WW2 Fanatics. Does it get any better than this?

[UNN 0]

A combination of Battle Front and IL-2 Sturmovik!

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/index.html

P.S Did a search across all forums this year, hope I'm not duplicating anything?

[xawery 0]

I must say it looks very nice. Kind of like CMBB with better graphics. I'm not too sure about the real-time aspect... I am obviously worried about it becoming a click fest. I thought that CMBB had the right mix: give orders in one turn, see the results in the other.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see! The beta demo should be out soon.

[EiZei 0]

WW2

[UNN 0]

For me, real time is everything. But then you would have to see my Brother taking two weeks to deploy for a meeting engagement. Kind of takes the spontaneity out of it. Sorts the men from the boys, in my book

@EiZei

The title says it all, don't look if you know you won't like what you see.

[xawery 0]

For me, real time is everything. But then you would have to see my Brother taking two weeks to deploy for a meeting engagement. Kind of takes the spontaneity out of it. Sorts the men from the boys, in my book

@EiZei

The title says it all, don't look if you know you won't like what you see.

How does your brother's laziness say anything about turn-based strategy games?

[Garcia 0]

Looks kinda nice. I've basically given up on most WWII games, because there seems to always be a new one, and they always look promising, and then they turn out to be shite. And the WWII theme is kinda used up. Though, when someone makes a WWII game, and does it right, it usually turns out very good.

[UNN 0]

When it comes to choice of words. Meticulous is closer to the mark, than laziness. If real warfare was turn based, all the sensible people would have enough time to make their point.

@Garcia

To vaguely quote Bart Simpson. "The only good, wars. Were WW2 and Star Wars".

If those two software houses, can't come up with an accurate simulation, then I might just give up on the idea myself.

[dmakatra 1]

I must say it looks very nice. Kind of like CMBB with better graphics. I'm not too sure about the real-time aspect... I am obviously worried about it becoming a click fest. I thought that CMBB had the right mix: give orders in one turn, see the results in the other.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see! The beta demo should be out soon.

I'm not too worried about real-time. Remember the Close Combat-series? Before it turned shite? Now that's high-class strategy for you. This seems to be something of Close Combat meets Combat Mission, and I don't see how they can fail with that combination.

[EiZei 0]

@EiZei

The title says it all, don't look if you know you won't like what you see.

I am truly sorry, I will be submitting the formal two-part reply application with the 10 euro fee the next time I decide to reply to one of your threads. Again, I am truly sorry.

[Placebo 29]

I am truly sorry.

I will accept your apology on behalf of the forums, but please don't do it again.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

WW2 is so much chewed over, I can only play fun WW2 stuff anymore... the last WW2 game I enjoyed was Return to Castle Wolfenstein!

[Garcia 0]

BUZZARD @ Aug. 10 2006,13:09)]WW2 is so much chewed over, I can only play fun WW2 stuff anymore... the last WW2 game I enjoyed was Return to Castle Wolfenstein!  

Indeed, though this game do look like a fun WWII game. Though I think I will have to read reviews and watch other peoples reaction to the game before I get it. I've seen so many WWII games that look promising, and then when I read reviews of it, it gets a 5/10 and the reviewer lists lots of things that horribly wrong, which you couldn't see in the pictures Or simply that the game just looks nice, but is shit boring Seems to me that too many developers make WWII games thinking they can just throw together a game with neat looks, and it'll sell well, just because people like WWII

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I still think Red Alert was the best

[Garcia 0]

I still think Red Alert was the best

Hmm, I don't really remember too many WWII games that's good, though 3 that I enjoyed was Red Alert, MoHAA and CoD.

Red Alert because it was a nice strategy game, MoHAA because it was good at killing time, and because I was very good at it, and CoD because me and my mate was really shite and used to camp together and sniping others

[VictorTroska 0]

Medal of Honor:Allied Assault and BiA:Road to Hill 30 + BiA:Earned in Blood

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I must say, I've never seen anything that compared to Day of Defeat v3.1b on a 128-player server and on the Omaha-beach-trilogy maps... Oh those were the days...

[kernriver 4]

Since this thread is turning in "What is your favourite WWII game", here it is: all that Victor said, COD and Close combat.

I like WWII games (shooters) for two reasons:

1. M1 carbine

2. M1 garand

[Garcia 0]

To turn this thread back to the game it initally was about...anyone know the release date? And anyone know if it's probable that the game will be released at that date?

[Fork122 0]

To turn this thread back to the game it initally was about...anyone know the release date? And anyone know if it's probable that the game will be released at that date?

3DGamers says Summer 2006,

The developer says Q4 2006,

and the main page says "The end of 2006".

So I'd say it's safe to assume a release towards the end of 2006.

By the way, Hidden and Dangerous 2 was one of the best WWII games I've played

[Garcia 0]

Ah, forgot H&D. All H&D games were really good. Though I liked H&D and the expansion to H&D much more than H&D2. H&D2 was too easy H&D was much more difficult. At least IMO. H&D2 seems to have moved more towards arcadish like FPS shoot em up than the first one.

[UNN 0]

My money is on, sometime in 2007.

[[aps]gnat 28]

LOL .... their 4th video is funny-as

Not representitive of actual game play I don't think (well maybe !!! ), but still worth a look.

Hope it could replace Panzer Elite for me

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]When it comes to choice of words. Meticulous is closer to the mark, than laziness. If real warfare was turn based, all the sensible people would have enough time to make their point.

The critical flaw that plagues the vast majority of realtime strategy games is the simple fact that your commands often have to overcompensate for really basic AI, and often you have so little time to do this, that the result is often moot because with or without, it ends up being a disorganized mindless clusterfuck.

So in the end, you do more work than you should be simply issuing commands to babysit units that should show more autonomy and intelligence than they currently do. This in effect eliminates any analogue realtime strategy games have to issuing commands in a "real" battle situation.

I equate a real time strategy game, traditionally to managing a group of idiots at a faster pace than you can fill the gaps in their artificial common sense. Which is essentially all you're doing.

Whereas turn based strategies allow you to typically perform this task (filling in the often-lacking AI) within a realistic timeframe, often accounting for the intelligence of many units with orders and actions that resemble a considerably greater degree of human-like sensibility.

one might contend that allows for too much control, however a good turn based strategy enforces certain parameters that simulate human limitations upon that particular unit. Some of those being: stamina, morale, physical wellbeing, personality quirks, etc.

Realtime strategies are fun at times, but the good (read: more realistic) ones typically reduce the amount of control and possess more convincing AI reducing you to less frequently issuing orders as the battle unfolds (close combat, etc). While the latter simply relies on frantic clicking to a particular predetermined plan or formula that has the greatest chance resulting in success. The latter can often be learned once and repeated to similar effect each time, whereas the former offers more room for strategic thinking on a more broad scale.

The eventual evolution of the realtime strategy, in a realistic sense at least will have the AI of each and every unit, self sufficient enough to make minor decisions without player intervention, resulting in the larger organization and logistical planning falling on the shoulders of the player as the AI pretty much controls the battle on it's own; effectively marginalizing the emphasis of repetitive and trivial speed-clicking.

[TheBladeRoden 0]

All I know is that those trees creep me out

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ] equate a real time strategy game, traditionally to managing a group of idiots at a faster pace than you can fill the gaps in their artificial common sense. Which is essentially all you're doing.

Whereas turn based strategies allow you to typically perform this task (filling in the often-lacking AI) within a realistic timeframe, often accounting for the intelligence of many units with orders and actions that resemble a considerably greater degree of human-like sensibility.

True to a certain degree, although It may be confusing to refer to the likes of Close Combat as an RTS. Not every real time game, relies on the sheep herding tactics, of Red Alert style games. Whose game play generally defines the term, RTS for most people.

When defending, the AI in Close Combat is pretty good. I usually found it better to leave them to choose their own targets, unless you want to perform an elaborate ambush. But with Close Combat, you don't have the luxury of being able to stroll round the Battlefield, regardless of how intense the fighting is elsewhere. Like you do with Combat Mission.

Of course real time verses turn based has it's pros and cons. It's really a matter of personnel preference. The main advantage of turn based games as I see it is, you can command far larger forces. But if real time didn't have it's merits, we would probably not be here reading this forum. Although with Flashpoint out of the box, you cant control more than 11 AI. I don't have the experience with CoC's command engine to comment, but would anyone describe that as a click fest?

The hand holding in Close Combat comes when you want to assault a position. That inevitably, draws your attention away from the rest of the battlefield. Something a consensus commander in Combat Mission, never has to worry about. With real time games, it's a case of how quickly you can asses and react to the situation. That’s where the appeal lies for me. Given that, for now, most AI system posses a degree of stupidity. Both players have the same stupid units. It's how well you manage them for a given situation, that makes the difference.

Quote[/b] ]The eventual evolution of the real-time strategy, in a realistic sense at least will have the AI of each and every unit, self sufficient enough to make minor decisions without player intervention, resulting in the larger organization and logistical planning falling on the shoulders of the player as the AI pretty much controls the battle on it's own; effectively marginalizing the emphasis of repetitive and trivial speed-clicking.

If you haven't already, you should read this article:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/article....&cat=59

Ok so it's not exactly what you would call an un-biased review. But it does have some striking similarities to your requirements for the evolution of, real time, AI engines.