Hell yeah armored brigade but with something that has slightly better graphics than combat mission.....count me in, and make it exorbitantly expensive like you do with everything, go ahead, you KNOW ill buy it.
Yep, having helicopters and aircraft in the field looks good and feels realistic, and the timeline seems to have expanded to around the '60s. But to be honest, for me, something is off, regarding some vehicles, the last time they showed the BMP-1P with an AT-5 launcher, it used the BMP-2 internal style to fire. However, in reality, a gunner needs to be exposed to control the launcher and guide the missile, right? Wasn't the vehicle commander (TC) supposed to lower his head or stop using binoculars when he wanted to use the heavy machine gun (HMG)? And for the M48 or M60, the TC needs to be inside to control the turret for firing the HMG. Why are they still standing up to look through binoculars while being able to engage targets? Unless, Do they have magic hands to control another thing? Also, if Armored Brigade 2 looks better, and no doubt at that point is outperform Combat Mission (CM) in terms of FPS, then why do the vehicle models’ tracks and wheels look 2D instead of fully 3D? They or maybe someone on a comment claims to look more detailed and great, I ain't denied that, but why isn’t that the case at all? The model angles and shading don’t seem to be the same as reality at all. The texture of the model was a bit blurred, all over at which is good, But no specks of dirt on the track and some parts of the vehicle? Additionally, what’s happening with the infantry under fire? They’re just walking alongside the vehicles without shooting at all. And where are the soldier's or crew members' faces? Why do they look like a slender man? Is it either a person without faces or faceless figures? Don’t get me wrong, but what’s up with the end of the video scene showing the cover art? The M60 tanks and their M19 cupolas are shown on the left side, but not on the right. Everyone seems to be rushing toward the centre while an M48 Chaparral is placed too close to the combat zone for anti-aircraft duty. What’s going on? In Armored Brigade 1, the original game and DLC featured cover art showing T-72s advancing in the field, demonstrating distance and range engagement between tanks, troop deployment, and helicopter support, by which point it's better. But this? What is happening? [I don’t know what you’ll say to me; it probably won’t matter. Maybe someone will accuse me of being a spy from the BF (Battlefront) game, trying to mess with your moods, or perhaps someone just wants to kill me because I didn’t fully support AB2. I will dare to tell you, I never been send by sake of anyone else, I had no intention to destroy you all their moods about want to try the AB2 and Again, it probably won’t matter. I’m just saying what I want to say and pointing out issues. I like the AB series, but for now, I’m not going to be like those who rush to buy it as soon as it’s released. I’ll wait until they fix some of the logical issues or get a proper review and prove reliable at that point.]
Yep, but the recent Home of Wargamers presentation I think they said some form of multiplayer down the line is on their roadmap. There are a couple Steam discussions about it, if it happens it'll likely be WEGO or something similar due to the complexity
>vehicle commander has sophisticated targeting system and optics >turns out to use ww2 binoculars with risk to receive shell fragment on highly lethal battlefield
@@SemperSalam it should be noted that a big reason they moved to a custom 3d engine was because players reported they had a hard problem reading terrain elevation, and the isometric 3d representation left a lot to be desired
Considering the amount of CPU and GPU resources available today, this is just not true. There is no such thing as a 'necessary tradeoff'. It's simply a design choice. And while I generally agree that wargames do not need super realistic graphics, I think a bit more realism would have done the game good. Especially when you consider that the engine has been changed anyway and 3D always requires more detail than a comparable 2D representation. At least they could have tried to make the maps more realistic. These 90 degree roads already bothered me in the predecessor.
You're not playing this game zoomed in to see model detail, if it's not obvious they traded high res textures and high poly models for scale and smooth gameplay. WARNO has nice models for instance but you generally only appreciate them during replays
This is one of the few games in recent times that has me genuinely excited for release, cannot wait!
Tamnk!!!!! :DDDDDdd
I would like to see live gameplay instead of basic unit graphics.
Check the Home of Wargamers presentation, a lot of crisp smooth footage there showing some of the mechanics!
ABII will be awesome! Looking forward to it!
Can't wait for west germany showcase! Can't wait for the game!
Hell yeah armored brigade but with something that has slightly better graphics than combat mission.....count me in, and make it exorbitantly expensive like you do with everything, go ahead, you KNOW ill buy it.
CM would have run a LOT more on my pc if it was optimized!
@@Jockesse It barely runs on anything lol
Yep, having helicopters and aircraft in the field looks good and feels realistic, and the timeline seems to have expanded to around the '60s. But to be honest, for me, something is off, regarding some vehicles, the last time they showed the BMP-1P with an AT-5 launcher, it used the BMP-2 internal style to fire. However, in reality, a gunner needs to be exposed to control the launcher and guide the missile, right?
Wasn't the vehicle commander (TC) supposed to lower his head or stop using binoculars when he wanted to use the heavy machine gun (HMG)? And for the M48 or M60, the TC needs to be inside to control the turret for firing the HMG. Why are they still standing up to look through binoculars while being able to engage targets? Unless, Do they have magic hands to control another thing?
Also, if Armored Brigade 2 looks better, and no doubt at that point is outperform Combat Mission (CM) in terms of FPS, then why do the vehicle models’ tracks and wheels look 2D instead of fully 3D? They or maybe someone on a comment claims to look more detailed and great, I ain't denied that, but why isn’t that the case at all? The model angles and shading don’t seem to be the same as reality at all. The texture of the model was a bit blurred, all over at which is good, But no specks of dirt on the track and some parts of the vehicle?
Additionally, what’s happening with the infantry under fire? They’re just walking alongside the vehicles without shooting at all. And where are the soldier's or crew members' faces? Why do they look like a slender man? Is it either a person without faces or faceless figures?
Don’t get me wrong, but what’s up with the end of the video scene showing the cover art? The M60 tanks and their M19 cupolas are shown on the left side, but not on the right. Everyone seems to be rushing toward the centre while an M48 Chaparral is placed too close to the combat zone for anti-aircraft duty. What’s going on?
In Armored Brigade 1, the original game and DLC featured cover art showing T-72s advancing in the field, demonstrating distance and range engagement between tanks, troop deployment, and helicopter support, by which point it's better. But this? What is happening?
[I don’t know what you’ll say to me; it probably won’t matter. Maybe someone will accuse me of being a spy from the BF (Battlefront) game, trying to mess with your moods, or perhaps someone just wants to kill me because I didn’t fully support AB2. I will dare to tell you, I never been send by sake of anyone else, I had no intention to destroy you all their moods about want to try the AB2 and Again, it probably won’t matter. I’m just saying what I want to say and pointing out issues. I like the AB series, but for now, I’m not going to be like those who rush to buy it as soon as it’s released. I’ll wait until they fix some of the logical issues or get a proper review and prove reliable at that point.]
@@ryanmarc1853sf2 and bs run well red thunder runs somewhat fine normandy runs the worst and cold war dosent run at all
Let's go!
We for sure are eating well with this all good games!
Excited
Will we see more variants? Like the M60 basemodel, A1, A3 and my persoanl favorite the A2 Starship
Yes, there is just about everything that was in operation between 1965 and 1991.
Is this also multi-player or two player?
cant wait for someone to make a animatrix second renaissence mod
Eh, I do like the time period and it is wholefully underpresented. Especially post war period.
reminds me of gravetin tactics, anyone?
Its nothing like gravitum it more like extremely realistic wargame rd
Why have they animated the commanders poking out of the turret when vehicles in battle?
I was excited until I saw it's yet ANOTHER cold war RTS game. I swear if it's not a WW2 or Cold War game it's not even a military RTS nowadays.
It is a good simulator of the modern(almost) battlefield. I wouldn't call it rts at all.
Still just SP?
Yep, but the recent Home of Wargamers presentation I think they said some form of multiplayer down the line is on their roadmap. There are a couple Steam discussions about it, if it happens it'll likely be WEGO or something similar due to the complexity
Still based on Cold War era? What about drones? Please develop a current era game.
Yep, hope with modes it can be possible to create something like this
>vehicle commander has sophisticated targeting system and optics
>turns out to use ww2 binoculars with risk to receive shell fragment on highly lethal battlefield
Why is graphics this bad in 2024?
necessary tradeoff to pull of the smooth gameplay at that scale. Plenty of good looking games that don't play well if that's more your style
Have you played the first one? This is a huge improvement.
@@SemperSalam it should be noted that a big reason they moved to a custom 3d engine was because players reported they had a hard problem reading terrain elevation, and the isometric 3d representation left a lot to be desired
@@iann6999 look at Graviteam Tactics or WARNO 10v10 games, even Regiments in some big ops, this is just lazy game design
Considering the amount of CPU and GPU resources available today, this is just not true. There is no such thing as a 'necessary tradeoff'. It's simply a design choice. And while I generally agree that wargames do not need super realistic graphics, I think a bit more realism would have done the game good. Especially when you consider that the engine has been changed anyway and 3D always requires more detail than a comparable 2D representation. At least they could have tried to make the maps more realistic. These 90 degree roads already bothered me in the predecessor.
Graphics would have been obsolete even as far as 2018 tanks look like cheap textures for mobile game ?Maybe for PC you are obsolete !
Gameplay and stability >>>>> mUh gWaPhiCs.
But the graphic is horrible it was better in 2D come on 🤣
You're not playing this game zoomed in to see model detail, if it's not obvious they traded high res textures and high poly models for scale and smooth gameplay. WARNO has nice models for instance but you generally only appreciate them during replays
Your brain capacity is not enough to play these games, stick to something else, plebs
@@iann6999so true, never once have i zoomed in, in the middle of a warno match
3d is better then it was 2d primarily to ability to terrain analysis, not for beautiful graphic
commander outside in the combat ¿? : S