Guest Mikey D Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 I've left posts on other dedicated armor chat sites touting the joys of CM as a great ultra-realistic 3-D tank warfare sim. Invariably the very next post in the thread will be someone attempting to throw cold water on the CM-as-tank-sim concept. Am I missing something? What's your opinion of CM as a tank combat sim? My vote is it's just GREAT and I don't have a clue what these geeky nay-sayers (whoever they are) are talking about! CM rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 You can't really call CM a tank sim because you can only give movement and targeting commands to the tanks - you can't control every aspect of the tanks. The AI will take over and change target and move orders when appropriate. In a tank sim you would have complete control over everything the tank did. Nevertheless, it is fun to hit the Tab key and go along for the ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 Exactly - there are no command and control rules for tanks, either. Tanks did fight in troops and squadrons (platoons and companies for you 'Mericans) and communicated heavily by radio. None of this is simulated in CM (which aint a bad thing - the focus of the game is infantry is all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 I would say that CM is at its worst as a tank sim, because tank tactics require precise maneuvering that the AI can't fathom and the player is denied. Tanks can't acquire hull down positions on their own. They can't pull right up next to buildings for ambushes. They can't be given orders to stand in place no matter what until further orders. The strength of CM is in everything else: infantry, artillery, fixed guns, and AFVs-versus-infantry fighting. Tank-on-tank is the least enjoyable. I hope that CM2 will either have 1) extremely sophisticated tank AI, or preferably 2) much better player control over tanks, or 3) both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADAman Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 Not trying to start a disagreement but I have to question a few of the things Leonidas says. "Tanks can't acquire hull down positions on their own." In the few tank sims I've played they couldn't either. I got to sit in the driver's seat and mismanage where I planted my vehicle. I've managed that about as poorly in CM without being in the driver's seat. "They can't be given orders to stand in place no matter what until further orders." I haven't always gotten my way with my infantry. Even with leaders, some of those boscoes had a mind of their own. Given a choice, I would vote for a game where the player had the same level of control over all his (her) units (which I take it Leonidas does not believe exists today). I think implementing "extremely sophisticated tank AI, or ... much better player control over tanks, or both" without balancing it out with some similar improvements in control of the other units would upset the fine line CM walks today as a general tactical sim. I've never noticed that I had that much less (or more control) over tanks compared with any other units. Once that "mad minute" starts, my Napoleonic plans become Fetterman marches, whether they were based on tank or infantry units. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts