From: Alberta, Canada
Thanks for your input people.
Well I'm glad to hear they're all pausable, but it does make my choice a little harder (Aww, too much to choose from, what a dreadful state of affairs.)
Anyway, I'll start with a basic question, then I give you some of my impressions of the various games, which you can verify, or tell me to put down the Crack Pipe.
My question is: do the CC games have a LOS tool to help players determine the LOS from various points on the play map? It may seem like a stupid question since it's
pretty much standard fair for any tactical/strategic simulation, but I've yet to see it referred to in any way, shape, or form, so I thought I should ask.
The impression I get from looking at the Ads for the various games, is that the map graphics for the newer games like "Modern Tactics", "Last Stand Arnhem", etc. seem
crisper, clearer and generally easier to distinguish elevation changes. From the aspect of a game being expandable, then the games designed around specific historical
operations like "Market Garden" (LSA), "Normandy" (TLD) and "The Battle of the Bulge" (WAR) would be the least expandable, while "Cross of Iron" encompassing such a large
territory, over a much longer time period, offers a great deal more in terms of expandability. The ultimate for expansion sets would, IMHO, be "Modern Tactics": no need
for historical maps and if it can get beyond "the U.S. against somebody", or "somebody against the U.S.", then all the nations of the world are potential player's and the
world atlas is your potential scenario map; talk about endless possibilities. I do hope they get MT patched up soon.
As for the older games, I've a kick ass Windows 7 gaming system sitting here, so newer (games) is better in my books; if Microsoft wants to claim it's backward compatible,
then they should have to supply the Aspirin for those of us who try to make it so.
Thanks again people.