Which is better?

[ShooterSix]

I currently own Fortress Italy, but have been looking at Beyond Normandy 2.0. Which to you is the better and more fun game?

[Freyberg]

I'm loving Gustav Line. Too much bocage in CMBN. The maps and scenarios in CMFI are superb, but there are a lot fewer of them. CMBN has literally hundreds of maps.

[sburke]

I am not sure I understand the question. Yesterday you stated this

Thanks for the reply guys! I'll be buying both.

In the thread you started asking essentially the same question.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110700

Are you looking for the same feedback?

Sorry just kind of confused as to what kind of responses you are looking for.

[MikeyD]

Neither game is 'better' because they're functionally the same game engine. To the point that if an improvement gets made in CMFI a patch comes out for CMBN. The big difference is TO&E, equipment and terrain features. And of course entirely different campaigns, scenarios and QB maps. It all depends on what you're 'into'. I have a buddy I simply could not talk into looking at CMFI, no matter how hard I tried. To him WWII = Northwest Europe after D-Day and there was no changing his mind.

[ShooterSix]

Thanks for the responses. I already own Fortress Italy now, and was debating between Gustav Line and Normandy. Leaning toward Normandy due to the large number of scenarios. I just hope the hedgerow terrain doesn't get tiresome.

[Freyberg]

Truthfully, if it were one or the other (and I have both), I'd go Gustav Line, with the proviso that CMGL has fewer scenarios than you might expect, which is unfortunate. The ones it has though are fantastic played head-to-head.

[womble]

Since you're looking at BN+CW, maybe you could try BN sans CW, and add GL to your Italy collection. Then you get the best of both worlds: latest bells and whistles and timeline extension in GL and a new theatre with lots of maps with BN. Either way you get Bren carriers to play with in one or the other...

[c3k]

Stop fighting it. It's like a riptide, just swim along and try to get to shore later. First, get CMBN + CW. Make sure you UPGRADE and PATCH. They are different processes. Version 2.0 of CMBN is ~= CBFI V1.0. Play it, enjoy it. Then buy GL. You know you're going to do it anyway.

[MG TOW]

I enjoyed the campaigns more so in Gustav out of any other in the series. For some reason they just clicked with me. The scenarios are very good too.

[Lt Belenko]

Stop fighting it. It's like a riptide, just swim along and try to get to shore later. First, get CMBN + CW. Make sure you UPGRADE and PATCH. They are different processes. Version 2.0 of CMBN is ~= CBFI V1.0. Play it, enjoy it. Then buy GL. You know you're going to do it anyway.

+1. What was the old Pokemon advertizement? "Gotta Catch'em All!!!"

[John Kettler]

ShooterSix,

I think a distinction needs to be drawn here. CMBN is a Game, whereas GL is a Game Module for CMFI. Modules require owning the core Game in order to play them. So, you seem to be trying to decide whether to add another Game to your inventory, versus spending the money instead on a Module. For the record, CMBN already has its first Module, CW, and the pending Market Garden will be the second.

Hope this helps your decision making!

Regards,

John Kettler

[noxnoctum]

I don't have 2.0 but I do have GL. I find FI much more enjoyable, largely because bocage gets old quickly (especially against the AI, it's so easy to exploit)

[ZPB II]

I haven't been able to start CMBN after playing Gustav Line. Even though it has a bit more toys to play with, the terrain is such a bore. It looks a lot more plain than Italy and bocage fighting gets old really fast.

CMBN is the best game to play if you want to get a glimpse of what hedgerow hell means.

[agusto]

I agree with ZPB II. IMO CMFI has the more interesting and diverse terrain.

[Paper Tiger]

I currently own Fortress Italy, but have been looking at Beyond Normandy 2.0. Which to you is the better and more fun game?

Gustav Line is definitely the better of the two as it has all the latest equipment, AAA guns, Fallschirmjagers etc and it is using the most up-to-date version of the engine. Fun, I have no opinion as I don't play Med stuff but I'd have to say, based on the opinions expressed on BFC's boards that FI is where the fun is at too . More on that below

example

I'm loving Gustav Line. Too much bocage in CMBN.

Yup, agreed that if bocage is not your thing, Normandy is a bust and it wouldn't be representative of the real US fighting in Normandy without using lots of Bocage.

Truthfully, if it were one or the other (and I have both), I'd go Gustav Line, with the proviso that CMGL has fewer scenarios than you might expect, which is unfortunate. The ones it has though are fantastic played head-to-head.

(My highlight in bold) I get a bit worried sometimes that this game is being steered more in the direction of providing scenarios that are suitable for H2H play. But that shouldn't be surprising seeing as how the vasy majority of forum posters play the game H2H and want to see more content that is suitable for this style of play. Since they're the ones that provide almost all of the feedback, if you need it (and let's face it, most designers do), designing for the H2H audience is the way to go. Me? I want missions that are designed for single-play first and foremost but I'm not an H2H player. H2H seems to be where the fun is for most of you and so again, GL seems to be the better choice.

I enjoyed the campaigns more so in Gustav out of any other in the series. For some reason they just clicked with me.

I don't know because I haven't even seen them but from what I've read, they're shorter and more focussed, aren't they? I'm getting a bit tired of designing monster-length campaigns myself and see myself designing shorter campaigns like this in the future. USMC Gung Ho! and the yet-to appear Canadian campaign for CMBN are both around 6 missions long and they've been a lot of fun to work on. (Come to think of it, my second CMSF campaign, Perdition, had only 3 missions) But there will be one final monster from me and then, its smaller from then on.

[LukeFF]

I like GL better in part because much of the action takes place in 1943, when the major armies on both sides were fairly equal in terms of what sort of firepower and troop quality they brought to the battlefield.

[ASL Veteran]

(My highlight in bold) I get a bit worried sometimes that this game is being steered more in the direction of providing scenarios that are suitable for H2H play.

Why?

Me? I want missions that are designed for single-play first and foremost but I'm not an H2H player. H2H seems to be where the fun is for most of you and so again, GL seems to be the better choice.

That's what campaigns are for. If you want scenarios designed to be played vs the AI as one side then you play a campaign. If you design a stand alone scenario that is only designed to be played against the AI as a specific side, then all you have made is a campaign scenario without the campaign aspect of it. So in other words, campaign scenarios and stand alone scenarios would be functionally identical and that's the way you would like it. Well that's great if you love to play against the AI (as a specific side), but where does that leave the player who does actually want to play head to head? No where, because both the campaigns and the stand alone scenarios are the same thing and tailored to the same audience. The only difference is one is embedded within a campaign and the other is not.

Even players who like to play scenarios against the AI may not like to play the scenario as the side the designer chose to make the scenario playable as. If every designer made a scenario playable as the American vs the German AI then where does that leave the player who wants to play as the German? Once again, it leaves that player nowhere. You get the most bang for your designing buck (time and effort) by designing to a standard where the most players possible can play and enjoy it. It seems to me that if you are going to spend the time and effort in creating something you might as well make it such that the widest possible audience can enjoy it. That seems to be the rational choice rather than spending all that time and effort on something and cutting out two thirds of your potential audience before you've even started making it. It only takes a little more time, skill, and effort to widen your audience. It's only impossible to do if you don't try.

[womble]

Also, getting AI plans to work is exacting, and setting up a game where the AI is a challenge both ways round doubly (at least) so. Creating H2H scenarios is much less work.

[easytarget]

Which is not to say of course that anyone going to trouble to make AI opponent scenarios should abandon them based off forum input alone and decide it's not worth the trouble.

Forum regulars for all games are notorious for their convictions they speak for everyone and are through sheer volume of posts representative of the majority.

[Michael Emrys]

Even players who like to play scenarios against the AI may not like to play the scenario as the side the designer chose to make the scenario playable as. If every designer made a scenario playable as the American vs the German AI then where does that leave the player who wants to play as the German?

But why assume that to be the only case? I imagine there are a number of scenario designers who would be mostly interested in making scenarios playable from the German side. In fact, it seems to me that your whole post here has an aura of intolerance about it, as if you want to choke off any investment of energy in making scenarios playable against the AI. As a solitaire player, I rather resent that. I have not protested against the flood of scenarios that only play well H2H, nor do I intend to, but I'd like to hear the same kind of respect for solitaire players.

Michael

[Paper Tiger]

Why?

That's what campaigns are for. If you want scenarios designed to be played vs the AI as one side then you play a campaign. If you design a stand alone scenario that is only designed to be played against the AI as a specific side, then all you have made is a campaign scenario without the campaign aspect of it. So in other words, campaign scenarios and stand alone scenarios would be functionally identical and that's the way you would like it. Well that's great if you love to play against the AI (as a specific side), but where does that leave the player who does actually want to play head to head? No where, because both the campaigns and the stand alone scenarios are the same thing and tailored to the same audience. The only difference is one is embedded within a campaign and the other is not.

Even players who like to play scenarios against the AI may not like to play the scenario as the side the designer chose to make the scenario playable as. If every designer made a scenario playable as the American vs the German AI then where does that leave the player who wants to play as the German? Once again, it leaves that player nowhere. You get the most bang for your designing buck (time and effort) by designing to a standard where the most players possible can play and enjoy it. It seems to me that if you are going to spend the time and effort in creating something you might as well make it such that the widest possible audience can enjoy it. That seems to be the rational choice rather than spending all that time and effort on something and cutting out two thirds of your potential audience before you've even started making it. It only takes a little more time, skill, and effort to widen your audience. It's only impossible to do if you don't try.

I'd be quite happy to discuss these points but not on these boards. I don't have Fortress Italy and haven't designed even a single map for it. And I confess straight up that I know absolutely squat about the fighting in the Med theatre, at least after El Alamein anyway. (Not to suggest that I'm much more knowledgeable on NWE WW2 )

I'll start up a thread in the CMBN forum later today or, more likely on Wednesday where we can have a friendly discussion about this.

[ShooterSix]

Thanks for the responses! I'm a single player fan, and will never play a head to head match, so I bought Normandy, commonwealth, and 2.0 upgrade instead of Gustavo Line.

I'm very pleased, I just played a scenario where I killed over 100 enemy tanks with panthers! I will always spend money where there is more single player content, and there seems to LOTS of scenarios to play with.

[ASL Veteran]

But why assume that to be the only case? I imagine there are a number of scenario designers who would be mostly interested in making scenarios playable from the German side. In fact, it seems to me that your whole post here has an aura of intolerance about it, as if you want to choke off any investment of energy in making scenarios playable against the AI. As a solitaire player, I rather resent that. I have not protested against the flood of scenarios that only play well H2H, nor do I intend to, but I'd like to hear the same kind of respect for solitaire players.

Michael

No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the goal for the designer should be to make a scenario that's playable as either side vs the AI as well as head to head. It's not necessary to make a scenario playable or even challenging vs the AI by limiting themselves to playable as one side only. It's more difficult to do, that's true, but it's not impossible. If the designer aims for less I think the designer is just limiting themselves to something less than they could acheive if they put a little more thought and effort into their design. What bothers me is when designers don't even make the effort.

[ASL Veteran]

I'd be quite happy to discuss these points but not on these boards. I don't have Fortress Italy and haven't designed even a single map for it. And I confess straight up that I know absolutely squat about the fighting in the Med theatre, at least after El Alamein anyway. (Not to suggest that I'm much more knowledgeable on NWE WW2 )

I'll start up a thread in the CMBN forum later today or, more likely on Wednesday where we can have a friendly discussion about this.

I am being friendly. Maybe I just come across as hostile, but I'm simply stating my position in the most concise way I can.

[A Canadian Cat]

If the designer aims for less I think the designer is just limiting themselves to something less than they could acheive if they put a little more thought and effort into their design. What bothers me is when designers don't even make the effort.

Wow, if that is you being friendly I don't want to meet you in a dark alley

I will put my effort where I think I will get the most benefit for me - thank you very much. At the moment I am finding *any* AI programming work extremely challenging and I am having very little success. I hope that changes with some of the very helpful design threads that are going on at the moment. But even once I get some traction I will not be concerned about "limiting what I can achieve" and nor will I be "not making an effort".

What I will be is clear about how anything I finally achieve can be played.