Ryan Crierie Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 I think that after CM 2: Barbarossa to Berlin, Big Time Software should take a moment to pause and look at where they want to go with their "60sec" realtime engine. Rather than doing another WW2 game, or even a modern version with M1A2s, BTS should take a gander at: http://www.combinedfleet.com in particular: http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully06.htm Shell Game at Surigao: The entangled fates of battleships FUSO and YAMASHIRO Imagine a 3D realtime/60sec WW2 Naval Combat game patterned around BTS' engine. Now THAT would be ultra-cool. Imagine giving orders for the damage control department during that 60 sec pause, and then watching little men climb out of the superstructure of a burning Nagato BB and use hoses to try and put out the deck fires as the big guns fire, lighting up the night with strobing flashes, as the funeral pyres of sinking battlewagons flicker on the horizon, lit intermittently with the shifting light from starshells. :eek: <Proceeds to Drool Uncontrollably> Your Opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest2567 Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 That sounds awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 My opinion? First, get ready to see a padlock for this topic, because it's off-topic from CM. But don't despair. The Bulletin-board Bouncer (BBB) known as Madmatt will likely have have moved it to the Battlefront "General" forums. My added opinion: Go to the following link for "Naval Warfare Simulations" to get information on the updates that NWS is applying to the 1999 Fighting Steel game published (then dropped) by SSI. Naval Warfare Simulations The next version (4.0) of NWS's "Fighting Steel Project" is to add WW1 ships, and to extend Fighting Steel to include new ships like the Iowa battleship class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 PS: Fighting Steel, as a 3D naval combat game, already has searchlight & starshell effects. Screen resolution & graphics detail are a bit limited (640x480), but FSP's future plans are to improve the graphics and to move up to 800x600 resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 If you want to play with ships, fill up your bathtub. We don't need no stinkin' battleships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 WW II naval games might be great -for sure. I wouldn't want anything to prevent CM: North Africa (whatever the number it is). Many folks wonder about a modern CM. It is a nice thought. I for one don't think that it'll work as the lethality of modern weapons would make it impractical. Isn't there missle systems that literally shred everything within a certain area? Add in smart bombs & cruise missles and CM changes to a battle where these ordinances are the focus (at greater ranges) than WW II weapons -hence a much larger battlefield. I think there are more problems than just these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 C'mon, Dittohead, is that the way to make a new poster feel welcome here in the Battlefront forums? No, BTS isn't going to take the CM engine in the direction of naval warfare. The scope is far too different. It would probably be better for BTS to do a "clean sheet" game engine design if it suddenly got a hankering for naval warfare. But if they did....well, given that Fionn Kelly was a historical consultant for Fighting Steel, they probably wouldn't have to look far for someone to fill that consultant role. [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Spook ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PVLLVS MAXIMVS Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 I think that the "WEGO" turn-based system would be wasted on a WW2 naval game. Surface actions dont occur with the chaotic manuvers that occure in CM, because there is no cover to speak of anywhere, and no elevation changes to mask LOS. In Fighting Steel, even in very large battles Ive never had much of a problem with controlling and ordering. and in an effort to keep this thread on topic and away from locky-land, I dont think that CM would work very well for a game of modern combat either. CM already portrays battles at such short ranges that armor warfare is a little (IMO) unrealistic. Nowadays tanks pop each other from a whole lot further than the one or two thousand meter max in CM. Not to mention the cruise missiles and area-effect weapons (line napalm) and so forth and so on. Also, the CM team seems to put strong emphasis on realism, down to requiring hard numbers on a units armaments and abailitiesa and such, and it might be harder to get that for weapons that countries still used, as opposed to 50 year old relics from WW2. Personally, Id like to see one of three things. 1> A WWI version of CM. WW1 seems to get totally left out of computer gaming, even more than Korea. They might have a problem doing this tho, because it would require the use of horses probably, and they've said that coding and animating horses would be a pain in the rear. 2> An ancient warefare type version. Persians Vs. Byzantines, or Romans vs. anyone they ever fought, or some thing like that. 3> Im sure everyone would hate me for even thinking this, but a sci-fi setting would be cool for this system too. Almost every sci-fi strategy game Ive ever played has sucked. Really bad. The CM system has a depth of tacitcs that is absolutly unheard of in a sci-fi game. Which is too bad, because I really like sci-fi. So Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 I played Fighting Steel and did my best to love it, I really did. It sucked like an truly immense slurpy thing. The patch to fix the trillion and eight bugs anally violated my computer. I was not pleased. :mad: Fighting Steel could have been such a good game. Instead, it's a piss poor half finished game. (Example. Network Fighting Steel - 1 US BB vs 1 Jap BB. Clear weather, calm seas. US BB spots Jap BB at 28,000 yards. Jap BB spots US BB at 923 yards after having been creamed for 15 minutes. Either the entire crew were pissed up on Saki, or they were having a romp below decks, or maybe, just maybe, the game was buggy as hell.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 True enough, Sodd, FS released as a bug-fest. The NWS team, however, has been pretty determined in its FSP updates to quash same. Even so, FSP still has a few problems. There is a tendency in the night-setting scenarios for FSP to "crash to desktop" (CTD). But from what I've seen so far with the FSP updates, I'm encouraged on its future prospects. Another big problem with the original FS was that several elements of the naval gunnery & damage were cut-rate in execution. That's where NWS has worked the hardest: to get the "physics" right, or more realistic, in terms of gunnery accuracy and damage effects. These naval combat models are now MUCH more consistent than before. The NWS page for FSP includes a link showing the updates to FS that have gotten in over the last six months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Crierie Posted July 25, 2001 Author Share Posted July 25, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Im sure everyone would hate me for even thinking this, but a sci-fi setting would be cool for this system too. Almost every sci-fi strategy game Ive ever played has sucked. Really bad. The CM system has a depth of tacitcs that is absolutly unheard of in a sci-fi game. Which is too bad, because I really like sci-fi. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HAMMER'S SLAMMERS! Atomic Games was making a Slammers' game when they went under. I want my fix of cyan bolts from PowerGuns! On the whole naval combat issue, I'm convinced that BTS could easily move in and DOMINATE the whole genre, using a overhauled/scratchbuilt engine. It's just that, I feel that BTS needs to avoid being typed in as "the guys who made Combat Mission"....Having a laurel in their cap saying: "FIRST PLAYABLE NAVAL SIM IN 5 YEARS", would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Age Santa Posted July 25, 2001 Share Posted July 25, 2001 I suspected BTS would turn to the pacific campigns in WW2 for CM3. But..ehh.. Maybe CM 3 would be the earlier campigns against the Polish, French, etc etc. But then against that'd be sorta easy if you were the Axis =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 HELLO!!!! *raps on microphone* Is this thing on? *Sqeeeeek* Umm, CM3 is going to be concentrating on the Mediteranian Theatre, and have good stuff like Aussies, Northern Africa campaign, Aussies, Sicily and Italian campaign, and Aussies (and perhaps other areas in the mediteranian that I failed to mention, and more Aussies). We don't really want that to be discarded, now do we? *SQUAAWK...SQUEEEEEEK* Thankewe Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 Ahemmm *knocks on recently vacated microphone* one *tweaks volume* TWO *and again* NOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!! Steps down from platform now he feels better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: Blah, blah blah ... stuff like Aussies, ... blah blah blah, Aussies, blah blah blah ... Aussies (and perhaps other areas in the mediteranian that I failed to mention, and more Aussies). ... Blah blah blah<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is, until they got scared by all the nasty Germans and Italians and ran off home to Mummy. And Ethel, the pet ewe. :eek: [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: *Sqeeeeek*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He got that much right! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Umm, CM3 is going to have good stuff like Aussies, Aussies, and Aussies ( and more Aussies). We don't really want that to be discarded, now do we? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> YEEEESSSSS All the bits mentioned above could be discarded without any bother at all. Oh yeah - and you mentioned Aussies along with sicily & Italy - BZZZZTTT! you'd all gone back home by then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 What I would like to know is why would NWS work on trying to fix FS when they are making their own naval wargame with battleships included? Surely they plan on doing a better job than FS did in most if not all areas. So why bother with FS when they could be spending time focusing on their own better naval wargame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 The poster who mentioned that WEGO wouldn't work for a variety of fairly odd reasons, I suggest searching for a d/l of Action Stations, IMHO the best naval surface-combat game ever. BTW, visibility in naval combat (at least in the days of radar's infancy) is just as important, and just as variable, as it is for land combat. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: I suggest searching for a d/l of Action Stations, IMHO the best naval surface-combat game ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doug, You aren't the only one with that opinion. I have VERY fond memories of 'Action Stations'. What a blast that game was! Hit had LOTS of detail for any naval grog. Now, 'Action Stations' really should be re-made for today's machines. I can't believe that I completely forgot about it. Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fieldmarshall Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 The problem with a modern CM is that every thing is done at such long ranges now a days, you would never have the kind of close quarters fighting you have in CM, it would all be really huge, and in vast numbers, I doubt a modern engine could handle modern combat. -Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 Action Stations is the best, no doubt about it. I would love to see a new version with some decent graphics and sound. NWS has a naval wargame of their own called "Battleship Warfare" listed on their site that should be going into beta testing soon, I hope that will be at least close to as realistic as Action Stations is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaltese Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 Actually, you know what I'd like to see? How many of you have played Lords of the Realm II by Sierra? Archers, macemen, swordsmen, knights, sieges, and castles... I used to love playing that game. It was fun and involved player strategy. Unfortunately, it has a crappy AI, and the actual "engine" itself (by today's standards) is rather antique. Although the naval game sounds cool, I don't think that it would be as cool as applying the awesome CM "engine" to a game around an era of castles and archers. A Roman theme would be pretty cool too. Plus, just think of the mod possibilites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 26, 2001 Share Posted July 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Oh yeah - and you mentioned Aussies along with sicily & Italy - BZZZZTTT! you'd all gone back home by then <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not entirely correct, there were a few RAAF fighter squadrons that participated in the italy campaign, so I guess I have you on a technicality. Besides it was the Aussie Government's view at the the time that our closer WW2 enemy, New Zeala...sorry...I mean Japan posed more of a threat. Mace [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Mace ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted July 27, 2001 Share Posted July 27, 2001 I may have spoken too soon when I told that poster "go get a copy of Action Stations." I can't find info about it ANYWHERE (surely somebody has managed to cobble together a playable version for modern computers??!) DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PVLLVS MAXIMVS Posted July 27, 2001 Share Posted July 27, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: The poster who mentioned that WEGO wouldn't work for a variety of fairly odd reasons, I suggest searching for a d/l of Action Stations, IMHO the best naval surface-combat game ever. BTW, visibility in naval combat (at least in the days of radar's infancy) is just as important, and just as variable, as it is for land combat. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Im perfectly aware that visibilty is variable and important in naval surface actions (the old school kind at least), but still, there are no buildings, no trees, no ridges, no valleys, and so forth and so on. Also, I didnt say it wouldnt work, I said it would be wasted on it, because the advantages of it as I see them (more time to plot you're moves and consider all the variables) would be pretty useless. There really arent near as many variables in a WW2 surface action as there are in, for example, a couple companies of infantry with tank support trying to take a fortified town in hilly terrain. That doesnt mean that I wouldnt play a WEGO based WW2 battleship games. Battleships were my first and best love as far as War History goes, ever since I got the Avalon Hill game "Bismark" for christmass when I was 13. BTW, thanx for the info about Action Stations. Ive never even heard of it, but I'll deffinatly check it out. [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: PVLLVS MAXIMVS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts