Inferior to CMBB

[kevinkin]

Oh my. CMRT is certainly flexible. You have to give it that.

[ASL Veteran]

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

[Macisle]

Okay, here's one last pic from those battles I play that "don't exist."

 

This one shows tags for the teams of one platoon that is taking part in a larger attack on one of the strong points on the map. LMGs and snipers in the rear, rifles in the middle, and SMGs up front (the most forward team got left out of the pic).

 

 

Basically, if I'm not ready to push forward, my SMG teams will probably be hiding in safety while my rifles, snipers and LMGs work to soften the enemy. Once the push forward comes, it looks like the pic, with range of separation depending on the situation. Usually, it's not as closely packed as this.

[slysniper]

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

Can I hear a "Amen" to that.

This thread comes up every so often, its is nothing more than a wish for something that will never happen, more of a wish than a complaint.

Some wish that the CMBB style of play would come again and that somehow they could get a updated game that looks great and covers the whole war in one game just like they had back then. The fact is, No matter what, no game like that will ever be sold again with that much scope. And no in truth, they never can be satisfied with CMBB really. Because even though it is their favorite game, it is outdated, it shows it and there is all the short comings that cannot be overlooked and nothing to ever hope for in them getting fixed. Stuck with a outdated imperfect game and no hope for a updated similar game - now do you see the wish.

Of course we have the same problem with CMX2 fans that keep wishing to somehow get mods and add ons to just go on forever to somehow get the scope of the whole war as we did with CMBB. But again it is a wish that will never come true. The product just is consuming too much time and man hours to create the periods that it will be outdated and have lost interest and sales to ever see the company provide such a thing. So again a wish that will never be seen.

So we have two camps that love to debate and voice their hopes for the future of the game, and in truth neither will ever happen.

So deal with what is available and accept your lots in gaming lives and learn to enjoy what you have and is available and maybe just make your wishes more realistic

Edited May 25, 2015 by slysniper

[Reiter]

I dont mind about the timeline in CMRT, there is enough stuff (tanks, inf, guns, arty,planes) for my liking. Also it is nice to play as -44 soviets because they indeed are not like -41 soviets. Not running in wrong direction all the time...

 

What I miss from CMBB is auto-generated quick battles, I think there is engine limitations in CMx2 to have it applied. Also, I play mostly QB maps against my friend, and we have to face it, that there is not many of them.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I think that Slysniper makes a good point.

 

But on the other hand if you examine what the CMBB lobby wants out of CMRT then that could be valuable to the future development of CMRT. We waited 3 years for CMRT and here we are 18+ months further on and no sign of an add odd or pack or anything really. An extending game for later on in 1944/5 similar to Market Garden  is not on the stocks either. Yet much of the German equipment and units must already have been made for the Normandy series?

 

Similarly the step up needed for scenario design has produced only a handful of player designed scenarios - 51 in the Repository, with 3 in April, 1 in March 2 in Feb and 1 in Jan for a total in the last 4 months. The Scenario Depot 2 contains 1161 CMBB scenarios

 

CMBB spawned a whole plethora of new website supporting mods and mods packs and scenarios while CMRT relies on the Repository and support from a previous CMBO/BB/AK site by Greenasjade.

 

I do not have the sales figures but I think this would indicate a lack of player engagement with the game. I would argue that more frequent smaller releases of new units would help, a simplified scenario designer and longer timescales for the games, especially for the Eastern Front which lasted 46 months and had a limited range of equipment on the Soviet side compared with Normandy and its 10 month campaign.

 

There is a real chance given Battlefronts wide range of interests Modern, Normandy, Italy, Russia that these individual projects  will suffer through too tight and narrow a focus.

[JonS]

Hi DAF, good to see you again. I haven't seen you around for a while, I think?
 

 

a simplified scenario designer

This is such an easy thing to say, so I'm guessing there must be a reason why the editor has as many moving parts as it does. What do you actually mean by a 'simplified scen editor' - what would you simplify? Larger terrain tiles? Fewer terrain options? Less unit types? No AI? What, exactly, do you want less of?

Besides, the scenario editor is only as complex as you make it. If you make an infantry-only (no tanks to worry about, and play balance is easier because the outcome doesn't swing on the retention or loss of a single vehicle), H2H-only (so no AI to program), attack/defend battle (again, play balance is easier when one side is clearly the defender and the other is the attacker) on a tiny map (so much less time spent in the map editor) with a platoon or less on each side (again; easier play balance) ... it really doesn't take long to make that, and it really isn't difficult.

It's when you start making multi-company or multi-battalion battles on a map that measures several kilometres on each axis, with several AI plans for each side ... yeesh. My heart quails just thinking about it. The problem is that 'everyone' thinks that it's only the big scenarios which are 'good', or that big is somehow easier, or some other weird idea. Or they start with a fairly modest scenario and think 'Oh, I should add a company of Tigers - yeah, that'll be cool. But, hmm, now I need to add some Fireflies to balance things, and 500m extra on each map edge to make space for all this extra stuff, and because the map is going to be so big I really should add some more infantry and some more artillery, and ... oh. Look. My scenario is huge! And it's got so many neat toys in it! Cool!'

 

No. Big scenarios aren't any of those things. Big scenarios are a chore to make, so only a small fraction actually get finished. And, for all but a very small minority of players, the few huge scenarios that do actually get finished are just a chore to play.

Make small scenarios. They're really easy, and people will actually play them. Repeatedly.

Jon

Edited May 26, 2015 by JonS

[Andreas]

Hi DAF, good to see you again. I haven't seen you around for a while, I think?

 

 

This is such an easy thing to say, so I'm guessing there must be a reason why the editor has as many moving parts as it does. What do you actually mean by a 'simplified scen editor' - what would you simplfy? Larger terrain tiles? Fewer terrain options? Less unit types? No AI? What, exactly, do you want less of?

Besides, the scenario editor is only as complex as you make it. If you make a infantry-only (no tanks to worry about, and play balance is easier because the outcome doesn't swing on the retention or loss of a single vehicle), H2H-only (so no AI to program), attack/defend battle (again, play balance is easier when one side is clearly the defender and the other is the attacker) on a tiny map (so much less time spent in the map editor) with a platoon or less on each side (again; easier play balance) ... it really doesn't take long to make that, and it really isn't difficult.

It's when you start making multi-company or multi-battalion battles on a map that measures several kilometres on each axis, with several AI plans for each side ... yeesh. My heart quails just thinking about it. The problem is that 'everyone' thinks that it's only the big scenarios which are 'good', or that big is somehow easier, or some other weird idea. Or they start with a fairly modest scenario and think 'Oh, I should add a company of Tigers - yeah, that'll be cool. But, hmm, now I need to add some Fireflies to balance things, and 500m extra on each map edge to make space for all this extra stuff, and because the map is going to be so big I really should add some more infantry and some more artillery, and ... oh. Look. My scenario is huge! And it's got so many neat toys in it! Cool!'

 

No. Big scenarios aren't any of those things. Big scenarios are a chore to make so only a small fraction of those that get started actually get finished. And for all but a very small minority of players the few huge scenarios that do actually get finished are just a chore to play.

Make small scenarios. They're really easy, and people will actually play them. Repeatedly.

Jon

 

Byte Battles, anyone? I knew we were on to something.

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[PanzerMike]

Making scenarios for CMx2 is harder than it was for CMx1. I have made 9 scenarios that have been published so far (one included as a stock scenario in CMRT, the rest for CMBN/MG and CMRT in the repository). And I have quite a few in the work (including a few for the upcoming Bulge title), so I have some clue what I am talking about.

 

And IMHO, many of the user-made scenarios for CMBB where not that great as I recall (no offense to anyone). There were a lot, but quality was pretty meh. I prefer quality over quantity.

 

If you want to take the plunge to make scenarios that will actually be finished and ready to be published for the crowd, start SMALL. My sweet spot is Company size or just little bit larger. Anything bigger is a lot of work to make and to get right. Playtesting large battles is a lot of work. A large map is fine, but not every nook and cranny needs to be stuffed with units.

 

Devour the excellent guide JonS made and look closely at what other have been making. I have learned a lot from the likes of Pete Wenman and Benpark to improve my map making skills for example.

 

I have not played CMBB in years now, but CMRT fits my bill nicely!

[Holien]

It's like stepping back in time around here...

I too would love CMBB updated but it is not going to happen, we were very lucky to have got it and CM. Enjoy the moment and let's hope those moments keep happening.

Lot's of good points and always fun to read the considered posts.

[Andreas]

You're still alive?

 

In any case, having looked at the new games now, it's as if someone with a warped sense of humour took the idea of focusing the new version one level below at the company (-) level for simplicity, and then made it really complicated.

 

I need to start playing around with the scenario editor.

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[Macisle]

I agree with the last few posts on scenario size. A company plus change is the sweet spot for CMx2 for most players, most of the time and I'm all for increasing the number of those scenarios (as well as tiny ones!). And, definitely, if you're getting into scenario design and want to publish your scenarios--start small!

 

My point was just that CMRT can do large very well, too. IMHO, much better than CMBB in most ways. Like I said, I was a reinforced company sized man from CMBO until CMRT. It's only in the last year that CMRT, for some reason, as opened up large/huge battles for me. I don't want to play them every day, but I do like them and find them accessible now.

 

Also, I totally agree on the issues of large scenario design. The mega-battle I posted pics of is part current entertainment, part experiment, and part exploration to see if I think making a scenario that big on that map is really doable for me (meaning, do I want to spend the time). However, no matter what happens, I know I'll get weeks of great entertainment out of it!

 

At this point, I consider the stock scenarios and campaigns to be more or less icing on top of the engine/Editor cake. I usually don't want to take the time to polish a "Custom QB" to the point of it being ready for public release, but I can grab a map and make something challenging and fun to play pretty quickly for my own pleasure.

 

I heartily encourage folks to spend time in the Editor. Maybe you'll never publish anything, but there is a world of entertainment in there, and it makes the game essentially unlimited in its play value. Also, you'll gain a huge amount of respect for the scenario designers who put in the time and effort to make stock and community content. Quality content for public release is A LOT of work.

[Melchior]

It sounds to me that people are really just mad that CMx2 releases don't contain as much as content as CMx1 releases. Seems to me that this is more a result of how BF develops and schedules releases these days as opposed to how they used too. The current releases are really more like big expansion packs for the engine. More episodic in nature than a big release. I don't mind this really considering BF is a small development team and crank out these releases at least 1 per year. Sure I have my wishlist of things I want to see but overall I've been sinking countless hours into the CM games since I started playing SF in 2009.

My point is you don't see Beyond Overlord than 3 years later for Barbarossa to Berlin these days.

Edited May 25, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Fenris]

Of the CM I've played it's been more CM1 than CM2 since CMBN came out to be honest.  I have been and am enthusiastic about CM2 but am yet to get hooked on it like I am/was on CMBB/CMETO.  I think I've spent much more time on the editor in CM2 than actually playing.  Probably old dog new tricks... I find the higher fidelity has made the game more work than it used to be.  Despite being here for many years this has meant whilst I want to support CM I haven't been able to justify purchasing anything more than just CMBN titles.

 

Read into that what you will.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Fenris

[PanzerMike]

 Quality content for public release is A LOT of work.

Amen to that, brother  . 

 

I actually made some scenarios back in the days of CMBB. I never released them. Just didn't think they were good enough. There is quite a difference between making something "rough" to tinker with for your own pleasure and finishing a scenario full monty (background story, briefing, detailed map, playtested, etc.). 

 

But you do not have to go it all alone. Some guys here are willing to help you with playtesting or reviewing your briefing texts. And you can analyze the existing scenarios all you want for inspiration.

 

I too am looking forward to earlier Ostfront stuff (Stalingrad anyone?). But the next module for the CMRT family is something I am going to enjoy making stuff for too.

 

But right now it is Bulge that eats up my time. Two of the scenarios I am making will be quite small (company size or less). Can't say much more right now. But after Bulge I will happily return to the Ostfront again. 

 

@Fenris: I kinda suck at this wonderful game. I am often too impatient to apply proper tactics, he he he. I am spending more time in the editor too by far as a result.

Edited May 25, 2015 by PanzerMike

[Thewood1]

This was debated to death back in the early CMSF days when CM2 features were a hollow shell compared to CMBB/AK.  CM2 has come a long way in adding those functions and features back in.  But there is still something missing in CM2 that I have never put my finger on.  I am in a weird place where CM2 seems like too much work, yet CM1 seems so outdated when I play it.  I actually sit for a while trying to decide which game I want to play, CM1 vs CM2, but usually just give up and go play Command or fly ROF.

[Macisle]

Amen to that, brother  . 

 

I actually made some scenarios back in the days of CMBB. I never released them. Just didn't think they were good enough. There is quite a difference between making something "rough" to tinker with for your own pleasure and finishing a scenario full monty (background story, briefing, detailed map, playtested, etc.). 

 

But you do not have to go it all alone. Some guys here are willing to help you with playtesting or reviewing your briefing texts. And you can analyze the existing scenarios all you want for inspiration.

 

I too am looking forward to earlier Ostfront stuff (Stalingrad anyone?). But the next module for the CMRT family is something I am going to enjoy making stuff for too.

 

But right now it is Bulge that eats up my time. Two of the scenarios I am making will be quite small (company size or less). Can't say much more right now. But after Bulge I will happily return to the Ostfront again. 

 

@Fenris: I kinda suck at this wonderful game. I am often too impatient to apply proper tactics, he he he. I am spending more time in the editor too by far as a result.

 

I've released a couple of scenarios. My first was H2H-only on an original map (Under the Eyes of the White Manor) and my second used a slice of Umlaut's Ciembienne map (Char & Char Alike). So, I have an understanding of how much work it takes to go from something good enough for personal pleasure to something that the general public is going to be happy with and that looks presentable.

 

I'm looking very forward to the earlier Ostfront stuff, myself. I actually got my wife to watch the World at War series with me and we just watched the "Stalingrad" episode last night. I tend to use T-34/76s against PIVs and Stugs a lot in CMRT, trying to get as much of the earlier feel as I can. One of the Custom QBs I did used the CMRT Fester Platz Polozk map for a kind of "Streets of Stalingrad" thing. I had a battalion of grenadiers, Stugs, and Pioneers with FTs up against a real grind of fortified Soviet positions. That's another one with scenario potential, but probably a deal breaker, due to time. -Made a good start, though!

 

One thing about large battles, they tend to run up against the limits of the current engine/Editor more rapidly than medium/smaller ones. Not having things like triggered artillery and reinforcements become more noticeable. Also, trying to make an urban area more realistically dense can really bring things crashing down quick. Last week, I took a stock map and started pumping up the buildings to 5-story, only to give up after a small number because the frame rates were dropping like crazy.

 

Oh, well. All in good time, I guess.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Macisle

[Macisle]

This was debated to death back in the early CMSF days when CM2 features were a hollow shell compared to CMBB/AK.  CM2 has come a long way in adding those functions and features back in.  But there is still something missing in CM2 that I have never put my finger on.  I am in a weird place where CM2 seems like too much work, yet CM1 seems so outdated when I play it.  I actually sit for a while trying to decide which game I want to play, CM1 vs CM2, but usually just give up and go play Command or fly ROF.

 

Yeah. With the added realism comes added work for sure--both in playing and designing. But, the micro-stories and dramas that come with 1:1 play are very worth it to me. And, I'm not bothered if a scenario takes a long time to finish, even though my game time is rather limited these days.

[George MC]

Ah memory eh? Interesting thread if only to display how people's memories can often be selective or amended to take into account personal bias/opinion

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/41267-what-kinda-scenario-do-you-like/?hl=%2Bbattle+%2Bsize#entry469140

[JasonC]

JonS and Andreas - seconded (thirded, I guess, maybe more) - byte sized battles are the way to go for CMRT designers.  Give me one platoon and an interesting situation, or at most an attacking company up against only a platoon and a half (with corresponding trouble from task and terrain to balance the numbers etc).  Keep the tanks to a platoon on a side at most, sometimes just 1-2.  People will play those more and more often etc.  I know I will.

 

As for Macisles increasingly silly comments, show me the final result screen of your human game on anything like that scale.  Setting it up isn't playing it to completion.  We will wait (a couple years is my estimate, but maybe you play fast).  Your later posts all but acknowledge that even good design on that scale is a chore, and actually playing it (my opinion, not yours) would be about as fun as having a root canal.  In the 1980s SPI designers spoke of the mythical game "IT" - WWII played out with single man counters - any you are in the same silly situation.  If the command span isn't realistic and manageable for the player, the game isn't playable nor are the results ever going to be realistic.  My previous remarks on your first post in the thread, incidentally, did not say large CMRT games don't exist or aren't played by some, but ridiculed the notion that they are *more playable* than fights on the same scale in CMBB.  And I stand by that comment.  It was perfectly feasible to command whole platoons with two or three mouse clicks in a way that would actually make sense on the ground in that game.  When the same group has 10 counters that should each pay attention to the location of every window, saying it is *more* manageable to command them is ridiculous and it is nonsense.  Notice, no one was or is talking about the engine or the CPU, we are talking about the user's experience and the "CPU between our ears".

 

As for the issues being covered in the thread, yes the OP mostly wanted more coverage and also better QBs.  My comments were different, stressing the reduction in game scale - which is fine for those who want the detail or have tons of time to pour over every move.  The same, incidentally, applies to the editor and creating scenarios.  It is a fair comment that some CMBB scenarios were meh - it was so easy to make new scenarios in that system that lots of people tried it.  The polished results and beautiful maps of modern CMRT scenario design are definitely superior to the average CMBB user made scenario.  There are also 2 orders of magnitude less of them, because they are much, much harder to make.  Not just to make right, but to make at all.

 

No one has spoken about the weakest point of CMBB in my opinion, though, which was the AI.  I couldn't attack worth a darn, especially with infantry, especially against armor etc.  Scripting is certainly a better system and A* pathfinding.  You could "work it" as a designer by giving the AI a defending role with good siting of its weapons, or lots of armor and a numbers edge when it was attacking, or mostly continuous cover if it had to attack with infantry - but it was still subject to "stupid AI tricks".  This problem just didn't come up in human vs human, but it was a drawback to the otherwise great CMBB QB system (force selection was also bad - pretty much had to use "allow human" even for the enemy, which eliminated force composition surprise etc).

 

A better QB system, faster scenario creation, pre-populated AI scripts that the designer could edit but doesn't have to roll from scratch - those are things CMRT could use improvement on.  Personally I'd love to see those plus the up a step size, semi-abstracted units again, but I don't seriously expect that.  In the meantime, anything that can make it easier for CMRT players to have more small scenarios is useful, and especially ways to make such themselves more rapidly.  That's the feedback here - make of it what you will.

Edited May 25, 2015 by JasonC

[JasonC]

George MC - I stand by every scenario design comment in that previous thread, and I have no idea what you think you meant by "selective memories".  CMBB scenarios were most playable at reinforced company scale, and CMRT scenarios are most playable at reinforced platoon scale.  Either can take sizes one step size larger, but at a considerable increase in playing time and difficulty for the player.  Neither can realistically be played 2 step sizes above those levels.  Designed and set up, yes, played, not not really.  Watched as a movie, maybe.

[George MC]

George MC - I stand by every scenario design comment in that previous thread, and I have no idea what you think you meant by "selective memories".  CMBB scenarios were most playable at reinforced company scale, and CMRT scenarios are most playable at reinforced platoon scale.  Either can take sizes one step size larger, but at a considerable increase in playing time and difficulty for the player.  Neither can realistically be played 2 step sizes above those levels.  Designed and set up, yes, played, not not really.  Watched as a movie, maybe.

Qoute not aimed at anyone in particular - meant to highlight that even in CMBB people still disagreed at what scale was optimum.

 

Totally disagree with your view though - but that's the beauty of this eh? Everyone has opinions. All depends on how you play or your desire to be the all seeing all powerful god making every decision.

 

FWIW I personally find reinforced company in CMX2 the ideal. I find playing smaller i start to micromanage everything and it becomes tiresome, larger scale means I sit back and take in more of the big picture. horses for courses eh?

[PanzerMike]

One of the Custom QBs I did used the CMRT Fester Platz Polozk map for a kind of "Streets of Stalingrad" thing. I had a battalion of grenadiers, Stugs, and Pioneers with FTs up against a real grind of fortified Soviet positions. That's another one with scenario potential, but probably a deal breaker, due to time. -Made a good start, though!

 

One thing about large battles, they tend to run up against the limits of the current engine/Editor more rapidly than medium/smaller ones. Not having things like triggered artillery and reinforcements become more noticeable. Also, trying to make an urban area more realistically dense can really bring things crashing down quick. Last week, I took a stock map and started pumping up the buildings to 5-story, only to give up after a small number because the frame rates were dropping like crazy.

 

Oh, well. All in good time, I guess.

Ah, nice. I made the Polozk scenario. Do finish your scenario, might be a real cracker. I really aimed for a brutal street fight a la Stalingrad in that one. A cityscape is heavy on the performance, so I deliberately kept the size down to keep it playable. You don't need a massive city map to get it right. I am looking forward to making something like this in Berlin 1945. Or Kharkov 1943. Or Stalingrad. Preferably with some historical buildings like the Reichstag or something for extra flavor. All in due time.

Edited May 25, 2015 by PanzerMike

[A Canadian Cat]

CMBB spawned a whole plethora of new website supporting mods and mods packs and scenarios while CMRT relies on the Repository and support from a previous CMBO/BB/AK site by Greenasjade.

 

I do not have the sales figures but I think this would indicate a lack of player engagement with the game. I would argue that more frequent smaller releases of new units would help, a simplified scenario designer and longer timescales for the games, especially for the Eastern Front which lasted 46 months and had a limited range of equipment on the Soviet side compared with Normandy and its 10 month campaign.

 

Well I don't have sales data either but I have access to some play data.  That play data I have shows nothing of the sort.  CM2x is being played more often over at theBlitz - a lot more in the past year (this is March to March data - I know, it just is):

 

 

Some additional details of note: In the first year it was CMBN vs all the CM1x titles (with CMBB and CMAK nearly equal).  In the past year each CM2x title came out on top of their CM1x analog for the first time.  These numbers were from before CMBS was released so it is not counted and any effect it might have on WWII play has not occurred yet.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

It was perfectly feasible to command whole platoons with two or three mouse clicks in a way that would actually make sense on the ground in that game.  When the same group has 10 counters that should each pay attention to the location of every window, saying it is *more* manageable to command them is ridiculous and it is nonsense.

I think a lot has been made of the "if you split all the squads in a platoon it becomes unmanageable".  Without splitting squads I find it quite manageable to give sensible orders in two or three mouse clicks to platoons.  In the CM2x games before contact that is the way I operate - so no extra work there.  But you are right when they get into contact it takes more time and I spend more time.  However it is extra time I find I am happy to pay because the results visually, realistically and immersively are so much better in CM2x.  So in short, I personally, do not find the effort controlling troops out of contact to be significantly higher and I find that the extra effort when they are in contact to be well worth it.  Which is why I no longer pay CM1x games and I play CM2x a lot. Clearly other people feel differently, which is fine by me.  Those people should just not expect a warm reception showing up in the CM2x forums trying to push that CM1x games are better.

 

No one has spoken about the weakest point of CMBB in my opinion, though, which was the AI.  I couldn't attack worth a darn, especially with infantry, especially against armor etc.  Scripting is certainly a better system and A* pathfinding.  You could "work it" as a designer by giving the AI a defending role with good siting of its weapons, or lots of armor and a numbers edge when it was attacking, or mostly continuous cover if it had to attack with infantry - but it was still subject to "stupid AI tricks".  This problem just didn't come up in human vs human, but it was a drawback to the otherwise great CMBB QB system (force selection was also bad - pretty much had to use "allow human" even for the enemy, which eliminated force composition surprise etc).

 

Indeed with all the criticism of the AI in CM2x it is significantly better than the AI in the CM1x games.