The deal with the ever increasing flood of WW2 RTS games...

[Gurra]

I always find it a bít exiting to check out any new tactical/strategic WW2 game -

just recently I downloaded and installed the demo of something called 1944 - Battle of the Bulge.

The graphical standard are pretty good overall nowadays, and I thought, maybe this could be a little gem coming from nowhere?

I was sadly mistaken. What is it with the majority of tactical wargames? I mean, is it the designers perception of fun or is it based on a survey covering the mainstream of mainstram gamers:

camera close to tank(fairly nicely done until you get close up - decieves you at the beginning)click on tank, click on ground ahead(max 50 meters, since the isometric view does not allow for more) and ooops! a hostile tank! click on your tank and click on the other and poff! you got hit from 10 meters! Where are the rest of your forces? Aha, a green or red or yellow square on a minimap at the edge of the screen and voila! a quick jump to it so that you absolutely don´t get to grips with the lay of the land. :mad:

It´s this crippled view I hate the most. And as a result: tank battles from distances within 20 meters. It has been like this with at least the 15 last games covering any resemblence of WW2.

Should the implossible happen, that BFC screws things up badly with their next engine, I won´t acutally be sorry. I can play CM for another 4 years. It´s really that good.

Regards

Gurra

[WindyCity]

RTS + Normandy + 101st = easy money ;

Most developers have turned RTS into a four letter word.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Gurra:

Should the implossible happen, that BFC screws things up badly with their next engine, I won´t acutally be sorry. I can play CM for another 4 years. It´s really that good.

Regards

Gurra

Couldn't agree more. These games (and the players) are good for years and years to come. The money I spent on CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK has brought me the best return of any investment I've ever made.

[Earl Grey]

I agree, too. Since I had CMBO for the first time installed, it never left my harddrive and never ever will again. Same goes for CMBB and CMAK. I have to admit these three are definitely the best games I´ve ever played...

[Aragorn2002]

I can recall the first time I took a look at the Battlefront website on advise of a friend. I wasn't exactly impressed by the screenshots and struggled on with Talonsofts Westfront and Eastern Front and Steel Panthers. After a while CMBB turned up and although still not impressed with the graphics the demo gave me a sensation of wargaming I've never felt before. I bought both games (CMBO and CMBB)and although many other games followed, these two games were the only ones that stayed on my pc (well, together with IL-2 Forgotten Battles, Steel Beasts and the Total War-series). Nothing can touch CM and I don't expect any future game to beat them in realism or fun. Yes, for me too the best money I ever spent on games for sure.

[flamingknives]

What about CMAK?

How can you enthuse about the series if you only own 2/3rds of it?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Sorry if you like them, but RTS is crap for short-attention-span children, imnsho. That they are commercially successful and continue to proliferate causes me no end of irritation.

[Earl Grey]

I have toadmit, though, that ´Heroes: Soldiers of World War 2´ (aka ´Outfront´) REALLY impressed me. I´ve not yet managed to play every campaign and single mission (the UK campaign IS hard, after all), but it´s definitely a game worth a look - if just for playing not yet another RTS... and, maybe, the once called ´Wartime Command´ might prove to be an entertaining alternative. I have hope.

[Panzer76]

Is the same deal as complaing about how Counter Strike is not realistic, give me a break, it's not meant to be, neither is these RTS.

[David I]

Gurra,

What are you doing putting up posts that don't begin with "My new mod is available at..." :mad:

DavidI

[WindyCity]

Originally posted by Earl Grey:

I have toadmit, though, that ´Heroes: Soldiers of World War 2´ (aka ´Outfront´) REALLY impressed me. I´ve not yet managed to play every campaign and single mission (the UK campaign IS hard, after all), but it´s definitely a game worth a look - if just for playing not yet another RTS... and, maybe, the once called ´Wartime Command´ might prove to be an entertaining alternative. I have hope.

About a year ago over at that publisher's forums there was a mass BANNING . If CM came up in a thread it was LOCKED down, think the guy was calling him self Zzzzzz or something. Anyway if you remember back to the Flash Point release days and TOTAL lack of any support and BANNING of anyone that dared to ask a real question on the forums.

That is the most immature forum's I had ever seen.

[Hpt. Lisse]

Well, you'll be happy to know that Codemasters will not be publishing Wartime Command after all (which now resides under developer 1C/Maddox's generic monkier "WWII:RTS".) Here's a brief Q&A session at GameCloud , here's the Russian link to current screenshots , and here's a screen pic from E3 showing the User Interface . I have played CM since the early days, and continue to do so - It would be nice to see if the IL-2 folks can create a decent, realistic WWII RTS, even if its smaller in scale than CM.

[Earl Grey]

@Hpt. Lisse: I have no experience with their forums - never been there. But it seems Ccodemasters have their own way of telling people something. After all, there should be a reason why they won´t publish the game any more...

Anyway, I´m hoping for a campaign mode - the only thing I´m really missing in CM. It woild have been nice to play the whole war with the same unit and get to know every virtual ´character´...

[Gurra]

Gurra,

What are you doing putting up posts that don't begin with "My new mod is available at..."

:mad:

Ha,ha.

David, you are the one keeping me productive...

[Aragorn2002]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

What about CMAK?

How can you enthuse about the series if you only own 2/3rds of it?

Don't worry, I have two copies of CMBO, CMBB AND CMAK...Just in case.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by aragorn2002:

Don't worry, I have two copies of CMBO, CMBB AND CMAK...Just in case.

Hmm. That's a good idea actually. The fanboy in me fully share this need of keeping at least one mint version of each game. But I'm not a rich fanboy just yet.

Seriously though, it is true that CM has the feel of a classic that goes way beyond the usual computer game hard drive life span. IIRC that was what Steve meant when he spoke of "spoiled rotten". I won't be surprise at all to get back to it every now and then after CMx2, Cmx3 and then some are released..

That being said, it only add to the thrill of laying my hands on the next iteration

Cheers

[Hpt. Lisse]

Earl Grey, the men that serve under you from battle to battle increase their experience in various categories. From the FiringSquad interview - "Like in Combat Mission, all vehicles have crew. The crewmembers have morale and skill ratings, which affect both their willingness to do the job and ability to do it efficiently. Crew can be injured, panicked or killed outright. A tank without a loader isn't much better than a tank without a gunner."

If you have a decent connection, here's the Bink in-game footage video 1C brought to E3. It's 65 MB.

I'd be curious to hear feedback from other CM players - as in, compared to the CMX2 wish list, what they like or didn't like about the video.

[ June 25, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Hpt. Lisse ]

[M1A1TC]

The BEST ww2 RTS game is on its way. Here is the link http://www.companyofheroesgame.com/

[tacitrain]

Dont say CS isnt supposed to be realistic, they acknowledge its "realism" every chance they get. This is right off the main site: "Engage in a realistic brand of counter-terrorist warfare in this popular team-based game."

I hate arcade realism games that have a real world theme and claim to be realistic, whether its FPSs or RTSs. I dont think ill ever understand why games like Red Orchestra(a realistic WWII FPS mod) dont have a big following, yet games like CS have thousands of players. I guess players that enjoy realism are just in the minority.

I dont know whats wrong with me, but if there isnt some realistic angle in a game I just tune out. Im not even interested in the new Battlefield 2 game. I got suckered into BF:1942 and BF:V, and they were only fun because my entire guild was playing too.

I want to punch every CS fanatic right in the face!!!

ok...im done ranting. Just had to get that out.

[Earl Grey]

Anyway, I don´t think ´Company of Heroes´ will be realistic, either... if we´re talking about RTS action-style, then the above mentioned will be it. Just looking at the screenshots tells me that. Sad, though, because these games tend be get published, while other ones just vanish. At least there´s still hope: ´Officers´ and ex-´Wartime Command´...

[WindyCity]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

The BEST ww2 RTS game is on its way. Here is the link

Best new release or Best of all time

Best WWII RTS

1) Highway to the Reich

*2) CC series

* A close runner up (just because of graphics)

the Armor was a joke in the CC series

Wow look at the art in the screen shots, any game that looks that good must be the most realistic RTS ever, I read it on the forums so it must be true

[ June 26, 2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: WindyCity ]

[RMC]

Originally posted by tacitrain:

Dont say CS isnt supposed to be realistic, they acknowledge its "realism" every chance they get. This is right off the main site: "Engage in a realistic brand of counter-terrorist warfare in this popular team-based game."

And by this they mean it is not Quake with railguns, rocket jumping, quad damage power ups, health and armor packs etc. Their claim to realism is basing the game on weapons that exist in the real world. No plasma guns or lightning guns etc.

I dont think ill ever understand why games like Red Orchestra(a realistic WWII FPS mod) dont have a big following, yet games like CS have thousands of players. I guess players that enjoy realism are just in the minority.

You answered your own question. Most of the people playing these games are young and they want to have fun. Realism isn't a precondition for them to have fun.

[tacitrain]

Hey, dont defend them . To me realism isnt having to fire 20+ rounds into a guys chest to kill/incapacitate him because hes got the bullet proof kevlar on. The ad should read "Acrade style play with real world weapons!!!".

I just dont understand why realism isnt fun for others.

[ June 26, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: tacitrain ]

[RMC]

Heh. These are games not simulators. Their primary purpose is entertainment.

There is a general trend towards more realism in shooters. But the areas in which they are improving realism are not the areas in which you want emphasis. Visual realism seems to be a big priority. A working physics system allowing more interaction with the environment has also gained in importance.

Even though the damage models remain simplified, there are accompanying effects which have increased the realism there too. HL2, for example, has a concussive effect from explosions that occur near to the player. BF2 has it too.

[Earl Grey]

Actually, the new CS: Source is far better than the old one - even with kevlar on, you can just take 5 or six hits before you´re dead. It´s not really realism, but it´s a start...

If you want realism in a FPS, try ´Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield´ - you will most definitely die from two or three hits (contingent upon range) with a handgun (OK, the terrorists use mostly Deagles ). A rifle will kill you with one shot unless you wear heavy kevlar armor, which makes you very slow and quite noisy...