This is why I stopped playing...

[Crushingleeek]

Agree??? or Agree to disagree????

[sburke]

Agree??? or Agree to disagree????

Not enough info.

I am one of those people who have no data to work from to say that how things are modelled out in CM isn't spot on. As such knowing how long BFC has been doing this and the amount of research they have done and the input they receive from active serving folks I have to take things at face value.

No offense to Cpt_Mike, but I don't know him. For all I know he could be a 12 year old pissed off because he can't win all the time (no offense Mike, not saying you are, just pointing out all I know about you is you have a login here and I am assuming actually really play the game).

I can't judge the game effects on info that I can't actually validate the source. If someone could present actual data on what the suppressive affects should look like and demonstrate consistently that the game does not replicate that data, I am sure BFC would be interested. Short of that we are all pissing in the wind... and hoping it isn't blowing back on us.

[JonS]

Exactly! Try having one guy take out 3 machine gun nests in CMBN. Pretty sure it's one of those things that won't happen, even 1 in a million.

Actually, that'd be pretty easy to set up in the editor. Set the HMG teams to 60% cas, Conscript with Poor motivation. Maybe Fatigued too. Position them so they are unable to mutually support each other, have no C2, and are positioned in the open. Set up the 'attacker' to have an SMG with pentiful ammunition - and perhaps resupply available - and set their experience to Crack and motivation to Fanatic. Ensure the map has covered approaches, and good positions to engage from the flank.

Then play out the scen in which your SMG equipped superhero stalks and takes out the MG positions in sequence. Sometimes he'll get tagged, but I'm pretty sure that often he'll come out victorious. Certainly orders of magnitude more often than 1:1,000,000.

The tricky bit, of course, would be trying to generate a situation that replicates that kind of unbalanced encounter in the middle of an otherwise ordinary scenario. It can happen though, and I don't even think it's all that rare. In an ongoing PBEM I had most a platoon wiped out by two or three Germans armed with MPs when I foolishly charged across open ground I thought was safe. The piles of bodies are still there to remind me. And on the flipside I managed this and this in another PBEM. Those aren't one guy taking out multiple MGs, but it is one or two guys making a huge difference.

[fmj]

I hadn't played the game in a while. I stopped playing due to frustration and overall lack of fun.

I'm not asking for CM to be easy, that would be boring. But this is not realistic, and certainly not fun.

While I haven't completely given up on the game, I have stopped playing for months and haven't really gotten the gumption back to play again, but who knows, maybe I'll pick it up again?

Numerous gameplay factors knocked the wind out,

-huge battles that felt more like a chore

-strange ai behavior

-scripted events

-unreasonable time constraints

-contrived funnel battles

Definately encourage checking out Achtung Panzer Operation Star. It really has a hell of alot going for it in terms of gameplay, strategy, realism AND fun. Its inexpensive, has great patch support and DLC. Might be a nice mix when CMBN gets irritating and tired. I have yet to get tired of Op Star, and regularly get my ass handed to me by the dynamic a.i.

[sburke]

While I haven't completely given up on the game, I have stopped playing for months and haven't really gotten the gumption back to play again, but who knows, maybe I'll pick it up again?

Numerous gameplay factors knocked the wind out,

-huge battles that felt more like a chore

-strange ai behavior

-scripted events

-unreasonable time constraints

-contrived funnel battles

I notice one consistency here. All your complaints seem to focus on playing the AI. Not saying that any or all of them aren't true to some degree, but one suggestion. Find a human opponent you share similar traits in how you like to play the game. It really is a whole other game.

I have not felt the same frustration playing against the AI nor with the design constraints the scenario developers have to work within to create a challenging battle, but at the same time I only play against the AI during downtime between PBEMs.

With the scenarios and even more so the campaigns you kind of have to win to progress. Some have some variation, but you pretty much know losing battles means not finishing the campaign. Against a human opponent I find I could really care less about victory conditions. The battle itself is all that matters and your opponents moves can be just as exciting as your own.

A number of people have cited Achtung Panzer and if that floats your boat, cool. For me at the moment, I can't seem to get enough of CM and I have only touched the CW module yet.

[sburke]

The tricky bit, of course, would be trying to generate a situation that replicates that kind of unbalanced encounter in the middle of an otherwise ordinary scenario. It can happen though, and I don't even think it's all that rare. In an ongoing PBEM I had most a platoon wiped out by two or three Germans armed with MPs when I foolishly charged across open ground I thought was safe. The piles of bodies are still there to remind me. And on the flipside I managed this and this in another PBEM. Those aren't one guy taking out multiple MGs, but it is one or two guys making a huge difference.

That was a really cool review. I still feel my first 2 PBEMs with that battle are some of my all time favorites and that review was a motivator for selecting the battle.

Ahh for a quick stroll down memory lane

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1320848&postcount=589

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1320849&postcount=590

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1320850&postcount=591

[JonS]

Ahh for a quick stroll down memory lane

Great sequence!

[Frankster65]

That was indeed cool. Thanks sburke!

[sburke]

I have to say, I notice these more in PBEM games. Can't say why, but I could post a ton of shots like this from any game I have played.

JonS, look on the screenshot thread. Your Tiger kill is up.

And I have started going back through your whole DAR with Elvis. It's as entertaining now as then only w/o the angst of waiting for the game.

For those interested in reading back over that DAR

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94496

There are a lot of really good topics in this that still pop up on threads for example creating really customized ToEs.

[Pak40]

Agree??? or Agree to disagree????

How can I agree with him when I have read quotes from veterans of WWII that say basically the exact opposite? For example, Robert M. Murphy of 82nd Airborne in his book No Better Place to Die (pg 94-95):

I'm posting only snippets but you can read the the entire two pages and much more in the link above.

At 1000 hours on D+1 the enemy attack across the causeway began...

...Since 0800 hours the mortars and heavy artillery had intensified, including the horrifying tree bursts. We were in our foxholes, but of necessity craning our necks looking out for the enemy approach...

my note: that a total of 2 hours of artillery of various calibers. A hell of a lot more than 15-20 rounds of 60mm/105mm and still a hell off a lot more than the 5 minutes CPT MIKE originally claims. Grant it, Murphy had more safety in the fox hole and the Germans in the Vierville CMBN battle did not, but I digress...

...It is surprising, but while sighting and shooting you are oblivious to the mortar and artillery bursts around you. During the German attack, one piece of shrapnel hit the very rear of part of my helmet and pushed my head forward into the dirt...

While CPT MIKE is entitled to his opinion, how can I or anyone else dismiss 1st person accounts such as Murphy's? I can either believe that 5 minutes of 60/105 artillery should entirely kill or at least completely suppress a couple of squads, or I can believe in the words of a veteran that not only sticks his head out after two hours of barrages, but also frequently returns fire during a barrage while under assault.

CPT MIKE says that CMBN is not realistic because of his opinion, I say it is realistic because of documented fact.

[Amizaur]

Probably everything depends on morale, motivation, experience of the defending troops - it should also be dependant on those factors in game.

And also on individual psychical properities of soldiers. One can have different feeings about the same barrage that the other.

It also has to strongly depend on the charakteristics of the barrage - how close the shells are falling (50m or 20m), how often, how bad if looks and feels.... Two barrages described as (shells falling from two hours) can be very different.

In this case, the memories you have described, the shells were probably landing quite a distance from the foxholes. There was fear for shrapnel mainly. If the shells were landing 20 meters from their positions they would probably lay on bottom of their foxholes, deafened, covered with flying dirt and chunks of wood, with sand in their tooths.

If the soldiers described by CptMike really got several 60mm shells very close (meters) from their positions, they would feel the same. Even if hidden from shrapnel and directly from the blast (so in foxholes), then after several explosions 3-5 meters away they would be thrilled by shockwave and blast, covered with flying dirt, deafened, with their muscles trembling. CptMike said that some shells landed almost directly on their position (it was direct fire IIRC).

One former member of polish special forces described his experience with US "Claymore" mines. He experimented a bit with them, when they first got some of them.

The mine contains 0.7kg of C4 which is equivalent to roughtly about 1kg of TNT.

The minimal safe distance from the "back" of detonating Claymore mine is given as 16m - and the soldier HAVE TO be laying in a shallow foxhole at this range.

The guy wanted to better understand the limits so he checked them by himsef, he made some experiments detonating the mines from closer distances. In one experiment, he detonated 4 Claymores simultaneously (so the blast was like 4kg of TNT) while laying on a ground at distance of 6 meters from them, only with cover of his backpack protecting him from light splinters and the immediate blast. He was OK after that, unscratched and healthy, but he concluded he don't recommend lanunching more than two mines simultaneusly this way (from such range) because after the detonation of 4 he was unable to efectively use hand weapons for about a minute, because of deafening, some trembling and overall bewilderment and lack of coordination. The point is, close explosions - even if they do not hurt you - can physically disable your abilities of using weapons effectively, even if you are strongly motivated and not afraid. Really close explosions, that are on the edge of phisical damage by detonation overpressure.

[Paper Tiger]

Probably everything depends on morale, motivation, experience of the defending troops - it should also be dependant on those factors in game.

Agreed! I wouldn't expect to see Regular troops with Normal morale not in foxholes behaving quite as heroically as described in the OP. Veterans with High morale, now that's another matter completely. They've 'seen the elephant', been battle-hardened, the fittest have survived etc, etc. If we want to have troops who behave like that in the game, we mix a few of them in like that in the editor and voila, we've got Audy Murphy and Bruce Willis. I have suggested previously that we'd perhaps all feel a bit better about what we're seeing if the coded values for experience and morale were reduced a tad so that everyone behaved a little less heroically.

[altipueri]

The game is just not fun any more.

You have to be an expert or enthusiast (I'll avoid using the word fan) to enjoy the micromanagement of splitting squads, exact placement of troops, timing of artillery. Those who fall in this category - and I guess you can approximate to them by the frequency and content of their posts here - have got terrific value in terms of hours play for their fifty bucks.

I think Battlefront saw a tail-off in sales from CMBO - CMBB - CMAK even though the game got better. Unless they can radically improve the enjoyment level for the non experts new to the game they will have a shrinking customer base. CMBO was so good at the time you could recommend it to anyone who vaguely thought about trying a wargame. CMBN you can't. It's more realistic, but it's a chore. Maybe Battlefront tried the iPad version as a way to get new recruits to the full game - I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be a huge number of threads on the iPad part of the forum.

[Michael Emrys]

The game is just not fun any more.

It's more realistic, but it's a chore.

I think that's it in a nutshell...at least for some of us. That it's more realistic is fine. That it is a chore is not. This is a game and games are all about fun. Chores are all about non-optional necessities, like earning a living. If somebody expects me to perform a chore, they ought to think about forking out some long green in my direction. Maybe even a lot of it.

Michael

[JonS]

The game is just not fun any more.

Has it really changed that much since June last year?

[dieseltaylor]

Statistics for suppression and expected losses under a barrage can be found on-line and are derived from War Office tests in the period 1940-46. It is surprising how little the effect can be.

[Crushingleeek]

Re: Pak40 - I'll take that as an "agree to disagree"

[Crushingleeek]

between you and cpt mike of course.

Last night a single 81mm mortar shell, landing just about on top of my US mg team (at most one action spot away), and pinned it for 32 seconds in light forest terrain with nearest tree some 4-5 action spots away.

Interestingly, it took a whole 5 seconds after the blast for the team to become pinned. the immediate 5 seconds after the mortar impact, suppression level was only one red bar. (thought whether the delay was due to tree bursts, but trees weren't that close.) 2/5 men were lightly wounded.

there's my anecdote

[Pak40]

Re: Pak40 - I'll take that as an "agree to disagree"

I suppose so. It doesn't seem like I'm changing his opinion. I suppose he's formed his opinion based on his personal experience. If he's not having fun in the game, that's his opinion too. I generally don't have an issue with people's opinions but when they say things like "But this is not realistic, and certainly not fun", I often find that they really mean "this game is not fun because it doesn't play out the way I think it should".

[Crushingleeek]

I think there should be the ability to blind fire artillery if you want.

[sburke]

The game is just not fun any more.

You have to be an expert or enthusiast (I'll avoid using the word fan) to enjoy the micromanagement of splitting squads, exact placement of troops, timing of artillery. Those who fall in this category - and I guess you can approximate to them by the frequency and content of their posts here - have got terrific value in terms of hours play for their fifty bucks.

I think Battlefront saw a tail-off in sales from CMBO - CMBB - CMAK even though the game got better. Unless they can radically improve the enjoyment level for the non experts new to the game they will have a shrinking customer base. CMBO was so good at the time you could recommend it to anyone who vaguely thought about trying a wargame. CMBN you can't. It's more realistic, but it's a chore. Maybe Battlefront tried the iPad version as a way to get new recruits to the full game - I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be a huge number of threads on the iPad part of the forum.

well I am a far cry from an expert so I'll have to settle for being an enthusiast. Either way I am having a blast with this game. Splitting squads isn't new to CM, hell ASL had that. If you are asking if you have to enjoy trying to figure out tactical capabilities and plan an effective attack to succeed, well yeah isn't that the holy grail of any wargame?

As to a shrinking base, you wouldn't be the first to claim some higher understanding of what BFC has in the way of a customer base but it seems to fly in the face of what little BFC has bothered to address on the topic which is, sales are good and the business is healthy.

As to frequency of posting etc, I'll say this once again. Prior to CMBN I posted all of once. However I have been playing CMSF for years and enjoying it. Don't assume participation levels necessarily reflect anything about the user and the product other than the user cares to post or not.

[YankeeDog]

[cut some to reduce length] ...they would probably lay on bottom of their foxholes, deafened, covered with flying dirt and chunks of wood, with sand in their tooths.

If the soldiers described by CptMike really got several 60mm shells very close (meters) from their positions, they would feel the same. Even if hidden from shrapnel and directly from the blast (so in foxholes), then after several explosions 3-5 meters away they would be thrilled by shockwave and blast, covered with flying dirt, deafened, with their muscles trembling.

One former member of polish special forces described his experience with US "Claymore" mines. He experimented a bit with them, when they first got some of them.

The mine contains 0.7kg of C4 which is equivalent to roughtly about 1kg of TNT.

The minimal safe distance from the "back" of detonating Claymore mine is given as 16m - and the soldier HAVE TO be laying in a shallow foxhole at this range.

The guy wanted to better understand the limits so he checked them by himsef, he made some experiments detonating the mines from closer distances... [etc]

OK, but bear in mind that the total explosive force of a 60mm shell is a LOT less than the .7kg of C4 in a Claymore. 60mm mortar rounds are really slightly oversized hand grenades with fins. A WWII-era M49A2 60mm HE mortar round carried only about .15 kg of TNT, nearly an order of magnitude less than the explosive force of the .7kg C4 in a Claymore mine. So the blast/concussive wave is very weak compared the Claymore, and dissipates very rapidly with distance. You have to be VERY close to the 60mm shell detonation to experience blast/concussion effects lasting more than a few seconds. And once you're this close to the blast, you're probably hit by shrapnel anyway.

[Rocky Balboa]

Its interesting this concept of fun that is continuously brought up. One thing that I have noted from personal experience is that when my pixel troops survive a barrage and are still able to fight and hold their position while inflicting numerous casualties on my opponent, I call that having fun. However when I see my troops broken and routed with their dead and wounded comrades littering the ground, my fun meter has a tendency to go south for a period of time.

I find it interesting that the OP didn't consider it unrealistic when his assault squad took direct fire from an IG loosing at least 25% of his squad yet was able to continue the assault. Likewise had the roles been reversed and had it been his troops who had held on after being shelled by indirect fire and repulsing an attack then I don't think we would have a 15 page thread discussing whether this game is fun or not.

My point is that this game can be unforgiving even we you think your doing everything right but that's just the nature of chaos and my vision of war is that its very chaotic. For me its amazing that BF has been able to capture that vision.

[dieseltaylor]

I suppose so. It doesn't seem like I'm changing his opinion. I suppose he's formed his opinion based on his personal experience. If he's not having fun in the game, that's his opinion too. I generally don't have an issue with people's opinions but when they say things like "But this is not realistic, and certainly not fun", I often find that they really mean "this game is not fun because it doesn't play out the way I think it should".

It seems to me that for any game the player wants certain "fun" per minute of input. This can vary from someone who feds a slot machine to those who play Campaign for North Africa. I suppose I ought to explain the latter:

This is a war game like no other. Although the map is big (10 feet) the game is smaller than other games (Europa for one). There are not as many rules as in ASL. And yet this is the biggest monster game out there for a number of reasons.

The game is detailed to a degree no other game has come close to. If using the full rules you keep track of every individual plane and pilot in the three year campaign. Each counter on the board representing a ground unit is composed of many units which are kept track of on logs. Supplies are kept track of and dispersed in a very detailed manner.

From the rulebook we read how to run a game. "CNA is a logistically-oriented game, and its play requires not only a lot of attention to logistics, but, if you will, a logistically sound methodology." It is suggested that you have 5 persons per side with the following duties.

Commander-in-Chief: responsible for strategic decisions and to settle intra-team disputes.

Logistics Commander: In charge of all supplies. Accepts supply requisitions from the others and keeps all informed of supply shortages. Is in charge of supply dumps, Third line trucks and some second line trucks and is in charge of Naval convoys.

Rear Area Commander: Gets the supplies to the front. In charge of security, reserves, prisoners and construction.

Air Commander: In charge of all planes and pilots. Is responsible for planning air missions and deployment of air bases.

Front-line Commander: Executes all attacks and troop movements in the front line. Helps with coordinating defensive efforts.

Playing time with 10 players is listed at 1200 hours.[/QUOTE]

You may be shocked to hear that there are lot of slot machines and very few copies of CNA. The lesson seems to fit the graph that people tend to fun over complexity.

CMx1 was on a sweet spot in this regard and the move to CMx2 and IMO was not a good move. The scuttlebutt was that BF were pitching for a DoD contract hence the concentration on small units in CMSF and realism, or it may have been they wanted a change.

Regardless the fact remains that CMBN is a harder game to play both with the interface and with some of the game mechanics than CMx1 at beginner or advanced level. At the end of day you still end up with VP's and dead units.

[sburke]

CMx1 was on a sweet spot in this regard and the move to CMx2 and IMO was not a good move. The scuttlebutt was that BF were pitching for a DoD contract hence the concentration on small units in CMSF and realism, or it may have been they wanted a change.

ehh almost afraid to ask...where did that rumor come from?

Here is BFC's explanation of why the move to CMx2 and it had nothing in it about trying to get a DOD contract. Fact of the matter was, they were not satisfied with what CMx1 could do. (note it was decided while still in the development of CMBB so fact is pretty early on in CMx1 still)

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1224501&postcount=1

And again this is all opinion, for me CMx2 is the sweet spot and Cmx1 falls a little short. Ever since I tried CMSF I was waiting for the day they would apply it to ww2. CMx1 games are now off the hard drive.