Guest smbutler Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 I've been playing the demo (over and over again) and I'm constantly being blown away by the insights this game provides into the importance of battlefield topography. And, since I'm a 19th century buff, I have a recurring thought when I'm playing: Wellington, Lee, Nappy, Freddy the great--all of these folks would LOVE this game. Let's take Wellington, for example: he decided to fight at Waterloo because its topography: it seemed relatively flat, but the gentle slopes actually allowed for concealment and protection against Nappy's artillery. As I'm having have these strange thoughts, I begin to see files of Blue coated grognards marching up those green slopes towrds me... Am I the only one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 Are you talking about the old Spectrum Holobyte game "Fields of Glory"? I played that on my old 386-33. Hellava fun game, just ran alittle slow when the cannons went off. All the dead bodies all over the place was GREAT! Bring it on Major Tom. ------------------ "Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!" Hahahahahahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smbutler Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 Actually, I was hinting that the CM format would be ideal for 19th and 18th Century conflicts. There would have to be some big changes (i.e. scale, time segments, and of course graphics), but imagine Waterloo laid out in 3d, and at ground level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 smbutler: I agree about the Waterloo concept. When I visited Gettysburg for the first time after playing "Sid Meier's Gettysburg" about a hundred times, my familiarity with the terrain was astonishing! Aside from the historical euphoria I felt, knowing exactly where everything had happened and what was over the next ridge or hill from seeing it in a game was a very novel feeling for me. Being able to drop the camera viewpoint down to the level 1 and 2 elevations that CM provides would have made it that much better, and the immersion level would have been greater. I definitely agree with you that modelling 18th- and 19th-century campaigns using those perspectives would be fantastic, especially if modelled on historical terrain! Obviously, this virtual reality concept is nothing new. I remember reading a few years ago about Marines using custom "Doom" levels in training designed to simulate embassies and other areas they were assigned to defend. However, when you're first exposed to the benefits of it, as I was at Gettysburg, it's a great feeling! Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smbutler Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 Dar, One of these days I'm going to make it to Gettysburg; I hear it's quite an experience. One other aspect of the CM format, simultaneous movement and firing, would allow for one other major improvement over Talonsoft's turn-based games(I'm assuming you're familiar with them): it would be much less boring than watching every volley and every movement unfold. In general, traditional turned-based games allow for a very unrealistic(and boring) level of command and control as well. The CM format could solve these problems as well. Maybe in the distant future..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 smbutler: I heartily recommend visiting Gettysburg if you can ever arrange it. It's a very moving experience, and the battlefield is well-preserved and separate from the commercialism in the town. I visited there three times in the three years I lived near Pittsburgh, and each time found myself parked for long periods in several spots (Chamberlain's end on the Union left on Little Round Top and the Angle especially) trying to imagine what it was like at that spot on those days. I agree with you on the turn-based monotony and lack of realism. I expect CM will raise the bar across the war-gaming spectrum, proving to developers that we do have the hardware capabilities to run RT sims with great 3-D graphics and a competent AI, and that gamers expect more. Certainly, "Falcon" and other flight simulators have proven that several times over, but it has taken too long for it to pervade the wargaming/strategy niche in my opinion! You mentioned different time segments earlier, and I agree. I would imagine a minimum of 15 minutes per time segment at that scale would be necessary. Any less might get monotonous and simulate an unrealistic command-and-control (unless each of your couriers is delivering dispatches while flying a Pegasus!). Perhaps we will get lucky and BTS will license the engine to another group to work on different eras while they continue on CM2, CM3, etc.! Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
przy Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 I can't wait for CM2, man the East front rules! IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 Ah Fields of Glory was fun . I used to play it on a Pentium I 166 (ancient). I don't think CM would be well suited to that system until the ability to display more of the soldiers is developed. A 19th Century battleline would just not look good if it only consisted of 100 men per mile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 Hell, I can't remember. It might have been my Pentium 60. One of the first Pentiums with the built-in Floating Point error. That computer still ran on DOS 6.0 and Windows 3.1 Yeah, it would be extremely cool to play Napoleonic or American Civil War battles in CM's engine. Spanish-American War would be cool to. That one even had Germans as Spanish advisors in connection with the Maxim machineguns. Ever see Turner's "Rough Riders"? That was a great made-for-TV movie. It's available on video. I have it and I watch it every now and then. ------------------ "Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!" "Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!" --from the film Battlefield Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 I second (or is it third?) the recommendation to see Gettysburg. It is pretty awe inspiring. They've done an excellent job of keeping the battlefields as they were. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 I've seen Gettysburg the movie. No really, I was at Gettysburg back in '91. We also went to Antietam and Harper's Ferry. They're all very close to one another. Antietam, actually, was very impressive as well. Antietam, unlike Gettysburg, is not near a modern city. It's out there in the wilderness, just like it was back then in 1862. ------------------ "Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!" "Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!" --from the film Battlefield Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 Gettysburg's a virtual shrine to me. My ACW regiment I reenact fought there (124th NY) in the Devil's Den area. I also have SM's Gettysburg, and despite a small amount of positioning flaws (my regiment's position in particular), it is, in my opinion the best sim of CW combat around. I have also been to Manassas. That is a fascinating place! Two battles fought in one general area! Also, it is relatively quiet, which makes it nice. ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 I know this has nothing to do with the CW or the age of rifles. But I do plan on setting up a scenario with just plain rifle units and maybe dug in artillery for cannons. Nothing else. Just for fun to see how it would play out. Just an idea. I'm full of them....even if most are stupid. Lorak ------------------ http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Callmeyer Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 Yes, this is a great game engine for 18th, 19th century gaming. But don't knock Talonsoft. They were the company that single-handedly ended the Civ War game drought of the early/mid 90's. And the command structure modeling is great. Not to slight the very good command modeling in CM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts