CM Graphics - Room For Improvement

[Jeff Heidman]

Note to those saying 32MB is a high-end card:

Today, you can purchase a 32MB GeForce 2 MX for less than $100.

Anyone purchasing a system today that has less than that much video card should not complain when it does not run games that are going to be released a year from now (like CM2) as fast as they would like.

At the current pace of video cards, we will see two full generations beyond the current hottest cards available, the GeForce 2 Ultras and Voodoo5 6000 or whatever it is Voodoo is calling their competitor to the GeForce Ultra. That will mean that the 32MB cards that everyone are claiming cannot possibly be mid level right now will be about 4-5 generations behind by the time CM2 is released.

Come on people, join the new millennium. A 32 MB video card is a rather low requirement.

Jeff Heidman

[RMC]

This thread is kind of big, but no one has defined the terms being bandied about. What does "graphics" mean? Are we talking simply bigger, better textures? More ploygons on the models? 3d Trees? What?

My preference for improvements in the appearance would be geared to the infantry and map elements. I would want more polygons in the infantry models. I would want more building types and textures and all terrain elements to be based on smaller tiles to allow better looking, mre natural maps. Right now those are the areas where I see CMs graphical weakness. I think the tank models are fine, well except the StuG IV which uses the same model as the StuG III but they changed the roadwheel texture.

[Mark IV]

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

What's the point? You're buying obsolete equipment. And why do that when the newer stuff is less than double the price.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This ignores the fact that older machines cannot possibly take advantage of 32Mb graphics capabilities. Voodoo 3 is a fine card which vastly enhances the performance of CM over the stock 4 or 8 Mb cards that a lot of 450 MHz and earlier systems came with... and there's no sense in paying "less than double the price" for capabilities one cannot use, without a $800 CPU/motherboard replacement along with it.

The old PII-300 would last me another 5 years as is, playing CM alone... and it would be pointless to throw another nickel at it. The next upgrade will be a whole new rig and until then the Voodoo 3 was money very well spent.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Actually, I agree that a 32mb card isnt a high end card. In fact, Ive been using a 32mb card since late 98.

The problem is that as far as computer hardware providers are concerned, a 32mb Geforce is still reasonably high end, and often they dont take the time to advise the purchaser of the benefits of the reasonable cheap $100 upgrade at the time of purchase. On top of that, once the average user purchases a system, they are often reluctant to upgrade for some time to come, feeling either that their system is the best on the planet becuase the sale person told them so, or they feel cheated know that they bought lower quality gear. Working in the industry I saw this all of the time.

The average person purchasing a computer really has an uphill battle getting a system that will truly suit their needs, a problem compounded by the fact that a good portion of sales people work on commission, and are more interested in supplementing their wages than truly helping out the purchaser (at least, thats generally how it is where Im from.)

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Samhain]

I follow the hardware (esp. vid card) market fairly closely and have a very good idea what today's games' average specs are, so I have to agree with Jeff Heidman: a 32MB card is rather old news and hardly cutting edge. A Pentium III 600 is often considered an entry-level processor now. The sad and also exciting fact is that computer hardware is always progressing at a staggering rate. Games both take advantage of this and help drive it, as Slapdragon mentioned. Like it or not, if you really like computer games in general, regular system upgrades are necessary to fully enjoy what they have to offer. It's simply a very expensive hobby. (Any surprise that so many people buy $150 Dreamcasts that can be up and running in two minutes and require no tweaking or upgrading, yet have graphics as good as many comps? Rather different games of course, but that's another issue.)

As I pointed out earlier, most games have scalable graphics settings. There's no reason CM 2 can't employ the same options. Now whether or not BTS has the time or money to create stellar graphics, I don't know. If they do, I hope they take advantage of what today's machines are capable of. I think it's safe to assume that if they did, they wouldn't do it in a way to shut out gamers with low-end rigs or harm the historical accuracy and depth of play.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-31-2000).]

[deanco]

I am crazy about this game, so I have tried to show it to everybody I can. And I do get a lot of "Urrrr....funky graphics" comments. I always have to plead with them to give the graphics a chance, that they will grow on you.

BTW the fact that they CAN grow on you means the graphics are good IMO. I have no real problem with CM's graphics as they stand. They are clear, informative, and make an attempt to be aesthetic as well. A lot of "little touches" were added to the graphics that didn't strictly need to be added (according to some people here), like the recoil of the guns, screen shake, debris, etc. To put things in perspective I am looking at the Steel Beasts demo. I would say the graphics in that game will probably keep me from buying it. This was not the case with CM. An effort was made on BTS' part to convince me, the video gamer, to buy CM, and it worked. Thanks BTS for including me in your demographics.

DeanCo--

PS: OH YEAH I FORGOT!! Dynamic lighting! Yeeeeaaahh!!! Please oh please oh pretty please BTS!! Dynamic lighting!!! It will look SOOOOOO killer!!!

[Samhain]

The funny thing is, Steel Beasts only runs in 640 x 480 software mode, but the graphics effects are much better than that statement would lead you to believe. They really made the most out of it. The absolutely superb sound really adds a lot to immersion, helping compensate for good, but far from exceptional graphics.

***

I've had the same problem showing CM to other (hardcore) gamers. They get to the site and see that first little pic and immediately find it a bit hard to take the game seriously. Too bad for them, but let's face it, graphics are used not just to make a game better (ideally), but also to help sell it. And in this industry/hobby, graphics always have been a major criterion for judging games--even back in the early 80's my friends and I would get enthused about the "awesome" graphics on the Colecovision compared to the Atari 2600 Electronic games are largely a visual medium, after all.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Bruno Weiss]

Hi-Resers vs Luddites, Brighters vs Dimmers...

"We've just got to get organized."

-Johnathon Winters- (The Russians Are Coming).

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Maj. Bosco]

I think the graphics are fine the way they are. Right now the upper limit for my comp, Athelon 550 TNT 2 128 meg ram, is about two battalions with tanks and support on both sides on a map of 3 by 6 km or so. It's jerky and slow, but it runs. Dynamic lighting, blinking eyes, and whatever else would make that way out of the reach of systems like mine, which are not low-end btw. Not high-end, but certainly not obsolete yet. I don't see any reason to add scaling for the game if the upper end of that scaling will only be playable by a tiny fraction of the gaming community. I'd rather see the time that would take put into a better AI.

Besides, as some one said earlier in truly great games the graphics grow on you and you're kinda suprised when the uninitiated point out how old they are. I used the play UO (before UOR... lord how that ruined the game...) and whenever I showed the game to anyone they always asked when they were going to get some good graphics. I always said that the graphics were good once you got used to them. It's the same way with CM.

As a selling point I don't think the target audience for CM2 will be swayed more by graphics than they will by the legacy of the first game and a truly great engine. Who here would forego buying CM2 if it had exactly the same level of graphics of CM?

I say focus on gameplay and historical accuracy first, and that everything comes after that.

[Mr. Clark]

Ok, perhaps I have not explained myself well enough yet. Let me explain my feelings on this topic one more time.

I bought the Voodoo 3 3000 because I could not PLAY many of the really large or just plain huge scenarios on my Voodoo 2. I did some research and a Voodoo 3 3000 seemed to be able to run MOST scenarios, plus run the better smoke graphics (a bonus). I DID NOT buy the Voodoo 3 so I could d/load all the pretty mods. The standard graphics for the game are FINE with me... I simply want to be able to PLAY.

I am not saying that the graphics should not be upgraded for those that want such things in CM2...

What I am saying is that you should damn well be able to turn those new graphics down to "CM level" so that if you could play CM, you can PLAY CM2.

I really don't care about how my graphics look on my PC games... If I want pretty graphics, I'll play my PS2 that I do not need to upgrade every 2 seconds.

I don't expect to be the target audience for games... but I DO think that you should be able to TWEAK DOWN the graphics in a game to make it mostly playable on even low end machines.

I buy PC games for thier depth and realism (of play), not eye candy. After looking at all these posts, I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I'm also sure I'm not the ONLY one who feels this way.

[Samhain]

I certainly doubt that those wanting depth and realism are the minority around here

Remember that graphics can add to the gameplay, depth, and realism. Ideally, they're not simply an afterthought or sop to the marketing department. Look at a flight or racing sim: more realistic graphics very much enhance the sensation of actually soaring through the clouds or rocketing down the track. The more realistic a FPS or adventure game looks, the more you really feel like you're "in" the world being portrayed, increasing your emotional involvement. A combat simulation--and CM is arguably as much a sim as a strategy game--can surely benefit from cutting edge graphics.

Clearly graphics alone don't consitute or improve gameplay or make a richer gaming experience, but they can be a vital component in gameplay's betterment. CM could certainly be improved visually in many ways--although with the many great mods it looks quite nice--making it an even better game than it is. The issue doesn't need to be dichotomized into graphics vs. gameplay or realism, as they're both intertwined and not mutually exclusive.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Steve Clark]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A Pentium III 600 is often considered an entry-level processor now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That certainly is true, but realize of the 1,000,000+ PC gamers, the average CPU is probably around 400-450MHz (from the last PC Data report I read). Remember in 1998-99, 70% of PCs sold were the sub-$1000 models, particularly the crappy Compaqs with 1-4mb video RAM. A voodoo3 card is perhaps the best card that can go into a majority of gaming PCs out there. I would even suspect that a good number of us playing CM do not have the latest and greatest. Up until recently, Gateway was putting in 32mb video cards on their high-end performance PCs. It may not be leading edge technology, but it is certainly a high-end requirement.

[Samhain]

Interestingly, most of the big OEM's like Gateway and Dell are now selling entry systems with PIII 800's or so, it looks like.

Actually, from the mod I'm working on (for another game), I got a good idea of what serious gamers' systems are like from all the hundreds of beta testing apps I sifted through. Many people have some really dated systems, and I'm sure the publishers are well aware of that.

As for the V3, it's certainly a fast card for the price, and it's gride for Glide-optimized games like Tribes or those using the Unreal engine (UT, Deus Ex, Rune, etc.). But, it's left in the dust by the recent generation of cards and lacks 32-bit rendering capability, unlike, say, the TNT2 Ultra, which is probably a better choice in that price range, afaik.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[M Hofbauer]

I agree with Clark and mark iv. I have a 4MB Viper330 2D/3D card. If I were to upgrade my graphics card, I might as well buy a new computer, since it is bottlenecked everywhere - it has a 400MHz AMD K2, but the motherboard only supports up to 350MHz. I try to ignore the fact that the processor isn't supposed to run on this board, and most of the time the computer doesn't realize that it is not supposed to work.

CM runs, sometimes a bit choppy but it's worth enduring it. If CM2 has higher requirements, I might have to get a new system. Not sure if I will.

"I am crazy about this game, so I have tried to show it to everybody I can. And I do get a lot of "Urrrr....funky graphics" comments."

sorry but if these people are intellectually challenged to a degree where they rate software merely on the eyecandy criteria they don't deserve CM and should stick to their flashandbang / FPS crap IMHO.

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

"Hope that clears up all questions and concernas about the optional Rarity optional options at the players option to optionally use, optionally, in a game." (Steve/BTS)

[Terence]

Personal type question: Im running a PII 233 with a VooDoo 3 3000 PCI card and 32 megs of ram. How big a scenario can I run without the game performance taking a hit? (ps. I bought the Voo Doo 3 so I could play CM. My dinky processor cant power a 32 megabyte card.)

FWIW, I tend to think that the "ideal" CM player is one who is not turned off by the graphics.

No one who has seen Unreal would consider the graphics high end, but a more serious gamer wonders about the AI and the realism, along with issues such as what real world conditions are modeled in the game.

One of those real world conditions that exists for game designers is tradeoffs. such as the tradeoffs that happen between design and programming

I also remember the armor penetration diagram and think that Id rather have that in the game than better eye candy. As the manual says -- you could run this game with a a blank screen and get the same results.

[IntelWeenie]

Getting in on this late, but...

I have a PII-400 128Mb RAM and a 16Mb TNT card (PCI, though I do have an AGP slot; don't ask...).

The graphics for CM run fine on my system and I have only had problems on the HUGE battles or when using some of the Hi-res mods.

I remember when I first tried out the beta demo. At first, the graphics looked so cool (especially the 3D terrain), but I was rather disappointed with the smoke and fire. I then took a deep breath and told myself "Hey, self, you've been satisfied with silly cardboard smoke counters for years; what are you complaining about?" The graphics updates that came out shortly after the release did a lot to make me forget about this. The game looks good and runs smoothly on my system. I couldn't be happier (without spending a lot of money that I don't have ).

I do, however, think that BTS would lose a step or two on the competition if there weren't some advances in the graphics engine. Face it, computer games of any genre must keep up with current technologies and methods or they will be slowly forgotten no matter how fun they once were. Since CM is a 3D game, it will be compared to other 3D engines no matter how fair those comparisons are. Some other (bigger?) companies are probably trying to emulate CM's success right now and the easiest way for them to entice borderline customers away from CM2 if with better graphics. I'm not saying that graphics demands more attention than gameplay, just that it does demand attention of some sort.

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

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[russellmz]

im surprised i forgot this link:

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/features/pc/postgame_wrapup/page6.html

"We couldn't rely much on the above techniques of limiting to interiors, using low-definition ground terrain or reduced numbers of characters. This meant that I had to make great efforts to optimize the 3D engine as much as possible to squeeze out every last ounce of performance, since I knew that Combat Mission would place a pretty heavy load on the graphics chips by virtue of the environment it tries to show.

I won't bore you with the details, but we spent a lot of time devising tricks that made our 3D models simpler, and therefore faster for the computer to draw - but without looking that way. In the end, I think the effort was well worth it. Combat Mission runs at excellent frame rates on good hardware and reasonably well even on low-end machines."

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/features/pc/postgame_wrapup/page10.html

"Changing 3D hardware: Only an ingrate whose computer game is behind schedule would actually complain about improvements in 3D hardware. Well, that's me. Not that I don't love the new chips, because I do. They're wonderful. The trouble is that a design meant for 4MB video cards (the state of the art at the time we started Combat Mission) doesn't make full use of the power afforded by faster 32MB cards, which were developed during the time it took to code the game.(emphasis mine) It's my fault for not planning sufficiently ahead and for allowing the game to miss deadlines, but it did mean that we had to redo a significant portion of the original artwork at a higher resolution to make maximum visual impact on the latest hardware."

so: should we go like monks over ancient religious texts and try and argue that bts will design for a 32mb vid card or that they will try to satisfy lower end systems?

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Samhain]

M Hofbauer wrote:

sorry but if these people are intellectually challenged to a degree where they rate software merely on the eyecandy criteria they don't deserve CM and should stick to their flashandbang / FPS crap IMHO.

I don't think he said that they rated it solely on eye candy, but rather that they were turned off by the graphics. Two different things. I know I find the stock graphics mediocre, but I still respect and enjoy the game for its superior design elements and intellectual challenge.

Also, as I noted before, graphics enhance, sometimes enormously, a great many gaming experiences. There's a very good reason gamers are interested in them, not to mention that people seem to inherently like visually arresting scenes or objects, in life or on the computer monitor.

FPS's aren't inherently "crap" any more than any other genre. To play them well can require skills, albeit different ones, on par with those needed to succeed in a wargame. A good one also requires a tremendous amount of labor to make and very thoughtful design to rise above its peers. The designers of HL, for instance, used some really clever design tactics to create a very powerful gaming experience that not coincidentally has attracted countless gamers.

Terence wrote:

No one who has seen Unreal would consider the graphics high end, but a more serious gamer wonders about the AI and the realism, along with issues such as what real world conditions are modeled in the game.

Despite the core Unreal engine's age, its visuals are still considered to be quite good among most gamers and critics I know or have read. Serious gamers wonder about many issues, including graphics, sound, story, characters, voiceovers, music, AI, etc. And if the issue is primarily one of modeling real world conditions, then it's safe to say that CM could use a lot of work in that department, since it's extremely far from creating the visual and aural impressions of actually being on a battlefield (which is probably a good thing--what gamer once post-traumatic stress disorder?). Much of our experience centers on sensory impressions and emotions at least as much as "pure" intellection, if such a thing exists. Why should a game depicting historical combat shy away from the graphics needed to help recreate that? I'm not implying that's what you were implying but it seems worth asking. Since CM uses a 3D environment where soldiers and vehicles are depicted in a way to mirror reality, the game is in part a sim, not just an abstract strategy game. Almost any sim benefits from exceptional graphics for the reasons above and in a previous post of mine.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

Odd, I can't understand when people aren't impressed by CM's graphics. I love realistic FPSs but anyone who's tried to push a significant number of models knows that the engines are optimized for about a dozen, max. CM puts down three per squad and a battalion is, roughly, a kajillion squads. I think the tanks in this game look A1 spectacular, with or without the high quality textures. I would happily compare this to Q3 or UT and CM still looks great.

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

I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve.

-Meeks

You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve.

-Chrisl

[siralc]

I have no serious complaints about the graphics but some small ones. For me, it is the minor rough edges.

1) Is mip-mapping implemented? I can't tell, for the life of me.

2) Explosions. Flame appears immediately when a brew-up occurs. There doesn't seem to be a ``flash, bang, orange-cloud, smoke" transition

3) Minor things like unit bases getting clipped against terrain

4) I don't think cosmetic dynamic lighting for things like explosions and muzzle flahs is that big a deal, CPU wise.

[PzKpfw 1]

I can still remeber when we had 4 meg cards, the developers at the time weren't writing games that utilized more then 2 megs on the card, then we got 8 meg cards, & again the developers were writing for 4 meg cards, then we got 16 & the developers were writeing for 8 megs cards, then we get 32 meg cards & developers are still writing games for 16 meg cards, so basicly the graphic cards have evolved faster then the game Co's have generaly ever coded to actualy take advantage of the higher end cards.

Wargamer's were never known for high end machines, as they didn't need it to push NATO symbols around a map, now the FPS crowd etc, were always ahead of the small niche of dedicated wargamers in upgradeing PCs I can still remeber the old arguments on why better graphics were never an issue to ppl who played wargames & the changeing attitudes after SP & CC, were released & wargamers started expecting better graphichs, while others still saw no need for 'eye candy'.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Warmonger]

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

"so: should we go like monks over ancient religious texts and try and argue that bts will design for a 32mb vid card or that they will try to satisfy lower end systems?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My suggestion would be that when your writing CM 2, with a release date of the summer of 2001 that you write it for a 64 meg video card. By then they should be the next standard for video cards and with the GPU on the Geforce 256 card it takes the drag off the CPU, so you do not have to worry about framerates.

I do not know what you are targeting now, but if it is 16 mgs or 32 mgs, your missing the target for CM 2 like you did for CM 1.

Also, backward compatibility to at least 32 or 16 megs would be important.

Regards,

Warmonger

[harlock]

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

My suggestion would be that when your writing CM 2, with a release date of the summer of 2001 that you write it for a 64 meg video card. By then they should be the next standard for video cards and with the GPU on the Geforce 256 card it takes the drag off the CPU, so you do not have to worry about framerates.

I do not know what you are targeting now, but if it is 16 mgs or 32 mgs, your missing the target for CM 2 like you did for CM 1.

Also, backward compatibility to at least 32 or 16 megs would be important.

Regards,

Warmonger

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only way a Geforce would off load the CPU would be if the game support T&L which CM1 doessn't and there is a debate if it a hardware T&L support game would really look any better then the current software base. The T&L doesn't improve frame rate per-say it allows more lighting and Triangles to be drawn without a frame rate hit. It doesn't improve frame rate across the board. If the CPU is slower then T&L of the Geforce when doing T&L then the Geforce would help and only if the game supports T&L via hardware(Geforce) If you look at the benchmarks between 32megs and 64megs there isn't much difference and this type of game there wouldn't be any difference because the game doesn't push a large amount of graphics quickly. I think you've bought into the NVidia's marketing.

Harlock

[Warmonger]

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

The only way a Geforce would off load the CPU would be if the game supports T&L which CM1 doessn't and there is a debate if it a hardware T&L support game would really look any better then the current software base. The T&L doesn't improve frame rate per-say it allows more lighting and Triangles to be drawn without a frame rate hit. It doesn't improve frame rate across the board. If the CPU is slower then T&L of the Geforce when doing T&L then the Geforce would help and only if the game supports T&L via hardware(Geforce) If you look at the benchmarks between 32megs and 64megs there isn't much difference and this type of game there wouldn't be any difference because the game doesn't push a large amount of graphics quickly. I think you've bought into the NVidia's marketing. Harlock<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"CM1 doesn't support T&L"

My point exactly...why ?? Read the thread header "Room For Improvement".

"The T&L doesn't improve frame rate"

That's correct, but that is not what I said. A GPU free's up the CPU so it can work on increased frame rate, or any other tasks assigned.

"there wouldn't be any difference because the game doesn't push a large amount of graphics quickly."

Yes, again my point exactly, "Room For Improvement" there is room for improvement ! They are NOT utilizing the hardware that is available, lots of room for improvement. If they target their graphics to a 64 meg potential environment, the graphics improve, more polygons, more triangles, better graphics, better flares, better smoke, better running water, better looking soldiers and the list goes on...64 megs can used up quickly in a game like CM if the programmers decide to do so !

"I think you've bought into the NVidia's marketing"

Don't worry, I do my homework before I give anyone my money

Thank you for keeping me on my toes though.

For anyone interested in this post, there is a nice graph at the bottom of the following web page that describes this post nicely:

http://www.asus.com/Products/Addon/Vga/agpv6600d/per.html

Regards,

Warmonger

[Maximus]

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

Face it, computer games of any genre must keep up with current technologies and methods or they will be slowly forgotten no matter how fun they once were. Since CM is a 3D game, it will be compared to other 3D engines no matter how fair those comparisons are. Some other (bigger?) companies are probably trying to emulate CM's success right now and the easiest way for them to entice borderline customers away from CM2 if with better graphics. I'm not saying that graphics demands more attention than gameplay, just that it does demand attention of some sort.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree totally with that statement. In the RPG crowd, there are people who love going back to the original D&D Gold Box series which came out way back in '88. They used EGA graphics for crying out loud! But the true RPG fans go back to them because they were great games.

A game (or series of games) is rated for their quality. Hell, I wouldn't mind going back and playing Three-Sixty's V for Victory series on my old original 386-33. My friend and I used to have a ball with those games, especially the Veli-Lukiye version. Hell, we still talk about one hot-seat game we played. Where he as the Russians thought he had me beat after encircling the city and taking several hexes into the eastern edge and then my SS reinforcements finally show up and decimate entire stacks of Russian units.

OK, so saying that other comapnies are trying to emulate CM's engine, maybe. But what about the entensively researched guts of what CM is. OK, so a company puts out a new 3D WWII strategy game, but what if they use physics like in Sudden Strike? What a bunch of garbage. The graphics in CM succesfully accomplish what they are supposed to. Yes, all the mods have made them better and yes, there is room for improvement in CM's graphics over the next sequals, but that is just cosmetic. And still, I'll probably upgrade my computer before then, 'cause I've had this machine for over 18 months now and have already upgraded everything except the processor. ie. 64MB -> 128 MB, PCI64 Soundblaster -> SBLive!, 8MB Intel i740 card -> 32MB Viper 770 TNT2 Ultra. So processor and motherboard are next.

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

"Rule#3: You must be a member of my Meta Campaign to take

part.(doh!)" - Rob/1