Blitzkrieg any good?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

That's 2.5 cents now Marc, remember our dollar is worth more now hehe.

Yep I am opinionated, yep I don't always own the game. Never stopped anyone else from commenting, you can bet it isn't relevant here either as a fault hehe.

RTS games are all the same in the same way that all turn based games are the same. What does that say that is revolutionary? Nothing.

Cool is games like Up Front, where the hex vs no hex argument doesn't even work for either side.

Cool is software that allows me to play a board game with my computer thus frustrating the popular argument computer games allow me to play other people anytime anywhere, well ya can do that with board games too.

But I am not entirely anti computer wargaming, I just won't let delusional concepts hold sway while I am around.
Only downside to online multi user gaming currently is expense. It's not like it isn't fun. But needing to buy a new computer, and shellout 20 some bucks a month to play does tend to dampen the enthusiasm.

Spent the week watching a buddy play the new Planetside online game. Looks good. Rewards finding a squad of guys that can understand the need to combine efforts intelligently. But while one buddy was playing it all darned day, the other retreated back to Counterstrike (it doesn't cost him anything apparently).

Given a choice with no expense factor present, I would have to say the multi user experience will always trump any RTS game, regardless of the RTS game's supposedly awesome graphics.
RTS is only a letter letter term for kidding yourself. It isn't real time at all.
Online multi user gaming is real time. Nothing else is.

That said, I never said Blitzkrieg was a bad game, likely just not anything sufficiently new to get emotional about.

I won't be upset, when the wargaming crowd informs me that Combat Leader is "not sufficiently new enough to be worth the effort". I am actually expecting a lot of people to say just that.
To me Combat Leader will be mostly about Steel Panthers like wargaming with modern software capabilities.

Remember, I can be seen as having stated elsewhere, that I bought Century of Warfare mostly so I had an XP friendly copy, not because I thought the game was in any way radically new.

When all is said and done though, me thinks some people are just annoyed, at my capacity to speak my mind as I see it. I call the shots as I percieve them, and owning a game does not always equate to having been wiser.

[junk2drive]

ok, spent 2.5 hours with broadband to dl the demo. 100mb. didnt work. intro video and menu were fine but, when i hit the play button, it says file blah blah refers to file blah blah cannot find program needs to close.
i went through the forums, looks like i got a bad dl.
however, there were enough problems on the forum with different video cards, not enough video memory, etc. to make me say screw it.
ever tho maker says min 8 mb video card, 8mb onboard doesnt seem to cut it.
i enjoy rts to a point. the older i get the less stress i can take. spwaw is slow enough for me, there is still some stress in making decisions or waiting to see what the enemy is going to do. i can save it and walk away when i get too tired. old eyeballs are able to see the icons. i have cc5 and cc2. cc5 is hard for me to see. starcraft was fun, easy to see, until i got high enough into the difficulty to find it impossible. i'm just not fast enough with the mouse eye hand thing.

it is just a game.......repeat till calm

[PeckingFury]

I usually break out an rts click fest when my two year old is out and about, in between me dodging barney dolls and infant drool im not in that sit down with a cup of coffee and think mode I am in usually with a UV or a cmbb/cmbo pbem game.

While I do not care for RTS as much as the alternative, some companies get it right. StarCraft and Warcraft and the C&C games are among my collection, would take a great deal of courage for me to get a WW2 style game that was pure RTS. I guess it would be hard for me to visualize a good rts ww2 style game that did not have hexes, hehe.

[Mr.Frag]

The nice thing about RTS is you are generally dealing with something that fits in nicely into that 15-45 minute catagory.

Once you see HEXES in the game, you automatically know you are doomed to not getting proper sleep for the next few MONTHS of your life

The first casualty of wargames are wifes

[Marc von Martial]

ever tho maker says min 8 mb video card, 8mb onboard doesnt seem to cut it.

Of course, since they stated 8mb video card and not 8mb video card or onboard chip. There´s a slight difference between that

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I think Junk just found out one of the assorted reasons why Matrix doesn't do demos.

More harm than good, or the demo is a poor demonstartion of the eventual finished product.

He might have enjoyed the game as a finished product, or possibly he might have had a better chance to decide if he was even going to be able to run it at all by examining a finshed product.

Every time I encounter a demo that does anything positive, I am usually more impressed the demo even worked more so than the demo made me like or dislike the game.

Yesterday a friend showed me Medal of Honour Allied Assault on the my system. He was able to do what a demo would likely have failed at. He showed me the game was good, but my system ain't up to it. A demo would have run as lousy, but I would not have known if it was the game or my system.

[U2]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Yesterday a friend showed me Medal of Honour Allied Assault on the my system. He was able to do what a demo would likely have failed at. He showed me the game was good, but my system ain't up to it. A demo would have run as lousy, but I would not have known if it was the game or my system.

Les,

Demos sure can be a problem and as you said it's probably best to avoid doing them for smaller companies.

Blitxkrieg, demo did not impress me at all but the game did....pure luck I decided to buy it anyway

Medal of Honor, just loved the demo and could not stop playing it so I decided I wanted more and bought the game. Fan ever since...

CMBO: Demo looked interesting and I bought the game

other than that, as far as I can remember, demos usally don't make me buy anything.

I think it's really hard to make a good demo for a wargame since they are limited and does not show the full joy of a full battle or campaign mode that is usually there in the full version. Also wargames are more complex and if a future customer can't get into a demo within 15 minutes they might just think it's not for them

[junk2drive]

so how do you go about picking a video card? because of CL and blitz i started shoping around for a cheap card. u know maybe 32mb-64mb. i have a 4x agp slot. blitz says t&l enabled, cl says dx9. cards that list dx9 etc are over $100. some dont say anything about t&l.

and i still have to buy a hard drive because blitz takes 2.4gb

[Fallschirmjager]

Any card since the geforce 2 (old card) will have T&L

Ati doesnt have T&L....but trust me...the game will work with an Ati card

If it were me...Id go with a Geforce 3 64 mb or Radeon 7500

[Mr.Frag]

Video card = scary issue.

You need to look at what generation your machine is and match the card to it. Putting an overblown card in an older machine is just a total waste of money.

List what you've got in the way of motherboard and cpu currently and we'll try and aim you at the right card that matches your system AND costs the less. Include the fact of any toy options you want like multi-monitor or TV-out or TV-in etc...

Current ruler is ATI ****IF**** your machine is up to the task. nVidia on the other hand work out of the box with everything. No headaches, but less performance.

Your lowest end card worth actually buying would probably be an OEM version of a GeForce 3 (not the newer GeForce 3 Ti's).

STAY AWAY FROM ANYTHING THAT HAS MX IN THE NAME!!!

[Fallschirmjager]

Whats wrong with MX?

[junk2drive]

thanx guys, i knew this would open a can of worms. ford vs chevy, apple/mac vs windows etc
i read pcmech forums etc
constant arguements about ati vs nvidia.
i built this
ecs k7sem mb
amd duron 1.2
256 ram
winxp home
8.4 + 1.2 hard drives fat32

[Fallschirmjager]

Originally posted by junk2drive
thanx guys, i knew this would open a can of worms. ford vs chevy, apple/mac vs windows etc
i read pcmech forums etc
constant arguements about ati vs nvidia.
i built this
ecs k7sem mb
amd duron 1.2
256 ram
winxp home
8.4 + 1.2 hard drives fat32

As long as your shopping...

Buy more ram...stuff as much in there as your mobo will recognize

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Is mx the same as the c after processor type?

Because I know the c stands for celeron, which is the same as saying second best.

Not that second best is always a bad thing. But I do know this much, getting first rate usually makes a mountain of difference where games are concerned.

If you are like me, and 90% of your games are old dinosaurs, you won't have to care much.

If you are on the other hand, the sort that wants to play the "today" games, you might have to knuckle under, bite the bullet, and buy the better hardware. Otherwise your game experience will likely be lame.

I have a lame PCI 32 meg Radeon 7000 video card. But it was all my motherboard would indulge. It was ok though, it will run Combat Leader, and that's all that counts.

Tried to run MoH AA yesterday though, and it sucked on performance. But this dude won't be making a major purchase to run that game. It's outside of my primary interest.

But Frag is on the money when he says, make sure your new hardware is worth it. Some times older parts just won't get any use out of some newer parts.
My buddy recently got a nifty video card upgrade. The thing is faster than the motherboard. Won't matter much to him soon though. He is the sort that upgrades the whole system on average every six months (yes he is single no woman and employed ).

[Fallschirmjager]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Is mx the same as the c after processor type?

Because I know the c stands for celeron, which is the same as saying second best.

Not that second best is always a bad thing. But I do know this much, getting first rate usually makes a mountain of difference where games are concerned.

If you are like me, and 90% of your games are old dinosaurs, you won't have to care much.

If you are on the other hand, the sort that wants to play the "today" games, you might have to knuckle under, bite the bullet, and buy the better hardware. Otherwise your game experience will likely be lame.

I have a lame PCI 32 meg Radeon 7000 video card. But it was all my motherboard would indulge. It was ok though, it will run Combat Leader, and that's all that counts.

Tried to run MoH AA yesterday though, and it sucked on performance. But this dude won't be making a major purchase to run that game. It's outside of my primary interest.

But Frag is on the money when he says, make sure your new hardware is worth it. Some times older parts just won't get any use out of some newer parts.
My buddy recently got a nifty video card upgrade. The thing is faster than the motherboard. Won't matter much to him soon though. He is the sort that upgrades the whole system on average every six months (yes he is single no woman and employed ).

Yes...mx is the lower performance...but he made it sound like they should be avoided like the plauge

Mx arnt as good...but they are cheaper...so its all about how much you are willing to spend

you have a 1.2 and a decent mobo...
For $100 id go with the geforce 3 128 mb ti 450
and more ram like I said

[BrubakerII]

Some good thoughts about cards here. My opinion is you are better off getting a higher quality card if you can afford it. Better off an older but higher spec card than a more modern 'budget' card ie. MX for the same price.

For my money, if I was buying another card right now and not purchasing a new MB, I would buy something running a Radeon chip such as a Sapphire or Gigabyte board. If you must have Nvidea by something with the GF4200ti chip.

I also agree about putting some more memory in. Although it is not critical it certainly can help. The catch is here though again you are better off putting in higher quality mem if you can afford it as it is faster and usually more stable.

my c cents.

Brubaker

[Mr.Frag]

No, it's not a function of MX being lower performance, it's a marketing scam by the nVidia folks.

You would think that the nVidia GeForce 4 MX series of cards are a generation better then the older GeForce 3 cards.

Such is NOT the case. The GeForce 3's were real cards with full features, the Geforce 4 *MX* type cards are sped up Geforce 2!!! cards re-branded.

I saw a few folks in various computer stores getting told to upgrade their perfectly good 3's into worthless 4's which is actually a downgrade! Dirty pool on nVidia's part to fool folks who don't know any better.

The MX series is generally going to be a DX 7 compatible card, no anti-aliasing, not vertex shaders, etc. all the DX 8/9 hardware features do not exist on these cards. This does not make them NOT DX compatible, but the hardware is emulated in the driver as a huge performance cost.

MX = 4+ year old technology. Why pay for it? You might as well pick up an GeForce 2 Ultra for $10 at the dollar store. nVidia themselves (not the stores that will try and sell you one) do not even list the MX cards as 3D cards now *having* been caught dirty.

Understand exactly what you are buying when it comes to video cards. New does NOT mean better in this area of the market.

Yes, there is lots of ATI vs nVidia debates, even down to the fact of claims made about driver optimization to fool test programs into reporting higher numbers. These are the used car salemen on steriods, they will go to the ends of the earth to trick you into buying their products. ATI historically has always been behind on drivers (means lots of lockups) but is now finally pulling ahead in technology and performance, but this applies to the high end stuff.