Dr Blankenheimer Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 I'd like to start a discussion concerning the different positive and negative aspects of a few of the more popular gaming systems out there. I'd like to see some input similar to the format I use below. Let's start out with Combat Mission. Pros: Very creative turn-based system utilizing techniques I've never seen before. The rampant copy-cat syndrome in strategy gaming today is abominable. I like the playback system with the ability to replay any number of times. This keeps the game playable even with the large number of units available during a single game. This is by far, I think, the most satisfying facet of this game. The 3-D modeling is also quite nice. Maps are big compared to other systems and the ability to have that many units per side is another definite benefit. Excellent detail in modeling real world events. I appreciate the fact that physics and penetration modeling were used to such a great extent in the game. Hard data like that is often left out in favor of a more simplistic "hit point" system which reduces each unique unit down to nothing more than a number. Ok, here goes, Cons: Graphics are a little klunky, IMO they lack polish. Mind you I'm not referring to the resolution factor, rather the general blockiness that seems to be more a function of shading and contrast issues. I know that graphics were probably slightly sacrificed to give higher possible unit counts and map sizes, but it seems possible that game manufacturers are still undercoding game engines to meet the demands of systems that most hard-core gamers haven't used since about three or more years ago. I certainly can understand them taking this position for important marketing reasons, but it can get frustrating envisioning what you would like to have seen in a good system that would have made it GREAT. The only other gripe I can think of with CM is the abstraction of squad units. This is actually my biggest misgiving. I don't really understand the point in putting in a realistic 3-D environment and then abstracting the units. The designers have also hinted that terrain aspects were somewhat abstracted, again, because of minimum CPU requirements. This gripe may cause some to think that I'm some kind of simulation addict (you guys know who you are). Actually I think flight sims and the like are too limited in scope. I much preferred ground-based combined arms stuff. This message is getting too long so I'm going to post comments about the Close Combat series and the East-West Front system in another message. Any comments about my views on CM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 I believe that squads are abstracted because the lowest level of commands you can give are to squads. Why model individual solidiers if you can't command them? It might be nice to see where each of your other pixelated soldiers actually are but you can't really do anything about it. At least that is the rationale as I understand it. I think it might also place additional burdens on systems to model each individual soldier. I admit it would be nice to see but I got used to it pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 Don't forget the ease of fixing the graphics . There are many outstanding mods out there you can use. Also it's very easy to communicate with the developers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted July 17, 2001 Share Posted July 17, 2001 It seems that a number of people are under the impression that CM was "under-programmed" to support slower systems. These people are overestimating their computer's possible performance. You shouldn't directly compare CM's lack of eye-candy with other 3D games. There is much more going on underneath the skin than in most other 3D games, which has repercussions on what can be displayed on the screen. If BTS were to program CM (and possibly CMII) to the level that some people are suggesting it wouldn't run on any system acceptably (including a P4/Athlon 2Ghz). Scrolling around a battlefield to issue orders would take much longer, even with the fastest systems available, than it would now. The first time I tried the Beta Demo it took forever to scroll around the battlefield since I was using a 2Mb non-3D card at the time (on the system I initially tried CM on). It was really not very enjoyable (I was into Steel Panthers at the time) since it was frustrating waiting for the system to redraw the screen so that I could issue orders, etc. I believe that many (if not all) users would have a similar experience with a large number of requests/suggestions that players have made regarding changes to CM. One of the reasons why there isn't a "one-to-one" relationship in the number of men on the screen is that it is much easier to view and manage units with an abstracted representation rather than the fully represented and animated unit. Representing every individual on the screen would result in higher performance requirements, harder manageability of units and the request for more animations to make CM more movie-like (due to the full representation of individuals). While these requests aren't unreasonable, they miss the point of some of the decisions made in the design process of CM. There is a "ying-yang" relationship to features in games. You have to balance system requirements (and hence the size of your customer-base) with playability and a host of other factors. Some of the abstractions in CM are due to system performance limitations (some of which, like true "point to point" firing solutions, are beyond the floating point capabilities of any desktop computer available on the scale that would be utilized by CM) and others for playability/management reasons (three-man squad representations). You have to think what features are worth simulating within a certain range of system performance. While there is more that can be done for eye-candy (some of which you'll see in CMBB - but most will have to wait for CMII), some of the important "step ups" in realism have performance requirements that would exclude almost the entire CM customer-base ("Hey... I finally got CM compiled for my 64-processor system. It's a little slow, but it's working!" -- yes this is a bit facetious). When CM goes to 24/32-bit color some of the "shading" issues will go away since CM is currently utilizing 16-bit color (though many of the textures are 24-bit color). Take a close look at some of the uniform textures and you'll see how nice they are. They don't seem to look as nice in the game itself due to the reduction of the palette (or other possible factors). Well, I've blabbed incoherently enough on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted July 17, 2001 Share Posted July 17, 2001 You have also forgotten the nature of games development cycles. CM's, IIRC, was 3 or more years long. And 4 years ago (the game having been out for one year), someone probably would have called you bad names if you told them a 1ghz, 256mb RAM, 32mb VRAM system would be avaliable for $1000 or so. And 3-4 years ago is also when key design decisions, such as a 16 bit pallate, had to be made. Hardware has advanced faster than most people's wildest dreams, especially the price/performance curve aspect of it. Are the graphics amazing, no. Are they adequate (esp after modding)? Yes. Moreover, the 'blocky' graphics do not detract from the gameplay, which is really what it is all about. Take Flanker for example. It is still on my hard drive. I boot it, spend 3 minutes saying "Wow, pretty!" then promptly get frustrated with the insanely complex interface while being nagged by Nadia. Needless to say, the game session lasts all of 5 minutes. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts