Combat Mission 3 - or: FIGHTING STEEL!

[Ryan Crierie]

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?

[guest2567]

That sounds awesome.

[Spook]

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.

[Spook]

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.

[Dittohead]

If you want to play with ships, fill up your bathtub. We don't need no stinkin' battleships.

[Scooter]

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.

[Spook]

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 ]

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

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

[Soddball]

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.)

[Spook]

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.

[Ryan Crierie]

<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.

[New Age Santa]

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

[Mace]

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

[Ex Bellator]

Ahemmm *knocks on recently vacated microphone*

one *tweaks volume*

TWO *and again*

NOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!

Steps down from platform now he feels better.

[JonS]

<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 ]

[Stalin's Organ]

<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

[Lee]

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?

[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

[Scooter]

<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.

[Fieldmarshall]

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

[Lee]

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.

[themaltese]

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!

[Mace]

<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 ]

[Doug Beman]

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

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

<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 ]