Wol Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Seems to me that CMBO is in a museum, CMBB obsolete, CMAK obsolescent. All are good fun, but the models are looking dated (nip over and look at IL2:FB), 3 man squads a giggle, and one skin-many models rather sad. I still enjoy the game, but I Hope nest time They will m ake an engine pack and option packs for various theatres so that the game engine stays up to date, and I can buy the areas of interest to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 You can have all the pretty graphics in the world, but it's the gameplay that makes the CM series great. After 5, 6? years, CM still has no serious opposition. However, what you describe sounds rather like what BFC have said are their aims in a new engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Hi, “After 5, 6? years, CM still has no serious opposition.” Could not agree more. I constantly search the net, and buy the odd game, in the hope of finding something that comes close to the quality of CM… but sadly there is nothing out there. CM was a true generational leap forward, and strangely, is still a generation ahead of all other games. In my view. It is still the only game I play. Mind you, none of the above means I am not looking forward to the new engine with every bit the anticipation with which young children look forward to Christmas. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I don't think there's a sufficient difference to seperate CMBB and CMAK in that sense. Both are far from perfect, but, as flamingknive's pointed out, what's the competition? I'm looking forward to WC, but it will take a demo to convince me that it plays even as accurately as the latter two CM games. And that's the important thing. It doesn't matter how it looks if it doesn't play out accurately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I wish more games would use the WEGO system, like the Jagged Alliance game (if it's ever published). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I don't have a problem with CMBB's graphics. My main concern I guess is the slowness with bigger maps with lots of trees, so I guess heavier graphics is not what I want at the moment. Not until I can update my video card (yes, I detest conspicuous consumption). I don't have any use for a game which can only be played with less than a platoon of infantry and couple of tanks on a postage stamp sized battlefield. And having all squad members shown has little use for me, especially if it makes it harder to find 2-man teams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobal2 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Regarding the graphics, to quote, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.". Of course, if they remade CM, the exact same game, with top-notch graphics and hollywood special effects and all, I'd definitely buy it. But it's not all that important to me - as it is, it's still a huge step ahead from those "hexes and counters" strategy games, and besides I still play games like UFO or Jagged Alliance 2 or Fallout, so... Gameplay is everything. Graphics...we don't need no stinkin' graphics ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 IL2 is the only other game I play, and frankly the ground units look like **** compared to a well-modded BB/AK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 At the moment, I chose to believe it's BECAUSE the graphics aren't as good as others' that the game plays so well: shows where they put their main effort - the food, not the table setting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guderian129 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Graphics don't make the game sure, but the CM graphics are showin their age pretty badly. I've been trying to find a game that can compete with CM for a while, but have failed miserably, they simply don't exist. When CM first came out, I'd say it wasn't generations ahead at all, I'd say they pretty much invented a new sub-genre of computer wargaming. Great work, nonethless. Even if the "Early War" installment uses the same engine as now, I'd still buy it. - Guderian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 CMBO is obsolete - because of CMBB. I still play that more than CMAK. Both of them are better than any other tactical wargame available, by miles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooz Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I am gravitating back to CMBB. I prefer to play desert battles in CMAK, but the other theaters play out like CMBO, albeit with more eye-candy. Without a doubt, the Russian Front (IMO) is far more compelling than the Western Front. What I want is ANOTHER THEATER! How many new games have been released this past year that deal solely with the US, British, and German forces? I will buy Medal of Honour--Pacific module [sic] because it has other nationalities--Japs! I will buy WC and hope like hell it compares favorably with CM because it has the French and 1939 Poles. Hell, I even downloaded the mediocre "Codename: Panzers" demo just so I could play against the Poles. I am so tired of the West Front that I sometimes think I should dust off the obsolete Talonsoft's West Front (just to play some Blitzkrieg battles with the different nations), Rising Sun (although I was disappointed that the Chinese were not included), and Divided Ground (and I am not a big fan of post WW2 games). Sadly, I lament what CMAK LACKS--no Vichy French or Greeks)as opposed to what it has. Yep, I'm still surfing the PC websites in hopes of seeing the "next best thing". If CMX2 involves the Americans and British AGAIN, I simply won't buy it. Enough already! Time for some variety. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theike Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Combat Mission is a mental game, not a thrilling game. If occasional thrills occur it is only due to small things trying to sip into the bigger picture. Therefor looking at the details should and must be of lesser importance them playing the game wisely. If one wants the thrill of seeing blood, pictoresk villages and hills, one could go on a vacation, preferably in irak maybe. We are trying to learn something, not unlearn. bla bla bla and so on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 People always complain about the 3-man squads. But imagine what a mess the game would be trying to manhandle similar size games with each man represented, each little guy in a 9-12 man squad going through his own choreographed actions, multiplied out to Company or Battalion strength. You think big games run slow now!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: People always complain about the 3-man squads. But imagine what a mess the game would be trying to manhandle similar size games with each man represented, each little guy in a 9-12 man squad going through his own choreographed actions, multiplied out to Company or Battalion strength. You think big games run slow now!!! Not to mention... you have an infantry platoon of 30 men bunched up. Now where did that 3-man HQ team disappear??? And where's my Tank hunter or the Sharpshooter??? If anything, at least the current 3-man squads and 1-man teams is very functional. Of course, some lightheads also have asked for forests where every tree is individually tracked etc... Maybe then, idealy, you could set the CMxyz to show planning phases in a simpler format and then put all the eye candy automatically on for replay phases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I do hope we don't get representations of individual men in CMx2. The AI overhead when moving from abstraction to actual representation shouldn't be underestimated. There are many other infantry issues to deal with that should be concentrated on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Yes, at least not in the Close Combat style, where every soldier is tracked individually, not just graphics-wise. In CC one of the big problems was that you could order your squads, but not individual men, so sometimes men wandered out of cover and you had to keep on giving new orders to the squad until you got lucky and all men were in cover. Damn AI! :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobal2 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 @MikeyD : I don't think displaying the exact number of men would be that slowing down...I mean, what takes so much time is the "behind the scenes" calculations, not the display IMHO. And besides, Shogun and Medieval:Total War run smoothly with battles involving a thousand soldiers on each side, each of these soldiers tracked individually (though on a less complete/complex scale than in CM), plus a full 3D map much more detailed/complex than CM ones, so technically those 10 soldiers wouldn't be such a major feat... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I must admit I cannot imagine what the new engine is going to be like. Every time I imagine 'X' new feature i also imagine 'Y' new compromise. That, plus I'll probably never be abe to run the final product on my machine . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 :Total War run smoothly with battles involving a thousand soldiers on each side, each of these soldiers tracked individually (though on a less complete/complex scale than in CM), plus a full 3D map much more detailed/complex than CM ones, so technically those 10 soldiers wouldn't be such a major feat...The total war series uses 2d sprites to represent troops, not 3d polygons like CM does, the difference is enormous when it comes to graphics processing and CPU cycles. However, having said that the new Rome total war is going 3d...it'll be interesting to see how that runs on a mid range PC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Originally posted by Wol: Seems to me that CMBO is in a museum, CMBB obsolete, CMAK obsolescent. All are good fun, but the models are looking dated (nip over and look at IL2:FB), 3 man squads a giggle, and one skin-many models rather sad. I still enjoy the game, but I Hope nest time They will m ake an engine pack and option packs for various theatres so that the game engine stays up to date, and I can buy the areas of interest to me. CM is not just a game, it's the forum too, and communities and so on. And as has been said, there are no alternative games of the same genre right now (but of course, weariness with CM can lure players into entirely different genres altogether, and so it's a factor). I cannot agree on the obsolete museum part. But I can agree graphics look tired now, many communities have died down and that after all these years one is looking more and more for the next generation. I know what I feel is lacking, and I know what I feel is already top notch, so like everyone else I guess, I am hoping they put in the first and leave intact the latter. There is no denying Maddox games is a highly skilled team. With IL2:BF however, I cannot see them taking a step beyond the CM series. It looks quite startling from the air (and the sky is truly a work of art), but the ground looks pretty much like CM to me: Nothing new under the sun there. However, I still believe this team is one of few able to threaten the BFC CM concept. Question is - do they want to? Is there money enough in such a project? Your guess is as good as theirs Bohemia Interactive is another team which might pull off a brand new generation CM type game, coming in from a slightly different angle than MG. They might even manage the individual soldier and tree problem somehow. But no sign of anysuch project. As for the BFC, the BTS were always interested in graphics, a lot more so than the average Grog at the conception of CM. When it arrived, CMBO was a graphics galore for grognards, with no other serious simulation (Like TOP/PIS or the Grigsby games etc) even bothering to try. The fact that other games very rapidly bypassed CM in general 3D graphic detail - e.g. OFP appearing around the same general time - means nothing. Lots of graphically nice games had already come and gone by then, but none in the accurate-historical-simulation-at-tactical-level department. So, if I am not reading these people wrong entirely, I actually believe the BFC will put a lot of focus on graphics in whatever new product they deliver - if any. But I'll still be looking under the hood. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Comrade Dandelion, the Wing Commissar wants to have a word about that missing bit of The Peoples' property, i.e. half the landing gear. [sound of a Makarov being cocked in the background] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobal2 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 @Ant : agreed, but then again the scale is not the same. In Medieval your average battle features 900 soldiers, a castle and a couple of siege weapons, while in CM it's more like 250 soldiers, 20 tanks/guns tops. Thus, the gap between 2D/3D (mind you, CM's 3D models are rudimentary to say the least - infantry models are what, 10 polygons ?) would not be that big. And I'm just like you regarding Rome, I wonder what king of a machine will be needed to have more than 1 frame per week 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Ancient Rome probably didn't have to contend with the difference between long range and stanard optics or whether the AP shell had a burster charge! A lot of CM's complexity is invisible to us. CM's at its most impressive when you realise you're dealing with very nearly real-world ranges and ballistics and trajectories and penetration figures and deflection angles... Otherwise it's just another game with moderately acceptable graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobal2 Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 @MikeyD : exactly, but that's why CM is turn based and Rome RTS (but maybe Rome will feature extensive calculations about rope quality and torsion in ballistaes, or the long range penetration of elephant hide capability of a thrown pilum ) But like I said, I don't believe that what takes time between turns (or rather, turn movies) is the display preparations, it's all those invisible calculations - *what* happens, not *how* it's depicted, hence enhancing graphics wouldn't matter much in terms of pauses between actions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.