I don't expect anyone to agree buuuuuut

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

This is just me pondering aloud.

I have to say every site has its crowd, that crowd is drawn from its biggest draw. The biggest draw at Battlefront is obviously Combat Mission.

I find it odd that Battlefront has created Strategic Command, when it is home to Combat Mission actually.

Don't take it personally, but the average Combat Mission fan is eye candy challenged, or rather, can't play games that are not about eye candy me thinks. Which makes the site sponsoring Strategic Command peculiar in a way (or unexpected).

I think Strategic Command is an impressive looking game, something with a lot of potential.

Is it not possible, that as a result of being home to Combat Mission, the Strategic Command forum, is as a result of close proximity, subjected to the usual sort of person that is completely contrary to the usual sort of person that will play Strategic Command.

Now again don't call this a slag for the game, really, I have played Combat Mission, I just don't fit the profile as a normal player of it, hence I don't like it.

But Combat Mission players, in my experience, are also the type more likely to play Real Time Strategy games as well as First Person Shooters.

Not that either of those genres have anything wrong with them as entertainment.

But I have noticed the average Real Time Strategy or First Person Shooter player has A no patience at all, and B has a quite incorrectly inflated opinion of their stategic and critical thinking capabilities.

Which might explain while occasionally someone that belongs in another game, wanders in here and immediately thinks there is something wrong with Strategic Command.

When all along the only thing lacking, is the players capabilities.

Or to make a long post short.

I have met plenty of negative comments about Strategic Command with a bit of skeptisicm.

Often sounds like yet another deluded player, that thinks to much of their limited skills.

[Guest Mike]

I play both.

I'm a figure wargamer mainly.

Eye candy is nice, but content is better.

CMBO wins for me on that because SC isn't really a wargame any more than Axis and Allies is - it's a fun game, but it's not really a great simulatoin of WW2.

[ August 17, 2002, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[P z B]

Some like the daughter while others like the mother

I think Battlefront is attracting a much bigger audience with this diversity...me for example <G>

I don't like 3D games, and especially not those that are in real time!) So I was delighted to find SC.

[J Wagner]

I avoid RTS games with a passion....my lack of patience and skill prevent me from enjoying the game...mind you, I'm not criticizing RTS games, I'm simply inept at them...turn based for me, except for EU because at least you can slow the game to a crawl...

[J Wagner]

I avoid RTS games with a passion....my lack of patience and skill prevent me from enjoying the game...mind you, I'm not criticizing RTS games, I'm simply inept at them...turn based for me, except for EU because at least you can slow the game to a crawl...

Sorry about the 2X post...don't know how I did that...

[ August 17, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: J Wagner ]

[Krikke]

I play most games. I liked CMBO, didn't play it cause I couldnt buy it here, only demo, but that was very good.

I play shooters (realistic ones, where teamwork and tactics are involved) eg operation flashpoint and now americas army.

I played the demo of strategic command, and i liked it very much. Intend to buy it as soon as i have money.

I just play what i feel like playing at the moment. And im usually good at most games. Im very good with the shooters, and with strategy games, you guys would probably kick my ass as i never played them online, but i have no problem with the AI, and i have good insight. Ive been studiing military history for 10 years now, complete with tactics.

[TimSmith]

Les Sarge,

I don't consider CM a RTS or Shooter game. I loved Squad Leader and CM is Squad Leader in 3D. I also enjoy games like SC a great deal. I have Wif, Third Reich and War in the Pacific. I am hoping someone such as Hubert can create a playable version of World in Flames.

Tim Smith

[J Wagner]

People who wonder what the map should look like need to check out the WIF map. Now there is something you can sink your teeth in to. Too bad their isn't a viable pc game behind it....

[Jev.Dk]

Originally posted by J Wagner:

People who wonder what the map should look like need to check out the WIF map. Now there is something you can sink your teeth in to. Too bad their isn't a viable pc game behind it....

Not a pc game yet.............. but comming very soon

http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

Jev The Jut

[ August 17, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Jev.Dk ]

[J Wagner]

Originally posted by Jev.Dk:

Not a pc game yet.............. but comming very soon

http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

Jev The Jut[/QB]

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Jev.Dk:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Wagner:

People who wonder what the map should look like need to check out the WIF map. Now there is something you can sink your teeth in to. Too bad their isn't a viable pc game behind it....

Not a pc game yet.............. but comming very soon

http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

Jev The Jut</font>

[iolo]

Um, have any of you actually tried the beta version that they offer?

Let's just say it needs a lot of work on a lot of fronts...

[J Wagner]

IOLO, I don't have a clue what the beta is supposed to do. I have the map editor and some other files but I'm lost. I chalk it up to my own ignorance and not a knock on the game.

[iolo]

If you download the three packages you can get a playable beta running. It just looks and feels scary as all hell. Of course I'm comparing it to SC where you're up and running and marching across europe within a couple of minutes. I think from playing the WIF beta I have a pretty good idea where it's heading, but that's just me.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

I find it odd that Battlefront has created Strategic Command, when it is home to Combat Mission actually.

Rather than odd, it's clever marketing. Just like GM has multiple divisions in order to have a car for everyone, Battlefront now has covered all areas of simulated warfare: tactical (CM), operational (AA), and strategic (SC).

So a 'serious' wargamer has one-stop shopping for all the basic needs.

BTW, CM is not about eye-candy, it's about mechanics. The eye-candy is pretty good to make it more immersive, but has not been taken to the point of compromising mechanics.

[Straha]

I don't care very much about fancy 3D effects and such, but I still like beauty. E.g. if the city icon in SC would be different for Paris, Rome, London, Berlin and Moscow, this would add to the atmosphere of the game IMO.

I did not play CM, but from what I know it is not an RTS game, but turnbased! (Right?) Actually, I find the idea to make *turnbased* 3D tactical games attractive ... it's just that my system is not very powerful, so I won't give it a try soon.

Straha

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I have played the WiF demo, geeese I can't say enough nasty things about the interface though.

Unless the interface is made even remotely as user friendly as SC I will stick to playing the real WiF even if it has to be solo.

[Bruce70]

I hate RTS but love CM and SC. TacOps isn't bad and AA looks good too although I haven't bought it. I don't think it is strange or a coincidence that a lot of games that I like can be found at the same place.

[Herr Kruger]

This is just me pondering a response out loud...

First of all, I yhink Battlefront.com can host any WWII games they want. I don't think it's weird they have SC at all. And I don't think CMers are into CM for they eye candy, either. I could not disagree more. I detest most RTS, unless it is the kind that you can slow to a crawl, and I've never been an avid FPS shooter player. I tried Ghost Recon for awhile, but it's a more realistic kind of FPS than Doom or other stupid FPSers. Stupid in the sense of realism mind you. I've always liked strategy/tactics even if it was just icons or pieces on a map... and I think a lot of CMers are too... all you have to do is look up a couple of threads in teh General Forum on other games that are WWII but RTS as well.

[jmbunnelle]

I disagree, I think Combat Mission is as far from RTS eye-candy as you can get. If it's considered that way now, it's because of the excellent hi-res mods that have been released over the last few years. I think the 60-second turn idea is absolutely brilliant and prevents the game from becoming an unmanageable nightmare. I have no doubt that RTS companies will start ripping this off before long.

[Jeff Gilbert]

You could also try out TacOps4. It should be released [sold] here on the Battlefront site in the next few weeks [a month maybe?]. Try the demo ...

If you were ever a tactical board gamer or like turn base [1 minute]. This game is the heat. I have been playing it since the mid 90's when it made its debeut.

SC is a damn fine game ... I just hope all the folks at Battlefront keep 'em coming.

[Schnell]

You have got to be joking!! I am lucky enough to be able to play combat mission at work on a friends laptop. He is all for eye candy and first person shooters but does like combat mission even though he doesnt have a clue as to the use of combined arms in mechanized warfare. As for me I consider myself a strategist and tactician. Guess what he has yet to beat me fair and square in a single engagement of combat mission, but cant say he is not trying after a few hundred battles or so. I also love strategic command, wich is of course strategy and not tactics.So the people who frequent this site wether they be tacticians or strategists are probably not too inclined to be the type who dwelve deeply in games like deer hunter and grand theft auto. But this is more than likely an average and not an absolute.

:cool:

[Agua]

Yeah, I strongly disagree as well. It has been my experience that CM players generally have strong tabletop wargame experience and are enamoured with the game, not so much for the eye candy, but for the incredible detail in combat resolution. Oh, it certainly doesn't hurt that it has beauty as well as brains, but it is the most realistic and historically detailed wargame available for the PC; some would not even limit it to computer wargames. It is only recently, as in within the last year, that I ever picked up an FPS. The only ones I fool around with are Ghost Recon and Flashpoint which are far different animals from the typical mindless shooters. RTS? I haven't got the time of day for them (mainly because to date, they lack sufficient depth and detail to hold my interest). However, GI Combat looks very promising with regard to attention to detail and I'm very hopeful for that title.

It's difficult with communication over the internet to discern the tone underlying a communication. I'm not insulted at all by your assesment, but I think that a) you don't have a good handle on the depth of Combat Mission; and / or you haven't spent enough time in the CM forums to provide you with an informed approximation of the background and likes of CM fans.

Best wishes,

[blackbellamy]

CM does have 3d graphics, but underlying all the eye candy is a super detailed and realistic tactical resolution system - i think that (and the excellent moddability) is the main draw for me

as for WIF (the computer game), if you have ever wanted to look for an example of what _not_ to do with an interface, then just download the beta

while WIF the boardgame remains my favorite ww2 themed game of all time, it's monster size and complexity does not translate well (or at all) into the current iteration

you can't scroll the map with the mouse - you can only see like 20-30 hexes at a time (mind you this is a game with like a billion x billion hexes), and giving a unit orders can give you the fits

the author is concentrating to make sure all the little obscure rules are in the engine (what is the chance tunisia will go allied when germans take over vichy? how about syria?), meanwhile the interface remains an archaic example of the worst of the EGA games from the 80's. Shiiit, Knights of the Desert from SSI had a better interface than CWiF

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Good to hear the support for Combat Mission I guess actually.

I have not played it to much, but it was mainly the view scale that I was not taken with.

I am also glad my assessment of CWiF was not off base (I wasn't sure at first).

Recently I have been playing Sudden Strike 2 (well once actually, I watched an RTS fan friend play it here a couple of times too). It is the first time I have played anything in real time and enjoyed it. I like the scale of the action so far.

So more recently I have altered my usual practice of slagging ALL RTS games.

Now I tend to limit slagging to the build it, and throw it at em as fast as possible games. Still don't like those ones.