pocketrocket

Hmm according to this thread, this comment on a scenario shipped with CMRT should not be possible:

Its those who want historical battles that are clearly being the most Nazi about it.

Picked this up to play against the AI because of this thread. Cant recommend enough, it really brings back the ooooh factor I first got the first time I ever played CM. Love the map.

We are not swell people merely because we may have different subjective tastes in the scenarios we like in a computer game. The things you learn on the internet.

I am looking for a tcp/ip opponent please answer in the next 5 seconds if you are interested.

Quoting numbers like that is absurd tho, because whilst those might have been the over all ratios in theatre, they will not represent the ratios in each specific engagement. I like historical scenarios they are great, but I also like completely a historical ones that are made for balance and entertainment and so do many others, when creating scenarios with those outcomes in mind, quoting historical ratios is just moot.

Oh yea, I did not have to much trouble with the first location as nuked it pretty hard before assaulting, it was the bunker on the second town that really slowed me down, you can only get behind it by using the pioneer team and it took me a while to realise that.

What railway station? Think we are talking about different missions.

Well they have slightly less split over two locations, you have more all in the same place and plenty of artillery. You have 6 platoons you are discounting B company completely, yea they have to be exited, can still be useful tho. Dont really see what the fuss is about. The first town clears easily, second one is bit tougher to crack, but not impossible.

Huh? I had way more forces than the Germans. The Germans dont have two companies and a pioneer platoon in each town. Also their is plenty of Artillery. You dont start with all of it, but some comes as a reinforcement.

I bought CMAK by buying a bundle that had CMBO and CMBB and CMAK on it. When CMAK came out I was in no rush to buy it because I couldnt see how it would add to the CMx1 experience that I could have with CMBB. I saw it more as an expansion rather than a new game. CMBB made quite a leap from CMBO but CMAK only took the weeniest of steps from BB. I knew I would get AK eventualy but was in a position to wait till the price dropped. So in effect I have bought BO and BB twice and then only paid a tenner for a bundle with AK on it which in effect is paying 3 quid for it, bargain. Now I am a massive CMx1 fan but even I was in no rush to get AK because it was really only an expansion into another theater. If there had been any significant changes in code and gameplay I would have bought it on pre order like I did CMBB. So the reasons why AK sold the least are intuitively obvious to me. However I think Battlefront are still looking at this the wrong way. They shouldnt look at the CMx1 games as 3 different games, they should look at them as one engine. Then they should look at how well that engine sold compared to other engines in the niche war gaming market. Well I dont have any data on that admitedly, but I would imagine that it outperformed massively the cast majority of them. Now why did it outperform them? Simple, it had one design feature that made it unique, WEGO, which made the engine far superior imo to the standard yougoIgo nature of most wargames. This is where BF have made an error in judgement. They should have taken the sales of the engine as a whole, realized that it was a massive success relative to competing engines in the wargamming market and then sought to identify the reason for that success e.g. WEGO. So to replicate the success of the original engine WEGO had to be enhanced and regenerated and given a new lick of paint. Instead it has been effectively abandoned in favour of a whole new design paradigm e.g. RT. This engine as stands will not do as well commercialy as the original CMx1 engine imo. It may have substantial improvements and the theatre will change to WW2 and sales may improve. Then we will see the opposite trend with subsequent engine incarnations selling better than the original.

Examples? Most of the criticism I read is constructive.

Because you like it, it is not ipso facto good. You calling people immature for expressing there opinions on the game is pure hypocrisy. Maturity is being able to be tolerant of alternative opinion to your own and to be able to discuss those opinions without resorting to childish personal attacks as evinced by you in your post. I am not winging, moaning etc, I am expressing an opinion clearly and rationally.

I hate this flawed line of reasoning. Dont generalise your own specific experience e.g. I am a wargammer, I like this game therefore all other wargammers will like this game too.WRONG I am a wargammer and I have no time for CMSF what so ever and think this review sums up many of the reasons why. Mostly this game frustrates planning though the ineptitiude of the AI in all its guises, pathfinding etc and a terrible UI. I want a game where I can handily translate my tactical planning into the game "world" and this game is utterly terrible at that.

I suspect it will be Battlefront learning valuable lessons about the free market. Also the idea that WEGO is as good in Combat Mission Sans Fun as in CM1 is laughable. There are several critical features missing, WEGO is just thrown in as an after thought.