn based game, even when the game has simultaneous execution of turns.</P>

<DIR>

<DIR>

I disagree about being able to give mutliple units orders simultaneously as realistic. A commander can either order units individually or he can prepare an Operations order that contains the orders for the various units he commands. This OPORD can be issued to multiple units simultaneously but it takes time to prepare and in effect the time it would take to tell each unit what to do individually is used in its preparation. </P></DIR>

</DIR>

No. No nearly the same amount of time as it would take to tell each unit. If I needed to tell a company to circle wide to the left out of LOF of the enemy, around some woods and through a church into a barn... I would simply (as a real CO) tell the company commander "Flank that enemy position to the left, say out of LOS". In ANY of these games the player must issue complex orders and commands that trace the EXACT path of the units, as well as 'baby sit' the units all the way there. Not even close to reality.</P></FONT></BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-02-2000).]

[Fred]

Scott,

right on target!

This is the problem (or misunderstanding) some people have.

The majority of wargames are NOT simulations of "being a CO in WW2".

If you really want to be a CO, join the army! Wargames are, as the name implies, games to challenge the mind.

They have their roots in chess (turn based) and even more in "Little Wars" by H.G. Wells (turn based) and Avalon Hills masterpieces.

Because the battlefield is an abstraction of the real thing, you need time to decide about your moves.

Real time is just that; a crippled vehicle to put you into a COs shoes. But, as long as the AI is not as good as real NCOs, real time is a failure for serious studies of war as a game.

I've played them all for some 20 years now, be it boardgames like SL, 3rd Reich, Ambush, Sniper or computer games like SSIs Computer Ambush, Battle for Normandy, SP I, II and III or Soldiers at War, Warcraft, Commandoes etc.

End result: 0 for real time games, 1 for turn based or "simultaneous action phase" games like CM.

All IMHO, other opinions should differ.

Fred

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 06-02-2000).]

[RMC]

SC,

I wasn't referring to player overload. I referring back to the realism premise that CC requires the player to much more than a real-life commnader. CM is the same just you an take as long as you want to do it. Therein lies CC advantage. Both games have an unrealistic span of control. I think we agree on that. I think CC gives the player a better feel for command, and the US MArines agree with me, because of the time pressure the prevents orders being given to all units simultaneously. The player must decide which units need orders most urgently. In CM, unless the player has some agreement with his opponent about time limits, there need never be a unit without fresh instructions.

Did you not say that orders could be issued simultaneously in real life? I can't find that line to quote now. Giving an order to that one company means you can't at the same time give another order to another company.