Battlefront's CMSF T34/85 will look nicer than these!

[Efraim]

Here an anteprima of what the concurrence is doing...

Note the range/piercing data below, and the general "combatmissionish" structure of the bottom info panel

I sure hope Battlefront will show them some better modelling

Here, instead, the beasty Germans making havoc

[flamingknives]

Who's snow mod is that?

[MikeyD]

Hell, CMBB's T34/85s look nicer than those already (using my T34 mods of course)!

I wonder just how far down the old Soviet equipment food chain BFC's willling to go for CMSF. T55s would be a must, but I don't know if anybody besides Cuba would still be using the geriatric T34/85.

MikeyD T34/85 mod at cmmods.com website

[Efraim]

My mistake, I didn't mean CMSF ("Big Jim", see picture in the header of the CMSF messageboard), I did mean CMSF-WWII or whatever the name will be, also CMX2-WWII. Those T34/85s will -I hope- be better than the IL2 creators ones.

Btw: You *DID* all notice the elevation curves in the left windows of the panel, of course. Yumm

[panzermartin]

So this game is still alive after all...Graphics dont make the same impression as when it first showed up..still, colors are pleasing to the eye.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

that small topographic map looks real tasty. would be great to have something like that in CMx2.

BTW do i read the UI correctly that the penetration numbers are given only to the range of 400 meters? and isn't that road awfully narrow?

[Moon]

WW2RTS begins to look just like Soldiers - Heroes of WW2 or whatever that one was called. Around the same amount of detail displayed, too. The recent shots are far away from the original screenshots though, now it's really down to the usual RTS look.

Let's be honest... all those RTS games with WW2 background are looking the same and one looks just as good as the other. WW2RTS is no exception (the only exception is that it's not out yet while all the others came and went).

Of course the IL2 guys did a great flight sim, so one can hope that they'll turn out a decent WW2 ground combat game.

Martin

[Tarquelne]

/snip/The recent shots are far away from the original screenshots though, now it's really down to the usual RTS look.

Let's be honest... all those RTS games with WW2 background are looking the same and one looks just as good as the other.

As much as I'd like to disagree, I agree. I doubt I can precisely define what the "usual RTS look" is, but it seems to be there and I don't find that encouraging.

Does anyone have some recent details (or juicy insider dope!) on WW2RTS to allay our fears?

[panzermartin]

Well, at least there is no health bar on these T-34s, which is a good start.

[Sergei]

They don't look bad at all, but certainly, like Moon said, it is a downgrade from the first shots. The models are slightly better than in CMBB, in that the drivegear is properly modelled. It doesn't need to be better than that in this genre, the textures are not so great though... at least the tracks could use some snow.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Efraim:

Note the range/piercing data below, and the general "combatmissionish" structure of the bottom info panel

Mr. Picky notes that they've put "APDS" where they mean "APCR".

Also, why does the turn rate appear to be given in grades per second? Nobody in real life actually uses grades, do they?

All the best,

John.

[pad152]

I like the way they present the weapons, ammo, and crew!

[Rake]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Also, why does the turn rate appear to be given in grades per second? Nobody in real life actually uses grades, do they?

Actually, I believe grads are used commonly in Europe although I can't swear to this since I've never been there.

The conversion is pretty simple however; 400 grads in a circle as compared to 360 degrees... a LOT simpler than converting from the 2pi radians in the same circle.

Rake

[aka_tom_w]

AND and JUST look at the CONTOUR lines on the little map there, maybe they are JUST decorative BUT then maybe they offer REAL contour lines (elevation graduations) on another larger map somewhere in the interface.

I REALLY like the look of that interface!

It looks easy to use and well designed to me, but since we can't actually play the game and find out, that is just conjecture on my part, ( the ease of use comment).

-tom w

[Efraim]

Looks like real elevation to me.

This image must have been taken short

before the other one:

You can see the same slopes and the village (where the red 'target' appears on the small map with contour elevations) down behind the hill. Black the houses, red the enemy, redtarget the flag (?), green your tanks.

Which means, coming back to the previous image that since the T34s are coming in from NW, those shadows don't make much sense

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Rake:

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Also, why does the turn rate appear to be given in grades per second? Nobody in real life actually uses grades, do they?

Actually, I believe grads are used commonly in Europe although I can't swear to this since I've never been there.

The conversion is pretty simple however; 400 grads in a circle as compared to 360 degrees... a LOT simpler than converting from the 2pi radians in the same circle.

Rake </font>

[aka_tom_w]

are those tanks SERIOUSLY leaving tracks in that fresh snow???

it sure looks like they are

WOW

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

WG: How many units will a player command during a game? Is the player required to personally control all of the units, or can some be delegated to the AI?

DP: Players might have up to 100 units under command during the whole mission. One should also take into consideration that a player can discharge tank crews or disband artillery sections and the total amount of units will be fourfold.

Player can watch after each unit, control it, improve its skills (if it is a soldier). Players can also manage a crew\squad. One can order a unit to attack headlong or can do it another way. Give an order for the whole squad and watch how the AI will fight. Since we have an advanced AI system the outcome of the battle might be different every time you play it.

And of course we will have allied units which will assist you in battle, but players will not be able to control them.

Will this game be serious competition for CMX2 WWII ETO or is it just another pretty RTS wargame?

(one thing for sure it is pretty)

I am impressed but I am guessing they have no plans to release it for Mac OS X if they do it might come out about the same time BFC releases their CMX2 ETO game.

-tom w

[Moon]

Funny enough the more shots I see, the less I like the look.

That shell hole in the last shot sure looks a lot like CMx1 used to do it (with a simple texture overlay). The smoke graphics look bland, the trees lack depth (no "internal" shadow effects).

Those track marks are neat, but our T-72 tank sim does that already (AND has dynamically deformable terrain, like CMSF will have) as do most of the other RTS games out there (e.g. Panzers or Soldiers).

The elevation marks on the minimap are neat, too, but I'm afraid that they will mean that there is no map editor, i.e. you'll be forced to use stock maps. And small maps at that (400 meters?)

I really would hope for these guys that gameplay/realism is better than the typical RTS clickfest, because in terms of graphics it seems to be a step back from what is available on the market already. But I have a bad feeling about that, too, to be honest. Anybody noticed that apparently the 85mm ammo only has a range of 553 meters?

Bummer.

Martin

[Tarquelne]

Since we have an advanced AI system the outcome of the battle might be different every time you play it.

I'm guessing he's pointing out that the battles aren't scripted.

Before I hit on that explaination I was wondering if the battles were different each time because the sucky AI would make wholly different stupid moves each time rather than actually find the best tactic.

If it's a "realistic" game built under a RTS-looking interface I think things will be basically "OK" from a CM fan's perspective. Maybe the out-of-the-box scenarios won't work realistically for AI reasons, but the game can be adapted to get better (or our purposes) gameplay.

Heh. Maybe it's realistic but still set up with more standard RTS scenarios.... so the game play sticks when you just have one human comnmander, but at least it's a realistic depiction of such an unrealistic situation.

The 533m range on the gun is worrying. "Effective range", perhaps? Though why something so misleading should be presented when the penetration table is right below it is a puzzle.

[James Sterrett]

I'd guess the "gr" is an accidental direct transliteration of "gr"....

"Gradusov/sek" in Russian = "Degrees/sec" in English.

[bo_tellin]

Grads is a topographical unit, in Europe and I think

everywhere.

400 grads = 360,00 degrees = 360º 00' 00" = 2 pi radians

[Efraim]

A propos T34!

: The web is truly bottomless!

Of course, if you prefer

KV-I and KV-II

Enjoy, and merry Xmas!

[akd]

"WW2-RTS" will be a realistic game. I have no doubts given the makers, but the maps will be too small for authentic armor battles and too sparse for good infantry battles. Also, I doubt it will ever be released.

[bo_tellin]

Interesting article:

http://www.gamecloud.com/article.php?article_id=50