A Canadian Cat Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 With all the players that like h2h QB's. I do not understand why there is not a ton of user created maps being added to the library. Indeed making a good map can be quite a bit of fun and is very doable - especially since you can make it for H2H and therefore have no AI or briefing to deal with. However one reason people might not be making them might be that they just are not board with what was shipped yet. I know we hear people wishing for more QB maps but I have no particular motivation to create more because personally I am not the least bit board with what shipped yet. Just my theory - could be total crap and people are just scared of map creating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Is it worth getting CMBB if I enjoy CM2? Only you can make that decision but I for one stopped beginning new games in CMBB the day CMBN came out. I finished the games that were on going but never looked back or fired it up again. I don't miss it at all. The play in the new CM2x titles is that much more appealing to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I disagree. <snip> BFC can make the front in pieces and get paid as they go as opposed to investing a couple years into one title for one price. And things aren't gonna be "outdated" if they stick to the upgrade concept. The way I read Sly's comments was that we are not going to see BFC go dark for years and release a big all encompassing game while simultaneously leaving the last one to become obsolete, any more. In effect you guys are saying the same thing. That's how I read his earlier comments anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I can eat that. As long as the raisins aren't moving. Best advice in this thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I do not think scenario ideas have been exhausted yet. No, i agree ! I would not call them exhausted...rather somewhat limited...when compared to CMBB atleast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 My CMRT scenario ideas in-box has a bunch labelled "pending: waiting on snow..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 My CMRT scenario ideas in-box has a bunch labelled "pending: waiting on snow..." Me too...I have a project i'm working on now but when i finish this one i don't think that i will do any more CMRT stuff until i see some snowfall... Getting snow on the eastern front will be NICE ! Not to mention the 'pending-box' for 41, 42, 43...That box is huge ! many, many things i would like to try and do within those settings... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Bil - well I am not surprised that you can command a reinforced company successfully with 2-4 man counters. I'd be surprised if you had any trouble do so, actually (lol). You could probably teach tactics at the same time and write running commentary on the action. Bully for all of that, seriously. Me, I like commanding units that small for a platoon or two. Give me four or five and I start getting sloppy (leaving squads unsplit, missing things, not getting the relative LOS relationships right because there are too many for me) etc. Call it personal bandwidth. And no I can't just be happy with slapdash for the sake of playing time efficiency - as I am sure you will understand. For me the answer is keep it smaller. This is admittedly mostly an issue with infantry heavy fights - handling half a dozen tanks isn't a chore in either version of CM. As some have said, different players will have different sweet spots as to scale preference. I just think for a lot of players, it is on the lower side of the scale for CMRT - platoon to company, rather than companies to battalion. FWIW. Edited May 26, 2015 by JasonC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 ..start getting sloppy.... That is the exact term I use as well. Too many units to keep an eye on and my battle goes south. ...and/or I just end up missing even to observe and enjoy some cool, fine grained "KODAK moment" that we're paying to be modelled/portrayed, whatever the right word is... Reminds me when one time I played CMX1, probably CMAK, a few turns into the battle I double-tapped the ctrl-c or shift-c or whatever to change the size of the soldiers (little-big-bigger-biggest) and dang if I didn't see that I left some immobile unit way back at the set-up zone! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Bil - well I am not surprised that you can command a reinforced company successfully with 2-4 man counters. I'd be surprised if you had any trouble do so, actually (lol). You could probably teach tactics at the same time and write running commentary on the action. Bully for all of that, seriously. Me, I like commanding units that small for a platoon or two. Give me four or five and I start getting sloppy (leaving squads unsplit, missing things, not getting the relative LOS relationships right because there are too many for me) etc. Call it personal bandwidth. And no I can't just be happy with slapdash for the sake of playing time efficiency - as I am sure you will understand. For me the answer is keep it smaller. This is admittedly mostly an issue with infantry heavy fights - handling half a dozen tanks isn't a chore in either version of CM. As some have said, different players will have different sweet spots as to scale preference. I just think for a lot of players, it is on the lower side of the scale for CMRT - platoon to company, rather than companies to battalion. FWIW. To help with that, I don't start splitting squads until they are "up" and in action. And not always then, particularly for units that are just giving supporting fire along linear terrain like hedgerows, short walls, "outside-looking-in" on a building, etc. Edited May 26, 2015 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Apocal - yeah I started that way. But it counted as sloppy, and I quickly went to actually splitting the squads early. Occasionally reuniting a couple of teams later in action or after losses, but mostly maneuvering all of them split. Why? Well, not yet in action is the sort of thing that one judges with some possibility of error, and it means dropping the SOP that is there for a reason. One team crosses that street at a time, with no one else exposed. That way the unexpected enemy doesn't waste an entire squad. The fire teams all get their individual locations. Why? Because it turns out the whole squad won't use the windows correctly and will leave half its weapons out of action as unable to see those precise 2-3 spots where the enemy is just this moment. Whole squad commands are sloppy commands in CMRT; individual team commands are simply superior. They just take more time and attention to get right. Reducing my own personal effective command span. Just how it actually goes for me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 One thing I am finding re: split squads is they can be a force multiplier. If you can work just a few into enfilade enemy rout paths the gamble can pay off big.Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) I find that playing the big scenarios is more intimidating than it is actually hard or too much work once I get into it. For me a doubling in size of the force does not mean a doubling of work, the bigger the size, the less the extra work per size. The bigger the force, the larger the portion that is in the back not requiring any complicated moves. I also do a lot of group moves for front lines guys, but for them they are placed in small groups in nice formations and the waypoints get adjusted as needed and a lot of pauses get placed at way too many waypoints individual. That's the most painstaking part for me in the larger battles, going through the group orders to add pauses at the right waypoints. A lot of players here argue for splitting squads all the time. I don't think that's the best way, unless your force Is so limited you need to. Like splitting is good, but by splitting you lose some tactical flexibility, because you cant split up into the most appropriate groups at the drop of a hat (end of the turn). Instead you have to form up and recombine and then split again if you want some more optimum configuration for the task at hand. By splitting you also lose firepower concentration and maybe some c2c benefits. You also and most importantly make it a lot more work to give everyone orders and keep track of who's who. If my force is small I might have important tasks for very squad that require them all to be split right from the start and kept that way. However with a big force and a lot of support one of the main jobs of the bulk of my infantry is going to be hanging out somewhere relatively safe while waiting to be reinforcements. And I want those reinforcements to be full squads if possible, because then I can either break em up as needed, or run em into key spots full strength to win some firefights. So the first thing across the street or field would be a 2 man scout team, with fire teams covering (and maybe a lot more), followed by the first platoon broken up into teams. But once the street or whatever is cleared everyone else can just jog or walk up in nice big squads... Edited May 27, 2015 by cool breeze 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiter Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 For future CM titles, I hope BF makes good amount of company(+) size battles because those are what I and believe, many others play the most. I know that there are much of those in normandy, but do not intend to buy that game any time soon. I have bought it twice (pc & mac) with my old account and can´t remember passwords etc so thats it. Also, I want to nag again about fewness of quick battle maps. What I feel, CMRT is least popular in CMx2 family. That is not the devs fault. What I understand, biggest market for CM is in states. As Finn, I am interested playing with anyone (maybe not with italians, no offence) but the best jewel I could see as expansion, there would be Finnish SS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Byte Battles, anyone? I knew we were on to something. All the best Andreas Actually, that concept works 100x better in CMX2. There is much more fidelity and enjoyability in smaller scale battles in CMBN, RT and the like. The 1:1 really shines at micro levels. I always liked the idea you guys came up with but the CMX1 environment just wasn't conducive to so fine of a scale. The 12:3 man representation, the 1 casualty marker per unit, squad leader/HQ officer always being the last to drop, giant terrain squares, abstract placement, hokey animations, etc. really took away from the experience. Now, you could set up a tiny fire fight, with say 1 squad (split into 3 teams) and have them try to overcome a machine nest, or a sniper, and it could play out as dramatically as any company size engagement, especially if you role play it in your head—lots of room for little dramas and stories to unfold—not to mention that zooming in and watching from ground level can be as harrowing and tense as any war movie. It's pretty damn cool. You really feel the loses and stress when you can see each of your men being taken down in a shootout. Mord. P.S. Welcome back...seems like I haven't seen you on here in quite a while. Edited May 27, 2015 by Mord 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 yeah the lack of 1:1 infantry representation in Cmx1 was its biggest killer for me and Cmx2s biggest improvement imo. plus godawful stupid close combat animation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMike Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Borg spotting anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I do not think folks are advocating splitting squads from the start of a battle. More like move to the sound of the guns in squads aka columns and fight with splits aka in line when it makes tactical sense. So the newer option to split squads adds flexibility. In a WWII firefight, squads tended to break into teams even if their field manuals never taught them to.Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiter Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Close/hand to hand combat would be great. Also, sound distortion regarding to the distance would be totally awesome. I mean, for example, when you looking battle from high up, gun sounds play delayed. Anyone know the sound effect red orchestra uses? Rifle/explosion etc sounds became muffled as in real world. BLAM sounds as pop etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 yeah the lack of 1:1 infantry representation in Cmx1 was its biggest killer for me and Cmx2s biggest improvement imo. plus godawful stupid close combat animation. CMX2 definitely took infantry engagements to the next five levels. I had a CMBO game one time where this one street area of the map was just littered with casualty markers. It was a back and forth slugfest that changed hands repeatedly and all I could think was how much cooler it would be to see all that carnage in 1:1. I love scouring the battlefield afterward checking out where the heaviest fighting took place and this was a jackpot even for a 1 casualty equaling 12 guys trade. Probably the most intense balls-out combat mission I ever had in CMX1. I would've peed into the air to see it in CMBN. Borg spotting anyone? I almost mentioned it in my first post (which was trimmed down and had a response to the OP). Probably the single biggest game changer when we jumped to the new engine. Many units live longer and have more value for the lack of it. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I really have to disagree that the so-called "elimination" of borg spotting has made a big difference. The fact is that even without Borg spotting, whether or not your units have spotted enemy units on the map, you as player certainly have, and thus give orders to your units as if they also knew where the enemy is. The end effect is nearly the same, and I don't really consider the "lack" of borg spotting as some huge leap forward in my game experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) I really have to disagree that the so-called "elimination" of borg spotting has made a big difference. The fact is that even without Borg spotting, whether or not your units have spotted enemy units on the map, you as player certainly have, and thus give orders to your units as if they also knew where the enemy is. The end effect is nearly the same, and I don't really consider the "lack" of borg spotting as some huge leap forward in my game experience.How can you say that. In the old system, if I spotted a enemy unit, all I had to do was run 4 more units over into line of sight and I knew I would for certain have 5 to 1 odds immediately.Now I spot a unit and I have to wonder if I will even keep the spot with that unit, if I add more units by moving them into line of sight. I might get it, I might not. Plus if I do move more units, I might be moving them into line of sight of enemy units I do not see yet since spotting can be so deceiving now as to how long it might take to see enemy units within possible visual views.There is no similarity at all and it was the biggest impact as to how to play the game now compared to the old version. To be good at both games take different styles of play. All because of spotting Edited May 27, 2015 by slysniper 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMike Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Do you really mean that 76mm? I strongly disagree! The difference is huge IMO. Especially AT guns were toast within no time in CMx1. Borg spotting, no thank you Sir. Edited May 27, 2015 by PanzerMike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 hmm, I seem to be in the minority on this one, but that's really what I think. I agree that borg spotting has been eliminated on a "micro" level, ie individual units/vehicles can survive longer because of it, and that is helpful to some degree, but "macro" borg spotting remains, and that to me is a bigger problem. My units might not know what is going on, but I do, and I am the one telling them what to do... I'm not saying that there is a solution to "macro" borg spotting--at least until that point in the future when TacAI can be programmed to the degree when I don't need to give units orders every turn. Playing with some form of the "iron" rules would probably address this also, but when I tried playing like that I quickly became disoriented without the situational awareness that a real commander would have. And I'm not sure that I understand slysniper's comment: "I might be moving them into line of sight of enemy units I do not see yet since spotting can be so deceiving now as to how long it might take to see enemy units within possible visual views." I don't think this has anything to do with borg spotting per se, just different spotting rules--if you can't see the enemy units yet at all then it seems like borg spotting is not a factor? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) "once the street or whatever is cleared everyone else can just jog or walk up in nice big squads." Against the AI maybe. Humans let people through, set ambushes, come of hide or short arcs, move up firepower to cover a route and cut off a forward enemy formation and then counterattack it, and the like. The SOPs exist for a reason. When they are dropped the result is sloppiness and unnecessary vulnerability. If the enemy is asleep (or was never conscious to begin with) you may get away with sloppy, but against an awake and clever enemy, unnecessary vulnerabilities will get your men killed and lose battles. Competitive performance winds up requiring micromanagement, no getting around it. If the opponent takes the time and you don't... Edited May 27, 2015 by JasonC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.