Could any other Company pull this off?

[SKELLEN]

CM is undoubtedly unlike any other game out there, and the reason being as I'm sure you're all aware is because there is no other game like CM (to my knowlege anyway), however what if there was?

And I know it's only hpothetical talk, but I would appreciate some serious and positive answers here please, because one day as much as I would hate to see it, we could well be faced with a serious contender to CM's crown so to speak.

Also, how would this fictional company possibly improve on CM if at all and would it be better even than CMX2, now there's a scary thought!?

I could easily state a number of features here now that could improve CM in a major way, but won't, as CMX2 could well have these in place and will obviously be an awesome game when finally released, but will it be enough to beat any future competition, and more crucially what effect would it have on all of us, especially BFC?

[Probert]

Coca-Cola pulled it off with New Coke. Oh wait, bad example.

[Spears]

They made curly-wirly`s smaller so they can get more in a box .......o....... another bad example.

[MikeyD]

CMX2's harshest critics will probably be CM's biggest fans. If CMX2 includes 85% of this board's 'wish list' I could probably name which one of us will immediately stat complaining about the 15% that didn't make it in!

So how fast a pc are we eventually going to need to fight entire divisional battles showing all twelve men per squad... with 3-D rotating tank wheels... and a Quartermaster corps cooking hot meals for everybody back at depot?!

[SKELLEN]

Come on guys, I was hoping for sensible answers here unless it's beyond your intelligence, in which case perhaps I'm wasting my time.

I like humour as much as the next guy, but there's a time and a place and I expected better or maybe you don't understand the Topic?

Meanwhile back at sensible HQ...

[junk2drive]

i suspect that this is it. the next gen wont hold the same audience. we will keep playing these three games.

some examples

close combat

steel panthers

talonsoft campaign series

etc

people who play these, just keep on playing and improving, hoping the next incarnation is just around the bend.

spwaw fans are still fighting over 7.1 vs 8.1, h2h, and now 8.2 is coming.

on a worldwide scale, a game has to play on lesser equipment. cmx2 may make some of us determined to improve on cm

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

CMX2's harshest critics will probably be CM's biggest fans. If CMX2 includes 85% of this board's 'wish list' I could probably name which one of us will immediately stat complaining about the 15% that didn't make it in!

So how fast a pc are we eventually going to need to fight entire divisional battles showing all twelve men per squad... with 3-D rotating tank wheels... and a Quartermaster corps cooking hot meals for everybody back at depot?!

Let me get this straight and say I'm not a harsh critic of CM in any way, but I would be lying if I said CM can't be improved in a number of ways and anyone who says otherwise is obviously playing a different CM to me.

I also happen to love this game to death which is why I now own the trilogy of CM and will continue to support the game and BFC, with or without any future contender to CM's crown.

As for how powerful a Pc will be required, that's an inevitable consequence of progress that neither I nor anyone can prevent in the constantly changing world of computers and software.

As to having twelve man squads, it's probably not going to happen for sure as no home computer is powerful enough and I understand this, but I'm sure most people only want to see changes that are possible and understand the limits of todays computers.

So to conclude yes, I'm looking forward to the next CM as much as anyone and can't wait, but I also don't want to see CMX2 delayed any longer than necessary to include changes and features which are perhaps too ambitious or impracticable.

[Michael Dorosh]

What the hell do you want, Skellen, for the tooth fairy to come down and hold your hand and tell you she really exists? You answered your own questions then got pissed when no one took you seriously.

CMX2 is all talk so far and will be for at least two years, if BFC is to be believed.

Can you predict what will be out on the market in two years? I don't think any of us can. But if CMX2 holds to the same schedule that the CM line has, it will likely be obsolete as soon as it is out the door. CMBOs graphics were not up to current standards at that time, and while CMBB and CMAK were improvements, they lag far behind - stuff like non-rotating wheels and really bad collision detection, not to mention the goofy way vehicles back up (especially when towing guns), mortar teams that look like they are walking their dog, HMG teams that run with their tripod mounts thrown over their shoulder, etc. This is shortcut stuff you don't see in other games.

However, as has been stated many times, the play is the thing so these things don't necessarily detract - CM is not really about them.

But if they are promising that the next game will be about them, prepare for a long wait, and expect other companies to be pushing the envelope as far as graphics and interface goes.

If you are seriously suggesting BFC is the only company capable of putting decent, realistic computer wargames on the market, I suggest you take the blinders off.

Then again, with stuff like EYSA coming out, one is easily distracted.

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What the hell do you want, Skellen, for the tooth fairy to come down and hold your hand and tell you she really exists? You answered your own questions then got pissed when no one took you seriously.

CMX2 is all talk so far and will be for at least two years, if BFC is to be believed.

Can you predict what will be out on the market in two years? I don't think any of us can. But if CMX2 holds to the same schedule that the CM line has, it will likely be obsolete as soon as it is out the door. CMBOs graphics were not up to current standards at that time, and while CMBB and CMAK were improvements, they lag far behind - stuff like non-rotating wheels and really bad collision detection, not to mention the goofy way vehicles back up (especially when towing guns), mortar teams that look like they are walking their dog, HMG teams that run with their tripod mounts thrown over their shoulder, etc. This is shortcut stuff you don't see in other games.

However, as has been stated many times, the play is the thing so these things don't necessarily detract - CM is not really about them.

But if they are promising that the next game will be about them, prepare for a long wait, and expect other companies to be pushing the envelope as far as graphics and interface goes.

If you are seriously suggesting BFC is the only company capable of putting decent, realistic computer wargames on the market, I suggest you take the blinders off.

Then again, with stuff like EYSA coming out, one is easily distracted. [/QB]

What the hell do you want Michael Dorosh, eye candy or gameplay?

Of course I'm not suggesting BFC is the only company capable of making realstic wargames, but the point I was trying to make was could any other company make this particular type of game and as good, in the same way any other company could make a Nintendo game as good as Nintendo for example.

Of course eye candy is nice, but great graphics do not a great game make and gameplay should always come first and I admire BFC for this way of thinking and hence the topic title.

[JasonC]

OK, I will jump into this disaster of a thread in progress and attempt a hijacking.

Instead of speculating about other companies and eye candy and the state of the art (yawn), I will just bring up something I've never seen a tactical game get right, CM included, and put it on my CMx2 wish list.

First I will explain the motivation, the bit of military history that makes it clear to me something is not currently modeled and mattered in some tactical situations.

I've been rereading Bernard Fall. In his Dien Bien Phu book, he describes numerous occasions early on where recon in force through the jungle runs into enemy infantry positions, gets pinned down, takes disproportionate casualties. And part of the problem was clearly the size of the units (full battalions, sometimes a couple of them), plus the way that interacts with the terrain, and with movement.

The issue is mostly concealment vs. cover. But with a twist. CM already tracks that as a difference in how the two forms of protection work against HE. But treats small arms FP as all aimed. That is, concealment works against bullets but not against shells.

This may be a reasonable first approximation when one rifleman is shooting at another. But when a platoon with automatic weapons is firing out into brush etc, and there is a whole battalion out there, it is not a good approximation anymore.

The issue is that fire can hit things the shooter can't see. Concealment blocks LOS. But a blocked LOS does not mean bullets hit a lead wall and ricochet into the ground. This was critical in the cases Fall examines.

Why? Because the detection range in continuous woods was quite short - short LOS, check. CM has that right. This allowed the units to get quite close to each other before anybody fired. CM gets that right too. Naturally, the up front shooting is pretty nasty when the range is so short, even when both sides barely have LOS. But the leading units quickly shoot one or the other side down.

And in CM, the units 40m farther back are completely immune. They don't care a bit that there is a ferocious firefight going on less than 100m away. Because "there is no LOS". But in reality, bullets go flying through the whole area. They penetrate much deeper through the cover than light does. A leaf will stop light. But it won't stop a bullet.

So what happened tactically in these cases, is not only did the front guys get hurt, but the whole battalion pinned. They were too dense, so they took incidental casualties, too.

Beaten zones from MGs are the same sort of effect. But those are generally modeled in the open. I'm talking about the equivalent of beaten zones, from all fire, passing through concealment rather than cover.

One of the reasons this can be nasty is the guys with full concealment tend to move about more confidently. Upright. Big targets for stray bullets - until they pin.

In Fall's cases, this was made worse by the height differences, too. The defenders were typically up on a hill, and in foxholes or better. The attackers were approaching, without any improved positions, moving. In pure concealment terms they had fine "exposure".

But when lead starting raining, they could not easily put solid ground between them and the shooters higher up. On mostly level ground, a modest rise might give real cover. Same on the part of a slope that is bending back toward level. But not so when one is on an "accelerating" slope.

This sets up interesting tactical effects, if modeled at all realistically. Movement is high risk, and especially so in certain areas. Approaching an improved position in concealment terrain is not the cake walk it can often seem in CM.

That is all motivation. So, what is the wish? That when small arms FP is dished out, it attenuates with range and *cover* (in the strict sense). But doesn't care about LOS. Apply the concealment portion only to some fixed extent. Have there be a lower bound on the firepower, reflecting random hits on targets of typical size. Even better would be tracking some of the dispersion, so that denser enemies would face more "residual" this way.

If done right, beaten zones for MGs would be an automatic byproduct.

Also if done right, friendly fire would be more of a problem, especially when trying to use "mob" formations.

Surrounding an enemy too closely could result in the famous "circular firing squad".

Lots of realistic effects. I'd love to have them.

And when one scanned a battlefield for approach routes, the leafy scattered tree highway wouldn't look quite so much like a purpose-built traverse trench in a seige (promised delivery of nearly the entire force to the objective intact, unless massive arty intervenes).

Also, the trade offs between HE and bullet FP would be more realistic. Right now, HE vastly outperforms against units in good cover. Some of that should remain and will. But e.g. approaching a wooded hill on the top of which 4 heavy machineguns are continually sawing away unsuppressed, would not be the cake walk it can be today.

[ June 02, 2004, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Marlow]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

i suspect that this is it. the next gen wont hold the same audience. we will keep playing these three games.

some examples

close combat

steel panthers

talonsoft campaign series

etc

people who play these, just keep on playing and improving, hoping the next incarnation is just around the bend.

spwaw fans are still fighting over 7.1 vs 8.1, h2h, and now 8.2 is coming.

on a worldwide scale, a game has to play on lesser equipment. cmx2 may make some of us determined to improve on cm

You think? This would surprise me. I played a lot of Steel Panthers, but the moment I loaded CMBO, the Steel Panthers CD went into it's jewel case, and has yet to come out. CMBO has been put away since CMBB showed up. CMBB survives since CMAK is only marginally better, and covers different fronts.

It has been the same for me across genre in computer games. IL-2 replaced other flight sims, etc...

As far as how another company tops the CM series? They would have to do the same type of things that BFC has done. Attention to detail, realism, gameplay not sacrificed for eye candy.

[junk2drive]

jason i think you are correct, i can see some of what cm does as a tradeoff for gameplay. i hate having a squad next to a wall or armor, and watch them crawl uphill into the line of fire to get to some brush for cover. walls and vehicles should block bullets but not bushes.

marlow, some spww2 players refuse to play spwaw and vice versa, cc guys wont give up hope and bash every new rts that comes out (like md and eysa comment) etc. all i meant was some people will complain about the next gen, and continue to beg for an improved cm, no matter how good it is.

[Michael Dorosh]

I put CMBO in the case when CMBB came out, put CC in the case when CM came out, put SP n the case when CC came out....but like junk2drive says, some weirdos continue on with the older titles!

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What the hell do you want, Skellen, for the tooth fairy to come down and hold your hand and tell you she really exists? You answered your own questions then got pissed when no one took you seriously.

CMX2 is all talk so far and will be for at least two years, if BFC is to be believed.

Can you predict what will be out on the market in two years? I don't think any of us can. But if CMX2 holds to the same schedule that the CM line has, it will likely be obsolete as soon as it is out the door. CMBOs graphics were not up to current standards at that time, and while CMBB and CMAK were improvements, they lag far behind - stuff like non-rotating wheels and really bad collision detection, not to mention the goofy way vehicles back up (especially when towing guns), mortar teams that look like they are walking their dog, HMG teams that run with their tripod mounts thrown over their shoulder, etc. This is shortcut stuff you don't see in other games.

However, as has been stated many times, the play is the thing so these things don't necessarily detract - CM is not really about them.

But if they are promising that the next game will be about them, prepare for a long wait, and expect other companies to be pushing the envelope as far as graphics and interface goes.

If you are seriously suggesting BFC is the only company capable of putting decent, realistic computer wargames on the market, I suggest you take the blinders off.

Then again, with stuff like EYSA coming out, one is easily distracted.

What the hell do you want Michael Dorosh, eye candy or gameplay?

Of course I'm not suggesting BFC is the only company capable of making realstic wargames, but the point I was trying to make was could any other company make this particular type of game and as good, in the same way any other company could make a Nintendo game as good as Nintendo for example.

Of course eye candy is nice, but great graphics do not a great game make and gameplay should always come first and I admire BFC for this way of thinking and hence the topic title. [/QB]</font>

[Seanachai]

My gods, I hate Dorosh! That bastard.

I feel better, somehow. Is Dorosh in pain?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

My gods, I hate Dorosh! That bastard.

I feel better, somehow. Is Dorosh in pain?

Are you talking to me, or are you chewing a brick?

[Simon Fox]

LOST: Plot

Return to Seanachi c/o Peng Psychiatric Facility

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:

My gods, I hate Dorosh! That bastard.

I feel better, somehow. Is Dorosh in pain?

Are you talking to me, or are you chewing a brick? </font>

[Ryan Crierie]

I'd love to see a hypothetical cold war CM

to be made one day....

There's only so many times you can keep going

back to WWII before you need to take a breather

from it

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Shut the feck up!

I can resolve this idiotic argument in moments, moments, do you hear me, you halfwit bastards?!

I can resolve it this easily. What have any one of you luckless, pointless, worthlessly astray sons of fecking bitches to show for whatever it is you want to make a point of?

Eh? Oooo, look! Your socks are down around your ankles!

[Sergei]

I wonder, should people pay to get abused by Seanachai?

[Lord Harmes]

I think people should be paid to abuse Seanachai...

[stikkypixie]

No, you already get enough satisfaction out of that.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:

My gods, I hate Dorosh! That bastard.

I feel better, somehow. Is Dorosh in pain?

Are you talking to me, or are you chewing a brick? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I don't drink coffee...too.....American somehow.

Oh, and what are you, then? Australian? African? Antarctican? Admit it, you bloody Canucks and Brazzies and Argies, you all are just Americans! You live on a continent named after an ITALIAN!!! BWAHAHAA!!!!!!!