CM article - Graphics

[Bruno Weiss]

Mike Oberly wrote:

How about this:I'll read what I like here,and comment on what I wish to comment on.I'm not telling you what or what not to post,after all.

Now I think you have it Mike, at least on the first part. But if you were not insinuating that people shouldn't post certain things, then what exactly did you mean by saying? "but it is quite tiresome to read over and again here that they are unique,and that all other gaming companies are the devil."

Because, if you admit that you could care less about what others and yourself post, and you say they, as you, have a right to do so, why then would you assume it would be of concern to others if your tired of reading it?

Mike again:

I agree to a certain extent about your problems with HPS on the graphics of some of their games,but tell me this:how is their response on the graphics any different than BTS response to those who want flashier graphics to CM?HPS,like BTS,is trying to keep system requirements realistic for the majority of their customers.I don't blame either company for that.

Well the BTS response is different because; HPS refused to adopt any graphical changes at all to modernize their product. While BTS has stated they intend to produce CM2 in a 32 bit VRAM environment thus providing improved graphics over the current CM 16 bit VRAM environment.

What is this BTS response you are citing when you say; "BTS response to those who want flashier graphics." I'm not clear on what you meant exactly.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

Again, one of the promary causes of this disagreement is Gunny Bunny coming on and posting a completely ignorant comment and then running away. He saw a version of the Quake engine modified for first person shooting in WW2, and he thought this is what CM should have.

[Bruno Weiss]

Oh I know Slap. People dive in here and declare that they and they alone have some magic answer never once considering the potentiality that their wonderful idea isn't recognized by everyone else as the greatest spark of neutron activity since the invention of the plow. This though now has taken a bit of a different turn as to how folks think somehow that cultural distinctions that exist on a particular forum should be more a tune to those of their particular perceptions rather than what they actually are, or would logically be expected to be.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gremlin:

Bruno, here are just a few games from the past few years that I feel demonstrate substantial quality in some regard or other (off the top of my head, no particular order, not including free mods):

Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator II

I disagree - I bought this on sale for 20 dollars and still did not like it. The voice acting was good but it just seemed like the soul was sucked right out of it. You fast forward past any flying (meaning you don't have to navigate, or even land the plane, if you don't want to) to get to the action, but then if you are shot up and trying to get away, you are stuck flying forever until the game engine decides the rest of the fight is finished behind you.

I had other concerns but since I got CM I haven't touched this one. I humbly submit that it is another case of a game being sold on graphics - I saw little difference between this and the original Red Baron in terms of game play, save for the increased number of planes in the sky. And the original Red Baron (I know, I know different era) had paper maps and let you navigate if you wanted.

I think simplistic "gamey" looking graphics, to be quite honest, give a game character. Flight Simulator had such sharp graphics that you expected to see people in the yards, and a completely dynamic and changing environment - in the end it was simply highly rendered tiles as far as I could tell. At least with lower end tiles, you don't expect much more. You use your imagination because you know you have to. With the high end res graphics, there is no room for imagination - so the repeated tiles look that much more dull than on the low-tech terain like in the old Red Baron or M1 Tank Platoon. I think I stated that crappily, but that's how I feel.

I downloaded the demo for Steel Beasts last night, and didn't find the graphics that spectacular. Won't comment on the game play - it seems like a steep learning curve, which is ok, too.

------------------

http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

[Gunny Bunny]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Looking at the clip that GB posted, it looks as if it is only a segment of a thought instead of an entire one. He says that it doesn't match up to what a first person shooter would like, and he agrees, but... then it cuts off. For all honesty, I believe that he was ready to write something like 'it doesn't need it' or 'as wargames go it is spectacular' and so on.

You have to admit, for whatever reason, these graphics aren't utilizing the 'cutting edge' of 3D detail, smoothness or even computer processors. BTS stated that their market isn't like a FPS, which usually is of young children/teens who all have modern computers and upgrade every other month, but career individuals who have better things to spend their money on (school, mortgages, crack, etc...). If BTS decided to have a minimum requirement being a P500 when CM was first released then its 'graphical quality' would probably be a lot higher, and its target audience a lot smaller. However, since they wanted 'average' and 'sub-average' computers to be able to run the game when it was released 6 months ago (based on computers 1 year ago) it had to sacrifice something. When CM2 comes out, possibly speeds of P500's will be their target point. Sure, it won't compare exactly with FPS of that day, or probably not even with today's FPS but it will probably be better then the detail of CM1.

Personally, I think that the AFV's are just about as good as anyone can get them. Trees as sprites work fine. The only possible improvements that I see (need is a bit too strong) are regarding extras like rubble, bushes, wheatfields and infantry. Eventually modelling down to the individual soldier in each squad/crew would add to the realism (this doesn't mean you get to use them individually, just see a squad for 12 men) HOWEVER, I do realise this won't be for a long while, most definitely not for CM2, probably not for CM3.

Time will tell. Possbly there will be a great advancement, or a long stagnation of computer speed in the next few years?

I think this is a well balanced response to the graphics question. Let's look at the truth now:

1) BTS graphics are average compared to software as a whole;

2) BTS graphics are great compared to just military software;

3) BTS is NOT responsive to requests from customers for improved graphics. Take Dymanic Lighting ( T&L ) for example. If it takes a rewrite then best to do it now, or it should only become more painful later;

I find it rather laughable that the Party-Soldiers first come on this thread defending the graphics quality to the death and by the end of page two they are coming around to a more balanced point of view, BTS has their brainwashing technique down pat -

Let's face it:

There is plenty of room for graphics improvement in CM.

Here are my two (2) suggestions;

1) Put dynamic lighting for the effects noted earlier ie: muzzle flashes, fire, smoke etc.

2) Make CM2 64 meg Vram.

Stop focusing so much on people that have out of date computers. If they want to have out of date computers that is their business, but should the rest of us suffer because of it ?!

I SAY NO !!!

Regards,

Gunny Bunny

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I disagree - I bought this on sale for 20 dollars and still did not like it. The voice acting was good but it just seemed like the soul was sucked right out of it. You fast forward past any flying (meaning you don't have to navigate, or even land the plane, if you don't want to) to get to the action, but then if you are shot up and trying to get away, you are stuck flying forever until the game engine decides the rest of the fight is finished behind you.

I had other concerns but since I got CM I haven't touched this one. I humbly submit that it is another case of a game being sold on graphics - I saw little difference between this and the original Red Baron in terms of game play, save for the increased number of planes in the sky. And the original Red Baron (I know, I know different era) had paper maps and let you navigate if you wanted.

I think simplistic "gamey" looking graphics, to be quite honest, give a game character. Flight Simulator had such sharp graphics that you expected to see people in the yards, and a completely dynamic and changing environment - in the end it was simply highly rendered tiles as far as I could tell. At least with lower end tiles, you don't expect much more. You use your imagination because you know you have to. With the high end res graphics, there is no room for imagination - so the repeated tiles look that much more dull than on the low-tech terain like in the old Red Baron or M1 Tank Platoon. I think I stated that crappily, but that's how I feel.

I downloaded the demo for Steel Beasts last night, and didn't find the graphics that spectacular. Won't comment on the game play - it seems like a steep learning curve, which is ok, too.

Mike -- what is the URL of your web chat area?

[Guest J Pender]

Hello Gunn Bunny,

Even if the game still looked like this I would gladly buy it.

http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/cm_badge.jpg

The game graphics have improved and will continue to improve don't worry about that.

More important are improvements to the games already excellent AI and historic accuracy.

Take care

John

[Bruno Weiss]

Hi Gunny Bunny, your back. Dog gone man and we missed ya. Nothing wrong in your making suggestions in my opinion, I've seen just about everything imaginable suggested on here at one point or another so one more or five thousand probably won't make any difference.

I think the most interesting part of your discussion though, if not illuminating is that when your ideas are not flat out accepted by everyone, then instead of reconsidering the relative merit or acceptability of them, and then asking the logical question as to why everyone hasn't leaped to your particular conclusion, you instead resort to belittle those who disagree as if to minimize their opinions as somehow erroneous. Based upon little more apparently than your ability to devise an insinuation of conspiratorial effort of resistance it would appear then that your conclusion is that everyone else is wrong for not agreeing or approving of your particular idea. Interesting logic.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Gunny Bunny:

BTS is NOT responsive to requests from customers for improved graphics. Take Dymanic Lighting ( T&L ) for example. If it takes a rewrite then best to do it now, or it should only become more painful later;

Can you please state your qualifications that enable you to make a statement implying that this rewrite would be possible on the current CM engine?

As for the 64MB suggestion - I vote no, so it is 1:1 now. I don't see any reason why only people with brand new machines should be targeted.

Everyone can make unsupported statements - let's see if you can support yours. Other than by calling me a party-soldier.

FWIW - I doubt you are qualified to make any statement about software developing.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest J Pender]

Gun Bunny wrote

"BTS is NOT responsive to requests from customers for improved graphics"

John Pender

posted 09-03-1999 07:38 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the things that I have come to enjoy about CM is the ambiance of the field of

battle, the screen shots have the feel of a real battle. I

especially like the low angle shots. One thing that distracts from the look

of these shots(I wont mention the three man representation for the squads because I know

this can not be changed)

is the way the buildings change when you spot enemy units that are located

inside them. Is there a chance that this can be toggled on/off during the

game? It would be nice to have the buildings look normal during turn playback. In real life I imagine you wouldn't always see the enemy units inside

the house but you would know they were there from the muzzle flash etc.

Maybe just show a star or cross symbol on the building to signify that

there is an enemy unit located inside. Then you could click on the symbol to

see the known info about the enemy unit. You guys have obviously invested a

great deal of time creating the graphical portion of the game. The floating

units in second story buildings really hurts the look of the game.

The vehicle units look great, especially the 251/1's. Keep up the great

work.

Big Time Software

posted 09-03-1999 07:49 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi John,

While I agree that the houses would look nicer if the walls could remain up, this is not something that we are going to support. Simple reason is that CM is a game and if you can't see units inside buildings (and you wouldn't if the walls were up, even if they fired most likely) this is a serious UI problem. In fact, last year we had it so you could keep the walls up, but it just wasn't playable with them up and units inside, so the ability was removed and something else put in its place (only so many hotkeys you know!). Function must take priority over form sometimes.

Steve

I like to think that post had some impact on BTS decision to implement transparent buildings. Even if it didnt there are many examples of graphics improvements resulting from suggestions made by members from this forum.

Gun Bunny wrote: "I find it rather laughable that the Party-Soldiers first come on this thread defending the graphics quality to the death and by the end of page two they are coming around to a more balanced point of view, BTS has their brainwashing technique down pat"

BTS has their brainwashing technique down pat, Why are you so anti BTS?

Take care

John

[PzKpfw 1]

Wow what a list my problem is ppl are spoiled by other generes, first off regardless of it's glareing reception & sales one must realise CM is a wargame, it was built for a niche market its, successw in attracting the FPS crowd etc is a bonus for sure.

Now compare the graphichs to its peers, Ie, Steel Panthers, the CC series, East Front/West Front, TOP, PITS, TACOPS, etc then you see just how much a step forward CM's graphichs are in the Wargame genere.

& Bruce dead on concerning graphics & HPS they never did see a need to upgrade as in their customer base we who wanted better graphics were the minority how many times did we here SP put down by 'grogs' because it had "eye candy" newer ppl to wargameing dont realise just how stuck on hexes thewargame genere was & still is to a degree. Graphichs were a minor concern with NATO symbols etc, being the accepted norm

As to improvements I have confidence in Charles & Steve & I imagine they will improve whatever they can for us, but I don't expect we'll see Q3 graphichs in CM anytime soon ........

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Can you please state your qualifications that enable you to make a statement implying that this rewrite would be possible on the current CM engine?

As for the 64MB suggestion - I vote no, so it is 1:1 now. I don't see any reason why only people with brand new machines should be targeted.

Everyone can make unsupported statements - let's see if you can support yours. Other than by calling me a party-soldier.

FWIW - I doubt you are qualified to make any statement about software developing.

Gad, accusing Germanboy of being a party soldier? Now that is a new one.

Kid, go and ask you Dad to buy a new multiprocessing Linnux box for you, then come back and tell use how easy it is to get new stuff. Honestly -- you came back with the same unsupported fluff. Read what you need to come back with and then come back with it. You are, so far as anyone cane see, not qualified to discuss methods of cleaning spit of a CRT.

I think now I am in agreement that this kid is ban bait.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Gad, accusing Germanboy of being a party soldier? Now that is a new one.

Hehe - fortunately enough I have no problem with being accused of recognising and supporting dedication to quality, responsiveness to customers and excitement about what BTS does. If that makes me a party soldier, I can live with it.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[kunstler]

So some people have the latest and greatest computer. That's their business. Why should the rest of us who don't suffer for it?

If the people who demand CM2 require a 1gigahertz processor minimum to run get their way, many people who played CM1 (including myself) will not be able to play CM2.

If they do not get their way, many more people will play CM2 but the graphic glitz guys will have to suffer horribly, without seeing their muzzle flashes and 12 men per squad or being able to zoom up Corporal Shultz's nose and count his nose hairs.

I think CM looks absolutely fantastic, especially considering the scale. Diablo is fixed perspective is it not? CC is only directly above. In CM, you can zoom around, change the angle of view, rotate, etc.

In quake games I believe they have trouble putting more than a dozen or more characters on the screen without slowdown. Scale that up to a CM battle and all the polygons and my god, what a monster that will take to run.

As disturbing as the constant demand (and they are making demands, rather than politely worded requests) for ubergraphics and waffenglitz, I am greatly relieved to know that the BTS crew is reasonable and eminently sane when it comes to software developing and I hope they continue to resist the siren call of the superficial.

kunstler

[Tiger]

GB, look up. These graphics are better

than many high-budget, high-profile games.

I thank BTS for allowing the bmps to be easily "mod-able" and I think I can speak for all mod-makers that when CM2 comes out it's only going to get better and better.

I think the success BTS has had with CMBO speaks volumes over any nonsense you can contrive.

*Tiger*

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-28-2001).]

[PeterNZer]

Jeez Gunny, you sure are stupid. I'm honestly not sure when I've met someone quite as thick as you before!

I mean, it's not like you're obnoxious like Benny Man. or abusive like previous people, you're just. plain. thick.

It is quite clear you:

1) aren't listening to anyone else

2) don't know jack about programming

3) are unaware of how games are developed

4) know nothing of business or marketing

Even if you are a kid you can avoid a couple of those problems, try listening to other people who KNOW MORE THAN YOU. Then, consider learning a bit more about polygons and effects and so on. It's not that hard. I'd suggest www.tomshardware.com for a first run on graphics cards and their capabilities.

now LISTEN:

-PCs these days can ONLY handle so many POLYGONS (they're a 3d shape, like the barrel of a gun, or part of a turret).

-FPSs require less polygons than a game like CM since the view from the camera is not across the entire map but just across the room. Maps for FPS require TONS of jiggery-pokery to make sure you CAN'T see into the next rooms too easily. Otherwise the system slows to a slide show.

-Special effects like T&L are not that easy to add, best to wait for a total engine rewrite. I expect we'll see that with CM3. While it is possible they could spend a few months adding it now, why would they? Who's going to pay their wages? If you are, please, contact them and pay them.

-Special effect add to the weight the card and processor have to handle and cause more slowdowns.

Please. Think.

or just go away.

PeterNZ

(fed up)

------------------

"Patriotism is the virtue of the viscious" - Oscar Wilde

"Don't F*CK with Johnny Cash!" - Chupacabra

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Guest Rollstoy]

High Guys!

Personally, I only want to see ONE improvement in Combat Mission: A few more polygons for the soldier faces! Give them a real 3D nose!!!! Please!!!! If only at the highest level of detail!!!

Okay, now for the other things:

o Vehicles are excellent.

o Terrain is ok.

o Houses are sufficient.

o Explosions are impressive, but could be improved because they "exist" only for a few seconds, anyway.

o Small arms tracers could be lines instead of polygons in my opinion.

o Debris -> 3D

o 3D shellholes and trenches (HeHe - no way!)

And so on ...

As for dynamic lightning: is this usually done on a vertex basis? Then I see (resolution) problems with big (terrain) triangles. Not worth the effort in this case.

If D.L. is done on a per-pixel basis then maybe it could be coded in as light maps fairly easy (??!?). Like pasting an additional brightness texture on the polygon. The shellhole textures show that this is possible. Should work for explosions at least.

As for dynamic lighting of vehicles. Well, if done for every polygon in the world, certainly too expensive. For normal 12 o'clock lighting (daylight), the brightness does not change with vehicle orientation, anyway. So why bother?

As for dynamic lighting of objects by fire and explosions: the math is fairly simple, the realisation pretty difficult (LOS from light source to object? Multiple light sources? Distance between object and light source?). Also, there is a danger that simply superposing additional ambient lighting would mess up the pre-shaded .bmp textures (static shadows).

Muzzle flashes? Easy (see tanks) but maybe not worth the effort (except for night scenarios?!).

Well, hope this was a little bit constructive!

Regards, Thomm

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

High Guys!

Personally, I only want to see ONE improvement in Combat Mission: A few more polygons for the soldier faces! Give them a real 3D nose!!!! Please!!!! If only at the highest level of detail!!!

Okay, now for the other things:

o Vehicles are excellent.

o Terrain is ok.

o Houses are sufficient.

o Explosions are impressive, but could be improved because they "exist" only for a few seconds, anyway.

o Small arms tracers could be lines instead of polygons in my opinion.

o Debris -> 3D

o 3D shellholes and trenches (HeHe - no way!)

And so on ...

As for dynamic lightning: is this usually done on a vertex basis? Then I see (resolution) problems with big (terrain) triangles. Not worth the effort in this case.

If D.L. is done on a per-pixel basis then maybe it could be coded in as light maps fairly easy (??!?). Like pasting an additional brightness texture on the polygon. The shellhole textures show that this is possible. Should work for explosions at least.

As for dynamic lighting of vehicles. Well, if done for every polygon in the world, certainly too expensive. For normal 12 o'clock lighting (daylight), the brightness does not change with vehicle orientation, anyway. So why bother?

As for dynamic lighting of objects by fire and explosions: the math is fairly simple, the realisation pretty difficult (LOS from light source to object? Multiple light sources? Distance between object and light source?). Also, there is a danger that simply superposing additional ambient lighting would mess up the pre-shaded .bmp textures (static shadows).

Muzzle flashes? Easy (see tanks) but maybe not worth the effort (except for night scenarios?!).

Well, hope this was a little bit constructive!

Regards, Thomm

Dynamic lighting effects all polygons with a new calculation -- direction and quality of light. Easy on a room, hard on a huge board. At least hard in the sinse each tank will cast a DL shadow, and that even at high noon that shadow, although invisible, needs to get calcualted.

Open GL and other engines allow for this in generating ray traced images based on polygons, but it does not work right unless objects are made up of hundreds of polygons each -- FPS synthespians for example. Abstract 3 man squads not likely.

[tailz]

I agree with proper 3-d faces, thanks to the mod-truppen I'm thrilled with the rest of the graphics. (Hell, I was impressed the first time I booted it up)

I am certain CM2 will be a visual treat... simply because of the swarms of mod-truppen out there, who are content to dig into the graphics side and tweak,mod,chop and paste and give the rest of us less talented player-truppen the goods want. (which is true for EAW,CFS1&2, SFC1&2) It is obvious BTS graphics aren't going to be the end all and be-all... simply because at some point they have to stop development and release the game... where our modders can take all the time they want to create the perfect graphic. Kudos to BTS for not squawking about it!! (BTW... what are the top ten mods being used in the BTS office?? Steve, Matt, Kwayz, Charles... care to comment??)

As far as 'eye candy' goes... if it wasn't important, we'd still be using EGA monitors (though some of you kids may not remember what those were), and PC speakers. ("In the beginning God said 'let there be light' and behold sixteen colours appeared, and He said, 'let there be sound' and the PC beeped!)

Give it a rest Bunny... you've flailed this horse to the point that people are ridiculing you on a matter of principle, I can't even imagine the guys in the Cesspool giving you a fair shake now.

Have a Nice day.

------------------

"Poor, poor, pitiful me... these young

girls won't let me be... woe is me!" Warren Zevon

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by tailz:

I agree with proper 3-d faces, thanks to the mod-truppen I'm thrilled with the rest of the graphics. (Hell, I was impressed the first time I booted it up)

I am certain CM2 will be a visual treat... simply because of the swarms of mod-truppen out there, who are content to dig into the graphics side and tweak,mod,chop and paste and give the rest of us less talented player-truppen the goods want. (which is true for EAW,CFS1&2, SFC1&2) It is obvious BTS graphics aren't going to be the end all and be-all... simply because at some point they have to stop development and release the game... where our modders can take all the time they want to create the perfect graphic. Kudos to BTS for not squawking about it!! (BTW... what are the top ten mods being used in the BTS office?? Steve, Matt, Kwayz, Charles... care to comment??)

As far as 'eye candy' goes... if it wasn't important, we'd still be using EGA monitors (though some of you kids may not remember what those were), and PC speakers. ("In the beginning God said 'let there be light' and behold sixteen colours appeared, and He said, 'let there be sound' and the PC beeped!)

Give it a rest Bunny... you've flailed this horse to the point that people are ridiculing you on a matter of principle, I can't even imagine the guys in the Cesspool giving you a fair shake now.

Have a Nice day.

Poor kid, it gets worse. I was sent an e-mail by a usually reliable source (since I cannot get Usenet) that even on Usenet he is being ridiculed. Can you say kill-file? I knew you could.

[Guest Rollstoy]

Shadow Casting is orders of magnitude more complicated than Dynamic Shading of polygons. If Dynamic Lighting is introduced it certainly has to be a dumbed down version. Shadow casting is certainly out of the question! There are no shadows in Quake III, either.

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of experts on the topic. How could the two major light sources in the game, namely fires and explosions, be rendered.

For example, one could make a decent effect by lighting the terrain tiles alone. Forget the vehicles for the moment. Say, there is a building and it is on fire. Superimpose a "flickering" lighting map on the base polygons, maybe extending to adjacent tiles. Or use vertex lighting, which fades out outside of the burning tile. Use the same procedure when an explosion occurs on the tile, if only for a second or so. No need to calculate orientations since they are fixed (buildings). Determine which building faces are affected. Flat shade building walls with constant brightness (approximation), depending on angle of incident of light. Leave walls on opposite side unaffected. Apply similar algorithm to trees.

In an object orientated environment it should be "fairly" easy to teach each object how to react to a light source. Maybe a simple algorithm, which does not affect vehicles, could be found. As for vehicles, maybe a simple switch would be sufficient: If the viewer is on the same side of the vehicle as the explosion, highlight the whole vehicle. If the explosion is behind the vehicle, don't.

Of course, on zoomed-in stills, all simplified methods will look weird, but in the movies maybe not so.

Regards, Thomm

[Polar]

From Bruno Weiss:

But why would one wander into a Harley Davidson shop and start telling them how they should be more like Honda?

Ummmm... Harley only survived because it descided to be more like Honda. There was a time when Harley Davidson didn't really care if a bike managed to get all it's parts attached before they shipped it.

Joe

------------------

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[GeoffP]

Originally posted by Gunny Bunny:

Seems like others share the same view as I do !!

Gunny Bunny

I didn't know there was any view when you had your head....

Nah, that would be juvenile.

[Vomitmeister]

Did anyone notie that CM, according to the article includes battles up to '95 ("By limiting themselves to the time period between June 1944 and May 1995 (and to battles that occurred on the European peninsula), Big Time Software was able to spend more time getting a narrowly focused arena perfect rather than a large arena reasonably well done. )"? Where are all the post WWII battles?

Gunny,

I am a big Half-Life fan and play CounterStrike all the time. yes, I wish the graphics were better also. However, the main argument here is the ability of the software to render what you are asking for. If you want to try to compare the two types of games, try creating a battlefield like you see in CM with the map building software that comes with Half-Life. Any large area with a lot of visible objects is just not playable. I have tried building reasonable size maps in Half-life on a 600Mhz machine and watched them lag.

[Polar]

More to the point, on the Honda analogy, Harley Davidson in the late '70s could easily be used to illustrate the current state of the Wargaming industry.

Just a few loyal fans that don't care if their brand new bike doesn't really work all that well compared to other companies bikes.

The problem is, without mass market appeal, or any concern about bringing in new customers, Harley Davidson was ready to go bankrupt.

The wargaming industry was about as dead as Harley Davidson before CM. The industry needed a good kick in the pants. When was the last time that a wargame had sales like CM? Some here will show pictures of old builds of CM and proclaim that they'd play it even if the graphics never changed...

That's fine... but given the lesser appeal of CM in that case, CM2 would be a LOT more iffy.

Joe

------------------

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-29-2001).]